|
|
Post by Kenny on Feb 13, 2007 7:40:38 GMT 10
Kenny, I think you've got the right idea about the other outlets etc. From what I can see, there are lots of people doing this with the music in this city, but with writing? I don't know. Maybe not yet. Mim, I disagree. It's been years since I bought one of the glossy jazz mags and probably even longer since I read anything published in Australia with a view to future listening and/or purchasing (as opposed to simply knowing what's going on around the place). Instead, I hang out at 3 "jazz bars" (forums @ AAJ, JC, Organissimo) - each different, each with its owns strengths and annoyances. But each, too, has writing/analysis/commentary that easily matches and often surpasses that found in the above-ground jazz chattering class. If some of the reviews/passion/enthusiasm are expressed along the fanzine lines of "man you gotta, gotta, gotta hear this", then often that suits my needs, too - especially if I am familiar with the tastes of the poster concerned. As well, there are a growing number of blogs (Doug Ramsey, for instance), allmusic and even the reviews at Amazon. I find the Amazon stuff to be endlessly fascinating - frequently boneheaded to the point of farce, lucid, self-indulgent, whatever. (But as I have yet to find a good and usable online reference source for books, Amazon has become my default site for that.) I don't rely on any of these at the expense of the others - just sort of filter the whole lot. But it all makes the mainstream media an utter irrelevance. |
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Feb 13, 2007 7:51:37 GMT 10
There's another aspect to the timeless debate about coverage of old and new.
Despite the explosion in recording activity brought on by online-digital thingies, it still stands to reason that the amount of old music is always growing bigger and bigger in comparison to what's new.
Someone getting into jazz in 1960 had about a half-century of music to grapple with.
Someone coming to jazz in 2007 has about a century or so to get their ears around.
This is tough shit for contemporary players.
But from a purely listening/pleasure point of view, I don't think anyone should be deterred from listening to Miles or Jelly Roll simply because someone, somewhere thinks there are more important things to ponder.
Another drag about jazz getting, um, old: Listeners and players alike losing touch with early grates. To me, it seems like a bit of a worry when the likes of Jarrett, Metheny and/or even Coltrane are seen as forefathers.
|
|
|
|
Post by mim on Feb 13, 2007 19:40:11 GMT 10
Sorry Kenny, what do you disagree with?
|
|
|
|
Post by aj on Feb 13, 2007 19:42:00 GMT 10
Waddya got ?
|
|
|
|
Post by mim on Feb 13, 2007 19:48:17 GMT 10
Touché. Perhaps I should rephrase.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj on Feb 13, 2007 23:47:34 GMT 10
Sorry, just a favourite line from an old movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by mim on Feb 14, 2007 18:59:46 GMT 10
Yeah, I know. Albeit, I know the quote from when it was parodied on the Simpsons, but I know it.  |
|
|
|
Post by vickibonet on Feb 14, 2007 19:16:49 GMT 10
There's another aspect to the timeless debate about coverage of old and new...growing bigger and bigger in comparison to what's new...getting into jazz in 1960 had about a half-century of music to grapple with...someone coming to jazz in 2007 has about a century or so to get their ears around... I don't think anyone should be deterred from listening to Miles or Jelly Roll simply because someone, somewhere thinks there are more important things to ponder...another drag about jazz getting, um, old: Listeners and players alike losing touch with early grates. To me, it seems like a bit of a worry when the likes of Jarrett, Metheny and/or even Coltrane are seen as forefathers. Agree with some of your points Kenny, but the artists you mentioned being seen as forefathers by some, I can't see what is wrong with that? To teenagers who are interested in the art form, these artists are indeed grandpas of jazz. Another point made previously about rereleases "being reviewed for the 500th time" and being broadcast, yes it's boring/annoying for the initiated but how do we bring that music to new, younger audiences? They aren't going to learn about it from Channel 10! |
|
|
|
Post by aj on Feb 14, 2007 20:41:26 GMT 10
Yeah, I know. Albeit, I know the quote from when it was parodied on the Simpsons, but I know it. That counts. |
|
|
|
Post by ladylex on Feb 15, 2007 0:28:06 GMT 10
jazz is old? pfft.. Stan Getz or Julian sound far more fresh than any krap Britney Spears any day!  |
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Feb 15, 2007 6:24:14 GMT 10
Sorry Kenny, what do you disagree with? You said: I disagree. Writing's moved on to "other outlets" if folks can get past their fixation with the mainstream press, jazz or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Feb 15, 2007 6:30:58 GMT 10
Agree with some of your points Kenny, but the artists you mentioned being seen as forefathers by some, I can't see what is wrong with that? To teenagers who are interested in the art form, these artists are indeed grandpas of jazz. Another point made previously about rereleases "being reviewed for the 500th time" and being broadcast, yes it's boring/annoying for the initiated but how do we bring that music to new, younger audiences? They aren't going to learn about it from Channel 10! At the risk of sounding like WM or SC ("Oh my God!"), I suspect there are very real pitfalls is being ignorant of the real forefathers. It's obvious that many of the players who post here are, but I wonder how many young US saxophonists think Coltrane and onwards, but know little or nothing about Coleman Hawkins or Bud Freeman or Sidney Bechet? Quite a few going on the basis of the many tired records that have come out of that country in the past couple of decades. From a listener/consumer point of view, I'm not sure I can blame people for wanting to check out, say Ellington Morton Mingus before what's new. |
|
|
|
Post by vickibonet on Feb 15, 2007 11:49:29 GMT 10
Agree about the tired recordings by some young US players. Acknowledge the aforementioned Grandpas may not be the 'forefathers' either, but the forefathers had forefathers too of course although that history may be harder to find.
Do you think people choose to listen to stuff chronologically though, Kenny? My parents records of Garner, Miles, Ellington, Basie, Cannonball, Evans etc is what I first heard but I cottoned on to Art Tatum later, because piano heroes kept talking about his work. As a consumer I listen as I discover. Young US saxophonists don't feature largely in my listening presently but I'm open to stuff I haven't heard before: long as it isn't fronted by a pop singer!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Feb 15, 2007 12:03:54 GMT 10
Do you think people choose to listen to stuff chronologically though, Kenny? Not at all. I think folks should follow their own ears. But they should also make sure their ears are open and functionally properly. I'm always saddened by the high number of people I come across on the internet who simply cannot enjoy music that's made before circa 1960. |
|
|
|
Post by captain on Feb 28, 2007 12:27:04 GMT 10
Hear hear Kenny.
If you haven't already heard it, I suggest you check out Harry Connick Jr's quartet record (instrumental) 'Other Hours' if you want to hear really quality contemporary Jazz that doesn't sound like yet another 60's blue note rehash. (and definitely has the feeling of pre war Jazz all over it, without being retrospective)
Mind you calling Harry and Ned Goold 'Young' is pushing the envelope a bit...
|
|
