The flattened American landscape of minor writers

[rich]

yes on jazz lite but plenty of inspiring stuff on the fusion but
that's a subjective matter in any case

my peeve is that marsalis and burns have their vision of proper jazz
(particularly Marsalis)--why is the avant-garde/free jazz movement the
only form plucked from the mix and ridiculed--it was jarring
considering the tone of the whole series. they dropped being
documentarians and became critics.

just two peices always on my playlist

Coltrane--Peace on Earth--Live in Japan
Miles--He Loved Him Madly--Get Up With It

according to them, that's not jazz
i'd disagree
r

On 2/27/09, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well my words "up to its nearly non-existent present" implies that, to
> a degree, I think that's (Jazz is now dead--its a museum)  true.
> Burns' "Jazz" documented the birth and *development* of Jazz, which
> did, for the most part, stop developing anything new in the 60's.  As
> he also pointed out that was when jazz lost its mass audience, and
> rock took over.  Postmodern Jazz, jazz-fusion, and jazz-lite are
> hardly developments to be celebrated.  I love all solid jazz, from
> dixieland to avante guarde, but it's all essentially stuff pioneered
> from the 60's or before.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:13 PM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The impression given by Burns was that Jazz is now dead--its a museum
>> piece like the Civil War. it died in the early 60s
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/27/09, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don't know how to respond to this sort of complaint except to point
>>> out that when staking a point of view it's impossible to please
>>> everyone.  Burn's Jazz documentary was very educational, and the fact
>>> that he didn't try to encompass all aspects of Jazz up to its nearly
>>> non-existent present isn't a fault, IMHO.  It's an aspect of editing.
>>>
>>> And racism and gun violence was definitely not absent from his
>>> documentary.
>>>
>>> David Morris
>