Branford Marsalis blindfold test

[Steve Reynolds]

glad that some of this can be discussed as it has been a while on any board where people want to engage in anything more than re-issues - big news on another board is another Ben Webster re-issue from 1970 with a hack rhythm section playing the same tunes he played for the last 5 years of his life

not that Ben wasn't great - some get the point - but few over there do - never did

not justifying or even tacitly approving any behaviour from Miles or Mingus - especially the violent behaviour towards women - but my point is a bit larger than that.

But I don't appreciate the drug addict comment - that hits too close to home....

If a guy like Miles in whatever year comes out and says "Not much out there is happening" at least he might have released "Bitches Brew" or "Jack Johnson" or "Milestones" that year. He was an icon and his standing would have given him a bit more gravitas than Branford Marsalis who is at best just one of many of fine saxophonists playing today.

Not an icon, Not an innovator - never made a seminal recording as far I know.


good saxophonist. great saxophonist? Not IMO

I've seen some great ones - and he isn't of that category as far as I'm

and I'm bookending two of them - Tony Malaby last Saturday and then one of the original anti-establishment musicians from the 70's who couldn't play the establishment music, the *great* Evan Parker on 9/18 & 9/20.

then again, he isn't interested so fuck him

At the Vortex, baby

[steve(thelil)]

Sometimes knowing about a person's character or behavior makes me less desirous of listening to his/her music, and sometimes it doesn't.

It can have something to do with whether it's new information or whether it's something you've long known. Or it can have to do with how firmly rooted your feelings about the music are. For instance, nothing I hear about any of the Beatles at this point (good or bad) will affect my desire to listen or my appreciation of their work.

With Branford, I hadn't read that much about him as a person, but was under the impression that we was a bright, funny and personable guy. And even though I think he's fine musician, his music is certainly nothing I'd miss since for me, there are many artists who fill the same listening needs. So reading about new evidence about possible human shortcomings (the bandstand "asshole" comment about an audience request and the arrogant dissing of fellow musicians on Blindfold Test") might make me less likely to put some Branford on.

By contrast, I don't think I would stop being interested in hearing the Rolling Stones no matter how much bad stuff I might read about Jagger, because IMHO, there's no band that could replace it's role in my listening life. And still, I've avoided reading Jagger bios because I don't want to risk reading stuff that would make me less interested in their best records.

But maybe not. Sometimes this stuff has an impact and sometimes it just doesn't. (Profound, huh?)

[steve(thelil)]

Understood, Master Reynolds.

But how does one's personality/"off the field" acts diminish their professional output?

That's what I'm really trying to get a grasp of here. And to be fair, it doesn't sound like you're making that particular argument. Your argument is similar, though...

I'm not speaking for Reynolds (unless he pays me, and he should), but you're clearly correct that an artist's personality doesn't diminish the quality of his/her work.

But listeners can be affected by feelings about the person. It might not affect the listening experience, but it can make you less interested in the artist's work. I think an example that could resonate would be Mel Gibson (assuming he qualifies as an artist)

I know I'm repeating myself, and I have no sufficient explanation for it.

I know I'm repeating myself, and I have no sufficient explanation for it.

[Steve Reynolds]

My wife knows Tom Rainey is a great drummer but she thinks he is grumpy (I happen to agree) so she would rather go see Han Bennink or Hamid Drake as they are simply great to interact with - they may be different in their private lives but they come across as sincere, friendly and actually interested in the audience, the music and other musician's music.

It does affect how we hear the music live as the vibe is really affected by the attitude of the band/musicians, etc.

[Mike Schwartz]

Sometimes musicians are very opinionated, and when they happen to be topnotch musicians themselves, their confidence in their own judgment can resemble arrogance. Branford is very knowledgeable and I look forward to reading interviews, blindfold tests, etc. because I figure I'll learn something. But that dismissive attitude is annoying. "I traveled the world and heard nothing that interested me," that's typical, I think. I was once in the front rows at a concert where someone in the audience shouted out a request but didn't get the name of the tune exactly right. Branford, no doubt unaware that he was within mike range, gave a smirk to his bandmates and said (paraphrasing), "That's not what it's called, asshole." That kind of shocked me, I must admit.

He's a Mets fan what do you expect?

[Mike Schwartz]

Yeah, but David there are a lot of very good artists out there who still play in the forms/genre's that are 60-70 years old. It's not like Marsalis is the only one.

I dismiss the Jazz as a museum piece thing without even a second thought. The primary difference between Marsalis and, say, Kenny Garrett is that Garrett doesn't come with that red flag surname. They're playing the kind of music that makes them happy. I'm not seeing the problem with that.

Fuck what they say! It has no bearing on anything.

What about classical forms? Are they museum pieces also? Are there no more great orchestral composers anymore?

Yeah BUT, there are those who play jazz connected to the past that *sounds* like a museum piece.

There's a certain cliche that can be heard.
Garrett who I like a lot, plays in a recognizable way, can be a bit repetitive, yet there's no doubt he playing from the heart, and not from rote which is I think where the museum reference comes from.

[Ron Thorne]

I sincerely hope this adds to the discussion, which has been wonderful to behold.

From two years ago:




Marsalis once interned at a law firm, and kept the suit.


Branford Marsalis: The Problem With Jazz
The saxophonist says the genre needs to get out of its rut of virtuosic self-indulgence.

As told to Chris Kornelis. Tue., Sep 13 2011 at 12:00AM

The following is edited from an interview with jazz saxophonist Branford Marsalis, whose latest album, Songs of Mirth and Melancholy, is a collaboration with pianist Joey Calderazzo.


You put on old records and they always sound better. Why are they better? I started listening to a lot of classical music, and that really solidified the idea that the most important and the strongest element of music is the melodic content.

In jazz we spend a lot of time talking about harmony. Harmonic music tends to be very insular. It tends to be [like] you're in the private club with a secret handshake.

I have a lot of normal friends. 'Cause it's important. [When] you have a bunch of musicians talking about music and they talk about what's good and what's not good, they don't consider the larger context of it.

You read a review of something and some guy in New York says "This is the most important music since such and such." And then when you look at it in a larger context, you say, "Well, can we really use the word 'important' for something that the majority of the people have never heard?"

As I've started to extend and get back into the outside world—which really started when I was on the Tonight Show—you realize, "Man, nobody knows who the fuck were are." And the idea was not to do things to make them know, but the question is within the context of the music I've chosen to play . . . what are the things that normal people like about music and can we incorporate those things?

When laypeople listen to records, there're certain things they're going to get to. First of all, how it sounds to them. If the value of the song is based on intense analysis of music, you're doomed. Because people that buy records don't know shit about music. When they put on Kind of Blue and say they like it, I always ask people: What did you like about it? They describe it in physical terms, in visceral terms, but never in musical terms.

In a lot of ways classical music is in a similar situation to where jazz is, except at least the level of excellence in classical music is more based on the music than it is based on the illusion of reinventing a movement. Everything you read about jazz is: "Is it new? Is it innovative?" I mean, man, there's 12 fucking notes. What's going to be new? You honestly think you're going to play something that hasn't been played already?

So, you know, my whole thing is, is it good? I don't care if it's new. There's so little of it that's actually good, that when it's good, it shocks me.

So much of jazz, it doesn't even have an audience other than the music students or the jazz musicians themselves, and they're completely in love with virtuosic aspects of the music, so everything is about how fast a guy plays. It's not about the musical content and whether the music is emotionally moving or has passion.

At some point, you get into the music and it's only about, well, this is what I want to convey. I'm into me. I'm into my shit. And after a while you look up and say, "Well, that was nice and self-indulgent and fun." Music clearly has to have more meaning than that.

My job is to write songs that have emotional meaning to me. Because I believe that if the songs have emotional meaning, that will translate to a larger audience that has the capacity to appreciate instrumental music, 'cause a lot of people don't. And I can't do anything to get them to like my music, and I'm not really trying.

Source

[pig pen]

My job is to write songs that have emotional meaning to me. Because I believe that if the songs have emotional meaning, that will translate to a larger audience that has the capacity to appreciate instrumental music, 'cause a lot of people don't. And I can't do anything to get them to like my music, and I'm not really trying.

I actually agree with most of what Branford is saying here. I've heard a few times someone, usually someone fresh out of music school, say that they don't know how people can appreciate jazz if they don't have the technical background to understand what's happening. I say that if a person needs to understand the technical intricacies of what you're doing to appreciate it that you have failed as an artist. That's not to say that music needs to be appreciated by the masses because most people don't care enough about music to really listen.

What I don't agree with is that the "old" records always sound better. I think this is where he loses me. For jazz to be meaningful it has to be in the moment and from the heart of the performers (imho). The reason those old records sound good is because the ideas were the musician's own and they were living their music. You can't go back and recreate that because we are in a different time and for the art to mean anything it has to reflect the soul of the artists now (again imho).

[Jazzooo]

Back when I was listening to the still-alive Miles, we didn't have the internet circulating the dirty rotten stories about his behavior. We had rumors, of course, but as a teenager I was not really in a position to ascertain what was true and not true. And later I played with someone who knew him well, and while many of the nastier stories about him were confirmed, they were rounded out by other aspects of his personality that perhaps only a friend would see. By the time I learned what a jackass he could really be, he was dead and gone. And really, that makes a difference to me.

If a guy is alive and giving interviews and calling women bitches and hoes or whatever, then he goes on my asshole list. If he is dead and I learn that he used to speak that way, it becomes a curious, distasteful historical tidbit and not much more to me.

Now, if a book came out today which proved, for example, that John Lennon hated Jews and hung Nazi propaganda around the Dakota apartment, that wouldn't make his music less wonderful but it would certainly dampen my enthusiasm. But that is an extreme example--not much else could diminish my love for him and his work. We know he was an addict at times, we know he was a womanizer, we know he was creepy to his friends once in a while...no big whoop.

[charlie o]

Nice discussion. I guess nothing gets people going like a good Marsalis thread... lol!

Not the best blindfold test I've ever read. Branford didn't really seem too engaged and didn't have much insight in the tunes, IMO. I guess he didn't really like what he was hearing except for Dexter.
He's always come across as being a bit arrogant, but I don't think he's an "asshole". Artists really have to have a strong sense of what sounds good and what does not in order to establish and stay true to their own path. I think that's true especially in the jazz realm where there are just so many different approaches called jazz. I think Fathead Newman is a jazz musician. But I get where Branford is coming from. That type of soul/groove jazz has a very different set of values than a postbopper or an avant garde type (I've never heard it described as "antiestablishment" before, is this a political thing?)


I found a clip of Branford's blindfold test on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUUPAcxNfXM. It only has the Ravi Coltrane portion. There was a little more said than in the print version.

[pig pen]

If you don't agree, then why did you just make his argument for him?

Yeah, I guess I sort of lost my train of thought there. My overall point was that I do think that today's players are playing vital new music, but it isn't the players who are stuck in the past.

[Ron Thorne]

As simplistic as it is to say, either the music moves you or it doesn't, no matter the genre or sub-genre. That applies to musicians and non-musicians alike.

[ValerieB]

it's true that Branford has always been quite arrogant but it seems to have increased through the years. I have almost always enjoyed his playing but in recent times have been less and less of a fan of his due to his attitudinal problems. he always acts like he's smelling "poo-poo"! he could actually take lessons from Wynton on manners!!

[steve(thelil)]

Steve Reynolds makes a good point that a musician's attitude in a live performance certainly can affect your enjoyment of the music and/or your desire to see him play live.

The first few times I saw Javon Jackson, he seemed cranky. (He might be a great guy and those might not have been representative experiences ) I know it has affected the likelihood of me deciding to go see a group he's playing in on any given night. By contrast, I've seen Harold Mabern several times, and he is a charming and personable guy. That's part of the reason I'm always in the mood to go to see/hear Mabes play.

[A. Kingstone]

As simplistic as it is to say, either the music moves you or it doesn't, no matter the genre or sub-genre. That applies to musicians and non-musicians alike.

Oh! And another thing like about Ron Thorne. Succinctness.

[Jazzooo]

I saw Abby Lincoln once, after listening on recordings for a few years. She sounded great, but during the night she picked on Marc Carey, her piano player and musical director. It got really obnoxious a few times, where she actually turned her back on the audience and chewed him out over the mic while he sat there and tried to smile. There was nothing funny about it, she was being incredibly rude and certainly not improving the situation onstage for the players. I've got a very good ear and for the life of me, I couldn't figure out what she was so unhappy about but regardless--Buddy Rich kicking the bassist's ass after one number? Ok.Ray Charles stopping the band and having them start over once a night? Sure. But belittling one member of a trio all night long in front of a once-happy crowd? not cool.

And the truth is, it ruined my appetite for her music. When I heard her voice after that night, I always decided to listen to something else. I'd probably listen today and be fine, but I'm not drawn to her music.

[Mike Schwartz]

I saw Abby Lincoln once, after listening on recordings for a few years. She sounded great, but during the night she picked on Marc Carey, her piano player and musical director. It got really obnoxious a few times, where she actually turned her back on the audience and chewed him out over the mic while he sat there and tried to smile. There was nothing funny about it, she was being incredibly rude and certainly not improving the situation onstage for the players. I've got a very good ear and for the life of me, I couldn't figure out what she was so unhappy about but regardless--Buddy Rich kicking the bassist's ass after one number? Ok.Ray Charles stopping the band and having them start over once a night? Sure. But belittling one member of a trio all night long in front of a once-happy crowd? not cool.

And the truth is, it ruined my appetite for her music. When I heard her voice after that night, I always decided to listen to something else. I'd probably listen today and be fine, but I'm not drawn to her music.

I get it.....see an experience like that which taints future take on an artist, however we [the observer] don't have the inside scoop on what's really going on and what might be the circumstance. Betty Carter could be tough on young musicians too; she mentored many who went on to have continuing terrific careers to this day and mark that mentor-ship experience as vital to this day.

Marc Cary worked with Abbey Lincoln for 12 years. Here's his recent & wonderful solo piano outing....the title speaks for itself.

[Jazzooo]

If you were mainly known for working with Abby Lincoln for 12 years, your solo album would carry the same title. Just sayin'. Great player.

[Mike Schwartz]

If you were mainly known for working with Abby Lincoln for 12 years, your solo album would carry the same title. Just sayin'. Great player.

Unfounded comeback Doug.
Marc Cary Focus Trio has been a fabulous band for years. They'll be at Monterey Festival next weekend.

[Jazzooo]

It came off catty and I didn't mean it that way. But the fact that he built his career by backing her up makes it a natural theme for a disk that would be a natural fit with his fans and hers as well. Forgive me for being a tad cynical but I would be shocked if the commercial aspects of such a project were never discussed by the producers.

[ValerieB]

boy, some people's naivete is somewhat shocking!! having the cd dedicated to Abbey is going to sell loads more copies; that's a no-brainer. it would, however, not be to me. I knew her at different times in her life ('60s to '80s) and she was a very troubled woman. I witnessed her being very nasty to musicians and audiences on many occasions. I wasn't a fan, however, for other reasons. just didn't care for her style.

ironically, Javon Jackson is one of the sweetest guys you could ever meet. I've "known" him for years and have known him to be one of the kindest and most generous guys you would ever want to meet. c'est la guerre"!!

[ValerieB]

just remembered the last time I saw Branford in concert. it was at the Broad Theatre in Santa Monica. I paid a hefty ticket price and was seated up close. close enough to hear his constant asides to his musicians and to witness his entire performance as if the audience didn't exist. he had long conversations with his musicians that had nothing to do with the music. and, last but not least, he "phoned-in" his performance. I doubt that i'll pay to see him again.

[ValerieB]

If all it takes to sell more albums is to put a Jazz legends name in the title then every artists should get in on that "no brainer".

Please...

this is not the case here, Scott. an artist who has worked with the Jazz Legend for many years has dedicated his cd to her. quite a different example than you're stating.

[uli]

funny, I am somewhat familiar with Marc Cary but didn't know that he played 12 years with Abbey Lincoln. Anyway here is what he has to say

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sdX7B44QTk

[ValerieB]

Right and people will only buy the album because her name is in the title.

This implies:

1. They are completely unfamiliar with the primary artist and only buying it because Abbey's name is in the title.

2. Even though they're obviously familiar with Lincoln, they missed 12 years of her career while this cat was her pianist.

Both of which are completely silly. Anyone who buys that album are already very familiar with him as an artist, and are buying it based upon that. If fans listened to him play with her for 12 years they are already very familiar with his talent.

And if they didn't they're not Abbey Lincoln fans to begin with and couldn't care less.

you're making statements that run in circles and don't add up to me. the bottom line is that this cd will probably sell better because of Abbey's name on it. I, too, never knew he was Abbey's pianist for 12 years.