Re: [Harp-L] Suzuki SCT-128 and jazz

["Jonathan R. Ross" <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I was probably a bit harsh in my dismissal of Mark Russillo's dreams
about having then harmonica as a standard jazz instrument.  Dreams
aren't worthless if they inspire.  But, they also aren't reality, and
sometimes it is good to acknowledge that most won't or can't become
such.  That was the point I wished to make.  Thus, the harmonica (of any
sort) won't become a typical, often seen instrument in jazz or classical
music.  But, I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from becoming
one of the exceptions which proves that rule.

As for Smokey-Joe's point about jazz, I think you are defining things
too minutely.  Medeski (sp), Martin and Wood for one seem to be getting
excellent crowds of mostly young people to their concerts.  Similarly
Charlie Hunter tends to pack houses.  I mentioned Norah Jones before and
I think the fact that a jazz album (and it is jazz, unless the
definition becomes so narrow as to be pointlessly confining) was a big
hit with radio airplay and even video airplay shows that the genre is
doing fine.  Similarly, Lincoln Center just built a huge new complex
devoted to Jazz performance (for better or worse).  It may not be the
jazz which you want, but that doesn't mean the genre is "dead" by any
means.  

>Although the wife likes recent musics (Moody Blues, Foreigner, Journey,
>Paul Simon, Queen, Eagles, Steeley Dan, Bread, America, etc), I happen
to >like stuff from my PARENTS era, so until 'I' die, I will be a fan.
That and >the fact that before my 2 complete facial rebuilds, I played a
couple >different instruments.

All these bands began before I was born.  I wouldn't call them recent
except in the context of being later than what you like.  Recent music
would be Green Day, Radiohead, Franz Ferdinand, Joshua Redman, etc...And
even three of those are fairly old-hat now.

>would be the last to even consider debating this and was only giving MY
>perspective as I have seen it. I would say that any music seems to flow
in >cycles of X number of years. It's just that right now, jazz's get up
and go >has got up and went.

You're right, that is your perspective.  It's also wrong.  The number of
jazz records being put out is very high (check out DownBeat or Jazziz
and their pages upon pages of album reviews) and the popularity is
higher than it has been since the 70's, when Herbie Hancock and Jaco
Pastorius got on mainstream radio.  Jazz is actually thriving in many
ways.  Perhaps not the traditional jazz format you like, but that
doesn't mean that other jazz formats aren't doing quite well.  Indeed,
there has even been a resurgence of _new_ big-band music recently with
things like Orkestrova, the Chris Walden Big Band and Maria
Schlessinger(sp--I might have the name wrong) doing quite well.  They
aren't playing Ellington or Miller charts, but many would be
recognizable in that genre and others are trying actual new things
(imagine, new styles and sounds in a music that had always defined
itself by such--how radical).

Jazz is doing quite well.  Perhaps you might want to pick up an issue of
the previously mentioned magazines or cruise the Amazon website for new
releases and see what is actually going on before declaring it dead.

>You can get out there and do a great rendition of Song for my Father or
>Little Sunflower and it goes over their heads, but a couple choruses of
>Proud Mary or Mustang Sally, and that's just great.

Perhaps playing songs written long before the audience was born might
not be the best way to get their attention.  The latter two songs were
written when my parents were young, but that is at least a little
closer--after all, most people grow up hearing to what their parents
played, if not actually listening to it.  Try playing something actually
recent.  Indeed, Paul Anka has done just this and has gotten rave
reviews (amazingly, considering he is Paul Anka, after all) and new fans
to his style of music (big-band song).  It's the artist's job to connect
with the audience, not the other way around.  If you just want to play
what you like, more power to you.  That's what I do.  But, I don't play
out, in large part for that reason.

>Hell man, I just play the notes...AND, btw, making harmonica sound like
wax >paper folded over a comb, an ocharina, or a kazoo, just goes right
through >me. It's time to get serious.

I have no idea what this means.  Odd sounds are an integral part of
jazz, going back to Louis Armstrong's growling trumpet.  Was Louis not
serious in his music?  He was a fun-loving, genial man but all accounts
say that his love of music and professionalism was top-notch.
Similarly, was Coltrane not serious with his saxophone honks?  I may not
always love them, but I've never heard anyone describe Coltrane or his
music as anything but serious.  Please explain what you mean by the
above, because I'm really not sure I understand.





 oo    JR "Bulldogge" Ross
()()   & Snuffy, too:)
`--'