Replies

It’s there, just look harder. For instance in his series on Jazz, except for his piece on Benny Goodman, no other white Jazz artists were profiled

Aside from Paul Whiteman, Artie Shaw, Bix Beiderbecke, Glenn Miller and Gerry Mulligan, that is.

the no talent Marsalis Brothers

... and that, right there, is the moment when you surrendered any shred of credibility. I have a lotof areas of disagreement with Wynton, but to describe the Marsalises as "no talent" is outright absurd.

Don't think so? Convince me. Pock up a horn and do what any of them do. I mean, it doesn't involve any talent, right? I'll give you a week.

My main gripe with Wynton is that he has a narrow view of what "real" jazz is -- he practicaly disowned Branford for going on tour with Sting. To me, jazz is a growing, evolving, organic thing -- and fusion is a natural direction for it to take. You wouldn't expect much from a Miles Davis recording of a Cyndi Lauper song, but "Time After Time" is beautiful.

But his comments in the Burns documentary are insightful, and he can illustrate them by playing licks in a way few jazz scholars can. He brought a lot to the serie, and while I disagree with him a lot, I didn't find anything objectionable in his comments in the Burns series.

Personally, I'd like to have seen more of Branford Marsalis and Harry Connick Jr. -- Connick was a piano student of Ellis Marsalis, and was practically a 5th Marsalis brother, and Branford and Harry are, as a team, the best ambassadors Jazz has. They're both more likable and engaging than Wynton.