It's a Cullumny!

[Serial_Apologist]

Next week's 'Round Midnight is to be a repeat of a sequence from April, so I am not prepared to waste either your time or mine in digging out links and reproducing them here - to my mind the programme does not warrant the effort. Instead, on Radio 2 on Saturday, we have what might turn out to be an interesting programme, first part of a Jamie Cullum series of 4 to be broadcast weekly, one presumes:

12 midnight - Power of Jazz: 1/4

As part of the BBC Radio 2 Loves Jazz season, Hollywood star and pianist Jeff Goldblum explores connections between jazz and other genres. He starts with rock, including jazz's impact on David Bowie, Pattie Smith, Chrissie Hynde, Sting, Robert Plant and Bryan Ferry. With Paul McCartney, Joni Mitchell and Elton John. All episodes on BBC Sounds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0020r4z

Jazz Record Requests is as per usual, and includes news of the forthcoming Edinburgh Jazz and Blues Festival, from 12-21 July:

http://www.alynshipton.co.uk/blog

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0020r8q

[Ian Thumwood]

Jamie Cullum has picked some odd choices for jazz influenced pop with only Sting being credible. More obvious names would be the likes of EW & F, Prince, Bjork , Nile Rodgers? Etc.

I am not sure how others in here feel but , although musically educated, few pianists can be as corny as Elton John. Don't even get me in Macca who is musically uneducated and little more than George Martin's muse. Whilst I concur that some of those names like Bowie were jazz fans , it seems wrong to give them credence to suggest they were savvy enough to understand what is happening in jazz. Not sure when it build down to musical theory that any of the names in Cullum's programme really grasped what makes jazz work. A better example would be Bruce Hornsby. Whilst the dividing line between jazz and Rock was more blurred in the 1960s , loads of British pop artists I the 79s and 80s may have dug jazz , for the most part I feel that struggled to bridge the gap ....those like Sting or Joni Mitchell importing genuine jazz musicians in their bands.



I would be inclined to be a bit sniffy about this. It needs a forensic approach to musical theory before convincing. I would be shocked if Elton turns out to have been inspired by jazz pianists.

[Serial_Apologist]

Jamie Cullum has picked some odd choices for jazz influenced pop with only Sting being credible. More obvious names would be the likes of EW & F, Prince, Bjork , Nile Rodgers? Etc.

I am not sure how others in here feel but , although musically educated, few pianists can be as corny as Elton John. Don't even get me in Macca who is musically uneducated and little more than George Martin's muse. Whilst I concur that some of those names like Bowie were jazz fans , it seems wrong to give them credence to suggest they were savvy enough to understand what is happening in jazz. Not sure when it build down to musical theory that any of the names in Cullum's programme really grasped what makes jazz work. A better example would be Bruce Hornsby. Whilst the dividing line between jazz and Rock was more blurred in the 1960s , loads of British pop artists I the 79s and 80s may have dug jazz , for the most part I feel that struggled to bridge the gap ....those like Sting or Joni Mitchell importing genuine jazz musicians in their bands.



I would be inclined to be a bit sniffy about this. It needs a forensic approach to musical theory before convincing. I would be shocked if Elton turns out to have been inspired by jazz pianists.

I wouldn't go so far as to diss Paul McCartney's compositional skills as a whole, but wouid argue that he peaked in the 60s when being part of the Beatles encouraged a greater flow of ideas new to pop (though not in other genres, obviously) were an inspiration, along with the syncretic relationship with John Lennon, which (again obviously) was no longer there for either figure after the band folded, and therefore no longer useful as a source. As far as Elton John's concerned, don't forget he led a band called Bluesology in the mid-60s that had Elton Dean and the trumpet player Mark Charig on board, which played largely blues standard fare plus a few "originals" (the few I've heard were pretty dire tbh) but according to Elton Dean would play and improvise on Miles Davis and Coltrane tunes in moments when club proprietors' backs were turned! This was just before they met Keith Tippett, when he moved to London in '67, and the three then teamed up with Nick Evans under Keith's leadership for some "proper" jazz learning at the Barry Summer School.

[Ian Thumwood]

I think The Beatles were far more important socially than musically. I don't doubt Lennon and McCartney wrote some memorable tunes but there is a danger of giving them too much credit. There are plenty of other more than capable songwriters in that era who do not get so much credit. I feel that Motown had a team of more capable composers.

I do not think Lennon's anti intellectual approach helps the case of The Beatles He hated jazz and anything that seemed to have a modicum of intellect about it as he felt that working class music frim the people had more validity. Lennon disliked musicians like Frank Zappa who was far more savvy as a musician than the 4 Beatles put together.

I fear that there is a modern tendency to be too respectful of pop and rock music. When I first was getting in to jazz, this was inconceivable. I think there are instances in rock where musicians like Hendrix or bands like Ew&f , The Grateful Dead and Cream were excellent improvisers. Throwing names like Elton John into the mix is simply signifying and shows a lack of musical judgement . Mainstream criticism of pop and rock is still at the level of jazz criticism prior to Gunther Schuller' s Early Jazz.

It looks like Cullum's programme will fall into the same trap

[Serial_Apologist]

I think The Beatles were far more important socially than musically. I don't doubt Lennon and McCartney wrote some memorable tunes but there is a danger of giving them too much credit. There are plenty of other more than capable songwriters in that era who do not get so much credit. I feel that Motown had a team of more capable composers.

I do not think Lennon's anti intellectual approach helps the case of The Beatles He hated jazz and anything that seemed to have a modicum of intellect about it as he felt that working class music frim the people had more validity. Lennon disliked musicians like Frank Zappa who was far more savvy as a musician than the 4 Beatles put together.

I fear that there is a modern tendency to be too respectful of pop and rock music. When I first was getting in to jazz, this was inconceivable. I think there are instances in rock where musicians like Hendrix or bands like Ew&f , The Grateful Dead and Cream were excellent improvisers. Throwing names like Elton John into the mix is simply signifying and shows a lack of musical judgement . Mainstream criticism of pop and rock is still at the level of jazz criticism prior to Gunther Schuller' s Early Jazz.

It looks like Cullum's programme will fall into the same trap

How come then that Lennon and Yoko performed with Zappa's Mothers of Invention, parts of which came out on the album "Some Time in New York"? While Lennon did hold some "workerist" views I think you misjudge his musical as well as his wider interests. Yoko has spoken of introducing Lennon to Fluxus, partly through her own involvement in the movement. From what I gather one of his attractions for her was in having an open mind on experimental art.

Bluesnik can probably correct both of us on this. At one point Lennon assicated with the WRP (or SLL, as was then), Gerry Healy's Trotskyist organisation; at another he approached Tariq Ali's lot. There's a story that he phoned up the IMG HQ asking to join, and John Ross, high up in the organisation at the time and later to be an adviser to Ken Livingstone's GLA, answered "And I'm Father Christmas!" and banged the phone down, thereby depriving the IMG of much-needed funds that could have secured a new printing press and even new HQ to the shambles of a place in Kings Cross!

[Ian Thumwood]

I find it hard to understand why Lennon is accorded so much respect whereas the mono-browed Gallacher brothers are rightly ridiculed. In my opinion it difficult to differentiate between them and Lennon.

I am always put in mind of the story of Quincy Jones hiring Ronnie Stephenson to record the drum tracks on a George Harrison record having given Ringo Starr a lunchtime break as he could not do the fill in the drums Quincy had requested. When he returned, Stephenson had recorded the fill in one take and when Quincy Jones played it back, Starr believed it was him playing and told QJ he had it nailed all the time ! Ringo Starr was oblivious of the fact that Stephenson had recorded the track.

I think in music the 2 most overrated acts are Mozart and the Beatles . Mozart is overrated insofar that although he was great, his contemporaries are not given enough credit and what followed was markedly more advanced. Mozart was great but others were greater. By contrast , the 4 Beatles were limited as musicians although decent songwriters. Considering them as musicians let alone as improvisers can only result in the conclusion that they were capable and no more.

It is a shame that jazz is used as a barometer to envaluate pop music. The musicians selected don't fill me with much optimism about Cullum's selection. It would be more balanced if they included contributions of musicians like Steve Lacy who had a more negative attitude to pop music.