Jamie Cullum

casanova_kid

This guy is absolutely class! he defo ranks up there alongside all time greats like Norah Jones. Sometimes his songs make me cry with absolute joy. It's like Charlie Parker has been resurrected and come back to life as him.

herbieflowers

The first and only time i saw Jamie Cullum perform was when he massacred and decapitated The Wind Cries Mary by Hendrix. Some tings should just never ever be done!

shatners basoon

Not too gone on him myself, i'd call him commercial jazz, he's certainly no Charlie Parker, very very different type of musician.

He's good at what he does, entertaining uplifting smooth pop jazz but its certainly not provocative or in any way challenging. He admits this himself so i respect him, his record sales are outstanding for a jazz artist and that speaks for itself in that its not real for the deep intimate love of the music jazz (which we all know doesn't sell!)

shatners basoon

herbieflowers wrote:

The first and only time i saw Jamie Cullum perform was when he massacred and decapitated The Wind Cries Mary by Hendrix. Some tings should just never ever be done!

I'd have to agree with you there, his choices of covers can be quite disgusting.

herbieflowers

Meh, he's enjoying what he's doing and making a living from it, more than most but it was an INEXCUSABLE cover!

casanova_kid

herbieflowers wrote:

Meh, he's enjoying what he's doing and making a living from it, more than most but it was an INEXCUSABLE cover!

I have to agree with you there, Jamie Cullum is so much better than having to do covers of Jimi hendrix

Setun

casanova_kid wrote:

It's like Charlie Parker has been resurrected and come back to life as him.

Lol

His records should be in the Easy Listening Section tbh. Don't really enjoy his music myself.

quintron

Please don't take this the wrong way but Cullum is very much a sudo-jazz performer.
Jazz lite in the extreme, which is fine for many.
I'm not trying to knock it or seem elitist but imho he is not representative of jazz music as a whole and certainly doesn't belong in a sentance with Parker.
He is a crossover artist and as such many people bass their perception of jazz on artist like him for better or worse..in my opinion it's the latter unfortunately.

satchmo

casanova_kid wrote:

It's like Charlie Parker has been resurrected and come back to life as him.

Hang on, you mean this wasn't taking the p*ss?!

quintron

i thought it might be a joke ........but it wasn't funny ....so i guess...





.

solidgear

The guy is quite brilliant, his voice is unique, His backing band just as good, Jazz progresses just like all things, Take steve earl & his blue grass yet rock sound. I think it's great to see his musical diversity.

quintron

Of course jazz progresses.. it also can regress and play a safe and tired route through corporate labels and marketing hype for what is ultimately a waste of (probably) decent backing musicians, playing this vacuous and insipid dilution of jazz, for a mass market where the lowest common denominator is the key to quick financial gain. Fair play to the marketing team.. there is talent to a degree but his efforts are not progressive.
There are infinitely better musicians with a clearer definition of jazz, as a music, to present, progressing and experimenting very much off this beaten to death track of crossover middle of the road tosh.
They are not burdened by the weight of mediocritys success and as a result have no hidden agendas.
I read recently that Cullum is in a war with his label bosses as he wants to produce more "experimental" music and they want another "Catching Tales" or whatever. His "experimentation" btw is fusing hip-hop with jazz. Dark stuff...
I have listened to both albums with an open mind and have heard nothing new, adventurous or remotely groundbreaking. He's not a bad musician but the culumitive result of his efforts thus far are certainly not progressive and his band are laughing all the way to the bank.

casanova_kid

quintron wrote:

i thought it might be a joke ........but it wasn't funny ....so i guess...





.

OMG, like WTF? Why would you think I was, like, joking? Cullum is da best thing ever, plus he has da image, which beats the likes of Miles Davis, John Coltrane or any of those other boys who are way past their sell by date. IMHO.

quintron

Image is subjective, as is music.
But if jazz were purely based on image, you wouldn't have a Miles Davis or a John Coltrane to give out about.
Oh and jazz music doesn't have a sell-by date. Manufatured items usually have a sell-by date. I would debate that jazz music is a little more timeless overall than an MTV or an NME sell-by date...though I could be wrong..please correct me if I am.

satchmo

Okay now i know you're joking. You really had me going there though.

solidgear

well well well, sounds like quintron is quite the expert @ what is acceptable as jazz, & what is just wanna be stuff imitating jazz. TBH he's intitled 2 an oppinion, but it's only his & not law, like it comes across as. JC is a formidable talent in jazz, so what if he jazzes up regular hits you here on the radio, He at least does the justice of giving covers a real element of body too them & makes them unique in his contemporary fashion. The old jazz greats were manufactured to the black population way back when whites wouldn't give em the time of day in white music establishments, so i dont think you can play a point the finger game at Jamie for wanting an audience which will require a degree of manufacturing about it to attain a level of success. I think you need to look deeper @ m usical history before u go pointing fingers quintron.

Setun

quintron wrote:

Of course jazz progresses.. it also can regress and play a safe and tired route through corporate labels and marketing hype for what is ultimately a waste of (probably) decent backing musicians, playing this vacuous and insipid dilution of jazz, for a mass market where the lowest common denominator is the key to quick financial gain.

That pretty much sums it up for me anyway.

LMAO at

casanova_kid wrote:

plus he has da image, which beats the likes of Miles Davis, John Coltrane

:eek:

shatners basoon

This is the funniest thread in ages!

I've come up with an analogy,
You walk into a record store and see iron maiden albums in the rock section, theres also a metal section. The iron maiden fans are pissed off that their album is in the rock section but not the metal section, the eh... Rammstein? fans don't want iron maiden in their section as they feel iron Maiden aren't real metal.

So we the jazz purists who believe that commercial popular jazz aimed at the mainstream isn't real blood sweat and tears all about the music jazz and the JC fans (not to be confused as the popular religious figure:p) who think that what they love can be classified as proper jazz, that this is how jazz has evolved and that jazz music may be subject to all the nuances of popular music.

Its ridiculous that anyone can expect us to take "Charlie Parker come to life as him!" seriously, even if you are serious i'll still think you're taking the piss, which you probably are i dont really care but its funny anyway There is a world of difference between what he is doing entertaing people for the love of entertaining (which is grand, his music isnt as bad as most the pop shíte thats around nowaredays, it looks like hes enjoying himself, fair play to him) and jazz musicians that play music for the love of playing, couldnt give a f**k about anything else, would probably rather sacrifice their family than their instrument. Both forms of music can co-exist fine but dont merge them, please dont try to merge them.

solidgear wrote:

The old jazz greats were manufactured to the black population way back when whites wouldn't give em the time of day in white music establishments, so i dont think you can play a point the finger game at Jamie for wanting an audience which will require a degree of manufacturing about it to attain a level of success. I think you need to look deeper @ m usical history before u go pointing fingers quintron.

Eh.... no. The old jazz greats didnt sell that well, had to do hated commercial stuff like Parker with Strings to just eat, thats the type of thing that was popular then, and the old jazz greats didnt like it one bit. They were pretty poor and were hardly "manufactured" They'd play the commercial and standard stuff in the swing bands that people could dance to in the clubs during the evening then play musicians music that the general public didnt "get" (most still dont) or couldnt dance to during the rest of the day. Do some research yourself mate if you're interested.

You've every right to like Jamie Cullem but we have the right to give associate the music we love from him and give our opinion when requested.
Jamie Cullem said himself that he doesn't consider his music "real" jazz, it doesnt challenge or push boundaries, there are other musicians that have adopted that role. Hes an entertainer, not an innovator.

solidgear

I love these self gratifying individuals who are the law on what is & isn't A specific type of music. how would you have heard of them if there music wasn't recorded & advertised? jazz was probably more mainstream due to swing music which was manufactured for dance halls, come on please. If they lived in a time when record companies didn't tell you what u could & couldn't do great for them. They could make there own records 100%.unfortunately Artists can't do that now a days. This crap about what is pure jazz? unless you play a certain instument with certain passion your touted as a fake impersination. WTF? Jazz Music is their for all ears, (Next you'll be tellin me that "steve ray vaughn didn't play real blues" like Muddy Watters) come on please!

quintron

solidgear wrote:

well well well, sounds like quintron is quite the expert @ what is acceptable as jazz, & what is just wanna be stuff imitating jazz. TBH he's intitled 2 an oppinion, but it's only his & not law, like it comes across as. JC is a formidable talent in jazz, so what if he jazzes up regular hits you here on the radio, He at least does the justice of giving covers a real element of body too them & makes them unique in his contemporary fashion. The old jazz greats were manufactured to the black population way back when whites wouldn't give em the time of day in white music establishments, so i dont think you can play a point the finger game at Jamie for wanting an audience which will require a degree of manufacturing about it to attain a level of success. I think you need to look deeper @ m usical history before u go pointing fingers quintron.

I certainly would not claim to be an expert at what is acceptable as jazz and am sorry that you think that.
As I sated before, music is entirely subjective. People can like what they like.
However if I aim to debate my point as clearly and as succinctly as I can, I will not apologise if some take it as a didactic rant or, as you seem to perceive it..law.
Please. Its simply my opinion and like it or loathe it I hope it has a little more depth than..."Cullum is da best thing ever, plus he has da image...".
My argument is not centered on Cullum as a performer. I did say "I have listened to both albums with an open mind and have heard nothing new, adventurous or remotely groundbreaking. He's not a bad musician..." Its the fact that many people think this is what jazz represents..period... which for me is shocking and really gets my goat.
Jazz musicians should not be poor. They should not be tortured geniuses strung out on herion. They should not be on the fringes of musical inventivness, tucked away in the back of some poor sods record collection. They should not be the musicians you've never heard of unless you sell your soul to members of some elitist NY downtown syndicate. They should be famous. They should get publicity, fame and all the rewards their hard work deserves. They should be in Jamie Cullums place.

I'm glad there is some fire in some peoples around this issue and its great to debate it...it's just a pity that its in a jamie cullum thread.

shatners basoon

No im just saying that its different, im not saying its better or worse, the man admits it himself! what more do you want? Jazz was more maistream but only jazz you can dance to. its hard to dance to Parker, easy to dance to cullem.
Parker is sit down, have to concentrate to take int every not, cullem is entertaing charismatic music.

No they couldnt make their own records 100%, they had to do some commercial stuff which they were criticised for but they had to do it as they had to eat.

Of course musicians can play for the love of it that nowaredays, why the hell not? Artists do it, writers do it, since when is creative ability judged by success? Maybe to the public that provide the success but not for the musician who does it for their own love of music. What you're thinking of is performing as an entertainer, two different properties. They're linked but they're different.

Im not calling cullem an impersonator, he doesnt pretend hes someone hes not, he has acknowledged in many interviews that the progressive jazz lies with other musicians, get that bbc documentery about British jazz if you dont believe me.

shatners basoon

quintron wrote:

I certainly would not claim to be an expert at what is acceptable as jazz and am sorry that you think that.
As I sated before, music is entirely subjective. People can like what they like.
However if I aim to debate my point as clearly and as succinctly as I can, I will not apologise if some take it as a didactic rant or, as you seem to perceive it..law.
Please. Its simply my opinion and like it or loathe it I hope it has a little more depth than..."Cullum is da best thing ever, plus he has da image...".
My argument is not centered on Cullum as a performer. I did say "I have listened to both albums with an open mind and have heard nothing new, adventurous or remotely groundbreaking. He's not a bad musician..." Its the fact that many people think this is what jazz represents..period... which for me is shocking and really gets my goat.
Jazz musicians should not be poor. They should not be tortured geniuses strung out on herion. They should not be on the fringes of musical inventivness, tucked away in the back of some poor sods record collection. They should not be the musicians you've never heard of unless you sell your soul to members of some elitist NY downtown syndicate. They should be famous. They should get publicity, fame and all the rewards their hard work deserves. They should be in Jamie Cullums place.

I'm glad there is some fire in some peoples around this issue and its great to debate it...it's just a pity that its in a jamie cullum thread.

Nice post quintron, we should indeed be rich and famous, itd probably corrupt us though and itd just be like miles and herbie in the 80s all over agian

quintron

solidgear wrote:

I love these self gratifying individuals who are the law on what is & isn't A specific type of music...

You shouldn't take every reply in this debate so personally solidgear. This is in no way self gratification. It is replies and retorts to yours, and others, opinions which you are entitled to, as are we. In debates there is often no right or wrong especially in music..just opinions.

Setun

solidgear wrote:

I love these self gratifying individuals who are the law on what is & isn't A specific type of music.

They're just opinions, on a message board. I personally don't like Jamie Cullum because I think his sound is boring, cheesey, and ultimately forgettable. It's the same with Michael Bublé, they'd be better suited to performing on a cruise ship, imHo.

As far as the what is Jazz argument goes, it's an incredibly abstract question. The same argument went against a Lou Donaldson album called The Natural Soul, which, in my opinion, has a definiive jazzy feel to it. I don't get the same vibe off Jamie Cullum, simply because I think he's a bit of a phony.

shatners basoon

Lol, michael Bublé!
His name alone cracks me up! Didn't think he was jazz?!

Bublé... classic

solidgear

Fair enough, But so what if 1 is more dancable, what right does it give to destinguish jazz as more pure if u can't let your body move to it? I agree that the public reaction does tend to influence peoples perception as to wether an artist is succesful or not, perhaps an artist needs to be judged on live performance rather than album sales? (Just an oppinion, & a personal one) not meant in any forceful way. I saw that documentary, & indeed he does shed light on how he views his musical direction. However because he sells out more albums than long time jazz students, shouldn't condemn him too a lessor status as a jazz performer. Just upsets me that he seems judged a lessor jazz artist because of his success & lack of years at a musical school for jazz artists. The guy is so rawly talented, & not given enough credit because he is "NOT A PURE JAZZ ARTIST" Well the guy is giving birth to new mind sets in the public which will become interested in the expressional form of jazz music.

casanova_kid

I think you're all forgetting the image, plus he's like the Eminem of jazz as he's white and he's making a predominately black music genre his own.

Setun

casanova_kid wrote:

I think you're all forgetting the image, plus he's like the Eminem of jazz as he's white and he's making a predominately black music genre his own.

lmao
I'm not gonna even grace that with a reply yet, I'm too tired...

Maybe tomorrow...

shatners basoon

solidgear wrote:

Fair enough, But so what if 1 is more dancable, what right does it give to destinguish jazz as more pure if u can't let your body move to it?

Ack, okay one last time. I wasn't saying that jazz music that you can dance to is "less pure", i love swing music and i love django (dance my ass off to em too! ) I was just making a point as of how different Parker's music is compared to Cullem's, surely you must recognise this.

And by no means do i think that jazz students are in anyway better than people who are self taught, or worse for that matter. I dont consider jazz music an elitist genre nor do i condemn Jamie Cullem's music.

I never judged him as a jazz performer, in fact having seen him play on tv and such and i can happily state that he is an excellent performer who is loved by his fans. There is a difference between great performer and innovative musician. His music doesn't push boundaries or do anything new, its revamping popular songs in a mildly jazzy way to a wider audience. I have no problem with this but its a very different kind of music you'd see at a jazz festival. To say that Cullem is what Parker and co have evolved into is an insult to all these other musicians (who cullem mentions himself) are the ones pushing jazz forward.

If he raises "jazz awareness" (great phrase ey?!) then thats great but if people see all modern jazz = jamie cullem then they're sadly mistaken.

Velvet Vocals

casanova_kid wrote:

This guy is absolutely class! he defo ranks up there alongside all time greats like Norah Jones. Sometimes his songs make me cry with absolute joy. It's like Charlie Parker has been resurrected and come back to life as him.

I just clicked on to this thread to have a read, I've gotten as far as this post and I'm just not going to read any further....

All time greats....................NORAH JONES????????????????

Jamie Cullum and Charlie Parker in the same breath..........................................................
Casanova... you should stop listening to music....all of it.. not just jazz