-
[QUOTE=WillMbCdn5;754082Christian - I have digging deep into Chris Flory playing lately - wonderful time/groove/phrasing /swing!!!!!!!! but very different world than Metheny or Grasso
Will[/QUOTE]Same world, different 'accents'. I played with Pasquale regularly back in NY. Chris I sat in with at Mezzrow last week, and have heard and admired for years. Both speak the same language in their own ways, and Metheny definitely speaks in his own voice (through influences including the seldom-mentioned here Toninho Horta).
Chris is a natural swinger and bluesman who knows the tunes. His thing is more felt than studied to my ears, and his 'rawness' makes him who he is. He really doesn't need any more chops than he has to do his thing.
Pasquale is tremendously developed on the instrument and has brought a lot of work and study to bear that has brought him to a high level of virtuosity. He is painfully self-critical---like many truly accomplished artists.
You could say each could use a little of what the other has...
-
03-22-2017 08:41 PM
-
Well, that's just, you know, your opinion man :-) (amirite Destiny?)
Originally Posted by jbear
I can think of some GREAT players who actively dislike them.
And I can think of other GREAT players who love them.
There's no definitive list of guitar 'greats' - that sort of stuff is for music fans. People who have animated discussions about lists of 10 greatest jazz guitar records etc. That's good stuff to talk about over beers (or on internet forums) but it means nothing. One has their own tastes and good musicians let it inform their music through listening.
Insane swingability - not sure what your reference is for that, but I'm kind of guessing from context you kind of mean in an older fashioned way rather than a modern concept of swing. I've honestly not heard either Kurt or Pat exhibit truly that old fashioned swing feel, but I hope that you can prove me wrong.
As for 'when they want to' - well I'm not sure if you meant it this way, but they is often an implication in discussions about contemporary (or should I say modern style) players it comes down to the idea that they have somehow learned to 'swing' (in the old sense) and then decided not to. That is if you mean swingability in the unarguable way an old school cat like Wes swings.
This is part of the wider narrative that seems implied that the contemporary stars have completely mastered the past and have somehow 'moved beyond' it. This is classic BS and misunderstands IMO the nature of influence, inspiration and the creative process in music.
When you think about this it is kind of offensive to all the contemporary players who have laboured hard decades to master older styles and have refined the ability to swing in old fashioned way, as if they are some how dullards, musically on a lower level, not among the illuminati. I would imagine the high level modern stylists themselves would be the LAST to make this suggestion because they know how heartbreaking the quest to play music is.
Pat Metheny does not encapsulate Wes Montgomery, and I don't think he would ever claim to - he was inspired by Wes initially and found his own voice and direction, part of which is the unique way Pat phrases on his instrument. Now you might LOVE or HATE Metheny, but you will know it is him right away. Same with Wes.
Wes was so much his time/feel that to suggest that one can make a conscious decision to switch on or off his particular (and unarguable) old school swing seems risible. So why should Pat be able to turn off his modern phrasing?
And you know what, I'm totally fine with that. Pat is his own artist.
Here's a further interesting aspect. Players CHANGE and it's not always a simple progression towards 'better' but quite often a move sideways into something more personal. For example, does the Kurt of Intuit still exist? Well no of course not, that was almost 20 years ago. I was amazed hearing early Dave Douglas - fantastic bebop trumpet playing. Could he do that now? Maybe not, I heard him play a roasting Cherokee with Lee Konitz and he didn't pull any of that stuff out.
Maybe he didn't WANT to, but I don't think that's how jazz works. You are in the moment and you play your voice, whatever it is, at that moment.
In terms of personality? Well I have had no personal dealings with Metheny. There are always stories and so on floating around in musical circles about various musicians. But most musicians in the jazz scene are as Duncan Lamont puts it - angelic - so it's quite surprising when you do come across douchey behaviour, but everyone's a douchbag sometimes.
Some people are douche bags more often than others though.
(I have no idea whether Metheny is or not. One day we may meet who knows :-))
Anyway, I rather enjoy Joel's salty opinions. They aren't based on nothing, you know!Last edited by christianm77; 03-22-2017 at 08:51 PM.
-
I like that aspect of Chris's playing though, the fact it's not bop! He's a swinger through and through. I don't miss anything in what he does. It's perfect unto itself. Originally Posted by fasstrack
But bop IMO has to build on swing, the same way you can have blues without jazz, but not jazz without blues (IMHO)
-
so.. years ago I was invited to sit in with a band doing a gig at a local restaurant..little did I know there were some top studio names playing..we played several standards and some pop stuff..then "Goodbye Pork Pie Hat" .. ok we had music stands and the charts..the piano player was the leader and pointed to me to solo..in the third chorus I got lost in the changes..I looked over to the piano player he nodded his head did a quick turnaround and saved me..at the end of the set I was asked to leave.."your too loud" was the quick reason..said someone who played with Frank Zappa..it was a learning experience..I worked on PorkPie a lot after that..
over the years I have met and worked with a lot of "musicians" some could play some not so good..I have resisted the "better" term for musicians as it just reflects back on myself..
I have seen on guitar forums discussions - young players saying with surety that Hendrix was not THAT good afterall..same with Clapton (all 50 years of his playing)
what kind of a chance do you have with "judges" like that..so yeah..perhaps PM was "enjoying" his day when asked to play a guitar without asking direct permission of the guitarist..or many of us have met someone who cant find a hat big enough to fit his head..I am not going to try to explain the way of Zen to that person at break time..I have my own world to manage..and its a full time job..24/7..
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Originally Posted by christianm77
Mr Flory with Ms Sullivan:
-
You've gone deep here, and I enjoyed reading this post. Originally Posted by fasstrack
Personally, I don't detest 'elitism' - or 'meritocracy'. On the contrary, I'm heartened by the existence of superior or better-developed skills and qualities in others. I hasten to add that, for me, what confers elite status isn't membership of a group (social, cultural or musical) but abilities, qualities and skills.
I remember the '60s, too (perhaps from a different perspective); regarding 'me, me, me', I believe that the traditions of culture are justified insofar as they serve the individual - and not at all the other way round. I see that as completely consistent with what you wrote about Dizzy on 'evolution'.
I'll add the opinion that 'originality' is all very well, but it's overrated as far as I'm concerned - and it's the furthest thing from Destinytot's mind when he comes across such a gem as this (by kind favour of David B):
Last edited by destinytot; 03-23-2017 at 06:57 AM.
-
Ha yes I agree. Originally Posted by destinytot
The drive for originality is certainly questionable IMO. I think it's an assertion of the ego. Your own voice on the instrument is emergent not contrived in any case. It's perfectly possible to be completely within a tradition and yet also have your own voice.
It's like the idea that 'transcribing' (in other words listening to music in great detail) could inhibit your 'creativity'. I used to have many of these strange beliefs myself.
I suspect it's the result of bad education about the creative process, the popular image of the artist etc.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
What I also find unhelpful are the terms 'ego' and 'being judgemental'. Originally Posted by christianm77
'Judging too harshly' seems more useful to me (a more reasonable criticism), likewise 'having a prejudiced view' - and both seem more nuanced to me, focusing on process rather than result. Personally, I'll openly condemn if/whenever? I think it's appropriate or necessary (which I quite often do).
The term 'ego', on the other hand, strikes me as part of a different drive which I can't put my finger on. It often appears as 'exoticism', but I suspect it's a form of fear and loathing - of 'self' (which is ironic, given the Latin).
I'm reminded of why, having tried it, I turned down Music as a subject at secondary school. No doubt it was well intended, and had there been some guidance or structure - to tune the damned things, at least - I'd be the first to applaud their use... but multi-cultural education at my school took the form of handing out aluminium dustbin lids and wooden sticks for students to bang. I wouldn't see any real harm if it was only for one lesson - but this went on for a whole term.
The teacher, who was a kind old lady with little (or no) class control, actually called them 'steel drums'. On the surface, I laughed along with the rest - and enjoyed this license to skive (as we p***ed ourselves laughing). But I knew what time it was.*
*It was time to rise above low expectations (for which I have only contempt). Still... never became quite made the grade to become one of these:
Last edited by destinytot; 03-23-2017 at 11:19 AM. Reason: addtion + clarity
-
Dizzy, in his autobiog, had some interesting comments, and an interesting take: Originally Posted by christianm77
(Paraphrasing): 'Charlie Christian was baaad! He could swing and do the blues. But he didn't show me the depth that John Collins did. John Collins was the most, the deepest of the guitarists'.
(He went on to elaborate on picking Collins b/c of his knowledge of the fretboard: (Again paraphrasing: 'the guitar is a position instrument, you learn one, then go to another...').
I thought it odd that he mentioned Collins for THAT over the fact that he was a tasty and superb musician who fit into all kinds of groups (the last guitarist in the King Cole Trio, for example)---great rhythm man, great accompanist to top singers and players.
I also find his statements about the guitar re fretboard just plain wrong: (I'm playing a long time, and speak only for myself).
You can approach ANY undertaking in a 'methodical' way or let the technique 'invent itself' as the (in our case musical) need arises. My technique is probably limited in the ears of some, and sometimes frustrates me when I hear or play with players like Pasquale or Sheryl Bailey b/c I can't do what they do. But it never stymies what I need to do musically. If it does, there's always the shed and remediation. But I personally never analyzed the fingerboard and even years ago backed away from Chuck Wayne's approach of the guitar being and end in itself, and his whole comprehensive method---though, as a young man I studied with and greatly admired him. My technique suits, and is subservient to, the music I wanna play.
Different strokes (no pun intended)...
-
A guy at an ashram once told me that ego (as the word's commonly used) was 'like gas for your car'. I buy that, you need a certain amount of ego and moxie just to deal with people and get through the day w/o being beat up too bad by people or life. Originally Posted by destinytot
I know I'm stating the obvious, but when 'ego' balloons into something harmful/destrucive to oneself or others, that's trouble aplenty...
-
Cool. daddy-o. Good points. Originally Posted by destinytot
Um, what am 'meritocracy'? (I'm a long time outta class, though fairly well-read).
People often confuse 'originality' with innovation, a huge mistake IMO:
One could posit that even a child arranging his sand castles differently than the other kids at the beach is 'original'. Of COURSE that's simplistic, but still arguable. Of course we need original thinkers, that's way preferable to 'herd-followers'.
But what separates innovators to me is UTILITY of what they come up with. It's so good that it's better than what's currently being done, so people in whatever field embrace it, either wholly or in part. It's called progress or evolution. We just need to draw the line between putting a good and better idea in our own tool boxes and just out-and-out copying the innovator. That goes counter to the whole ideas of individuality AND progress.
There's a guy in NY, a good and accomplished 'regular' player on his more traditional instrument---but who prefers to play one of his own invention. He's one of the more original players I've heard, but sort of in his own world and, for me, hard to play with/accompany. But the point is that his thing works for HIM. He has no 'followers', like Trane or Bird did. No one I knew in NY picked up on or incorporated even part of his 'thing' into theirs. So he, to me, is plenty original, but not an innovator.
You REMEMBER the '60s? Then you probably weren't THERE (;
-
A system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement. Originally Posted by fasstrack
Without making too fine a point of it, one of the reasons I'd like to see Britain remain in the EU is that I don't believe its politicians to be as corrupt as those in the Mediterranean countries. I see the achievements of Pasquale Grasso, who is from Avellino (not far from Naples), in the same light: an example of excellence.Last edited by destinytot; 03-24-2017 at 05:26 PM.
-
"Classe e tecnica a parte, Pasquale Grasso ha portato a casa 5.000 dollari e una splendida chitarra firmata da Pat Martino." Legend has it that he then sold that guitar...
-
Originality and innovation are certainly not the same thing.
As artists I believe we have a responsibility to strive for our own voice, for originality.
Others, and time, will determine if someone is an innovator or not.
But the ability to regurgitate cliches or the style of another player should not be equated with being a competent artist or honoring the tradition.Last edited by rictroll; 03-24-2017 at 10:09 PM.
-
Who cares? He's keeping an important tradition alive in spectacular fashion. Artist shmarists. Let's see what great leaps in jazz you've innovated. Originally Posted by rictroll
-
I think there's a bit of selective memory going on here....
Jazz musicians have a rich (and IMO not particularly attractive) history of deriding each other, often in the press. All you have to do is read things like the Downbeat blind listening tests with people like Miles and Ornette to see that the Jazz scene has never really believed in the 'if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all' attitude.
It seems to me that there's a bit of a aesthetic war going on with this discussion, between traditionalists (for lack of a better term) and modern players. This war has been going on for a long time as I'm sure we all know. Calling out Zawinul for having a crack at Wynton is almost laughable; have you ever read a Wynton Marsalis interview? IMO he is the worst offender when it comes to talking shit about other musicians, and I can only imagine what him and Stanley Crouch have to say after a couple of glasses of wine.
Jazz music is a highly difficult form of music with a pretty fierce spirit of individualism and I think this breeds musicians who are very opinionated and passionate, which is a great thing. Pat Metheny changed the face of Jazz guitar and will go down as one of the all time greats. As far as his swing feel goes, have you ever listened to Turnaround off 80/81 with Charlie Haden and DeJohnette? I think the conversation would stop there.
-
Thing is I kind of enjoy that though. Everyone is so bland now. Originally Posted by LouieKing
It's so tempting to criticise Metheny a bit just to troll people, but that would be immature and silly. It's clear there's a lot of people who really really like him and for whom he is of massive importance, whereas I kind of feel quite ambivalent about him really...Jazz music is a highly difficult form of music with a pretty fierce spirit of individualism and I think this breeds musicians who are very opinionated and passionate, which is a great thing. Pat Metheny changed the face of Jazz guitar and will go down as one of the all time greats. As far as his swing feel goes, have you ever listened to Turnaround off 80/81 with Charlie Haden and DeJohnette? I think the conversation would stop there.
Anyway got 80/81 cos it seems like cool record and I hadn't really checked it out. I prefer the early Pat.
The surest sign that we have different reference points is - well - just A/B Turnaround with Wes playing a blues of the same tempo. We don't have to call things names or use the 's' word - but you do appreciate that the two things are completely different ways of feeling music, right? It's night and day.Last edited by christianm77; 03-25-2017 at 06:21 AM.
-
I've listened to him (Grasso). I think there's something missing, it's too pure or something. It's all a bit too... contained and neat. Something like that.
-
Grasso's not as scary monstrous playing single lines in the Ensemble stuff ..a real Virtuoso on the Solo stuff though...taking the solo Joe Pass stuff to a whole new level .
Why don't I hear the bass and drums on that Video-?
whoever is mixing that stuff with a barely audible Rhythm Section is not helping this Guy out IMO.
I thought Jazz Guys used to have friendly ' cutting contests ' to settle some of this Stuff...
The other thing that seems logical to me is
"Old School Bebop " would not be the place ( in Music ) to see a lot of ' innovation ' because if someone with 70's Fusion Chops or Rock Shredder Chops -even no distortion and clean and nicely swinging came along - it would not sound like BeBop anyway ...right ?
And if you start innovating to get a stronger or innovative Groove - that isn't going to sound ' Old School ' or 'authentic 'to people who are sensitive to those things...right ?
Jazz in General...to my ears won't become innovative until there's a 'New Fusion' Movement - IMNSHO.
To his credit Metheny seems to like the Virtuoso type Guitarists like Eddie Van Halen...George Benson ...and Grasso which are definitely not Metheny's Style.
Single lines are one thing...I would NOT want follow this Guy on Solo Guitar - also when he's just practicing / improvising free flowing ...there is a possibility that I might be seriously floored and Humbled when he plays wilder Rhythmic stuff IF he does....
I find Jon Kriesburg to be more Modern and Technically Advanced but Grasso's probably going to get even better...
My vote for the most Futurrific Jazz Guitarist.Last edited by Robertkoa; 03-25-2017 at 06:29 PM.
-
True - but neither is that ability necessarily without merit. Mr Metheny himself called Mr Grasso 'the future'. Originally Posted by rictroll
There may be cliches... but there isn't really any regurgitating going on, is there? What's going on could be described differently.
Imo, the way Mr Grasso 'owns and inhabits' (cliche?) specialised repertoire is masterful - even if it isn't fully mature.
-
There's something very classical about it. But that's what jazz is now, classical music. That is jazz with a capital J Originally Posted by ragman1
-
Grasso doesn't reproduce cliches. He improvises fluently and creatively in the bebop language. Originally Posted by destinytot
Someone who played bop licks wouldn't sound like Grasso
-
He's young, his background is classical, from Italy etc... but now he's in NYC. He's one to keep an eye on, is what I'm thinking. Originally Posted by ragman1
-
Takes one to know one. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
*blush* Originally Posted by destinytot
Well we share a teacher
Reply With Quote
Enharmonics
Today, 09:59 AM in Theory