-
As I always say...If I KNEW playing smooth jazz would make me money, I'd get my spray tan and linen pants tomorrow morning.
-
01-05-2014 11:11 PM
-
Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
Keef would like to edumacate us on the original rock guitars...
There's just something seriously wrong (ugly) with Keith Richards even wearing a Super 4 . . let along slinging it low like a Les Paul. Sorry . . . but, it's just sacrilegious.
-
The nature of jazz since swing. Even Bird did a Jewish wedding. That's why it's called pop.
If you want to sell something, you got to have something that somebody wants. That's no mystery.Last edited by zigzag; 01-06-2014 at 04:22 PM.
-
All of the Wes Montgomery Creed Taylor produced LPs are great, just listen to them and enjoy.
-
Yes, it is enjoyable stuff, especially if you're on an elevator or at some restaurant brave enough to even play that kind of music. I must admit though there is a few of his later stuff I do like such as bumpin', but that aside, his Riverside dates are his claim to fame for the jazz fans. If wasn't for those Riverside recordings we wouldn't be talking about Wes Montgomery today. Originally Posted by GuyBoden
Last edited by smokinguit; 01-06-2014 at 05:00 PM.
-
[QUOTE=2bornot2bop;388203] . . . Personally, I was 10 when the following recording was produced. This recording brought jazz to a 10 year old's ear and made him hungry to learn more. I'm forever grateful to Taylor and Sebesky for taking the chance to record Wes in a different light.
This was the 60's man...West Coast. Haight Ashbury was all the buzz, less than 50 minutes from my doorstep, and here I was being hipped to music radically different from that of my peers. Sellout? Nahhhh man...a music education is what those recordings were to this 10 year old. They influenced my musical life.
I'm in the same camp as 2bop, in the 60s I was very much into rock - the British invasion as it was called at the time (Beatles, Stones, Kinks,etc). My father, a jazz musician in the 30s and 40s, naturally, shared my love of music and coaxed me into gaining a better appreciation for jazz with Wes Montgomery's A Day in the Life and George Benson's The Other Side of Abbey Road (1970) - I marveled at the arrangements and the interpretations of popular rock tunes on jazz guitar, it was an epiphany. To me it wasn't selling out it was expanding horizons.
-
I was on hold with a utility company today and what should be the on hold music? Those unmistakable octaves in one of those Verve cushions. Didn't recognize the tune, but it was more enjoyable for those 30 seconds than pretty much any other on hold music I've ever endured. Originally Posted by smokinguit
I also prefer the Riversides, but dig some of the Verve stuff, and don't judge Wes in the slightest for whatever reason he made those records. As far as I'm concerned, Wes's only major mistake in life (that I know of) was all the tobacco he consumed. Not judging him for that either (it's an addiction) but I'd be surprised if it didn't contribute to his early demise, which is any case the real tragedy. Anyway, off-topic, sorry. Back to the regularly scheduled thread...
Interesting to read the comments of the guys who heard the stuff when they were kids and had their ears opened up. Nothing wrong with that...
-
Wes spent about 5% of his live gigs playing "pop" tunes that were radio-friendly after he made those Sebesky records, and every time he did, they became jazz tunes. I saw him 6 nights running at the Jazz Workshop in Boston, and I always requested his originals like Jingles and 4 on 6, which made him curious, and we became friends, but I never questioned his choices, after all, jazz musicians always played the popular tunes of the day, so the sellout label is just the usual purist nonsense generally put forth by those who couldn't make a living playing. It never mattered, he always played brilliantly, and every note was a treasure for the ages.
-
It's not so much a matter of jazz musicians playing popular tunes, nor is it a matter of being a jazz purist. The problem is with the interpretation/approach to the music. Variety was lacking. In Wes's cases he went crazy with the those octaves and almost totally abandon his artistic skills and gifts on his later albums. But having said that I still love Wes Montgomery as one of my favorite musicians of all time. Originally Posted by ronjazz
-
Whose problem is that, though? Those recordings sold very well, and the fact is, he never abandoned his artistry, he merely focused on a part of it that was needed to finally get materially rewarded for his sacrifices through the years. And in many cases, those well-produced later recordings really showcased his sound, attack and conception, and certainly were a better indication of his "live" sound than the earlier small-budget bop sides.
-
Hey, whether you are an artist or a musician it's good to have money
-
The difference is Metheny is not a practitioner of Musical necrophilia Originally Posted by GAN
-
Some would say that Kenny G exploited smooth Jazz only for profit. The pioneers of fusion didn't know it was going to be successful. They created the music they wanted to create, not for financial gain, and that goes against the morality of a lot of jazz musicians. Pat metheny reacted the way he did because of Kenny G's rendition of "What a wonderful world" in which he overdubbed Louis Armstrong. This insulted Metheny because he felt that Kenny G had made little contribution to the jazz community yet considered himself worthy of Armstrong. I agree with Metheny, Kenny G just exploited the music for financial gain, which seems like a slap in the face to a lot of musicians that aren't as successful yet have made large contributions to jazz.
-
Like they say money is the root of all evil.
-
Originally Posted by smokinguit
The actual quote is "the love of money" is the root of all evil (just for a little clarification for those who might want to quote you, smoke
)
-
Ha, thanks! Originally Posted by AlsoRan
The actual quote is "the love of money" is the root of all evil (just for a little clarification for those who might want to quote you, smoke)
-
I was gonna say, not having money is the root of a whole bunch of evil......
-
Sad that Wes didn't live to see how much he would come to be loved world-wide, despite people's initial mixed reactions to him covering more pop tunes.
Myself growing up in Jacksonville, Florida during the peak of the "Smooth Jazz" era of the 2000's...we still had a full time jazz radio station and the yearly Jacksonville Jazz Festival. LIVE and IN PERSON, a lot of so-called "Smooth Jazz" radio artists would actually surprise us and really dig in and not be afraid to bop hard over their backbeat grooves and go crazy with the drummer. Others would of course just play boring like they did on the radio. Well, guess what? In almost all cases- the crowds responded better and stronger to the artists that would really dig in and play with some intensity in a way that straight ahead players would also usually dig and respect. People could feel it.
At the risk of being accused of annoying optimism...I'll share my own experience with this matter as both a player and audience member-
IMO, nowadays in the year 2025...just about anything goes...and it really is less about what songs you play, and more how you play them.
(Keeping in mind that this is more so from the perspective of just "playing gigs" as a working musician, rather than what it's like setting out to be a performing artist in a particular style of improvised music...)
I often gig with a great sax player in his 60's (I'm 30). We play everything all the way from hard-bop to R&B to modern pop songs that people know well- and we don't shy away from bopping with intensity or playing outside lines etc...we just go for it and have a great time. In my experience, as long as you play tastefully and with soul- people WANT to hear you "dig in".
This is why we don't feel like we're "selling out". We just play songs we love and keep mixing it up. There is no shortage of great tunes to pick from the last 100 years. Could we get away with playing ONLY "straight-ahead" jazz if we wanted to? Sure we could- if we picked the right tunes and kept it rhythmically hip, most people would at least say "yeah those guys sounded good last night". But mixing in tunes that people know makes it more memorable for people.
Honestly, the moment people see a sax or trumpet onstage, they already expect something different or "jazzy" anyways...as in, they're not going to come up and start requesting The Eagles or Jimmy Buffet. Oh how I wish this were the case with solo guitar gigs lol...in that case, a suit and tie plus archtop with f-holes at least sets some sort of precedent...But lately for solo gigs, I can't help but gravitate more towards amplified acoustic guitars like Tommy Emmanuel's sound because IMO they sound much more clear in a crowded loud room full of talking people...where as a jazz archtop through an amp tends to echo and get washed out, ESPECIALLY if there is hard floors. Everything sounds better with carpet, or outdoors. Do I wish that all of my solo gigs were in front of a wine drinking audience in dark jazz club with a mic'd up Fender Twin? You bet...but I'm not Russell Malone. I really miss that guy.Last edited by LandonEavers; 01-29-2025 at 06:42 PM. Reason: Improved formatting.
-
Those Haight Ashbury hippies were listening to Miles, Trane, Wes, Ornette too. Mickey Hart of the Grateful Dead was friends with Basie's drummer Sonny Payne. Originally Posted by ESCC
-
Jerry Garcia said that his chordal work was influenced by big band horn arrangements. Later, he played with Ornette.
The Doors were influenced by Coltrane -- one example being the instrumental section of Light My Fire.
The Rolling Stones drummer, Charlie Watts led a jazz big band which toured.
These are talented and skilled musicians who didn't have blinders on.
-
In what respect is a song like A Day in the Life inferior to a song like Satin Doll?
-
I have no use for those albums, but jazz in the 60s was much closer to it's origins as a popular style where dancing and late night hard partying shows were the norm.
The dichotomy between accessible and specialist audiences was starting to show, but Wes did not have to pick a side in order to be accepted, nor should we infer a self conscious sellout mindset on his part.
That dichotomy was widened later by a conservatory mentality but that was mostly after his unfortunately short time.
-
I read somewhere that Wes did have mixed feelings about the more commercial recordings.
My reaction is to be happy for him that he was able to better provide for his family with the later music. And, I had the Day In the Life album and I liked it.
There are some people who are so advanced in their jazz path that I can see why they might be "purist". I like to play my corner of jazz more than other styles but I want the audience to respond and I'm willing to change repertoire to accomplish that.
-
Good thread.
It's kind of funny tho, as the first thought I came away with as I read it was, "Imagine that: having to play music people like in order to make money." As if playing music that people like is automatically a bad thing... that really seems to be a big thing in the jazz world. Vitriol for people like Kenny G certainly illustrate it. (maybe Kenny G LOVES the music he creates? In that case, he's being true to his artistic self, it doesn't matter if it's not complicated or advanced enough for Pat Metheny to enjoy).
I think the whole concept of "go where the money is"... to some degree... is totally normal and ubiquitous in the arts. With rare exception, hungry and obscure is the artists who thins only of his own satisfaction with his work, and never of the commercial-ability of it. I'll bet if we could ask Mozart and Beethoven if they did things they didn't feel was "artistically pure" to themselves in order to survive, the answer would be a resounding yes.
-
I think it’s a safe bet that Kenny G is doing what he loves. He’s loaded. Early investor in Starbucks.
Reply With Quote
escow.com
Today, 07:56 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos