The Problem With Studying The Jazz Language

[Hep To The Jive]

Maybe I'm wrong. Are there lots of people who imitate, but never practice using what they learn in different contexts? Are there some players (other than maybe classical players who learn jazz solos from a score) who can imitate well but can't improvise at all? And, to get to the OP, are there players who "know the language" but don't "play with feeling"?

Are there some players (other than maybe classical players who learn jazz solos from a score) who can imitate well but can't improvise at all?- yes, of course, I knew a few. I was in college with a guy who transcribed non stop, so many Wes tunes, Joe Pass... he even gave me the transcriptions so I can study too. It was super accurate, with all the nuances like slurs and stuff. He could play it super accurate too, and sounded great actually. Yet, his own solos were mediocre at best. And he'd actually say: well, I dont wanna go to a jam session, I dont wanna play a gig, I'm not ready yet, lemme transcribe a few more. I'm not kidding! By the time he graduated it was the same story. Nice guy, he helped me a lot, and as a teacher he could be quite good, but damn, people were making fun of him because of his "Im not ready yet" excuses.

are there players who "know the language" but don't "play with feeling"? - you kidding, right? Have you ever been to NYC jam sessions lately?

[pkirk]

Are there some players (other than maybe classical players who learn jazz solos from a score) who can imitate well but can't improvise at all?- yes, of course, I knew a few. I was in college with a guy who transcribed non stop, so many Wes tunes, Joe Pass... he even gave me the transcriptions so I can study too. It was super accurate, with all the nuances like slurs and stuff. He could play it super accurate too, and sounded great actually. Yet, his own solos were mediocre at best. And he'd actually say: well, I dont wanna go to a jam session, I dont wanna play a gig, I'm not ready yet, lemme transcribe a few more. I'm not kidding! By the time he graduated it was the same story. Nice guy, he helped me a lot, and as a teacher he could be quite good, but damn, people were making fun of him because of his "Im not ready yet" excuses.

are there players who "know the language" but don't "play with feeling"? - you kidding, right? Have you ever been to NYC jam sessions lately?

on your second point, I've never been to a NYC jam session, so I assume you mean these are d*ck measuring contests rather than music making events?

Your first point: I wonder if you mean that your friend sucked rather than was mediocre. After all, most of us are mediocre.
It sounds like he lacked confidence.

Also I agree with you that the goal is to produce your own way of expressing yourself, but I never thought that studying others is a hindrance to that, it just gives you a deeper insight. I think of transcribing as "super focused listening", I assume some people are talented enough to get the same out of listening to a recording that for me would take transcribing and playing along with. But one way or another you have to get the language down if you want to play jazz, and I think it is easier/faster to stand on the shoulders of giants than to climb the mountain all by oneself.

[goldenwave77]

It might also be because Pat Metheny is about 1000 times better than Joe Blow.

Maybe or maybe not. I think what can separate successful artists (most of the time) is a "signature sound". Metheny has it---ethereal, almost mood-music with unconventional effects and amps, etc. The Police had it in the pop/rock realm (prominent bass used as a lead, sometimes, clean rhythm tones on guitar, unusual rhythms for rock). I think the Police were about Andy Summers' 4th band, and he'd been around for a while before he found a sound and combination that worked well.

Joe Blow who plays Real Book tunes with a Gibson 175 through the common amp of the moment (Polytone; Fender tube amp, Roland Jazz Chorus, whatever) could be literally any one of hundreds, maybe thousands of jazz guitarists...if the average audience member closed their eyes, probably they would be unable to pick out Joe Blow from Jim Middle of the Road, from Larry Arpeggio Run, etc., etc.

Hank Williams wrote simple stuff, but they were great songs delivered in a distinctive vocal style (lots of vocal swoops and a little bit of bluesy mixed in). He could take the most hackneyed, commonly sung song and perform it, and you instantly knew it was Hank Williams.

George Strait has more hit records than anyone else in the history of country music---something like 50 #1 hits, and only 4 of them were original material. Yet his delivery is instantly recognizable and pretty good, and puts his own stamp on it, just like Sinatra who wrote very little original material though he had some pretty good songwriting friends putting together a lot of stuff for him, notably Jimmy Van Heusen and Sammy Cahn.

Also, real feeling cannot be faked. I remember a college lit. course in Modern Drama where we studied Ibsen, Checkhov, Shaw, Strindberg and Eugene O'Neill. The final exam, written under classroom conditions (not a take-home) was to take a given, set of facts and characters, and write a brief dramatic synopsis in the style of two of the writers. It was a lot of fun to do, and was kind of a good test of whether you'd picked up on the defining characteristics of these writers. But no one, I think, would have mistaken these little parodies/exercises for the real thing. The same thing can occur with music. The audience CAN tell, and if the band is "phoning it in that night" they can tell if from something that is performed with feeling and emotional authenticity. Love songs and poetry have been common for 800 years or so, so it is a challenge to write something truly original but to be able to deliver something with conviction and be able to put it across is a challenge. Parody, and imitation is easy but emotional authenticity is difficult to deliver.

Sonny Stitt is an interesting phenomenon. A lot of people diss him as "Little Bird" but a lot of Charlie Parker's recordings are not high quality....poorly recorded....sometimes poorly matched pickup bands that he played with for the first time that night....I sometimes think Sonny S. almost sounds like what Charlie Parker would have sounded like if he'd continued to play and record. He might be using a lot of Bird's vocab. but his delivery sounds pretty darn convincing to me, at least a lot of the time.

Jon Faddis is also a performer who got dissed, unfairly, I think for being too "Dizzy-like". Seems to me he "delivers the goods" a LOT of the time.

But, the audience can tell...whether the "message" is being delivered. This is why the band name "The Jazz Messengers" to me is a great, great name, and maybe a minor reason why there so many outstanding incarnations of that band through the years with a veritable parade of jazz greats.

[silverfoxx]

Yes, I think that's why a world-class player like Jimmy Raney was virtually off the scene for years, despite having won fame playing with Stan Getz in the 50s. By his own admission (or maybe his son Jon said it, I can't remember which), he was not really interested in the business side, hustling and promoting himself etc.

Actually I recall Jimmy Raney saying in the Beatles era that " no one wanted his kind of
music " at that time and he returned home for a while. Thankfully he returned to the scene
later and put out some great albums. You may know also that Stan Getz also said that he
learned Be bop from JR. To me as a kid they were a revelation, sadly the man in the street
knew little of them. Both megastars to me along with JP.

[grahambop]

Maybe or maybe not. I think what can separate successful artists (most of the time) is a "signature sound". Metheny has it---ethereal, almost mood-music with unconventional effects and amps, etc. .

I was really thinking more of Metheny's straight-ahead jazz trio stuff, where he does not rely on sounds and effects. You don't get to make a record with Roy Haynes and Dave Holland unless you are one of their peers. Those guys were prepared to wait a long time to make one free day in their schedules to make that Questions and Answers record with Pat. I don't think Joe Blow would get that level of respect.

[fumblefingers]

I agree with what you wrote here, but what aspiring jazz musician *doesn't* do this? We're all in it to become, at the very least, competent jazz improvisors. Many never get there, but I've never heard of someone not getting there because
all they practiced was imitation. Anyone who learns a few licks or transcribes a solo presumably does this with the intent of becoming adept at producing their own variants of what they are learning.

Maybe I'm wrong. Are there lots of people who imitate, but never practice using what they learn in different contexts? Are there some players (other than maybe classical players who learn jazz solos from a score) who can imitate well but can't improvise at all? And, to get to the OP, are there players who "know the language" but don't "play with feeling"?

My own take is that creativity can't be forced, it emerges organically, provided one takes care of the craft side of things.

well for one, the OP seemed to be about an aspiring jazz musician who, according to the author, was stuck in the Assimilation phase.

he had clearly worked on Imitation, he could play improvised ideas in the appropriate style (Assimilation) - but - he wasn't playing anything that the teacher considered to be unique or personal (Innovation).

you might say that the teacher sized him up to be a...... jazz vocabulary cliche playing, wind-up robot. (ouch)

this is not inconsistent with some other critics out there who suggest that there is an over-emphasis on imitation in jazz education.

my take on it? a lot of that imitation in college - although not all of it - is catch up work. in other words, a good deal of that should have been done in high school. in other words, jazz education in the K-12 period is largely ineffective. and finally, as ineffective as K-12 period jazz education is, guitarists have historically been the least well prepared for a challenging college jazz program, relative to other instrumentalists.

so i wouldn't take for granted that students - or teachers - have been approaching jazz improvisation studies effectively.

[christianm77]

Maybe or maybe not. I think what can separate successful artists (most of the time) is a "signature sound". Metheny has it---ethereal, almost mood-music with unconventional effects and amps, etc. The Police had it in the pop/rock realm (prominent bass used as a lead, sometimes, clean rhythm tones on guitar, unusual rhythms for rock). I think the Police were about Andy Summers' 4th band, and he'd been around for a while before he found a sound and combination that worked well.

Joe Blow who plays Real Book tunes with a Gibson 175 through the common amp of the moment (Polytone; Fender tube amp, Roland Jazz Chorus, whatever) could be literally any one of hundreds, maybe thousands of jazz guitarists...if the average audience member closed their eyes, probably they would be unable to pick out Joe Blow from Jim Middle of the Road, from Larry Arpeggio Run, etc., etc.

Hank Williams wrote simple stuff, but they were great songs delivered in a distinctive vocal style (lots of vocal swoops and a little bit of bluesy mixed in). He could take the most hackneyed, commonly sung song and perform it, and you instantly knew it was Hank Williams.

George Strait has more hit records than anyone else in the history of country music---something like 50 #1 hits, and only 4 of them were original material. Yet his delivery is instantly recognizable and pretty good, and puts his own stamp on it, just like Sinatra who wrote very little original material though he had some pretty good songwriting friends putting together a lot of stuff for him, notably Jimmy Van Heusen and Sammy Cahn.

Also, real feeling cannot be faked. I remember a college lit. course in Modern Drama where we studied Ibsen, Checkhov, Shaw, Strindberg and Eugene O'Neill. The final exam, written under classroom conditions (not a take-home) was to take a given, set of facts and characters, and write a brief dramatic synopsis in the style of two of the writers. It was a lot of fun to do, and was kind of a good test of whether you'd picked up on the defining characteristics of these writers. But no one, I think, would have mistaken these little parodies/exercises for the real thing. The same thing can occur with music. The audience CAN tell, and if the band is "phoning it in that night" they can tell if from something that is performed with feeling and emotional authenticity. Love songs and poetry have been common for 800 years or so, so it is a challenge to write something truly original but to be able to deliver something with conviction and be able to put it across is a challenge. Parody, and imitation is easy but emotional authenticity is difficult to deliver.

Sonny Stitt is an interesting phenomenon. A lot of people diss him as "Little Bird" but a lot of Charlie Parker's recordings are not high quality....poorly recorded....sometimes poorly matched pickup bands that he played with for the first time that night....I sometimes think Sonny S. almost sounds like what Charlie Parker would have sounded like if he'd continued to play and record. He might be using a lot of Bird's vocab. but his delivery sounds pretty darn convincing to me, at least a lot of the time.

Jon Faddis is also a performer who got dissed, unfairly, I think for being too "Dizzy-like". Seems to me he "delivers the goods" a LOT of the time.

But, the audience can tell...whether the "message" is being delivered. This is why the band name "The Jazz Messengers" to me is a great, great name, and maybe a minor reason why there so many outstanding incarnations of that band through the years with a veritable parade of jazz greats.

I don't think Sonny Stitt sounds like Bird if he'd continued to record. He's smoother, more classical, not as bluesy. A different style, like a lot of the second generation bop guys. Anyway that's hardly the point.

'Method' acting is a funny one in relation to music. I take it you've seen this video? You may vehemently disagree, or not.

Emotion is a tricky one. Too much emotion can interfere with performance. This is surely true of acting. I know relatively little about Stanislavski (I studied him a tiny bit as part of my opera studies.) I think there is certainly a difference between shallow emoting and true emotion in art, and it is entirely possible that this can be accessed in different ways.

I agree with you in any case about the signature sound. However what you have described is an end product. It's manifest that the great jazz musicians have wonderful, distinctive individual voices. What is not understood is the process that led them there, which seems counterintuitive. Miles copied Dizzy (and Bobby Hackett), Wes copied Charlie Christian, Parker copied Lester, as did Dexter Gordon and Charlie Christian. Metheny copied Wes.

But that's not to say you have to copy someone exactly to play worth a damn. There are many counter examples too.

[Sam Sherry]

Jazz is a team event for the most part. I believe much of anyone's voice - or originality - comes from how they interact in real time with other musicians in a jazz setting. Practice to be competent and flexible - play with others to find your voice and challenge your risk threshold.

Like this so much I stole it and repeated it.

The key is not so much to play "original" -- there are only twelve notes -- but to play in the moment. You're not playing (or practicing) to Bird's band so if you're listening well all those painstakingly-stolen Bird noises aren't going to fit quite right. But the people you ARE playing with are going to help you to find ideas right now that make sense right now.

And when do the ideas come from you? After you're playing for a week or two? A year? Is your ear sophisticated enough to be able to push your chops?

If you can play one note and if you listen to the people who are with you, you can play in the moment. I have seen that over and over. And it's really exciting, and a lot of fun.

There is endless time to learn scales, licks, tricks and noises later. The time to work in the moment is right now.



(Pun intended of course.)

[rictroll]

Excellent points.

And it isn't so easy to be 'in the moment' sometimes.

Different keys, unusual tempi, chord subs, changes to the form, or unexpected group interaction can send us to the curb.

[gggomez]

Yes Mr Sherry I (a beginner) agree the time to work in the moment is now.

Taking the improvisation is composing in real time thing literally I searched for something on composing that I thought may help me pull things together.

I have started working through this book by Jon Damian http://www.amazon.com/Guitarists-Gui.../dp/0634016350. One of the first exercises is the one note solo. Fantastic. Amazing how much you can learn from one note and listening more.

[goldenwave77]

I was really thinking more of Metheny's straight-ahead jazz trio stuff, where he does not rely on sounds and effects. You don't get to make a record with Roy Haynes and Dave Holland unless you are one of their peers. Those guys were prepared to wait a long time to make one free day in their schedules to make that Questions and Answers record with Pat. I don't think Joe Blow would get that level of respect.

I may be completely off base here, so allow me some leeway. I have not listened to a ton of Pat Metheny stuff, but my sense is that most of his stuff is NOT mainstream jazz but rather kind of cross-overy stuff. I'm pretty sure that's what he became known for, and why non-traditional (casual) jazz fans liked him. (Sad to say, but if you're trying to sell a jazz-like album, it has to appeal to these non-hardcore listeners--the kind who have 5 CD's in a collection of 100 devoted to jazz. Could by Metheny, could be Weather Report, or Kind of Blue, or Dave Brubeck, or Getz/Gilberto: These were all big because of crossover appeal.)

I bought an album with Metheny and I think Scofield on it called I think "I Can See You From Here--The Bebop Album". It sounded really promising--but I was pretty underwhelmed. Not sure if I've played it even once in the past ten years.

If I'm correct on chronology, namely, that the Haynes/Holland/Metheny postdates his commercial success--the chance to sell some records based on Metheny's commercial success probably drove this. Roy Haynes, Herbie Hancock, Hank Jones, and Ron Carter have probably made hundreds of records as sidemen. A lot of them never get noticed. Even if the lead was weak---people are not going to say 'Wow, Haynes and Holland made a record with an incompetent." It would have to be spectacularly bad---almost Mrs. Miller bad--as in "so bad it is good", to get notoriety.

Once you get big commercial success, you'll have more opportunities to do stuff, even if your stuff is not uniformly brilliant. As I've written before, I think a lot of Miles D.'s stuff fits into this category. When a big name does something---it gets noticed---and may even have some success because of the self-fulfilling prophecy nature of it.

But Metheny's commercial success, based on his signature sound, made this all possible. (I think Bruce Forman may be better as a straight-ahead jazz guitarist than Metheny, but his name is known to a handful of locals, and guitar enthusiasts. He will not get top billing like Metheny has in the upcoming Detroit Jazz Festival which might be the biggest jazz event in the U.S. this year.)

[OOwl]

I don't find this argument all that compelling because I think many people (including me for a long time) spent too little time on acquiring language. That said, if you've got that covered, surely it makes sense to trying to cultivate your own voice.

I believe the two processes can and should be cultivated simultaneously.

[Hep To The Jive]

I bought an album with Metheny and I think Scofield on it called I think "I Can See You From Here--The Bebop Album". It sounded really promising--but I was pretty underwhelmed. Not sure if I've played it even once in the past ten years

I think you are talking about 'I can see your house from here' 1994. I didnt know its called the bebop album, its not exactly what I would call bebop. To me, its the best the modern jazz guitar has to offer, the best PM album for me. Theres not a single boring note, not a single mediocre tune, and its just brilliant music. And of course, all the tunes are originals, in truest sense of the word. Thats what Im talking about- be a daredevil, write stuff like that, be original, innovative, but keep the blues and the jazz feel in it. How those guys got there, I dont know, but sure they choosed to write the original stuff from very early in their careers.

On the side note, I wish I heard more modern jazz guitarists going in the direction of that album, if even in terms of tone. That clean tone with deep reverb that many favor today bores me to death.

[OOwl]

Metheny's first album "Bright sized life" is terrific - great playing, songwriting, Jaco... and his Ornette Coleman album "Song x" is also excellent depending on what you're into. The guy can definitely play (and write) but I'm not into a lot of his stuff. He has been more on the commercial side of things for most of his career, which is why he's is more popular that a lot of great players. But he can hold his own and can play "outside" with the best of 'em.

[grahambop]

I think you are talking about 'I can see your house from here' 1994. I didnt know its called the bebop album, its not exactly what I would call bebop. To me, its the best the modern jazz guitar has to offer, the best PM album for me. Theres not a single boring note, not a single mediocre tune, and its just brilliant music. And of course, all the tunes are originals, in truest sense of the word. Thats what Im talking about- be a daredevil, write stuff like that, be original, innovative, but keep the blues and the jazz feel in it. How those guys got there, I dont know, but sure they choosed to write the original stuff from very early in their careers.

On the side note, I wish I heard more modern jazz guitarists going in the direction of that album, if even in terms of tone. That clean tone with deep reverb that many favor today bores me to death.

You are correct, it's not called 'the bebop album', the word bebop is not mentioned anywhere. It is a great record which sort of meshes Metheny and Scofield's playing and writing styles very well. Very little to do with bebop though.

[grahambop]

(I think Bruce Forman may be better as a straight-ahead jazz guitarist than Metheny, but his name is known to a handful of locals, and guitar enthusiasts. He will not get top billing like Metheny has in the upcoming Detroit Jazz Festival which might be the biggest jazz event in the U.S. this year.)

I agree Bruce Forman is a brilliant guitarist. I think he's had more exposure than you suggest though. He used to play in Richie Cole's group (there is a DVD of them playing at the Village Vanguard). And he made some records for Concord, I have a great one with Bobby Hutcherson on it.

[goldenwave77]

I agree Bruce Forman is a brilliant guitarist. I think he's had more exposure than you suggest though. He used to play in Richie Cole's group (there is a DVD of them playing at the Village Vanguard). And he made some records for Concord, I have a great one with Bobby Hutcherson on it.

Let's put it this way. If I went into a room with a cross-section of ordinary people (non-musicians and/or non-guitar players) and mentioned "let's go see Bruce Forman" probably most people would say "Who's he?". For that matter, probably the same thing is true with Richie Cole, though he is a monster player, as is Forman.

A college professor of mine wrote a book called "Hollywood---the Dream Factory". In it she discussed stardom, and she had a very pragmatic but sensible approach to defining 'stardom'---namely the ability to put "fannies into seats" in movie theaters. A "star" gets top billing and is able to deliver an audience for films, that would otherwise maybe not get noticed. So in the music world, the upcoming Detroit Jazz Festival (near Labor Day) has Metheny as a headliner. People like my gf, and her sister listen to some music, but are not hardcore jazz fans. I'm pretty sure they've never heard of Bruce Forman and most of the other 120-40 acts that are going to be featured over several days. Metheny, in contrast, is well known and may bring in the casual fan or listener....and this is not bad, at all. And...part of that stardom, I believe, is having a distinctive or signature sound. In contrast, if I said "Gee, there is going to be a tenor sax player and he's going to play 'All the Things You Are' and 'Autumn Leaves' backed by a bass, a piano, and a drummer in a small club setting----well, there is nothing unique about that: There are probably thousands of music school grads who can do this competently, but not extraordinarily...and the cruel reality....is that you must stand out for stardom, and maybe even to get noticed as a player whose playing is exceptional, and not just another jazz guitarist--or tenor sax player, or what have you.

So, back to the original point, and post...Metheny was really really smart not to go from Berkelee and be one of these thousands of run of the mill jazz guitar salmon swimming upsteam against a vast, surging river of audience indifference.

[goldenwave77]

You are correct, it's not called 'the bebop album', the word bebop is not mentioned anywhere. It is a great record which sort of meshes Metheny and Scofield's playing and writing styles very well. Very little to do with bebop though.

You are correct on this. I went back and checked the CD. No mention of the "bebop album". That is another album that featured Abercrombie and Scofield called "Solar: The Bebop Album". I confused the two---my bad.

[dortmundjazzguitar]

...

I don't think Metheny would have become huge w/ straight jazz plugging a 175 into a Fender Twin Reverb, played dry. I just don't believe that. Even if he did play so far ahead of other practitioners who play in this manner, his sound would not have been sufficiently distinctive. ...

george benson begs to differ.

[grahambop]

I never said Metheny's playing was weak. What I said was that well-known sidemen do plenty of albums that no one even notices. Herbie H. was probably the most recorded piano player of the 60's. If I rummaged through the archives, I could probably come up with 50 titles that were issued and quietly did nothing commercially, and probably many of these are competent, but not extraordinary albums. So....the original contention that esteemed sidemen will not play with less than stellar lead men just does not stand up to scrutiny.

I don't think Metheny would have become huge w/ straight jazz plugging a 175 into a Fender Twin Reverb, played dry. I just don't believe that. Even if he did play so far ahead of other practitioners who play in this manner, his sound would not have been sufficiently distinctive.

Look at the listing in the new thread I've started on "Twenty Most Popular Albums". Metheny appears 3 or 4 times, but I believe most of the albums are a more heavily processed, sound with "jazz-like" music, not really straight ahead stuff.

OK I tend to agree with you here. I think this all stemmed from the post that implied that 'learning the jazz language' was less important than writing your own tunes or something, and that is why Pat Metheny is bigger than the local jazz guy. Probably the truth is that Metheny first learned the jazz language (e.g. listening to Wes), then he started forging his own sound, writing tunes etc. So both those elements needed to be in place (at least that's how I see it).

[grahambop]

george benson begs to differ.

Didn't he have to do a little bit of singing as well?

[goldenwave77]

george benson begs to differ.

Surely you're not talking about "This Masquerade" which outsold all his previous jazz stuff put together....that was a pop-style song with George doing vocals on that track, and lots of other stuff pop stuff backing in it, which became a huge hit. If I remember on that album, there were not many other vocal tracks, and after "Masquerade" he started doing almost entirely that style.

His previous albums were much more straight ahead jazz but were not commercially successful. (In fact, in talking to jazz people, if you mention Benson they seem to go out of their way to always say 'early Benson, is what I like'--almost kind of a reverse snobbery thing.) Nat King Cole, as a jazz pianist solely, is admired by a lot of jazz pianists, but I doubt the general public would have noticed him much had he played straight instrumental stuff, solely. Same thing with George B., and nothing wrong with that, they both have great voices, and are superb stylists....I think "Masquerade" is a great, great pop song as done by Benson...."On Broadway" is pretty good, as well, but his later stuff doesn't excite me too much.

[grahambop]

You are correct on this. I went back and checked the CD. No mention of the "bebop album". That is another album that featured Abercrombie and Scofield called "Solar: The Bebop Album". I confused the two---my bad.

Oh yes, I've got that one. It's a shame it was recorded in the days when they slapped on the chorus effect with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, makes it hard to listen to for me (although the playing is good).

[grahambop]

Let's put it this way. If I went into a room with a cross-section of ordinary people (non-musicians and/or non-guitar players) and mentioned "let's go see Bruce Forman" probably most people would say "Who's he?". For that matter, probably the same thing is true with Richie Cole, though he is a monster player, as is Forman.

A college professor of mine wrote a book called "Hollywood---the Dream Factory". In it she discussed stardom, and she had a very pragmatic but sensible approach to defining 'stardom'---namely the ability to put "fannies into seats" in movie theaters. A "star" gets top billing and is able to deliver an audience for films, that would otherwise maybe not get noticed. So in the music world, the upcoming Detroit Jazz Festival (near Labor Day) has Metheny as a headliner. People like my gf, and her sister listen to some music, but are not hardcore jazz fans. I'm pretty sure they've never heard of Bruce Forman and most of the other 120-40 acts that are going to be featured over several days. Metheny, in contrast, is well known and may bring in the casual fan or listener....and this is not bad, at all. And...part of that stardom, I believe, is having a distinctive or signature sound. In contrast, if I said "Gee, there is going to be a tenor sax player and he's going to play 'All the Things You Are' and 'Autumn Leaves' backed by a bass, a piano, and a drummer in a small club setting----well, there is nothing unique about that: There are probably thousands of music school grads who can do this competently, but not extraordinarily...and the cruel reality....is that you must stand out for stardom, and maybe even to get noticed as a player whose playing is exceptional, and not just another jazz guitarist--or tenor sax player, or what have you.

So, back to the original point, and post...Metheny was really really smart not to go from Berkelee and be one of these thousands of run of the mill jazz guitar salmon swimming upsteam against a vast, surging river of audience indifference.

Most people I know haven't even heard of Pat Metheny!

[pingu]

george benson begs to differ.

I'm with George ...