-
Lol. “Robotically.” I thought transcribing was a good thing.
Originally Posted by sgcim
-
10-18-2024 07:25 AM
-
Man maybe 15-20? Probably a half dozen times on his own and then I worked at a club where he played 6-8 dates a year with The Doctor Lonnie Smith. Originally Posted by starjasmine
A blast. He’s wonderful live. Which was my point, of course. It’s an aesthetic judgement about things that make playing exciting to me, not a real judgment on a players musicality. Hes a force and incredibly musical.
That would be my guess.My own take on his approach is that it is highly improvisational and that he takes risks, but that he also has super strong technical abilities, musicianship, ears, and a deep baked-in vocabulary on which to base said improv.
-
Jonathon Kreisberg is pretty mega. Tbh I don’t know why I don’t listen to him more. He also has amazing solo guitar playing skills.
I always feel I’m being a bit unfair to Mancuso, but he’s just not my sort of thing. He’s clearly killing it. If I had to intellectualise it it’s ’guitar player doing guitar ridiculously well’ where what I go for is not quite that.
-
Ok, I submit that his solo on this is lyrical -
-
Trio-ing was one of my favorite records for a while, but seems to have dropped off the map. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Sweet and Lovely from that album was a favorite. Anyway.
Matteo isn’t my thing. Kreisberg I love even though he has that same aesthetic quality James identified in Matteo.
Conclusion: who gives a sh** … almost certainly not them.
-
I need to check out more JK. I really liked his rendition of Relaxin at Camarillo from years ago.
-
wow - I really can't stand this sort of thing - genuinely sets my teeth on edge. it amazes me that someone who can play like MM wants to produce this sort of thing - which, to my ear, could not be further away from jazz music. the drums just make me cringe. Originally Posted by James W
this isn't lyrical - it seems to me - it's saccharine
I found a Joe Pass album from the seventies the other day which was sort of prog-rock. it made me feel the same way - except more, because JP is so well established in a jazz space. But - I have always felt that he plays way too squarely on the on-beat - and I've listened to him less than any of the other usual suspects.
it's all about the on-beat in the end - and the role it plays in the music. If you go from a great JP solo to a great Wes solo the vibe is very obviously different - and for me - Wes is onto some rhythmical magic that we should never under-value.
but the subversive handling of the on-beat is in the songbook itself - not just in jazzers groovy presentations of the songs.
-
So for the record ... when he smokes he's not lyrical. When he's lyrical, he's saccharine. When he plays a transcription, he's robotic. Originally Posted by Groyniad
For the record, not the biggest fan of his music but can we at least just drop the whole Music Critic thing and say we'd rather he were playing songs from the Great American Songbook in a manner resembling Wes Montgomery or whatever?
Not sure this is true, but then again, I'm not sure entirely what you mean.but the subversive handling of the on-beat is in the songbook itself - not just in jazzers groovy presentations of the songs.
-
Ok. Well, this was my first impression over on the what are you listening to now thread, reply no. 7271: Originally Posted by Groyniad
So, while I don't think his music is saccharine, some of it is cheesy, to me. But these things are relative, I find - his music is one of those things you can tune into. So I will defend him, especially when I think unwarranted criticisms are made. I mean, his playing definitely features jazz and bebop-inspired lines, and his vocab also features lines that are more rock-inspired... it's fusion lol. So I would say objectively that it is false to assert that it couldn't be further away from jazz. Originally Posted by James W
-
I'm pretty sure that Clockwise clip was his improv FTR.
-
Yes the solo he is playing sounds different to Benson’s solos (on both takes of Clockwise). Originally Posted by bediles
Benson plays some quite ‘out’ notes and phrases at times, I don’t hear that very much in Matteo’s solo. But I think that is a cool feature of Benson’s playing, he throws in stuff that is not easy to explain, but it sounds great.
-
Actually it turns out he is not playing Benson’s solo. I must admit I assumed he was, until bediles pointed it out. Originally Posted by sgcim
Partly because the backing sounds exactly like the record, but I suspect he isolated it (i.e. removed Benson’s solo) with one of those apps or websites that does that sort of thing.
-
Instrumental rock shred innit
Maybe a bit less 80’s hair metal than Satriani etc
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I would say this an aspect of the genre that I call ‘clinician fusion’. Everything is super chord scale based. Originally Posted by grahambop
You don’t get the chaos of Holdsworth, Benson etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
He plays the head of the tune, first 15 seconds, along with George, then does his own thing, which I would never mistake for George's playing. Originally Posted by grahambop
But this tune has a simple harmonic structure (a blues, isn't it?) so his playing on it is formulaic rather than chord/scale based. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
I admit I'm baffled that people describe his playing here as 'clinician fusion' unless Christian was referring to something else? Originally Posted by GuyBoden
I don't think he's any more formulaic than anyone else playing an up tempo bop tune either. Probably what sets him apart though is his technique, with the softer and smoother sound of nails + flesh and the fact that it makes arpeggios and intervallic stuff more manageable.
-
So I will defend him, especially when I think unwarranted criticisms are made. I mean, his playing definitely features jazz and bebop-inspired lines, and his vocab also features lines that are more rock-inspired... it's fusion lol. So I would say objectively that it is false to assert that it couldn't be further away from jazz.[/QUOTE]
Well - just because there's a load of music which is called 'fusion' and that way of speaking implies that it is at least part jazz - it doesn't mean that it really is part jazz. it could just be a funny way of labelling the music we don't have to go along with.
I offered a reason for thinking this is as far from jazz as you can get - like say 'back in black' or 'please, please me' :
it's because of the role the on-beat plays in the music - and you can hear this especially clearly if you listen to the drums.
it's not hugely esoteric.
contrast P Bernstein's latest album - and the role of the drums in it - with the first 24 bars of the MM album.
but I also suggested that this anti-on beat-ism is somehow built into the songbook itself.
as far as I can tell rock music is pro-on-beat-ism writ large - with bells on etc.
if that's right, it might be a good reason to be sceptical about the possibility of 'fusing' jazz with rock.
the first music to be called 'fusion' was - I believe - jazz music with a 'Latin' flavour. That seems to make more sense - because the 'Latin' music also seems organised round the determination to undermine the tyranny of the bar-line (rather than endlessly just going along with it's authority). One basic way in which this surfaces is that so many of the melody notes in the book precede the bar-line by half a beat or more. I think that is a big part of why so may of the tunes in that book sound so great (or are so easy to play in a way that sounds great).
they can be played in ways that sound pretty heavy and predictable too. in the forties/fifties/sixties - when loads of musicians knew how to make things sound groovy - they were probably made to sound dull and lifeless more often than they were made to sound sparkling and unpredictable.Last edited by Groyniad; 10-18-2024 at 02:47 PM.
-
I might recommend listening to Miles discography from Nefertiti through Bitches Brew. Originally Posted by Groyniad
-
Ah okay I was wondering if this is what you meant. Originally Posted by Groyniad
So this would I think actually be flat out incorrect in most cases. I’m sure there are plenty of examples of Songbook melodies anticipating the big beats, but when you look at the sheet music they’re overwhelmingly very very square.
They’re unbelievably beautiful and harmonically far more lush than leadsheets let on, but remember they were written primarily for orchestral session players and pit musicians to be sung by movie stars and Broadway stars.
That “anti-on-beat-ism” you describe (sweet lord can we think of some other way to say it) isn’t built into the songbook at all but is the primary innovation of the jazz musicians who raided it for parts.
-
That “anti-on-beat-ism” you describe (sweet lord can we think of some other way to say it) isn’t built into the songbook at all but is the primary innovation of the jazz musicians who raided it for parts.[/QUOTE]
Well this is an interesting issue. I think it's crucial that so many of the melody notes aren't 'square', It makes them delicious in ways - e.g - even the Beatles fabulous offerings rarely are.
The lead sheets have the anticipations written in. The musicians extend and emphasise them - because they feel great.
how much it's rooted in Louis' jazz playing - and how much it comes from well-off (white) song-writers - is an interesting question.
(and the name for the groovy-thing doesn't have to be groovy - just clear and helpful)
-
I’m not quite sure where you’re getting this. Originally Posted by Groyniad
TO BE CLEAR … This is absolutely gorgeous. But rhythmically it is not jazz.
Compared to ….
Open your real book and look at the lead sheet. Rhythmically it’s square as all hell. Looks nothing like what Jim is playing.
There is obviously gray area … you get Frank singing on Guys and Dolls and his melodies are going to swing more. But you’re saying things about the way leadsheets look and the rhythms in these American songbook that are verifiably not all that true
What this has to do with Matteo Mancuso, I’m not sure. But hey. Here we are.
EDIT: some variation among composers … Gershwin and Cole Porter being more into the jazz thing aesthetically, Jerome Kern probably not so much etc etc
-
And this is an easy one and not all that interesting … almost entirely in New Orleans jazz and blues, and not much at all in the Tin Pan Alley songwriters. Originally Posted by Groyniad
The word is “syncopation.”(and the name for the groovy-thing doesn't have to be groovy - just clear and helpful)
-
that's a good word. sure.
well my lead sheets are just full of bar-anticipations - just count those slurs-over-the-bar-line
-
What this has to do with Matteo Mancuso, I’m not sure. But hey. Here we are. - quote Pamomusic (can anyone tell me how to quote bits from posts?)
we're on a jazz..;..something forum.this MM guy is very striking - but people have raised questions about how much he is improvising and how much he's playing learned licks
an album of his was linked-to
I suggested the issue was less about whether he was improvising and more about whether his playing - certainly on his album - was too on-beat-dominated to be very jazzy
I think - especially for jazz guitarists - the connection with rock music is very serious. We live in a musical world much shaped by rock music - especially if we play an electric guitar. If it's true that jazz depends quite heavily on subverting the authority of the on-beat - and if rock depends equally heavily on emphasising it - then we're likely to have to find a way - as jazz guitarists - to negotiate this musical stand off between on-beat-undermining and on-beat-emphasising musical forms.
My taste for on-beat-subversion is such that I was genuinely struck to hear a guitarist who could play 'clockwise' like that, produce original music so obviously dominated by the on-beat.
Dig 'abide with me' on 'monk's music' - and then listen to 'well you needn't' which is the next song. (I'm not suggesting monk's abide by me is rock!)
-
+1 for the Dave Creamer shout-out. Would love to hear more about that.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos