Love Wes Montgomery, but indifferent towards Joe Pass

[Space Pickle]

Right now my favourite tracks on that one are Foxxy Chick/Cool Cat and Everything I Love. I like the way Joe plays the heads and comps himself, it's really tasteful and swinging. I see what you mean about the tone, especially on the bass (sounds like NHOP is either using amp sound only or going direct in) but it doesn't really bother me. I guess I don't care too much about tone when the band can swing as well as this one.

[Spirit59]

Maybe I just can't get past the tone...I gotta listen again.

All I remember is a brittle, dry guitar sound and that 70's/80's "bass pickup into the soundboard" tone from the viking's upright (and his seeming inability to just walk a line when playing with Joe)

I'm only going by some sound clips, but I'm sorry to say that to my ear, the "swing" going on at that session could have only been rivaled by Band in a Box.

[aquinas]

No it's not. If you don't understand the art, your criticism is a shallow, surface level assessment and its value should be taken as such. Music and jazz in particular is one of the most misunderstood artforms ever. Anyone can say anything.

As a musician, I wish this statement was true, but it isn't. The distinction between art and criticism goes back to Plato. There is nothing shallow or superficial in the criticism of influential critics like Leonard Feather in jazz, or Peter Berger in art, or Harold Bloom in literature, though were not practitioners of the art. And criticism ultimately should be democratic, not elitist.

[fumblefingers]

As a musician, I wish this statement was true, but it isn't. The distinction between art and criticism goes back to Plato. There is nothing shallow or superficial in the criticism of influential critics like Leonard Feather in jazz, or Peter Berger in art, or Harold Bloom in literature, though were not practitioners of the art. And criticism ultimately should be democratic, not elitist.

yeah, but Jack's quote that you have highlighted only mentions understandng the art, not practicing it. that seems reasonable, no?

[Spirit59]

As a musician, I wish this statement was true, but it isn't. The distinction between art and criticism goes back to Plato. There is nothing shallow or superficial in the criticism of influential critics like Leonard Feather in jazz, or Peter Berger in art, or Harold Bloom in literature, though were not practitioners of the art. And criticism ultimately should be democratic, not elitist.

Well, Leonard Feather was actually a musician, and AFAIK Harold Bloom was quite literate in the English language.

I am not completely disagreeing with you, as I do think you have a point. I believe that in certain aspects, the "other side's" opinion can be valuable, as there is a certain objectivity that they may have, just from not having gone "down the rabbit hole" as far as we have.

Depends on many factors.

If the founding fathers of bebop were all seated around a table, and there was another table populated with random jazz critics, and if each table had to reach a consensus as to the "swing" factor in musician X's playing, which opinion would hold more water?

[aquinas]

True - but by 'practitioners' I really meant 'peers'. Feather might be a musician, but he was no peer of anyone in the bebop circle. My remark was directed towards someone who mentioned he (or she) had little respect for critics even if they are credentialed. I used to feel the same way, until I discovered that authorial intent was to elitist. Jazz is about democracy and freedom, not about an exclusive coterie that requires one to be hip to the esoteric elements in order to be part of the club. I love hearing non-musicians break down their songs in a non-technical way. As musicians, we should pay more attention to this...

[Jazzaluk]

I love hearing non-musicians break down their songs in a non-technical way. As musicians, we should pay more attention to this...

Totally agree. The listener is a vital component to the jazz art form, which can't exist without a "receiver". Whether musicians like it or not, the listener can only hear and feel what actually comes out of the instrument, not what comes out of theory books. A good critic can see through technical BS and represent what a listener will experience.

[Bigmagic]

I can't say "Solo Guitar" and not think Joe Pass. Joe was a blue collar guitarist. I never heard a guitarist comp for a singer better until Tuck Andress. Technically perfect no, tonality perfect no but cold...I don't see it. Listen to the stuff on you tube of him playing with Roy Clark doing Hank Williams tunes then go back and listen to "Cry me a River" with Ella. I love his playing, I love Eric Clapton's playing and they called him unemotional as well. Beauty is in the ears of the beholder I guess. For me when I talk about a musician I prefer not to say anything bad about them. I have walked in their shoes. I have made recordings that I wish I could go back and redo twenty years later. I will say the same of De Meola,Scofield,Methany and others. Art is always about putting it out there and Joe did that and in my mind popularized Chord Melody for the jazz guitar to the extent that it is today.
I was first introduced to jazz in the early 80s, I was playing Southern Rock and a good friend played me some Harry James albums. I didn't get it,I didn't like it and pooh pawed it. 10 years later in a recording studio I met a guitarist who turned me on to Larry Carlton and a Keyboard player who played "Georgia" like I'd never heard it played before. It opened my ears. The Keyboard player was Larry Van Loon a well known Nashville session musician who used to live in Kansas City. Once I got into jazz Joe Pass grew on me. I love Carlton,I love Hendrix,Gilmore is great,EVH is great I like the fusion guys Holdswoth,Methany,De Meola, there are a lot of great guitarist out there. Joe Pass is one.

[Flyin' Brian]

Since the emphasis has shifted more to solo guitar, I wonder has anyone checked out Jimmy Bruno's solo record? I think that it's pretty amazing.

[matt.guitarteacher]

No it's not. If you don't understand the art, your criticism is a shallow, surface level assessment and its value should be taken as such.

Music and jazz in particular is one of the most misunderstood artforms ever. Anyone can say anything. If my neighbor says Ashlee Simpson knows more about music than Joe Pass ever did I certainly am within my right to suggest that she's:

1) And idiot
2) Has no idea what she's talking about
3) Hasn't done her homework.

You could also argue that if only an artist of a particular art form is allowed to determine that art's validity, it's not real art. Isn't art, at some level about how you communicate with nonartists? I certainly wouldn't agree that Ashlee Simpson is a jazz critic or that anyone can be a jazz critic, but it's oversimplifying things to say that if you can't play an artist's music you can't make any judgment about it.

[paynow]

You could also argue that if only an artist of a particular art form is allowed to determine that art's validity, it's not real art. Isn't art, at some level about how you communicate with nonartists? I certainly wouldn't agree that Ashlee Simpson is a jazz critic or that anyone can be a jazz critic, but it's oversimplifying things to say that if you can't play an artist's music you can't make any judgment about it.

I understand where Jack is coming from and I don't think he means people who can't play it; he means that to criticize it you ought to have an understanding of it. There are many jazz critics who don't play yet I respect their opinions even if I don't always agree with them.

Your typical Ashlee Simpson fan probably does not have an understanding and most likely will think "jazz sucks" because it's not something they've heard or it isn't popular. I had a friend who is an accountant who thinks Madonna is a better musician than a top level jazz player "because she makes a lot of money and those jazz guys don't". OK. I don't hate Madonna, but of course that's a load of horse-hit.

Actually, Ashlee Simpson and Bird have a lot in common, since just like he used to she walks off stage in the middle of performances for no apparent reason. It was forgiven with him, however, because he knew more than one chord.

[jzucker]

You could also argue that if only an artist of a particular art form is allowed to determine that art's validity, it's not real art. Isn't art, at some level about how you communicate with nonartists? I certainly wouldn't agree that Ashlee Simpson is a jazz critic or that anyone can be a jazz critic, but it's oversimplifying things to say that if you can't play an artist's music you can't make any judgment about it.

that's the strawman argument, over and over again.

NOBODY EVER SAID YOU CAN'T HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT WHETHER YOU LIKE SOMETHING OR NOT.

However, if I say that Coltrane is Rubbish and that he just played fast just for virtuosity's sake (as many critics said) you had better be able to back up your opinion.

AND

This is my opinion and since all opinions are valid than I am right.

[jzucker]

Since the emphasis has shifted more to solo guitar, I wonder has anyone checked out Jimmy Bruno's solo record? I think that it's pretty amazing.

He's got lots of chops but amazing is THIS:

[Flyin' Brian]

He's got lots of chops but amazing is THIS:

I get that and admire the arranging that went into it, but it's not my thing for whatever reason.

The coolest stuff for me on Jimmy's live record isn't the stuff like Joy Spring where he's just burning. It's the ballads. His version of I'm In The Mood For Love is just stunning. I wish there was a YouTube of it.

[aquinas]

He's got lots of chops but amazing is THIS:

Amazing! This brilliant piece has just infantilized my version of ATTYA

[aquinas]

It's ok to have preferences of course but political correctness aside (i.e. we all know it's just fine and dandy to like whatever you like) jazz guitar students should study joe pass, PERIOD.

Hmmm...."PERIOD?" Why do such imperatives exist in jazz guitar, compared to other instruments? (I know a brilliant jazz pianist who never studied Art Tatum and Bud Powell, he's just not into them). And why is this not true in other musical domains beyond jazz? Do you have to study Beethoven if your niche is Ligeti interpretations? To be sure, I think that only positive results can come from studying JP, but just don't see it as a necessary condition for being a great jazz guitarist. If anything, his influence may be felt indirectly - as a "trickle-down" effect, but necessity in this case is overstated...

[jzucker]

Hmmm...."PERIOD?" Why do such imperatives exist in jazz guitar, compared to other instruments? (I know a brilliant jazz pianist who never studied Art Tatum and Bud Powell, he's just not into them).

You can always find exceptions. I already noted Jarrett. But generally, If you're a pianist, you study bud powell, herbie, mccoy, chick, etc. If you're a saxophonist you study bird, trane, Shorter, yada-yada, brecker.

And why is this not true in other musical domains beyond jazz?

It's not only true of other genres in music but it's true of art in general.

To be sure, I think that only positive results can come from studying JP, but just don't see it as a necessary condition for being a great jazz guitarist. If anything, his influence may be felt indirectly - as a "trickle-down" effect, but necessity in this case is overstated...

How so? If you're a student you should have big ears, not little ones.

If all teachers taught like that, you'd have few students who really excelled. Do you think it's a coincidence that china is producing so many great musicians in the classical world?

[jzucker]

I get that and admire the arranging that went into it, but it's not my thing for whatever reason.

Odd. It'd be like me saying that wes clip you posted didn't swing.

[Flyin' Brian]

Odd. It'd be like me saying that wes clip you posted didn't swing.

Well yeah and I didn't say anything negative about it. I can't say that it did or didn't do anything musically. The voicing of the chords is interesting and the harmonization of the passing phrases is really well thought out. But it just didn't reach me. I can't say why. Maybe tomorrow it will sound different.

[aquinas]

It's not only true of other genres in music but it's true of art in general.

To echo the words of a supreme court justice: "I concur in part, and dissent in part"...

As a conservatory-trained classical pianist, I never studied the early classical period - no Handel, no Haydn, very little Mozart. Yet I came out okay. I don't see how studying Haydn would improve my interpretation of Scriabin.

As far as I've read, not a few exponents of post-modern art looked askance at the realism evident in great artists of the past like Vermeer, only to successfully produce their installation art. Not all contemporary authors have studied Shakespeare, Blake, or the metaphysical poets (though they might have read them).

Is there something about conservatory training in China that individuates their systems from those found in the WEst? Haven't heard about this...

Nonetheless, I wholeheartedly agree that nothing negative can be derived from studying Joe Pass. I picked up Joy Spring based on your recommendation, and will start transcribing very soon. Great version of Camarillo. Thanks for the suggestion!

[AndyV]

Interesting discussion. For my personal taste, in uptempo material (i.e. Impressions, blues, etc) Wes is unequalled in his ability to create excitement through building incredible tension building to a final release. (No, the sexual connotation isn't lost on me but we're talkin' about music here). On ballads, he brought an uncanny sense of pure melody and beauty to everything from complex jazz tunes to the simplest pop material. Check out his version of Here's That Rainy Day where he plays several chorus in double octaves, creating a solo of unimaginable beauty essentially, playing on one string!

I like Joe Pass's work vey much and it's hard not to be influenced by his brilliant solo playing. I was just stealing a few licks from Night & Day off Virtuoso this weekend as a matter of fact. As a single line player, even though he was an amazing technician, his feel for the beat has often seemed to me to go against the grain - especially in the later years of his recording career. By that I mean, he plays sophisticated altered dominant be-bop notes but there is an underlying feel for the pulse that, I think, is more of a quarter note, swing-era feel than a be-bop feel. At times, I think, this gives his lines a kind of flat-footed character or a kind of stiffness compared to some other players. Howard Roberts, for instance, had the amazing ability to phrase anywhere against the beat and would often speed up and slow down for emphasis landing like a cat in the right place at the end of a phrase.

Though I'm not fit to carry the cases of any of these players I believe there is a valid place for music criticism whether it's analytical or just "I know what I like."

[jzucker]

i agree Andy though HR always seemed like a white version of George Benson to me.

[wizard3739]

Hey Jack, no offense intended, but I think you may be out of sync with your comment about Howard Roberts and George Benson. Howard Roberts came long before George Benson I think George credited Howard as being one of his major influences.

wiz

[jzucker]

Hey Jack, no offense intended, but I think you may be out of sync with your comment about Howard Roberts and George Benson. Howard Roberts came long before George Benson I think George credited Howard as being one of his major influences.

wiz

No, i'm aware of the lineage. Benson learned his gospel licks in church. Howard learned them from listening to R&B players. His was the typical white guy learning how to play with soul. Benson is the epitome of soul

[princeplanet]

If I say again; "deference to Wes, indifference to Joe", I could easily substitute George and Howard. Again, due respect to Howard, I think I attempted his super chops book many years back. I think i still play too many consecutive 8ths thanks to him!