-
[QUOTE=JakeAcci;306056]That clip is some of my favorite stuff from Lage!
REALLY??? Well, patience is definitely not one of my best attributes. Maybe my lack of tolerance of what might have been a long, arduous boring intro kept me from getting to the "straight ahead jazz context"? I'll go back and give it another listen to. Hopefully, I can fast forward past the first 1:30. LOLOLOLThat's him more in a straight ahead jazz context, rather than his usual thing which is more 'acoustic music' geared.
Naaahhh . . . that ain't gonna happen. I'm pretty comfortable in my own skin. I guess there are people who know when they no longer need to, or care to search for something more, or expand upon what they already have. As it relates to jazz and jazz guitar . . . I've arrived at that place.Patrick we gotta expand your ears a bit man! Maybe we could think of a good 'gateway' recording...
However, I will say this . . . I've learned that there was indeed an earlier version of Pat Methany that I might have liked. I think it might have been referred to as his 80/81 era? Or was that an album name? I just could never get past that midi'd up tone of his. I'll have to go back and seek out some of his earlier stuff. But, that hair piece he wears?? Now, that's just something I'll never get past. ;-)
-
03-13-2013 12:51 PM
-
Hey Patrick, have you ever heard of this guy named Miles Davis? He had some groups in the 50s and 60s that played jazz, you should check it out. You might not think it's jazz, but he was really popular back in the day.
-
Well . . . I just went back and "suffered" through all 3:02 of the clip this time. Nope! Not for me.
Regarding Lage . . I'm not very familiar with him or his music. He's obviously got great skills/chops/technique . . . call it what you will. But, I found that entire clip, to be demonstrative of wonderful technical playing by all of the musicians . . . and at the same time found it to be terribly lacking in any enjoyable musicality at all. Lage's playing between 1:35 and 1:50 was particularly amateurish (with the exception of the fluidity of his technique) and reminded me of someone in their practice room just running mindless technique exercises.
Also, Jake . . . you and I seem to have VERY different interpretations of what "straight ahead jazz" actually is.
When I listen to a guitarist, in any genre of music . . . I need the performance to say something to me, other than . . . "look at how good my technical skills are" . . . or "look at how fast I can do my runs". For me . . . it's more about the music being created or the performance of music that was created previously, more so than it being about a guy's ability to play notes well.
I think my sentiment might be somewhat attributable to the initial way I was exposed to jazz guitar studies. Two of my earlier instructors threw a whole lot of shit at me to learn. "play these scales and modes and memorize them" . . "play these modes, play these inversions, learn these arps, harmonize this scale or that one, memorize these triads . . . memorize the circle of fifths . . now forths". Well I learned all of that stuff. And I learned how to play the guitar very well. But, I never learned how to actually make music with the guitar, by utilizing what I learned about how to play it.
Now that I've hooked up with my current instructor, Bob Ferry, a Berklee Grad . . . I'm finally starting to put it all together and actually make music.
Not sure if that rambling rant makes any sense . . . but, it sure makes me want to play the guitar more.
-
Lots of great names mentioned. The best guitarist I have ever personally seen was John McLaughlin. He was and is a monster on the instrument. And I've seen Pat a few times too.
You didn't specify "jazz guitarist", so I'm just gonna throw out a couple more names here: Mark Knopfler, Carlos Santana and I'll second Tony Rice on the flattop.
Re' jazz, nobody's mentioned Benson, but his chops and versatility and the sheer joy he gets with his playing are phenomenal. He is the natural heir to Wes Montgomery. On his latest album he proves he is the finger-pickin' heir to Joe Pass as well. Not to mention he is (in my opinion) one of the best male jazz singers out there.
Frankly, out of everybody mentioned above, the person I would most want to sit through a 2-plus-hour concert for would be George. A lot of guys can play great, but not so many can entertain so well.
-
Well Doc, the OP was specifically about the most complete player . . not the best player. Sometimes, those are two distinctly different assessments. Benson is probably up there in my top 3 favorite guitarists of all times. I'm not sure he's the most complete.
Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
As for "complete" players, I'd have to agree with the Lee Rit mention. Here's an oft overlooked player, as it relates to being "complete" . . . Glen Campbell. Heard him do a jazz duet with Goerge Benson that just about floored me. He's got pop, country, rock, classical . . . he's got it all. To a lesser degree, so too does Roy Clark.
Not sure how or where Carlos Santana might fit in as "complete". Seems pretty one dimensional to me. Also, as you drifted into some of the pop/rock players . . how did Steve Howe escape you? Is there ANYTHING that guy can't do with a guitar???
As for your reference to an entertaining guitarist . . . I'm right there with ya on Benson as one of the most entertaining. But, if you want to be entertained, while listening to great guitar music and playing . . . . Tommy Emmanual's name come to mind. I've never experienced a more entertaining guitar player. He's quite the complete guitarist as well. Although, his brother just might be a shade more proficient. But, to see them perform together is just truly amazing. Heard them burn through some blues, rock, R&B stuff together. Just amazing.
If you want to be entertained . . . watch this all the way through. It's not jazz . . but, it's amazing guitar.
-
+1 Patrick, (I know I am very old fashioned)! Howard Roberts, Joe Diorio, Jim Hall, Ed Bickert, Jimmy & Doug Raney, Ron Eschete & many others from the "straight ahead"sounds are still mostly what I want to listen to. In truth, I listen more to horns and chord melody sounds than anything else. Originally Posted by Patrick2
wiz
-
That was Lage with Eric Harland's band. I don't know what style you would call that exactly... what I like about that clip in particular was the group interplay and how they improvise around the theme or melody that Harland wrote, continuously making reference to it. One of those moments where the whole band are tuned right in.
Hey Wiz, I dig all those guys you mentioned too + Tal, Billy Bean etc.
-
If you aren't familiar with him or his music, perhaps you could scale back the negativity. I didn't particularly like it either but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "amateurish" or accuse him of musical negligence. He was clearly playing exactly what he wanted to play. I didn't understand where he was going with it but no need to let ignorance lead to attacks. As they say, there's no accounting for tastes and there's plenty of room for everyone. Originally Posted by Patrick2
Maybe somebody could enlighten us on the tune he was playing and his approach to it.
-
Yeah . . . well, I don't really care to "scale back the negativity" because it's my own opinion. I think I might be entitled to my own opinion??? And if you "didn't understand where he was going with it", as you said, . . . how could you defend it or not call it amateurish? Further, if you need somebody to "enlighten you on the tune he was playing" . . . what the hell does THAT say????????? Originally Posted by kofblz
Yeah . . . he was clearly "playing exactly what he wanted to play" . . . as you pointed out. To me, that's the main part of the problem.
In this life time . . . or even in an additional one, if God was kind enough to grant me one. . . I couldn't even hope to approach this guy's level of guitar skills. But, in this particular clip . . . his musicality is non existent. He's not making music . . (in my own opinion) he's just playing guitar. Granted . . . he's playing guitar REALLY well. But, I just don't hear music. Also, I stand by my comments that his playing in the area I referenced is amateurish.
-
Sure. You're entitled to your own opinion. Voice it however you see fit. Originally Posted by Patrick2
My lack of understanding of what he was playing only says I don't know the context. It's only 3 minutes out of a performance. What came before and what the band was leading to seems pertinent.
Of course it was musical, though probably too much tension without resolution for your tastes. Mine too, actually. But it's just music. No need to go all curmudgeon on a fellow guitar picker who's only exploring the outer limits of harmony and melody. Musicians have been doing that for a long, long time.
Stand by your comments but don't look now. They sound a lot like that guy's guitar playing - strident, profanity-laced and pushing the limits of conventional discourse. Glen Campbell? Roy Clark? Yes, they are excellent musicians. But dude, open that musty door and let some air in.
By the way, the year is 2013.
-
Patrick, I'm glad to see your ignorance isn't limited to just non-musical topics.
Cmon, we have fun here...
Speaking of here, you hear what you hear. You don't hear what you don't. Virtuosity can exist alongside other musical virtues, listeners tend to get distracted by 'monster' technique and assume that that's all there is to hear. Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not. What if an improvised melodic line has a lot of integrity, logic, and thoughtful choices, but since it's faster than you can hear, the only thing you can observe about it is that it's fast?
You don't like it, that's a-ok, but to say all it is is virtuosity is an ignorance to the possibility that they are doing more up there on that stage than just displaying their chops.
You can't hear what you can't hear. It's a lot like the "known-unknowns" and "unknown-unknowns" issue...we can have some idea of the things we can't hear, but if it's outside of our understanding we may not even be aware that we're not hearing it.
None of this changes the fact that when you listen to this music, you don't like it, and that is a-ok. All I'm saying is, there's more going on than just a display of technique. There is a LOT of rhythmic and harmonic interplay, there is a ton of dynamic sensitivity, there is clearly a mood being set (not just 'hey let's swing and play fast') that I'd imagine has some reference to the original composition, Lage's quicker lines have concepts within them that are separate from the lines of your average Joe Jazz. Maybe they're not as 'good' to folks who only listen to Pass, Farlow, Kessel, etc, but there is meaning and intention there, that's all I'm saying.
-
LOLOLOL . . . points well taken. But, remember, the OP asked for opinions on "complete" guitarists. He didn't mention anything about an era. I guess one of the reasons some look backwards to players of decades ago, is because despite the mega talents of some of the younger and more current ones . . . they're not as complete as a Glen Campbell or a Lee Ritenour or a George Benson or a Vince Gill. The door isn't musty at all, to me. It's a musical one. I really don't care for the breath of fresh air, referred to as modern jazz and exploration. Originally Posted by kofblz
Sure. You're entitled to your own opinion. Voice it however you see fit.
My lack of understanding of what he was playing only says I don't know the context. It's only 3 minutes out of a performance. What came before and what the band was leading to seems pertinent.
Of course it was musical, though probably too much tension without resolution for your tastes. Mine too, actually. But it's just music. No need to go all curmudgeon on a fellow guitar picker who's only exploring the outer limits of harmony and melody. Musicians have been doing that for a long, long time.
Stand by your comments but don't look now. They sound a lot like that guy's guitar playing - strident, profanity-laced and pushing the limits of conventional discourse. Glen Campbell? Roy Clark? Yes, they are excellent musicians. But dude, open that musty door and let some air in.
By the way, the year is 2013.
I'm not one to assess every note being played and try to determine if it's harmonically or intervalically correct. Or, one to be dazzled by a player's gymnastic prowess on a fretboard. I rever the lyrical and musical content of the phrasing, more so than anything else. I heard none in that clip. All I heard was fantastic playing, from a technically proficient aspect
I agree about the tensions being excessive and not resolving . . . . but, it was more than that I disliked in that clip. Where was the lyrical statements and referrence? Was there anything at all in that playing that actually spoke to you?
-
Yeah, tons. The interplay was crazy...Lage took his time working out a statement...he introduced a lyrical melodic statement in his first few bars and expounded on it. the whole thing was great IMHO.
not to pile on, Patrick, but calling something you simply don't like "non musical" is just being intentionally provocative.
-
I haven't been following this tread so forgive me, but it seems to be following another one I was on in another forum.
I used to work HARD to expand my ears to hear things they weren't necessarily naturally inclined towards. It was good training for me. Likewise I saw artwork that stretched my comfort zone until I could grok it.
But in another context, the rock n roll context (these other forums), there are guys, curmudgeons, who can't stand anything that's fast, or isn't chunky power chords with pentatonic licks. They hate shredders or anyone who has the temerity to play a diatonic scale or harmonic minor or anything altered. Their snobbery seems to be aimed on behalf of the mediocre. And my theory is they don't want to have others rise too far above their level of non-comprehension, or even incompetence. Many of these guys have never even PLAYED a gig, or are weekend warriors, or worse, recording engineers in their bedrooms. It's as if they want us all to be mediocre so they can feel good about themselves or something. And they put down, almost violently, anyone who has the audacity to play too far beyond their level. They're stuck where they are and they aren't moving. But worse, they don't want anyone else to move either. They will shoot you down with great vengeance if you try.
For myself, I always loved the motion of expansion. I love anyone who tries to move the guitar forward, because I think, until very recently, it's been far behind the legacy of piano, sax or trumpet in jazz. But that's me. I also love tradition. I try, as much as possible, to shed my prejudices and biases. But again, that's just me.
We are a kaleidoscope of tastes and opinions. That's all for the good, until we decide what IS good or bad for the rest of us, or who decides to speak as if his voice is the voice of truth. All opinions are our own, for us alone. That's good, in MY OPINION.
This was only a diversion and very much related to something I posted on another forum. Please don't take this personally anyone.
-
You'right, Patrick: the OP asked for "complete" and I think that many came up with their "favourite"... On the other hand, he kinda mentioned an era... in the title " of all of todays super guitarists..." Originally Posted by Patrick2
-
So who are on the list of today's "super" guitarists? From there maybe you guys can decide on what makes a complete guitarist.
The most versatile players are probably in the studio and may not make much of a name for themselves in the big picture.
-
Another clip of Adrian Lage. I'm a fan now.
-
It would appear that most people are just listing their favorite players, and at least Patrick has tried to answer the OP's question and mention some 'complete' players. Jim Hall is one of my all time favorites, but a complete player? Only in the context of what he does.
Re Lage, I guess that first clip is why jazz is sometimes seen as elitist. I'm not saying I didn't like it, but it's going to appeal to a limited audience. And the jazz lover who likes it often can't understand why other people don't like it. Well, I do like it but I think I can understand why others don't. In the same way I can't stand Opera but understand why people do.
This is from a very old UK sketch show - Alas Smith and Jones. it's only 30 seconds long and a bit blurry but I remembered it and thought it might be apt. And it's what my wife would say about the first Lage clip I'm afraid (not me, so don't shoot the messenger!).
There was also a clip earlier of Tommy Emmanuel. Well, I saw him with Martin Taylor at the weekend and I couldn't see a difference in technical ability or emotional impact when they were playing together. Both had chops galore, and both loved each others playing. But I bet most jazz fans would dismiss Emmanuel as a populist showman, and praise Taylor as a virtuoso with impeccable credentials. The only difference I can see (other than stylistically) is that one tells better jokes and clowns around a bit more.Last edited by Philly112; 03-14-2013 at 04:30 AM.
-
And then there are also those of us who like what we like . .. and don't like what we don't. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
Jim Hall to my ears is definitely in the category of most complete player, and I think with a little more time, Julian Lage isn't far behind.
-
I'll be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of these guys. I'm wowed by their ability, but I can't help but think every time I see them that just because you can doesn't always mean you should. I like Emmanuel much better when he plays with Vignola, for example...there's a lot more "space" there. Originally Posted by Philly112
Last edited by mr. beaumont; 03-14-2013 at 11:08 AM.
-
Disliking is fine by me, folks can dislike whatever they...like. I dislike most things.
All I was saying is that sometimes there's more to what you're not hearing than what you can hear that you don't hear.
Here are some choice quotations I've heard over the years:
"I saw Pat Martino live, he sounded like he was just running up and down scales and arpeggios"
"Debussy is just a lot of whole tone and diminished scale stuff"
"Wes Montgomery is just arpeggios and chromatic approaches"
Any individual is of course free to dislike Martino, Wes, Debussy, whoever..hell, it's not a choice, you either like it or you don't (it speaks to you or it doesn't.) However, just my opinion, some respect is due that there is depth to these artists beyond the observations quoted.
Or not...as Reg says, it's just music, we're not saving lives.
-
"People say they don't know anything about music, they know what they like. What they're really saying is, they like what they know".
So very true.
-
That quote might be a lot older than Howard Roberts and may have not originally pertained to music, but it was true then and it's true now.
-
I can accept and agree with that. But the thread was about complete guitarists. Probably a nonsense of course. But when I think of 'complete' I just don't think of someone like Jim Hall for example. Although I like his music far more than either Emmanuel's or Taylor's. But seeing young kids - 8-14 or so - clapping and smiling when Emmanuel plays his Beatles medley or him and Taylor played an old Doris Day song. Well, it was just nice to see. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
I always have time for great musicians who can bring some listeners 'in' and maybe move them enough to check something else out. You know, I got into 'jazz' in the early 70's. Was it hearing Coltrane going berserk on his sax? No. It was via Steve Howe of Yes. 2 years later I was enjoying Coltrane's explorations.
My wife loved Tommy Emmanuel, and I showed her a clip of him playing 'Over the Rainbow' (he didn't play it at the gig). Then I showed her Ted Greene's version to show her a different interpretation. Less notes, but more moving for her. And me. Sometimes popularity can be a good thing. Not that you said it wasn't of course! Just me rambling.
PhilLast edited by Philly112; 03-14-2013 at 11:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
Why do songbook melodies from the 40s sound so...
Today, 02:28 AM in The Songs