Pat Metheny on the best guitar player he has ever heard: Pasquale Grasso

[christianm77]

Again, this is "swing" in the literal sense versus "swing" as in, "these cats swing, man."

Swing can be quantified. You can make a drum machine "swing." You can't make it "groove" organically, really.

Christian, it seems to me your definition of swing is both of the above, whereas some other folks lean more to the latter "swings, man" definition. I most certainly do. Tony Williams swings when playing straight 8ths, IMHO. Bossa Nova can swing...

I accept your distinction.

But I repeat the question if swing is what makes your foot tap, then how is it different from any groove? Seems to me it's a rendundant term unless it pertains to the quality of the groove in some way.

To me it's always been a feeling in the body, and it has everything to do with the upbeat.

[mrcee]

It doesn't matter to me what type of music it is, if I involuntarily tap my foot to it, it swings. I find myself rarely tapping my foot to most contemporary music.

[mr. beaumont]

But to me, James Jamerson formally swings when playing 'straight eights' music on the other hand.

I accept your distinction.

But I repeat the question if swing is what makes your foot tap, then how is it different from any groove? Seems to me it's a rendundant term unless it pertains to the quality of the groove in some way.

To me it's always been a feeling in the body, and it has everything to do with the upbeat.

This is English. We love redundant terms.

I think the upbeat, make you want to tap your foot tap swing is the both kind...literally swinging textbook definition, and it grooves, it makes you say "hell yeah."

But swing is such a colloquial term anyway, the way it's used...I mean...think of it's other meanings...the playground...the key party...

I think it's fine to have a literal meaning and a colloquial meaning. I also think, when you hear a jazz player say someone else swings, they're probably talking groove. There's a likeliness it also involves the literal meaning as well, but it certainly doesn't mean solely the literal meaning. Saying someone swings is a compliment. This mother's bad, he swings.

[christianm77]

This is English. We love redundant terms.

I think the upbeat, make you want to tap your foot tap swing is the both kind...literally swinging textbook definition, and it grooves, it makes you say "hell yeah."

But swing is such a colloquial term anyway, the way it's used...I mean...think of it's other meanings...the playground...the key party...

I think it's fine to have a literal meaning and a colloquial meaning. I also think, when you hear a jazz player say someone else swings, they're probably talking groove. There's a likeliness it also involves the literal meaning as well, but it certainly doesn't mean solely the literal meaning. Saying someone swings is a compliment. This mother's bad, he swings.

I dunno, that seems too simple. I could go and see a great Reggae/Funk/Soul band playing, and say - man those guys have a great groove, but I doubt I'd say those guys really swing (even if they were swinging their music formally). Swing does have an affiliation with jazz of course. Perhaps it is an essentially a meaningless empty term, but I refuse to accept that when there are such huge counter examples.

[mr. beaumont]

I think you answered your own question/conundrum. It's a JAZZ term. And I don't think that makes it empty or meaningless at all.

[goldenwave77]

I listened to that "Slings and Arrows" clip. I think it's instructive to listen to Metheny vs. the sax player.

Brecker swings a lot more to me...and he does it without "digging in".

"Digging in"--- is using a lot of volume dynamics to try to supply something that is not happening, rhythmically, and I hear Metheny doing it here. I saw him live 2 yrs. ago, and it was the same deal.

I don't hear Johnny Smith doing that, and I don't hear Hank Garland doing that, in their playing.

Hal Galper has a video clip where he chastises a piano player for "jumping around" when he's playing....artificially trying to supply something. What Metheny does is less extreme, and more subtle...but I hear it in his playing, a lot.

Try playing something using NO volume dynamics, and see if you can swing it....that might tell you something.

I haven't heard everything Pat M. has ever done...bought a couple of early albums, and listened to them. They don't do much for me...but on the whole, I don't think jazz is really done well on the guitar for the most part, anyway. (I started listening to the music....before I ever picked up a guitar...so, if I had to pick 100 jazz albums for the desert island, there would not be many jazz guitar albums on that list.)

(As for "people typing mean (good) solos"....let's reverse that argument: How about "improvising a convincing argument".....let's see there could be "Fallacy in D minor", "Phrygian Dominant AD Hominem attack", "Confirmation Bias (Theme and Variations)"----might need Opus numbers for some of these....and given that there are 4 fingers to start on, and 5 places or so, for each note, on the fingerboard...we might have to spend several years learning argumentation chops all over the fingerboard.)


I think Metheny made a really, really shrewd decision to go his own way, stylistically and creatively. It surely has been a lot more lucrative....AND he gets to pass himself off as the idealist creator.

It's like Miles' official propaganda about "changing music 4 times" in his lifetime.

[ColinO]

The definition of shwing.

shwing - Yahoo Video Search Results

[mr. beaumont]

Try playing something using NO volume dynamics, and see if you can swing it....that might tell you something..

I've never understood why this is so desirable to so many people.

[goldenwave77]

Swing is the difference between a brook, running along, meandering in some places, and moving faster, in another. It has life, and an energy of its own. Like a heartbeat, or your pulse, which is not monotonous, and certainly not metronomic.

Music without swing, is turning on the faucet, and a stream of water pours out, uninterrupted. Loud, bad music is like opening the faucet all the way, and sticking your head under it.

PS: Listen to traditional "work" songs. These were sung to pass the time, energize the people at work, and for entertainment. Many of them have a swing-type quality to them. "Song of the Volga Boatmen" was done by some Swing Era Big Bands, and it was easy to do.

[Gabor]

(It's not good if a thread is hijacked, my excuse I could stand it for the #300th message, the other excuse is that this message is the last) If anyone wants to argue about "Is Pat Metheny is a jazz musician or not?" "Is the 'jazz' as style definition is frozen 60 years ago?" he should start a new thread, I will not that's for sure).

You wrote about a PM gig:

I found it boring and had a train to catch, so left early...

I can imagine even myself in similar situation (really, I mean it), not a problem. However if you bored by PM, you could still stay for the sake and listen Antonio Sanchez, who is one of the greatest drummer, and he swings. The problem is your conclusion: Just because you bored by both PM and Antonio Sanchez plus your train was about to depart this does not imply in any way the statement "PM is not a jazz musician, instead a pop/mainstream star" what you states implicitly multiple times. That's all.

I've mentioned Miles not because he played with John McLaughlin. I mentioned because he was (is!) a "Jazz musician". Just because he created dozens of not jazz recordings this does not revoke this title from him, neither revokes his musician capabilities to play jazz.

I've listed at least seven hardcore jazz albums under PM's name with the most authentic jazz tunes with the most authentic acoustic trio/quartet settings with the most authentic jazz players in a quarter century timespan. No one forces you to like it, but it is jazz from the first note to the last. Btw for example on 80/81 Jack DeJohnette is so inspired and full of invention (I suppose by his partners) what you barely hear on his other recordings, including his dozen with Keith Jarrett (who swings :-). I mean those recordings worth to know and listen, not just because of PM, but... (and now I will not list again the greatest jazz musicians I've already listed.)

[christianm77]

Sanchez is great and I remember being absolutely amazed by his playing when he got to cut loose.

It was the material I found dull at the time. To me at the time it seemed there wasn't room for the fantastic players to fully express themselves in the way I wanted to hear and I found a lot of the tunes a bit cheesy.

I was on a massive electric miles and contemporary classical kick at the time IIRC.

But ones ears change and this was 10 years ago. I like the PMG stuff a bit better than I did back then. I have a much higher tolerance for cheese now - in fact I don't really listen to music in that way at all now. I have a higher appreciation for a simple melody and I think pat is pretty great at writing those.

I think pat metheny is a jazz musician by any reasonable definition of the term. I never said he wasn't.

But the PMG stuff I found lacking a bit in the freedom and improvisation I wanted from jazz at that time. I also feel that that music is not really jazz in the sense that Blakey or for that matter Tales from the Hudson is jazz, say, but as always people pick their own definitions of the j word.

[Lobomov]

I had a similar experience last year. Very clean cut and restrained performance that was slightly boring. Magic did eventually happen on the second but last song which was a duet by PM and Sanchez ... They played Question and Answer and while the first 3-4 minutes where almost note for note like on the 2001 Live Trio recording the last 3 minutes where amazing.

Question is off course if they'd be so amazing if I'd seen the show before and after as well.

Over all it was a greatest hit concert playing loyal renditions of his most known tunes. Still he packed the place and I seemed the only one slightly dissatisfied

Linda Oh when playing the electric bass was a highlight.

[christianm77]

I mean obviously the argument that just because a jazz musician plays music, doesn't make it jazz. Steve Reich's Electric Counterpoint did not suddenly morph from jazz to post-rock when Jonny Greenwood played it (Metheny plays on the original recording.) It remains Steve Reich music, whatever that is.

Lady Madonna remains rock music despite Ronnie Scott's solo.

Anyway, I suspect I could have avoided this whole stupid conversation if I'd worded things slightly differently. I'm not attacking Pat Metheny, and just pointing out my emotional responses to his music are not the same as other music, and that this is connected to my feeling of old school swing present in the playing of Wes etc.

But if PM had played that concept of time (Wes's) in the 70s and 80s - even if it were possible given the huge changes in music since Wes's early years - he would have been out of step with the musical language of his time.

That said, I feel Emily Remler got pretty close, but she kind of remained within the straight ahead zone. She may have moved elsewhere if she'd lived - who knows? I think that's the trade off - guys who really get obsessed with swinging are increasingly interested in playing the music of the past. That's kind of the schism in jazz.

Some people - Peter Bernstein for example - seem to be able to bridge it to some extent.

Metheny's music is of its context and I think it's important to remember that, not better or worse objectively (that said is anything?) No one listened to Wes more than PM.

Personally - I am aware that I will never swing like Wes, because the times have changed - time/feel like that is a product of environment and experience. I have to find a thing that works for me, too.

[christianm77]

I had a similar experience last year. Very clean cut and restrained performance that was slightly boring. Magic did eventually happen on the second but last song which was a duet by PM and Sanchez ... They played Question and Answer and while the first 3-4 minutes where almost note for note like on the 2001 Live Trio recording the last 3 minutes where amazing.

Question is off course if they'd be so amazing if I'd seen the show before and after as well.

Over all it was a greatest hit concert playing loyal renditions of his most known tunes. Still he packed the place and I seemed the only one slightly dissatisfied

Linda Oh when playing the electric bass was a highlight.

PM and Sanchez together was a highlight of the time I saw him too. I remember thinking 'wow! More of that please.'

And then Lyle Mays gets back on stage and my heart sinks, and then they do some other PMG tune.

But you know, I don't think the two of us have enough financial clout to make a Metheny/Sanchez duo tour a viable reality. We have to keep him in stripey jumpers and musical automata, you know.

[christianm77]

I listened to that "Slings and Arrows" clip. I think it's instructive to listen to Metheny vs. the sax player.

Brecker swings a lot more to me...and he does it without "digging in".

I am REALLY into Brecker on that record. He is just extraordinary. Biggest regret was not catching him live.

"Digging in"--- is using a lot of volume dynamics to try to supply something that is not happening, rhythmically, and I hear Metheny doing it here. I saw him live 2 yrs. ago, and it was the same deal.

I don't hear Johnny Smith doing that, and I don't hear Hank Garland doing that, in their playing.

Hal Galper has a video clip where he chastises a piano player for "jumping around" when he's playing....artificially trying to supply something. What Metheny does is less extreme, and more subtle...but I hear it in his playing, a lot.

I dunno - the alternative is the super even thing. I'm not sure I'm into that either. You need to be able to play even and accent as required. Different players use different approaches.

Jim Hall used a lot of light and shade, for instance.

Try playing something using NO volume dynamics, and see if you can swing it....that might tell you something.

I haven't heard everything Pat M. has ever done...bought a couple of early albums, and listened to them. They don't do much for me...but on the whole, I don't think jazz is really done well on the guitar for the most part, anyway. (I started listening to the music....before I ever picked up a guitar...so, if I had to pick 100 jazz albums for the desert island, there would not be many jazz guitar albums on that list.)

TBH I think looking towards a guitarist as a gold standard of swing feel is often questionable anyway. Most guitarists are rhythmically less developed than pianists for instance, for whatever reason. Even at a very high level. Metheny states this in his lesson actually.

(Before slagging off the time of some other famous guitarists, names redacted.)

Wes was an outlier.

(As for "people typing mean (good) solos"....let's reverse that argument: How about "improvising a convincing argument".....let's see there could be "Fallacy in D minor", "Phrygian Dominant AD Hominem attack", "Confirmation Bias (Theme and Variations)"----might need Opus numbers for some of these....and given that there are 4 fingers to start on, and 5 places or so, for each note, on the fingerboard...we might have to spend several years learning argumentation chops all over the fingerboard.)


I think Metheny made a really, really shrewd decision to go his own way, stylistically and creatively. It surely has been a lot more lucrative....AND he gets to pass himself off as the idealist creator.

He's had the perfect career, no? Look at poor old Holdsworth. I mean I know in Allan's case in part it was bad management (at least according to Rick Beato) but Allan NEVER compromised. Maybe PM gets a bit tired of playing old PMG tunes he's played 10,000 times before, but he'll still put on the smiley face and go out there and entertain.

You need that a bit in life.

For all I know he deliberately uses the PMG to subsidise things like Orchestrion, Song X, that record with Derek Bailey, etc and puts on the smiley face. But, he does genuinely seem to love it, so maybe not?

It's like Miles' official propaganda about "changing music 4 times" in his lifetime.

Well he DID, once or twice.

[agentsmith]

Here's my challenge to the metheny nay-sayers. Post a clip of yourself playing over Slings and Arrows to demonstrate your swing and groove and dynamics.

<crickets chirping...>

It's funny how easy it is to type a good solo.

[agentsmith]

Nice straw-man argument. I have *NEVER* put down anyone's playing in these forums. I have *ALWAYS* been supportive of people who are trying to approach and perfect the art of jazz guitar.

In fact, where have you seen me pulling down ANYONE's playing? *YOU* on the other hand are a different story.

TBH mate, I think someone could post a clip of themselves out swinging
Sonny Rollins, Oscar Peterson and Louis Armstrong combined, and you'd still feel the need to pull them down to assuage your need to be right.

You know my playing, and if you don't you can check it out online or below. I make no secret of my identity.

If you don't like it, you can discount my statements on the subject anyway as the remarks of amateur - so why this need to validate yourself in this forum?

[christianm77]

Nice straw-man argument. I have *NEVER* put down anyone's playing in these forums. I have *ALWAYS* been supportive of people who are trying to approach and perfect the art of jazz guitar.

Don't be disingenuous. You will have your own private assessments of players, that you keep to yourself, and can decide what credence to lend their remarks here accordingly.

If your aim is not to make that evaluation of someone else's playing, why bother setting the challenge at all?

In fact, where have you seen me pulling down ANYONE's playing? *YOU* on the other hand are a different story.

Oh do calm down. You seem to have a vested interest in making this into a stark disagreement.

What I have said - IIRC - is that I feel Pat's playing is qualitatively different rhythmically to Wes, doesn't have the aesthetic of swing that the music of that era has, but has great time and a sense of groove.

And that I haven't really got that into Metheny's music that deeply - he's not a favourite - but I respect him as a musician and wish I had even a tiny bit of his ability.

You can get cross about that if you want, but I think these are reasonable statements to make.

But in the wider sense, it was probably foolish of me to venture an opinion - however measured - on someone's playing beyond the positive in a public forum.

This is a stupid discussion on so many levels and I am simultaneously cross with myself for letting it occupy so much time and fighting the temptation to wind you up further.

[goldenwave77]

It's funny how easy it is to type a good solo.

Not as easy, apparently, as posting as your same tired argument.

Do I need to be a world-class chef to dislike a restaurant?

Do I need to be able to beat Charles Barkley, one on one, to think his basketball game was lacking?


The truth is---one thing doesn't have much to with the other. BUT if you see the world through the prism of your own ego---then this becomes important, I suppose.


I don't need your permission to dislike the great poohbah, Metheny. All I need is my ears, and my knowledge of the history of the music.

Nobody doubts your ability to play---irrelevant though it is to the current debate. But your logic and argumentation chops are lame.

[drbhrb]

Here's my challenge to the metheny nay-sayers. Post a clip of yourself playing over Slings and Arrows to demonstrate your swing and groove and dynamics.

<crickets chirping...>

It's funny how easy it is to type a good solo.

One doesn't need to be able to do it better to know what you like. And disliking Metheney's playing is not a personal attack on anyone, not even PM.

[agentsmith]

I don't give a hoot what you think of my argument chops. obviously, as an attorney you have good argument chops. I disagree with your points though. You don't have to be a basketball player to "say" that Barkley's game is lacking but to be taken seriously, you would have to demonstrate you know something about basketball. And you can say you don't like metheny but when you make statements about his time and rhythm, you had damn well better be able to demonstrate. Otherwise, you're just another arm chair quarterback. And taken to the extreme, no more qualified to pontificate about metheny's time than my next door neighbor who thinks Jay-z's music is better than Metheny's because after all, she has her ear and her knowledge and history of her likes and dislikes too.

And as far as my ego?!? WTF? Who said anything about me? I love how you supposedly have such great argument chops but *ALWAYS* have to resort to personal attacks (as you did last year when you wrote me an extremely nasty and personal message about my son) when trying to prove a point.

Anyway, I'm putting you permanently on my ignore list. Not worth discussing anything with you.

Not as easy, apparently, as posting as your same tired argument.

Do I need to be a world-class chef to dislike a restaurant?

Do I need to be able to beat Charles Barkley, one on one, to think his basketball game was lacking?


The truth is---one thing doesn't have much to with the other. BUT if you see the world through the prism of your own ego---then this becomes important, I suppose.


I don't need your permission to dislike the great poohbah, Metheny. All I need is my ears, and my knowledge of the history of the music.

Nobody doubts your ability to play---irrelevant though it is to the current debate. But your logic and argumentation chops are lame.

[christianm77]

I can't help but feel there is no fundamental disagreement here and the problem is just wording that is rubbing people up the wrong way.

If I had said - perhaps less critically worded -
- Wes has a old school swing feel honed from the dance bands and jazz rhythm sections of the time.
- Metheny has a different and very modern feel that is influenced by fusion and Brazilian music as well as jazz.

And perhaps

- these are features I have noticed empirically in their rhythmic feel that are different.

I'm not sure anyone would have objected. Would have been a more interesting debate too... But I think TBF the tenor of thread had already been set and I allowed myself to get sucked into it a bit.

The world of music would be a much poorer place without PM, long may he continue doing his thing, even though we may never see the Sanchez/Metheny tour.

After losing Allan, I feel I can't take for granted any more the great generation of players from that era (what I think of as the Ed Sullivan generation.) It was a real shock.

[zdub]

I'm ignoring the thread at this point. It has unnecessarily devolved into way too much anger and personal attacks.

[joaopaz]

Any swing definition you can come up with ..... is NOT swinging.

[yaclaus]

I really should stay away from a thread with so much antagonism (welcome back mr **** ), but I'd like to share my thoughts since I've recently changed my perspective. PM is a legend and whatever I say doesn't matter in the long run. He's a grammy winner and I go dumpster diving for food sometimes. However I had wondered why I thought he sometimes was so difficult to transcribe. I used to think that it was his sheer technical prowess that made it so difficult but recently I've thought that it's simply because his rhythms keep floating all the time. His use of rests are to what I've personally experienced limited and his lines can be very long. I'm a big fan of PM and I know his time is extremely solid but that's still a different thing from this very difficult thing to pin down - swing.

In my last lesson with one of the best contemporary jazz guitarists in the world he plainly said "Pat Metheny doesn't swing". Not to stir controversy - just his plain opinion. So it's not a rare view on his playing. I guess the reason why we discuss this is acutally because we are interested in what makes something swing and how that can differ from solid time. I'd love to hear some imputs to what swing is and who does it well. I'm less interested in pinning down a legend.