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

[grahambop]

I was just listening to his Day Trip CD and Pat gets more of a swing thing going here (Calvin's Keys).

[christianm77]

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.

Sounds cool to me. I'd rather talk details. Elsewhere?

Are you based in London BTW?

[ronjazz]

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.

Miles changed jazz 5 times, for real. Metheny doesn't pass himself off as anything, he hits the road and proves it night after night. Why the negativity? Envious? Frustrated? Most of your post was well-presented and made good points. Too bad you couldn't resist trashing two of jazz's most influential and creative stars.

[Stevebol]

It's circled in RED.
Swing.

[Stevebol]

Or just use a drum machine;

[goldenwave77]

[QUOTE=ronjazz;764844]Miles changed jazz 5 times, for real.

You're swallowing the Kool-Aid that Miles' A & R/ promo machinery came up with.

He was around, as a bop player.....there were PLENTY of others (Diz; Howard McGhee, Fats Navarro, Don Byas)...he didn't even get to NY until 1946. And yes, he played w/ Bird... and struggled to keep up...but he was well off, and being supported and probably didn't mind being stiffed by him, time after time, pay-wise. If Miles had never been there---guess what, the music still was. That's one.

Cool music (?)---he cut 2 singles that were released into an album 4 yrs later (Complete Birth of the Cool). He got together w/ Gil Evans who liked Claude Thornhill's stuff, and Evans put together arrangements. Cool musicians like Mulligan and some others were put in despite Miles' original preference for more straight bop guys. It's in his book. He shouldn't "take credit" for something he wasn't responsible for, which was happening already (the whole West Coast scene), and which was pretty fleeting, in any event. When the mythologizing and hero-worship train start, I jump off.


Modal stuff---I'll probably grant you that one.

Electrified stuff (?)---this is Miles, going through a mid-life crisis, seeing Sly and the Family Stone, and others, and black youth deserting jazz IN DROVES....just the same way they did back when "R & B" and Soul
displaced bop, and the old "Race Records" color line, was crossed for good. (The success of MoTown Records, simply would not have happened in the 1920's or 30's.) Other people (Gary Burton, etc.) were doing fusion-y stuff already, but Miles who still had a huge fan base, got noticed, and he takes the credit for it.

Just read Miles' book, closely.


Did Eric Clapton "change acoustic guitar music" ?....no, he didn't....but for damn sure, he sold a LOT of albums, and there were a LOT of acoustic guitars sold, as a result of the "Unplugged" phenomenon.

(Clapton, to his credit, doesn't try to claim he "invented" acoustic guitar. I actually believe Clapton turned to drug use because he saw the gap between being a "Guitar God"...."Slowhand", and what his actual abilities were....struggling to keep pace with the other 2 Cream musicians who were bona fide jazz guys.)

I've said before that I own more Miles albums than any other artist. His tone is thin and can crack, his speed is not like Dizzy or Freddy Hubbard, but he is a very compositional improviser....and he had a knack for putting together great bands. But we don't need to make him more than he was.

And also....in his own lifetime, he was beyond reproach....the most successful jazz artist in history, and I see the exact same thing happening with Metheny. This thread kind of proves it, I think.

And it's unnecessary, and unfounded, and maybe even harmful. You have a whole generation of people thinking jazz=Pat Metheny. And that is toxic.

And you have a whole generation of jazz guitarists, many of whom fell off the classical guitar wagon, and turned to jazz. And they see Metheny...and they say to themselves..."Swing...who needs it...wants it....
Let's play the 19th mode of the Vulcan Harmonic Major-Minor and push the music to a place it should go".

Personally, I think this will all be a dead end....like "Progressive Rock" (do you notice that nobody calls it "Progressive Rock n' Roll").

This country is amazingly good at obliterating its own history...and the Metheny's of the world, in effect, are doing a pretty good job of erasing everything that occurred from say 1900-1965. And that is pathetic.

Maybe the Latin Jazz thing, or the World Jazz thing, will succeed in not obliterating the rhythmic sense that, to me, makes jazz distinctive.

[MikeTT]

just listen to PMs Union Pacific solo, if this is not perfectly swinging I don't what to say...

[drbhrb]

Did Eric Clapton "change acoustic guitar music" ?....no, he didn't....but for damn sure, he sold a LOT of albums, and there were a LOT of acoustic guitars sold, as a result of the "Unplugged" phenomenon.

(Clapton, to his credit, doesn't try to claim he "invented" acoustic guitar. I actually believe Clapton turned to drug use because he saw the gap between being a "Guitar God"...."Slowhand", and what his actual abilities were....struggling to keep pace with the other 2 Cream musicians who were bona fide jazz guys.)

Just an aside - but Clapton didn't get the name slowhand to describe his playing. He had a reputation for having to change strings on stage and the crowd would give him the slow hand (slow clap) while he did it.

[vinlander]

Someone's objective credibility rarely go beyond his credentials, the thing with fora and social networks is they give a platform to pretty much everyone to go beyond that, then it starts to be funny...or not

[BeanSinger]

What a thread. And it just keeps on going! That in itself says a lot. The Calvin's Keys track says more. And this one with Jim Hall...

When Metheny comes in with his solo, that is the reason I am a Metheny fan. That feel. My orientation is actually more Jimmy Raney, Billy Bean, Hall and that era. I am not a big contemporary fan actually. But Metheny is the only one who has that feel like that. Call it swing or whatever, but that is what connects him to the older players I like so much in ways that I don't hear in many others of the more "modern" school that Metheny seems to have spawned.

Regarding Brecker and his records. He could have gotten anyone. Any guitar player on the planet would have killed for that chance. His choice was Metheny from his first to his last, I think it was six records total. And that is before even talking about Metheny's own 80/81.

[BeanSinger]

Also, on the topic of "personal cliches". How about that Wes Montgomery fellow? He did his "personal cliche-d" octaves on almost every tune!

[christianm77]

What a thread. And it just keeps on going! That in itself says a lot. The Calvin's Keys track says more. And this one with Jim Hall...

When Metheny comes in with his solo, that is the reason I am a Metheny fan. That feel. My orientation is actually more Jimmy Raney, Billy Bean, Hall and that era. I am not a big contemporary fan actually. But Metheny is the only one who has that feel like that. Call it swing or whatever, but that is what connects him to the older players I like so much in ways that I don't hear in many others of the more "modern" school that Metheny seems to have spawned.

Regarding Brecker and his records. He could have gotten anyone. Any guitar player on the planet would have killed for that chance. His choice was Metheny from his first to his last, I think it was six records total. And that is before even talking about Metheny's own 80/81.

Sadly this won't play for me where I am (copyright)

Yeah it's just personal taste, really.

I really like Bill Frisell for instance and you wouldn't describe him as having an old school swing feel either - just never really connected that much with PM. But if I hear him on a record, I'm usually like, oh cool Metheny.

He's always on point and sounds great and I can see why Brecker chose him to play on his records.

There's a wider point here about how you express criticism of any player. Is it a good idea? Should you never say anything unless its positive? Specific praise is a pretty cool thing, I think. Even if you don't dig a player, you can usually find one thing to praise about them at least.

A lot of people are very bland and positive about other players in public (without being at all specific), whatever they say in private. But in the old days it used to much more open - abusive even haha.

I know great musicians who have dismissed, perhaps even professed that they hate - John Scofield, Bill Frisell, Jonathan Kreisberg, Julian Lage, Kurt Rosenwinkel, Pat Metheny, Peter Bernstein etc - hopefully when I am a fan of the player I have resisted the temptation to wade in in their defence, although I think a lively conversation about why they don't like that player might teach you something about their aesthetic sense.

Their opinion generally doesn't affect mine. But on a couple of occasions people have said something specific that has affected the way I hear that player, and not in a good way lol!

Anyway these are private discussions...

But some players I carry on digging even though I can hear the thing the other person doesn't like.

There are some players I used to love who I don't enjoy so much now because my ears have changed but I'm never embarrassed that I liked them - it's important part of developing.

Maybe I'll be all about Metheny in 5 years, who knows?

[vinlander]

[destinytot]

It is what it is. I love it; pure yin - bring your own yang.

[fasstrack]

Sadly this won't play for me where I am (copyright)

Yeah it's just personal taste, really.

I really like Bill Frisell for instance and you wouldn't describe him as having an old school swing feel either - just never really connected that much with PM. But if I hear him on a record, I'm usually like, oh cool Metheny.

He's always on point and sounds great and I can see why Brecker chose him to play on his records.

There's a wider point here about how you express criticism of any player. Is it a good idea? Should you never say anything unless its positive? Specific praise is a pretty cool thing, I think. Even if you don't dig a player, you can usually find one thing to praise about them at least.

A lot of people are very bland and positive about other players in public (without being at all specific), whatever they say in private. But in the old days it used to much more open - abusive even haha.

I know great musicians who have dismissed, perhaps even professed that they hate - John Scofield, Bill Frisell, Jonathan Kreisberg, Julian Lage, Kurt Rosenwinkel, Pat Metheny, Peter Bernstein etc - hopefully when I am a fan of the player I have resisted the temptation to wade in in their defence, although I think a lively conversation about why they don't like that player might teach you something about their aesthetic sense.

Their opinion generally doesn't affect mine. But on a couple of occasions people have said something specific that has affected the way I hear that player, and not in a good way lol!

Anyway these are private discussions...

But some players I carry on digging even though I can hear the thing the other person doesn't like.

There are some players I used to love who I don't enjoy so much now because my ears have changed but I'm never embarrassed that I liked them - it's important part of developing.

Maybe I'll be all about Metheny in 5 years, who knows?

He is definitely unique and in command of his tool kit. It's notey, but he makes you like it. It flows in a way that's purely and unequivocally HIM.

One time I was on the way to James Chirillo's, and WKCR played a CD I just had to know the name of. It was a knockout. Went inside and we turned the radio on.

It was Brecker's Tales of the Hudson, with Metheny, and it was the guitar playing (and tune) that knocked me out...

[yaclaus]

Sounds cool to me. I'd rather talk details. Elsewhere?

Are you based in London BTW?

Denmark (=my rent is 250 quid yay!), but only a one hour flight away from London. When I went to Yorkshire (Hull) I chose Manchester airport though out of sheer fright of the size and stress of going through London
(sorry for OT talk)

I found this recently. It's pretty solid. I also listened to his record with Scofield that is pretty good.
I still don't understand why one cannot pass criticism along of Metheny. I could transcribe his Slings and Arrows solo. It would take me a week probably and I can play the melody of Satin Doll, but even if I couldn't critique is a useful tool to understand the music we surround ourselves with. I went to a Metheny concert with a psychologist who enjoys jazz casually. He didn't like it at all and he is completely entitled to his opinion. It's a democrazy you know (with emphasis on the crazy part though).

[Gabor]

You're swallowing the Kool-Aid that Miles' A & R/ promo machinery came up with.

I think if even we (you) prove in every detail your statements about Miles, and even it turns out you are 100% right, that still does not prove any statement about PM. It would be more effective to talk about PM if we have thoughts/opinion about PM. I understand you see an analogy, I understand why, still Miles leads too far...

And it's unnecessary, and unfounded, and maybe even harmful. You have a whole generation of people thinking jazz=Pat Metheny. And that is toxic.

You are assuming, if a listener likes/idolize PM then he/surely does not like other jazz. Actually you are assuming this about a whole generation. Maybe you did not mean this, but the statement you made means this. Also harmful, and toxic are not appropriate I think. To give some examples what I mean: Eating a sugar dose what many people do in daily basis that's toxic and harmful. Also some thoughts like violence, rage, revenge are harmful and toxic.

Let's play the 19th mode of the Vulcan Harmonic Major-Minor and push the music to a place it should go.

I completely agree, if we would do this, we would miss the point: music. However actually it's not PM's strength to play that staff. I really like his ability to improvise melodies. A very few musician can do that. I think PM is in the top league regarding that attribute, and not only amongst guitarists.

Personally, I think this will all be a dead end....like "Progressive Rock" (do you notice that nobody calls it "Progressive Rock n' Roll").

I really understand what you mean, and you are right: There is no continuation of "Progressive Rock" nowadays. However this does not mean anything about the value of that music. Regardless if is or is not continuation, that music could be very valuable. Regardless if anyone like or dislikes Emerson (ELP) or Pink Floyd, the albums Trilogy, Tarkus, Wish You Were Here and Dark Side of the Moon are actually almost half century old (wow!) pieces and we now we can say: all that staff stands for the test of time, so there is a great chance that after an other half century those music will be known and part of our common cultural valuables.

This country is amazingly good at obliterating its own history...and the Metheny's of the world, in effect, are doing a pretty good job of erasing everything that occurred from say 1900-1965. And that is pathetic.

I agree, erasing or overwriting history is pathetic (what's more: that what is really harmful). However I think involving history is not a good example here, I mean: Just because Mozart did something really new compared to Bach legacy that did not mean he wanted to "erase" Bach. To get the jazz example I do not think that Charlie Parker ever wanted to "erase" say Louis Armstrong. Obviusly PM also do not want erase Louis Armstrong. So doing something new, based on a legacy does not mean any negative thing.

(hopefully at least some reader is with me here :-)

Talking about the importance of respecting our legacy and PM and Armstrong here an interesting fact: Actually PM was who multiple times actively undertake to defend publicly the legacy when Kenny G overdubbed Armstrong:

PMs words: (emphasis is mine)

"...Not long ago, Kenny G put out a recording where he overdubbed himself on top of a 30+ year old Louis Armstrong record, the track "What a Wonderful World". With this single move, Kenny G became one of the few people on earth I can say that I really can't use at all - as a man, for his incredible arrogance to even consider such a thing, and as a musician, for presuming to share the stage with the single most important figure in our music. This type of musical necrophilia..."
(JazzOasis.com - Pat Metheny on Kenny G)

(there are many links in the internet, even there are youtube videos (interviews with PM) when he talks about this in live speech, so just google for: [Pat Metheny about Kenny G] and pick your most authentic.)

[destinytot]

...
To get the jazz example I do not think that Charlie Parker ever wanted to "erase" say Louis Armstrong. Obviusly PM also do not want erase Louis Armstrong. So doing something new, based on a legacy does not mean any negative thing.

(hopefully at least some reader is with me here :-)

Talking about the importance of respecting our legacy and PM and Armstrong here an interesting fact: Actually PM was who multiple times actively undertake to defend publicly the legacy when Kenny G overdubbed Armstrong:

PMs words: (emphasis is mine)

"...Not long ago, Kenny G put out a recording where he overdubbed himself on top of a 30+ year old Louis Armstrong record, the track "What a Wonderful World". With this single move, Kenny G became one of the few people on earth I can say that I really can't use at all - as a man, for his incredible arrogance to even consider such a thing, and as a musician, for presuming to share the stage with the single most important figure in our music. This type of musical necrophilia..."
(JazzOasis.com - Pat Metheny on Kenny G)

(there are many links in the internet, even there are youtube videos (interviews with PM) when he talks about this in live speech, so just google for: [Pat Metheny about Kenny G] and pick your most authentic.)

Great points - yours and Pat Metheny's (about the "incredible arrogance" of putting out a "recording where he overdubbed himself on top of a 30+ year old Louis Armstrong record...").

[destinytot]

The word 'best' in the thread title is a Trojan horse.

Off to study some superlatively beautiful Marty Grosz.

[fasstrack]

Well, Pat certainly hit the ground running on this, but to be honest, this is not my favorite aspect of him: kind of relentless, no breathing or spaces. But it's intense---like Trane. One has to be in a certain mood for it, I guess. But he's always commanding.

Joe Diorio, OTOH, (whose Wes dedication was at the end, after Pat's) was another story: measured, purposeful, mature and wise improvising. When he used 'licks' they were 'glue' leading into the next chance he took. He was always great, from the '60s days with Stitt and Eddie Harris, and Wes acknowledged him in a Canada interview. This is nice payback, especially since he didn't fall into the 'obvious' trap of using Wes's devices. He honored him by being Joe Diorio.

My only carps would be that I sure wish he'd have turned the treble up some. The tone was almost muddy, and it lent a sort of monotony to the proceedings. Also, I would have liked to hear more of a 'conversation' within the trio. The soloist supported by rhythm players has been done to death. I love Joe, though, and I'm glad he's back in action after being sidelined for some time by a stroke in '05...

[goldenwave77]

The thing about Metheny is that he occupies the same position that Dave Brubeck did back in the late 50's and early 60's--a bridge to a larger world of jazz. For many, many people, they have a few jazz CD's (downloads) and Metheny's stuff is likely to be one of them. Miles Davis also had that status. If I met a new woman, and asked her what's in her music collection that's jazz, the answer probably would be "Kind of Blue" or the Brubeck "Time Out" album, or maybe the "Starbucks Coffee" samplers of jazz.

Metheny IS the headliner for many festivals whose job/role, frankly, is to put "fannies into seats" (one Hollywood mogul's definition of "stardom"). At Detroit 2 yrs. ago, my gf, a casual listener of jazz wanted to go see him because she recognized his name. We did---and walked out after 20 minutes. She said his music bored her.


The people on this forum are a small sliver (jazz guitarists) of a tiny portion of an iceberg (jazz fans), floating in a vast sea of a musically indifferent population.

Metheny seems to be the self-appointed spokesman for the jazz community. His comments about Kenny G. and now Pasquale Grosso show this.

(I actually think Kenny G. might have sent a lot of people back to listen to Louis A.)

(Some may say I'm doing the same--acting as spokesman, and with a lot less justification/authority behind it. All I can say is that if my ideas/observations don't stand on their own merit, they don't deserve to stand. And their merit shouldn't be assessed on how many 16th notes I can play, on guitar, at some metronome setting. I have no illusions about my standing--I fully expect to be dead, in 15 yrs., with the greater world unaware that I ever existed. And this is probably true for 99% of the people on here.)

I listened to that clip of Metheny playing "All The Things You Are" at breakneck speed. It's a pretty good illustration of why I don't like MUCH jazz, played on a guitar. He certainly gets a lot of notes out....the phrasing doesn't grab me....the drummer is heavy-handed, and is killing (not in a good way) the music. There is no joy, to me, in this performance. Pretty clearly, Metheny rehearsed it a lot to be able to get it out....on the stage...in tempo. Contrast this to Hank Garland and Gary Burton's version on "Jazz Winds From a New Direction". There are also about 100 versions by probably 25 trumpeters or sax players, that I would rather listen to, than this version by Metheny.

Honestly, if the only jazz I could ever listen to was stuff played on guitar, I'd go listen to country, or classical, or blues, and leave the jazz world behind. The guitar to me is a "first rate, 2nd rate" instrument....can't do the harmony stuff that a piano can---can't do the single line stuff that a trumpet or sax can. But it's portable, cheap, and you can play it quietly enough not to bother neighbors.

[fasstrack]

Great points - yours and Pat Metheny's (about the "incredible arrogance" of putting out a "recording where he overdubbed himself on top of a 30+ year old Louis Armstrong record...").

The REAL arrogance here is Mr. Metheney making himself THE spokesman for jazz. Get over yourself, dude.

He even said he'd 'break a guitar over his head'. Whatever you think of Kenny G. or what he did on that record, we're supposed to be men and women of peace, bearers of good will. Pat, you f&&ed up...

[destinytot]

He even said he'd 'break a guitar over his head'.

I wasn't aware he'd said that.

But I doubt whether he'd have meant it to be taken literally....

[vinlander]

Its of course never a good thing as an artist to criticise another one "in public", it is somehow tasteless.
It is a bit also like what happens in classical music with the very successful André Rieu performing classical music in a very accessible way.
I never really understood why Pat brought himself down to that level, as he is one of the very few Jazz guitarist who actually can "really" live well from recording and performing his own music.
It is the kind of attitude that should be expected from a starving musician expressing its frustration in front of Art turning to kitsch.
You never raise yourself by bringing down anyone

[fasstrack]

You never raise yourself by bringing down anyone

That is a wonderful line.

May I steal it? I'll give you credit...