-
I think that's pretty much it. But it's a never ending argument, and many of the people actually making the music care about it a lot less than the people talking about the music.That and some people are more eclectic than others and are harder to categorize.
Originally Posted by lawson-stone
John
-
09-24-2019 01:08 PM
-
Well, I'm gonna call it jazz because to me it is. And pretty entertaining at that. Now there are other forms of jazz that you probably consider the only 'true' jazz, and it's fine. I probably wouldn't find those forms as entertaining for my listening pleasure. I never was a bebop fanatic anyway. But it's just another form of jazz, I call it pop jazz, whatever. Originally Posted by Gabor
In any genre purism is not something I believe in. And btw, not a big fan of Dark Side Of The Moon, always found it a little too mellow for my taste. Call it jazz that maybe a little stretch though, haha.
-
Yeah, but how many jazz songs are in 7/4?? Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
-
I know this effect. PM categorized as jazz, even in my mind since 30 years. Why? Because of Berklee, the famous ATTYA with a single metronome on 2,4 and because his partners, like Charlie Haden, Billy Higgins, Dewey Redman, Michael Brecker and more This is jazz. Btw he was my hero for 25 years. Originally Posted by lawson-stone
Now I am questioning my thoughts about his place in jazz history. My very first doubt is he is uniquely different from all other legends: There is no way to build something new based on his achievements. (explain later) All jazz legends did something new, but the same time built a step for the nexts to build on. You mentioned Charlie Parker, I mentioned Bill Evans but we can name all real legends. This is not true for PM. He did something new, but there is no way to build on a next step. This lack should mean something. Kreisberg, Jesse van Ruler, Rosenwinkel, Hekselman and many others must go back, and skip PM and build from pre PM, because PM is not a "build from material". (Please do not quote 2 bars from young Rosenwinkel or Kreisberg which is a PM lick). Their style and harmonic approach, and all path discovering to elevate jazz guitar to higher level is really not related with PM's work. In this aspect (regardless his music's value) PM seems to be a derail for the next generations instead of an inspiration. (well they may be inspired to be a guitar player by PM, as I was inspired by Jimmy Page and Ritchie Blackmore) Their music completely ignores PM. Not mentioned Peter Bernstein, who was nine years old when Bright Size Life came out, so we consider him (half) next generation, no traces of PM on him.
I think this theory is pretty much provable in the 45 years time perspective, and not matter of taste. My second doubt I must admit is just a feeling not more: I feel the whole harmonic concept and melody world, well: immature, infantile. It could be a product of a genius, still... This immaturity is OK for a youngster, but still seeing the world such a simplistic way (I am talking about message from his music) after 45 years of work?. Again it is only my perception, after PMs 45 years work, still no signs of any mature thought or message. Emotionally the listener has nothing to do, nothing to discover, all is prepared, all is explained. Just eat, it is sweet. (or sweet-bitter). Executing really unique and super patterns is not complexity neither maturity. Also hearing any extension over any chord in any progression context is not maturity. (I wish I had the 100th of his ear, but this does not relevant.)
I hope this all above is not too harsh, just honest thoughts, the last thing I would like to do bother anybody who likes music and PM.
-
That is a genuinely interesting take and thought parts of it are "hard" I would not call it harsh. I hadn't thought about the issue of how one builds on Metheny's music. I know guys who want to copy him, but that's more imitation, not extension.I actually don't know the music of the players you mention well enough to give you any decent conversation on those points. Originally Posted by Gabor
I'm not sure I'd call his concept immature. I think I see the point you're making, though. Whether it's immature, or whether he is someone who likes simply opening doors and moving to try the same tools on a new set of problems, I can't say. I sometimes see him similar to Joe Pass on one point: in neither do I see much musical evolution. Joe Pass kind of came on the scene fully formed. He just did what he did, amazingly, for his whole career. He was doing the solo thing very early, and he was still burning it up in ensembles at the end. Likewise, Metheny seems to start out, even in his early recordings, with the whole toolbox he's going to use for the rest of his career. He'll change contexts a lot, bring in other influences like Brazilian, or synth, but the underlying musical bag is the same. It's amazing, and I listen to PM all the time, crazy about the guy's music. Maybe what I'm seeing is "fully formed without much evolution at the core" is what you are seeing as immaturity? He did all his growing off-stage, as it were?
I feel very out of place saying such things, since I am the King of Lame in playing jazz. But we all have to ask why we like, don't like, or whatever, what we do.
Good conversation. Thanks.
-
Most seemed to miss the point of this post, but I imagine some marketing exec was trying to promote Metheny to the same customer as Kenny G, to the point that both videos could have used the same director and stylist....I think a lot of the same people bought both of their product. Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
-
PM is his marketing exec, I mean the decision maker,. This is what about all we agree here regardless any opinion difference. So the message of this video, and also the target audience of this video is solely his responsibility also. Definitely targets all the Kenny G audience + all additional listeners, who respects PM and accepts even this from him, via positive bias. But without missing the point, this does not mean PM is the same league as Kenny G, as OP mention it. Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
Last edited by Gabor; 09-24-2019 at 11:19 PM.
-
Those guys you mentioned, they not only skipped PM, they skipped Sco, Frisell, the whole blues thing and whatnot, and made jazz guitar academic and dry. With the exception of Jesse (I like his style), this new crop of jazz guitar players, post -Rosenwinkle, is exactly what I don't follow. I take anything from PM any day than most of those guys. You're saying it's a higher level, but it's lost on me. I'm not interested to follow their brand of jazz. Originally Posted by Gabor
-
Agree with the main statement, you may have some right, I did not realized this. (just for the record Julian Lage just turned to "Bill Frissel" , and he and Hekselman became recently a Telecaster guy, so they build on Bill Frissel) Agree Jesse van Ruller is exceptional all of them. Do not agree Kreisberg is academic or dry. Listen his ballads he masters them, that is full depth content opposed to Longest Summer. Also do not agree, neither of them skipped blues or and JVR and Kreisberg did not skipped bebop they actively build on it, and creating something new. Regarding Peter Bernstein, he is a very hard listening (exactly the opposite of PM) but worth the effort and multiple tries, he also did not skipped the legacy, but skipped PM Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
Mentioning Scofield and the importance of legacy... out of topic, but I can not stand it not to post. This is a wow! (imho) What a swing, still creative and innovative, trademark Sco. And note, this is not an old recording from the youngster:
Last edited by Gabor; 09-25-2019 at 03:38 AM.
-
Whenever I think of the new guys I think of chops and fretboard knowledge. I’m not saying the older guys didn’t have this, but it seems to be a primary aspect of the new school. Craft. I like the way Julian is moving away from this.
Peter Bernstein is a genuine artist I think. Takes commonplace materials and makes them unique.
-
This! Chops and fretboard knowledge is fine, but the vibe is different. I can hear this, but I can't hear blues and rocknroll, I can't hear Chuck Berry or BB King or Hendrix, or The Beatles and Rolling Stones in their playing. I'm not coming from bebop, either. Originally Posted by christianm77
PM is targeted so many times on this forum, it's not fair. I feel like starting I Cant Get Into Lage Lund for example, but first I don't like the negativity, and second, I don't think he's a same league and generates as much interest.
But yes, Julian Lage is cool, he's a breath of fresh air in today's jazz guitar world.
-
Sco is one of my fav, anything by him. But I think there's a fundamental difference between him and like Kreisberg or even Bernstein. Originally Posted by Gabor
-
I like some of his stuff with the band - by there too by the way ... I noticed that some things that sound impressive and expressive at the beginning turned out to be pretty academic too... i do not know how to explain it - maybe when you hear it first time it sounds fresh but then you can hear he does it in another song and another song and you begin to hear it more in detail and it opens up as very formulatic thing...Do not agree Kreisberg is academic or dry. Listen his ballads he masters them, that is full depth content opposed to Longest Summer
I began to feel like his expressionis is more of a gesture than of a musical contents.
But still I can really enjoy his playing and consider him a top-notch musician.
but some of his solo guitar records - this is what I do not get... they iften sound like pretty standard book-style arrangement - yes maybe compex and elaborated but still it's very standard classical texture..
My Favourite Things or Tenderly... these two are more moving but for example Hallelujah and I Thought About You are just textbook fingerstyle arrangements... skillfully made and played but I do not get what they are about and for. Basically being written down carefully every good pro guitarist can play them approximately the same way.
I offer here a few versions of Tenderly - just to show the difference in approach... not to say Kreisberg is bad or something.
Kreiseberg, Benson, Burrell...
By the way I thing a great difference in overall feel may come from teh fact that Besnson and Burell play deffinitely with a pick (maybe Benson with a thumb) and Kreisberg probably plays all fingerstyle? I am not sure... maybe for Joe Pass it did not make much difference but for new school players it definitely does... pick, thumb or even hybrid picking make different texture more rythmically unstable .. the accents are not that even occasional strumming makes it sound a bit more spontaneous... also the choice of chords can be different (often more rythm chords than harmonic chords)
Jonathan's version is nice, it contains some - probably - interesting voicings and harmonizations but it si so sterile to my ear...
it sounds like he has lead sheet in fromn of him and I am almost sure that it is not so difficult to repeat once you have good technical skills.
Also pretty stranfe and modern time feel... he is like standing and not going anywhere. Maybe it is too good timing for me - imperfect human being...
Here is GB solo version of Tenderly - I can't say it is great... GB is definitely being taken away on it as it happens to him sometimes .... so it sounds a bit crazy... but still it is so jazzy and even if it is pre-arranged (I do not know... could be partly of course) it sounds so spontaneous... it sounds like right now he is telling some kind of story to me... looking for batter words saying sometimes even 'hm', 'you know'
Though he does not do anything special... mostly it is brisky virtuoso style playing
But from the first note of melody it sounds very jazz in phrasing and very GB
And for another example Kenny Burrell solo version too. He sounds like a 'maitre' here to me... and he does sound old school of course.. some specific approaches with chords and bass agains melody are very typical (da-da-dam).
But also listen how loose the phrasing is and how it is directed to somewhere how it goes on.. Kenny really could build up a form ...
-
I think a substantial part of Metheny's influence over later generations is the tendency to diminish the blues influence. Compared to the generation before Metheny or a contemporary like Scofield, Metheny is decidedly unbluesy. He's not really an earthy player. Which works for him, but when it becomes more a more general trait in jazz guitar playing I miss hearing it.
-
Now we are completely hijacked, but regarding this thread this not necessary a bad thing :-) Originally Posted by Jonah
I really loved Benson's (actually knew it, and listened multiple times a years ago on Spotify)
If anybody mentions Kreisberg's mechanical patterns are annoying I must agree. I simply do not understand why is he keep doing this... But this is only the part of the story I think.
When I wrote he is great in ballads, I was thinking about something like this below.
Just take the song interpretation, the rhythm freedom and the many nuances of every note's volume is really just soulful. (imho) The interpretation is faithful, still many points new and creative. Builds on Ed Bickert, but goes further both rhythmically both harmony wise.
Regarding the solo, well some points there are the patterns, so focus on the remaining 50%. (I know it may ruins the thing for someone, still try to accept a listen the remaining parts) On the remaining 50% you hear many surprises, melody, and also goes even further in independent harmony and melody playing.
In some point seeing his hand just not understand, how could this sound like pianist two independent's hand.
Last edited by Gabor; 09-25-2019 at 08:19 AM.
-
Actually this is a good hi-jack. These are some very carefully thought out opinions, based on direct observations of the actual music, by a circle of people who are serious about the music and about their playing. I'm really appreciating the turn this discussion has taken. Originally Posted by Gabor
-
Interesting, I see as Julian Lage currently actually moving into this, compared to his earlier style... in terms of artificial and cold. The same time his style starts to be ambiguous, and to be plays exact Bill Frisell style tunes. A bit confusing... Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Matter of taste, I think. Originally Posted by Gabor
Maybe I’ve had my fill of modern archtop noodlers.
Actually that is completely untrue, I was just listening to Lage Lund. I pretty much listen to him for articulation and tone though. Which is quite specific lol. I just find the clarity of his playing mesmerising.
I don’t want to dismiss players. You take what you need from them. I see some points I sympathise with here, I’ll say that.
-
Oh man, I'll add my 2 cents.
I've been listening to PM for 40 years now (OMG!). I'm still taken by his music and I like pretty much everything he does (I could do without "Zero Tolerance..", though).
To me as a composer he is without example in the jazz world, his compositions are great (the man has his own Real Book) and together with Wes Montgomery and Jim Hall he is probably the most influential guitarist in jazz.
Time will tell that "The Way Up" is a masterpiece in composition.
You don't have to like him but nobody can deny that he is one of the most influential musicians in jazz.
Where are the new Methenys? Nobody with that scope has shown up on the scene...
-
@Jonah, that thing you identify about JK's timing sort of being static and not moving anywhere... I feel it too. A fellow guitarist who is hugely into the old guys put it this way - guys like Grant and Kenny have a'big beat' - their playing has momentum. I'm loathe to criticise because, hey these guys are all have waaaay better time than me, but... there's is value to be had in listening critically and working out what's going on.
A lot of the more modern players have a more 'dead on' sort of feel where their time is really good, but quite mathematical.
The very even, perfect, approach to articulation used by most players (the very thing that astounds me about Lage Lund) doesn't help this. Barry Harris - for me a paragon of swing - characterises modern players as 'having their heads stuck in mode books' and points out that they 'never play a triplet.' It's hard not to agree with him listening to the 8th note improv style that has become dominant. Obviously, if you are a pure alternate picker like JK, you will tend to play in 8ths, but a lot of the modern players aren't (and to me Pat Martino still has that snaky feel even though he alt picks and plays lots of unbroken 8ths.)
So, this links into education I think - so much modern discussion of rhythm is based on explicit knowledge, mathematical polyrhythms, becoming tight with the metronome, doing that thing where you set the metronome to tick on alternate Wednesdays and stay in synch, and so on. These quantifiable tasks are obviously highly measurable - making them useful for practice goals and assessment of one's own performance - and also can be practiced individually, for hours, in a practice room. Time is a thing you can get right, or wrong, and the more accurate you are to the click, the better.
But what everyone agrees is that Kenny, Grant, George and the cats came out of what Jean Lave would call a situated learning environment that valued tacit knowledge - experiential learning on the gig, on the bandstand, being schooled by elder players as part of a community. Time becomes part of the art form. You can certainly get it wrong, but there are variations from player to player, band to band.
It's noticeable to me that Metheny talks about metronomes and drum machines, but is very quick to point out the importance of playing with great drummers in his lesson above. He learned primarily on the stand.
So that generation, Metheny, Sco, Stern, Bill, etc, all have (for me) a sense that time is part of their expression. The way Pat plays within the beat, the way Sco lays waaaay back, Stern's 'fat time' and so on... The newer players I think see timing more as a science.
But maybe that's BS.
-
I think you'd be hard pressed to say Julian Lage's scope is not gigantic. Jazz, blues, bluegrass, classicalish, seemingly whatever he wants. Originally Posted by Gearhead
Gilad Hekselman is pretty inventive. Not jazz but Derrick Gripper is continually inspiring.
I really like a lot of Metheny but I think the post Metheny players take the mass of what he's done and make it maybe more musical.
-
You're right, I love many of the "new" players but I was also thinking in terms of their abilities as composers and in that reign no-one comparable has shown up. Originally Posted by sully75
-
That's not BS, that's exactly it. You analyzed it very well, bravo. Timing is what separate them, the time feel. My teacher used to say jazz is sex + math, so these new players, post PM and Sco, it's just math. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Lage would be my vote for next Metheny. Biographical similarities too! But the world has changed.... Originally Posted by sully75
-
It is real interesting how we see some things so identically, and regarding the very same aspect with other players so differently.
For example about time...
I think PMs words about time and good drummer may be misinterpreted. In my understanding he talks about a very precise drummer, not a real swinging drummer.
This seems to be according my perception about PMs time is way more close to the "next generation" than to Sco's. Without linking the videos, please refer to Sco's Alone Together I posted, what is a real swing time, any horn player from 50s 60s, 70s could be proud of it. Then listen any PMs 8th, for example the teaching video (actually a tape, but on youtube), it is more even, fluid. This is consistent what PMs say about the importance of playing with a good drummer, when learning, practicing. He recommends it instead metronome.
Yes I know. There are inconsistencies in my theory: Jack DeJohnette on 80/81 swings like hell (btw that's what we should call "good time").I mean for example how Jack ends Turnaround on 80/81, it itself worth zillion words about rythm.
We should say: Jack is swinging like hell, so PM does not need to: He can float in a very fluid way over Jack, or even he can play his trademark polyrythms, the swing is already provided. (Just for the record, Charlie Haden is there too) Which is OK, just see it where the good rythm is coming from..Actually this produce really great result.
PM has extraordinary time in the meaning, he can do anything, without be out of sync, like he has an internal clock. He itself said in the very same teching video, inside the tick must be go on with the speedest metric what you are intending to play. What is the exact opposite what is swing, and what Jack is doing.
In case he plays alone (again the teaching video, or the solo ATTYA with the 2/4 metronom on the stage), we can hear an extraordinary fluid but even 16th with interesting accents. + plus interesting trademarks like 5 over 4.
So I really do not see any common in Sco's time and PM's time.Last edited by Gabor; 09-25-2019 at 02:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
Roman Dodecahedron (12 sided) die discovered,...
Today, 11:16 AM in Everything Else