-
Originally Posted by fep
-
11-11-2021 10:25 AM
-
I’ve always liked Kenny’s appearances on What’s Up With That.
-
Well somebody appreciates Kenny’s achievements.
-
Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
Originally Posted by sgcim
-
Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
Like I've been saying....
-
Originally Posted by zdub
-
The only thing I hear commonly described as ‘impacted’ is a wisdom tooth.
-
So,
Kenny G was one of the great success stories in the Smooth Jazz wave. His popularity was directly related to people enjoying the music and included some truly great musicians like George Benson, Gerald Albright, Grover Washington, David Sandborn to name a few. It brought many listeners to a form of Jazz considered accessible to everyone much as the Big Band era did before it. Many of its practitioners made millions and it is this fact, for me, that brought the wrath of the aesthetes rather than their lack of artistry or talent. And, in light of Metheney's comments about K's improvisational skills, a reasonable person might respond: there was no reason to play complicated improvisations since they wouldn't fit with the genre or feel of the music. Perhaps K is capable of more improvisationally but they wouldn't make sense in this style/genre. So, when Benson got involved in Smooth Jazz, no Jazz radio stations in Chicago would play his music--new or old. He was blackballed because he "sold out???" The bottom line ,for me, was that talented Jazzers who devoted their lives to their idiom were still struggling, living day to day, while others prospered and became rich by not selling out, but rather taking advantage of a real trend in music. None of them lost their "talent"; many became rich and were able to return to their true love as Benson and Albright certainly did after the wave ended.
In regards to K's musicianship, I speak as a former saxophonist and ask: "What's wrong?" He's not trying to play bop . . . he wants to play music that reaches a wide audience and there's nothing wrong with his technique or sound. The only comment I would make ,as a former saxophonist, is that he is not a natural "tenor man" since he doesn't have the body structure to get a big sound out of the instrument but his playing on alto/soprano are spot on.* And, as far as the Getz project . . . why not? Getz was never a bopper but he certainly was one of the most melodic tenor players of all time. He was never a disciple of "sheets of sound" like Coltrane and never lost the melody improvisationally.
Finally, almost every Jazzer in my generation(Boomer) started out playing pop gigs(R@B/Funk/Soul/R@R, etc.) to pay the bills. It was only after many years of honing their skills on the job that they transitioned full-time to Jazz. Savants like Chet Baker, Lee Morgan, Miles, etc. were the exception to this practice. So, there lies the rub.
Play live . . . Marinero
*The "barrel-chested" tenor man was not myth but reality since physiognomy, as a general rule of thumb, is essential to a big sound with rare exceptions: Baritone player Pepper Adams, and Tenor player, Johnny Griffin--the Little Giant. M
-
Well I don't disagree with any of the above, but let's face it anything that's labelled smooth jazz is a snooze-fest for any real jazz aficionado.
I love GB (and Grover and Lee Ritenauer, etc.) as much as anyone and don't begrudge him his success, but the 30% or so of his catalogue that's smooth jazz or urban R'n'B is just way less interesting than any straight-ahead session he did.
I really don't have an opinion about Kenny G. Which is a pretty negative thing to say about a musician, actually.
-
That is some next-level snarkmanship by Randy Napoleon (who also happens to be a terrific guitar player).
-
Kenny G is providing a valuable educational service - we can safely assume anyone who listens to the album possesses complete ignorance about Stan Getz
-
I've torn up my Kenny G-bashing membership card. Who is he hurting? It's impossible for Mr. G to sully the ever-sterling reputations of Getz and Armstrong. If you don't like his music, don't listen to it. The Desafinado cut posted above is actually pretty nice pro-level playing. I don't seek out his music and it's been a long time since it found me in an elevator. I say live and let live.
-
Originally Posted by BWV
E.g. Spielberg's 2021 release of West Side Story - how many people will now seek out the 1961 version?
-
Originally Posted by jameslovestal
-
"Well I don't disagree with any of the above, but let's face it anything that's labelled smooth jazz is a snooze-fest for any real jazz aficionado." Dr. Jeff
Hi, D,
That would be a difficult statement to rationally defend . . .
Play live . . . Marinero
https://youtu.be/ybnltKJLyN4
-
Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
As for WSS: can a musical where the two leads don't do their own singing but instead are dubbed by pros, be a "most perfect movie musical"? I don't think so.
Anyhow, I see that others are disputing your POV "but let's face it anything that's labelled smooth jazz is a snooze-fest for any real jazz aficionado". It appears you being you're a "real jazz aficionado" and anyone that doesn't label smooth jazz as a snooze-fest isn't a "real" jazz aficionado.
Read that back a few times: doesn't it come off as very arrogant and smug?
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
If you want to like smooth jazz, go for it. I don’t find it nearly as worthwhile as mainstream jazz, but that’s JMO of course. Millions of people like stuff that’s highly processed and bland (again, IMO) like Twinkies and Coors Light and Barefoot Wine. But I wouldn’t compare them to fine cuisine or libations.
Originally Posted by Marinero
Let me put it this way. Which “smooth jazz” records would you nominate as anywhere close to a good classic Miles or Coltrane or Blue Note recording?
Originally Posted by jameslovestal
As far as my opinion, yes I am a jazz snob. I don’t deny it. “Smooth jazz” is nice and sedate and pleasant, but it isn’t jazz. If you want to prove me wrong, feel free to offer some counter examples.
-
I'll be interested to discover what timbre KG chooses or is able to achieve to pair up with Getz.
Does he do it naturally or electronically? Which voice(s)?
Not joining the KG value debate here and don't expect to be 'impacted.'
-
His new project has not 'impacted' me in the slightest.
-
"Let me put it this way. Which “smooth jazz” records would you nominate as anywhere close to a good classic Miles or Coltrane or Blue Note recording?" Doctor Jeff
Hi, D,
I think you "stepped in it" with your last comment( "real Jazz aficionados") and ,wisely, want to change the focus. So, let's look at your above remark which is a classic "Red Herring." Simply, the danger in comparing genres is that you're usually comparing canaries and falcons. SJ never was intended to duplicate nor compete with straight ahead Jazz. It was a blending of elements of Pop Music with a Jazz feel that people listened to regularly and was played in clubs across the country. It sold millions of albums and was a huge commercial success that transformed many hard-working musicians into millionaires while giving others good paying years of steady work. For me, that's a win. In addition to this factor, the SJ bands were loaded with experienced musicians, studio players, and ,yes, hard-core Jazzers' as I mentioned in a previous post. So, that's a win.
Secondly, many serious listeners and musicians have eclectic tastes much as a food, wine, or cigar connoisseurs. Personally, I listen to straight ahead Jazz, Classical, R@B, Funk, Soul, and Smooth Jazz depending on my mood and understand after a lifetime of music, listening to ,say, Wagner's "Tannhauser" is not a daily experience; nor is Smooth Jazz. However, I always enjoyed the soulful "Smooth Sounds?" of Grover Washington, Gerald Albright, George Benson, Kenny G, David Sandborn, Gato Barbieri, Chuck Mangione, to name a few very accomplished musicians who succeeded in this genre. So, D, we can't compare completely different forms of music and be fair in the process as was suggested in your above comment. Thanks for your honest reply.
Play live . . . Marinero
-
Smooth Jazz didn't start off so bad...I think of like the CTI stuff, that was really the beginning, wasn't it?
When it was being made by actual people and a real band, it was great. Now when it's made with a Korg Workstation and a sax player with three overdubs of himself, it lacks...well...everything.
-
Originally Posted by Marinero
I don't even dislike smooth jazz, just don't find it very stimulating. Good background music. I like the vocal music labelled smooth jazz--Sade, Anita Baker, Al Jarreau--quite a bit more, because vocals usually carry more feeling that instruments in those arrangements.
There are different types of smooth jazz though. Feel So Good by CM and Breezin' by GB are both very commercial and helped start the smooth jazz movement. But they are melodically very accomplished, and with great arrangements. And of course Bob James, Spyro Gyra and Grover Washington.
After that though in the '80's IMO most things labeled smooth jazz became overproduced and too commercial. GB's more commercial RNB albums since the '80's just don't compare to his previous output. Great players like Chet Atkins, Lee Ritenour, Larry Carlton and David Sanborn put out very slick albums that were easy listening and not very interesting musically. They also put out some good stuff as well, and most of these guys (who are still with us) have "come back into the fold" with straightahead jazz albums in the last decade or so.
There are a whole bunch of other musicians who have been very successful in the smooth jazz realm who just don't have the cred with straightahead jazz. Real jazz isn't just chord changes or fast scales, it's taking risks and having an interplay with the other musicians you are playing with in real time. That's what's lacking in the smooth jazz genre on the whole.
-
It's an LA thing. Producers there in pop have been using software programs for years to come up with songs/melodies.
-
Smooth jazz can just be an excuse to show-off your roller skating chops;
Home, guitar playing and travel
Today, 06:11 PM in Everything Else