Pat Metheny on Kenny G and other Jazz greats

Let's hear it for Kenny!

attachment.php


Also from Wikipedia: Kenny G has stated that all the proceeds from "What A Wonderful World" go to his Kenny G Miracles Foundation which "funnel(s) the money to charities to purchase musical instruments and to supplement funding for the arts in schools."

Kenny is a bit of an outsider in the jazz scene and does his own thing. He probably just thought, "Hey, that would be fun!".

It looks to me to be one of those common faux pas where one has no idea how important something is to others until they blow up. I've done a million of 'em myself. Like the time I was at a dinner party and, being an instant coffee girl, just filled up the filter coffee jug to when people asked for more. I'm still being given heaps about that one 5 years later - lol

But I'll tell you what, I won't be doing that again and I doubt Kenny will do another Sachmo cover either. Never mind, lots more gaucheness where that came from.

How uncool is Kenny? Also from Wikipedia: He is also one of the original investors in the Starbucks coffee house chain. Hmm, maybe he is evil? :)

Polly aka Klutzes R Us

PS. A Kenny G joke ... Kenny walks into an elevator and says, "Hey! This place is really happening!"
 
Last edited:
I fully understand the passionate defence of something that one believes has been desecrated, yet, it's the degree of venom that surprises me. The automatic assumption seems to be that the cover artist intended insult to the original and surely the only reason for such artistic folly must be financial gain. The flip side of the coin may be that the cover artist really believes they've done a good job, maybe even paid homage in some small way. I think it's highly presumptious of anyone to second guess another's motives when the accused doesn't have a reply on record.

Is it just possible that Louis Armstrong would have been pleased that someone of note, no matter how poorly in his peers opinions, covered his work with a resultant wave of popularity? I have noticed that followers of close to non secular music forms tend to be significantly more precious when it comes to perceived musical "infringement". That's understanderble, as such musicians also tend to be more passionate and single minded than others who have a wider genre appreciation. Jazz & death metal are unusual bed partners in this respect.

The Kenny G thing happens all the time, but it doesn't mean we have to unleash a hornets nest attack on each occasion. I find it perplexing that the jazz community feels someone of Lois Armstrong's stature actually needs defending. Surely his work speaks for itself. I'm left wondering if the same reaction manifests itself in the rock world. Take this iconic rock track as a recent example;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfUYuIVbFg0 Journey's "Don't stop believing". Not only a superb piece of writing, but vocals by arguably one of the greatest rock singers ever (very much so IMO).

Then along comes some very talented but obviously super commercially steered snotty nosed kids with this dream drippy version; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4-8_Z1E2hw
To a rock fan such as me, this ammounts to near heresy. To have the nerve to even think they could top such a vocal performance as Perry's is beyond belief. I note my prejudice and move on.

But hang on just one minute. Is the original artist that bothered? I think not. Has the new release attracted huge attention towards the original? Hell, yes. And let's not forget publishing protocol here. Journey, or the owners of their material had to approve the use of that material including a satisfactory review of the finished product. The owners of Louis Armstrong's material would also have given permission on the same basis. Surely, if some believe the Kenny G cover was purely motivated by commercial gain, it's the owners of Louis Armstrong's material who should be on the receiving end.
 
When any artist bashes another artist...I tend to have a lower opinion of the guy doing the bashing. He might be a great musician, but great musicians can still have poor social skills. Art and expression are highly individual, and (ideally) shouldn't be subject to anothers moralities. Live and let others live. If you think it's tasteless, you have a right to your opinion, but to publicly bash an artist for a song....I think is equal to picking a fight. For no valid reason. It's childish. Personal expression shouldn't be forced to fit within a certain mold or we are all in trouble. OK so he tried something that failed in somes eyes. It's only art, it's not like it's an opressive and unfair law or anything. If you don't like it, change the channel, and stop complaining about anothers vision. Get over yourself and do something positive, flesh out your own vision instead of cutting someone else's down. Kenny G has a right to be bland and tasteless. (Not my opinion, I don't have one on Kenny,I'm just echoing the opinion of the percieved status quo) He's not hurting anyone. It's just soundwaves. Mind your own business. I don't care how much Pat has done, he has no right to say what Kenny should and shouldn't do, just like no one has the right to tell Pat what to play. Grow up.
 
Some here seem to have missed the whole point on a more serious level so I give up since I don't play the game of turning the filter and edit button off and calling into the mix the "everything goes" card as a lame reason for allowing in mediocre offerings in the name of "music" to be acceptable. The word "respect" for the intent of the original musical offering by Mr Armstrong certainly also plays into this from mine and obviously Pat Metheny's take on the horrid KG "interpretation" in question under fire.

And no its not a case of snobery folks why I state this its knowing what's is clearly "musical" BS and simply a money making marketing ploy and what has any true depth and meaning from a musical perspective in contrast. As you grow and learn as a musician and a listener alike the filter and edit button gets better "tuned" the deeper you listen and gain knowledge and wisdom on the art of all things that we call music.

KG is like the fast food watered equivalent to music for those wanting a easy quick fix on the ears without any real substance that taste okay for the first 5 minutes but leaves a real bad tastes in your mouth about 20 minutes later......

Arguing the "everything goes" card STILL doesn't make it right folks. Opinion unchanged on this matter as you may have already guessed.....
 
Kenny G overdubbing Satchmo is the most disturbing news I have heard recently. Is nothing holy anymore to those seeking to profit? I will go beyond agreeing with what Metheny said about him. I think he should be physically beaten and whipped. I'm still waiting for the clown circus at the R & R Hall of fame to induct that nitwit.

Pollyanna that is hilarious the story of Sexy MF getting into your mix. My wife loves that song, too and karaokes to alot of Prince's songs. She used to drive from the Omaha Indian reservation in Nebraska all the way to Minneapolis to see him perform in the early days. She would ditch me for him in a heartbeat.
 
Last edited:
KG is like the fast food watered equivalent to music for those wanting a easy quick fix on the ears without any real substance that taste okay for the first 5 minutes but leaves a real bad tastes in your mouth about 20 minutes later......

.....

But he still has a right to do it, and some people may even like it, even if they aren't as musically literate as others. It's not right dictating what others should and shouldn't do, and what should be considered right and wrong. One's wrong is anothers right. If there was no "bad" music, then there wouldn't be anything to compare the "good" music to. No one has the right to declare what is musically tasteful and what is not, except to themselves. I never even heard the Kenny/Armstrong thing, I don't have to. Whether I like it or not is irrevelant. But I will defend his right to do it, for whatever reason. If he is doing it for a cash grab, then those in the know will understand that and not buy into it. Those who don't like it won't be helping Kennys bottom line. Those who like it but don't get the money grab thing still have a right to enjoy it, those who like it AND get it, but don't buy it because it's a money grab are hypocrites. Surely we don't want musical censorship do we?
 
PS. A Kenny G joke ... Kenny walks into an elevator and says, "Hey! This place is really happening!"

LOL. I think that says it in a nutshell.

My dad liked Kenny G but I never had any use for him except for Christmas presents. Then it was Andrea Bocelli and then Chris Botti. They parade these folks about the middle class. I think it's Celtic Thunder now. Is there anything more lame then a bunch of mediocre singers, singing worn out tunes? And that 'Josh Groban' tune is Danny Boy with new lyrics; but he sells millions.

I did try to turn my dad onto to Blue Note, Louie, Brubeck or Coltrane; but he just didn't like it. He always liked muzak too and would blast that stuff Sunday mornings. We called in dentist office music because you always heard it in dentists' offices; and of course dentists had the highest suicide rate at that time. Perhaps it was the music.

The bottom line is Kenny G is not jazz. It is soft, instrumental pop. So it you're out there making jazz and trying to do something interesting and innovative with the music as Metheny has been for almost forty years, and you have this guy, any guy or girl, being called a great jazz musician and commercializing on the work that the greats have done, it is your duty to say "hey, you know this is BS. Listen to some real jazz." People love that Armstrong rendition, which was featured in Good Morning Viet Nam and became a a big hit again. It is lame to commercialize it in this context.

KIS
I actually like the rendition of the Journey tune. It pales in comparison to Steve. Everything is down an octave.lol It's hard to ruin a great song. I just learned that groove this weekend. It's a nice one.
 
A lot of people get turned off at the mention of jazz because they immediately think of that "boring Kenny G crap", as someone put it to me not too long ago when I mentioned I played jazz. They don't know who Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Lester Young, or Charles Mingus are. I think that's where the conflict comes in. If his music was never categorized as jazz then there wouldn't be this conflict. Jazz is such a wide spectrum .

All true. But such limitations are not limited to jazz.

Look how many posts blow off metal as nothing but "Loud guitars with some guy screaming "hail satan"" without realizing there are 101 variations of metal, some of which have the complexity and sensitivity of other forms of music.

Or how many people blow off all country as the bland twangy pop music on the radio, without looking at someone like Johnny Cash is also considered country.

Most of my generation was brought up that classical is boring back ground music to put on at nap time when in pre-school, yet the 1812 Overture would never qualify as nap time music.

Or the kids who think The Who are just that band that does the CSI theme songs.


Thing is, Pat M has also played smooth jazz. Average listeners would consider them to be in roughly the same genre.

This is also true. No matter how cutting edge, no matter how many legit traditional artists he may have played with, Metheny has his share of songs that could be considered "smooth jazz" as well. Maybe the fans can tell the difference, but the average non-musician isn't going to hear it as different as apples and oranges.


...

As far as comparisons between the two go, a quick glimpse at their creds are quite revealing;

Metheny - Has won 17 grammys.

Kenny G- Has won 1 grammy. ..

Comparing Grammy's tends to weaken the argument. Year after year the Grammy's tend to go to sugary pop hits of top 40 radio over better artists, at least in most other catagories. They occasionally get it right, but not often.

Miles Davis only has two Grammy's from his pre 1980 material.

And yet people who don't even write their own music, or one case, didn't even perform on their own albums, get Grammy's on a regular basis.
 
Wow the amount of venom I'm seeing is disturbing.
Beaten, whipped?
Call me what you may, but championing hate is worse than what Kenny G did every day of the week.
 
Re: Metheny, Kenny G, and other Jazz greats

Pat Metheny doesn't belong in the same category as Kenny G, who really is a purely commercial artist. He's done his share of commercial stuff, but he's also made and played on some of the best jazz albums of the last 35 years, including some very challenging stuff like Song X and Zero Tolerance For Silence.

I guess when I hear them on the same station I tend to lump them together. That is my fault or ignorance. But for one artist, regardless of genre, to call another's garbage is just wrong. If you don't like it don't listen.
 
Re: Metheny, Kenny G, and other Jazz greats

But for one artist, regardless of genre, to call another's garbage is just wrong. If you don't like it don't listen.

It's what KG did with the Armstrong track that is clearly WRONG on more levels than I care to cover here effecting many areas of music and music education, music appreciation etc.... It's not about hate or musical snobery it's all about what is right and wrong and calling BS simply musical BS when you see and hear it. Thank god my filter and edit button still work and i'm not afraid to call it like I see it or worse group everything together under the friendly wider "whatever goes" "you're okay, i'm okay" politically correct banner I see so sadly these days. Nobody is willing to stand up for what they believe anymore with conviction...if they do they get branded as "haters" missing the whole point of why they believe passionately in what and why they have some firm opinions which is for the love of the music and the respect and appreciation for the greats that brought it to the table before them.

If in this example it sucks, it sucks plain and simple and if its sappy cheesy commercial intent diminishes the beauty of the original version with its meandering sugar coated sax crap then it sucks plain and simple for me and my ears and musical experience.

Straight shooter calling it as I SEE IT.......other's are entilted to THEIR opinion...... that's clearly mine on the subject with no lack of conviction on my part in the matter.
 
I don't know. I think Louis Armstrong singing "Hello Dolly" was pretty rotten, and I fail to see how it has any artistic merit whatsoever, although
I'm sure that Armstrong made a lot of money from it. And I'm pretty sure that Kenny G got permission from the Armstrong estate to use the recording of "Wonderful World."

Now don't get me wrong, I can't stand Kenny G or any of that user-friendly white-wine-and-cheese smooth jazz vanilla pudding music. But it seems to me that the people who are keeping alive the controversy about Kenny G dubbing his sax onto a Louis Armstrong track, and not even a good one at that, are the same people who are the most outraged about it. Nobody else even remembers it. It's something best forgotten about, isn't it?

Anyway, Kenny G isn't taking any work away from, say, Greg Osby, so who cares what he does?
 
Just to steer slightly away from Abe's OP for a moment (please forgive me), but related IMO, am I the only one who thinks jazz has an accessibility issue? Also applies to metal and other "special interest" music genres. I'm hearing things like "Kenny G is only classified as a jazz muso because he plays a sax" and X isn't a real jazz muso but Y is. I genuinely, I mean genuinely have nothing against Jazz as a music form but on one hand I'm told that jazz is a broad church and on the other, I see rigid boundries set in stone. I admit to being utterly ignorant on the subject and somewhat confused. What is jazz? What is "real" jazz? I'd love it if someone could answer that for me in terms my under utilized brain can comprehend. I assume someone can enlighten me, otherwise how can anyone state that the material of a certain artist isn't real jazz.

I also hear jazz musos stating that jazz is reducing in popularity. Does the forum think that just might be due to vociferous defence of the pure form coupled with identity confusion? Please don't send plagues of locust to my house or unleash the wrath of the almighty 28" ride cymbal. I'm really not jazz bashing here, nor wishing to start WW3, I'm genuinely interested in members thoughts & explanations.
 
If you go down the accessibility line then you have to blame guys like Monk, Parker, Miles, Cotrane or Bill Evans. Jazz was popular in the, 1920s, reaching its peak in the late 1930s and 40s. In the fifties you still had popular jazz artists but it was mostly the singers, Louis Jordan, Ella, Sinatra, even Louie Armstrong who maintained popularity. In 1959 you had Take Five, which was a big hit but rock and roll took the mainstream by storm with surf rock, the British invasion, youth culture and the counter culture. That became the popular, accessible music of the time. But much great jazz was still being created.

Are you really going to chastise Wayne Shorter, Metheny and Chick Corea for not having a top ten hit or diminish something because of its lack of popularity? Like wise I wouldn't diminish Herbie Hancock because he has. When you go down the line of diminish music because of its accessibility, you define everything with value through its commercialism. As wonderfully ideological it is to believe that the free market takes care of everything, it doesn't.
 
Louis Armstrong was the Kenny G of his time for a good 20 years of his career. His jazz peers were less then in pressed w/ his selling out.
 
I often listen to smooth jazz when Im at work. Its background music that doesn't distract me. It simply sets a mood that allows me to think about what I am doing and not the music.
It has simple flowing melodies and back beats. There is a moderate amount of syncopation. There are seldom lyrics to mess up the mood.

It flows along like a river in its own way. It blocks out the noise of the shop and the stupid distractions like the PA system and conversations that I don't want to hear.

Smooth Jazz is like driving an MGB. It has No power, No great performance, Not much handling and Braking, It's a forgiving sports car that I can drive slowly with the top down while I smoke my pipe and relax.

Real jazz is like driving a Porsche. You have to power it into the turns as if you were Storming Poland during a Blitzkrieg! You cant wait to depress the accelerator and let the turbo spool up while you power shift into second gear.
You know that if you make one mistake you will wind up spinning around and hitting a guard rail! On the edge at all times!
 
Last edited:
Louis Armstrong was the Kenny G of his time for a good 20 years of his career. His jazz peers were less then in pressed w/ his selling out.

I was waiting for some one to bring that up. It's like Miles in the 1980s. obviously there is a huge difference in the caliber of musicianship between a Miles or Armstrong. How many musical movements did each actually inspire? there is also Wes, who Metheny emulates and was criticized for his commercialism. I really don't like Metheny's stuff from the late 1980s. But n his own way, Metheny helped to shape and mold smooth jazz so I think that gives him the right to state his opinions about it.
 
I know very little about jazz as a genre. All I know is what I feel.
I am listening right now to the song in question, "What a wonderful world".
FWIW, here's my impressions of this song as a person who is very unknowing about jazz.
This is the first time I heard it.
First off it's not jazz in my book, it's a melodic ballad. Forgive my ignorance if this actually considered a jazz song.
If I could critique Kennys playing, I'd say it was elementary. He just stuck basically to the melody with a few flourishes. In the beginning he didn't step on the vocals, but at the end he stepped all over the vocalist, just doubling the melody basically, which I thought was ameteur sounding in that particular instance, like he could improve upon the vocal....His "solo", was just the embellished melody, no artistic contribution whatsoever. It's kind of laughable really. But as a musician, it's not something I'd personally get upset over. Now if Kenny G erased the original masters and replaced them with his version then that's something different altogether.
I couldn't stand Pat Boones rape and pillaging of Little Richard's "Tutti Frutti" either, but I don't want to hurt him. I just laugh at him, because he's such a dork. Kinda like I'm laughing at Kenny G right now. What he did to that great song is a joke. But I still defend his right to do it. If it sucks, the "artists" just dig their own graves anyway. If the people like it, then they're probably a musically unenlightened audience anyway and probably won't ever get good music. Water seeks it's own level. I'm not trying to change any minds here, I'm just stating my opinion, and I don't think any less of anyone for disagreeing with me.
 
I was waiting for some one to bring that up. It's like Miles in the 1980s. obviously there is a huge difference in the caliber of musicianship between a Miles or Armstrong. How many musical movements did each actually inspire?

Louis Armstrong is the fountainhead of jazz. His importance to the music cannot be overstated.
 
Back
Top