Pat Metheny on Kenny G and other Jazz greats

The other day I went into my little local record store to pick up a couple of CDs. I wasn't looking for anything in particular. I chose a Mingus record I didn't have and a Lee Morgan record that I'd listened to a lot but had lost my copy years ago.

The guy who runs the store is very, very knowledgable about all things jazz. He and I spent a happy half-hour chatting about the music. That's the main reason I go there, just to talk about the music with him.

The point is that it's all there. No matter how much the times may change jazz is still there, it's being composed and played as we speak, new records are being released and new artists are being discovered.

I reject the idea that it should matter to jazz musicians, or to any musicians, what it is that the public wants to hear. What matters is what you yourself want your life to be, what you want to do with it based on what you love, based on what presents the path that makes the most sense for you to follow.

If you're following that path with true intent then nobody can alter your course or make you change your mind, no more than you can change anyone else's mind about the path they've chosen.

The reward is always in the work you do. If you're doing that work right and you're happy doing it then you've made your life a succesful one.
 
May as well merge this with the Meg White and White Stripes thread.

Both Kenny G and White Stripes are regarded as dumbed down garbage created for the masses, yet somehow adored by their respective fans.

Same issues are in every genre.

I imagine die hard country fans were less than thrilled with Garth Brooks making the genre more pop-rock

As Polly mentioned, in the metal word, newer fans don't even consider the past greats metal anymore, meanwhile they listen to Lamb of God, whom I personally consider repetitive and dull compared to other choices out there.

Top 40? Used to be full of people who at lest played their instruments (even they were session musicians), now it's just people using auto tuned vocals over computer generated music. And it wins Grammys while selling millions.

As mentioned, even if listening to Kenny G was banned, people would move on to something else many of us would also consider drivel.

Quality artists have been ignored for decades over what's popular. Sure, we have the right to complain about it, but it doesn't change things. And in some cases, success has a way of ruining what we once thought was great about an artist, so be careful what you wish for.
 
Quote from Stanley.....Usually the record companies... does it always have to boil down be about money.....LOL!

My comment was mostly tongue in cheek but lets face it. I don't care what you record, someone will like it and buy it. Anything. I remember hearing about a movie made once that was 24 hours long, and was strictly a movie camera on the street aimed up to the top of some building. That's it. How well did it sell? Don't know but it did. None of us will ever totally agree on any musical style, genre or performer, and let us just be happy that we have so many to choose from. There are so many more music forms now than when I was a teen and that is only, I say only, boohoo, forty years ago.
 
Damn DED, I was with you all the way apart from the crack again the WS. I love 'em! There's no way they are equivalent to Kenny G. (haha, you knew I'd bite :)

The Kenny G equivalent would be "RnB" (by today's definition) - a boy band crooning about lurve and almost managing to sound sincere if you aurally squint. I liked it better when something like The Stones's Aint Too Proud To Beg was considered to be RnB.

You're right and it comes back to what I was saying about the freedom that comes with being an outsider - someone who calls their own shots and doesn't care about adhering to the party line. Once artists have been "welcomed to the machine" then they inevitably experience suit pressure. Where there be money, there be suits.

The message coming through in recent posts is, no matter how much stuff you don't like is out there, the good stuff is there too if you look for it. I can sympathise with those playing music for a living, though. If you're a jazzer you really don't want to be pressured to Kenny-ise your music. Wow, Kenny-ise could one day find its way into the urban dictionary :)

Kenny-ise v. (Kenny-ize, U.S.)
var. Kenny-ised; Kenny-ising; Kenny-isation

To render something (usually music) bland in order to improve accessibility.

Synonyms
: dumb down; neuter; boybandinate
Antonyms: spice up; revitalise

Example of usage: Cecil Taylor refused to Kenny-ise his music, despite intense pressure from the suits. He is now driving cabs.​
 
Last edited:
Polly, do you think people are really embracing mechanized music, or more likely being force fed it by self proclaimed experts that think they know more about how to market music than anyone else? I suspect the latter, myself. I also think the mechanization of music is one reason it is dying on the vine. When we get computers laying down rythm tracks on pop songs and robots painting paintings, people will eventually notice it and want more human involvement. It may be a slow process, but look at how many areas already where handmade goods are much more sought after, with all their imperfections, than their mass produced perfect counterparts. Madonna even went back to a human drummer recently, imagine that. People will eventually get burned out on soul-less cookie cutter pop hooks, mark my words.
 
I never hear any one talking about how great John Hammond or Ahmet were because they told everyone what to play. lol
 
Damn DED, I was with you all the way apart from the crack again the WS. I love 'em! There's no way they are equivalent to Kenny G. (haha, you knew I'd bite :)

The Kenny G equivalent would be "RnB" (by today's definition) - a boy band crooning about lurve and almost managing to sound sincere if you aurally squint. I liked it better when something like The Stones's Aint Too Proud To Beg was considered to be RnB.

You're right and it comes back to what I was saying about the freedom that comes with being an outsider - someone who calls their own shots and doesn't care about adhering to the party line. Once artists have been "welcomed to the machine" then they inevitably experience suit pressure. Where there be money, there be suits.

The message coming through in recent posts is, no matter how much stuff you don't like is out there, the good stuff is there too if you look for it. I can sympathise with those playing music for a living, though. If you're a jazzer you really don't want to be pressured to Kenny-ise your music. Wow, Kenny-ise could one day find its way into the urban dictionary :)

Kenny-ise v. (Kenny-ize, U.S.)
var. Kenny-ised; Kenny-ising; Kenny-isation

To render something (usually music) bland in order to improve accessibility.

Synonyms
: dumb down; neuter; boybandinate
Antonyms: spice up; revitalise

Example of usage: Cecil Taylor refused to Kenny-ise his music, despite intense pressure from the suits. He is now driving cabs.​
LOL! There it is! Funny as hell, and right on the money!
 
uhhh . .some of us might be offended by the use of that kind of verb. :p
 
Cheers Mike :)

Ken, you could have used it when asked about the Grover Washington concert ... "No, I'm not going. I prefer jazz that's not so Kenny-ised. But if you know of any gigs that are more Milesated, let me know".

And don't forget the adjectival form - "Sorry, this band doesn't play Kenny-ish music".

I don't think there'd be much risk of confusion because I can't imagine too many Kenny fans being into South Park :)
 
There are purest followers for other forms of music that are angered when their fav band does a pop recording.
I spent about a year during the mid seventies following the Dead.
The purist members of that cult will not own a studio recorded Dead album.
I never understood them either.
Many of them have never listened to any other music that didn't have a member from the Dead playing on it.
 
I have discovered my problem and had not a clue. I must practice my aural squinting. Love the concept.
 
Last edited:
I have discovered my problem and had not clue. I must practice my aural squinting. Love the concept.
Like Shakespeare said, "The More I Wink My Eyes, The Better I See"
I guess that it also applies to the ear.
 
There are purest followers for other forms of music that are angered when their fav band does a pop recording.
I spent about a year during the mid seventies following the Dead.
The purist members of that cult will not own a studio recorded Dead album.
I never understood them either.
Many of them have never listened to any other music that didn't have a member from the Dead playing on it.

Bob, nothing like a bit of necrophilia, eh?

I was disappointed when The Tubes went commercial but I could understand their reasons - they had a super-expensive stage show and were too left-of-centre to keep the suits happy. The John Wetton started playing AOR with Asia but, again, he'd paid his dues and been involved in some great music so it was hard to begrudge his wish to be in a popular band.

GD, a bit of aural squinting helps (nice quote, Bob BTW) ... it can help you enjoy music that you'd otherwise find a drag. Just as long as you can turn it on and off; if it's habitual it becomes too easy to miss the juicy stuff in quality performances.

It's like suspension of disbelief in movies with preposterous plots and thin character development but are a fun ride if you don't take it seriously (eg. Avatar).

I have never been able to aurally squint hard enough to enjoy boy bands, though. I find those groups are most fun with the sound turned off ...
 
. Wow, Kenny-ise could one day find its way into the urban dictionary :)

Kenny-ise v. (Kenny-ize, U.S.)
var. Kenny-ised; Kenny-ising; Kenny-isation

To render something (usually music) bland in order to improve accessibility.

Synonyms
: dumb down; neuter; boybandinate
Antonyms: spice up; revitalise

Example of usage: Cecil Taylor refused to Kenny-ise his music, despite intense pressure from the suits. He is now driving cabs.​

I thought that was called Pat Boone syndrome? :p
 
The real show at a Dead concert was always the audience!

I only went to one Greatful dead concert, because someone gave me a free ticket. And yeah, all I remember was the audience. I'd never seen so many people just stoned out of their minds in one place before! And how many people were more interested in getting stoned that actually paying attention to the band itself.
 
Why does everything have to be reduced to the ignore and background function for the listener?{elevator music}. Ties into more and more experiences i've had in clubs where people just jabber out loud about nothing the whole time no matter how good the music is on stage in front of them. We live in a ever increasingly detatched society in the way we interact with music i'm afraid the way we are currently trained and conditioned to view music......believe that's part of the problem and evil allure of BG crap everywhere you go these days...no thought process or interaction to rock the happy boat. ....
Polly's right...times are a changing and not for the better in my book.

One one hand, I completely agree.
It makes me near ill when I read autobiographies of musicians from past eras who just took up drums, and found paying work, because everywhere had live bands. While today, a drummer is about as relevant as a 5th wheel on a car in so many situations. So many bands would just assume use a drum machine, so many clubs would just assume have DJ, and so many people think the DJ is a musician because he/she mixed together some pre-recorded files together. It's rather sick for someone who prefers real music. I often think it would have been better to have been born in a different era to have been a part of better musical experiences.

But in grand scheme of history, these eras were talking about are not that long ago, nor very long. The United States has been around sine 1776, but the drum set only since approx 1890. England has been a formal country for over 1000 years, but traditional jazz is only about 100 years old (give or take).

In the grand scheme of music history, from the 1st Gregorian chants, and when tribesmen first realized they could make music by banding on hollow logs, these "traditions" we are discussing are only blips in musical history. People existed for thousands of years before they ever head a jazz standard, people existed for thousands of years before they ever heard Beethovan.

In the art world, "Modern Art" is usually anything from around 1900 to now, while the traditional stuff is hundred upon hundreds of years old. In literature, modern literature is usually considered anything written in the last 100 years, while traditional literature is Shakespeare from 1589 and 1613, or at least Mark Twain, who wrote his best known books well before anyone played the 1st notes of what we call jazz.


So, compared to nearly every other artistic endeavor, jazz is still a modern art form, not a tradition.

What we call "jazz standards" would not be called "old" or "standard" in many other artistic fields.

So while I may cry and lament over what I consider real music fading away, being replaced by lesser forms, in the grand scheme of music history, I'm pinning over a mere blip in the history books. Keep in mind, rock and roll, jazz, and even Mozart, were once considered the rebellious music of youth, replacing what was considered the traditional music of the time. If the internet existed in 1910's, I'm sure there would be forum where someone was complaining about all these new jazz guys playing this new fangled music who don't respect tradition.

If you think it's sad that people don't listen to Coltrane anymore, think about the poor sap writing folk music in the 1500's would feel, knowing that few people give his style the time of day, and knowing no one bothered to write his name down as the author of so many songs that only get played at renaissance faires!
 
One one hand, I completely agree.
It makes me near ill when I read autobiographies of musicians from past eras who just took up drums, and found paying work, because everywhere had live bands. While today, a drummer is about as relevant as a 5th wheel on a car in so many situations. So many bands would just assume use a drum machine, so many clubs would just assume have DJ, and so many people think the DJ is a musician because he/she mixed together some pre-recorded files together. It's rather sick for someone who prefers real music. I often think it would have been better to have been born in a different era to have been a part of better musical experiences.

But in grand scheme of history, these eras were talking about are not that long ago, nor very long. The United States has been around sine 1776, but the drum set only since approx 1890. England has been a formal country for over 1000 years, but traditional jazz is only about 100 years old (give or take).

In the grand scheme of music history, from the 1st Gregorian chants, and when tribesmen first realized they could make music by banding on hollow logs, these "traditions" we are discussing are only blips in musical history. People existed for thousands of years before they ever head a jazz standard, people existed for thousands of years before they ever heard Beethovan.

In the art world, "Modern Art" is usually anything from around 1900 to now, while the traditional stuff is hundred upon hundreds of years old. In literature, modern literature is usually considered anything written in the last 100 years, while traditional literature is Shakespeare from 1589 and 1613, or at least Mark Twain, who wrote his best known books well before anyone played the 1st notes of what we call jazz.


So, compared to nearly every other artistic endeavor, jazz is still a modern art form, not a tradition.

What we call "jazz standards" would not be called "old" or "standard" in many other artistic fields.

So while I may cry and lament over what I consider real music fading away, being replaced by lesser forms, in the grand scheme of music history, I'm pinning over a mere blip in the history books. Keep in mind, rock and roll, jazz, and even Mozart, were once considered the rebellious music of youth, replacing what was considered the traditional music of the time. If the internet existed in 1910's, I'm sure there would be forum where someone was complaining about all these new jazz guys playing this new fangled music who don't respect tradition.

If you think it's sad that people don't listen to Coltrane anymore, think about the poor sap writing folk music in the 1500's would feel, knowing that few people give his style the time of day, and knowing no one bothered to write his name down as the author of so many songs that only get played at renaissance faires!


That wasn't the point I was trying to get across but made for a interesting take and read. Thanks!

My point was we are more and more being conditioned and trained to treat music as a form a mere background fooder with developing less and less skills on how to interact with actual live music and its musicians performing it on the listener end. Even in all the times frames you mentioned yes social background music of one form or another has coexisted at the same time as formal, tribal or concert hall, club, pub etc... music...sometimes providing the same social function at the same time in some cases.

Today the attempt is being made by the marketing suits {love the reference Polly!} to reduce music to a social form of a pure background/ ignore function and "drug and sedate" the listener without any listener interaction or challenges on that recieving end..... Polly calls it the safe place or zone...I call it a evil form of a "comfort" zone. That was my point on "elevator music" which is becoming more of the standard "norm" in general society.
 
Back
Top