Pat Metheny on Kenny G and other Jazz greats

No different situation in my view if you trace the relatively new history of the music called JAZZ...it DOES have deep traditions and firm roots with common language base throughout its short history on the grand scheme of things that is shared from and can be directly traced back to the mother jazz tree right out to her outer branches of its expression till today.

Like I said about the Jack D. solo covering the WHOLE history of the music and jazz drumming in 5 minutes when I heard him with Keith. Pretty deep, authentic and serious knowledge base to call from with the due respect and complete musical understanding for the traditions in the music that came before but heard with a vision still towards the future of the music in question at the same time. You can be a rebel but you don't have to be a full blown tearing away all forms of traditions with full blown anarchy to achieve fresh modern creative results. You have to base your rebellion off of something of substance in the first place before you or you end up with completely empty shallow of substance end results to replace the traditions you hate musically speaking life has taught me.

No one is denying these facts of tradition, or intensity. No one is saying they don't exist.
That wasn't my point.

But thanks again for once again proving what I said a few posts back. LOL.
 
This has become like what was in the stick twirling thread..

Someone posted a rant that serious drummers don't twirl, naming several names of drummers who don't. Which was ignorant of the fact the players like Krupa, Sony Payne, and many other jazz legends did indeed twirl their sticks or performed other visual tricks. Buddy Rich even once played his drum kit upside down (of which the video has been posted on here somewhere).

In another thread, someone said china cymbals are just for metal, and have no dynamics, again ignorant of guys like Krupa and Big Sid Catlett and others who used chinas at times, or all the time.

No can deny that we all have opinions, and that some musical moments are mystical, intense, steeped in tradition, history, or otherwise be beyond description, but these moments and opinions don't render other musical moments to not exist or for them to not be music. Generalizing is easy, but rarely accurate.

I hate certain bands with a passion, and wouldn't given them (or Kenny G) consideration beyond the dog doo in my yard, but I don't pretend that it doesn't exist as a music, or attempt to classify as another genre because it offends the genres I do like.
 
Ken, I didn't realise there was unburnt tinder until you threw the match on it :)

Actually I agreed with Punk Jay's point that WAWW was a lame, twee song that Our Kenny only managed to make even more lame and twee.

Would any of us here be offended if Kenny dubbed soprano over Moonlight Sonata? I reckon that track's just screaming for Kenny to hit the G spot.

Steamer said:
You can be a rebel but you don't have to be a full blown tearing away all forms of traditions with full blown anarchy to achieve fresh modern creative results. You have to base your rebellion off of something of substance in the first place before you or you end up with completely empty shallow of substance end results to replace the traditions you hate musically speaking

I like this comment a lot, although I don't think anyone here is tearing them all away. From what I've heard we are all relatively conventional players who draw on what's been done before in our genres.

I find the best renegade music comes from those who aren't rebelling against tradition but who simply follow their own quirky vision - people like Klaus Shulz, Captain Beefheart, Bob Fripp, Eno and Pere Ubu. I guess jazz equivalents would be guys like Ornette and Monk.
 
I hate certain bands with a passion, and wouldn't given them (or Kenny G) consideration beyond the dog doo in my yard, but I don't pretend that it doesn't exist as a music, or attempt to classify as another genre because it offends the genres I do like.

The greater issues that Pat Metheny alludes are the ones that ultimately are interesting to talk about. Those issues are real issues that professional musicians grapple with.

Smooth jazz is not something jazz historians talk about or serious jazz musicians take seriously. You're going to have metal heads who are going to talk about the LA Scene as one great mistake in the history of the genre. Metal is different because it is about selling and marketing music; it is a music made for mass consumption; where as for quite some time jazz has been a music that is made by many purely for the artistic and expressionistic aspects of the genre, and truthfully musicians who make popular jazz know the difference. The problem is there are too many people who don't.

There are so many musicians now being lumped into the smooth jazz banner. A lot of jazz musicians did not want to be lumped into the 'new age' jazz category of the 1980s that became smooth jazz. Is there something very different between Wes or George Benson doing pop standards and what I hear when I put on the channel that has the tv listings?

You're saying that we shouldn't deny that the industry is a major force in the creation of music so why should we deny it when it in and of itself creates a genre of music. Most musicians are going to argue that that should be left up to the artists. You're going against a stream going back to Mozart and Beethoven for the artist to have greater freedom and control over his or her musical creations. Ultimately, I'm not the impressed with the music. I find it boring. There I said it.it had its place to function as office music, and I think most of those stations are gone now.

Historically speaking, what do you call Bensons' take on Breezin,' Mangiones Land of Make Believe, Manhattan Transfer's Killer Joe, Weather Reports Birdland, Metheny's Last Train Home. I would rather let the artists decide what to call their music and in lieu of that, scholars who actually study the music and can describe it for what it is.

Actually I agreed with Punk Jay's point that WAWW was a lame, twee song that Our Kenny only managed to make even more lame and twee.
.

that was the out. If Kenny has said look, "Pat Metheny is right; but Pops had his pop side and I am recognizing it." But Kenny didn't. He didn't really have a level of understanding to talk about what he had done on a different level.

Remember this album. It was huge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLbEZkuIRBk
 
Last edited:
You're going to have metal heads who are going to talk about the LA Scene as one great mistake in the history of the genre. Metal is different because it is about selling and marketing music; it is a music made for mass consumption; where as for quite some time jazz has been a music that is made by many purely for the artistic and expressionistic aspects of the genre
Wow, that statement is a gross over-generalization that is about as bold as it is offensive; and one that I think highlights your own ignorance about the genre (and perhaps any genre other than your own).

I'm not a metal guy myself, but I can easily recognize that that there are many highly talented metal players out there toiling away at their craft with the full knowledge that they'll never see a "payday" from it. Just my own rehearsal studio has at least a half-dozen highly competent metal bands in it that are anything but geared for mass consumption.

If you can't tell the difference between Meshuggah and Cinderalla, then I suggest you not comment on metal.

The point remains that nobody's trying to say that Cinderalla (the cheesy mass marketed one) isn't metal, or not rock. "Serious" rock people (a stupid symmetry I'll maintain here for sake of consistency) know the difference between the two and which one is more deserving of artistic merit. It's the exact same thing we're talking about in this thread.

It's Metheny's self-righteous indignation at the prospect of Kenny G being considered by some as "jazz" that to most is simply laughable. Get over yourself already. Who cares?
 
Last edited:
hey Mike DROP the hostility fest already. it's a 'discussion." Let me TELL you YOU are gravely mistaken if you don't think that I knew that he would come back with this answer.
 
Im just sittin here, lurkin, and lovin this whole thread!

WAIT a MIN!

That would be a good name for a Smooth Jazz tune.
"Sittin, Lurkin, and Lovin"

Im inspired now. I have some work to do, I'll be back later.
 
hey Mike DROP the hostility fest already. it's a 'discussion." Let me TELL you YOU are gravely mistaken if you don't think that I knew that he would come back with this answer.
Yeah, except that I don't take orders from you, and whatever "hostility" I may feeling is irrelevant.

As far as I'm concerned, we're having a "discussion". If you're going to misrepresent something (the nature of metal, for example) I'm going to point that out to you as part of the discussion. I think it's relevant.

You don't have to like it, but if you're going to assert that metal has no artistic merit, then you're just going to lose credibility. There are a lot of fantastic players in metal.

So you're TELLing me that YOU were "baiting" DED with that remark? What possible purpose could that have served? I don't believe that that's what was happening there, but whatever.
 
Im just sittin here, lurkin, and lovin this whole thread!

WAIT a MIN!

That would be a good name for a Smooth Jazz tune.
"Sittin, Lurkin, and Lovin"

Im inspired now. I have some work to do, I'll be back later.
Hey Bob! What about setting to the tune "Lovin' Touchin' Squeezin'"? Put a little Kenny G horn on that sucker and you're all set!
 
Myself, I've written some smooth jazz music. Absolutely true, I did it and it wasn't as easy as I thought it would be, but I did it. I wrote it, recorded it and it was played on the weather channel for awhile. A milestone in my career! It was dreadful stuff but the checks were nice, and I don't apologize for making a living.

What are you going to do, say no to anything that isn't "pure jazz?" See, I've got bills to pay, and idealism doesn't get that done.

I've also played on Popeye's chicken jingles. I guess I must be totally lacking integrity.
 
Yeah, except that I don't take orders from you, and whatever "hostility" I may feeling is irrelevant.

are a lot of fantastic players in metal.

So you're TELLing me that YOU were "baiting" DED with that remark? What possible purpose could that have served? I don't believe that that's what was happening there, but whatever.

BECAUSE THAT IS THE WHOLE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT. CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT!!!
 
I've also played on Popeye's chicken jingles. I guess I must be totally lacking integrity.

Was that a jazz chicken?

This is a discussion and it that sense it is idealistic.

But no one is going to put any one down for making a living.
 
Thing is, Ken, the people who go for the G Spot are not, for the most part, people who enjoy Bird or Trane or Weather Report etc.

Many are women who want to be soothed by music and who are not jazz aficionados. They are most likely the same people who get off on Satchmo's WAWW. In short, people for whom almost no amount of saccharine is too sweet. WAWW is probably the only Satchmo song they know and they most likely sigh and think of it as truly beautiful as opposed to a load of annoyingly sentimental tripe.

They are the G Man's audience and, really, what he does makes perfect sense to me. These people have a right to have naive musical tastes and the right to have Kenny Baybee entertain them. To them, his Satchmo dubs combine the best of two worlds. I have read that it's a show stopper at his gigs - lol. WARNING WARNING! EXTREME SACCHARINE ATTACK!

So while what The Big G does may appear to jazz people as treading on hallowed turf, he's actually running a different race altogether. In one sense what Kenny does is irrelevant. WAWW is irrelevant. Pat is seeing it in symbolic terms, ie. Louis is jazz and Kenny is cheapening it.

But the specifics matter and WAWW is not jazz. Importantly, I don't think the general public see it as jazz (which they see as that boring, esoteric music that they don't worry about).

I don't think his additional helpings of sugar of the sticky sweet that is WAWW is the problem. The incident strikes me as a conduit for jazzers' resentment about the public seeing Kenny as being jazz, and they are alarmed at the idea that their identity as jazz musicians will look lame if they are lumped in with Mr G. The practical ramifications are that they could be pressured to play "jazz that's more like Kenny G".

Ultimately, the musical world is changing. Jazz thought it was immune from the changes that have neutered rock, but it's not. The creeping plastic is getting everywhere.

PS. I note that people are crying "sacrilege" on the YouTube vid of Jan Garbarek. They did the same when Wendy Carlos played Switched On Bach. People seem to find it satisfying to cry "sacrilege".

If Kenny wants to dub his tootlings on King Crimson's Epitaph (my equivalent) I don't think I'd be worried. I'd listen, make a decision on it and, if I wasn't impressed (inevitable :) I'd only listen to the original.

Was that a jazz chicken?

Don't get me started on jazzed eggs!
 
BECAUSE THAT IS THE WHOLE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT. CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT!!!
We must be talking about different arguments now. I thought we were talking about not calling some sub-genre (or one of its players) part of the mother genre because some from another sub-genre of the same mother genre didn't approve of that other sub-genre, or a particular player in that other sub-genre.

We were applying this concept to both jazz and rock since the same rules should hold.

Have you strayed from the original on me?
 
You know what strikes me the most about this thread?
It's the fact that people will wast their time actually discussing kenny G in a Jazz thread on an internationally renown drum forum!

I love you guys!
I've had a blast!
 
Good post, Polly.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the CD buying public does, in fact, consider Kenny G to be a jazz musician, okay? That the people who go to his concerts are convinced that Kenny G plays jazz.

So f******g what? This is what I'm not getting here. So bloody what, anyway? Those people are never, I mean not ever in a million years, going to make it a point to seek out a Clifford Brown CD. The idea is absurd.

Jazz is listened to and supported by people who like jazz, and the Kenny G or Boney James fans don't in any way, shape or form figure into it.

Who the hell cares what it's called? The people who know jazz, as small a demographic as they may represent, know what's what where jazz is concerned.
 
That's it Polly. I think you put the nail on it again. The recording was the last straw for Pat..

I think it would be interesting to talk about a rock equivalent, now that rock is becoming enshrined in the sacred halls. When the Brits first started doing blues the aficionados complained; but the artist themselves weren't the ones complaining. There was ELP, which Lester Bangs said ruined rock and roll. Prog rock defiled the 'sacred' profanity of rock and roll. It was a war crime. LA Metal comes under the heading of inter-sexualizing the genre. So even though purists decried it, at home, everyone was happy.

But really, rock and roll is about rebellion. Can you do anything to defile it?

It's funny because folks say the 1980s were the demise of great music. Older folks say it was the 70s and Led Zeppelin especially. Then when that rock and roll came in in the 50s it destroyed everything. Do you think that it is somewhat of a myth that each generation comes to believe, that everything is in decline? They said that at the turn of the century too, and with jazz in the 1920s.
 
Back
Top