Pat Metheny on Kenny G and other Jazz greats

Here is Joe Lovano (Billy Hart on drums, yeah!) Now see, this is jazz. Kenny G couldn't come close to playing like this.

This music is played live, the musicians are interacticing with each other. Kenny G records his muzac the way pop records are made, with multiple overdubs and all that studio production crap.

Only people who really like jazz could enjoy this Joe Lovano tune, I think. My wife doesn't care for this sort of thing at all. This music requires that you listen to it, see. Anyone but a real jazz lover would probably be bored before the whole band comes in.

Kenny G's music is wallpaper. It may create a sort of ambience, a mood, but it doesn't require close listening the way that jazz does.
 
I appreciate links to songs that are considered by jazz lovers to be must listen material. As someone who is admittedly not versed in the jazz language whatsoever, except for random exposure, this helps me to understand it a little more.
 
con struct said:
Here is Joe Lovano (Billy Hart on drums, yeah!) Now see, this is jazz. Kenny G couldn't come close to playing like this.

This music is played live, the musicians are interacticing with each other. Kenny G records his muzac the way pop records are made, with multiple overdubs and all that studio production crap.

Only people who really like jazz could enjoy this Joe Lovano tune, I think. My wife doesn't care for this sort of thing at all. This music requires that you listen to it, see. Anyone but a real jazz lover would probably be bored before the whole band comes in.

Kenny G's music is wallpaper. It may create a sort of ambience, a mood, but it doesn't require close listening the way that jazz does.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that, I savored every second of that piece. I'm going to add some of Joe's work to my collection and do some more close headphone listening.
P.S. My wife will hate this also! She hates everything that is Real and True! That's probably why she hates me so much LOL!!!
 
Steamer said:
Yes... the actual content, inner details and concepts within can be directly traced back to the root {jazz} tree.
Click to expand...

Well, of course it is jazz. That wasn't my point.

If there is a line in sand between pop and jazz, how could it be crossed in the 1930's but not now?
 
Pollyanna said:
To say "I'm a jazz musician" implies a baseline level of skill, and that "baseline" is pretty damn high! That's why people talk about jazz snobs lol

Definition doesn't entirely depend on public perception, it also depends on peer acceptance.

For instance, for a person to be considered Aboriginal in Australia they must be accepted as such by the Aboriginal community. So if a person only has an Aboriginal grandmother and is as white as can be, if they are accepted by the Aboriginal community then they are eligible for grants programs etc. It should be said that being accepted by the the Aboriginal community as one of them is not as easy as it may sound.

So Kenny IS a jazz musician if you talk about broader public perceptions but he is NOT a jazz player when it comes to peer acceptance. Paradoxes exist in this life. Think Schrödinger's cat :)

Trying to squeeze either/or cases into a neat box is both inaccurate and misleading - unless you're in marketing or politics of course, in which case it's all in a day's work :)
Click to expand...
btw

I think you hit on something with this post where you bifurcate two levels of genre, the marketing and the real, and the two level of acceptance, to the public and respect of your peer of musicians.. Of course the greats get both, and that is what makes them great.

At the core of the Kenny argument lies an aesthetic argument; but it is an aesthetic argument replete with social and political consequences, as is the debate about smooth jazz. I don't think the question you ask or Pat, is a trite one


I've come to see how relevant understanding of genre can be and how important it is a a compositional tool. And of course if you are fusion heads like many of us here, you need to have a pure expression and understanding of a genre to fuse it with something else. That's another paradox, and it also plays into what you are talking about with the aboriginal society. You have to have an expression of the aboriginal, other wise it gets lost in the greater culture at large. This phenomenon sits at the backbone of many conflicts in modern society. We may see it as a musical debate, and many might not see it as important in that context. But the greater cultural issues are certainly of relevance.

Of course, modern history is full of these cases; the soul master secularizing gospel, music, the folkies appropriated world folk songs like , Guantanamera, which Pete Seeger copyrighted in the name of the Cuban people, Wee Ma Way or Scarborough Fair. Other examples include Rock artists, esp Keith Emerson, using classical elements and orchestras, and of course jazz-rock fusion, funk-jazz fusion and world jazz fusion. Zawinul's infamous Mr Gone record. Ornette did Skies Over America with a full orchestra as well. Truthfully, most often in these cases the artist ends up alienating both side of the listening fence.

I think ultimately we all like many types of music. I may enjoy Green Day; but I still understand that Mahler and Bach are great artists, master musicians and composers. I may enjoy Al Jarreau or Kenny G, well we know where I stand on Kenny G, but I can still recognize that greatness and cultural significance of Duke, Monk or Louie Armstrong and realize that Kenny doesn't share that significance. it's important to keep that perspective because what is lost if you don't is a big deal.
 
This entire thread reminds me of some of the younger drummers who come here and everything seems to be about competition or being the best or whatever. Music is not about winning or losing, or competition. I know there are competitions on many levels but if that is the may concern then you don't belong in music. I googled Pat Metheny/Kenny G just to see what may come up and it was quite interesting where some of the conversations went on both side of the coin. Rather than waste time berating another musician who's music you may not like the more discretionary answer may have been, " all music has its place and Kenny has his." end of story. This whole argument makes as much sense as having a WWE wrestling Hall of Fame when everything they ever did in their careers was scripted. If you don't like a certain musician, then don't listen and move on. Pat sure didn't mind playing on a PDQ Bach album with Kenny and making money from it.
 
The issue with so many posts in this thread, and in the other jazz threads, is there so much defense for the history and tradition of jazz, but the examples given are mostly, if not exclusively just from the be-bop and post bop era of jazz.

Which is like trying to say the history of rock and roll started in 1980 and ignoring the 50's 60s and 70's.

Trying to put jazz into a narrow box of Coltrane, Coleman, Bird and Miles is ignoring the near 40 years of jazz that existed before the 1st be-bop record existed.

It ignores the great Scott Joplin, Jelly Roll Morton, Count Basie, Cab Calloway, Tommy Dorsey, Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman, Artie Shaw and others were making "jazz" well before bop. And lot of the "jazz" (although certainly not all) was the "pop" music of it's time. It wasn't always about fancy scales and modes, some of it was just entertainment for the masses.

Trying to put these limits of "jazz is only this or only that" is ignoring at least 50% of jazz history and the extensive and diverse artists who have made the genre what it is.
 
I'm going to pile on with another point: that is that to claim that it isn't the composition (the "tune"), and that it's the playing, is just lazy baloney. This is the argument put forth by those with no compositional sense or ability. There have been plenty of legitimate jazz compositions over the years, where the masturbatory solo wasn't the primary feature. Of course playing ability is important, but without an original thing to say with it, it's just wanking, IMO.

Take 5 is a good example of a piece of music that was nicely composed and well executed. I really don't see how covering a Cyndi Lauper hit has any more artistic merit than Kenny G blowing his horn over What A Wonderful World. I've heard The Beatles get their hits jazzified, too, and I think its just lame.

Like, "Go write your own friggin' hits if your so talented and understand better than anyone else what makes music tick."

Too many jazz players have the nasty habit of appropriating either standards making them "their own" (actually trying to take some credit for their "interpretation" of another musos writing effort), or plagiarizing pop hits and then turning around and bashing the original composer as an unworthy player by some jazz metric.

There are plenty of bands in all genres where the best get together to have a chop-festival and it invariably comes across as uninspired and contrived. So they just "borrow" the inspired ideas of others.
 
I subscribe to Slacker, an online music player that has many genres of music. If I decide to listen to Jazz to get a better understanding do I listen to, Jazz, Smooth Jazz, Smooth Jazz, non-vocal, Classic Jazz, non vocal, Classic Jazz, Modern Jazz, Contemporary Jazz, or Acid Jazz?? Who is to say, or judge which is the "real jazz." Maybe this is where the term Jazz Snob comes from. A failure to appreciate anybody's idea but those that you play, thinking you are the "real" jazz player. I think there is room for all and to bad mouth one, or one of its musicians is wrong.
 
Boy the level of "spite" directed at jazz players trying to offer some insight is pretty heavy and negative again. Usually as seen in this case by individuals with no real interest or anything actually invested in the music in question or hearing the jazz musicians point of view on the subject when offered. Just calling it straight up from my side of the fence.

The more things change the more the stay the same......

Around and around we go..............:{


And by the way DrumEatDrum who's ignoring the whole lineage and history of the music called jazz....not me.
 
GRUNTERSDAD said:
I subscribe to Slacker, an online music player that has many genres of music. If I decide to listen to Jazz to get a better understanding do I listen to, Jazz, Smooth Jazz, Smooth Jazz, non-vocal, Classic Jazz, non vocal, Classic Jazz, Modern Jazz, Contemporary Jazz, or Acid Jazz?? Who is to say, or judge which is the "real jazz." Maybe this is where the term Jazz Snob comes from. A failure to appreciate anybody's idea but those that you play, thinking you are the "real" jazz player. I think there is room for all and to bad mouth one, or one of its musicians is wrong.
Click to expand...

I find this "open field" attitude towards jazz music {and what clearly isn't} and what is real jazz music to be equally as dangerous.

I don't need to go into any great detail to express WHY yet again..........

My 2 cents........
 
Steamer said:
I find this "open field" attitude towards jazz music {and what clearly isn't} and what is real jazz music to be equally as dangerous.
Click to expand...

"Dangerous?" To who?

GRUNTERSDAD said that he explores all kinds of music that have the term "jazz" attached to that. This means that in the course of his exploration he's likely to buy a Monk CD or a Buddy Rich CD or a Kenny Dorham CD or a Bad Plus CD. Isn't that good? I think it is.
 
con struct said:
"Dangerous?" To who?
Click to expand...

To the music and respect for the music.......and the dangers with the pretenders like KG trying to stand on the backs of the jazz greats without anything of real substance in their jazz basket to back it up in the music they embrace for mere commercial gain....nothing of any real jazz substance being offered period to the listener from these jokers faking or trying to find their way into the jazz history books.

Brings the whole art form down to the lowest common point of smoothed over easy listening wallpaper crap in my view. Let Britney Spears take care of that music {?} quest in modern society when it comes to it but leave jazz alone......
 
Dangerous to who or in what regard.? Is it a matter of diluting the genre to the point that no one can tell what is jazz and what isn't like metal? Metal has a gazillion sub genres now. Stan I have the utmost of respect for you, your music and your knowledge, but what is dangerous about trying to decipher what is true jazz from the list I offered above.?
 
Steamer said:
To the music and respect for the music.......and the dangers with the pretenders like KG trying to stand on the backs of the jazz greats without anything of real substance in their jazz basket to back it up in the music they embrace for mere commercial gain....nothing of any real jazz substance being offered period to the listener from these jokers faking or trying to find their way into the jazz history books.

Brings the whole art form down to the lowest common point of smoothed over easy listening wallpaper crap in my view. Let Britney Spears take care of that music {?} quest in modern society when it comes to it but leave jazz alone......
Click to expand...

But surely you can see that if listening to Kenny G inspires someone, anyone, to search for "real" jazz music then that's a good thing, yeah? You just can't demand that everyone take a course on the history of jazz before they find the music and enjoy it on their own terms, no matter how they may come to discover it.

Very few people who buy jazz CDs or make it point to see jazz musicians perform live are qualified experts on the history of the music.
 
GRUNTERSDAD said:
Dangerous to who or in what regard.? Is it a matter of diluting the genre to the point that no one can tell what is jazz and what isn't like metal? Metal has a gazillion sub genres now. Stan I have the utmost of respect for you, your music and your knowledge, but what is dangerous about trying to decipher what is true jazz from the list I offered above.?
Click to expand...

When it includes stuff like KG who doesn't have a jazz leg to stand on and when people start calling it jazz and expecting that is what jazz is and can't find a way to relate to the actual sounds and lineage of the actual music in question. Jazz is the music of rebellion just like punk rock was in its own unique way not some form of no jazz content watered down easy listening elevator music faking its way into the actual jazz catalog or onto the bandstand IMO.
 
Steamer said:
When it includes stuff like KG who doesn't have a jazz leg to stand on and when people start calling it jazz and expecting that is what jazz is and can't find a way to relate to the actual sounds and lineage of the actual music in question.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Stan, I fail to see how that's "dangerous." Jazz isn't some precious sacred thing, you know. It's just not. The innovators of the music obviously didn't think it is.

"Lineage," see I never think about that. Who cares? Am I supposed to say a prayer to Sidney Bechet every time I play my drums or sit down to write a song?
 
MikeM said:
I'm going to pile on with another point: that is that to claim that it isn't the composition (the "tune"), and that it's the playing, is just lazy baloney. This is the argument put forth by those with no compositional sense or ability. There have been plenty of legitimate jazz compositions over the years, where the masturbatory solo wasn't the primary feature. Of course playing ability is important, but without an original thing to say with it, it's just wanking, IMO.

Take 5 is a good example of a piece of music that was nicely composed and well executed. I really don't see how covering a Cyndi Lauper hit has any more artistic merit than Kenny G blowing his horn over What A Wonderful World. I've heard The Beatles get their hits jazzified, too, and I think its just lame.

Like, "Go write your own friggin' hits if your so talented and understand better than anyone else what makes music tick."

Too many jazz players have the nasty habit of appropriating either standards making them "their own" (actually trying to take some credit for their "interpretation" of another musos writing effort), or plagiarizing pop hits and then turning around and bashing the original composer as an unworthy player by some jazz metric.

There are plenty of bands in all genres where the best get together to have a chop-festival and it invariably comes across as uninspired and contrived. So they just "borrow" the inspired ideas of others.
Click to expand...
.

This is an important insight into the core of the debate and that is that some songs whether because the matter of the way they were written or arranged, Green Dolphin Street, or the matter in which they are intentionally composed, Sophisticated Lady are better vehicles for jazz improvisation.

Again this is a forum of drummers, and our theoretical knowledge is probably more limited than most instrumentalists and certainly pianists. But the key point is that jazz compositions are composed with the knowledge of how they will fair as vehicles for improvisation. Smooth Jazz does not have the harmonic complexity to make for great improvisation. But that doesn't mean a performance of a Monk standard is always going to be good music, where as Smooth jazz is always going to be bad music. As you stated, because a bunch of players are sitting around doing the jazz thing, that doesn't mean that it is going to amount to anything.

As DED stated, jazzers today tend to see jazz as a tradition that began with the great improvisation tradition of Monk, Powell and Parker, and tend to shy away from its populist roots. Since the end of WWII jazz has developed into an underground phenomenon that often provided solace to an outer world of racism and gross commercialism. There is a developmental element in the jazz tradition where it moved from functional dance music to music that is appreciated in its own right.

When historians look back at the early days of jazz, they look for the key players and recordings that best exemplify the core elements of harmonic and rhythmic language as well as inventiveness and where the tradition grew and evolved. Pops is the figure that sits at the forefront in the early development of the tradition, and though he is working within a popular music context, by virtue of his superior musicality he is performing at a level than is leaps and bounds above what one would expect in such a forum.

I enjoy Brad Meldhau's take on Wonderwall, which is due to his own improvisational prowess as much as Keith Jarret's take on Autumn Leaves is due to his. Joshua Redman did a version of Zep's the Crunge. In today's world, such appropriation is somewhat suspect among jazz purists. But the appropriation of popular tunes is part of jazz history and was at the core of its beginnings. But not all popular music is equal either. There is some music that is made for artistic expression and some that has not goal of expression at all and is purely made for monetary reasons or for the personal gain and fame of the performer. There is such a range of intention and ultimately it's not a bad thing to have some sense of aesthetic decency. :)
 
con struct said:
Sorry, Stan, I fail to see how that's "dangerous." Jazz isn't some precious sacred thing, you know. It's just not. The innovators of the music obviously didn't think it is.

"Lineage," see I never think about that. Who cares? Am I supposed to say a prayer to Sidney Bechet every time I play my drums or sit down to write a song?
Click to expand...

To many in the history of this music and its innovators it is and was EXACTLY that way Jay. To Coltrane it became his own spiritual musical jazz quest through expression in music. You can hear it in every note of the emotional depth of his music and playing.

When I heard Elvin live he WAS LIVING JAZZ HISTORY no doubt about it and no faking his way onto the bandstand or in the recording studio on the subject. When I heard Jack with Keith he played a solo that covered the whole history of the instrument from Baby Dodds to present..pretty deep jazz ocean.... no questionable intent or substance..again a pretty heavy and serious living history of the music from its early roots to more modern concepts seen and heard today in the music called jazz.

ALL the greats i've had the fortune to meet and chat with DO consider the music a sacred thing to respect and hopefully offer their own contribution to after they are gone...that's the truth no BS from my firsthand experiences in the "jazz field".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top