Here's a newspaper review of the Monday Burton/Metheny quartet performance. I think this is the first time I've heard Pat's tone described as "plastic". *LOL* http://www.eyeweekly.com/music/liveeye/article/64874
Nobody has commented yet. Anybody want to be the first?
Chris, currently mastering bootleg of said show... available soon.
>gets it right about Mr. Peacock, who is still at the top of his >game (listen to any Jarrett trio recordings), and he does give
You mean Steve Swallow?
Another review I found online lists him as "Steve Swallows" ... (obscene thought not typed) ... everyone in these reviews is getting the name of a track wrong as well, performed by the opener the Botos Brothers. The track is called "Reveries of Love" not "Memories of Love", which about 15 seconds with Google sorted out for me.
Jazz critics seem only a little better than most rock critics, although of course there are notable exceptions like the more scholarly Ashley Kahn, Ethan Iverson, the guy who writes for the New York Times...Ben Ratlif??
> Jazz critics seem only a little better than most rock critics, > although of course there are notable exceptions like the more > scholarly Ashley Kahn, Ethan Iverson, the guy who writes for the > New York Times...Ben Ratlif??
Try not to take the critics too seriously. I never do. They always gave Miles Davis harsh reviews but Miles to me is the epitomy of jazz trumpet. And pandering to critics can turn you into Kenny G. I remember listening to this jazz flute player with a drummer I was working with and he said, "I wish my drums sounded like that." And no kidding my exact thoughts were that they sounded plastic. Like he was hitting tupperwear bowls. Maybe some people like that sound. Maybe Metheny likes it. Maybe his tone sounded different in a different room. Did they spend the whole tour playing in opera theaters? Probably not.
"Nobody has commented yet. Anybody want to be the first?"
Well, I wasn't there, but his comment about PM's sound is interesting, and I could see how he might make it. I will confess I haven't heard PM's playing w/ the Burton q'tet from back in the day, so it's possible there is some sort of unstated comparison there. I agree the vibes are a bit "limited" in range, but in the same breath I acknowledge Gary Burton's contribution to the instrument and to jazz in general. I was surprised to read the comment about Antonio Sanchez, whom I've heard live and on record, and whose playing I regard as nothing short of phenomenal. He gets it right about Mr. Peacock, who is still at the top of his game (listen to any Jarrett trio recordings), and he does give a 4/5 rating, so go figure.
Critics, they're harder to figure out than women, lol... Thanks for sharing!
--- In jazz_gui...@yahoogroups.com, Chris Smart <chris_s@...> wrote:
> Here's a newspaper review of the Monday Burton/Metheny quartet > performance. I think this is the first time I've heard Pat's tone > described as "plastic". *LOL*
> http://www.eyeweekly.com/music/liveeye/article/64874
> Nobody has commented yet. Anybody want to be the first?
> Chris, currently mastering bootleg of said show... available soon.
"Plastic" tone ? That is a weird description. I must note that I have never been a fan of Metheny's tone either, because it sounds unnatural to me. Perhaps that is what the critic meant. By the way, I think the negative criticism on that paper is not only about Metheny's tone. From what I understand, the content of his improvisation (note choice ?) is also criticized. Every musician can have good and bad nights though, and Metheny is just human. I had watched Mike Stern with the "Steps Ahead" band some time ago, and his improvisations on that night were way too repetitive. Compared to the rest of the band (and that band had Richard Bona on bass, Steve Smith on drums and Mike Mainieri on vibes) Stern sounded very dull and boring. A friend of mine (a Stern fan) also had to agree with my observation for that particular live performance. I guess such thing do happen, looks like this is an inherent risk of improvised music...
The problem I would have is actually NOT recognizing a poor or brilliant performance by a jazz player and that's due to two reasons. One, being a rookie I am, beyond the superficial (tho tremendous) enjoyment of the show, incapable of noticing particular faults. Two, I only get to see these folks once in a lifetime and so am too overawed in their presence to objectively critique. I saw Metheny at Wolf Trap some years ago, doing his We Live Here tour and it was - in my opinion - magnificent, to the point where I got all choked up. I've seen Miles twice and both times I thought he was incredible but, again, who am I to say? The groove, the feel, the sensations were wonderful but particular notes/runs/mistakes? On the other hand, when I was a kid, I saw Fleetwood Mac in their Peter Green days many, many times to the point where I could recognize whether they were bored or cookin'. I truly wish I lived / worked someplace where I could go to see jazz on a
regular basis. That would be too, too cool!!!!!!!!!!!
Mark Cassidy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If it was Steve Swallow on bass, my opinion doesn't change much, except to say Swallow plays electric bass. I love his work with John Scofield. Pardon my inattention...
Cheers, JV
Juan Vega
In a message dated 7/1/2009 6:29:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
"The problem I would have is actually NOT recognizing a poor or brilliant performance by a jazz player..."
Actually, I don't think that's a "problem"; if you like a performance, or it reaches or affects you, it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks, especially critics. Critics can be helpful, but oftentimes they just serve to "poison the well" for the sake of their egos, or whatever.
Of course, as you gain more awareness, it's possible to discern nuances or aspects of a performance (or of anything else, for that matter) that enable you to decide whether it's "better", or "great", etc. They say "familiarity breeds contempt", and this is also true with music; when I was younger, I would've probably sold my soul to sound/play like, say, Pat Martino. These days, while I still dig Pat's playing, it doesn't move me as much or as often, but that in no way detracts from his ability, it's more about my perception. I'm also more focused in trying to sound/play like Juan Vega, whether anybody cares or not...
as in many cases, it seems that there is a lot of underlying attitude to the review, and understanding the reviewer's point of view would take reading more of his reviews and then getting a general idea of how he views music.
At first reading it seems to me that "basic playing" doesn't interest the reviewer too much. It's very common these days that "just" playing lines over harmonies aren't enough for many; they require other (often superficial) things to hold their interest, such as distortion or Pikasso guitar.
Being familiar with these people's playing (which, aesthetic choices notwithstanding, is top notch in their own field), the review tells more about the writer than the actual music. It seems to me that it's not a question of a "good" night vs. "bad" night - the things criticized are main features of the players' style and so their playing would do little to the writer on any night.
As a musician, I rarely read reviews. I've decided long ago that it's just their opinions and as such, just don't matter to me. If I want to know how someone plays, I go and listen myself. Which brings me to ....Chris? Please?
|
