Herbie Hancock: jazz is not a higher kind of music
sum1
"I was making a hierarchy out of music, and it's ridiculous. It's like
saying steak is great, but peas and carrots are not. It's ridiculous.
You need it all, you know. I mean each thing can have its place in
your life, and you could choose what it is that you want. But to try
to say that one is higher and one is lower is ridiculous."
----------------------
http://www.sfbayview.com/121703/herbiehancock121703.shtml
Jazz giant: an interview with Herbie Hancock
Part 1
by JR
After his four decades of performing professionally, eight Grammys and
40 music and film awards, I had the opportunity to speak to one of the
biggest musical trailblazers of our time, Herbie Hancock. He's played
behind some of the jazz world's eternal giants, like Miles Davis, John
Coltrane and Donald Byrd, and Herbie Hancock has also fastened his own
nails to the wall of music's hall of fame - opening the doors, with
his experimentation, for modern jazz, hip hop, drum ‘n bass, techno,
electonica and a gang of other genres to be respected. Before Prince,
Herbie Hancock is one of the main ones who inspired the keyboard
musical revolution of the ‘80s.
With jazz being the classical music of Black people in Amerikkka, we
should know about Herbie Hancock and our own Black history, including
musical and cultural history, because if we don't, it will be watered
down and repackaged and sold back to us a few years later with
performers like Elvis, Eminem, Kenny G, Sean Paul or Justin Timberlake
being credited as the pioneers instead of the imitators that they
really are.
When I was 14 or 15, Herbie Hancock's "Watermelon Man" seduced me into
listening to jazz while I was in the high school band, playing
trumpet. We used to look at films of jazz concerts that featured
musicians like Miles Davis, Dizzy Gillespie, Tito Puente, Pete
Escovedo and Herbie Hancock in the same way that football players
watch NFL games to study the grace, passion and technique of every
play.
So to meet and interview an international cultural icon like Herbie
Hancock at an awards banquet for some youngstas in Hunters Point,
where he was donating his time, was big to me, because he was using
his fame to bring attention to these innercity, mostly Black youngstas
who had made a movie, "Hunters Point Heroes." It was good to know that
the fame didn't make him forget about the rest of Black Amerikkka who
are struggling to survive. Check him out in his own words …
JR: I know that you were around when Miles, Coltrane and Byrd were at
the top of their game and you've also seen the emergence of hip hop
and have played a part in that. Can you briefly explain how you got
into music and how you have seen the music game change for Black
people?
Herbie Hancock: I started playing piano when I was 7. And I started
with classical lessons. Then I really got exposed to jazz. Although my
parents were playing jazz for me when I was a kid, I didn't pay much
attention until I saw someone my age improvising, playing jazz. That
was when I was about 13 or 14. That was at Hyde Park High School in
Chicago.
And I said, "I want to learn how to do that, ‘cause this is my
instrument and this guy can do something on my instrument that I can't
do." So that's when I first started getting exposed to jazz. It opened
up like a floodgate of interest in my soul for music in a whole
‘nother way. It pulled me like a magnet, jazz did, because it was a
way that I could express myself.
It's very different from classical music. In classical music, you are
playing something that is written by someone else. But in jazz, the
song may be written by somebody else, but how you treat it is entirely
with your notes and your expression. And so that pulled me into jazz.
So later on, as I began to get more involved in jazz, (I was) less
involved with classical music, and less involved with R&B, which was
the music from when I was a kid (that I was into) before I got into
jazz and classical music. You know, I was listening to the Sparrows,
the Parrots, the Ravens and a bunch of groups that were around -
singing groups, do-wop groups - back then.
So what happened was, by the time I started my real career in jazz and
I was playing with Donald Byrd's group - he's a great jazz trumpet
player - I had stopped listening to R&B, and I was only listening to
jazz and classical. But then I joined Miles Davis' band in ‘63, and I
noticed that Miles was listening to everything, and he was the coolest
of the cool, and he was my hero. So I said, "If Miles is open about
music, why am I so closed about it?" That's when I started then
listening to James Brown and later Sly Stone, because it still moved
my soul. Although I had stopped listening to R&B, it still would move
my soul.
JR: Did it feel commercial? Why did you stop?
Herbie Hancock: Well, I was becoming more of a jazz snob, in thinking
that jazz was a higher kind of music, and that R&B was, yes, for the
body and more commercial. I was looking at the direction of art and
creativity from here to that standpoint. And jazz is also for the body
because it is rhythmic, but it's also for the mind and for the soul,
and it is very creative.
So I saw this hierarchy, and this was my mistake. I was making a
hierarchy out of music, and it's ridiculous. It's like saying steak is
great, but peas and carrots are not. It's ridiculous. You need it all,
you know. I mean each thing can have its place in your life, and you
could choose what it is that you want. But to try to say that one is
higher and one is lower is ridiculous.
So when I opened up, that was a great change in my life - it was a
very important one - and that made me open - to be exposed to hip hop
when it was still underground. I went through several developments of
my own music, including a more avant-garde form of jazz, which in a
way has kind of come back through the electronica scene, because I
found out that a lot of people who are kind of in the electronica
scene, which kind of grew out of hip hop too, they are referring to
some records that I made when I was in my avant-garde period.
When I first heard scratching, it was a record by Malcolm McClerran, a
guy from England. It was like a minor hit, but it didn't really open
the thing up to the general public. But I liked the sound of
scratching, because it reminded me just of the kind of sounds that I
was looking for when I was with my avant-garde band.
So I said, "I want to do a record that uses that." Anyway, I got
together with Bill Laswell and we made "Rockit," and the whole record
was called "Future Shock." Scratching was on it. DST is a giant; he's
a great musician. Not only does he play the turntables, but he can
play the drums; he can play a little bit of keyboards and the guitar.
So when "Rockit" hit, we had no idea that it would go the way it did,
but somehow it opened a big door to the general public, and hip hop,
from that point on. It was really the beginning of the impact that hip
hop has made on the world today. I've seen, in Bali, rappers rapping
in Balinese. And I went there a few times, and they're rapping in
Balinese. I mean, that's very far from where we are at, right?
JR: Where are they getting it from?
Herbie Hancock: Hip hop has just permeated the whole world. They've
heard rap records from the states; then they try to do their own
thing, based off of what they are hearing.
JR: Do you think that it is similar to jazz?
Herbie Hancock: It definitely has a relationship to jazz, because when
guys are doing freestyling with their rhyming, they are actually
improvising with words. That's something that I can't do. I can
improvise with notes, but they are improvising with words and doing it
in a rhythmic way that is not set. So they get a chance to exercise
some of the same things that I do with jazz, so that relationship is
there. It is improvising, and it is rhythmic.
Another thing that I noticed is a lot of people in the hip hop scene
have a great respect for jazz and have incorporated by sampling some
elements that come from jazz. And a lot of times (they) have made
rhymes that are an acknowledgement and in homage to jazz musicians.
So the ideas is not to shut out jazz - but it is very inclusive, which
is great - because jazz is also an inclusive music. Jazz has borrowed
from other genres of music and also has lent itself to other genres of
music. One of the greatest attributes of jazz, I think, is that it is
that open.
Steve Cooper
"sum1" <su...@lycos.jp> wrote in message
news:544b2430.03121...@posting.google.com...
> are struggling to survive. Check him out in his own words .
Luke Kaven
music" is intended in a different way from what is said here, and
unsupported anywhere within this interview. He certainly does not say
that there is no bad music. He is espousing a pluralist and inclusive
notion of jazz. I don't have anything against R&B or Hip Hop, and
don't consider it low per se, and neither do bebop musicians that I
know. [And I agree with his remarks about freestyling.] It still
comes down to what one has to say, and in many cases, as in music that
has lyrics, that is meant literally. There are brilliant instances of
R&B and Hip Hop, and there are ghastly instances of it. There are
ghastly instances of even the core jazz idioms. But your position,
which apparently involves erasing most value distinctions, is much
more radical, and there's nothing in this interview to support that.
Luke
Interesting to note that the interviewer does some editorializing
here:
Michael Laprarie
???
The author's initials J.R. must stand for "Jive-Ass Racist"
Herbie's comments, though, were interesting and informative.
--
Michael Laprarie
"sum1" <su...@lycos.jp> wrote in message
news:544b2430.03121...@posting.google.com...
> Herbie's the man who says it best:
>
> "I was making a hierarchy out of music, and it's ridiculous. It's like
> saying steak is great, but peas and carrots are not. It's ridiculous.
> You need it all, you know. I mean each thing can have its place in
> your life, and you could choose what it is that you want. But to try
> to say that one is higher and one is lower is ridiculous."
>
>
> ----------------------
>
>
> http://www.sfbayview.com/121703/herbiehancock121703.shtml
>
> Jazz giant: an interview with Herbie Hancock
>
> Part 1
>
> by JR
>
>
>
> With jazz being the classical music of Black people in Amerikkka, we
> should know about Herbie Hancock and our own Black history, including
> musical and cultural history, because if we don't, it will be watered
> down and repackaged and sold back to us a few years later with
> performers like Elvis, Eminem, Kenny G, Sean Paul or Justin Timberlake
> being credited as the pioneers instead of the imitators that they
> really are.
>
> So to meet and interview an international cultural icon like Herbie
> Hancock at an awards banquet for some youngstas in Hunters Point,
> where he was donating his time, was big to me, because he was using
> his fame to bring attention to these innercity, mostly Black youngstas
> who had made a movie, "Hunters Point Heroes." It was good to know that
> the fame didn't make him forget about the rest of Black Amerikkka who
> are struggling to survive. Check him out in his own words .
Joseph Scott
Herbie's comments suggest that he thinks Elvis's music is good in its
own way; the interviewer knocks Elvis. Herbie specifically points out
that he thinks classical music is quite different from jazz; the
interviewer describes jazz as "black" Americans' classical music.
(Wouldn't ragtime make a better candidate?) One would think striving
to "know about Herbie Hancock" would include listening to what he
says. :-)
Nice to realize reading this that Malcolm McLaren actually played a
worthwhile role in music history at least once!
Joseph Scott
Ted Lesher
news:C8mdnXpOSos...@comcast.com...
> Bird and Monk had the same attitude. Good music is good music.
Add Ellington, who said "There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the
other kind." Also "If it sounds good and feels good, then it IS good!"
Ted Lesher
Mike C.
clearly. What kind of troll would he be then?
--
Mike C.
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who
could
not hear the music."
--Friedrich Nietzsche
"Joseph Scott" <j_ns...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:a2d52481.03121...@posting.google.com...
Larry Smithee
Source?
Larry
sum1
> Your use of the suggestive headline "jazz is not a higher kind of
> music" is intended in a different way from what is said here,
You're in denial. Look at what he said:
" . . to try to say that one is higher and one is lower is ridiculous."
In other words, jazz is not a higher form music. Nor is it lower. It simply is.
Luke Kaven
Nick
> music" is intended in a different way from what is said here, and
> unsupported anywhere within this interview. He certainly does not say
> that there is no bad music. He is espousing a pluralist and inclusive
> notion of jazz.
Which is commendable, but I think it's ridiculous to say that rappers
are on the same level as accomplished jazz musicians, but "they're
just different, that's all."
The ability to shout in rhythm about mah bitches and mah ho's takes
little to no skill. Playing great jazz takes enormous skill. There is
such a thing as craft, and a scale of excellence, and I think it's
short-changing people who have worked long and hard to develop their
skill to say it's equivalent to a rap "artist" who has never seen the
inside of a practice room or opened a music theory book of any kind.
Herbie's praise for the skill of rappers seems to be mostly based on
their supposed ability to improvise. How many of the most popular
rappers actually do this? Next to none. The pre-packaging and
repetitious, robotic instrumental backgrounds that go into a typical
rap record makes the worst smooth jazz look like a burst of
spontaneity.
Granted, there's something to be said for putting words together in
clever rhyming, rhythmic combinations. That makes for great poetry,
not great music. And it's rare.
I love Herbie -- I think he's one of the geniuses in the history of
jazz. But when I read people like him, or Quincy Jones, talking about
about great rap is, I can't help but feel that it's a justification
for their own decisions to be more commercial.
Luke Kaven
like anything else, the good stuff is hard to get your hands on,
because the shelves and airwaves are clogged with the worst of it.
As for freestyling, there are talented people out there who can make
up a rap that not only rhymes, but says something interesting. And
that isn't easy.
Luke
nick...@aol.com (Nick) wrote:
>Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
Adam Bravo
Oh come on. Sum1 can be incredibly ridiculous, but that doesn't mean you
have to follow his lead. Hancock is clearly attacking your point of view; I
don't see any way to interpret it otherwise. He means that one cannot rate
each genre as higher or lower than the other. You say that jazz is higher.
Fact is, you disagree.
sum1
Are you too busy to elaborate or are you just trying to be
contentious?
The meaning is as clear as a bell - there is no hierarchy of musical
styles/genres/forms. Jazz is just one among many.
Luke Kaven
>Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
>> >Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>> >
>> >> music" is intended in a different way from what is said here,
>> >
>> >You're in denial. Look at what he said:
>> >
>> >" . . to try to say that one is higher and one is lower is ridiculous."
>> >
>> >In other words, jazz is not a higher form music. Nor is it lower. It simply is.
>>
>> Again: Your use "is intended in a different way from what is said
>> here".
>
>Are you too busy to elaborate or are you just trying to be
>contentious?
>
>The meaning is as clear as a bell - there is no hierarchy of musical
>styles/genres/forms. Jazz is just one among many.
It's true, I am busy, and don't have as much time to write a complete
reply as I did at an earlier time. But I feel I should say something
here.
Hancock may say that jazz is not a higher *kind* of music. But this
doesn't say anything about the difference between good and bad
*instances* of music. Your point has more to do with a kind of
radical relativism which erases distinctions that people may make
between good and bad music, and along with *that* the notion of a
hierarchy, both of genres and of instances.
But in Hancock's case, he clearly *does* believe in the difference
between instances of music that are good and bad and takes a stand in
the form of what he chooses to play and with whom he chooses to play
it. What he does, whether he is including elements of funk, R&B, or
hip-hop, is of a high calibre. Whether his particular tastes accord
with mine, it doesn't matter--I still think that what he does is good
music. When he appropriates elements of different styles, he does it
selectively and with distinction. This clearly indicates value
judgments on his part.
And I have never tried to say the hip hop, funk, or R&B are bad *as
genres*. Like anything else, there are good instances, and bad
instances. The same I'd say of R&B and funk and classical. [Yes,
most classical is bad music, not because it is classical, but just
because it is trite romanticism in my view. I call this
NPR-Classical, because that is mostly all they play on NPR classical
stations with some notable exceptions.] Just as with these, I'd say
there are good and bad instances of jazz. So Hancock wants to deny a
hierarchy *of genres*, but he is committed to accepting a hierarchy of
*good and bad instances* of these genres.
[In point of fact, his origin is still as a jazz musician, and even
his statements in the interview reflect those sensibilities.]
So you'd ask at this point what makes me often negative about
Instrumental Pop, sounding as though I am negative about the genre?
The reason is that Instrumental Pop is a genre that is largely
characterized by a cluster of beliefs (on the part of the players, and
on the part of the listeners) which, taken together, are
characteristic of what I would say leads to the production of *bad
music*. This could change, but for the moment, the *genre* of
instrumental pop is overwhelmingly made up of *bad instances* of
music.
In your tendency to conflate important distinctions, I think you were
too hasty to call Mr. Hancock in as support for your views. And Mr.
Bravo was too hasty to pit me against Mr. Hancock, my differences in
taste notwithstanding.
Luke
Zoot
on paper you are ready to play any kind of western music except jazz
. for that you still have a lot to learn.
Brian Rost
> I love Herbie -- I think he's one of the geniuses in the history of
> jazz. But when I read people like him, or Quincy Jones, talking about
> about great rap is, I can't help but feel that it's a justification
> for their own decisions to be more commercial.
Why can't it be because they actually DIG it?
I agree with Herbie's statement about one music not being higher or
lower than another. I can listen to punk rock, Mozart, rap and Miles and
appreciate them all for what they are. I don't have to like ALL rap to
like SOME rap.
In fact as a musician myself my biggest problem is finding outlets to
play all the different styles I like.
--
Brian Rost
Stargen, Inc.
**********************************************************************
JC Martin
news:1d97fb30.03121...@posting.google.com...
> Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote in message
news:<2u53uvom467oof6if...@4ax.com>...
> > Your use of the suggestive headline "jazz is not a higher kind of
> > music" is intended in a different way from what is said here, and
> > unsupported anywhere within this interview. He certainly does not say
> > that there is no bad music. He is espousing a pluralist and inclusive
> > notion of jazz.
>
> Which is commendable, but I think it's ridiculous to say that rappers
> are on the same level as accomplished jazz musicians, but "they're
> just different, that's all."
>
> The ability to shout in rhythm about mah bitches and mah ho's takes
> little to no skill.
An obvious generalization which shows once again, you don't know much about
the subject you critique. That's just too easy. You can write paragraph
upon paragraph of what you think you know, but I've listened to the music in
depth and you again are off-base. I would love to see you stand up and rap
since you find it so easy. It is indeed a skill which takes focus, drive,
practice, a good ear for rhythm and abstraction.
>Playing great jazz takes enormous skill. There is
> such a thing as craft, and a scale of excellence, and I think it's
> short-changing people who have worked long and hard to develop their
> skill to say it's equivalent to a rap "artist" who has never seen the
> inside of a practice room or opened a music theory book of any >kind.
You don't know this at all. Your point of reference is merely a few tunes
you have heard via popular mediums. There's tons of underground rap which
is quite inventive (labels like Def Jux and Madlib produced projects for
example) , and many rappers have indeed studied music. My sister-in-law
plays cello in a hip hop orchestra in Los Angeles which mixes Mingus
arrangements, strings, jazz harmony, modal solos and freestyle raps in a
pretty interesting blend.
> Herbie's praise for the skill of rappers seems to be mostly based on
> their supposed ability to improvise.
I think it's because he knows more than you.
>How many of the most popular
> rappers actually do this? Next to none. The pre-packaging and
> repetitious, robotic instrumental backgrounds that go into a typical
> rap record makes the worst smooth jazz look like a burst of
> spontaneity.
"Smooth jazz" is far more pre-packaged and less challenging. You can even
take a pop rap artist like Missy Elliot and her music and beats roll over
anything "smooth jazz" has to offer.
> Granted, there's something to be said for putting words together in
> clever rhyming, rhythmic combinations. That makes for great poetry,
> not great music. And it's rare.
How would you know?
> I love Herbie -- I think he's one of the geniuses in the history of
> jazz. But when I read people like him, or Quincy Jones, talking about
> about great rap is, I can't help but feel that it's a justification
> for their own decisions to be more commercial.
Again, how would you know?
-JC
JC Martin
news:f4wEb.30287$BQ5.27125@fed1read03...
No, Luke didn't say that at all. Re-read.
-JC
Steve Cooper
Well, the first thing to say is that I was responding to Herbie Hancock's
statement in the interview that he was open to all kinds of music and that
other forms of music "moved" him.
In an interview, Monk was asked what kind of music he liked. Monk replied he
liked all kinds of music. The interviewer then asked if he liked Country &
Western music. Monk then complained that the interviewer didn't listen very
well. Monk also told me (in my one and only dicussion with him) that he
thought rock and roll music had produced a lot of worthwhile and good music
and that he listened to it.
If you dig into Bird's background through books and articles, it is obvious
that Bird dug all kinds of music and that his boundaries extended far beyond
jazz. He repeatedly refused to categorize music in terms of good, better or
best.
"Larry Smithee" <lcsm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3cdae13f.03121...@posting.google.com...
Joseph Scott
us who do value it highly shouldn't kid ourselves that we have a
better understanding of some "objective" aesthetic standard(s) than
those other people do, or a better understanding of what the supposed
"objective" hierarchies of styles are aesthetically, at the risk of
looking like snobs who are trying to put our personal subjective
values as they happen to currently be above other people's subjective
values for the sake of our egos and little else. We can get plenty of
joy out of liking what we like because we really like it without
having to have someone else be worse than us for not liking it too.
Agreed?
For instance, to the best of my understanding Ray Charles really likes
violins on soul music better than I do. Should I conclude that I have
"better" taste than him, in some "absolute" sense? On what basis?
Better I think to say that he has "better taste" than me regarding
strings and soul -- whenever "good taste" is defined by the general
values of some music fans -- and on the other hand I have "better
taste" than him regarding strings and soul -- whenever "good taste" is
defined by the general values of some other music fans.
Joseph Scott
Steve Cooper
It certainly is not clear from Herbie's interview. He establishes the term
higher based on jazz "snobbery". And the last time I looked at my Funk &
Wagnalls, a snob maintains an air of superiority through "refined" taste.
Put in other words, at one time Herbie thought that his proclivity for jazz
made him superior to people who enjoyed or practiced other types of music.
And the concept of superiority of one music over another is totally
ridiculous even if it takes more talent or education to produce one type of
music as opposed to another type. It's almost like saying one thinks that
one genre of book is better than another.
And I suspect that the reason that you (sum1) posted this interview is to
support your crusade to validate the worth of smooth jazz. Well, I for one
think it is fine for people to enjoy smooth jazz; by their very numbers such
people have already established its validity and worth, at least in their
eyes.
"sum1" <su...@lycos.jp> wrote in message
news:544b2430.03121...@posting.google.com...
> are struggling to survive. Check him out in his own words .
Ben Sharvy
> There is
> such a thing as craft, and a scale of excellence, and I think it's
> short-changing people who have worked long and hard to develop their
> skill to say it's equivalent to a rap "artist" who has never seen the
> inside of a practice room or opened a music theory book of any kind.
I agree that rap is a cruder form, but disagree that opening a music
theory book has much to do with it. Did Charlie Parker open a music
theory book? Monk?
sum1
> Hancock may say that jazz is not a higher *kind* of music.
Yes, indeed. And that is the title to this thread and there is no way
it can be read as misleading since it is in fact exactly what he said.
> But this
> doesn't say anything about the difference between good and bad
> *instances* of music.
Of course it doesn't. That's another point entirely.
>
> But in Hancock's case, he clearly *does* believe in the difference
> between instances of music that are good and bad and takes a stand in
> the form of what he chooses to play and with whom he chooses to play
> it.
We all beleive in music that is good and bad and we all make that
distinction real each time we turn on the stereo.
>
> And I have never tried to say the hip hop, funk, or R&B are bad *as
> genres*. Like anything else, there are good instances, and bad
> instances.
Of course, of course, I agree. And my apologies if I called you on a
claim you never made.
I think it was Larry who was trying to argue that pop music is
inferior music.
sum1
>
>
> An obvious generalization which shows once again, you don't know much about
> the subject you critique.
Kind of like your critique of smooth jazz, which is based on music you
overheard at the dentist's office.
sum1
> Most people do not value improvisation in music very highly. Those of
> us who do value it highly shouldn't kid ourselves that we have a
> better understanding of some "objective" aesthetic standard(s) than
> those other people do, or a better understanding of what the supposed
> "objective" hierarchies of styles are aesthetically, at the risk of
> looking like snobs who are trying to put our personal subjective
> values as they happen to currently be above other people's subjective
> values for the sake of our egos and little else. We can get plenty of
> joy out of liking what we like because we really like it without
> having to have someone else be worse than us for not liking it too.
> Agreed?
Very well said. If there is a group FAQ, this should be included.
sum1
> And the concept of superiority of one music over another is totally
> ridiculous even if it takes more talent or education to produce one type of
> music as opposed to another type. It's almost like saying one thinks that
> one genre of book is better than another.
Exactly.
> And I suspect that the reason that you (sum1) posted this interview is to
> support your crusade to validate the worth of smooth jazz. Well, I for one
> think it is fine for people to enjoy smooth jazz; by their very numbers such
> people have already established its validity and worth, at least in their
> eyes.
Smooth jazz doesn't need validation from me or anyone else.
JC Martin
You're making up stuff up in your mind again.
-JC
ric
> > Kind of like your critique of smooth jazz, which is based on music you
> > overheard at the dentist's office.
>
> You're making up stuff up in your mind again.
You must be getting healthy. Last time it was the doctor's office for you,
but the dentist's office for me. I insisted on the "laughing gas" with the
muzak.
Luke Kaven
>
>Yes, indeed. And that is the title to this thread and there is no way
>it can be read as misleading since it is in fact exactly what he said.
You quote back the first sentence only, which was explained away in
the rest of the discourse. Read more carefully.
Steve Cooper
promote smooth jazz in this newsgroup?
"sum1" <su...@lycos.jp> wrote in message
news:544b2430.03122...@posting.google.com...
Mike C.
--
Mike C.
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who
could
not hear the music."
--Friedrich Nietzsche
"Ben Sharvy" <bsh...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:d196ca8d.03121...@posting.google.com...
Zoot
it's not jazz and calling it jazz is ignorant.
sum1
Of course it is. Even Nat Hentoff said that smooth jazz is part of
the jazz tradition and just to help you out I'm providing links to
more sites and authors who agree with Mr Hentoff.
Perhaps for a new year's resolution you can work on overcoming your
denial.
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/articles/jazz0802.htm
http://www.apassion4jazz.net/page3.html
http://www.jazzsteps.com/reviews/whatisit.asp?partner=23053&sc=true
http://www.jazzsteps.com/history/hist_1970.asp
http://vig.prenhall.com/catalog/academic/product/1,4096,013021227X,00.html
http://www.jazzinamerica.org/lp_o.asp?LPOrder=7
http://www.unr.edu/content/news.asp?sto_id=174
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/library/smooth.htm
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/iviews/mouzon.htm?no_auto=1
sum1
Then perhaps you could tell us about the stack of smooth jazz cds that
you have sampled.
sum1
In what way was it "explained away"? He clearly says there is no
hierarchy of forms.
sum1
> If you don't feel it needs validation, why do you make such a big effort to
> promote smooth jazz in this newsgroup?
I don't promote anything. I simply talk about what I like, same as everyone else.
Zoot
smooth is not jazz
it doesn't come from jazz
it doesn't work like jazz
it doesn't even want to be jazz
and anyone who supports the notion that it is is just wrong
calling it jazz is bad for jazz
you can't play
you don't know jazz
you are always taking these lame stands to get attention
and [have i mentioned?] you look like a fool
Zoot
no i come to this group to talk about and promote jazz
i go to other groups to talk about and promote what ever that group is
about
you come to this group to agitate
you claim that smooth is jazz [what reaction could you be looking
for?] in a room full of people that know it's not.
get the puppy
Zoot
no i come to this group to talk about and promote jazz
Patrick Powers
Herbie is just trying to act hip.
Luke Kaven
>Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
>> >Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>> >
>> >> Hancock may say that jazz is not a higher *kind* of music.
>> >
>> >Yes, indeed. And that is the title to this thread and there is no way
>> >it can be read as misleading since it is in fact exactly what he said.
>>
>> You quote back the first sentence only, which was explained away in
>> the rest of the discourse. Read more carefully.
>
>In what way was it "explained away"? He clearly says there is no
>hierarchy of forms.
In terms of value, there may not be a hierarchy of kinds, but there is
a hierarchy of instances and a few practical generalizations that can
be made. It just happens to be (contingently, as we say), that
certain kinds of music are mainly characterized by poor instances.
Herbie Hancock makes his choices, and I'd say that his choices do not
favor all equally.
Larry Smithee
I've been a little busy lately and haven't had much time to wade into
this conversation. What strikes me as really funny about some of these
attempts to interpret Herbie's so called no hierarchy statement is
that for HIM that's true. Whatever Herbie musically touches will be
elevated to a high art standard, period. Quincy Jones can do that too.
As far as I know Herbie has never delved specifically in smooth pop,
but should he do so I'm sure it would be a class act. It would be very
naive to expect that Herbie would literally strip the very soul from a
piece of music in the way that G and other elevator smooth pop
musicians typically do.
Larry
Bobby Knight
>Herbie's the man who says it best:
>
>"I was making a hierarchy out of music, and it's ridiculous. It's like
>saying steak is great, but peas and carrots are not. It's ridiculous.
>You need it all, you know. I mean each thing can have its place in
>your life, and you could choose what it is that you want. But to try
>to say that one is higher and one is lower is ridiculous."
>
To not observe that Rap, and hip-hop, are lower forms than any other
music is ridiculous.
sum1
Of course, it is. I hope for the new year you will wake from your denial.
> it doesn't come from jazz
Even Nat Hentoff said so. But go look at the links above for more support.
sum1
> > "Steve Cooper" <steve...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<DpadnZpuZad...@comcast.com>...
> > > If you don't feel it needs validation, why do you make such a big effort to
> > > promote smooth jazz in this newsgroup?
> >
> > I don't promote anything. I simply talk about what I like, same as everyone else.
>
> no i come to this group to talk about and promote jazz
You're not doing a very good job.
> you come to this group to agitate
So, what's the difference between promotion and agitation?
> you claim that smooth is jazz
I'm not the only one.
> in a room full of people that know it's not.
There is certainly a room full of people. A few of them are
loudmouths who are living in a fantasy world of denial and pretention.
The rest of us know what is what.
> get the puppy
Get over yourself.
And Happy New Year!
sum1
> Herbie is just trying to act hip.
Yeah, well, so are a lot of people in this ng.
sum1
> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
> >Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
> >> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
> >> >Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
> >> >
> >> >> Hancock may say that jazz is not a higher *kind* of music.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, indeed. And that is the title to this thread and there is no way
> >> >it can be read as misleading since it is in fact exactly what he said.
> >>
> >> You quote back the first sentence only, which was explained away in
> >> the rest of the discourse. Read more carefully.
> >
> >In what way was it "explained away"? He clearly says there is no
> >hierarchy of forms.
>
> In terms of value, there may not be a hierarchy of kinds,
Thank you.
> but there is
> a hierarchy of instances and a few practical generalizations that can
> be made. It just happens to be (contingently, as we say), that
> certain kinds of music are mainly characterized by poor instances.
Free jazz, for one, eh?
sum1
> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote in message news:<544b2430.0312...@posting.google.com>...
> > Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote in message news:<7u6cuv06tue4m8klm...@4ax.com>...
> > > su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
> > > >Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > >> Hancock may say that jazz is not a higher *kind* of music.
> > > >
> > > >Yes, indeed. And that is the title to this thread and there is no way
> > > >it can be read as misleading since it is in fact exactly what he said.
> > >
> > > You quote back the first sentence only, which was explained away in
> > > the rest of the discourse. Read more carefully.
> >
> > In what way was it "explained away"? He clearly says there is no
> > hierarchy of forms.
>
> I've been a little busy lately and haven't had much time to wade into
> this conversation.
Welcome back, Larry.
> What strikes me as really funny about some of these
> attempts to interpret Herbie's so called no hierarchy statement is
> that for HIM that's true.
What stirkes me as funny is that you and Luke can't accept his
statement at face value. No interpretation is necessary.
Get over yourself.
Luke Kaven
>lcsm...@earthlink.net (Larry Smithee) wrote
[...]
>> What strikes me as really funny about some of these
>> attempts to interpret Herbie's so called no hierarchy statement is
>> that for HIM that's true.
>
>What stirkes me as funny is that you and Luke can't accept his
>statement at face value. No interpretation is necessary.
>
>Get over yourself.
You haven't read me very carefully in this thread. And your
argument-from-authority goes nowhere.
Larry Smithee
That's because the statement when read "at face value" is out of
context. Have you actually read the article or did your brain seize up
after reading the first two sentences or so that seemed to vaguely
validate your narrow opinion? Try actually reading the article while
your brain is in the "on" position.
Larry
sum1
The "context" to which you refer is pure fabrication, something to
justify the fact that Herbie does not agree with you.
Nick
> Nick wrote:
> > I love Herbie -- I think he's one of the geniuses in the history of
> > jazz. But when I read people like him, or Quincy Jones, talking about
> > about great rap is, I can't help but feel that it's a justification
> > for their own decisions to be more commercial.
>
> Why can't it be because they actually DIG it?
>
> I agree with Herbie's statement about one music not being higher or
> lower than another.
I'm of two minds on this.
On one hand, I don't think one genre is "higher" or "lower" in terms
of what enjoyment it provides. If you like listening to rap, and I
like listening to bebop, I don't think my enjoyment is somehow more
"legitimate" than yours because bebop is more complex or takes more
musical skill than rap. There are a lot of rock songs that I like more
than a lot of bebop recordings, despite the fact I know they're
relative simplistic musically.
On the other hand, I don't agree with the idea that rap is on the same
"level" as jazz musically, but it's "just different" and there are
"good and bad in both." IMO, Rap as an overall genre is pretty bad,
because it's based on a fairly specific concept which is limited and
unimaginative, i.e., shouting in rhythm over a robotic, repetitious
and predictable sequenced background. In this sense, jazz *is* a
"higher" form of music. This is as obvious as saying that an expert
airbrush artist is on a higher level artistically (or craft-wise, if
you prefer) than someone who draws stick figures.
As rotten as most of you might think commercial jazz is, at least it
allows, theoretically, for a wide range of sounds and musical
approaches. That so many acts fail to explore this wide range is an
unfortunate consequence of trying to get played on the radio by
adhering to a fairly derivative and predictable formula.
Nick
> nick...@aol.com (Nick) wrote in message news:<1d97fb30.03121...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > There is
> > such a thing as craft, and a scale of excellence, and I think it's
> > short-changing people who have worked long and hard to develop their
> > skill to say it's equivalent to a rap "artist" who has never seen the
> > inside of a practice room or opened a music theory book of any kind.
>
> I agree that rap is a cruder form, but disagree that opening a music
> theory book has much to do with it. Did Charlie Parker open a music
> theory book? Monk?
Whether they literally "opened a theory book" or not isn't the point.
Whichever method of education was followed, the point is that
accomplished jazz artists have paid substantial dues in terms of time
(usually years) and energy in order to become masters of their craft.
How much time and energy do you think Shaquille O'Neal, featured
artist on several rap albums, devoted to his craft as a "musician"?
The fact that a professional athlete can easily record a rap album
should tell you something about what that genre requires in terms of
skill. So far, the world has not seen any straight-jazz albums by
dilettante professional athletes or movie stars.
Frisbie Einstein
>
> How much time and energy do you think Shaquille O'Neal, featured
> artist on several rap albums, devoted to his craft as a "musician"?
> The fact that a professional athlete can easily record a rap album
> should tell you something about what that genre requires in terms of
> skill. So far, the world has not seen any straight-jazz albums by
> dilettante professional athletes or movie stars.
Did you know Bill Cosby once sat in with the John Coltrane Quartet? Of
course, John played offstage while Bill lipsynced.
Ben Sharvy
> bsh...@mac.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote in message news:<d196ca8d.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> > nick...@aol.com (Nick) wrote in message news:<1d97fb30.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > There is
> > > such a thing as craft, and a scale of excellence, and I think it's
> > > short-changing people who have worked long and hard to develop their
> > > skill to say it's equivalent to a rap "artist" who has never seen the
> > > inside of a practice room or opened a music theory book of any kind.
> >
> > I agree that rap is a cruder form, but disagree that opening a music
> > theory book has much to do with it. Did Charlie Parker open a music
> > theory book? Monk?
>
> Whether they literally "opened a theory book" or not isn't the point.
> Whichever method of education was followed, the point is that
> accomplished jazz artists have paid substantial dues in terms of time
> (usually years) and energy in order to become masters of their craft.
>
> How much time and energy do you think Shaquille O'Neal, featured
> artist on several rap albums, devoted to his craft as a "musician"?
How much time did Waymon Tisdale devote to his jazz recording?
tritone
@aol.com says...
> Brian Rost <rostN...@NOSPAMstargen.com> wrote in message news:<3FE2F8BF...@NOSPAMstargen.com>...
> > Nick wrote:
> > > I love Herbie -- I think he's one of the geniuses in the history of
> > > jazz. But when I read people like him, or Quincy Jones, talking about
> > > about great rap is, I can't help but feel that it's a justification
> > > for their own decisions to be more commercial.
> >
> > Why can't it be because they actually DIG it?
> >
> > I agree with Herbie's statement about one music not being higher or
> > lower than another.
>
> I'm of two minds on this.
>
> On one hand, I don't think one genre is "higher" or "lower" in terms
> of what enjoyment it provides. If you like listening to rap, and I
> like listening to bebop, I don't think my enjoyment is somehow more
> "legitimate" than yours because bebop is more complex or takes more
> musical skill than rap. There are a lot of rock songs that I like more
> than a lot of bebop recordings, despite the fact I know they're
> relative simplistic musically.
.
.
Well said Nick.
Nick
Tisdale is not a rapper. He plays contemporary jazz, or what most
participants of this newsgroup would consider "smooth" and therefore
not worthy of much respect.
Also, Tisdale is a bass player. I haven't heard enough of him to have
a strong opinion about his playing -- for all I know, he's the next
Jaco. But generally, the bass is just about the easiest instrument to
develop some basic-to-moderate skills on.
Besides Tisdale, the only pro athlete I know of who has released a
non-vocal jazz album is Bernie Williams (guitar), outfielder for the
Yankees. This is also a "smooth" release. There have been no credible
straight-ahead albums by athletes, actors, or any other non-full-time
jazz musicians.
Adam Bravo
"Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d97fb30.03122...@posting.google.com...
You think so? I'd think piano would be.
In any case, Shaq didn't necessarily cut an album people would like. I can
cut a jazz record if I want to, though people wouldn't want to buy it. It
doesn't make jazz "easy."
> Besides Tisdale, the only pro athlete I know of who has released a
> non-vocal jazz album is Bernie Williams (guitar), outfielder for the
> Yankees. This is also a "smooth" release. There have been no credible
> straight-ahead albums by athletes, actors, or any other non-full-time
> jazz musicians.
What makes you think Shaq's is "credible?" I'm sure some people bought it
because it'd be interesting to hear him rap, but have you heard his music
being played out of cars everywhere?
jeff b.
.
>
> How much time and energy do you think Shaquille O'Neal, featured
> artist on several rap albums, devoted to his craft as a "musician"?
> The fact that a professional athlete can easily record a rap album
> should tell you something about what that genre requires in terms of
> skill. So far, the world has not seen any straight-jazz albums by
> dilettante professional athletes or movie stars.
This is purely an aside, I don't have a dog in this fight, in fact
you're all gonna go blind, but during the early 70s, there was an
infielder for the Chicago Cubs named Carmen Fanzone who was/is an
accomplished jazz trumpet player. He was pretty serviceable as a
utility infielder and he led the National League in flat fifths and
also is somewhat legendary in Cubs lore for playing jazz clubs in
Chicago while he was a ball player. I never heard him play jazz, just
once when he did the NA before a game in Wrigley Field. He sounded
pretty good, but there were no bebop licks in his rendition. I don't
know much about him since that time, but after his career as a ball
player, his Internet trace points to an accomplished career as a
musician. He also married vocalist Sue Raney.
You can get his baseball numbers from all the sports web sites, but
for his jazz numbers, the Lord discography lists him at:
Carmen Fanzone 6 1983-1988 tp,flhrn
(Undoubtedly there would have been more if a certain Cubs fan didn't
grab the mouthpiece out of his horn just before he was going to play.)
Jeff
Nick
I believe there's a good description of the Cosby/Coltrane encounter
in "Chasin' the Trane."
Here's a Cosby jazz anecdote I like. Cosby, a drummer, was sitting in
at a club ...
"We got into a medium-tempo blues, and during the intro, Philly Joe
came in and sat down. So then I started playing with a great deal of
inspiration…I had triplets and everything workin'… So, feeling good
about myself I went over and I sat down. And Philly Joe said, ‘Yeah,
Bill, you know what?' I said, ‘What?' He said, ‘If you take me on the
road with you for about three months, I could clean all that up for
you.'"
jamie tisdale
>> > I agree that rap is a cruder form, but disagree that opening a music
>> > theory book has much to do with it. Did Charlie Parker open a music
>> > theory book? Monk?
>>
>> Whether they literally "opened a theory book" or not isn't the point.
>> Whichever method of education was followed, the point is that
>> accomplished jazz artists have paid substantial dues in terms of time
>> (usually years) and energy in order to become masters of their craft.
>>
>> How much time and energy do you think Shaquille O'Neal, featured
>> artist on several rap albums, devoted to his craft as a "musician"?
>
> How much time did Waymon Tisdale devote to his jazz recording?
While I pay attention to music (jazz in particular) as well as
basketball, I'll be the first to admit I follow(ed) Tisdale closer than
others because of the shared namesake. No relation.
Anyway, I don't think it's fair to put Tisdale's musical career in the
same boat at O'Neal's. Say what you will about "smooth" jazz (I
personally dislike it), but from what I remember, Tisdale had
been playing bass for quite some time, and was becoming better known for
that than being a basketball player, which was when he retired. While
he was a good NBA player, I don't think he was ever that popular, or at
least popular enough to cut/sell records based solely on his status as
an athlete (a la O'Neal, Bryant, Iverson). So I do think Tisdale
probably devoted quite a bit of time to his recordings, perhaps not as
much as "conventional" artists, but certainly more time than O'Neal.
Laker fans probably wish O'Neal would spend less time rapping and more
time learning how to shoot a free throw, but that's a discussion for
elsewhere :).
I'm yet to hear Bernie Williams' new album, but he does play with the
Flecktones on their latest and at the very least doesn't stick out. Of
course they can do amazing things in the studio, and Bernie missed the
show I went to a couple weeks back ;).
j
Steve Carras
>
> Herbie is just trying to act hip.
Long live PaulWHiteman and kenny G
Marc Sabatella
spent in training as a measure of artistic merit. What matters are the
results. Just because one musician studied hours a day for years and
another did not, this doesn't automatically make the first a better
musician. Of course there will be some correlation in some respects -
it's true you won't likely become a great bebop player with no real
experience. But the proof is in the pudding, and unfortunately, the
pudding is subjective. Sure, we might prefer hearing bebop to rap or,
for that matter, to folk music, and we might imagine that the amount of
work it takes to get good is the reason for our preference, but when you
get down to it, what kind of reason is that? If someone else gets as
much enjoyment from one of those other forms as I get from bebop, so
what?
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
gloveman
Well said Marc!
gm
sum1
> I'd also be wary of putting too much emphasis on amount of time put
> spent in training as a measure of artistic merit. What matters are the
> results. Just because one musician studied hours a day for years and
> another did not, this doesn't automatically make the first a better
> musician. Of course there will be some correlation in some respects -
> it's true you won't likely become a great bebop player with no real
> experience. But the proof is in the pudding, and unfortunately, the
> pudding is subjective. Sure, we might prefer hearing bebop to rap or,
> for that matter, to folk music, and we might imagine that the amount of
> work it takes to get good is the reason for our preference, but when you
> get down to it, what kind of reason is that? If someone else gets as
> much enjoyment from one of those other forms as I get from bebop, so
> what?
>
> --------------
> Marc Sabatella
Amen, and pass the left-over turkey. 2004 is already a glorious year.
Nick
I think piano is one of the hardest. But to each his own.
> In any case, Shaq didn't necessarily cut an album people would like.
That's true, but I wasn't really addressing how good or bad the music
might be (even to a rap audience). My point was that since commercial
rap takes next to no talent, just about anyone, like Shaq, can become
a rap "artist" with virtually no experience.
I can
> cut a jazz record if I want to,
So can anyone --- all it takes is money. But you probably couldn't get
a jazz record deal with a credible label unless you had a certain
level of skill. Even if your name was Michael Jordan.
though people wouldn't want to buy it. It
> doesn't make jazz "easy."
Not in general, but it depends on the music. I think most readers of
this newsgroup would consider the bass chair in a very commercial
smooth jazz group to require modest skills. Playing bass with, say,
Oscar Peterson would be a different story.
> > Besides Tisdale, the only pro athlete I know of who has released a
> > non-vocal jazz album is Bernie Williams (guitar), outfielder for the
> > Yankees. This is also a "smooth" release. There have been no credible
> > straight-ahead albums by athletes, actors, or any other non-full-time
> > jazz musicians.
>
> What makes you think Shaq's is "credible?"
The fact that some established label (presumably, a for-profit entity)
thought enough of his "talent" to invest a substantial amount of money
in his "recording career."
I'm sure some people bought it
> because it'd be interesting to hear him rap, but have you heard his music
> being played out of cars everywhere?
No, thankfully.
Nick
> In rec.music.jazz Ben Sharvy <bsh...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> > I agree that rap is a cruder form, but disagree that opening a music
> >> > theory book has much to do with it. Did Charlie Parker open a music
> >> > theory book? Monk?
> >>
> >> Whether they literally "opened a theory book" or not isn't the point.
> >> Whichever method of education was followed, the point is that
> >> accomplished jazz artists have paid substantial dues in terms of time
> >> (usually years) and energy in order to become masters of their craft.
> >>
> >> How much time and energy do you think Shaquille O'Neal, featured
> >> artist on several rap albums, devoted to his craft as a "musician"?
> >
> > How much time did Waymon Tisdale devote to his jazz recording?
>
> While I pay attention to music (jazz in particular) as well as
> basketball, I'll be the first to admit I follow(ed) Tisdale closer than
> others because of the shared namesake. No relation.
>
> Anyway, I don't think it's fair to put Tisdale's musical career in the
> same boat at O'Neal's.
I don't think that was intention. I believe he was trying to make the
point that it's possible for an athlete to actually be a serious
musician, which you seem to be agreeing with.
> I'm yet to hear Bernie Williams' new album, but he does play with the
> Flecktones on their latest and at the very least doesn't stick out. Of
> course they can do amazing things in the studio, and Bernie missed the
> show I went to a couple weeks back ;).
>
> j
I listened to some of Williams' album and it sounded okay. It's far
from impossible that some folks in non-music professions (including
sports) could have some music skills -- in some cases, even fairly
advanced. Not everyone who goes to Berklee or Juilliard becomes a
professional musician. But not too many folks have the time and/or
dedication to become highly skilled in two completely different
domains, e.g., we probably won't be seeing many Olympic-level ice
skaters who are also great jazz or classical musicians.
Nick
> spent in training as a measure of artistic merit. What matters are the
> results. Just because one musician studied hours a day for years and
> another did not, this doesn't automatically make the first a better
> musician. Of course there will be some correlation in some respects -
> it's true you won't likely become a great bebop player with no real
> experience. But the proof is in the pudding, and unfortunately, the
> pudding is subjective. Sure, we might prefer hearing bebop to rap or,
> for that matter, to folk music, and we might imagine that the amount of
> work it takes to get good is the reason for our preference, but when you
> get down to it, what kind of reason is that? If someone else gets as
> much enjoyment from one of those other forms as I get from bebop, so
> what?
I agree, for the most part. I don't enjoy something just because I
know it takes a lot of work; as I stated in an earlier post, there are
plenty of rock and pop songs that I like better than plenty of jazz
recordings. I think it's usually the other way around: I like certain
things (say, Giant Steps) because they have a level of complexity that
I find satisfying, and that complexity is due to a level of mastery
that only comes through lots of work.
I think it's going too far, though, as Herbie does, to say that an
accomplished jazz musician isn't in a certain way on a "higher level"
than a rapper, at least as far as musical expertise goes. We don't put
a brain surgeon and a school nurse on the same prestige level, or a
Supreme Court judge and a paralegal, even though they all serve
important functions.
Peter
How about Lea DeLaria??
A goodish stand-up comedienne, musical actress, and i think just about a bit
more than smooth singing,
P
"Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d97fb30.04010...@posting.google.com...
Larry Smithee
But not too many folks have the time and/or
> dedication to become highly skilled in two completely different
> domains, e.g., we probably won't be seeing many Olympic-level ice
> skaters who are also great jazz or classical musicians.
True, but sometimes the reverse can happen, especially if it's within
another art form and the results can be fairly interesting and
competent, (e.g., Miles Davis painted and Tony Bennet still does; Jack
Sheldon does standup comedy and is an occasional actor). There are
probably others but those come immediately to mind.
Larry
Marc Sabatella
> > > But generally, the bass is just about the easiest instrument to
> > > develop some basic-to-moderate skills on.
> >
> > You think so? I'd think piano would be.
>
> I think piano is one of the hardest. But to each his own.
To play convincingly in a jazz context, piano is about as hard as it
gets, I think, although it doesn't take much skill to lay down a synth
part in a pop band. Back to jazz, electric bass is definitely
relatively easy in comparison to piano, and similarly easy if you aren't
trying to play straight-ahead jazz. This makes it the butt of a number
of jokes (like the one about the kid who starts taking bass lessons, but
has to skip his fourth one because he got a gig). Acoustic bass is
probably physically more demanding in any musical context.
> I think most readers of
> this newsgroup would consider the bass chair in a very commercial
> smooth jazz group to require modest skills. Playing bass with, say,
> Oscar Peterson would be a different story.
Precisely.
Nick
I don't consider Davis or Bennett highly skilled, i.e., on a par with
the top echelon of painters. Davis' work looks amateurish, like
something I would do in the fifth grade. It's abstract, though, so I
guess the usual requirements of skill and craft don't apply. Bennett's
work has more craft, but it's not even in the ballpark of, say, Thomas
Kinkade.
Virtually anyone can, to some degree, sing, rap, act, speak, tell
jokes, paint, or play sports, which is why lots of folks dabble in two
or more of those domains. Some of the domains require more than
others. There are loads of successful singers who never took a lesson
and know almost nothing about music. The same for rappers. There are
few, if any, accomplished, successful jazz musicians who have had the
same easy road. Or professional athletes, for that matter.
Marc Sabatella
> Bennett's
> work has more craft, but it's not even in the ballpark of, say, Thomas
> Kinkade.
Not sure if you chose that name deliberately, since I had previously
called him the Kenny G of the art world. What I've seen of Bennett's
work - and it's very little - strikes me as quite competent within its
genre. Kinkade could, I suppose, be considered the master of his, in
much the way we'd all have to admit G is one of the best at what he
does. The difference between Bennett and Kinkade is the difference
between a fair-to-middling bebop player and a top of the line pop
instrumental player.
FWIW, I have some experience in this area, as I also have been painting
over the last few years. In my opinion, there are some real
similarities between the fields in terms of craft, talent, and so forth,
in that in both areas, it is possible to achieve success with relatively
little technical skill if you pick the right sub-genre - either polish
or creativity is rewarded instead - whereas in other sub-genres,
technical skill often takes on a greater importance than creativity in
the eyes of many. Kinkade and Gorelick have the polish thing *down*,
with a decent amount of technical facility to back it up (but nothing
particularly outstanding in itself).
OK, this is *too* weird. I had gotten as far as writing the above when
the doorbell rang. It was a friend dropping by and bringing a belated
Christmas gift - a book of Tony Bennett's paintings! So now I've had a
chance to look at a few more. My take on what I saw in the book is that
some were clearly more technically accomplished than others - I wonder
if they aren't from different stages of his painting career. The better
ones are definitely on a technical level comparable (within his genre)
with those of professional artists, but I think other professionals
would be likely to snicker a little at some of the less technically
accomplished pieces he still shows. I can also talk more about genre,
having seen more of his work. His style definitely seems to be in the
early post-impressionist bag, drawing from folks like like Gaugin and
Cezanne. A painting that came out looking anything like any of
Kinkade's would definitely be a failure in this genre.
Anyhow, as I was saying - in music as well as in art, you can make a
sort of rough division into genres that emphasize technical mastery,
polish, or creativity. Obviously, to some extent, you want all of them,
but I don't think it too controversial to say pop music puts higher
emphasis on polish than the other elements, most forms of avant-garde
jazz put more emphasis on creativity, and bebop puts relatively more on
technical mastery. Folks from other fields dabbling in music often do
best in genres that donwplay technical mastery, and do particularly well
in genres that depend largely on polish, particularly when that polish
can be supplied by the record producer. There is no reason an actor or
basketball player couldn't have the creativity to be a decent free jazz
player, but you'd question why anyone would pay attention if they did -
it's not like there's much of a market for that. Musicians dabbling in
the art world can't depend on someone else to provide polish, but if
they don't ever gain much technical mastery, working in
non-representational genres (like Miles') or more loosely
representational ones (like Bennett's) allows them to take advantage of
their creativity and produce work that will have much more consumer
appeal than free jazz ever would.
My own painting is in a style not unlike Bennett's, although leaning
more toward the more bona fide impressionists like Monet. I'd guage my
skill level to be on a level roughly comparable to Bennett's as well.
There are easily a couple hundred artists in the Denver metro area at
least as good. Yet visual art is subjective enough that there are those
who will prefer my work, or Bennett's work, over that of artists that
most would rate as more skilled. And all it takes is a few people to
see it that way and buy paintings for an artist to feel validated.
Whereas if were only the 200th best jazz pianist in Denver, I can't
imagine that I'd get nearly so much validation. So think it easier to
gain some level of personal acceptance in art than in music in that
sense.
BTW, as for famous people whose main career is in another area but do OK
as jazz musicians, I think Woody Allen is probably the best example I
can think of.
Luke Kaven
[...]
>BTW, as for famous people whose main career is in another area but do OK
>as jazz musicians, I think Woody Allen is probably the best example I
>can think of.
>
>Marc Sabatella
Someone mentioned Steve Allen earlier didn't they? How about Peter
Sellers? He was a jazz drummer in his early career. Oddly enough, it
seems a short step between comic writing/acting and playing jazz. A
lot of the musicians I know could do an excellent stand-up act, and
they're as quick-witted with a quip as they are with their musical
lines.
Marc Sabatella
> >BTW, as for famous people whose main career is in another area but do
OK
> >as jazz musicians, I think Woody Allen is probably the best example I
> >can think of.
>
> Someone mentioned Steve Allen earlier didn't they?
If so, I missed it. I'm not sure I've ever actually heard him play, but
of course I know a tune or two of his that are nice. Reminds me, Chevy
Chase is also a jazz pianist of sorts.
> How about Peter
> Sellers? He was a jazz drummer in his early career.
Definitely didn't know that. But was he any good?
> Oddly enough, it
> seems a short step between comic writing/acting and playing jazz. A
> lot of the musicians I know could do an excellent stand-up act, and
> they're as quick-witted with a quip as they are with their musical
> lines.
A drummer I used to work with had a second career as a stand-up
comedian.
sum1
One of the grandfathers of smooth jazz, pianist Bob James, is also a
painter. Online gallery here:
Adam Bravo
> "Adam Bravo" <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<to8Ib.42721$BQ5.41030@fed1read03>...
> > "Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1d97fb30.03122...@posting.google.com...
> > > bsh...@mac.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote in message
> > news:<d196ca8d.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > nick...@aol.com (Nick) wrote in message
> > news:<1d97fb30.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > bsh...@mac.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote in message
> > news:<d196ca8d.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > nick...@aol.com (Nick) wrote in message
> > news:<1d97fb30.03121...@posting.google.com>...
>
> I think piano is one of the hardest. But to each his own.
Well, you can just sit down, press a key, and a note will come out. It's
pretty simply laid out - go right, it's higher.
> > In any case, Shaq didn't necessarily cut an album people would like.
>
> That's true, but I wasn't really addressing how good or bad the music
> might be (even to a rap audience). My point was that since commercial
> rap takes next to no talent, just about anyone, like Shaq, can become
> a rap "artist" with virtually no experience.
Fair enough point.
> I can
> > cut a jazz record if I want to,
>
> So can anyone --- all it takes is money. But you probably couldn't get
> a jazz record deal with a credible label unless you had a certain
> level of skill. Even if your name was Michael Jordan.
I agree that it takes less technical skill, but to make stuff people like
probably does. I think most who buy Jordan's album are buying it because
it's Michael Jordan, not because they necessarily like the music.
> though people wouldn't want to buy it. It
> > doesn't make jazz "easy."
>
> Not in general, but it depends on the music. I think most readers of
> this newsgroup would consider the bass chair in a very commercial
> smooth jazz group to require modest skills. Playing bass with, say,
> Oscar Peterson would be a different story.
I'm not sure - in commercial stuff, everything has to be perfect (unless you
expect them to fix it in editing, which usually only the leader seems to get
to do).
Larry Smithee
But the reason for the fixing is mostly due to perfecting time
problems and not the technical demands of the music. Thus, the common
use of click tracks on nearly all commercial smooth record making.
It's hard to imagine bass giants like Ray Brown or Niels Pederson
needing such a crutch but I could be wrong (don't think so, though).
In fact, one of the important aspects of many real jazz performances
is that the music's time elements require it to be fluid to a big
extent so that it can swing unencumbered. Brown and Pederson's bass
playing, for example, is perfect not because it is necessarily adheres
to an absolute metonomic point of reference, but that these guys have
attained the ability to adapt their bass lines to flow with the give
and take of the group to perfection. Such demands, of course, negates
click tracks, not to mention the fact that such devices would
interfere with the important swing feel.
Larry
Adam Bravo
"Larry Smithee" <lcsm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3cdae13f.04010...@posting.google.com...
> "Adam Bravo" <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<0NNJb.47241$BQ5.2900@fed1read03>...
> > "Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1d97fb30.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Adam Bravo" <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:<to8Ib.42721$BQ5.41030@fed1read03>...
you
> > expect them to fix it in editing, which usually only the leader seems to
get
> > to do).
>
> But the reason for the fixing is mostly due to perfecting time
> problems and not the technical demands of the music.
> Thus, the common
> use of click tracks on nearly all commercial smooth record making.
> It's hard to imagine bass giants like Ray Brown or Niels Pederson
> needing such a crutch but I could be wrong (don't think so, though).
> In fact, one of the important aspects of many real jazz performances
> is that the music's time elements require it to be fluid to a big
> extent so that it can swing unencumbered. Brown and Pederson's bass
> playing, for example, is perfect not because it is necessarily adheres
> to an absolute metonomic point of reference, but that these guys have
> attained the ability to adapt their bass lines to flow with the give
> and take of the group to perfection. Such demands, of course, negates
> click tracks, not to mention the fact that such devices would
> interfere with the important swing feel.
I think you've kind of made my point for me. In jazz, one doesn't really
want perfection from a technical standpoint. Pop (and pop influenced jazz)
stuff, does, however. One has to have a certain amount of technical
proficiency on the instrument in order to be so perfect.
I find it strange that you chose Ray Brown and NHOP (which, BTW, is an
awesome acronym) as examples, being that I think of them as some of the most
technically perfect jazz bassists.
Marc Sabatella
guess is the dark secret of the professional jazz world: lots of guys
don't have perfect metronomic time. In fact, it's pretty rare. I'm
constantly surprised at how many otherwise great (and in many cases,
famous) players tend to rush noticeably as a matter of course; a few
drag, but that's not as common.
Larry Smithee
> "Larry Smithee" <lcsm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3cdae13f.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > "Adam Bravo" <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<0NNJb.47241$BQ5.2900@fed1read03>...
> > > "Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1d97fb30.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Adam Bravo" <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<to8Ib.42721$BQ5.41030@fed1read03>...
> awesome acronym) as examples, being that I think of them as some of the most
> technically perfect jazz bassists.
Yes, that's percisely why I chose them because they're time is so
perfect. It could be too that you and I have misunderstood each other
(or maybe it was just me) and that we actually agree on the previous
points of discussion.
Larry
Mr Zed
> FWIW, one thing I have noted over the last couple of years is what I
> guess is the dark secret of the professional jazz world: lots of guys
> don't have perfect metronomic time. In fact, it's pretty rare. I'm
> constantly surprised at how many otherwise great (and in many cases,
> famous) players tend to rush noticeably as a matter of course; a few
> drag, but that's not as common.
Only stiffs worry about that sort of thing. Musicians and others who
really know what jazz are more likely to be concerned with whether it
swings or not.
Nick
> problems and not the technical demands of the music. Thus, the common
> use of click tracks on nearly all commercial smooth record making.
> It's hard to imagine bass giants like Ray Brown or Niels Pederson
> needing such a crutch but I could be wrong (don't think so, though).
I agree about Brown and one of my favorites, NHOP (what a monster!),
but it's also hard to imagine session players, even for relatively
simple music, reaching any level of success without impeccable time in
addition to great chops.
My comments about the ease of bass playing are not meant to take
anything away from real bass virtuosos like Stanley Clarke, Marcus
Miller, or Brian Bromberg. Bromberg plays a lot of smooth jazz, but
he's also about the most horn-like soloist I've ever heard on acoustic
bass (NHOP being a close second). Clarke is also an exceptional
acoustic player.
Nick
> "Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1d97fb30.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > "Adam Bravo" <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<to8Ib.42721$BQ5.41030@fed1read03>...
> > > "Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1d97fb30.03122...@posting.google.com...
> > > > bsh...@mac.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote in message
> news:<d196ca8d.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > nick...@aol.com (Nick) wrote in message
> news:<1d97fb30.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > bsh...@mac.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote in message
> news:<d196ca8d.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > nick...@aol.com (Nick) wrote in message
> > > news:<1d97fb30.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> > > You think so? I'd think piano would be.
> >
> > I think piano is one of the hardest. But to each his own.
>
> Well, you can just sit down, press a key, and a note will come out. It's
> pretty simply laid out - go right, it's higher.
I would agree with you if piano players only played one note at at
time. But since they typically deal with up to ten, with each hand
sometimes doing massively different things (like playing stride in the
left while soloing in the right), it is potentially a very challenging
instrument to play *well.*
Pressing a string with the left hand while plucking it with the right,
usually at wide intervals like whole notes and half notes (at least in
rock bass), is child's play in comparison.
> > I can
> > > cut a jazz record if I want to,
> >
> > So can anyone --- all it takes is money. But you probably couldn't get
> > a jazz record deal with a credible label unless you had a certain
> > level of skill. Even if your name was Michael Jordan.
>
> I agree that it takes less technical skill, but to make stuff people like
> probably does.
I've heard an awful lot of atrocious rap "music" that millions of
people snap up like hotcakes. Any technical skill present usually
revolves around the mixing and sound design, not the performers.
> I think most who buy Jordan's album are buying it because
> it's Michael Jordan, not because they necessarily like the music.
Sure ... as is true with many products endorsed by athletes. Are Air
Jordans really worth ten times as much money as regular old Converse
All Stars?
> > Not in general, but it depends on the music. I think most readers of
> > this newsgroup would consider the bass chair in a very commercial
> > smooth jazz group to require modest skills. Playing bass with, say,
> > Oscar Peterson would be a different story.
>
> I'm not sure - in commercial stuff, everything has to be perfect (unless you
> expect them to fix it in editing, which usually only the leader seems to get
> to do).
Some commercial music requires perfection, some doesn't. Perfection in
punk rock, or even lots of straight rock like the Rolling Stones,
would be seen as a minus. Then there's Steely Dan, who supposedly
drive their session musicians crazy with their perfectionism.
Mr Zed
> guess is the dark secret of the professional jazz world: lots of guys
> don't have perfect metronomic time. In fact, it's pretty rare. I'm
> constantly surprised at how many otherwise great (and in many cases,
> famous) players tend to rush noticeably as a matter of course; a few
> drag, but that's not as common.
Only stiffs worry about that sort of thing. Musicians and others who
Nick
> "Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Bennett's
> > work has more craft, but it's not even in the ballpark of, say, Thomas
> > Kinkade.
>
> Not sure if you chose that name deliberately, since I had previously
> called him the Kenny G of the art world.
I happen to like Kinkade a lot, and I did recall that he was discussed
recently, though that's not why I mentioned him. His paintings are
gorgeous, and I think the criticisms of him are ridiculous and mostly
jealous-based.
What I've seen of Bennett's
> work - and it's very little - strikes me as quite competent within its
> genre. Kinkade could, I suppose, be considered the master of his, in
> much the way we'd all have to admit G is one of the best at what he
> does. The difference between Bennett and Kinkade is the difference
> between a fair-to-middling bebop player and a top of the line pop
> instrumental player.
I would liken Kinkade more to a top-tier bebop player who has a very
indiviudal style but happens not to have invented a whole new genre.
Like Cannonball, Stitt, D. Gordon, J. McLean -- in fact, most
well-known bop players. These are all artists whose level of expertise
could not easily be reached even with a few years of effort.
> FWIW, I have some experience in this area, as I also have been painting
> over the last few years. In my opinion, there are some real
> similarities between the fields in terms of craft, talent, and so forth,
> in that in both areas, it is possible to achieve success with relatively
> little technical skill if you pick the right sub-genre - either polish
> or creativity is rewarded instead - whereas in other sub-genres,
> technical skill often takes on a greater importance than creativity in
> the eyes of many.
Obviously, when you refer to success with little technical skill, you
are referring to the painting world, not avant garde jazz.
Kinkade and Gorelick have the polish thing *down*,
> with a decent amount of technical facility to back it up (but nothing
> particularly outstanding in itself).
I'm not sure what the difference between polish and technical skill
is. And I disagree that there's nothing particularly outstanding about
having a decent amount of technical skill. I think that's one of the
reasons people respond to a Kenny G -- they detect that he can really
play the sax. And in fact, he can -- it's just that most folks haven't
heard Cannonball, Brecker, et al., so there's no basis for comparison.
Same with Kinkade. Most people, I suspect, see great beauty in his
work and know instinctively that the ability to produce such work does
not come easily or cheaply. Whereas, when most people look at avant
garde art, or listen to avant garde music, they can't escape the "my
five-year-old could do that" feeling. (Yes, I realize there are
exceptions to this, but I believe they are rare.)
> His style definitely seems to be in the
> early post-impressionist bag, drawing from folks like like Gaugin and
> Cezanne. A painting that came out looking anything like any of
> Kinkade's would definitely be a failure in this genre.
To jump to the other side for a moment -- I really like Van Gogh, who
is certainly much cruder than, say, Kinkade. I think he has a very
unique style and am moved by his work. Go figure.
> Anyhow, as I was saying - in music as well as in art, you can make a
> sort of rough division into genres that emphasize technical mastery,
> polish, or creativity. Obviously, to some extent, you want all of them,
> but I don't think it too controversial to say pop music puts higher
> emphasis on polish than the other elements, most forms of avant-garde
> jazz put more emphasis on creativity, and bebop puts relatively more on
> technical mastery.
I understand your attempt to explain this, and I don't think you're
far off, except (surprise) for the "creativity" part when it comes to
avant garde jazz. I'm no less interested in creativity than you are,
but to me, creativity without some foundation of craft or skill
usually fails.
Folks from other fields dabbling in music often do
> best in genres that donwplay technical mastery, and do particularly well
> in genres that depend largely on polish, particularly when that polish
> can be supplied by the record producer. There is no reason an actor or
> basketball player couldn't have the creativity to be a decent free jazz
> player, but you'd question why anyone would pay attention if they did -
> it's not like there's much of a market for that. Musicians dabbling in
> the art world can't depend on someone else to provide polish, but if
> they don't ever gain much technical mastery, working in
> non-representational genres (like Miles') or more loosely
> representational ones (like Bennett's) allows them to take advantage of
> their creativity and produce work that will have much more consumer
> appeal than free jazz ever would.
And the reason for this probably has more to do with snobbishness and
pretension than anything else. If avant garde jazz could somewhow be
packaged and shown off the way art can, Anthony Braxton and Pharoah
Sanders would be multi-millionaires. There's a lot of cachet in being
able to show off the Miles Davis original hanging on your wall. If I
did a painting of similar amateurish quality, I wouldn't get ten bucks
for it.
> My own painting is in a style not unlike Bennett's, although leaning
> more toward the more bona fide impressionists like Monet. I'd guage my
> skill level to be on a level roughly comparable to Bennett's as well.
> There are easily a couple hundred artists in the Denver metro area at
> least as good.
I recommend everyone go look at Mark's paintings -- they're not bad.
You, at least, seem to be striving for some level of technical skill.
Ironically, I would say you're not that far off from what Kinkade
does, except you have a more impressionistic bent.
Yet visual art is subjective enough that there are those
> who will prefer my work, or Bennett's work, over that of artists that
> most would rate as more skilled. And all it takes is a few people to
> see it that way and buy paintings for an artist to feel validated.
> Whereas if were only the 200th best jazz pianist in Denver, I can't
> imagine that I'd get nearly so much validation. So think it easier to
> gain some level of personal acceptance in art than in music in that
> sense.
I agree.
> BTW, as for famous people whose main career is in another area but do OK
> as jazz musicians, I think Woody Allen is probably the best example I
> can think of.
For a successful director, he's had a pretty big second career as a
jazz musician. I don't think he keeps any of the true giants up at
night, but he's sure been serious about it and pursued it consistently
over the years.
Muzikdata
legitimate as any other form of music. Besides, they were saying the same
thing about Bebop when it emerged.
J
"Bobby Knight" <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:32cjuv8vmikbblaas...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Dec 2003 02:30:13 -0800, su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
>
> >Herbie's the man who says it best:
> >
> >"I was making a hierarchy out of music, and it's ridiculous. It's like
> >saying steak is great, but peas and carrots are not. It's ridiculous.
> >You need it all, you know. I mean each thing can have its place in
> >your life, and you could choose what it is that you want. But to try
> >to say that one is higher and one is lower is ridiculous."
> >
> To not observe that Rap, and hip-hop, are lower forms than any other
> music is ridiculous.
sum1
> To make that that statement was ridiculous. Hip Hop and Rap are just as
> legitimate as any other form of music. Besides, they were saying the same
> thing about Bebop when it emerged.
>
> J
Right on, J.
sum1
> > "Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Bennett's
> > > work has more craft, but it's not even in the ballpark of, say, Thomas
> > > Kinkade.
> >
> > Not sure if you chose that name deliberately, since I had previously
> > called him the Kenny G of the art world.
>
> I happen to like Kinkade a lot, and I did recall that he was discussed
> recently, though that's not why I mentioned him. His paintings are
> gorgeous, and I think the criticisms of him are ridiculous and mostly
> jealous-based.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Nick. And I'd assume
the same holds true for much of the criticism of Kenny G and any other
aritist who has made a name for him or herself. If anyone has any
doubt of that, have a look through some of the archived threads in
this ng for a load of petty criticism directed at Diana Krall and
Norah Jones.
Marc Sabatella
> > Well, you can just sit down, press a key, and a note will come out.
It's
> > pretty simply laid out - go right, it's higher.
>
> I would agree with you if piano players only played one note at at
> time. But since they typically deal with up to ten, with each hand
> sometimes doing massively different things (like playing stride in the
> left while soloing in the right), it is potentially a very challenging
> instrument to play *well.*
I might put it this way: piano is indeed one of the easiest instruments
to make *sound* decent right away, as there are few tone control issues.
That is, a fourth grader has a much better chance of sounding OK on on
piano than almost any other instrument. But if you are trying to play
jazz, then the complexity of the *role* of the piano starts to dawrf the
sound generation issues; a pianist will still be struggling in this
department long after the fourth grader has finally figured out how to
coax a decent tone out of his saxophone.
Marc Sabatella
> but it's also hard to imagine session players, even for relatively
> simple music, reaching any level of success without impeccable time in
> addition to great chops.
While having great time is never a hindrance, the whole point is that
session players are generally playing to click track, or to the
accompaniment of the already-recorded tracks. So you don't have to have
great time built in - you just have to to be able to follow.
Marc Sabatella
> I happen to like Kinkade a lot, and I did recall that he was discussed
> recently, though that's not why I mentioned him. His paintings are
> gorgeous, and I think the criticisms of him are ridiculous and mostly
> jealous-based.
Well, they are based on the fact that his paintings are extremely
mediocre when measured in the ways that most serious artists critique
work. But, admittedly, mediocre isn't the same as terrible. And the
same applies to Kenny G. As a saxophonist, he is solidly mediocre. And
there is indeed a certain amount of resentment felt that these people
get attention commensurate with much greater merit. So you can
attribute that aspect of the criticism to jealousy. But the observation
that there is work is mediocre - that isn't *caused* by the jealousy, it
is the *cause* of the jealousy.
> I would liken Kinkade more to a top-tier bebop player who has a very
> indiviudal style but happens not to have invented a whole new genre.
This analogy is only valid if you can identify an artistic genre
comparable to bebop in which Kinkade is top-tier, and I don't think you
can do this. The genre in which Kinkade works well is much more akin to
smooth jazz than it is to bebop in terms of how it is perceived by the
public with no special expertise in the field and by artists/musicians &
critics who do have such training (eg, mostly liked by the former and
mostly disliked by the latter). If I had to come up with a good
artistic point of reference for bebop, it would probably be Cezanne.
I'd be tempted to say Impressionists in general, because they have
pretty much the same high regard within the community of artists world
that the beboppers have in the community of jazz musicians, but the
Impressionists as a lot are liked by the general public more than
beboppers are. Whereas if I took Cubism as my point of reference, you
get the general public disdain about right, but realistically, the
Cubists are not as universally loved in the art world as the beboppers
are - the number of artists & critics who only respond to realistic
paintings strikes me as far greater than the number of musicians who
only enjoy pre-bebop jazz. Although this is not to say the art world is
on the whole more conservative - completely abstract paintings enjoys a
considerably highers degree of acceptance in art than free improvisation
does in jazz.
> Like Cannonball, Stitt, D. Gordon, J. McLean -- in fact, most
> well-known bop players. These are all artists whose level of expertise
> could not easily be reached even with a few years of effort.
Right, but they did so in a genre that almost anyone associated with
jazz would agree is as artistically valid as any. The same cannot be
said for Kinkade.
> > FWIW, I have some experience in this area, as I also have been
painting
> > over the last few years. In my opinion, there are some real
> > similarities between the fields in terms of craft, talent, and so
forth,
> > in that in both areas, it is possible to achieve success with
relatively
> > little technical skill if you pick the right sub-genre - either
polish
> > or creativity is rewarded instead - whereas in other sub-genres,
> > technical skill often takes on a greater importance than creativity
in
> > the eyes of many.
>
> Obviously, when you refer to success with little technical skill, you
> are referring to the painting world, not avant garde jazz.
As I said above, examples can be found in both art and music. In music,
it is pop.
> I'm not sure what the difference between polish and technical skill
> is.
A Britney Spears record has polish, even though her actual singing
ability is not particularly above average. But when you factor in
accompaniment provided by studio musicians, the arrangements put
together by the producers, the ability to process the sound with pitch
control software, overdubs, etc, and of course Spears' personal image,
you get a record that has broad appeal.
> And I disagree that there's nothing particularly outstanding about
> having a decent amount of technical skill.
I meant, compared to other professionals. Kinkade and Gorelick are not
more technically accomplished than thousands of other less popular
artists and musicians. The trait they possess in spades is what I am am
calling "polish" here - although in Gorelick's case, it is hard to know
how much of that is his talent and how much is his producers.
> I think that's one of the
> reasons people respond to a Kenny G -- they detect that he can really
> play the sax. And in fact, he can -- it's just that most folks haven't
> heard Cannonball, Brecker, et al., so there's no basis for comparison.
Right. As I said, he's solidly mediocre, in the context of other
professional musicians, but this still puts him well above the level of
the average high school saxophonists. And given that most people can't
even name many other professional saxophonists, you don't have to be
particularly good to be perceived as one of the best - indeed, he *is*
one of the best they can name.
> Same with Kinkade.
Indeed. His work is solidly mediocre compared to other professional
artists, but still considerably better than the average high school or
street artist. Given that most people have never heard of Richard
Schmid, Albert Handell, or any of the zillions of other working artists
out there that most artists would rate considerably higher, Kinkade *is*
indeed one of the best artists the average person could name.
> Most people, I suspect, see great beauty in his
> work and know instinctively that the ability to produce such work does
> not come easily or cheaply. Whereas, when most people look at avant
> garde art, or listen to avant garde music, they can't escape the "my
> five-year-old could do that" feeling. (Yes, I realize there are
> exceptions to this, but I believe they are rare.)
This is true. They are, of course, wrong in the vast majority of cases,
but it is admittedly a common misperception.
> To jump to the other side for a moment -- I really like Van Gogh, who
> is certainly much cruder than, say, Kinkade. I think he has a very
> unique style and am moved by his work. Go figure.
Van Gogh, for what it's worth, is an interesting case, in that he is
another artist whose popularity with the public at large is obviously
huge, and does indeed outstrip the importance he is generally given
within the art community - and yet, he *is* still quite highly rated by
most within the art community (except for the folks who only value
highly realistic paintings). He is what, I suppose, you would have me
believe Kinkade is.
> I understand your attempt to explain this, and I don't think you're
> far off, except (surprise) for the "creativity" part when it comes to
> avant garde jazz. I'm no less interested in creativity than you are,
> but to me, creativity without some foundation of craft or skill
> usually fails.
Fails is subjective, and I can't argue if you say something doesn't work
for you. But you cannot deny a lot of that music works for a great many
people who aren't complete musical idiots. In any case, this doesn't
really refute my point: avant-garde jazz tends to reward creativity more
than technical merit. You may think this reward is unwarranted, but
surely you recognize that it happens.
> Folks from other fields dabbling in music often do
> > best in genres that donwplay technical mastery, and do particularly
well
> > in genres that depend largely on polish, particularly when that
polish
> > can be supplied by the record producer. There is no reason an actor
or
> > basketball player couldn't have the creativity to be a decent free
jazz
> > player, but you'd question why anyone would pay attention if they
did -
> > it's not like there's much of a market for that. Musicians dabbling
in
> > the art world can't depend on someone else to provide polish, but if
> > they don't ever gain much technical mastery, working in
> > non-representational genres (like Miles') or more loosely
> > representational ones (like Bennett's) allows them to take advantage
of
> > their creativity and produce work that will have much more consumer
> > appeal than free jazz ever would.
>
> And the reason for this probably has more to do with snobbishness and
> pretension than anything else.
I'm not sure what you mean by "this" here.
> If avant garde jazz could somewhow be
> packaged and shown off the way art can, Anthony Braxton and Pharoah
> Sanders would be multi-millionaires.
I see no reaosn to assume that. Why not take it at face value - for
whatever reason, people in general seem to actually enjoy abstract art
more than free jazz? Seems apparent to me, and assuming people are
lying when they say they enjoy something seems to be going awfully far
out of your way to explain something that doesn't particularly need
explaining. People's tastes differ, and just because *you* presumably
don't enjoy abstract art, I don't see any reason to assume others don't,
either. It would be just as hard to then explain the variety in
pretensiousness among people than the variety in tastes.
> There's a lot of cachet in being
> able to show off the Miles Davis original hanging on your wall. If I
> did a painting of similar amateurish quality, I wouldn't get ten bucks
> for it.
True, but you can't espace the fact that abstract art *in general*
doesn't turn as many people off as free improvisation.
> You, at least, seem to be striving for some level of technical skill.
> Ironically, I would say you're not that far off from what Kinkade
> does, except you have a more impressionistic bent.
The number of levels in which my work differs from Kinkade's far
outweighs their similarities. Really, aside from the fact that we both
painting mostly landscapes, there really isn't much in common. We have
different compositional senses, different color senses, different ideas
of what makes scene worth painting. But anyhow, I'm glad you enjoyed my
art.
Marc Sabatella
> Well, they are based on the fact that his paintings are extremely
> mediocre when measured in the ways that most serious artists critique
> work. But, admittedly, mediocre isn't the same as terrible. And the
> same applies to Kenny G. As a saxophonist, he is solidly mediocre.
And
> there is indeed a certain amount of resentment felt that these people
> get attention commensurate with much greater merit. So you can
> attribute that aspect of the criticism to jealousy. But the
observation
> that there is work is mediocre - that isn't *caused* by the jealousy,
it
> is the *cause* of the jealousy.
Or, stated another way, these criticisms are indeed prompted by
jealousy, but over the *success* of the people in question, not over
their (very mediocre) talent. If it weren't for the success these folks
enjoy, no one would care that they were mediocre.
Patrick Powers
>
> > Bennett's
> > work has more craft, but it's not even in the ballpark of, say, Thomas
> > Kinkade.
>
Frank Sinatra has a book of paintings as well, not bad, derivative
though. Grant Hill plays piano, classical I think. Captain Beefheart
now makes his living as an artist (can't say I care for his stuff,
though, but I guess the expenses are much less than for a touring
band.) Saw an art exhibition by the royal family of Thailand, some
talent there. The king of Thailand also plays the alto saxophone, and
is said to be a gifted composer.
Patrick Powers
thought he was pretty good.
Patrick Powers
> This is purely an aside, I don't have a dog in this fight, in fact
> you're all gonna go blind, but during the early 70s, there was an
> infielder for the Chicago Cubs named Carmen Fanzone who was/is an
> accomplished jazz trumpet player.
In the 50's Jimmy Demeret(sp?) was one of the best pro golfers. Pro
golf was pretty small time, so he also made money singing jazz in
nightclubs.
Nick
> "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, they are based on the fact that his paintings are extremely
> > mediocre when measured in the ways that most serious artists critique
> > work. But, admittedly, mediocre isn't the same as terrible. And the
> > same applies to Kenny G. As a saxophonist, he is solidly mediocre.
> And
> > there is indeed a certain amount of resentment felt that these people
> > get attention commensurate with much greater merit. So you can
> > attribute that aspect of the criticism to jealousy. But the
> observation
> > that there is work is mediocre - that isn't *caused* by the jealousy,
> it
> > is the *cause* of the jealousy.
>
> Or, stated another way, these criticisms are indeed prompted by
> jealousy, but over the *success* of the people in question, not over
> their (very mediocre) talent. If it weren't for the success these folks
> enjoy, no one would care that they were mediocre.
Putting aside the issue of who's mediocre and who's not, your point
about jealousy is well taken. That's why you never see posts about,
say, Steve Cole or Jeff Kashiwa; even though they're just as smooth as
the next guy, not many know who they are (relative to G man).
There were numerous factors that made Kenny G such a smash that have
nothing to do with his playing ability. Not least of which, is luck.
It's like being jealous of someone who won the lottery.
JC Martin
news:f5210ce70a296542...@news.teranews.com...
> "Steve Cooper" <steve...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:C8mdnXpOSos...@comcast.com...
> > Bird and Monk had the same attitude. Good music is good music.
>
> Add Ellington, who said "There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the
> other kind." Also "If it sounds good and feels good, then it IS good!"
Have you read Duke's autobiography? He had very specific views as to what
he thought was good music and not. These quotes are out of context in that
regard.
-JC
sum1
in this discussion, another 100+ thread brought to you by sum1.
Happy Lunar New Year!