Pat Martino vs Kenny G
cl...@claymoore.com
utterly exhausted by the battle that has been waged over Pat Metheny
and Kenny G, so how about something completely different?; Pat Martino
vs. Kenny G. Here's the scenario:
In an interview somewhere Pat Martino recalled learning early on that
the use of repetition was guaranteed to please a crowd. And, to sure,
Pat has relied on this device throughout his career. Back when my new
bride was transferred to Scotland for her job and I knew no one and
was prohibited by the UK government from working or even sitting in
(no foolin'), I decided to make good use of the time by transcribing
and learning Pat's entire solo from the song Sunny, which had
fascinated me for some 19 years. If you don't know this recording Pat
solos takes ten choruses of 16th notes on the 16 measure form, and on
three of those choruses he plays repetitive figures for almost each
entire chorus, and also does this on portions of two other choruses.
Thassa a lotta repetition. Of course Pat didn't invent this; Wes was a
master of repetition and it's a favored tool of many B-3 players as
well, just to name two examples.
Soooo... There's the part in Metheny's written diatribe where he
criticizes the G man's use of seemingly endless repetition, and of
course there's the joke about "what's the difference between Kenny G
and an uzi? The uzi only repeats 600 times."
This begs the question, if it's a cheap trick when Kenny uses it, is
it the same when Martino or Montgomery or Jimmy Smith do it? Is this
the musical equivalent of "football in the groin?" If not, why not?
Let the games begin.
Clay Moore
http://www.claymoore.com
suckymusician
No matter what Kenny G is going to get kicked because he is the
greatest selling instrumentalist of all time. I think Metheny was a
little jealous that Kenny G sold more records so he used the fact that
Kenny overdubbed himself to lash out and publicly cut him down. Kenny
G never claimed to be any great jazz player. He plays what he hears
in his head and he found a sound that people like to hear. He is a
very good performer and his music sounds good. I think it has become
fashionable for "jazz" players to put down Kenny G and smooth jazz in
general. I personally enjoy smooth jazz. I also enjoy traditional
jazz. They both have a different vibe.
Michael L Kankiewicz
Well, comparing these two is ridiculous, but I never really liked PM's
repitition thing either.
MK
southtexasguitarist
You're cheating!
Joe Giglio
hey i really like kenny garrett's playing!
Mq
All women have
boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,
boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,
boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,boobs,
RTFirefly
When I saw Pat Martino a while ago he did Sunny as an encore. In the
bar afterwards (naturally, full of guitar players) I overheard more
than one 'but he didn't quote Flight Of The Bumble Bee'. But then,
some people expect comedians to perform their familiar routines and
jokes from TV when they see them live.
To the question. My view is that like any other 'device' repetition
has it's place and some people use it to higher artistic effect than
others. The judgement about higher or lower (or cheaper) for me is
about context and intent.
If it is simply about getting a crowd worked up, you might call that
cheap, but cheerful, and if everyone goes home happy that's great.
I have no idea, for example, what Grant Green's intent was on so many
of his recordings but his use of repetition beautifully lifts the
impact of the whole performance of the tune. That's the test for me.
jimmybruno
A little known fact. Kenny G can certainly play jazz and be=bop. The
guy CAN play. I was at a rehearsal with Grover Washington, Michael
Brecker and Kenny G. (Someone in Philly was getting an award) and the
promoters put this band together.. I was playing guitar. The award
was to Jimmy Smith. While waiting for him to show up we were playing
around and decided to play Voyage. Kenny held his own very nicely.
Then we played Oleo, again Kenny sounded good.
I think he chose to play the way he does to make some serious money.
I have no comment about PM diatribe about Kenny G. I think PM was
more upset about him playing on top of Louis Armstrong.
Kenny G has made millions with his music; I can find nothing wrong
with doing that.
jimmybruno
PM in the above post refers to Pat Metheny
southtexasguitarist
Hi Jimmy,
It's nice to see you posting here after what seems like a while.
OK, so AFAIK this is the only time I've posted anything like this,
call it a troll if you like, but I'm serious. It doesn't have to be
Kenny G we're talking about here, the issue that I brought up was,
when is something a brilliant musical device vs. a hackneyed cliche? I
remember reading a critic talking about Ahmad Jamal relying on
"tricks" that were cheap (aren't they all?) to get a reaction from the
crowd. Yes, we know critics are usually bozos, but what was it about
Jamal's playing that he was complaining about? I hear a lot of
repetition in his playing, or is it thematic development? So far no
one in this thread has mentioned anything pro or con as to the
validity of using repetition.
What about quotes? Good, or bad? Cliche, or clever?
Clay Moore
http://www.claymoore.com
jimmybruno
all music needs some repetition otherwise we can't make sense of it.
Look at the forms. A B A or A A B A. Repeating a phrase is just a
smaller component of the big picture.
As far as quotes and jazz cliche , I'm not a fan of either but that
doesn't make them bad
jess
Jess
jimmybruno
I should add that I use those devices myself, only if I run out of
ideas or when it's time to "get some house"
Kevin Van Sant
<cl...@claymoore.com> wrote in message
<3d01705f-d2e8-43d5...@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> :
>So far no
>one in this thread has mentioned anything pro or con as to the
>validity of using repetition.
>
>What about quotes? Good, or bad? Cliche, or clever?
I remember also reading somewhere that Monk said he would observe
which "devices" elicited a big crowd response and would subsequently
work them in again the next night.
Sonny Rollins was always the master of quotes, in my view to good
effect. The thing about quotes is they can sound spontaneous and
clever or they can sound forced and un-creative. A great player will
always be a great player so no surprise that Sonny makes quotes sound
good. Joshua Breakstone is a guitarist who uses a lot of quoting,
usually to good effect, though he seems to quote a lot of nursery
rhymes for some reason.
Repetition is a great device as well, when used musically. That's the
key to any of these things, speed, dynamics, quoting, repetition,
sweeps, circular breathing, Santana's infinite sustain, etc... A
musical player will use these devices well, a lesser musical player
usually won't.
I think Pat uses repetition masterfully, if I had any complaint about
his playing it wouldn't be that.
________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
Check out my brand new CD "Play the Music of Horace Silver"
http://www.kevinvansant.com
thomas
I'll take a crack, even though we all know this is totally subjective.
When Gorelickian repetition is used to arouse the masses, it can be
annoying. But sometimes players -- like Grant Green -- use repetition
to help the rhythm section lock in, or to cue the rest of the band to
kick the energy level up a notch. Those are more valid uses, IMO.
> What about quotes? Good, or bad? Cliche, or clever?
I love it when guys like Paul Desmond or Jim Mullen quote other songs,
because they always make it fit and develop it naturally. OTOH, you
have guys who drop one in just to be cute, and don't really make it
fit in context.
ken
> OK, so AFAIK this is the only time I've posted anything like this,
> call it a troll if you like, but I'm serious. It doesn't have to be
> Kenny G we're talking about here, the issue that I brought up was,
> when is something a brilliant musical device vs. a hackneyed cliche?
Like anything else, I would assume it depends on how it's done. I've
seen it done very poorly and overdone, and I've seen some good uses of
it.
But you know, like everything else, nobody is going to agree on which
is a good use and which is a bad use.
You can't decide if this 'device' on it's own is good or bad in
isolation no more than we can decide if it's OK to play "out" or not,
or to go totally non-tonal or whatever... It all depends.
Ken
Bg
How are your hands, still good after the operation?
Bg
Keith Freeman
> effect.
-Keith
Clips, Portable Changes, tips etc.: www.keithfreemantrio.nl
e-mail: info AT keithfreemantrio DOT nl
tom walls
> I should add that I use those devices myself, only if I run out of
> ideas or when it's time to "get some house"
There it is, ladies and gentlemen, but, hell, it works. It works for
the house, and most of the time it works for me too.
jimmybruno
Hands are fine. operation took 15 minutes. Everything is back to
normal. Many thanks for asking
rpjazzguitar
about his playing. He said something about working to be a better
player.
Did Louis Armstrong's people approve it because they thought that it
might sell Louis' records? I bet it did sell some.
As far as repetition goes, I like players who use it, like Wes, and
players who don't use it as much, like, for example, Chico Pinheiro. I
like music which makes me feel something. I can't break that down into
a formula.
Last point. Last night I went to see Gerald Albright. I didn't know
who he was, but a friend had an extra ticket. I learned that he's
known as a smooth jazz performer. But, this man can play some
saxophone! Most of the time he didn't show off jazz chops, but there
were moments when he played some bop stuff, and when he played through
more complex changes. Most surprising though, was just how much of an
entertainer he is. He wove together music and entertainment, he had
the crowd entralled -- he was charming, funny and rousing. Think Al
Green or James Brown if they played horn and didn't sing. Jr. Walker,
for those who remember, might be another reference point.
I would much rather go to a show like that than see a bunch of somber
people take turns playing through changes and mumbling the name of the
composer of each tune.
.
Dan Adler
Clay,
Drama in all music can be analyzed after the fact as the use of some
"cheap trick". The question is whether it's done from the heart. With
Pat Martino on that solo you mentioned, you can hear the crowd go
crazy at that spot, and it's because he conveys so much emotion in
that moment that it's hard to keep your cool in the face of that.
There are times when I've seen him do it where it was not as
successful, and other times the magic is there. It's not a fullproof
recipe. I think anyone who can elicit that kind of pure emotional
response from an audience gets my admiration whether it's by
shredding, repeating, solo breaks or whatever other "trick".
hw
"Dan Adler" <d...@danadler.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1f050298-d73e-43a6...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Drama in all music can be analyzed after the fact as the use of some
> "cheap trick". The question is whether it's done from the heart. With
> Pat Martino on that solo you mentioned, you can hear the crowd go
> crazy at that spot, and it's because he conveys so much emotion in
> that moment that it's hard to keep your cool in the face of that.
> There are times when I've seen him do it where it was not as
> successful, and other times the magic is there. It's not a fullproof
> recipe. I think anyone who can elicit that kind of pure emotional
> response from an audience gets my admiration whether it's by
> shredding, repeating, solo breaks or whatever other "trick".
>
> -Dan
so you admire kenny g as well? ;)
more seriously, i have to admit that the crowd pleasing stuff is one of the
main reasons i do not enjoy listening to pat's music anymore. (another one
being his lousy sound). and i do have all his recordings (leader and
sideman) and a *ton* of live bootlegs. these days he does the open string
trick on *every* friggin tune. it bores me to death.
Dave
> I have no comment about PM diatribe about Kenny G. I think PM was
> more upset about him playing on top of Louis Armstrong.
>
> Kenny G has made millions with his music; I can find nothing wrong
> with doing that.
And neither did Pat...until, as you say, he did the Louis Armstrong thing.
And that's basically what he said in the rant. Clearly, Pat doesn't think
much of Kenny as a player, but he was willing to let him do his thing,
without comment, until he did what Pat considered to be the very
presumptuous and arrogant thing of "recording with Louis Armstrong."
Steven Bornfeld
Steve
hw
"Dave" <nos...@spamalot.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ehL3m.3396$vO4....@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
larry coryell did the same thing to wes montgomery
unknown guitarplayer
> "Dave" <nos...@spamalot.net> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:ehL3m.3396$vO4....@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
True, and I never really understand why Larry gets a pass on that,
while we pile on Kenny G every couple of months.
KL
that's so true - I especially love the way Elvin Jones would latch
onto Grant Green's repetitive figures. It's a big reason why GG more
than holds his own on some of those recordings with far more
'advanced' or 'complex' soloists like Larry Young, McCoy, Sam Rivers,
etc...
rpjazzguitar
estate to make that recording. I would also assume that he got that
permission because whoever is running the estate wanted him to do it.
The estate was likely to make money and it could introduce Louis
Armstrong to a new generation of fans. I would also assume that they
reached a deal which everybody felt happy with.
I'd also point out that Louis Armstrong, among his other qualities,
was a great entertainer. I don't have the impression that he took
himself overly seriously.
So, we're left with a kind of ethical argument that Kenny G isn't
enough of a player (or maybe nobody is) to do that with Louis
Armstrong. But, we have Jimmy Bruno's comment that Kenny can play. We
have the presumption that the Armstrong estate approved the deal and
we can guess that more people now are aware of Louis Armstrong and
have purchased his records.
Personally, I'm not offended by it even though I'm well aware of Louis
Armstrong's importance in the history of jazz.
Kevin Collins
> I would assume that Kenny needed permission from Louis Armstrong's
> estate to make that recording. I would also assume that he got that
> permission because whoever is running the estate wanted him to do it.
> The estate was likely to make money and it could introduce Louis
> Armstrong to a new generation of fans. I would also assume that they
> reached a deal which everybody felt happy with.
It's more an aesthetic beef than a legal one, however I agree with the
following....
> Personally, I'm not offended by it even though I'm well aware of Louis
> Armstrong's importance in the history of jazz.
It's also tough for me to get offended by something I don't listen to.
Not to mention, if this is the kind of stuff that gets folks outraged,
their lives must be sweet.
Dave
You mean to a Wes recording? Coryell added himself to a WM recording? Or
pulled Wes' track off and added it to his own recording?
southtexasguitarist
Coryell overdubbed himself on Wes's recording of Bumpin' on Sunset. If
you ask me all of the examples of people dubbing on top of existing
recordings is in bad taste. I don't know who decided this was ok to
do, but it's just another example of our collective lack of
creativity, in the same way that we're constantly seeing older movies
- many of which were not that compelling to to begin with - being
redone. The latest one I know about is The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3,
which I thought was a good movie originally. What, we can't come up
with new stories? While we're at it, why does EVERYTHING have to be a
graphically violent action piece, a slasher film, or a "comedy" aimed
at the maturity level of a six year old?
Clay Moore
http://www.claymoore.com
george4908
> the use of repetition was guaranteed to please a crowd. And, to sure,
> Pat has relied on this device throughout his career.
As it happens, I saw Pat Martino a week ago at Blues Alley, and was
musing on this very point as he launched into what must have been 32
or more bars of a repeated figure. At first I thought, "Here he goes
again" and waited for the crowd to jump in with applause when it was
over (which it did of course, although there was nothing particularly
difficult or inventive about the phrase), and it is at some level
about audience manipulation. But seeing Pat live, I also realized
something else was going on. He was taking a break, so to speak, in
the middle of his solo to really listen to the band, give them some
room to stretch out and create something interesting underneath the
repeated figure. If all you're listening to is Pat, sure, it can be
somewhat mystifying/boring to hear him go on so long, the only drama
being when the hell is he going to break it off. But if you do what
Pat seems to be doing, and listen to the other musicians sculpting
things around the figure, it can be quite interesting. I'm not sure
I'd have picked up on this to the same degree if I hasn't seen him
live and watched what he was doing.
On a related note, horns often play to the crowd by hitting high notes
and holding on to them for a while to close off a solo. At least some
effort has to be expended on a horn to pull off what in many cases is
little more than a trick (not to say it can't work musically as well
if structured properly). But what I find funny is when guitarists or
keyboards do essentially the same thing and get the same huzzahs from
the crowd -- as if holding down a high note on a keyboard or guitar
for an extended period of time requires great skill, stamina or
creativity.
I guess if you're going to do it, you have to earn it. Recently saw
Kenny Garrett (with Corea/McLaughlin) ending a few solos this way, but
the man climbed frickin' Mt. Everest to get there and his props were
entirely, well, apropos.
thomas
> On Jul 4, 10:55 pm, "Dave" <nos...@spamalot.net> wrote:
>
> > > larry coryell did the same thing to wes montgomery
>
> > You mean to a Wes recording? Coryell added himself to a WM recording? Or
> > pulled Wes' track off and added it to his own recording?
>
> Coryell overdubbed himself on Wes's recording of Bumpin' on Sunset.
Larry also traveled with the Wes track, and would perform with the
tape backing.
Dave
> If all you're listening to is Pat, sure, it can be
> somewhat mystifying/boring to hear him go on so long, the only drama
> being when the hell is he going to break it off. But if you do what
> Pat seems to be doing, and listen to the other musicians sculpting
> things around the figure, it can be quite interesting. I'm not sure
> I'd have picked up on this to the same degree if I hasn't seen him
> live and watched what he was doing.
Thing is...that can be achieved without playing the exact figure for sooo
mannny barrrs. Creating a motif which varies a little, either rhythmically
or note-wise, can be effective without being boring.
rpjazzguitar
want to feel something.
That is, unless the audience is filled with guitar players who are
sitting there thinking about technical issues. And if you're thinking
about technical issues, you aren't hearing the music. It's probably a
very good player indeed who can make an audience of guitarists
actually forget about the guitar and listen to the music.
It's like if you're watching a movie and thinking about what a great
(or rotten) acting you're seeing. That means that the story has ceased
to command your attention.
Bg
> larry coryell did the same thing to wes montgomery
Hmmnn, I didn't know that!
Bg
Bg
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree wholeheartedly, but those are probably the only things that
they can get backup money for.
Bg
Rick Stone
back (that semi annual outdoor one he does at Lincoln Center) and Sonny
started going into one of his repetitious licks. Of course the crowd
started going wild and cheering, but Barry just kind of shook his head in
mild disgust and said "and he can PLAY too!" I think that a lot of
musicians (especially good ones) are far less impressed with repetition than
the general public, and many tend to see it as a kind of cheap trick.
Although I don't care to use it much, I do see how repetition can be used to
create a kind of suspense in a solo, and some folks use it effectively. The
repetition thing is almost ALWAYS a crowd pleaser. Although I generally shy
away from it, I've tried it on occasion and it pretty much always gets a
positive audience response (but somehow I feel cheap after I do it :-)
Musically Yours,
Rick Stone
email: rick...@rickstone.com
website: http://www.rickstone.com
Visit me on MySpace at: http://www.myspace.com/rickstonemusic
Check out my Electronic Press-Kit online at:
http://www.sonicbids.com/rickstone
Check out my recordings at http://www.cdbaby.com/all/jazzand
Watch my videos on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/user/jazzand
Joe Finn
news:17b328e6-c08d-4f06...@l31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 3, 12:50 pm, "c...@claymoore.com" <c...@claymoore.com> wrote:
> Like boxers in the 11th round of a title fight I know we're all
> utterly exhausted by the battle that has been waged over Pat Metheny
> and Kenny G, so how about something completely different?; Pat Martino
> vs. Kenny G. Here's the scenario:
>
> the use of repetition was guaranteed to please a crowd. And, to sure,
> bride was transferred to Scotland for her job and I knew no one and
> was prohibited by the UK government from working or even sitting in
> (no foolin'), I decided to make good use of the time by transcribing
> and learning Pat's entire solo from the song Sunny, which had
> fascinated me for some 19 years. If you don't know this recording Pat
> solos takes ten choruses of 16th notes on the 16 measure form, and on
> three of those choruses he plays repetitive figures for almost each
> entire chorus, and also does this on portions of two other choruses.
> Thassa a lotta repetition. Of course Pat didn't invent this; Wes was a
> master of repetition and it's a favored tool of many B-3 players as
> well, just to name two examples.
>
> Soooo... There's the part in Metheny's written diatribe where he
> criticizes the G man's use of seemingly endless repetition, and of
> course there's the joke about "what's the difference between Kenny G
> and an uzi? The uzi only repeats 600 times."
>
> This begs the question, if it's a cheap trick when Kenny uses it, is
> it the same when Martino or Montgomery or Jimmy Smith do it? Is this
> the musical equivalent of "football in the groin?" If not, why not?
> Let the games begin.
>
> Clay Moorehttp://www.claymoore.com
>>>>>>hey i really like kenny garrett's playing!
You mean there is *another* Kenny G? ....joe
--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
Joe Finn
news:Xns9C3EBB716B2Fke...@212.54.40.12...
>> Sonny Rollins was always the master of quotes, in my view to good
>> effect.
> And don't forget Dex!
You've got to love the Dex!! ....joe
Joe Finn
news:ehL3m.3396$vO4....@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
There seemed to be less of an outcry over the posthumous duet on
Unforgettable between Nat Cole and Natalie Cole. .......joe
Joe Finn
news:82bca818-6799-413f...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Maybe because it's really not such a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
Joe Finn
>>Coryell overdubbed himself on Wes's recording of Bumpin' on Sunset. If
>>you ask me all of the examples of people dubbing on top of existing
>>recordings is in bad taste. I don't know who decided this was ok to
>>do, but it's just another example of our collective lack of
>>creativity,
I agree this sort of thing is in poor taste. It also is a reflection of an
absence of creativity. As far as who is responsible for the decision to go
forward with this kind of thing is concerned; simply follow the money.
Marketing decisions of this kind are made in the hope of garnering publicity
and selling product. .......joe
Joe Finn
"Dan Adler" <d...@danadler.com> wrote
>Drama in all music can be analyzed after the fact as the use of some
>"cheap trick". The question is whether it's done from the heart. With
>Pat Martino on that solo you mentioned, you can hear the crowd go
>crazy at that spot, and it's because he conveys so much emotion in
>that moment that it's hard to keep your cool in the face of that.
>There are times when I've seen him do it where it was not as
>successful, and other times the magic is there. It's not a fullproof
>recipe. I think anyone who can elicit that kind of pure emotional
>response from an audience gets my admiration whether it's by
>shredding, repeating, solo breaks or whatever other "trick".
Like you I have seen Pat perform his trademark repeated hemiola on different
occasions. The response is generally what you would expect: the crowd goes
nuts. ....joe
Joe Finn
news:175448a6-7090-4378...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 3, 6:02 pm, Bg <ottg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Great to hear from on this Jimmy.
>
> How are your hands, still good after the operation?
> Bg
>>>Hands are fine. operation took 15 minutes. Everything is back to
>>>normal.
Good news. ...joe
unknown guitarplayer
> "unknown guitarplayer" <unknownguitarpla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
I agree with that, Joe, it's really not such a big deal in the grand
scheme of things, but it sure seemed to generate a lot more heat (here
and elsewhere) when Kenny did it than when Larry did. Metheny seemed
quite ready to be the "defender of the faith" when Kenny crossed the
line, but I don't recall him saying a word about Larry.
I guess this isn't a popular opinion, and it's akin to a choice of
death by hanging or boiling in oil, but I thought that what Larry did
was far more crass and egregious than McG. Before that, Coryell had
an album modestly titled "Monk, Miles, Trane and Me", so I guess the
Wes thing shouldn't have been a surprise.
Paul K
>
> I agree with that, Joe, it's really not such a big deal in the grand
> scheme of things, but it sure seemed to generate a lot more heat (here
> and elsewhere) when Kenny did it than when Larry did. Metheny seemed
> quite ready to be the "defender of the faith" when Kenny crossed the
> line, but I don't recall him saying a word about Larry.
From the same interview that Metheny discusses Kenny G:
"When Larry Coryell presumed to overdub himself on top of a Wes Montgomery
track, I lost a lot of the respect that I ever had for him - and I have to
seriously question the fact that I did have respect for someone who could turn
out to have such unbelievably bad taste and be that disrespectful to one of my
personal heroes."
http://www.jazzoasis.com/methenyonkennyg.htm
>
> I guess this isn't a popular opinion, and it's akin to a choice of
> death by hanging or boiling in oil, but I thought that what Larry did
> was far more crass and egregious than McG.
Perhaps, but: Coryell is a jazz musician, and for a while had an impact
on Jazz. None of that applies to Kenny G, who in addition wouldnt have needed
the money.
Before that, Coryell had
> an album modestly titled "Monk, Miles, Trane and Me", so I guess the
> Wes thing shouldn't have been a surprise.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Monk-Trane-Miles-Larry-Coryell/dp/B00000HXNZ/ref=sr_1_
42?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1246897077&sr=8-42
>
>
>
--
Paul K
http://www.youtube.com/TopologyPaul
http://www.soundclick.com/paulkirk
http://php.indiana.edu/~pkirk/
unknown guitarplayer
> unknown guitarplayer wrote:
>
> > I agree with that, Joe, it's really not such a big deal in the grand
> > scheme of things, but it sure seemed to generate a lot more heat (here
> > and elsewhere) when Kenny did it than when Larry did. Metheny seemed
> > quite ready to be the "defender of the faith" when Kenny crossed the
> > line, but I don't recall him saying a word about Larry.
>
> From the same interview that Metheny discusses Kenny G:
>
> "When Larry Coryell presumed to overdub himself on top of a Wes Montgomery
> track, I lost a lot of the respect that I ever had for him - and I have to
> seriously question the fact that I did have respect for someone who could turn
> out to have such unbelievably bad taste and be that disrespectful to one of my
> personal heroes."
>
> http://www.jazzoasis.com/methenyonkennyg.htm
>
>
>
> > I guess this isn't a popular opinion, and it's akin to a choice of
> > death by hanging or boiling in oil, but I thought that what Larry did
> > was far more crass and egregious than McG.
>
> Perhaps, but: Coryell is a jazz musician, and for a while had an impact
> on Jazz. None of that applies to Kenny G, who in addition wouldnt have needed
> the money.
>
> Before that, Coryell had> an album modestly titled "Monk, Miles, Trane and Me", so I guess the
> > Wes thing shouldn't have been a surprise.
>
>
> 42?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1246897077&sr=8-42
>
>
>
> --
> Paul K
>
> http://www.youtube.com/TopologyPaulhttp://www.soundclick.com/paulkirkhttp://php.indiana.edu/~pkirk/
Thanks for posting that, Paul. I must have seen a cut up nth
generation version of the interview without that part. Apologies to
Metheny. He said what needed to be said.
Agree that LC has more cred as a jazz musician than McG, but by that
reasoning, shouldn't he have been more aware that he was making a
bonehead move? If KG is truly the lightweight dilettante he's so
frequently accused of being, he could conceivably plead ignorance.
But Larry?
Dan Adler
> Although I don't care to use it much, I do see how repetition can be used to
> create a kind of suspense in a solo, and some folks use it effectively. The
> repetition thing is almost ALWAYS a crowd pleaser. Although I generally shy
> away from it, I've tried it on occasion and it pretty much always gets a
> positive audience response (but somehow I feel cheap after I do it :-)
>
If connecting with the audience is cheap then alienating them must be
expensive :-)
Veekster
I recall Heinrich Schenker in his book on harmony discusses how
repetition is fundamental to the concept of motive in music.
Interesting for the theoretical minded. cf. Wikipedia...http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmony_%28Schenker%29
Vic
Paul K
>
> Agree that LC has more cred as a jazz musician than McG, but by that
> reasoning, shouldn't he have been more aware that he was making a
> bonehead move? If KG is truly the lightweight dilettante he's so
> frequently accused of being, he could conceivably plead ignorance.
> But Larry?
Sure, but I suppose one could instead argue that Larry had the better chance
of "respecting the music" than KG. It's my understanding that Coryell had
drug problems, maybe he had financial problems and someone convinced him this
would help.
I hate hearing almost all overdubbing in jazz, since it subtracts one of the
main things that interests me about it: group interaction.
But I'm not so opinionated at these ethics/art issues since I am just an
amateur wanker/imitator and so honesty in art doesnt affect what I do. I
assume they are important to great artists like Metheny.
jimmybruno
Good point. If people won't pay a 20 to 30 dollar cover to see you
play, you are out of business.
pmfan57
If you think about how young she was when her father died, you would
have to be a real scrooge to begrudge her doing that "duet."
Joe Finn
On Jul 6, 11:50 am, "Joe Finn" <J...@JoeFinn.net> wrote:
>
> Maybe because it's really not such a big deal in the grand scheme of
> things.
> ....joe
>
> --
> Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
>>>I agree with that, Joe, it's really not such a big deal in the grand
>>>scheme of things, but it sure seemed to generate a lot more heat (here
>>>and elsewhere) when Kenny did it than when Larry did. Metheny seemed
>>>quite ready to be the "defender of the faith" when Kenny crossed the
>>>line, but I don't recall him saying a word about Larry.
I do not recall having heard any particular outcry about the Nat/Natalie
Cole duet on "Unforgettable' either. Nat was deceased at the time this was
done. I felt a chill up my spine when I first heard that one. It was like
somebody walked over my grave. I guess we all have to decide for ourselves
what it is we are going to get all publicly indignant about.
The last time I got indignant in public nobody seemed to notice. 8-)
>>>I guess this isn't a popular opinion, and it's akin to a choice of
>>>death by hanging or boiling in oil, but I thought that what Larry did
>>>was far more crass and egregious than McG. Before that, Coryell had
>>>an album modestly titled "Monk, Miles, Trane and Me", so I guess the
>>>Wes thing shouldn't have been a surprise.
Larry's modesty is hard to underestimate. Still, you have got to wonder
about the process that resulted in the Wes overdub. I think that trend has
probably run it's course at this point. At least I hope that it has.
..................joe
Joe Finn
>>>If you think about how young she was when her father died, you would
>>>have to be a real scrooge to begrudge her doing that "duet."
I indicated neither scroogification nor begrudgeulity. I think these
posthumous overdubs were a trend made possible by digital editing techniques
and that this trend has [thank god] run it's course. This amounts to squat
in my humble opinion. The "outrage" expressed over this sort of thing is
some kind of "holier than thou" posturing and I'm not buying it. It doesn't
pass the stink test. ...joe
Joe Finn
news:62df40e8-32a7-4d9d...@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>-Dan
>>>>>>http://danadler.com
I remember going to see Miles when he was in the initial stages of his rock
star phase. I knew he wasn't going to play "So What" or "All Blues", but I
was there for him. He wore a sparkling sequined jacket and humongous shades
as he played wah-wah trumpet with his back to the audience for nearly the
entire show.
At least he showed up. I had tickets to see him when he didn't too.
He could have written a book on alienation.
..........................................joe
Joe Finn
news:6bbdd21f-4f02-45b3...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
I played with a drummer when I was a kid who said that music *is*
repetition. His point was that the opposite of repetition would necessarily
be random and that random sound patterns would be perceived as noise.
Bg
> "Veekster" <to.vic....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmmn, more than just a little truth in there!
Bg
Ammo
> On Jul 3, 3:01 pm, southtexasguitarist <c...@claymoore.com> wrote:
> > What about quotes? Good, or bad? Cliche, or clever?
>
> I love it when guys like Paul Desmond or Jim Mullen quote other songs,
> because they always make it fit and develop it naturally. OTOH, you
> have guys who drop one in just to be cute, and don't really make it
> fit in context.
There are certain figures that run through the greatest improvisers.
Charlie Parker kept quoting himself, but the son of a gun could play
those amazing figures in a variety of keys. The fact is, he developed
them, worked on them, mastered them, and then played them as if he
were shooting from the hip.
A good example of a bad quote is the Basie band's recordings of "April
In Paris" with an entrenched quote at the end, drawing out, "Jingle
Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle All The Way". It began to bug me when I
was really enjoying the ambience of imagining what April was really
like in Paris for a Russian emigré named Vladimir Dukelsky in the
1920s. What an amazing life story - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Duke
- but it boggles the mind that this Conservatory-trained composer can
have produced a Broadway tune that would become a hit for a Kansas
City stomp band.
On the same recording, Thad Jones plays "Pop Goes The Weasel". In a
bid to make a hit record, how low can you go? (This was not an
improvisation, since it vascillates between two keys: it was
arranged.)
Neither of the tunes quoted has any relation to jazz and blues
origins, and their use really cheapens the stately harmonies of Vernon
Duke and their subtle interpretation in the great Basie arrangement.
Worst of all, Basie's version with this Christmas tune excerpt was
recorded in July 1955 (not December), in a song about Springtime! The
mind reels. What a bad idea.
April in Paris: http://www.vervemusicgroup.com/artist/music/detail.aspx?pid=9896&aid=2674
While studying John Coltrane's solo on "Moment's Notice" it suddenly
became clear to me the difference between melodic invention and
"running the changes", which Jerry Coker described in Elements of the
Jazz Language (Alfred Publishing, preview available on google books).
The chords supplied with the transcription show that Coltrane stuck
very closely to this remarkable set of chord changes. So, what sounds,
at first listen, to be an awesome solo, very freely invented with
little relation to a tonic, is actually change-running. And this leads
us to a conclusion that Coltrane's special abilities were more
harmonic than melodic, and arguably more mature than Charlie Parker's,
who was often quoted as saying "I've played it all", and in 1954 told
Paul Desmond on radio "I don't consider myself too old to learn...I'm
going to study with Edgar Varese in Europe".
So Trane went on to greater heights while Bird had hit the wall. Trane
eliminated the piano background and embraced Ornette's innovations and
pursued his spiritual path. He freed himself from the standards and
change-running in favour of a rhythmic setting which allowed him to
express emotion in pure sound. If only Bird had lived 15 more years
and managed to study at the Conservatoire like he dreamed of doing,
what would he have been capable of? How much higher would he have set
the bar for future generations, both jazz and classical? What
composers would he have influenced to write for the technical level
that he had acquired by 1939, and few have matched in 70 years? We can
only imagine.
While Bird finished his career with sappy strings in the background
and his melodies echoed by an oboe (!), a younger generation was
absorbing his inventions and technique, and expanding his explorations
of the saxophone's tone and mobility. It has been a long time, and the
popular market has not expanded its awareness beyond the 1950s
innovators. Meanwhile guitarists have filled the void, with technology
and chops never dreamed of. This is where the new jazz genre can
experience rebirth. Yet the standard attitude in RMMGJ is ultra
conservative. The "jazz tone" that we prefer is just dull. There's no
presence, no treble, no effects. Even Metheny's ancient chorus pedal
is frowned upon, and his mastery of the guitar synth is persona non
grata.
Just shut up about Freddie Green for awhile and start innovating, my
friends. I for one would like to hear you play something new.
AMMO
Ammo
>
> Thanks for posting that, Paul. I must have seen a cut up nth
> generation version of the interview without that part. Apologies to
> Metheny. He said what needed to be said.
>
> Agree that LC has more cred as a jazz musician than McG, but by that
> reasoning, shouldn't he have been more aware that he was making a
> bonehead move? If KG is truly the lightweight dilettante he's so
> frequently accused of being, he could conceivably plead ignorance.
> But Larry?
I like Coryell too, and while I've heard lots of Wes I liked, I am
unfamiliar with the hit record under discussion here. However, there
is nobody in the Western world who has not already heard the original
Louis Armstrong song "What a Wonderful World".
So Kenny is attaching himself to a previous hit, like a leech. Coryell
is honestly paying tribute to a hero on a song that has not been a
hit, and hoping he can spread his adoration of Wes to a larger
audience.
There's a difference. I find Coryell's approach has integrity. Kenny G
is interested in only one thing: Kenny G.
Honor your ancestors.
AMMO
Ammo
> Although I don't care to use it much, I do see how repetition can be used to
> create a kind of suspense in a solo, and some folks use it effectively. The
> repetition thing is almost ALWAYS a crowd pleaser. Although I generally shy
> away from it, I've tried it on occasion and it pretty much always gets a
> positive audience response (but somehow I feel cheap after I do it :-)
>
A theatrical director recently shared an observation on comedy with
me, to wit, the rule of 3.
If you hit a punch line once, some people will get it. If you hit it
twice, the people who already get it will groan while the next
smartest audience members will twig. If you hit it three times,
everyone will get it, and the early ones will admire your audacity
while the second smartest will congratulate themselves on noticing the
repetition - the third smartest will belly laugh in order to show they
got it the first time.
So don't be so anxious to show how well you can get around your
instrument! Relax a bit - it's not a contest. Tell a story, and do it
humanely. The audience is your partner, your lover, your friend. They
already like you. Let your music be like a massage for them.
Then when they're all hypnotized, you can start to ROCK THEIR WORLD!
Mwah-ha-hah...
AMMO
unknown guitarplayer
Lenny Bruce said something similar about audiences:
"First you tell them what you're gonna do to them. Then you do it to
them. Then you tell them what you did to them".
...that is, I think it was Lenny, and I think he was talking about
audiences.
unknown guitarplayer
The Coryell cut I heard was "Bumpin' on Sunset". If you're not
familiar with the original, it's a string drenched minor vamp that was
one of Wes' better known "commercial" tunes, and the title cut of one
of his late period LP's. You really should hear it for yourself, but
to my ears, it encapsulated and anticipated smooth jazz 40 years
before the fact. It's probably the only tune in the entire Wes
discography that I've flipped the dial on when I've heard it on the
radio (and coincidentally, I've heard it on smooth jazz stations).
I'm not usually a snob about late period Wes stuff. Although I can't
go more than a few weeks without listening to "King of the Road", the
"Way You Look Tonight" or "Blue and Boogie", I can still hear his
brilliance and warmth shine through, although understated, in things
like "Windy", "California Dreamin'" or "Tequila". "Bumpin" however,
is a different story. Honor your ancestors...absolutely, but IMHO,
it's the last tune that I would pick to honor and respect Wes. I
guess Larry heard something different.
southtexasguitarist
> I played with a drummer when I was a kid who said that music *is*
> repetition. His point was that the opposite of repetition would necessarily
> be random and that random sound patterns would be perceived as noise.
Well, we've started to get there in the discussion. Of course music is
repetition. Every useful human endeavor has repetition - schedules,
patterns, and so forth. Drummers do this more than other instruments,
because typically they set up some type of "groove," which is a
synonym for a catchy, repetitive figure.
Other end of the spectrum. Who among us hasn't played with a drummer
who "sets up the groove" and that's it? Someone who doesn't vary
dynamics, change the groove for a section change or new soloist, or
otherwise shape the music. I think we can all agree this isn't much
fun, so if music *is* repetition why isn't it fun to play with these
drummers?
Clay Moore
http://www.claymoore.com
Joe Finn
"southtexasguitarist" <cl...@claymoore.com> wrote in message
news:66e22dec-2738-447f...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 6, 11:24 pm, "Joe Finn" <J...@JoeFinn.net> wrote:
> I played with a drummer when I was a kid who said that music *is*
> repetition. His point was that the opposite of repetition would
> necessarily
> be random and that random sound patterns would be perceived as noise.
>>Well, we've started to get there in the discussion. Of course music is
>>repetition. Every useful human endeavor has repetition - schedules,
>>patterns, and so forth. Drummers do this more than other instruments,
>>because typically they set up some type of "groove," which is a
>>synonym for a catchy, repetitive figure.
I tend to emphasize organization over repetition. Text on a page makes sense
to us because not so much because of any repeated pattern but because of the
way in which the characters are organized into words that combine to form
syntax and other broader concepts.
>Other end of the spectrum. Who among us hasn't played with a drummer
>who "sets up the groove" and that's it? Someone who doesn't vary
>dynamics, change the groove for a section change or new soloist, or
>otherwise shape the music. I think we can all agree this isn't much
>fun, so if music *is* repetition why isn't it fun to play with these
>drummers?
I think I know that guy. .....joe
pmfan57
> "pmfan57" <jwrag...@aol.com> wrote
I didn't mean you were a scrooge. I was just making a general
statement. BTW, I agree that Kenny G should not have added his stuff
to the Pops record. Father and daughter get special exemption.
steve
...and we all know how that turned out.
steve
--
"Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue."
Francois de La Rochefoucauld
335
> On Jul 7, 12:05 am, "Joe Finn" <J...@JoeFinn.net> wrote:
>
> > I indicated neither scroogification nor begrudgeulity. I think these
> > posthumous overdubs were a trend made possible by digital editing techniques
> > and that this trend has [thank god] run it's course. This amounts to squat
> > in my humble opinion. The "outrage" expressed over this sort of thing is
> > some kind of "holier than thou" posturing and I'm not buying it. It doesn't
> > pass the stink test. ...joe
it's perceptive of you to observe that.
holier than thou is standard operating procedure on this thread.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> ...and we all know how that turned out.
>
> steve
I don't watch porn. I do remember "King Kong vs. Godzilla" which was
released in two versions--one for the American market and one for the
Japanese market. And I remember how THAT turned out!
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
southtexasguitarist
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
> I don't watch porn.
I don't know if you're joking, but it wasn't "porn" in the usual
sense. It was a very short animated feature showing a fawn in a meadow
and then STOMP! That was it, the entire film.
Clay Moore
http://www/claymoore.com/
Steven Bornfeld
I musta blinked.
Ammo
Repetition is what machines do.
This includes the mechanical nature of the entertainment industry.
We can do better, but a revolution is needed in order to convince our
audience that live music is superior, warts and all.
Just read through Pat Metheny's website and have gained new respect
for the man. What a gruelling schedule. Touring 200+ dates a year for
30 years. He talks about repetition in an interview with Jazz
Improvisation magazine in 2004: http://www.patmetheny.com/writings.cfm
"There's this mystical version of what jazz improvisation is that
implies that every single time you play, that you're going to go to
this far off mystical place and you're going to discover this
universe... you're not going to reinvent yourself that time. That
reality is one that doesn't really get discussed that much."
In "Repetition" by Kierkegaard (1843), the protagonist finds he cannot
repeat a memorable experience. Because so much of life depends on
random, accidental happenings, past events cannot be recreated. So he
chooses not to wreck the future by continuing a relationship, since it
would be doomed to failure. He decides instead to live with the memory
of that ideal moment.
I don't like that solution. I prefer the occasional glimmer of beauty
that can be seen through the mask of toil. Better that than a thousand
perfect repetitions that grow tiresome - familiarity breeds contempt,
and sadly, the more I play that excellent song, the less I like it.
John Cage wrote (in Silence) that no matter how random - aleatoric - a
melody, the more you hear it, the more familiar and comfortable it
becomes. You start to be able to hum it.
By extension, listeners' ears grow accustomed to the most outrageous
sounds. Thus it is undeniable - Thrash is Art. Rappers are Artists.
Punk is Classical. Hip Hop is Pap.
It's soup! Let's eat.
Know who's best at not repeating himself? Miles. I noticed this years
ago. Was I right?
AMMO
Ammo
Dan Adler
> Know who's best at not repeating himself? Miles. I noticed this years
> ago. Was I right?
Yes, especially on "Nefertiti".
Joe Finn
news:b641b0e9-eff1-4619...@d36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
I think the posthumous overdub thing was just a novelty dreamed up by some
engineers and music biz types. As far as artistic potential goes; this
concept has zero. I don't think there is an audience for this. I don't feel
musicians are interested in it either. ...joe
Joe Finn
"Ammo" <am...@silk.net> wrote
>In "Repetition" by Kierkegaard (1843), the protagonist finds he cannot
>repeat a memorable experience. Because so much of life depends on
>random, accidental happenings, past events cannot be recreated. So he
>chooses not to wreck the future by continuing a relationship, since it
>would be doomed to failure. He decides instead to live with the memory
>of that ideal moment.
That may have been a case of art imitating life. Weren't there events in his
life at that time that mirrored the plot somewhat?
>I don't like that solution. I prefer the occasional glimmer of beauty
>that can be seen through the mask of toil. Better that than a thousand
>perfect repetitions that grow tiresome - familiarity breeds contempt,
>and sadly, the more I play that excellent song, the less I like it.
That's one of the magical aspects of improvisation; it allows for infinite
variation. The possibilities are in exhaustable. ....joe
steve
On 7-Jul-2009, Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
> > ...and we all know how that turned out.
> >
> > steve
>
>
> I don't watch porn.
Uh huh.
What?
Rick Stone
On Jul 7, 4:10 pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
><bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't watch porn.
>
>I don't know if you're joking, but it wasn't "porn" in the usual
>sense. It was a very short animated feature showing a fawn in a meadow
>and then STOMP! That was it, the entire film.
I saw this a bunch of times when it was making the college film circuit in
the 70s. Funny!
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> On 7-Jul-2009, Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>
>>> ...and we all know how that turned out.
>>>
>>> steve
>>
>> I don't watch porn.
>
> Uh huh.
>
> What?
Obviously I should look for that video. I love venison.
S
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Well thank you Rick--strangely....satisfying!
Joey Goldstein
Well if we don't mind getting philosophical and theoretical about this,
I've got some ideas about the role of repetition in music making.
First we need to realize that pitched sound is the result of regularly
repeating vibrations in the air. If strings and columns of air could not
be made to vibrate repetitively we would have no melody of harmony.
Musical structure as it evolves in time has always relied on patterned
sonic events occurring, and pattern requires repetition.
The entire paradigm of written music requires the existence of a steady
repeating pulse around which the musical events are quantized. That
paradigm applies to most actual music making as well, written or not.
Etc., etc.
Now, we could have musical pieces that consisted of nothing more than
repetitive sequences of notes and rhythms and it would fulfill all the
criteria for being "music", but it wouldn't be very interesting to many
people. Evidently for music to be interesting to people it needs to have
some surprises.
Musicians set up surprises by creating expectations that some musical
even will occur again and then doing something else. One of the easiest
ways to set up such an expectation is by repeating previously heard
musical events.
So your boring drummer, just playing time, needs to do a fill every now
and then.
Groove-based music relies heavily on a steady repeating pulse, but the
fun of it is when the really cool bumps in the road occur. Not too bumpy
mind you. Not bumpy enough that you hit your head on the roof of the
car. Just bumpy enough that you get a thrill.
I had an arranging/composition teacher at Berklee who told me that
repetition could be a good thing as long as you never repeated anything
more than 3 times. I guess I took him to heart because nearly everything
I've ever written has a section that repeats 3 times and then moves on
to something else. One of the reasons I stopped writing was because I
always found myself falling into that same method. I'd rather play other
people's stuff.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca