Mark Whitfield
David C. Stephens
Hi All,
I just bought a great new CD today. It's "fingerpainting - The music of
Herbie Hancock" with Mark Whitfield, Nicholas Payton (trumpet) and
Christian McBride (bass) on Verve. I love this kind of minimalist
setting and the mix of instruments is great. They share the lead almost
equally.
Payton is world class. He really smokes on "The Eye of the Hurricane".
Nicholas has a crystal clear tone with precise articulation. His jazz
chops are tremendous with lots of imagination.
McBride does an excellent job as usual. Whitfield also acquits himself
well, but he's no Ed Bickert or Jim Hall. Give him ten more years and he
may get there. He doesn't rely on his blues licks, but there's not the
variety in his chord selection and rhythmic nuance as with a Bickert.
Given that he's primarily a soloist with a combo backing him, that is
somewhat understandable when you compare him to a master like Ed. I
would say that his comping is as imaginative as Bucky Pizzarelli's.
Anyway, the record's great. I'm nitpicking Mark's playing, which is
satisfying (I'm a fan of his). The real attraction here is Nicholas
Payton on trumpet. He's tremendous. The recording was made live to two
tracks and results in a very realistic recording.
Good luck,
Dave
Brandon Furman
Mark Whitfield's unimaginative playing and thin sound examplifies the
poilitcal and very static nature of professional jazz in America today. For
every such player there are dozens of individuals who have made far greater
contributions to the world of music, artists who strive to blaze trails as
opposed to rehashing what was vital and fresh decades ago.
Brandon Furman, Boston MA
David C. Stephens
Like I said before. "fingerpaintings" is a great album and Mark
Whitfield contributes significantly to its success. I don't see anything
wrong with playing the music of Herbie Hancock, even though he's been
around for decades. Many people that enjoy good jazz will enjoy this
album.
If you've heard it, you might offer some constructive criticism.
By the way, Mark's tone is fine on this album. I'm wondering which album
he has a thin tone on.
Dave
dlm
don't confuse contribution with making a living!
Roger D. Placer
> Mark Whitfield's unimaginative playing and thin sound examplifies the
> poilitcal and very static nature of professional jazz in America today.
You know, for the life of me I just cannot rationalize all the shit that
you guys give Mark Whitfield. He is not the Kenny G. of the guitar! Why
is it necessary to put down his playing so unilaterally? Why pick on him?
This is not the newsgroup for guitar pissing contests (thankfully), but
in this case I'd love to throw each of you up on stage with Whitfield and
watch him blow the pants off you. Criticizing this guy, who is obviously
a very talented player with good tone and some taste, regardless of your
perception that he is "unoriginal" and "unimaginative," is just petty.
Sounds like major sour grapes to me. Do us (OK, me) a big favor: Play
your own guitar and STOP TALKING.
Roger
David C. Stephens
dlm wrote:
>
> don't confuse contribution with making a living!
>
wrong with Mark's playing on "fingerpainting" would be a good start. If
you don't know the music, you should keep your mouth shut.
Dave
dlm
my reply was to Brandon, not to you. Your response was uncalled for
Clay M Moore
Roger D. Placer wrote:
As far as I'm concerned this newsgroup is for discussing jazz guitar and
its players. If that includes criticism so be it; we learn more about
the players being discussed and each other from our observations and
comments. I use the term 'criticism' to mean directed and studied
thinking and opinion, not simply bashing for bashing's sake. One issue
with Whitfield is that he has been lauded by some as a "genius", and
that's a pretty tall order to fill. For me the term genius means new,
original, innovative. Whitfield has chosen to go with a traditional
sound and vocabulary, which seems to draw primarily from George Benson,
and, to a lessor extent, Wes Montgomery, and I have yet to hear him
break any new ground, which to me makes the genius label dubious. This
is not to say he isn't a solid, mainstream jazz guitarist. BTW, I
wouldn't mind at all playing with Whitfield sometime, and I imagine my
pants would stay comfortably on my body. :-)
--
Clay Moore
When you create, process is functional. There is no dogma to adopt, no
romance to maintain, no philosophy to uphold. Process is invented and
designed to serve the result you desire. This is its only purpose.
-Robert Fritz
David C. Stephens
I'm the one that said that mark "contributed" significantly to
"fingerpainting", so you can understand why I thought that you were
refering to my comment. If you don't want comments about your posts,
then do your posting via e-mail rather than via the ng.
Dave
David C. Stephens
Clay M Moore wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned this newsgroup is for discussing jazz guitar and
> its players. If that includes criticism so be it; we learn more about
> the players being discussed and each other from our observations and
> comments. I use the term 'criticism' to mean directed and studied
> thinking and opinion, not simply bashing for bashing's sake. One issue
> with Whitfield is that he has been lauded by some as a "genius", and
> that's a pretty tall order to fill. For me the term genius means new,
> original, innovative. Whitfield has chosen to go with a traditional
> sound and vocabulary, which seems to draw primarily from George Benson,
> and, to a lessor extent, Wes Montgomery, and I have yet to hear him
> break any new ground, which to me makes the genius label dubious. This
> is not to say he isn't a solid, mainstream jazz guitarist. BTW, I
> wouldn't mind at all playing with Whitfield sometime, and I imagine my
> pants would stay comfortably on my body. :-)
>
> --
> Clay Moore
You're so right Clay. If you ever do any gigs in Dallas, please let me
know. I'd like to hear you.
About "fingerpaintings", I thought I said that it was a very good jazz
album. I particular liked Nicholas Payton and I felt that Mark W
contributed to the outing significantly. Also, of interest was that he
doesn't rely on his blues licks, so that this album is different from
anything he's done in the past. Anyway, I never declared him a genius or
the next Wes. I was merely trying to point those interested to a very
good album. All the comments so far have been disses of MW by people
that haven't heard the album.
You're the only one that came close to saying anything specific about
MW's playing; yet, it's not apparent that you've heard the album in
question. It just seems to me that we could discuss various albums
occasionally without declarations like "so and so suks, xyz ruls" or
comments of that nature.
A couple of weeks ago some newbie said he liked Acoustic Alchemy. The
first thing out of our mouths is some mindless comment about what sell
outs they are, with the implications that anyone caught listening to AA
should have their "jazz" license suspended. What a bunch of shit? I
don't like AA that much, but I have friends that do. When I hear of an
interest in AA I recommend some other albums that might nudge them
further down the jazz road. I don't declare them idiots for not knowing
any better.
I've never seen you do that. I just find some of the pointless
pontificating by others a drag.
Dave
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
>> If all you can do is criticize, then do it with some specifics. What's
>> wrong with Mark's playing on "fingerpainting" would be a good start. If
>> you don't know the music, you should keep your mouth shut.
>> Dave
Most of us who criticize MW do so on the same basis--he tends to
run a lot of fast licks, mostly stolen from George Benson, rather
than develop melodies closely related to the tune. I like to hear
guys blow out their chops every now and then, but when that's all
you can do, it tends to bore me. I like to hear a melody, something
original to the player that develops according to its own logic
rather than according to what pre-practiced lick fits over the
chord.
OTOH, I'm glad for Mark that he is having a good career. I'm
always happy to see a musician succeed, and I don't care what
they're playing--in the long run it's good for everyone that
music is popular, especially jazz music. Maybe someone will
discover jazz through a Whitfield album, and then be inspired
to go on from there to seek out better musicians with more
mature and original styles.
Brandon Furman
>Sounds like major sour grapes to me. Do us (OK, me) a big favor: Play
>your own guitar and STOP TALKING.
>
>Roger
Sour grapes? No, just my honest opinion. There are those who have achieved
such success and, by virtue of their artistry, wholeheartedly deserve it.
There are also those who deserve the recognition. Ever heard of a guy named
Larry Koonse, L.A. based?
Brandon Furman, Boston
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
In article <roger-24119...@ppp51.internexus.net> "Roger D. Placer" <ro...@thoprecords.com> writes:
>
>You know, for the life of me I just cannot rationalize all the shit that
>you guys give Mark Whitfield. He is not the Kenny G. of the guitar! Why
>is it necessary to put down his playing so unilaterally? Why pick on him?
When a guy gets as much PR play as Whitfield does, he's going to get
talked about. Many of us don't think he lives up to the buzz. I can
name 20 guys working off the top of my head who I think are better
but who haven't gotten a fraction of the bigtime label push that
Whitfield's gotten. If he were just some cat who had a few albums
on Steeplechase and maybe a sideman gig with McGriff or somebody,
nobody would waste their time dissing him. The whole thing is about
the disconnect between his prominence and what he brings.
>This is not the newsgroup for guitar pissing contests (thankfully), but
>in this case I'd love to throw each of you up on stage with Whitfield and
>watch him blow the pants off you. Criticizing this guy, who is obviously
>a very talented player with good tone and some taste, regardless of your
>perception that he is "unoriginal" and "unimaginative," is just petty.
>Sounds like major sour grapes to me. Do us (OK, me) a big favor: Play
>your own guitar and STOP TALKING.
That's silly. This is a place for discussion, not guitar playing.
Why shouldn't we talk about what we like and don't like?
And you know something--Whitfield could easily blow me off the
stage. So what? I'm still a competent musician with a lifetime
of experience listening to jazz, and I can form a reasonable
opinion based on that background. I don't need to be able to
blow anyone away in order to tell you what I like or don't
like about their playing. If I wanted to be able to play
like Whitfield, I could. In fact, I used to play a lot like
that before I grew up and realized that spewing out licks
real fast is real boring.
Paul Lannuier
In article <roger-24119...@ppp51.internexus.net>, "Roger D. Placer"
<ro...@thoprecords.com> wrote:
>You know, for the life of me I just cannot rationalize all the shit that
>you guys give Mark Whitfield. He is not the Kenny G. of the guitar! Why
>is it necessary to put down his playing so unilaterally? Why pick on him?
Welcome to the internet, Rog.
Whitfield should be proud to be in the company of other guitarists who
suck (according to this newsgroup) including, but not limited to, John
McLaughlin, Tal Farlow and Pat Metheny.
Paul
rpat...@uccan.org
I've only heard Mark Whitfield in passing -- that is to say on Ross
Porter's CBC "After Hours" program. (Other jazz radio programs heard here
in Toronto tend to ignore him.) His playing does not jump out at you,
that much I can say, but I admire anyone who has tried to make a go of it
in the business. Anyway, I thought I'd say I've heard that Whitfield now
lives in Toronto -- he played at the opening of a bookstore a couple of
weeks ago which seemed to me to be a pretty strange gig for one of his
supposed stature. I was wondering if anyone has heard similar news and
if they've heard him in any of the clubs around town. He'd look good on
a Saturday afternoon at the Pilot where Neil Swainson, Lorne Lofsky,
Bernie Senensky and Kirk MacDonald (to name but 4 of many great musicians
who frequent the weekend matinees) might give him a good run for his
Verve money.
Bob Paterson
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Roger D. Placer
"Paul Lannuier" <no....@no.spam> wrote:
> Welcome to the internet, Rog.
Thanks, man. ;)
> Whitfield should be proud to be in the company of other guitarists who
> suck (according to this newsgroup) including, but not limited to, John
> McLaughlin, Tal Farlow and Pat Metheny.
Pure Jazz Guitar Prerequisites:
1) Full-bodied archtop guitar (16" minimum)
2) Makes: Any Italian names; price $2K or greater; vintage '65 or earlier
3) Solid woods; carved top (no laminates)
4) Floating pickup - one (1); neck only
5) Flatwound strings, .012 or heavier
6) Polytone amp
7) No reverb, no chorus, nothin' but pure tone
8) Repertoire: STANDARDS
9) Influences: Deceased or post-septegenarian players only
10) Activities: Transcribe solos (horns preferred); substitute harmonies;
arrange chord-melody; effortlessly identify (and label) harmonic
esoterica; play without an amp and love it
The above is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but is intended as a reality check.
There are plenty of diverse views here, but the above myopic stereotype
is still very much alive. Flame away...
Roger
Lawson G. Stone
Paul Lannuier wrote:
>
> In article <roger-24119...@ppp51.internexus.net>, "Roger D. Placer"
> <ro...@thoprecords.com> wrote:
>
> >You know, for the life of me I just cannot rationalize all the shit that
> >you guys give Mark Whitfield. He is not the Kenny G. of the guitar! Why
> >is it necessary to put down his playing so unilaterally? Why pick on him?
>
>
> suck (according to this newsgroup) including, but not limited to, John
> McLaughlin, Tal Farlow and Pat Metheny.
>
A search of all postings to this newsgroup, on Deja News, does not
produce a single message in which anyone on this group said Tal Farlow
"sucks." In fact, only 3 messages at all have been posted in which
"farlow" and "suck" are in the same message.
Nor can I find on the same database a single message where someone says
Pat Metheny "sucks." I haven't checked McLaughlin.
I don't think you've really been on this newsgroup long enough really to
know how we deal with things. I don't recall many postings beyond
looking for some books and info on specific instruments. Unlike a lot of
the other groups, we tend not to trade in a lot of tech-talk, nor in
opinion wars. It tends to be about "making" music, whether as an amateur
or as a professional. For a sample of what we're really about, check out
the thread on soloing to "How Insenstive." It's almost a graduate
seminar in jazz guitar.
Some mighty fine and knowledgeable players are on this list. If a lot of
them thought someone "sucked" they probably wouldn't say it that
way--they'd probably list the features of that persons recorded output
and live performance that they found deficient, as, for example, Clay
Moore did regarding Mark Whitfield (whom I happen to enjoy quite a bit,
SO THERE CLAY!)
This group works hard to keep the signal-to-noise ration in the green.
It normally succeeds.
--
//////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Lawson G. Stone—Asbury Theological Seminary—Wilmore, KY 40390
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////
"I never practice. I open the case once in a while and throw in a
piece of meat." Wes Montgomery, Jazz Guitarist, told to Jim Hall.
Cass Weller
How do I recover the thread on soloing on "How Insensitive"?
That is, I don't know how to get access to the archives.
Thanks,
Cass Weller
On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Lawson G. Stone wrote:
> For a sample of what we're really about, check out
> the thread on soloing to "How Insenstive." It's almost a graduate
> seminar in jazz guitar.
>=20
=09>=20
> --=20
> //////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
> Lawson G. Stone=97Asbury Theological Seminary=97Wilmore, KY 40390
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////
> "I never practice. I open the case once in a while and throw in a=20
> piece of meat." Wes Montgomery, Jazz Guitarist, told to Jim Hall.
>=20
>=20
Lawson G. Stone
Cass Weller wrote:
>
> How do I recover the thread on soloing on "How Insensitive"?
> That is, I don't know how to get access to the archives.
> Thanks,
>
> Cass Weller
>
> On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Lawson G. Stone wrote:
>
> > For a sample of what we're really about, check out
> > the thread on soloing to "How Insenstive." It's almost a graduate
> > seminar in jazz guitar.
> >
> >
http://www.dejanews.com
Great site. You can also search for past posts of particular people, you
can limit searches to a single newsgroup, etc. Beware. This site will
give you facts, facts that you will be able to use to puncture a lot of
rhetoric, and this will not endear you to some people.
Substance rulz
--
//////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Lawson G. Stone—Asbury Theological Seminary—Wilmore, KY 40390
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////
"I never practice. I open the case once in a while and throw in a
Roger D. Placer
> When a guy gets as much PR play as Whitfield does, he's going to get
> talked about. Many of us don't think he lives up to the buzz.
OK, so it's not really that he's not accomplished or tasteful or
whatever, but rather the criticism is so loud because of his
popularity and "hype." I understand, but Whitfield owes us nothing
because he has received much attention. Taken out of context of
said hype, he's just a damn good guitarist. There are many other
acts that deserve to be widely scorned but are instead widely
fawned over. Boyz2Men comes to mind - they're my personal fave
mediocre group cum can-do-no-wrong-superstars. I guess the jazz
world has higher standards, and we must pick on truly talented
guys who can play their butts off but are not profound innovators.
Whatever!
I defer to your assertion that criticism is valid and discussion
of same is appropriate on this newsgroup. I just don't believe
Whitfield deserves the amount of crap he gets here, and that's
what I expressed. Naturally, my comment about getting on stage
with him and being "blown off" was self-admittedly immature. I
was just blowing off some steam.
Roger
JFR
In <65a0sa$3n$1...@decius.ultra.net> "Brandon Furman"
<bcfu...@ultranet.com> writes:
>
>
>Mark Whitfield's unimaginative playing and thin sound examplifies the
>poilitcal and very static nature of professional jazz in America
>every such player there are dozens of individuals who have made far
greater
>contributions to the world of music, artists who strive to blaze
trails as
>opposed to rehashing what was vital and fresh decades ago.
>
>Brandon Furman, Boston MA
>
>
Amen. Sad truth....
John R.
JFR
In <roger-24119...@ppp51.internexus.net> "Roger D. Placer"
<ro...@thoprecords.com> writes:
>
>> Mark Whitfield's unimaginative playing and thin sound examplifies
the
>> poilitcal and very static nature of professional jazz in America
today.
>
that
>you guys give Mark Whitfield. He is not the Kenny G. of the guitar!
Why
>is it necessary to put down his playing so unilaterally? Why pick on
him?
>
but
>in this case I'd love to throw each of you up on stage with Whitfield
and
>watch him blow the pants off you. Criticizing this guy, who is
obviously
>a very talented player with good tone and some taste, regardless of
your
>perception that he is "unoriginal" and "unimaginative," is just petty.
>Sounds like major sour grapes to me. Do us (OK, me) a big favor: Play
>your own guitar and STOP TALKING.
>
Whitfield is a "Kenny G" figure of sorts. Maybe his music is more
advanced than Kenny's, but his level of ability vs. the style is
analogous to Kenny - i.e. he is a non-descript, vanilla player. He has
gotten so much press - call it envy - but it is disproportionate to his
ability, IMNSHO.
I know for a fact that there are several players participating here in
this newsgroup that are much more innovative and intriguing than Mark,
but for some reason(s) have been ascribed the role of "local hero"
only. It's a sad state of any art. So, I think it is fine to pick on
Mark, that goes with his popularity - it's a price he will pay - in
this case justified, IMNSHO - even though he probably never reads this
group nor gives a shit.....
John R.
Ray Stephens
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu wrote:
> And you know something--Whitfield could easily blow me off the
> stage. So what? I'm still a competent musician with a lifetime
> of experience listening to jazz, and I can form a reasonable
> opinion based on that background. I don't need to be able to
> blow anyone away in order to tell you what I like or don't
> like about their playing. If I wanted to be able to play
> like Whitfield, I could. In fact, I used to play a lot like
> that before I grew up and realized that spewing out licks
> real fast is real boring.
Tom,
You've made many good points. This last one reminded me of part of the
reason why I started this thread about Whitfield and "fingerpaintings"
in the first place. On this album Mark has moved away from his blues
licks and speed lines. He plays with much more economy in a straight
ahead jazz mode. He's still no Jim Hall or Ed Bickert, but he seems to
be "growing up".
If that were all there was to it, I might not have made the post at all,
but Nicholas Payton really smokes on this album. After the last couple
of years hearing him imulate Satchmo with Doc Cheatum, I wasn't sure
that he really had anything of his own to say. This album shows him as a
future giant IMHO. Guitar players, as well as trumpet players, will
benefit from listening to Payton.
Has anyone else heard "fingerpaintings"? I'm interested in other
reactions to the album. Not just the standard Whitfield bash.
Dave (from my brother's ISP)
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
In article <roger-28119...@ppp14.internexus.net> "Roger D. Placer" <ro...@thoprecords.com> writes:
>OK, so it's not really that he's not accomplished or tasteful or
>whatever, but rather the criticism is so loud because of his
>popularity and "hype." I understand, but Whitfield owes us nothing
>because he has received much attention. Taken out of context of
>said hype, he's just a damn good guitarist.
I'd go along with that. Although if anyone wants to buy
my used Whitfield CDs at a fair price, they're yours.
I'd probably let my Russell Malone CDs go too, even
though I really enjoyed the hell out of his live show.
>There are many other
>acts that deserve to be widely scorned but are instead widely
>fawned over. Boyz2Men comes to mind
They're not jazz guitarists. Do you have anyone in mind relevant
to the rmmgj charter?
Bugarinovic Bojan
Roger D. Placer (ro...@thoprecords.com) wrote:
: > Mark Whitfield's unimaginative playing and thin sound examplifies the
: > poilitcal and very static nature of professional jazz in America today.
: You know, for the life of me I just cannot rationalize all the shit that
: you guys give Mark Whitfield. He is not the Kenny G. of the guitar! Why
: is it necessary to put down his playing so unilaterally? Why pick on him?
: This is not the newsgroup for guitar pissing contests (thankfully), but
: in this case I'd love to throw each of you up on stage with Whitfield and
: watch him blow the pants off you. Criticizing this guy, who is obviously
: a very talented player with good tone and some taste, regardless of your
: perception that he is "unoriginal" and "unimaginative," is just petty.
: Sounds like major sour grapes to me. Do us (OK, me) a big favor: Play
: your own guitar and STOP TALKING.
What a great response. Not only did you beg the question against the
original poster, but you made a pretty questionable judgment about what
the proper content of this newsgroup should be. Why the hell shouldn't we
be able to criticize certain guitar players? Why should we abandon
evaluative posts in favour of a meek, relativistic approach to the
newsgroup.
And perhaps Mark Whitfield COULD blow the pants off of some of his
critics. But so what? What does that show? Does one have to be able to
blow someone's pants off in order to evaluate their playing? Pavel Bure
is a better hockey player than I am, but it seems that that fact should
not impede my ability to criticize him for his weak defensive play.
I've seen Mark Whitfield perform live a couple of times.... once in
Toronto and once in Chicago. Both times he struck me as a most
unimaginative player. He was definitely outclassed by the local rhythm
sections that were hired to back him. In fact, I think the toronto gig
was recorded by CBC radio, so it's documented. As for sour grapes, I have
no wish to be a famous jazz guitarist. <g>
JW
Joshua H. Gordis
While I have to agree with much being said about Mark Whitfield (in that
I think he is a little boring, and very much a Benson clone), to his
credit, I think he is improving, and also, he has himself acknowledged
his own tendency to just blow without substance. Whitfield does get a
good tone, when he focuses on that.
Along these same lines, I find what I've heard from Jimmy Bruno to be
boring, after a while.
There are many "younger" people out there who are more interesting than
either Whitfield and Bruno. Russell Malone, Anthony Wilson, Ron Affif,
Birelli Lagrene, come to mind at the moment. Any others?
Joshua H. Gordis
AKingA
>jre...@ix.netcom.com(JFR) wrote:
>I know for a fact that there are several players participating here in this
newsgroup that are much more innovative and intriguing than Mark, but for
some reason(s) have been ascribed the role of "local hero" only. It's a sad
state of any art.
As a fan of Mark Whitfield's recent work I would appreciate knowledgeable
critiques of his last release "Forever Love". I thought it was a fine release
with appeal to both hardcore jazz guitar traditionalist (relatively small
consumer group) and jazz lovers in general.
Also, speaking of local heroes, I would be interested in creating a thread
which identifies the local heroes in our respective home cities. While I
suspect there is no formal definition of what constitutes a local hero, jrembet
used the terms "innovative and intriguing" to which I would add: knowledgeable
and competent in performing jazz standards, possessed of good musical tastes
( in terms of material selections, personal compositions, style, etc.), and so
own. Generally these would be players who have not received national
recognition,, are not under contract with any of the big names in the recording
industry, have not been featured in GP, JJG, TCG, AC, etc. but can count on
drawing a reasonable crowd of devoted followers whenever they perform locally.
I will create the thread. Hopefully there is some interest here. I see it as
a good opportunity to provide some recognition to these players and perhaps,
generate some work for them. In addition, if anyone is interested, a panel of
reviewers from the NG could review demo's or live recordings of these players
and post them on the NG which could in itself possibly lead to generating the
opportunity for the bests of these artists to make some sells of their recorded
work via this group.
JFR
>Pure Jazz Guitar Prerequisites:
> 1) Full-bodied archtop guitar (16" minimum)
> 2) Makes: Any Italian names; price $2K or greater; vintage '65 or
earlier
> 3) Solid woods; carved top (no laminates)
> 4) Floating pickup - one (1); neck only
> 5) Flatwound strings, .012 or heavier
> 6) Polytone amp
> 7) No reverb, no chorus, nothin' but pure tone
> 8) Repertoire: STANDARDS
> 9) Influences: Deceased or post-septegenarian players only
>10) Activities: Transcribe solos (horns preferred); substitute
harmonies;
> arrange chord-melody; effortlessly identify (and label) harmonic
> esoterica; play without an amp and love it
>
>The above is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but is intended as a reality
check.
>There are plenty of diverse views here, but the above myopic
stereotype
>is still very much alive. Flame away...
>
>Roger
This sounds like the 10 prerequisites of qualifying for an article in
JJG. I think the eleventh would be either older than 60 or plays like
older than 60 and frozen in style to before 1968. Actually this
additional req is similar to the basic one for getting a recording
contract with any major label in jazz on any instrument.
John R.
JFR
>
>A search of all postings to this newsgroup, on Deja News, does not
>produce a single message in which anyone on this group said Tal Farlow
>"sucks." In fact, only 3 messages at all have been posted in which
>"farlow" and "suck" are in the same message.
>
>Nor can I find on the same database a single message where someone
says
>Pat Metheny "sucks." I haven't checked McLaughlin.
>
>I don't think you've really been on this newsgroup long enough really
to
>know how we deal with things. I don't recall many postings beyond
>looking for some books and info on specific instruments. Unlike a lot
of
>the other groups, we tend not to trade in a lot of tech-talk, nor in
>opinion wars. It tends to be about "making" music, whether as an
amateur
>or as a professional. For a sample of what we're really about, check
out
>the thread on soloing to "How Insenstive." It's almost a graduate
>seminar in jazz guitar.
>
>Some mighty fine and knowledgeable players are on this list. If a lot
of
>them thought someone "sucked" they probably wouldn't say it that
>way--they'd probably list the features of that persons recorded output
>and live performance that they found deficient, as, for example, Clay
>Moore did regarding Mark Whitfield (whom I happen to enjoy quite a
bit,
>SO THERE CLAY!)
>
>This group works hard to keep the signal-to-noise ration in the green.
>It normally succeeds.
>
>--
>//////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>Lawson G. Stone輸sbury Theological Seminary邑ilmore, KY 40390
>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////
>"I never practice. I open the case once in a while and throw in a
>piece of meat." Wes Montgomery, Jazz Guitarist, told to Jim Hall.
Some good rah-rah for the newsgroup and mostly well deserved.
Although, I would like to mention that I have received a few "hate"
letters from people here via email regarding my apparently
controversial views of JJG. But that goes with the turf and I welcome
a divergence in opinions.
Regarding negative posts about Metheny and McLaughlin, I recall some
pretty severe ones, but think most (but not all) have been on
rec.music.bluenote. That is definitely a more critcal place, but I
think has a strong value add to opening up people's mind's toward free
jazz and the avant garde. BTW, I have partaken in some of the
"reasonable" trashing of my ex-hero McLaughlin (who I still respect,
but just not as much as when I was a wide-eyed wannabee punk).
John R.
JFR
I agree with some of this but the argument "that someone will be led
into other realms of jazz" may be a weak one. That's because there may
be just as many turned off by the retro nature of someone like Mark and
say "God, jazz is cheesy and dead and hasn't gone anywhere".
John R.
JFR
In <347ED7...@uky.campus.mci.net> "Lawson G. Stone"
<lst...@uky.campus.mci.net> writes:
>
>Cass Weller wrote:
>>
>> How do I recover the thread on soloing on "How Insensitive"?
>> That is, I don't know how to get access to the archives.
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Cass Weller
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Lawson G. Stone wrote:
>>
>> > the thread on soloing to "How Insenstive." It's almost a graduate
>> > seminar in jazz guitar.
>> >
>> >
>http://www.dejanews.com
>
>Great site. You can also search for past posts of particular people,
you
>can limit searches to a single newsgroup, etc. Beware. This site will
>give you facts, facts that you will be able to use to puncture a lot
of
>rhetoric, and this will not endear you to some people.
>
>Substance rulz
>--
>//////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////
>"I never practice. I open the case once in a while and throw in a
>piece of meat." Wes Montgomery, Jazz Guitarist, told to Jim Hall.
While I think Deja News has its value to the Usenet community, I often
wonder if people don't have better things to do than search to see what
some author has posted to try to pick fights or find hypocrisy. I view
usenet as an information source and try not to let the opinion wars get
to me, too much. BTW, this is not directed toward Lawson, who seems to
be a very reasonable individual, but I have seen Deja News abused to
add fuel to flames.
Also, there was a problem awhile back where Deja News had a bug and was
listing people posting to newsgroups they have never accessed or even
knew existed - alt.sex.bestality, e.g. Many people were complaining
that they were being smeared by this bug and supposedly D.N. fixed it.
John R.
JFR
In <65gbeq$g...@news.jhu.edu> tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu () writes:
>
>In article <roger-24119...@ppp51.internexus.net> "Roger D.
>>
>>You know, for the life of me I just cannot rationalize all the shit
that
>>you guys give Mark Whitfield. He is not the Kenny G. of the guitar!
Why
>>is it necessary to put down his playing so unilaterally? Why pick on
him?
>
>name 20 guys working off the top of my head who I think are better
>but who haven't gotten a fraction of the bigtime label push that
>Whitfield's gotten. If he were just some cat who had a few albums
>on Steeplechase and maybe a sideman gig with McGriff or somebody,
>nobody would waste their time dissing him. The whole thing is about
>the disconnect between his prominence and what he brings.
>
but
>>in this case I'd love to throw each of you up on stage with Whitfield
and
>>watch him blow the pants off you. Criticizing this guy, who is
obviously
>>a very talented player with good tone and some taste, regardless of
your
>>perception that he is "unoriginal" and "unimaginative," is just
petty.
>>Sounds like major sour grapes to me. Do us (OK, me) a big favor: Play
>>your own guitar and STOP TALKING.
>
>Why shouldn't we talk about what we like and don't like?
>
>stage. So what? I'm still a competent musician with a lifetime
>of experience listening to jazz, and I can form a reasonable
>opinion based on that background. I don't need to be able to
>blow anyone away in order to tell you what I like or don't
>like about their playing. If I wanted to be able to play
>like Whitfield, I could. In fact, I used to play a lot like
>that before I grew up and realized that spewing out licks
>real fast is real boring.
>
>
>
>
Halleujah, Dr. Tom. I couldn't have put it in better words. Mark's a
sad example of overmarketing a nice looking, young, retro guy, with
some undoubtable talent. They have just cast him in some shoes that he
just can't wear and probably never will, given the route he has come
up. And there's too many walking around that can fit the shoes, but
don't fit the mold. too bad. At least we can talk about some
alternatives here.
John R.
Lawson G. Stone
JFR wrote:
>
>
> While I think Deja News has its value to the Usenet community, I often
> wonder if people don't have better things to do than search to see what
> some author has posted to try to pick fights or find hypocrisy. I view
> usenet as an information source and try not to let the opinion wars get
> to me, too much. BTW, this is not directed toward Lawson, who seems to
> be a very reasonable individual, but I have seen Deja News abused to
> add fuel to flames.
>
from an alleged herbal prevention measure for Poison Ivy that turned out
to be potentially fatal to information on the guns originally used by
Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday. Deja News is an incredible resource.
As for picking fights, I think here Deja News is an excellent tool for
*preventing* fights. It enables us quickly to identify a poster's
history of, for example, trolling groups just to start fights. It allows
someone to determine how knowledgeable a poster is, how long they've
participated in the group, what their overall tone has been, etc. I've
been saved a lot of grief by checking on someone and discovering a
tendency towards vicious flaming, and so decided not to respond to their
posts.
The greatest problem I see in newsgroups is people orating on matters of
which they know nothing, or lecturing newsgroups about non-existent
problems. Eg. the claim we had repeatedly said Tal Farlow "sucked" which
turned out to be untrue. Deja News is a great way simply to verify
whether such things happen. It makes Usenet a more dangerous place for
people who are prone to irresponsible and sweeping charges.
As for time use, I work at my computer most of the day and have a T1
ethernet link to the net, so checking something on DejaNews takes me
about 3 minutes max, which is worth it to me to help keep my favorite
newsgroup (except maybe for that bestiality one....) the bastion of
substance and knowledge that it is.
> Also, there was a problem awhile back where Deja News had a bug and was
> listing people posting to newsgroups they have never accessed or even
> knew existed - alt.sex.bestality, e.g. Many people were complaining
> that they were being smeared by this bug and supposedly D.N. fixed it.
>
I've used Deja News for about 2 years straight and never had a problem
with it. See you at alt.sex.bestiality!
> John R.
Lawson G. Stone
I agree also with Tom. You don't have to be a better practitioner of
anything in order to be a knowledgeable "consumer" or even a lower level
practitioner. I have to decide whose playing I can learn the most from,
and I have to make a judgment on that.
That said, I enjoy Whitfield. One point that hasn't been made, that I've
heard rumored around, is that Mark Whitfield is a very decent guy who
works and plays well with others, makes the other musicians he plays
with feel like their playing is appreciated, and relates well to his
audience. Being a decent person counts, even in jazz. Maybe there were
better players out there who were impossible to deal with.
Lawson G. Stone
JFR wrote:
>
> >
> >A search of all postings to this newsgroup, on Deja News, does not
> >produce a single message in which anyone on this group said Tal Farlow
> >"sucks." In fact, only 3 messages at all have been posted in which
> >"farlow" and "suck" are in the same message.
> >
> >Nor can I find on the same database a single message where someone
> says
> >Pat Metheny "sucks." I haven't checked McLaughlin.
> >
> >I don't think you've really been on this newsgroup long enough really
> to
> >know how we deal with things. I don't recall many postings beyond
> >looking for some books and info on specific instruments. Unlike a lot
> of
> >the other groups, we tend not to trade in a lot of tech-talk, nor in
> >opinion wars. It tends to be about "making" music, whether as an
> amateur
> out
> >the thread on soloing to "How Insenstive." It's almost a graduate
> >seminar in jazz guitar.
> >
> of
> >them thought someone "sucked" they probably wouldn't say it that
> >way--they'd probably list the features of that persons recorded output
> >and live performance that they found deficient, as, for example, Clay
> >Moore did regarding Mark Whitfield (whom I happen to enjoy quite a
> bit,
> >SO THERE CLAY!)
> >
> >This group works hard to keep the signal-to-noise ration in the green.
> >It normally succeeds.
> >
> >//////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
> >Lawson G. Stone—Asbury Theological Seminary—Wilmore, KY 40390
> >\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////
> >"I never practice. I open the case once in a while and throw in a
> >piece of meat." Wes Montgomery, Jazz Guitarist, told to Jim Hall.
>
> Although, I would like to mention that I have received a few "hate"
> letters from people here via email regarding my apparently
> controversial views of JJG. But that goes with the turf and I welcome
> a divergence in opinions.
>
;-) Even though I'm kind of the retro-traditionalist, I still like
wandering in neighborhoods where some free-jazz guy will step up and
throw down on me. We gottal like what we like, but I've had the
wonderful experience of suddenly "getting it" with several types of
music that I'd hated before, so one shouldn't block off other
influences.
> Regarding negative posts about Metheny and McLaughlin, I recall some
> pretty severe ones, but think most (but not all) have been on
> rec.music.bluenote. That is definitely a more critcal place, but I
> think has a strong value add to opening up people's mind's toward free
> jazz and the avant garde. BTW, I have partaken in some of the
> "reasonable" trashing of my ex-hero McLaughlin (who I still respect,
> but just not as much as when I was a wide-eyed wannabee punk).
>
Exactly my point The place for XYZ "sucks" has tended to be RMB or
alt.guitars; our group is rec.music.MAKERS....and so most people here
are players, like you, or wannabes, like me. Players, of course, can be
very severe and trenchant in their criticism, which is fine. Substantive
critique, such as Clay's reservations about Mark Whitfield, are not the
same thing as just saying "Player X sux." I think a good many on RMB
can't even play a radio with much feeling.
> John R.
Roger D. Placer
> >There are many other
> >acts that deserve to be widely scorned but are instead widely
> >fawned over. Boyz2Men comes to mind
>
> They're not jazz guitarists. Do you have anyone in mind relevant
> to the rmmgj charter?
They're NOT??!? Thanks for keeping me in line with the charter.
I apologize for the misstep.
Anyway, I was only making a point. In jazz guitar, there are probably
fewer people out there who deserve to be completely trashed. Criticism
is fine! We all have our tastes. However, jazz, unlike pop, is a less
accessible, less visible, less forgiving musical form. It takes a
greater dedication to learn and play it, and thus the lowest
strata of players will likely not show up on a jazz album of their own
for you to pick apart. This means that a run-of-the-mill jazz player
is still a reasonably talented musician. I'm not saying that every
jazz player is good at jazz, for REAL, *BUT* it means they are
adept at a somewhat higher level on their instrument, at least
harmonically (the jazz language demands it), than your run-of-the-mill
rock/folk player.
PLEASE. I know that there are exceptions. Don't tell me this. I'm
making a generalization to express a point.
Anyway, that point is becoming dim to me but I suppose the gist of it
is this: I was reacting in my initial "Why diss Whitfield" post to
the *tone* of the criticism, which was damning and unequivocal in its
putdowns of Whitfield's contributions. I simply don't believe that
such descriptions were justified, especially when the man is obviously
a talented musician under ANY context. Feel free to think he's not a
genius, or a profound contributor to the jazz idiom, blah blah blah.
We can't all be that. I'm not that. But every now and then I play
a few notes that are interesting, soulful, funky, or just cool in
some way. I don't think that even I deserve to be called "unimaginative"
based on my skills. Whitfield is better than me in many ways, and he
sure as hell doesn't deserve it either.
Roger D. Placer, KA2Z Lucent Technologies
rogerp AT lucent DOT com Bell Labs
===========================================
Hear my CD, "The Happiness Of Pursuit"
http://www.thoprecords.com
JFR
In <34817C...@ibm.net> Ray Stephens <ste...@ibm.net> writes:
>tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu wrote:
>
>
>> And you know something--Whitfield could easily blow me off the
>> stage. So what? I'm still a competent musician with a lifetime
>> of experience listening to jazz, and I can form a reasonable
>> opinion based on that background. I don't need to be able to
>> blow anyone away in order to tell you what I like or don't
>> like about their playing. If I wanted to be able to play
>> like Whitfield, I could. In fact, I used to play a lot like
>> that before I grew up and realized that spewing out licks
>> real fast is real boring.
>
>You've made many good points. This last one reminded me of part of the
>reason why I started this thread about Whitfield and "fingerpaintings"
>in the first place. On this album Mark has moved away from his blues
>licks and speed lines. He plays with much more economy in a straight
>ahead jazz mode. He's still no Jim Hall or Ed Bickert, but he seems to
>be "growing up".
>
>If that were all there was to it, I might not have made the post at
all,
>but Nicholas Payton really smokes on this album. After the last couple
>of years hearing him imulate Satchmo with Doc Cheatum, I wasn't sure
>that he really had anything of his own to say. This album shows him as
a
>future giant IMHO. Guitar players, as well as trumpet players, will
>benefit from listening to Payton.
>
>Has anyone else heard "fingerpaintings"? I'm interested in other
>reactions to the album. Not just the standard Whitfield bash.
>
>Dave (from my brother's ISP)
I have not heard this cd. Who's name is it under and what is the
label/catalog number?
Thanks.
John R.
Tom Walls
>
> >There are many other
> >acts that deserve to be widely scorned but are instead widely
> >fawned over. Boyz2Men comes to mind
>
> They're not jazz guitarists. Do you have anyone in mind relevant
> to the rmmgj charter?
Charter! After the brouhaha on RMB, you still refer to charter? Man, you
do love controversy!
--
Psychromatically Yours,
Tom Walls
David C. Stephens
JFR wrote:
> I have not heard this cd. Who's name is it under and what is the
> label/catalog number?
>
> Thanks.
> John R.
They have equal billing. I found it Whitfield's bin at Borders. It's
Verve 3145378562. That's a strange looking catalog number, but is the
only number that appears on the packaging. The full title is
"fingerpainting - The Music of Herbie Hancock".
Dave
Paul Lannuier
In article <348545...@uky.campus.mci.net>, "Lawson G. Stone"
<lst...@uky.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>The greatest problem I see in newsgroups is people orating on matters of
>which they know nothing, or lecturing newsgroups about non-existent
>problems. Eg. the claim we had repeatedly said Tal Farlow "sucked" which
>turned out to be untrue.
Excuse me if I implied that this newsgroup "repeatedly said Tal Farlow
"sucked" ", but I can assure you that such an argument did take place -
somewhere on the net - because I was one of the people who strongly objected
to the unfair criticism of Tal. His crime against humanity, as I recall, was
that he played standards - kinda similar to the complaints posted here about
Mark Whitfield. If I mistakenly indicted this newsgoup, I apologize.
However, my point still holds.
You know, Whitfield may not be revolutionary but I respect what he does and
appreciate the amount of work he puts into his playing. His band always
sounds good as does the production quality, plus he seems to be a real
decent guy. I find the comparison someone made to Kenny G. to be bullshit.
So what if he's successful and has received a lot of hype; God bless him, we
need more successful jazz guitarists.
It seems to me that the ones who do the most bitching on the net (and dare I
say in this newsgroup?) are the wannabees who need to criticize others in
order to cope with their own inadequacies as musicians.
But that's my opinion... I could be wrong.
Deja this.
paul
Vincent McKnight
I have been listening to Whitfield's Seventh Avenue New York Tribute.
He's more than competent, and "young". I think that we all need to give
him time to grow. He seems aware from the notes of where he is and what
steps it took him to get there, from Berkeley to road playing - time
will tell whether he makes a lasting contribution. Let's all wait and
see. Once again, my wife really liked what she heard on the CD. I was
not blown away by his style or technique, but recognized that he's far
more accomplished than I am. He still may earn the genius label. From
reading his comments, it did not seem that he had anointed himself a
"genius." Think about the evolution of other musicians, Herbie Hancock,
Freddie Hubbard, Miles Davis, Chick Corea....Stanley Clarke, George
Duke..these guys have worn many hats in their careers. Time will give us
a better perspective on Whitfield. He's great if the test focuses on
audience or crowd appeal - like my wife - but, musicians are hard on
him, expecting more. Let's wait and see, he has the talent but does he
have the imagination, that's the key...
Still learning,
Vince
Willie K. Yee, MD
Jonathan Grogan wrote:
>
> Even GP doesn't get as much stick here as JJG does. It seems to be a
> case of 'better to miss by a mile than by a few inches'.
>
> Jonathan
GP mag does not get criticized here 'cause nobody (well, hardly nobody)
in this group reads the damn thing.
--
Willie Kai Yee, M.D.
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry
wy...@mhv.net
http://www1.mhv.net/~wyee/index.html
21 Tricor Ave.
New Paltz, NY 12561
(914) 255-0660
"We are the Universe trying to understand itself."
-- Minbari saying --
Willie K. Yee, MD
Since everybody seems to have an opinion on this (how many guitarists
does it take to change a lightbulb?), here is mine.
He plays better than me.
He ain't Wes Montgomery.
Everything else is infinite hot air.
David C. Stephens
would you do if one of your friends or associates said to you that they
had purchased "fingerpainting" and really enjoyed Mark Whitfield. They
say this in such a way that makes you think that they really did like it
and they're mentioning it to you because they know of your interest in
jazz guitar (they obviously don't know your opinion of Whitfield).
Do you slam Mark and imply that anyone that would listen to him has
rocks in their head. Or do you say something like, "Mark's not one of my
favorites, but a lot of people seem to like him. If you like him, maybe
you'll like so-and-so even more. Check him out and listen for
this-and-that."
I obviously like the later approach. I think that many people checking
out this NG are like those associates we may come in personal contact
with, who seek our opinions about various jazz guitar players. Why would
we make them uncomfortable? Why wouldn't we try to bring them into the
fold with constructive comments and suggestions.
BTW, I'm a long time jazz and guitar music collector with recordings
from Affif to Zappa and Armstrong to Vache. I'm not seeking affirmation
of my enjoyment of "fingerpainting", I'm trying to share it with others.
Dave
Lawson G. Stone
Paul Lannuier wrote:
>
> In article <348545...@uky.campus.mci.net>, "Lawson G. Stone"
> <lst...@uky.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>
> >The greatest problem I see in newsgroups is people orating on matters of
> >which they know nothing, or lecturing newsgroups about non-existent
> >problems. Eg. the claim we had repeatedly said Tal Farlow "sucked" which
> >turned out to be untrue.
>
> Excuse me if I implied that this newsgroup "repeatedly said Tal Farlow
> "sucked" ", but I can assure you that such an argument did take place -
> somewhere on the net - because I was one of the people who strongly objected
> to the unfair criticism of Tal. His crime against humanity, as I recall, was
> that he played standards - kinda similar to the complaints posted here about
> Mark Whitfield. If I mistakenly indicted this newsgoup, I apologize.
> However, my point still holds.
>
this type of remark, which simply never happened. It is very important
when you discuss things with people that you respond to what *they* say
and not to what someone else said. Tal is, if anything, idolized in this
group, and for very good reasons, and the remark that someone here
claimed he "sucked" just means you talked without listening.
> You know, Whitfield may not be revolutionary but I respect what he does and
> appreciate the amount of work he puts into his playing. His band always
> sounds good as does the production quality, plus he seems to be a real
> decent guy. I find the comparison someone made to Kenny G. to be bullshit.
> So what if he's successful and has received a lot of hype; God bless him, we
> need more successful jazz guitarists.
>
> It seems to me that the ones who do the most bitching on the net (and dare I
> say in this newsgroup?) are the wannabees who need to criticize others in
> order to cope with their own inadequacies as musicians.
>
Wrong again. Some of the most trenchant criticism of other players, or
famous players, on this group comes from those who are themselves trying
to make a living playing jazz. I've heard some of them play and they are
good players who deserve to be heard. Some have taken big risks, like
making instructional videos and then not getting paid the royalties, or
playing on recording dates and not getting paid, etc. Again, you seem to
be attributing to this group characteristics that just don't fit. It's a
good idea to lurk and listen if you plan to make posts that accuse
people of things.
> But that's my opinion... I could be wrong.
>
In these cases, certainly wrong. This isn't a generally griping
newsgroup, though some people at times drop in and don't know what the
group usually does, and drop in comments that are uncharacteristic. A
review of our best and longest threads, however, will show a lot of
content and a lot of good judgment. On top of that, we normally converse
passionately, but printably.
Paul Lannuier
In article <34876C14...@cais.com>, Vincent McKnight
<vinc...@cais.com> wrote:
>I have been listening to Whitfield's Seventh Avenue New York Tribute.
>He's more than competent, and "young". I think that we all need to give
>him time to grow.
Be careful what you say, Vince. Someone might do a Deja News search on your
entire newsgroup posting history and expose you as a thoughtful,
open-minded, respectful,, secure, non-snob... :-)
I agree with everything you say. This kid is good and with any luck he'll
continue to grow. If nothing else, maybe he'll influence some other other
young musicians and steer them away from the REAL crap that passes for music
these days.
Paul
Clay M Moore
Vincent McKnight wrote:
> Think about the evolution of other musicians, Herbie Hancock,
> Freddie Hubbard, Miles Davis, Chick Corea....Stanley Clarke, George
> Duke..these guys have worn many hats in their careers. Time will give
> us
> a better perspective on Whitfield. He's great if the test focuses on
> audience or crowd appeal - like my wife - but, musicians are hard on
> him, expecting more. Let's wait and see, he has the talent but does he
>
> have the imagination, that's the key...
>
The players you mentioned above were recognized early in their careers
as being original voices. Take Miles for example. He wasn't able to play
as high and fast as Gillespie, so he focused on his own voice and
vocabulary. After his apprenticeship with Charlie Parker he teamed up
with Gil Evans and others to record a new developement in jazz, later
termed "Birth of the Cool". He was 23 years old at the time. Or listen
to Chick Corea's "Now He Sings, Now He Sobs", recorded when he was 27.
I've heard this record refered to by musicians of all instruments as
being one of the most influential albums on their playing. I've been
listening it since the mid '70s, and it still sounds fresh and modern.
Sure, Chick learned solos from players like Horace Silver, but he moved
on and explored a variety of territory, fusing it into one of the most
eclectic stlyes in jazz history. So.........
--
Clay Moore
When you create, process is functional. There is no dogma to adopt, no
romance to maintain, no philosophy to uphold. Process is invented and
designed to serve the result you desire. This is its only purpose.
-Robert Fritz
Donnie
Gill Evans or Bill Evans?? It was actually Bill Evans that showed Miles
alternate scales
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
I do enjoy arguing with intelligent people. Unfortunately, the cogent debate
in that rmb thread was drowned out by the dim bulbs.
AKingA
But, you could also be right.
Paul Lannuier said:
>It seems to me that the ones who do the most bitching on the net (and dare I
>say in this newsgroup?) are the wannabees who need to criticize others in
>order to cope with their own inadequacies as musicians.
>
>But that's my opinion... I could be wrong.
>
>Deja this.
>paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
></PRE></HTML>
AKingA
>
>If you're not happy with JJG when will we see you putting your spare
>time and money on the line to put together a mag with the coverage
>that you want to see?
>
>I'm sure that for most people here, JJG gives coverage (albeit pretty
>good coverage) of only a subset of their total area of interest, but
>don't forget it is only a small speculative, private enterprise, with
>presumably limited resources and consequently artificially defined
>restrictions on its scope. Archtop guitars and players seems to me a
>convenient, if arbitrary boundary to keep within. I don't think it
>deserves the gratuitous scorn that seems almost obligatory here now.
>Even GP doesn't get as much stick here as JJG does. It seems to be a
>case of 'better to miss by a mile than by a few inches'.
>
>
>Jonathan
>
>
Yeah!!! I got idea. Let's pick on Mark Whitfield.
Paul Lannuier
In article <34881C...@uky.campus.mci.net>, "Lawson G. Stone"
<lst...@uky.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>In these cases, certainly wrong. This isn't a generally griping
>newsgroup, though some people at times drop in and don't know what the
>group usually does, and drop in comments that are uncharacteristic. A
>review of our best and longest threads, however, will show a lot of
>content and a lot of good judgment. On top of that, we normally converse
>passionately, but printably.
I'll agree with that. Unfortunately Deja News doesn't show how long or how
often one lurks in a newsgoup. I lurk plenty, here and elsewhere. I've
already apologized if I confused this group with one of the dozen or so
other groups and mailing lists I subscribe to. Maybe I just had a bad day...
The fact remain, however, that it WAS on this newsgroup that Mark Whitfield
was (unfairly, in my opinion) trashed. That was the reason for my response,
and that seems to have gotten lost in all this nitpicking about who said
what, and when. Some of the criticism has been constructive (Clay is a
excellent example), some has not (the Kenny G. comment, for example). I have
been around plenty of great musicians, most of them far better than I ever
dream to be, and the one common characteristic they all share is that they
NEVER trash other musicians. So when you say:
> Some of the most trenchant criticism of other players, or
>famous players, on this group comes from those who are themselves trying
>to make a living playing jazz.
...it makes me wonder why they feel the need to criticise another musician
at all. Maybe it's insecurity. I'm all too often guilty of this myself, and
whenever I catch myself doing it, I remember what John McLaughlin once said
in an interview: "There's room for everybody, and I like to think that if
it's music, then it's good."
Mark Whifield is a young, talented musician making a good living in a very
tough business. God bless him, I wish it were me.
Paul
jar...@mindspring.com
On Fri, 05 Dec 1997 21:52:54 -0600, Clay M Moore <cmm...@ibm.net>
wrote:
>The players you mentioned above were recognized early in their careers
>as being original voices.
Hearing just 2 bars of his playing is enough to be unmistakably sure
that it is Mark Whitfield. That is something that most jazz
musicians would strive for.
My own perspective is that he is a promising player in need of further
development, but I do hear him progressing. I think he will
eventually be considered great by many of you who now dismiss him.
My viewpoint was dramatically changed after I saw him perform a 45
minute solo set. There was an awful lot more to his playing than I
had heard on recordings.
All of us young guitar players today have a lot more music to listen
to, many more influences and precedents to work through, then the
great players of the earlier generations. (This applies all
instrumentalists really). I think it is to be expected that it will
take us a little while longer to emerge with our own voice.
Innovation is overrated anyway, if a musician makes sincere music that
we as listeners enjoy then I respect that musicians talent and
ability. We can't all be, nor do we need to be innovators to be
making good music and contributing to jazz.
-Jaromil
Clay M Moore
Donnie wrote:
> Gill Evans or Bill Evans?? It was actually Bill Evans that showed
> Miles
> alternate scales
>
The recording you are refering to is "Kind of Blue", the supposed
inception of modal jazz, which was recorded in 1959. I was refering to
the sessions done in 1949 and 1950 with Gil Evans, Gerry Mulligan, Lee
Konitz, et tal, which was later dubbed "Birth of the Cool". This was
also called "3rd Stream", an attempt to fuse more European art music
principles with jazz.
Clay M Moore
Paul Lannuier wrote:
> I have
> been around plenty of great musicians, most of them far better than I
> ever
> dream to be, and the one common characteristic they all share is that
> they
> NEVER trash other musicians.
I have been around lots of great musicians as well, and there is no
"standard" that they adhere to regarding criticism. Some great players
make it a point to say nothing about anyone (Barney Kessel springs to
mind), others are vitriolic about who they don't like. These people are
just like the rest of us, they have strengths and weaknesses. It would
be nice if there was some kind of a code of honor, but there ain't.
jar...@mindspring.com
On Sat, 06 Dec 1997 11:09:42 -0600, Clay M Moore <cmm...@ibm.net>
wrote:
>I have been around lots of great musicians as well, and there is no
>"standard" that they adhere to regarding criticism. Some great players
>make it a point to say nothing about anyone (Barney Kessel springs to
>mind),
That's interesting, did you read Barney's Blindfold Test in JazzTimes
about 4 or 5 years ago? He was particularly critical of his peers'
recordings that Leonard Feather played for him.. (Jim Hall, Herb
Ellis, Joe Pass) He didn't sound mean spirited about it but he did
come across as a little narrow minded in the scope of his music
appreciation.
Regardless of that, there is probably no greater Barney Kessel fan
then me.
-Jaromil
Donnie
I've never heard that one...do you have it?
Clay M Moore wrote:
> Donnie wrote:
>
> > Gill Evans or Bill Evans?? It was actually Bill Evans that showed
> > Miles
> > alternate scales
> >
>
> The recording you are refering to is "Kind of Blue", the supposed
> inception of modal jazz, which was recorded in 1959. I was refering to
> the sessions done in 1949 and 1950 with Gil Evans, Gerry Mulligan, Lee
> Konitz, et tal, which was later dubbed "Birth of the Cool". This was
> also called "3rd Stream", an attempt to fuse more European art music
> principles with jazz.
>
JFR
>Exactly my point The place for XYZ "sucks" has tended to be RMB or
>alt.guitars; our group is rec.music.MAKERS....and so most people here
>are players, like you, or wannabes, like me. Players, of course, can
be
>very severe and trenchant in their criticism, which is fine.
Substantive
>critique, such as Clay's reservations about Mark Whitfield, are not
the
>same thing as just saying "Player X sux." I think a good many on RMB
>can't even play a radio with much feeling.
>
>> John R.
>
>--
>//////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////
>"I never practice. I open the case once in a while and throw in a
>piece of meat." Wes Montgomery, Jazz Guitarist, told to Jim Hall.
While I agree that RMB tends to be a bit more critical and sometimes
abusive, I feel I have to defend and/or recommend hanging there to
readers of this newsgroup that are relatively new to jazz. The
knowledge of jazz and the history of jazz of some of the people in that
group, is quite frankly, unbelievable. I thought I was a jazz fanatic
until I started reading RMB.
And there are LOTS of musicians on RMB, probably more than the total
no. of participants of RMMJG. I have seen more "famous" people come
out of nowhere and post things to RMB than here (ever here?). Kurt
Rosenwinkle (a guitarist more people here should know about) just had
an interesting posting, Alphonse Mouzon had a few, Ellery Eskelin (an
incredible "free jazz" saxophonist, who can play anything) and D.D.
Jackson (a great pianist with several records out with David Murray as
well as his own) participate regularly, to name a few. In other words,
you can learn a lot from RMB, but since it is a much bigger newsgroup
and there are a lot of wannabee critics (some real ones and some
producers too) it can get pretty fire-like. It's a great way to expand
your jazz horizon, especially since most of the musicians participating
are NOT guitarists, but horn, piano etc. It's good to get away from
guitar players on a regular basis - nothing personal - just good for
your musical growth.
John R.
Vincent McKnight
So.....let's wait and see. Of course, he may never be an innovator as
such. In time I expect him to improve. To what level, I don't know and
I don't pretend to predict. However, we can all list several musicians
who found their "true voices" later rather than earlier. We can also
list many musicians who acheived technical mastery and managed to please
on a consistent basis without expanding the genre. I simply keep an open
mind that he is capable of either one given his age and the time that he
should have to give to the endeavor. I am not labling him a genius, as,
in my view, very view, if any, are entitled to that label. But, I am not
so quick to close the door on what the future may hold for him....(or
for that matter, most other people who work hard at an endeavor)...time
will tell.
Vince
Donnie
Vincent McKnight wrote:
This "controversy" is not unlike that gererated by Wes, and later by
Benson, when they began actually making money with their guitars. Of
course in both cases they had already demonstrated their talent.
Mark Cleary
Willie K. Yee, MD wrote:
>
> Jonathan Grogan wrote:
> >
> > Even GP doesn't get as much stick here as JJG does. It seems to be a
> > case of 'better to miss by a mile than by a few inches'.
> >
> > Jonathan
>
> in this group reads the damn thing.
>
>
>
> Willie Kai Yee, M.D.
> Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry
>
> wy...@mhv.net
> http://www1.mhv.net/~wyee/index.html
>
> 21 Tricor Ave.
> New Paltz, NY 12561
> (914) 255-0660
>
> "We are the Universe trying to understand itself."
> -- Minbari saying --
I would not read the publication for anything. I have a complete set of
GP from 1969 thru about 1992 or so. It has been so long since I have
even picked it up to see what garbage is next.
I may sound like an old fuddy-duddy (36) but it once was a decent
magazine. Those old Howard Roberts lessons are things I still use in my
teaching and playing. These are real meat that a player could get alot
of information out of. Larry Coryell wrote some great stuff and Tommy
Tedesco ( Tommy, I know you are playing with Wes maybe you could give
him some pointers on sight-reading) was great just to read. I have such
great memories of this magazine and where I was as a player at the time.
Now it is useless garbage that means nothing. I hate to sound dated and
negative but I get nothing out of the publication.
--
Mark Cleary makes music on the best tools available.
"HOLLENBECK GUITARS the finest playing guitars in
the world."
Mark Cleary
>
> >
> > Halleujah, Dr. Tom. I couldn't have put it in better words. Mark's =
a
> > sad example of overmarketing a nice looking, young, retro guy, with
> > some undoubtable talent. They have just cast him in some shoes that =
he
> > just can't wear and probably never will, given the route he has come
> > up. And there's too many walking around that can fit the shoes, but
> > don't fit the mold. too bad. At least we can talk about some
> > alternatives here.
> >
> > John R.
> =
> I agree also with Tom. You don't have to be a better practitioner of
> anything in order to be a knowledgeable "consumer" or even a lower leve=
l
> practitioner. I have to decide whose playing I can learn the most from,=
> and I have to make a judgment on that.
> =
> That said, I enjoy Whitfield. One point that hasn't been made, that I'v=
e
> heard rumored around, is that Mark Whitfield is a very decent guy who
> works and plays well with others, makes the other musicians he plays
> with feel like their playing is appreciated, and relates well to his
> audience. Being a decent person counts, even in jazz. Maybe there were
> better players out there who were impossible to deal with.
> --
> //////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
> Lawson G. Stone=97Asbury Theological Seminary=97Wilmore, KY 40390
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////
> "I never practice. I open the case once in a while and throw in a
> piece of meat." Wes Montgomery, Jazz Guitarist, told to Jim Hall.
I have been reading the thread here and there and I have a Mark
Whitfield CD. I also caught him on a BET television one night. He plays
well and I enjoy some of his playing but not all. I think he plays
excellent single line stuff and while it does not grab my attention it
certainly is great playing. I don't care what anyone says it still is
not something most guitar players can do.
That being said, I still find I can make judgements on his playing and
things I would find would just be observations. One thing I notice is
his lack of chord-melody playing and just burning single line. I suppose
he can probably do this great but he has to make at product. I happen to
like 18 inch arch tops, however I realize most players prefer the 17
inch. I simply enjoy guitar players who use the guitar over it entire
range of possibilities. I like guitar recordings that include the guitar
in single line settings and solo-playing. My reason Joe Pass was a the
top. He could do it all and on one recording. I don't know if Whitfield
has ever been given the chance to do this but at his level he must be
able to. The big thing is a person personality.
If he is a really nice person with a "down to earth personality" he has
my vote today. I met Ron Eschete a few times and believe me, I would
find it hard to ever say anything negative agaisnt him. The players I
have met that left a real impression on me all had wonderful
personalities. I remember him saying to me so clear " I have five
fingers just like you do so it must be possible." I not crazy but at
least he made it sound like he was an ordinary person who played the
guitar.
I once years ago, ran into a player who was very good but had a way of
letting you know he was something special. He never came out and bragged
about how great he was, but let you know you should never sit down and
play guitar with him unless you were at his level. Well I have never
forgot this and have not heard about him in 12 years. What makes a
guitar player good is the ability to communicate. I think there are alot
of technical players that far exceed Kenny Burrell, but he can really
swing and I can tell his playing in 2 bars. =
-- =
Mark Cleary makes music on the best tools available.
"HOLLENBECK GUITARS the finest playing guitars in =
the world."
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
In article <6640pt$a...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> "Roger D. Placer" <rog...@lucent.com> writes:
>Anyway, I was only making a point. In jazz guitar, there are probably
>fewer people out there who deserve to be completely trashed. Criticism
>is fine! We all have our tastes. However, jazz, unlike pop, is a less
>accessible, less visible, less forgiving musical form. It takes a
>greater dedication to learn and play it, and thus the lowest
>strata of players will likely not show up on a jazz album of their own
>for you to pick apart. This means that a run-of-the-mill jazz player
>is still a reasonably talented musician.
Yes, I'm with you here.
>Anyway, that point is becoming dim to me but I suppose the gist of it
>is this: I was reacting in my initial "Why diss Whitfield" post to
>the *tone* of the criticism, which was damning and unequivocal in its
>putdowns of Whitfield's contributions.
I don't recall any such posts, although my newsfeed blows.
You didn't hear that kind of criticism from me.
>I simply don't believe that
>such descriptions were justified, especially when the man is obviously
>a talented musician under ANY context. Feel free to think he's not a
>genius, or a profound contributor to the jazz idiom, blah blah blah.
>We can't all be that. I'm not that. But every now and then I play
>a few notes that are interesting, soulful, funky, or just cool in
>some way. I don't think that even I deserve to be called "unimaginative"
>based on my skills. Whitfield is better than me in many ways, and he
>sure as hell doesn't deserve it either.
I think the "unimaginative" label is used to place Whitfield
relative to the very best jazz musicians. As I said in an earlier
post, if he were just some guy with one or two albums on a minor
label or an obscure journeyman sideman, no one would even bother
criticizing him.
But when a major label makes him their centerpiece jazz guitarist
when it is obvious to anyone familiar with the scene that there
are easily 30 guys who deserve that push more than he does, then
he is going to face some shit. It comes with the territory. And
relative to the best players working, IMO Whitfield is very much
so unimaginative. He has a lot going for him, but I have never
heard him play anything that sounded like it wasn't stolen off
of a George Benson record.
JFR
Roger,
No diss toward you intended, but I think you are missing the kernel of
the discussion. Mark is a talented guy, that fit the role at a good
time - that's the story of lots of successful artists in any field.
It's all about marketing.
I think the essence of this post is to not diss Whitfield, but diss all
the press he gets and warn people that have not listened to a lot of
jazz guitar that there are lots of more significant players to be
listening to.....
John R.
>Anyway, that point is becoming dim to me but I suppose the gist of it
>is this: I was reacting in my initial "Why diss Whitfield" post to
>the *tone* of the criticism, which was damning and unequivocal in its
>putdowns of Whitfield's contributions. I simply don't believe that
>such descriptions were justified, especially when the man is obviously
>a talented musician under ANY context. Feel free to think he's not a
>genius, or a profound contributor to the jazz idiom, blah blah blah.
>We can't all be that. I'm not that. But every now and then I play
>a few notes that are interesting, soulful, funky, or just cool in
>some way. I don't think that even I deserve to be called
"unimaginative"
>based on my skills. Whitfield is better than me in many ways, and he
>sure as hell doesn't deserve it either.
>
>Roger D. Placer, KA2Z Lucent Technologies
>rogerp AT lucent DOT com Bell Labs
>===========================================
> Hear my CD, "The Happiness Of Pursuit"
> http://www.thoprecords.com
Don & Nan Mitchell
A few thoughts about all the "press" that MW has gotten: I believe for the
most part (like about 99%) this is all straight from his record company.
The August issue of JazzTimes had a blindfold test with Mark, and one of
the cuts was a Mclaughlin piece. After expressing his admiration for John,
and saying that played some of JM's stuff in a fusion band while he
attended Berklee, the interviewer asks what would Verve say if he were to
say one day he wanted to do that kind of thing. MW: "They'd say, 'whoa!
Let's rethink this! We've been working really hard at one thing!'
Sometimes it's difficult to maintain diversity in the marketplace. For us
musicians it's all the same; we want to play this, that, and the other.
But...labels are alwyas looking at how they can market you, and they work
so hard just to set the groundwork...If you (change) on them, they have to
start from ground zero...that handcuffs us to some degree."
I believe MW has enjoyed the success he has partly *because* his playing is
not too distinctive, and closely tied to the vocabulary of George Benson.
All the things that have been mentioned in this thread (often with a
sneer)--his charisma, his look, his taste in clothes, his lickmeister
playing--I think led to Verve saying, "this is going to be our young lion
on guitar," and they put their money and their PR machine behind him. It
doesn't seem fair, when players of greater talent and ability still plod
away in obscurity, but I don't think it's fair that I have to lose my hair
and get older either. However, the reality of the marketplace is such that
many players of far more ability and originality will never have the appeal
to a large enough audience, because their music is not accessible to that
audience, to ever get the backing of a major label.
Mark Cleary <maj...@dave-world.net> wrote in article
<348B5A...@dave-world.net>...
>
> >
> > Halleujah, Dr. Tom. I couldn't have put it in better words. Mark's a
> > sad example of overmarketing a nice looking, young, retro guy, with
> > some undoubtable talent. They have just cast him in some shoes that he
> > just can't wear and probably never will, given the route he has come
> > up. And there's too many walking around that can fit the shoes, but
> > don't fit the mold. too bad. At least we can talk about some
> > alternatives here.
> >
> > John R.
>
> I agree also with Tom. You don't have to be a better practitioner of
> anything in order to be a knowledgeable "consumer" or even a lower level
> practitioner. I have to decide whose playing I can learn the most from,
> and I have to make a judgment on that.
>
> That said, I enjoy Whitfield. One point that hasn't been made, that I've
> heard rumored around, is that Mark Whitfield is a very decent guy who
> works and plays well with others, makes the other musicians he plays
> with feel like their playing is appreciated, and relates well to his
> audience. Being a decent person counts, even in jazz. Maybe there were
> better players out there who were impossible to deal with.
> --
> //////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
> Lawson G. Stone—Asbury Theological Seminary—Wilmore, KY 40390
--
Mark Cleary makes music on the best tools available.
"HOLLENBECK GUITARS the finest playing guitars in
the world."
----------
David McGillicuddy
You should check your facts (and your spelling of 'Gil') before you
start correcting others, especially when the 'other' is Clay Moore...
David
Donnie wrote:
>
> Gill Evans or Bill Evans?? It was actually Bill Evans that showed Miles
> alternate scales
>
> Clay M Moore wrote:
>
> > Vincent McKnight wrote:
> >
> > > Think about the evolution of other musicians, Herbie Hancock,
> > > Freddie Hubbard, Miles Davis, Chick Corea....Stanley Clarke, George
> > > Duke..these guys have worn many hats in their careers. Time will give
> > > us
> > > a better perspective on Whitfield. He's great if the test focuses on
> > > audience or crowd appeal - like my wife - but, musicians are hard on
> > > him, expecting more. Let's wait and see, he has the talent but does he
> > >
> > > have the imagination, that's the key...
> > >
> >
> > The players you mentioned above were recognized early in their careers
> > as being original voices. Take Miles for example. He wasn't able to play
> > as high and fast as Gillespie, so he focused on his own voice and
> > vocabulary. After his apprenticeship with Charlie Parker he teamed up
> > with Gil Evans and others to record a new developement in jazz, later
> > termed "Birth of the Cool". He was 23 years old at the time. <
<SNIP>
Roger D. Placer
> I think the essence of this post is to not diss Whitfield, but diss all
> the press he gets and warn people that have not listened to a lot of
> jazz guitar that there are lots of more significant players to be
> listening to.....
Now THAT I can agree with! Why didn't you just say so before? :)
Really - I'm in total agreement with the concept of guiding new
listeners to jazz towards "the source" of what they are hearing on
the radio and digging. You've got to admit though, that the thread
did not focus on this aspect.
Roger
Tom Walls
In article <66c5qv$7...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>, jre...@ix.netcom.com(JFR)
wrote:
>
> While I agree that RMB tends to be a bit more critical and sometimes
> abusive, I feel I have to defend and/or recommend hanging there to
> readers of this newsgroup that are relatively new to jazz. The
> knowledge of jazz and the history of jazz of some of the people in that
> group, is quite frankly, unbelievable. I thought I was a jazz fanatic
> until I started reading RMB.
>
> And there are LOTS of musicians on RMB, probably more than the total
> no. of participants of RMMJG. I have seen more "famous" people come
> out of nowhere and post things to RMB than here (ever here?). Kurt
> Rosenwinkle (a guitarist more people here should know about) just had
> an interesting posting, Alphonse Mouzon had a few, Ellery Eskelin (an
> incredible "free jazz" saxophonist, who can play anything) and D.D.
> Jackson (a great pianist with several records out with David Murray as
> well as his own) participate regularly, to name a few. In other words,
> you can learn a lot from RMB, but since it is a much bigger newsgroup
> and there are a lot of wannabee critics (some real ones and some
> producers too) it can get pretty fire-like. It's a great way to expand
> your jazz horizon, especially since most of the musicians participating
> are NOT guitarists, but horn, piano etc. It's good to get away from
> guitar players on a regular basis - nothing personal - just good for
> your musical growth.
>
>
> John R.
Right on, right on.
--
Psychromatically Yours,
Tom Walls
Joshua H. Gordis
>
> Innovation is overrated anyway, if a musician makes sincere music that
> we as listeners enjoy then I respect that musicians talent and
> ability. We can't all be, nor do we need to be innovators to be
> making good music and contributing to jazz.
>
Innovation has different levels. IMHO, music has to be at least one of
the following, (or better yet, both):
(1) "intellectually" (e.g. harmonically) interesting, and
(2) emotionally moving
Generally, successful music can have the second characteristic without
the first, and I think this is what is being referred to in the quoted
post. If the first characteristic exists without the second, the music
is not "timeless," so to speak.
Both characteristics serve a purpose to the listener. For example, when
Im in the mood, Im still blown away by a Motown tune I've heard so many
times. However, there are times when I need to hear something (a lot)
more challenging, but it doesnt give me the same type of whole body
response.
--
Joshua H. Gordis
Naval Postgraduate School
Dept. Of Mechanical Engineering Code ME/Go
Monterey, CA 93943-5146
Remove X’s to reply
Paul Lannuier
In article <348B51...@dave-world.net>, Mark Cleary
<maj...@dave-world.net> wrote:
>I may sound like an old fuddy-duddy (36) but it once was a decent
>magazine. Those old Howard Roberts lessons are things I still use in my
>teaching and playing. These are real meat that a player could get alot
>of information out of. Larry Coryell wrote some great stuff and Tommy
>Tedesco ( Tommy, I know you are playing with Wes maybe you could give
>him some pointers on sight-reading) was great just to read. I have such
>great memories of this magazine and where I was as a player at the time.
>Now it is useless garbage that means nothing. I hate to sound dated and
>negative but I get nothing out of the publication.
Thank God I'm not the only one who laments the long-gone days of real
substance in Guitar Player magazine. I still have (and cherish) a bunch of
GP back issues from the late '70s and early '80s, and deeply miss the great
lessons every month by truly great guitarists like those mentioned above,
plus my favorite, Lenny Breau. And the interviews and feature articles!
Now GP has become "Dimebag Darrell Illustrated." I'm not sure when it
started going downhill, I was away from the guitar for about 12 years. Now
I'm desparately looking for a suitable replacement for the GP of old.
Fingerstyle Guitar is about the best I've seen. I haven't found Just Jazz
Guitar on any news stands, and besides is quarterly and seems very narrow in
scope (which is fine, it's just that I'm looking for a good monthly that
encompasses all styles without emphasis on death metal!). Other than those
two, I haven't heard of anything that comes close to the level of the old
Guitar Player. It's a shame.
Paul
Jonathan Byrd
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------DB651C51AE1F4D5845A78948
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Clay M Moore wrote:
>
> The recording you are refering to is "Kind of Blue", the supposed
> inception of modal jazz, which was recorded in 1959. I was refering to
> the sessions done in 1949 and 1950 with Gil Evans, Gerry Mulligan, Lee
> Konitz, et tal, which was later dubbed "Birth of the Cool". This was
> also called "3rd Stream", an attempt to fuse more European art music
> principles with jazz.
Hmm. I thought "Cool" was entirely separate from third stream. Of
course I could be totally wrong, but I have been under the impression
that third stream was a movement that blended classical music with jazz,
and was largely spearheaded by Gunther Schuller.
--
Jonathan Byrd Computing and Communications
j...@isu.edu Idaho State University
(208)-236-3199 Pocatello, Idaho, USA
http://www.isu.edu/~jon/ FAX: (208)-236-3673
--------------DB651C51AE1F4D5845A78948
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Jonathan Byrd
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Jonathan Byrd
n: Byrd;Jonathan
org: Idaho State University
adr: Computing and Communications;;Idaho State University;Pocatello;Idaho;83209-8037;USA
email;internet: j...@isu.edu
title: Systems Integration Analyst
tel;work: 208-236-3199
tel;fax: 208-236-3673
tel;home: I ain't tellin'
x-mozilla-cpt: ;-13504
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------DB651C51AE1F4D5845A78948--
Jonathan Byrd
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
jar...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> On Fri, 05 Dec 1997 21:52:54 -0600, Clay M Moore <cmm...@ibm.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The players you mentioned above were recognized early in their careers
> >as being original voices.
>
> Hearing just 2 bars of his playing is enough to be unmistakably sure
> that it is Mark Whitfield. That is something that most jazz
> musicians would strive for.
Having easily recognizable playing characteristics is good only to the
extent that those characteristics are perceived as good. To my ears,
Whitfield's most easily recognizable characteristic is his tendency to
repeat a simple lick until my patience wears thin.
--
Jonathan Byrd Computing and Communications
j...@isu.edu Idaho State University
(208)-236-3199 Pocatello, Idaho, USA
http://www.isu.edu/~jon/ FAX: (208)-236-3673
--------------4ECA3C07E3274D6E2DD305C0
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Jonathan Byrd
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Jonathan Byrd
n: Byrd;Jonathan
org: Idaho State University
adr: Computing and Communications;;Idaho State University;Pocatello;Idaho;83209-8037;USA
email;internet: j...@isu.edu
title: Systems Integration Analyst
tel;work: 208-236-3199
tel;fax: 208-236-3673
tel;home: I ain't tellin'
x-mozilla-cpt: ;-13504
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------4ECA3C07E3274D6E2DD305C0--
Paul Lannuier
In article <348a7d58...@news.mindspring.com>, jar...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>Innovation is overrated anyway, if a musician makes sincere music that
>we as listeners enjoy then I respect that musicians talent and
>ability. We can't all be, nor do we need to be innovators to be
>making good music and contributing to jazz.
Well put. I'll add my two cents to that: If we judge music solely by whether
it's innovative and groundbreaking, we're likely to be disappointed more
often than not.
Paul
TomLippinc
>
>Jonathan Grogan wrote:
>>
>> Even GP doesn't get as much stick here as JJG does. It seems to be a
>> case of 'better to miss by a mile than by a few inches'.
>>
>> Jonathan
>
>GP mag does not get criticized here 'cause nobody (well, hardly nobody)
>in this group reads the damn thing.
>
>--
>
magazine is not "Jazz Guitar Player", but rather "Guitar Player", and I think
they do a pretty admirable job of covering the entire spectrum of music made on
the guitar (and I don't want to get into a debate of "what is music and what
isn't": I'm assuming the definition of music in this case to be the
organization of sound for the purpose of self expression). I've never seen an
issue of Just Jazz Guitar, but from everything I've read about it on this
group, I don't really care to. I've got this crazy tendency to try to check
out things I'm not familiar with already, and this weird compulsion to keep an
open mind about different styles of music. Do I even need to invoke the
infamous Duke Ellington quote?
Tom Lippincott
Paul Craig Sanwald
Clay M Moore (cmm...@ibm.net) wrote:
: Vincent McKnight wrote:
:
: > Think about the evolution of other musicians, Herbie Hancock,
: > Freddie Hubbard, Miles Davis, Chick Corea....Stanley Clarke, George
: > Duke..these guys have worn many hats in their careers. Time will give
: > us
: > a better perspective on Whitfield. He's great if the test focuses on
: > audience or crowd appeal - like my wife - but, musicians are hard on
: > him, expecting more. Let's wait and see, he has the talent but does he
: >
: > have the imagination, that's the key...
:
: The players you mentioned above were recognized early in their careers
: as being original voices. Take Miles for example. He wasn't able to play
good point. It's also not a bad thing to remember artists like John Coltrane
and Thelonius Monk, for whom recognition and respect didn't come until
late in their career. Coltrane's earlier recordings (i.e. when he first
started playing with Miles) barely hint at the sound he would develop
(on albums like Crescent and A Love Supreme). Early in his career, Monk's
playing was (IMHO unfairly) compared unfavorably to the great stride
pianists (principally one of his biggest influences, James P. Johnson)
(although Monk could, and sometimes did, do a great imitation of him)
It seems to me there is so much to learn in modern jazz, if Whitfield
continues to practice and improve that he may prove all of us wrong.
Clifford Brown started his too-short career as a Fats Navarro "imitator",
and what he became in just a couple of years, well, his playing
speaks for itself.
--paul
Giri
Mark Cleary wrote:
> I would not read the publication for anything. I have a complete set of
> GP from 1969 thru about 1992 or so. It has been so long since I have
> even picked it up to see what garbage is next.
>
> I may sound like an old fuddy-duddy (36) but it once was a decent
> magazine. Those old Howard Roberts lessons are things I still use in my
> teaching and playing. These are real meat that a player could get alot
> of information out of. Larry Coryell wrote some great stuff and Tommy
> Tedesco ( Tommy, I know you are playing with Wes maybe you could give
> him some pointers on sight-reading) was great just to read. I have such
> great memories of this magazine and where I was as a player at the time.
> Now it is useless garbage that means nothing. I hate to sound dated and
> negative but I get nothing out of the publication.
You and the rest of the gripers need to realize that the problem
here has more to do with *your* view of music and guitar than with
GP itself. I'm not trying to say they are the greatest magazine
ever, but I think they do a damn fine job and always have something
interesting in every issue.
How many magazines do you know that cover such an incredibly diverse
range of players as I've listed below?
Bill Frisell, David Torn, Vernon Reid, Joe Pass, Lenny Breau, Tal
Farlow, B.B.King, Pat Martino, Ali Farka Toure, V.M.Bhatt, Bob
Brozman, Buckethead, Sonny Sharrock, Dave Tronzo, John Scofield,
Muddy Waters,... the list goes on forever.
Sure, the HR lessons were great. But so are the David Hamburger
tips these days. There's always something in there. It just isn't
necessarily applicable to *your* tastes in guitar music.
..Giri
--
e-mail: giyengar "at" ford "dot" com
Rosie666
Until now, I'd only heard Whitfield's Warner Bros. releases, both of which are
terrible, and some of his sideman work (lackluster at best). But I heard a live
performance the other day on KLON ... and he was pretty darn good.
Maybe some time in the woodshed?
Clay M Moore
Jonathan Byrd wrote:
> Clay M Moore wrote:
> >
> > The recording you are refering to is "Kind of Blue", the supposed
> > inception of modal jazz, which was recorded in 1959. I was refering
> to
> > the sessions done in 1949 and 1950 with Gil Evans, Gerry Mulligan,
> Lee
> > Konitz, et tal, which was later dubbed "Birth of the Cool". This was
>
> > also called "3rd Stream", an attempt to fuse more European art music
>
> > principles with jazz.
>
> Hmm. I thought "Cool" was entirely separate from third stream. Of
> course I could be totally wrong, but I have been under the impression
> that third stream was a movement that blended classical music with
> jazz,
> and was largely spearheaded by Gunther Schuller.
Not entirely separate. For one thing, Gunther Schuller played French
horn on some of the "Birth of the Cool" sessions, and the appearance of
the French horn alone is an indicator this wasn't a typical jazz
session. Notice I said they were *later* labeled "Birth of the Cool".
So-called cool jazz was primarily a marketing term, but part of the
supposed criteria was a lighter, less overt tone (with a better ensemble
blend), a certain emotional detachment, and a greater concern for the
compositions and arrangements-- all of which are traits of so-called
"classical" music. You say "classical music", I say "European art
music"-- different terms, but I think we mean the same thing. But, yes,
I believe Schuller generally gets the credit for running with the ball
long after others had lost interest, and for the "Third Stream" label.
--
Clay M Moore
Paul Craig Sanwald wrote:
> :
> : The players you mentioned above were recognized early in their
> careers
> : as being original voices. Take Miles for example. He wasn't able to
> play
>
> good point. It's also not a bad thing to remember artists like John
> Coltrane
> and Thelonius Monk, for whom recognition and respect didn't come until
>
> late in their career. Coltrane's earlier recordings (i.e. when he
> first
> started playing with Miles) barely hint at the sound he would develop
> (on albums like Crescent and A Love Supreme). Early in his career,
> Monk's
> playing was (IMHO unfairly) compared unfavorably to the great stride
> pianists (principally one of his biggest influences, James P. Johnson)
>
> (although Monk could, and sometimes did, do a great imitation of him)
> It seems to me there is so much to learn in modern jazz, if Whitfield
> continues to practice and improve that he may prove all of us wrong.
> Clifford Brown started his too-short career as a Fats Navarro
> "imitator",
> and what he became in just a couple of years, well, his playing
> speaks for itself.
I think these issues are separate, having an original voice and being
recognized later in your career. Some originals never get the
acknowledgement that they deserve. Take Joe Diorio for example; he's
never had a deal with a decent record label, and as a consequence he's
known pretty much only to a handful of savvy musicians and guitar
students. OTOH, Frank Morgan was heralded as a great discovery late in
his career, but he's not a particularly original player. Perhaps
Coltrane didn't sound on the Miles sessions like he later would, but he
had his own voice even in the first recordings. Point to even one other
player who sounded like 'Trane in the 1950's, and also recall that he
took a lot of abuse from critics for his originality. Clifford Brown
died when he was only 26, so his status as an initial imitator of Fats
Navarro isn't really an issue, IMHO. Everyone culls from their
influences, the point is for how long can we keep recycling their
material verbatum, and simultaneously expect to be recognized as
musicians who are adding to the jazz culture?
On that note, I was at Borders yesterday saw the record with Whitfield
that triggered this discussion, so I listened to three cuts. I have to
say this is the best I've heard him play by far. I particularly enjoyed
his comping and chord playing, which have advanced miles from his first
album. His time has also gotten much more secure, which was one of my
biggest beefs from the first time I heard him, although there were still
occasions on this record where McBride has to play catch-up to get back
in sync with Whitfield's rushing of the beat during his solos.
Nonetheless, this is a minor point overall. His ensemble playing is
tight, his tone is very crisp and appropriate, and he seems to be paying
more attention to the tunes and not simply running his pet licks. I'd
venture to say he is starting to become his own man, if anyone gives a
hoot what I think about it.
David C. Stephens
Clay M Moore wrote:
I was at Borders yesterday saw the record with Whitfield
> that triggered this discussion, so I listened to three cuts. I have to
> say this is the best I've heard him play by far. I particularly enjoyed
> his comping and chord playing, which have advanced miles from his first
> album. His time has also gotten much more secure, which was one of my
> biggest beefs from the first time I heard him, although there were still
> occasions on this record where McBride has to play catch-up to get back
> in sync with Whitfield's rushing of the beat during his solos.
> Nonetheless, this is a minor point overall. His ensemble playing is
> tight, his tone is very crisp and appropriate, and he seems to be paying
> more attention to the tunes and not simply running his pet licks. I'd
> venture to say he is starting to become his own man, if anyone gives a
> hoot what I think about it.
>
> --
> Clay Moore
>
The Music of Herbie Hancock", for those who don't recall. Besides
Whitfield and McBride, it features a great young trumpet player,
Nicholas Payton. Payton has become known lately for playing with Doc
Cheatum and doing some nouveau Satchmo, but on this album he displays
thoroughly modern chops.
Dave
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
There are two ways to conceive of "innovation". One conception
describes a stylistic development that affects how players of all
instruments sound, and how entire bands sound. When you accomplish
this type of innovation, the entire face of jazz changes as a result.
Many other people begin playing differently because of what you have
developed. Only a few people achieve this level of innovation.
Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Coleman Hawkins, Lester
Young, Nat Cole, etc., fall into this category.
The other conception of innovation describes a stylistic
development that is entirely personal--it simply means that
you sound like yourself, you have developed your own personal
sound, and anyone familiar with your music can easily identify
you when you come on the radio.
I would argue that all great jazz musicians are innovators,
according to the second conception. This means that they
have developed a personal style and sound. There are a
very few exceptions--great jazzers whose personal sound is
not original to them. Maybe Ben Webster, Sonny Stitt, Oscar
Peterson, and a few others. But even these guys are usually
identifiable.
Mark Whitfield is an excellent musician, but he will never
be great until he develops his own voice--begins to "innovate".
Right now, he's just one of the many George Benson clones
on the scene.
JFR
In <668tmp$7gj$1...@news.cybernex.net> "Paul Lannuier" <no....@no.spam>
writes:
>
>In article <348545...@uky.campus.mci.net>, "Lawson G. Stone"
><lst...@uky.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>
>>The greatest problem I see in newsgroups is people orating on matters
of
>>which they know nothing, or lecturing newsgroups about non-existent
>>problems. Eg. the claim we had repeatedly said Tal Farlow "sucked"
which
>>turned out to be untrue.
>
>Excuse me if I implied that this newsgroup "repeatedly said Tal Farlow
>"sucked" ", but I can assure you that such an argument did take place
-
>somewhere on the net - because I was one of the people who strongly
objected
>to the unfair criticism of Tal. His crime against humanity, as I
recall, was
>that he played standards - kinda similar to the complaints posted here
about
>Mark Whitfield. If I mistakenly indicted this newsgoup, I apologize.
>However, my point still holds.
>
>You know, Whitfield may not be revolutionary but I respect what he
does and
>appreciate the amount of work he puts into his playing. His band
always
>sounds good as does the production quality, plus he seems to be a real
>decent guy. I find the comparison someone made to Kenny G. to be
bullshit.
>So what if he's successful and has received a lot of hype; God bless
him, we
>need more successful jazz guitarists.
>
>It seems to me that the ones who do the most bitching on the net (and
dare I
>say in this newsgroup?) are the wannabees who need to criticize others
in
>order to cope with their own inadequacies as musicians.
>
>But that's my opinion... I could be wrong.
>
>Deja this.
>paul
Generalize this. Your wannabee theory is a bit too much, but may be
partly to blame for the criticism. I think the majority of the
criticism directed toward Whitfield is that of the marketing forces
that can mislead newbies into thinking Whitfield is a master and
innovator, which he is neither. Just a good player with good
personality, making a good living.
John R.
JFR
In <34876C14...@cais.com> Vincent McKnight <vinc...@cais.com>
writes:
>
>I have been listening to Whitfield's Seventh Avenue New York Tribute.
>He's more than competent, and "young". I think that we all need to
give
>him time to grow. He seems aware from the notes of where he is and
what
>steps it took him to get there, from Berkeley to road playing - time
>will tell whether he makes a lasting contribution. Let's all wait and
>see. Once again, my wife really liked what she heard on the CD. I was
>not blown away by his style or technique, but recognized that he's far
>more accomplished than I am. He still may earn the genius label. From
>reading his comments, it did not seem that he had anointed himself a
>"genius." Think about the evolution of other musicians, Herbie
Hancock,
>Freddie Hubbard, Miles Davis, Chick Corea....Stanley Clarke, George
>Duke..these guys have worn many hats in their careers. Time will give
us
>a better perspective on Whitfield. He's great if the test focuses on
>audience or crowd appeal - like my wife - but, musicians are hard on
>him, expecting more. Let's wait and see, he has the talent but does he
>have the imagination, that's the key...
>
>
> Vince
>
Time will tell? Did you listen to Pat Martino's records when he was in
his teens? Compare that to Whitfield. That's the difference and it's
rather pitiful. I think that Mark cannot help the fact that he was
raised in a different era and most likely not exposed to jazz until
later. Martino was clearly steeped in the organ grinding swing of the
early 60s and is still much more soulful at 50 something than Whitfield
is at late 20 something.
John R.
JFR
In <3487E3EF...@mhv.net> "Willie K. Yee, MD" <wy...@mhv.net>
writes:
>Jonathan Grogan wrote:
>>
>> Even GP doesn't get as much stick here as JJG does. It seems to be a
>> case of 'better to miss by a mile than by a few inches'.
>>
>> Jonathan
>
>GP mag does not get criticized here 'cause nobody (well, hardly
nobody)
>in this group reads the damn thing.
>
>--
>
>
>
>Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry
>
>wy...@mhv.net
>http://www1.mhv.net/~wyee/index.html
>
>21 Tricor Ave.
> New Paltz, NY 12561
>(914) 255-0660
>
>"We are the Universe trying to understand itself."
> -- Minbari saying --
Exactly. I don't think many of us think of GP as a jazz-related
publication. I do have praise for JJG. I just think that the title is
a misnomer and the content with the title can mislead newbies into
thinking that jazz guitar has not progressed in style since the 60s.
John R.
JFR
In <34880C...@pop1.ibm.net> "David C. Stephens"
<internet.us...@pop1.ibm.net> writes:
>
>JFR wrote:
>>
>> In <65dh8l$j...@news.jhu.edu> tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu () writes:
>> >
>> >>> If all you can do is criticize, then do it with some specifics.
>> What's
>> >>> wrong with Mark's playing on "fingerpainting" would be a good
>> start. If
>> >>> you don't know the music, you should keep your mouth shut.
>> >>> Dave
>> >
>> >Most of us who criticize MW do so on the same basis--he tends to
>> >run a lot of fast licks, mostly stolen from George Benson, rather
>> >than develop melodies closely related to the tune. I like to hear
>> >guys blow out their chops every now and then, but when that's all
>> >you can do, it tends to bore me. I like to hear a melody, something
>> >original to the player that develops according to its own logic
>> >rather than according to what pre-practiced lick fits over the
>> >chord.
>> >
>> >OTOH, I'm glad for Mark that he is having a good career. I'm
>> >always happy to see a musician succeed, and I don't care what
>> >they're playing--in the long run it's good for everyone that
>> >music is popular, especially jazz music. Maybe someone will
>> >discover jazz through a Whitfield album, and then be inspired
>> >to go on from there to seek out better musicians with more
>> >mature and original styles.
>> >
>>
>> I agree with some of this but the argument "that someone will be led
>> into other realms of jazz" may be a weak one. That's because there
may
>> be just as many turned off by the retro nature of someone like Mark
and
>> say "God, jazz is cheesy and dead and hasn't gone anywhere".
>>
>> John R.
>OK John, you're closing in on one of my points. Hypothetically, what
>would you do if one of your friends or associates said to you that
they
>had purchased "fingerpainting" and really enjoyed Mark Whitfield. They
>say this in such a way that makes you think that they really did like
it
>and they're mentioning it to you because they know of your interest in
>jazz guitar (they obviously don't know your opinion of Whitfield).
>
>Do you slam Mark and imply that anyone that would listen to him has
>rocks in their head. Or do you say something like, "Mark's not one of
my
>favorites, but a lot of people seem to like him. If you like him,
maybe
>you'll like so-and-so even more. Check him out and listen for
>this-and-that."
>
>I obviously like the later approach. I think that many people checking
>out this NG are like those associates we may come in personal contact
>with, who seek our opinions about various jazz guitar players. Why
would
>we make them uncomfortable? Why wouldn't we try to bring them into the
>fold with constructive comments and suggestions.
>
>BTW, I'm a long time jazz and guitar music collector with recordings
>from Affif to Zappa and Armstrong to Vache. I'm not seeking
affirmation
>of my enjoyment of "fingerpainting", I'm trying to share it with
others.
>
>Dave
Dave,
I agree with you and I hope I am taking the latter approach in my
criticism. My criticism is more toward the Mark-eting of Mark, than
his playing. He's a solid player and I would recommend many more
players to anyone who likes his playing and they would probably come to
the same conclusion regarding Mark and the marketing of him.
John R.
David C. Stephens
JFR wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> I agree with you and I hope I am taking the latter approach in my
> criticism. My criticism is more toward the Mark-eting of Mark, than
> his playing. He's a solid player and I would recommend many more
> players to anyone who likes his playing and they would probably come to
> the same conclusion regarding Mark and the marketing of him.
>
> John R.
Don't buy it, but if you have a place like Blockbuster or Borders where
you can audition CDs, try to listen to a few cuts of "fingerpainting". I
think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Dave
Tom Walls
In article <348D77...@blah.blah>, Giri <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
> You and the rest of the gripers need to realize that the problem
> here has more to do with *your* view of music and guitar than with
> GP itself. I'm not trying to say they are the greatest magazine
> ever, but I think they do a damn fine job and always have something
> interesting in every issue.
>
snip
> Sure, the HR lessons were great. But so are the David Hamburger
> tips these days. There's always something in there. It just isn't
> necessarily applicable to *your* tastes in guitar music.
>
> ..Giri
>
You are no doubt correct when you say that GP, "just isn't necessarily
applicable to *your* tastes in guitar music"; however, although in the
early days GP was a much smaller magazine IMHO they took care to feature
guitarists who were contributing something relatively unique, or
individual, to the music. I think have pretty eclectic tastes, yet over
the years I found that even as the content expanded it contained less and
less of interest to me. It's a pretty safe bet that if I go to the
newstand tonight and pick up GP, I'll find pounds of advertising and PR
and micromiligrams of new information.
Hell, maybe I've just gotten so damn hip nobody can tell me nothing! ;)
Clay M Moore
jar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Dec 1997 11:09:42 -0600, Clay M Moore <cmm...@ibm.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I have been around lots of great musicians as well, and there is no
> >"standard" that they adhere to regarding criticism. Some great
> players
> >make it a point to say nothing about anyone (Barney Kessel springs to
>
> >mind),
>
> That's interesting, did you read Barney's Blindfold Test in JazzTimes
>
> about 4 or 5 years ago? He was particularly critical of his peers'
> recordings that Leonard Feather played for him.. (Jim Hall, Herb
> Ellis, Joe Pass) He didn't sound mean spirited about it but he did
> come across as a little narrow minded in the scope of his music
> appreciation.
>
> Regardless of that, there is probably no greater Barney Kessel fan
> then me.
>
> -Jaromil
Well, that just goes to prove my point. I met Kessel many years ago and
we had a long discussion about music and attitude and other stuff, and
he was very adamant that he didn't discuss other guitar players because
he considered it unprofessional. Now here's an example of him doing just
that, so I guess he changed his mind.
Giri
One more vote, fwiw. I heard a cut off "Fingerpainting" on the
radio the other day. Very good stuff. And a rare sort of trio,
eh? Anyone care to name a few t/b/g albums? Or b/g and any one
horn?
Roland Kalus
On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 11:54:26 -0500, Giri <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
Giri,
my applause is with you...clap, clap, clap,clap, clap, clap clap,
clap, clapclap, clap, clap clap, clap, clapclap, clap, clap clap,
clap, clap clap, clap, clapclap, clap, clapclap, clap,
clap..............
We have one great guitarmag here in Germany it is called "Gitarre &
Bass".. they have a well weighted mixture from Rock to Fusion to
Jazz...There website is http://www.gitarrebass.de..If you know some
german check it out!
Take care
Roland Kalus
Roland Kalus makes music on the even better tools available:
"MTD (Michael Tobias Design) the finest playing guitars in
the world and Fender Strat the guitar for real men ...:-) har har har
har
Roland Kalus
Hi....
I don't know what is wrong with MW.... it's fine when he makes some
money out of his music I met him in the Blue Note in NYC and have to
say that he is a very nice talented fellow. Even he is not my favorite
guitarplayer I respect his work as it is.. everybody should do what he
likes... Sometimes I really would listen to you folks here in this
NG.. I respect if you do not like his work but than why do you discuss
it?!?
Paul Craig Sanwald
: player who sounded like 'Trane in the 1950's, and also recall that he
Dexter Gordon. I might be mistaken, but most of the criticisms aimed at
Trane early in his career addressed his tone, not his choice of notes.
You're totally right that his hard-edged tone was unique, I was referring
mainly to his choice of notes and phrasing, which I don't think was nearly
as unique as what it would become.
--paul
Donnie
Paul Craig Sanwald wrote:
Ok..I gotta ruler, albeit a short one (but I'm thinkin it's all I'll
need)....lets get this big dick contest over with!...it's music damnit, and
jazz ta boot...lighten up!!!
tinker
I went to school at Berklee with Mark. He is a talented guy,
he is just not an innovator. Saying his tone represents America is
silly. All the greatest jazz musicians have either been AMerican or
moved to the US, because that is what is considered as making
it.........if you can be successful over here. There are very few
innovators, but I at least have respect for a guy who worked hard and
is good at what he does. No he is not an Allan Holdsworth or
Stravinsky, but he aslo sure as hell ain't no cheesballl Kenny G.
Thats hitting way below the belt.
On 30 Nov 1997 02:09:27 GMT, jre...@ix.netcom.com(JFR) wrote:
>In <roger-24119...@ppp51.internexus.net> "Roger D. Placer"
><ro...@thoprecords.com> writes:
>>
>>> Mark Whitfield's unimaginative playing and thin sound examplifies
>the
>>> poilitcal and very static nature of professional jazz in America
>today.
>>
>>You know, for the life of me I just cannot rationalize all the shit
>that
>>you guys give Mark Whitfield. He is not the Kenny G. of the guitar!
>Why
>>is it necessary to put down his playing so unilaterally? Why pick on
>him?
>>
>>This is not the newsgroup for guitar pissing contests (thankfully),
>but
>>in this case I'd love to throw each of you up on stage with Whitfield
>and
>>watch him blow the pants off you. Criticizing this guy, who is
>obviously
>>a very talented player with good tone and some taste, regardless of
>your
>>perception that he is "unoriginal" and "unimaginative," is just petty.
>>Sounds like major sour grapes to me. Do us (OK, me) a big favor: Play
>>your own guitar and STOP TALKING.
>>
>>Roger
>
>Whitfield is a "Kenny G" figure of sorts. Maybe his music is more
>advanced than Kenny's, but his level of ability vs. the style is
>analogous to Kenny - i.e. he is a non-descript, vanilla player. He has
>gotten so much press - call it envy - but it is disproportionate to his
>ability, IMNSHO.
>
>I know for a fact that there are several players participating here in
>this newsgroup that are much more innovative and intriguing than Mark,
>but for some reason(s) have been ascribed the role of "local hero"
>only. It's a sad state of any art. So, I think it is fine to pick on
>Mark, that goes with his popularity - it's a price he will pay - in
>this case justified, IMNSHO - even though he probably never reads this
>group nor gives a shit.....
>
>
>John R.
Joshua H. Gordis
There have been several posts which have had negative things to say
about Mark Whitfield's recordings, while saying positive things about
his live shows.In fact, this comparison has come up in reference to
several artists recently.
IME, a player like Mark W. will be more enjoyable live than on record
(although I've never seen him). In fact, this is true for many players
(as compared with artists who are equally enjoyable live or recorded, or
better on record).
While many mention "Smokin at the Half Note" as Wes' best album, I
prefer several of his studio albums (where Wes probably went through
several or more takes before being satisfied).
For an artist with limited musical ideas, the visual thing adds
excitement, and of course its always cool to hear/watch someone with
serious chops blow. Its very much less exciting on record. For example,
Gambale is very exciting to watch, but the one or two records I've
bought I've gotten rid of.
Albums one never grows tired of?
--
Joshua H. Gordis
Naval Postgraduate School
Dept. Of Mechanical Engineering Code ME/Go
Monterey, CA 93943-5146
Remove X’s to reply
JFR
In <66c11s$a1f$1...@news.cybernex.net> "Paul Lannuier" <no....@no.spam>
writes:
>
>In article <34881C...@uky.campus.mci.net>, "Lawson G. Stone"
><lst...@uky.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>
>>In these cases, certainly wrong. This isn't a generally griping
>>newsgroup, though some people at times drop in and don't know what
the
>>group usually does, and drop in comments that are uncharacteristic. A
>>review of our best and longest threads, however, will show a lot of
>>content and a lot of good judgment. On top of that, we normally
converse
>>passionately, but printably.
>
>I'll agree with that. Unfortunately Deja News doesn't show how long or
how
>often one lurks in a newsgoup. I lurk plenty, here and elsewhere. I've
>already apologized if I confused this group with one of the dozen or
so
>other groups and mailing lists I subscribe to. Maybe I just had a bad
day...
>
>The fact remain, however, that it WAS on this newsgroup that Mark
Whitfield
>was (unfairly, in my opinion) trashed. That was the reason for my
response,
>and that seems to have gotten lost in all this nitpicking about who
said
>what, and when. Some of the criticism has been constructive (Clay is a
>excellent example), some has not (the Kenny G. comment, for example).
I have
>been around plenty of great musicians, most of them far better than I
ever
>dream to be, and the one common characteristic they all share is that
they
>NEVER trash other musicians. So when you say:
>
>> Some of the most trenchant criticism of other players, or
>>famous players, on this group comes from those who are themselves
trying
>>to make a living playing jazz.
>
>...it makes me wonder why they feel the need to criticise another
musician
>at all. Maybe it's insecurity. I'm all too often guilty of this
myself, and
>whenever I catch myself doing it, I remember what John McLaughlin once
said
>in an interview: "There's room for everybody, and I like to think that
if
>it's music, then it's good."
>
>Mark Whifield is a young, talented musician making a good living in a
very
>tough business. God bless him, I wish it were me.
>
>Paul
I think it is rather naive to think that "great musicians" never trash
other musicians. It's pretty damn normal and human. Maybe they are
more professional and don't do it in public like Wynton, but I think
every musician has strong likes and dislikes and voices them from time
to time. I also think everyone has strong likes and dislikes about
themselves as players and maybe it all gets mixed up and is sometimes
displaced as criticism on others. It's ok and healthy. It's fun being
a human.
John R.
Luke E. Brouillette
Giri wrote:
>
> How many magazines do you know that cover such an incredibly diverse
> range of players as I've listed below?
>
> Bill Frisell, David Torn, Vernon Reid, Joe Pass, Lenny Breau, Tal
> Farlow, B.B.King, Pat Martino, Ali Farka Toure, V.M.Bhatt, Bob
> Brozman, Buckethead, Sonny Sharrock, Dave Tronzo, John Scofield,
> Muddy Waters,... the list goes on forever.
>
> tips these days. There's always something in there. It just isn't
> necessarily applicable to *your* tastes in guitar music.
>
>
> --
>
> e-mail: giyengar "at" ford "dot" comI've definitely with you here
--
Luke Brouillette
Guitarist
Professional Performance and Instruction
lbroui...@cp-tel.net
Jeff Volkman
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, tinker wrote:
> I went to school at Berklee with Mark. He is a talented guy,
> he is just not an innovator. Saying his tone represents America is
> silly. All the greatest jazz musicians have either been AMerican or
> moved to the US, because that is what is considered as making
> it.........if you can be successful over here. There are very few
> innovators, but I at least have respect for a guy who worked hard and
> is good at what he does. No he is not an Allan Holdsworth or
> Stravinsky, but he aslo sure as hell ain't no cheesballl Kenny G.
> Thats hitting way below the belt.
I was at Berklee with Mark too, and I knew him from Seattle as well. I
played with him a lot, and he really is a talented player. He's also a
very nice guy, and (worth mentioning IMO) very bright. I bring this up,
because y'all should understand that the self-promotion/marketing is part
of the business, and Mark has had a good grasp of this all along. He
understood what he needed to do to "make it," and he went out and did it.
He got started at a very young age, graduated from high school 2 years
early, and was at Berklee at age 16. After Berklee he went to NY, and did
the dues-paying stuff you've gotta do to succeed.
Rather than obsessing about how he doesn't deserve his success, I'd
recommend y'all try to learn from his example.
(Having said all that, I have to admit that I don't own any of his CDs,
and he's not among my favorite guitarists. But, I expect he's got a lot
of growing and maturing yet to do. And, I certainly don't begrudge him
ANY of his success. I quite admire what he's accomplished).
-Jeff
Roger D. Placer
In article <349001cf....@news.earthlink.net>, NOB...@NOBODY.COM (tinker)
wrote:
> [Whitfield] is not an Allan Holdsworth or
> Stravinsky, but he also sure as hell ain't no cheesball Kenny G.
> Thats hitting way below the belt.
Thank you for acknowledging this. The comparison was ludicrous,
and totally unfair.
<<=======*=======>>
Roger D. Placer, KA2Z Oakland NJ USA
Remove 'X' from email address to reply
<<=======*=======>>
Listen to my CD, "The Happiness Of Pursuit"
http://www.thoprecords.com
Gary Persons
On December 11 1997, Jeff Volkman <ve...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> But, I expect he's got a lot
> of growing and maturing yet to do. And, I certainly don't begrudge
> him ANY of his success. I quite admire what he's accomplished).
Just curious - how old is Mark?
!^NavFont02F00D70008IGBFHGD87166