I doubt that the Armstrong thing was Kenny’s idea, but something cooked up by whatever record company/publishing company that owns the Armstrong catalog. They are the ones who have the financial interest in selling Louis Armstrong recordings to a new generation. Armstrong is seen as middlebrow jazz, so they approached the most popular current middlebrow jazz artist. (Although they probably called Diana Krall first and Elvis refused to give her the phone message.)
I’ve seen this before. Todd Rundgren was approached by the estate of Robert Johnson to record an album of Robert Johnson songs, and tour it, which he did for a season. The result was an album known as “Todd Rundgren’s Johnson”.
Yeah, I knew I was taking a risk by posting basically an incomplete statement. I always run into the same problem on the Dope when I read it before work: I read something I really want to respond to, but dangit, I need to leave for work in 20 minutes, and so I don’t post, or I leave the post unfinished and unposted, intending to finish it when I get home (as a chef, my job doesn’t involve computers, so I can’t post on my lunch hour). And then by the time I get home from work the discussion has moved on and what I wanted to say has now already been said by somebody else, or other posts made in the interim make what I wanted to post superfluous. This morning I decided to just bang up what I could, which I admit was probably unwise (though I see, fortunately, it doesn’t seem to have stirred things up too badly).
Anyway, I wasn’t trying to bag on women. The point I was meaning to get to was that Metheny and G have different audiences, and I’d bet that Metheny’s audience is mostly male while G’s is mostly female. And bar bands and bar owners know one thing about making money: Get the women in the door, and the men will follow. Play what makes the women dance, because the women want to dance. Most of the men don’t really want to dance, but they’ll do it because it pleases the women. Metheny plays music for people who want to listen to music. Kenny G plays music for people who want to listen to Kenny G. And people who want to listen to Kenny G will drag along extra paying customers who may not really care about Kenny G, but they’re still paying.
+1 to what Ogre said. I’m a pretty mediocre guitarist. The bass guitar is my preferred instrument, the one I try to play “great”, but I’ll strum an acoustic guitar to accompany myself singing in public now and then. And I hate, hate HATE when people come up to me afterward to tell me what an awesome guitarist I am. Because I’m simply not an “awesome” guitarist, and I’m fully aware of my limitations (at best, I’m good at maximizing my effectiveness within those limits, but that’s more “experience” than “skill”). But if I was a younger guy and really wanted to be primarily a guitarist, and I kept hearing that, I can see how I’d start to believe it, and how I’d feel less motivated to get better. Because after all, I’m already “awesome”, right?
Navel gaze much? Accept the compliments as they were meant ie "I don’t play at all, so I think it is awesome that you can play well enough for me to recognize the song!"or play only in the solitude of your bedroom. Christ but musicians, more than anybody, can drain the joy out of music.
But you’re correct about the way the compliments are meant, and of course I understand that what they really mean is simply that they enjoyed my performance, and I thank them politely and sincerely. I was simply addressing the Mickey Rooney quote and Ogre’s response to it, and how that relates to me as a musician. It’s why I added the “If I was younger…” bit. I believed everything people said about how “talented” I was when I was a kid, and didn’t have the experience to filter it. I do have that experience now.
The point is that the estates of both Johnson and Armstrong have a commercial interest in boosting awareness of their respective artists. The Johnson estate has made a huge amount of money from being covered by Eric Clapton, while the Armstrong estate is probably going after the Nat King Cole/Natale Cole thing.
:rolleyes: Methany plays music for people who want to listen to Methany. Kenny G makes music. It may be music you don’t like. You may even be able to make a case that it’s objectively bad. But it’s still music. And people (apparently girls) have a good time listening and dancing to it. It has its place.
And really, there’s nothing wrong with “simple” music that gets you dancing. That describes some of the most revered rock ‘n’ roll out there. Not everything has to be complex. Or challenging. Not everything has to make you think. There’s room for lots of different music that will have lots of different effects on lots of different people.
How did I get in the position where I’m defending Kenny fucking G.
I haven’t listened to any of his music that is less than about 20 years old and it must be nearly that long since I saw him live, but back then elaborate improvisations were commonplace, and some of his albums were impenetrable (Song X comes to mind).
Kenny G is garbage. That should be ok to say. That’s how Methany feels. He expressed his opinion the same as those who love Kenny G to the balls get to disagree with that.
Methany thinks it is a goddamn abomination for Kenny G to take that steaming dump on Armstrong’s music. The same folks who are saying that Kenny fans have a right to their opinion have to extend that same token to Methany and his fans.
I don’t know much about Jazz, but I do know a boss article when I read one! And that is one great, scathing fucking take down.
I never said there was anything wrong with it. I said it’s intended for a different audience, to serve a different purpose, and that two different artists (in this case Metheny and G) will have two different goals. I like playing Rush because playing their music challenges me as a bass player. I also like playing the considerably-less-challenging-and-complex AC/DC because it’s good fun. I actively dislike what Miles Davis music I’ve heard. But I’d be an idiot to say he sucked. Conversely, I’ve enjoyed plenty of music produced by artists who really weren’t that good, because I understand that “not very good” doesn’t always mean “not entertaining”.
OTOH, as a thought experiment, change the names of the artists in this discussion from “Metheny” and “Kenny G” to “Queen + David Bowie” and “Vanilla Ice”.
Look, musically, the guy does nothing for me. But the night I went to see him perform, the guy had thousands of 40-ish women screaming the way teenyboppers screamed for the Beatles in 1964. NO exaggeration. I may not understand his appeal, but any musician with that effect on women must have SOMETHING going for him.
Every male there was, like me, dragged to the show by a wife or girlfriend. But make no mistake, every one of those men made out like a bandit after the show was over.
For that reason alone, Kenny G is okay in my book!
I’m a composer and guitar player who loves Metheny and who also dabbles in jazz a bit, though it’s not mainly what I do. I was amused by Metheny’s article at the time, while at the same time disagreeing with the spirit behind it wholeheartedly.
I think it’s important though, in understanding the motivation behind it, to understand it from the perspective of a jazz musician who generally regards this music more as a craft than an art. (which I think was touched upon up thread). This is difficult to understand if you approach it from a popular/rock perspective. Traditionally, jazz musicians learn the rules and conventions, as well as the standard repertoire. Jazz musicians will often talk about who they’ve played with, because these are learning experiences. Young jazz musicians typically want to play with older masters, and being a regular member of a good combo is almost like an apprenticeship. When you’re ready you go out and lead your own combo. There’s a real sense of paying your dues and working your way up the ladder, and gaining a sense of mastery with your instrument
This is NOT a perspective I share BTW. But it’s from this perspective that Metheny wrote the article, and I think this really defines the line between whether one agrees or not.
I don’t think anyone is trying to stop Mr. Metheny from expressing his opinion; I think his description of “lame-ass, jive, pseudo bluesy, out-of-tune, noodling, wimped out, fucked up playing” is delightful!
But his overwrought moral ejaculations about “defiling”, “necrophilia”, “peril” and “inherent wrongness” are pretty silly.
The eternal argument between absolute measures of quality vs. YMMV.
You know what this reminds me of a little bit? Tim Tebow. Folks in Denver are going freakin’ *nuts *about him, and, you know what, he won a string of games so you can’t argue with his commercial success. But the NFL purists get on the Telestrater and pencil out the X’s and O’s about what an incapable buffoon Tebow is.
As an X’s and O’s guy (in this case, a musician) it is hard not to focus on Kenny G’s awful craft. And his putting tracks on top of Louis seems a bit like what would happen if Tebow claimed to be “elite” coming off this string of victories. Can’t argue with his results to date, and he can do what he wants, but it would be hard not to want to smack him a little. But the Ron Jaworski’s and Trent Dilfer’s really get up in arms discussing Tebow’s inadquacies, and yeah, I suppose it can be a bit fun to watch them get their knickers in a twist…
Do you have a link to anything that describes Tim Tebow as defiling the sport of football or that says his football playing is inherently wrong and appeals only to the basest impulses?
