From what I have gathered, he was one of the (if not THE) first big breakthrough jazz artists, and he often is associated with bringing unique time structures into jazz arrangements. But, I have talked with several different folks who know a lot more about jazz than I do, and they often dismiss Brubeck as crap or fluff, much like serious jazz fans would do with Kenny G today.
So, those of you who consider yourself big jazz fans (looks in Uke’s direction to begin with)… What’s your take on Brubeck? Serious artist to be respected for what he did, or insipid drivel?
Brubeck is defintiely an innovator and an important link in th ehistory of Jazz. A lot of the dismissal of Brubeck is that he got a lot more attention and got a lot more press and sold a lot more records than many of the important black jazz artists of that time like Miles Davis, Thelonious Monk etc… He even appeared on the cover Time Magazine. I know that Miles dismissed Brubeck in some interviews but also praised and covered some of his tunes at other times.
Mmm, serious jazz for people that can’t handle serious jazz. Certainly more content than Kenny G, but still a lightweight. If John Coltrane was Led Zep, and Kenny G is N’Stync, then Brubeck is somewhere around Billy Joel.
PS: Did some interesting stuff with time signatures, Paul Desmond - who did the alto sax work on Take 5 - represents some great West Coast playing - and he (Brubeck) crossed over, which is no mean feat. Some of his stuff - like Take Five - was good, even great. Some feels a little gimmicky to me (Blue Turk…). But he is FAR FAR better than Kenny G. in terms of basic jazz credibility, if only because Kenny G. has none - none!
I believe he gets dismissed out of hand due to his popularity and accessibility, which are odd reasons to discount someone’s talent. He was something of an innovator, surrounded himself with bright, talented people, and exposed lots more people to jazz than would have been had everyone played like Ornette Coleman.
I guess the ham§sters didn’t eat breakfast, as they seem to have eaten my post. Here’s the gist of what I said:
The offstage (and, once, ‘onstage’) musicians on Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood remind me of Brubeck sans Desmond*. It’s good, intelligent music that inspires great thoughts, in my opinion.
Joe Morello certainly deserves credit as well for his superb playing of such meters. For a lesson in independence, listen to Kathy’s[sup]†[/sup] Waltz on their album Take Five. Good stuff.
[sub]†sic – Named after Brubeck’s daughter, her name is actually spelled with a “C”.[/sub]
I like him, but he is a bit on the lightweight side. I’d rate him higher than a Billy Joel. On a scale of N’ Stync to Led Zepplin, I think I’d give him an Elton John.
Actually, Peter Schickele says, “And as Duke Ellington said, ‘If it sounds good, it is good!’”
Anyway, Brubeck’s Time Out album is definitely a jazz classic. However, folks, please remember that Paul Desmond wrote Take Five. But I don’t think Brubeck did anything else memorable aside from that album, and it was indeed a pop-jazz effort. I would liken him more to Chuck Mangione than Kenny G. in terms of his place in influencing the music of his time.
I happen to like it, although I do wonder if that album would have gained nearly as much attention without Paul Desmond.
Your misplaced elitism is regrettable, though common among jazzists who believe only hard-core, improvisional jazz worthy of the “great jazz” moniker and, by implication, everything else within the jazz domain is second-class or worse.
There are many legends of jazz who were not Coltranesque in composition or delivery, yet deserve their rightful place in music history. Wynton Marsalis discussed this very topic at a Lincoln Center presentation a few years back, saying that it is meaningless to try to classify one flavor of jazz as purer than other forms. Inevitably, this challenges the very idea of “content” within jazz. Who defines it–and how? I might add that jazz lovers would sneer at any comparisons to “Led Zep.”
He’s far from my favorite jazz pianist, and arguably the third-most talented member of the classic Dave Brubeck Quartet (behind Desmond and Morello). Still, there’s lots of good albums under his name. I don’t care for his solos, though.
A good one to get after Time Out is Jazz Impressions of Eurasia. It’s a great album and it makes an interesting comparison to Duke Ellington’s Far East Suite (recorded ten years later.)
I’m a relative jazz newbie; been listening on and off, gradually more on, for about ten years: jazz was my last genre, after learning to appreciate pop and classical. Brubeck has been very helpful: not lightweight enough to make jazz seem unworthy of my time (e.g. KG), but not “difficult” enough to be TOO much of a challenge at the get go. I suspect as I continue to listen and learn more, my ratio of Coltrane to Brubeck will shift Coltraneward, but for now Brubeck keeps me interested enough–and entertained enough–to maintain my enthusiasm with the process.
I’ve had a copy of Time Out on vinyl since my high school days…never bothered to buy the thing on CD. Like a lot of the stuff I listened to in high school, it doesn’t go into heavy rotation for me these days.
The two discs I’ve acquired since 1985 are 1) a very early recording, 1946’s Dave Brubeck Octet (with Paul Desmond on alto and Cal Tjader on drums, plus five other guys). This is fairly interesting stuff, if you like college-boy/hipster noodling. Five of the members studied under the French modernist composer Darius Milhaud.
And 2), Jazz at Oberlin, a live 1953 recording with a quartet featuring Desmond, Ron Crotty on bass, and Lloyd Davis on drums. This is rumored to be one of the great live jazz albums of the '50s. It’s not to my personal taste, but Down Beat gave the bastard five stars, so I may be full of crap.
It’s certainly worth giving a listen to…Desmond plays uncharacteristically HARD, like a true bopper. He also pulls off an intersting call-and-response in different registers, which creates in the one horn the illusion of counterpoint. All standards: “These Foolish Things,” “Perdido,” “Stardust,” “The Way You Look Tonight,” and “How High the Moon.”
The folklore around this album is that Brubeck and Desmond had bickered just before the show and, as a kind of playful revenge, just as Paul’s “How High the Moon” solo begins, the rest of the band breaks into double time. Desmond was well-known for not liking fast tempos, but he does beautifully here.
One of my first jazz albums as a teenager was Brubeck’s Live-in-Berlin collaboration with Gerry Mulligan. But I think I liked that more for Gerry’s work than Brubeck’s.
I must agree with this post, but I’m surprised to see a reference to Wynton in this way, one of the most pompous, outspoken jazz purists out there (at least regarding the developments of the 70’s and 80’s).
I like Brubeck and definitely dig the odd meter experimentation. He was a west coast guy where they played “cool” jazz, not the more intense freer Coltrane-type suff.
But as I understand it, he was always generally considered avante garde and never really made it into the mainstream fully. That’s a heck of a lot different from Kenny G who plays it extremely safe with pop cliches. No way, no comparison between the 2 at all in my book.
Incidentally, Brubeck is also an accomplished classical pianist and composer.
Brubeck had a hit single, was on the cover of Time magazine, and had a contract with Columbia records for more than a decade. That’s as mainstream as real jazz gets.
Kenny G is a light pop musician, pure and simple. As such, he doesn’t figure in a conversation about straight jazz (which Brubeck clearly qualifies as). It’s like dragging Shakira into a discussion of heavy metal.