Guy Berger Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 (edited) Sorry! Came across more confrontational than I'd meant, but I'll have a go! I'd say Herbie's is a far less mannered approach to the idiom. With Jarrett, I get the impression he thinks 'right, I'm going to do my gospel thing now'; there then usually follows a IV-I heavy vamp piece. It seems to me that the influence is more subtle (real?) in Herbie's stuff. Even in relatively explicit contexts (e.g. 'Feelin' the Spirit'), the gospel language comes across as a more integral part of his own. [n.b. I am by no means a particular Hancock fan!] What about "Watermelon Man" and "Canteloupe Island"? Or the funky section of "Sleeping Giant"? It's the second point where I came across especially clumsy. First, I'd have to come clean - I don't know his music at all well, I'm sure, compared with many. So I should have been clearer that I'm talking more about my perception. By conservatism, I think I'm getting at two things. First, the retrogressive career trajectory. When people criticize the "Marsalises" (not a monolithic entity) for conservatism, it usually goes beyond the mere criticism that their music is more conservative. Presumably "Marsalises" actually means "Wynton", and the problem is not just that his music is conservative but that he thinks (or thought) that's the only proper style for jazz music. I think Jarrett's 'standards' explorations seem qualitatively different to (say) Shepp or Pharoah taking a step back, idiom-wise. How so? Second, the actual language of his playing - it's totally 'safe', and IMHO comes across as geared to making the listener think how hip he's being. Is Hank Jones's playing any less "safe" than Jarrett's? When I said his conservatism was arguably more pernicious, I was getting at this fact that he sells his brand of music (commercial language deliberate!) as somehow cutting edge or innovative (playing not only on his 60s/70s credentials, but also on the reputations of Peacock and DeJohnette), I do think that at least in the early days of the standards trio, their approach to playing standards WAS innovative. It took the art of "straight ahead piano trio playing" and developed it further. I won't pretend that this was some sort of "macro" or "major" innovation of jazz, but it was not simply a regurgitation of earlier forms. At this point, I'll agree that they are pretty much doing what they've been doing for a long time. I don't see this as being a negative or a positive. edit: A comment -- I don't think Jarrett presents his music as cutting edge or innovative, at least these days. And the "selling" and "brand" comments are unjustified, IMHO. Guy edit: Again, apologies for the above comments - much 'cattier' than I'd meant, but hopefully that elaborates a little! Likewise, I hope I'm not being too argumentative. Edited July 17, 2007 by Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Hawkins Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 Guy - sorry for the slow reply! Not really sure on those Hancock features...I guess 'Watermelon Man' just strikes me as part of the general hardbop vogue, at least on the Dexter Gordon album...As for the others you mention, I don't really know: purely a qualitative judgement on my part that the language is more 'genuine' - more an emotional perception, than a musicologically verifiable fact! I agree - it's probably far too clumsy of me to talk of the 'Marsalises'. As it is, I was aiming at the 'narrower' of your two interpretations - that of musical conservatism. To be honest, I don't know what Jarrett makes of other styles of playing, and their validity. On the Pharoah/Shepp thing, someone made a very interesting post about this in another thread...I'll have a look and copy and paste it if I can find it! I guess there's a couple of things with e.g. Hank Jones. For one, I think I approach a player like that with different expectations...whereas Jarrett's appeal seems to be as the 'progressive', I appreciate Hank Jones as a master stylist in his chosen idiom (which, after, all, he helped to shape!). I suppose I don't think of Hank Jones in the glamorous, cutting edge light in which Jarrett is caste by the mainstream. So I guess when I say I hear him as safe, I mean that he may be playing in a technically more advanced language than Jones (although then we have all manner of questions about what is 'advancement'), but that his use of this language seems to be to be 'painting by number' - e.g. very mannered use of gospel inflections, egregious use of hip diminished stuff, etc. Again, must freely admit that this is only my perception of Jarrett's language - I don't believe that these are assertions which could be 'proven' in any way. Perhaps 'cutting edge'/'innovative' were not the correct terms for how I think Jarrett portrays himself; and for sure, it would be too unsubtle simply to criticise him for the image his label may try to put over. I think it's more the 'precious' nature of his performances, the fees he demands, and so forth (actually, I do think this is one area of 'critique', such as it is, where the issues of his stage manner and his music directly cross). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Hawkins Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 Likewise, I hope I'm not being too argumentative. p.s. not in the slightest! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umum_cypher Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 (edited) This is worth arguing about! The way that Jarrett cloaks his practice of 'improvisation' in mystical-Romantic self-righteousness is revolting, especially since his approach to 'improvisation' is so facile and banal, so reliant on pre-determined structure and textual noodle. His trio/standards stuff I've steered clear of, but from the early days of on-the-spot Joni Mitchell pastiches to the more recent, more glacial, (even) more precious miniaturism, the guy has always been a free improviser for people who don't like free improvisation and don't realise how easy it would be for any decent jazz pianist with a similar inclination/complex to better, and who himself doesn't like improvising, doesn't like improvisers, and treats musicians who don't conform to his own delusional aesthetics with the same contempt as he does his audiences. [edit: emoticon upgrade] Edited July 17, 2007 by umum_cypher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Clugston Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 I find myself agreeing with everyone on this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 (edited) okay... edit: not in response to B. Clugston btw... Edited July 17, 2007 by RDK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 the guy has always been a free improviser for people who... don't realise how easy it would be for any decent jazz pianist with a similar inclination/complex to better, If it really is that "easy... for any decent jazz pianist to [do] better", why aren't there dozens of people doing it? and who himself doesn't like improvising, doesn't like improvisers, ????? Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalo Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 This is worth arguing about! The way that Jarrett cloaks his practice of 'improvisation' in mystical-Romantic self-righteousness is revolting, especially since his approach to 'improvisation' is so facile and banal, so reliant on pre-determined structure and textual noodle. His trio/standards stuff I've steered clear of, but from the early days of on-the-spot Joni Mitchell pastiches to the more recent, more glacial, (even) more precious miniaturism, the guy has always been a free improviser for people who don't like free improvisation and don't realise how easy it would be for any decent jazz pianist with a similar inclination/complex to better, and who himself doesn't like improvising, doesn't like improvisers, and treats musicians who don't conform to his own delusional aesthetics with the same contempt as he does his audiences. [edit: emoticon upgrade] I agree, on the whole. I recall getting some guff in a previous thread when I suggested that Jarrett was one of the progenitors of "New Age" music... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 Can't we all just agree that Jarrett is a prick in his personal life and move on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest donald petersen Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 guy i believe the windup is on belonging which i sold a very long time ago but i can comment on el juice which is in the sell pile but i haven't sold yet-it is tough for me to explain but to me it sounds when jarrett is playing more "free" that he is just speeding up or slowing down or fragmenting the same stuff he plays otherwise...maybe instead of the overly steady clop of his gospel stuff he will play one measure of sixteenth notes and then rest for a measure and then some eight notes and then sixteenth notes and then a half measure rest. this is how it sounds to me. so yes i do find this stuff pretty foursquare in its own way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest donald petersen Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 and there is nothing wrong with this-it is very palatable...as um cypher mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umum_cypher Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 the guy has always been a free improviser for people who... don't realise how easy it would be for any decent jazz pianist with a similar inclination/complex to better, If it really is that "easy... for any decent jazz pianist to [do] better", why aren't there dozens of people doing it? and who himself doesn't like improvising, doesn't like improvisers, ????? Guy Not to [do] better, to better. People don't do it [where 'it' = a pseudo-compositional, pseudo-improvisational mishmash forced through the filter of concert/hall procedure, etiquette and associated prestige] because it's a rubbish idea in the first place. Improvisers improvise with other improvisers and play off/with them, not, generally, themselves. Don't wonder where the copyists are, just be grateful for small mercies! [emoticon further upgraded] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 I don't understand any of that. But I like it when he hums along to his songs. It's cute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 the guy has always been a free improviser for people who... don't realise how easy it would be for any decent jazz pianist with a similar inclination/complex to better, If it really is that "easy... for any decent jazz pianist to [do] better", why aren't there dozens of people doing it? and who himself doesn't like improvising, doesn't like improvisers, ????? Guy Not to [do] better, to better. People don't do it [where 'it' = a pseudo-compositional, pseudo-improvisational mishmash forced through the filter of concert/hall procedure, etiquette and associated prestige] because it's a rubbish idea in the first place. Improvisers improvise with other improvisers and play off/with them, not, generally, themselves. I guess in the end it just boils down to taste. (Do you really think that improvisers shouldn't play solo concerts?) I'm still waiting for the explanation of the "doesn't like improvising, doesn't like improvisers" comment. Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest donald petersen Posted July 18, 2007 Report Share Posted July 18, 2007 g_d, guy, if you have the same passion in the bedroom that you do for defending keith jarrett you must be a v incredible lover! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted July 18, 2007 Report Share Posted July 18, 2007 g_d, guy, if you have the same passion in the bedroom that you do for defending keith jarrett you must be a v incredible lover! I think it has less to do with defending Jarrett than in trying to figure out what cypher is talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 (edited) g_d, guy, if you have the same passion in the bedroom that you do for defending keith jarrett you must be a v incredible lover! Yikes. If I came across as some sort of Jarrett "fanboy" that was definitely not my intent. To summarize: 1) I have no problem if someone dislikes Jarrett's music. Different strokes and all. I personally don't like all of it, as I'm sure you can find out if you comb the archives. 2) I have no interest in defending Jarrett the person. He's a putz. 3) I do think that people's opinions of his music are affected by extramusical factors (as you can see from this thread) -- his obnoxious personality, his pretentious blatherings, his financial success, his occasionally cult-like followers, etc. That's completely human, but it needs to be acknowledged. 4) I also think that blanket "objective" dismissals of his work, dismissals of his contribution to his music (ie "group X works in spite of his playing"), or the even stronger suggestion that he's an (artistic) phony are BS. (The obvious implication of these arguments is that the many people who seem to genuinely love his music are 'wrong'.) 5) Many of the "objective" criticisms directed against his music could easily be directed at other more "politically correct" pianists or musicians. (For example, Jarrett vs. Herbie's gospellisms. Or Jarrett vs. Byard on the eclectic nature of their playing.) 6) Hopefully if any other musician came under unfair criticism on this board, I'd act in exactly the same way. Guy Edited July 19, 2007 by Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregK Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 g_d, guy, if you have the same passion in the bedroom that you do for defending keith jarrett you must be a v incredible lover! Yikes. If I came across as some sort of Jarrett "fanboy" that was definitely not my intent. To summarize: 1) I have no problem if someone dislikes Jarrett's music. Different strokes and all. I personally don't like all of it, as I'm sure you can find out if you comb the archives. 2) I have no interest in defending Jarrett the person. He's a putz. 3) I do think that people's opinions of his music are affected by extramusical factors (as you can see from this thread) -- his obnoxious personality, his pretentious blatherings, his financial success, his occasionally cult-like followers, etc. That's completely human, but it needs to be acknowledged. 4) I also think that blanket "objective" dismissals of his work, dismissals of his contribution to his music (ie "group X works in spite of his playing"), or the even stronger suggestion that he's an (artistic) phony are BS. (The obvious implication of these arguments is that the many people who seem to genuinely love his music are 'wrong'.) 5) Many of the "objective" criticisms directed against his music could easily be directed at other more "politically correct" pianists or musicians. (For example, Jarrett vs. Herbie's gospellisms. Or Jarrett vs. Byard on the eclectic nature of their playing.) 6) Hopefully if any other musician came under unfair criticism on this board, I'd act in exactly the same way. Guy What he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 (edited) If what Guy is saying is that a lot of the criticism directed towards Jarrett is of the "piling on an easy target" type that blindly ignores his very real talents, but that by no means all of it is and that some is totally valid, then yeah, I too agree. All the "Jarrett sucks" rhetoric - and its been around for decades now - is just a little too much. The guy definitely has "neediness" issues though. He's still not the consistent posessor of what would generally be considered a "healthy" psyche (I doubt that none of us are, but with Keith it's a matter of degree). This is hardly news. I like his music best when the distance between it and the "neediness" is at its greatest. I will say this, though. When everything is clicking, the guy' phrasing can be freakin' sublime. When everythign is clicking... Like I said somewhere else, I have - and enjoy - a lot of Jarrett in my collection. But I've paid full price for none of it, and that seems just about right. Edited July 19, 2007 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Basten II Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 g_d, guy, if you have the same passion in the bedroom that you do for defending keith jarrett you must be a v incredible lover! Yikes. If I came across as some sort of Jarrett "fanboy" that was definitely not my intent. To summarize: 1) I have no problem if someone dislikes Jarrett's music. Different strokes and all. I personally don't like all of it, as I'm sure you can find out if you comb the archives. 2) I have no interest in defending Jarrett the person. He's a putz. 3) I do think that people's opinions of his music are affected by extramusical factors (as you can see from this thread) -- his obnoxious personality, his pretentious blatherings, his financial success, his occasionally cult-like followers, etc. That's completely human, but it needs to be acknowledged. 4) I also think that blanket "objective" dismissals of his work, dismissals of his contribution to his music (ie "group X works in spite of his playing"), or the even stronger suggestion that he's an (artistic) phony are BS. (The obvious implication of these arguments is that the many people who seem to genuinely love his music are 'wrong'.) 5) Many of the "objective" criticisms directed against his music could easily be directed at other more "politically correct" pianists or musicians. (For example, Jarrett vs. Herbie's gospellisms. Or Jarrett vs. Byard on the eclectic nature of their playing.) 6) Hopefully if any other musician came under unfair criticism on this board, I'd act in exactly the same way. Guy Amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny weir Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 I would pay good money to someone to yell "Freebird!" at one of his shows (er, "concerts") just to see Jarrett's reaction. Yep. But personally I'd prefer Whipping Post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randyhersom Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 I'd pay better money to hear him give it a go, in either case! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Dryden Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 Very simply, I love Jarrett's playing and can live without his humming/singing along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clifford_thornton Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 Mostly I don't care, but the first record on Vortex is pretty good. A few obvious Bley knock-offs, but what can you do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 Mostly I don't care, but the first record on Vortex is pretty good. A few obvious Bley knock-offs, but what can you do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.