Scott Hamilton on Ballads

[Larry Kart]

Furthermore, I've more or less enjoyed disagreeing with Dan. He's smart, experienced, and fair-minded --except when it comes to Roger Clemens, but then I agree with him there.

[Big Beat Steve]

Or is my appreciation of Scott supposed to be diminished because how some critic feels he stacks up against the 100 year history of jazz?

Only if you think you have to adopt someone else's position on this artist and make it your own. Otherwise, enjoy (or don't enjoy) him on your own terms and let somebody else be less enthusiastic about him on that somebody's terms.

Not everybody in the history of jazz makes groundbeaking or trailblazing music all the time and yet he can be enjoyed on his very own terms and YET people can exchange views about it. And nothing else is going on here, I think (or is anybody proselytizing for or against S.H. here? )

Reading this again I see Dan Gould's latest post and find I actually am saying the same thing. So I tend to agree with Dan. There is no universal truth in individual assessments like this. Even if the common consensus were that this artist is overrated, in the end it boils down to personal taste and to the eternal question of what one wants to see in the music involved.

[Dan Gould]

basically is putting your critical judgments ahead of everyone else's. Maybe you think the aural evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible but the fact is that other people hear different things when they listen to SH.

Wasn't the whole purpose of this thread to put Larry's opinion up front and center in the first place? If you're asking him his opinion, and he gave it to you, why are you saying he shouldn't be entitled to have his own opinion, or that it's not valid to him?

I haven't said that Larry shouldn't formulate and state his opinion. I thought I made that clear when I wrote

The problem Larry is that you have different ears than others. They aren't better, and they aren't necessarily more perceptive. You seem to believe that empirically, it is impossible to prefer Hamilton to X, Y and Z but that is simply not a sustainable premise. You already note that Hamilton has received a lot of praise. You give him virtually none. So everyone who praised him is wrong? I'm not saying that you are wrong, I am just saying that you hear differently than others. (emphasis added)

Furthermore, I've more or less enjoyed disagreeing with Dan. He's smart, experienced, and fair-minded --except when it comes to Roger Clemens, but then I agree with him there.

[Larry Kart]

But we are not talking about criticism of a specific artist, are we? We seem to be talking about how that player stacks up against the history of jazz. I'm not sure how anyone does that. Are we comparing old recordings against live performance? how is that done? Jazz is a performance art, sometimes preserved on records. Records are like a bad snapshot, dependent on the technology available, the particular engineer, the day,the time. So many factors. How does that compare against live breathing performance. Are you saying not to go see Scott Hamilton live because someone on a record 50 years ago did it better? Or is my appreciation of Scott supposed to be diminished because how some critic feels he stacks up against the 100 year history of jazz?

Well, sometimes we are talking about a specific artist. People who are interested in jazz tend to do that, no? And everyone in the history of an art in some sense stacks up against the history of that art -- in some sense. How can that not be the case, when all players flow in some sense from their predecessors and some others, like SH, make such manuevers a virtual hallmark of what they like to do? Also, my point in comparing SH with the surprisingly (to me, when I looked it up) youngish Ammons, Wess, and Foster, was that these are players who are not I think that far apart stylistically. It's not like I was comparing Johnny Dodds and Anthony Braxton. Loosen up, people.

[AllenLowe]

"basically is putting your critical judgments ahead of everyone else's."

how is he putting his judgments ahead of others? Is Larry demanding that we all stop listening to Hamilton or that he be arrested or his recordings confiscated?- no -

so in an ironic way, Dan, by making an accusation that implies that Larry has no right to his opinion, is doing exactly what he accuses Larry of doing -

[Tom Storer]

But we are not talking about criticism of a specific artist, are we? We seem to be talking about how that player stacks up against the history of jazz. I'm not sure how anyone does that.

Why can't criticism of a specific artist include comparing him to other artists? It seems unavoidable.

Are we comparing old recordings against live performance? how is that done?

I don't mean to be flippant, but you listen to one, you listen to the other, and you compare your reactions.

Are you saying not to go see Scott Hamilton live because someone on a record 50 years ago did it better? Or is my appreciation of Scott supposed to be diminished because how some critic feels he stacks up against the 100 year history of jazz?

When somebody expresses an opinion confidently, that doesn't mean they're denying you the right to your own opinion. I mean, Larry could indignantly say, "Are you saying I have to go see Scott Hamilton because you like his records? Or is my appreciation of Scott supposed to be augmented because some critic feels he sounds great these days?"

[Tom Storer]

And therefore, Dan is quite right in pressing his case and, I think, Larry has more of an obligation to support his, than other folks here would be expected to

Sounds like an accurate description of this thread.

[paul secor]

"so in an ironic way, Dan, by making an accusation that implies that Larry has no right to his opinion, is doing exactly what he accuses Larry of doing -"

I think there is a difference. I think if Larry was just an average schmo, nobody would much care. It would be a difference of opinion and nothing else: two friends sitting around with one sharing his experiences after an event, to paraphrase Larry. But Larry is not an average schmo. He is a professional, or semi-professional, critic. A published author with a book to his name. That means people listen to him, are influenced by him, and he is quoted and interviewed on his thoughts and feelings about the state of the art of jazz. The aw shucks, I'm just a guy with an opinion, is not really the case.

And therefore, Dan is quite right in pressing his case and, I think, Larry has more of an obligation to support his, than other folks here would be expected to, because like it or not, his opinion carries more weight, is more powerful, and in fact can inflict more damage to an artist's career than the majority of us could. To quote our favorite superhero: with great power comes great responsibility.

I'm not much interested in the topic of this thread, but I think that Larry has supported his opinions and has acted responsibly throughout it.

[Larry Kart]

"so in an ironic way, Dan, by making an accusation that implies that Larry has no right to his opinion, is doing exactly what he accuses Larry of doing -"

I think there is a difference. I think if Larry was just an average schmo, nobody would much care. It would be a difference of opinion and nothing else: two friends sitting around with one sharing his experiences after an event, to paraphrase Larry. But Larry is not an average schmo. He is a professional, or semi-professional, critic. A published author with a book to his name. That means people listen to him, are influenced by him, and he is quoted and interviewed on his thoughts and feelings about the state of the art of jazz. The aw shucks, I'm just a guy with an opinion, is not really the case.

And therefore, Dan is quite right in pressing his case and, I think, Larry has more of an obligation to support his, than other folks here would be expected to, because like it or not, his opinion carries more weight, is more powerful, and in fact can inflict more damage to an artist's career than the majority of us could. To quote our favorite superhero: with great power comes great responsibility.

Could be failing memory, but I don't recall ever being "interviewed on [my] thoughts and feelings about the state of the art of jazz." About supporting my opinions in this case, I think I've gone about as far as I can go. I mean, I'm beginning to bore myself.

[JSngry]

And therefore, Dan is quite right in pressing his case and, I think, Larry has more of an obligation to support his, than other folks here would be expected to, because like it or not, his opinion carries more weight, is more powerful, and in fact can inflict more damage to an artist's career than the majority of us could. To quote our favorite superhero: with great power comes great responsibility.

Now that is so much bullshit right there. A critic only has has much "power" as people let them have. And looking at the history of jazz, I think that overall, people go with what they like, not what they're "told" is good. Seeing as how Hamilton, Vache, etc. seem to be doing just fine in terms of their career - by your own declaration - I don't see how Larry's opinion is wielding any adverse "power" in this regard. I mean hell, look at all the "critical darlings" who can't get a gig, and look at all the folks that "the critics" hate who are living just fine, thank you.

Yet again, people who disagree are stigmatized as "irresponsible" or otherwise derelict in some form or fashion, and reality is attempted to be remade into the image of opinion. That kind of shit gives me the willies.

Edited March 13, 2008 by JSngry

[Aggie87]

And therefore, Dan is quite right in pressing his case and, I think, Larry has more of an obligation to support his, than other folks here would be expected to, because like it or not, his opinion carries more weight, is more powerful, and in fact can inflict more damage to an artist's career than the majority of us could. To quote our favorite superhero: with great power comes great responsibility.

Now that is so much bullshit right there. A critic only has has much "power" as people let them have. And looking at the history of jazz, I think that overall, people go with what they like, not what they're "told" is good. Seeing as how Hamilton, Vache, etc. seem to be doing just fine in terms of their career - by your own declaration - I don't see how Larry's opinion is wielding any adverse "power" in this regard. I mean hell, look at all the "critical darlings" who can't get a gig, and look at all the folks that "the critics" hate who are living just fine, thank you.

Yet again, people who disagree are stigmatized as "irresponsible" or otherwise derelict in some form or fashion, and reality is attempted to be remade into the image of opinion. That kind of shit gives me the willies.

You must be drunk.

[Peter Friedman]

Though I don't share Larry's views on Scott Hamilton, I find his comments and analysis highly interesting. He has not personally attacked Scott, but rather shared his judgement in a well argued manner. However, I don't find his arguments to be convincing.

There are countless musicians praised frequently on Organissimo who would likely fail the kind of comparison test

that Larry made when referring to Ammons, Foster, and Wess.

As I believe Jim said in an earlier post, the musicians one plays with and the spirit of the times in which one is playing can be highly critical.

I have heard Scott Hamilton live numerous times . It has been rare that his playing was, to my ears, less than delightful. There are not many tenor players around these days who play in that "mainstream" style. Most others I have heard playing "mainstream" tenor today are less interesting to me. What I hear from Scott is a sense of getting further inside the music he is playing as compared to his earlier recordings. Hamilton's playing has become more natural and relaxed over the years.

One definite exception would be the relatively recent playing of Frank Wess. I have found the tenor playing of Wess to be much more enjoyable in the last (roughly) 15 or 20 years than it was in the 1950's or 60's. Perhaps part of the reason is that in the 1950's and 60's there were so many excellent tenor players on the scene, but I also believe that Wess has also gained far more depth in his playing over the years.

Among those jazz tenor players currently on the scene, Scott Hamilton is among that fairly limited group of players that I would consider to be one of my favorites.

[mjzee]

I've enjoyed this thread. It seems to me that this thread has been about the act of listening - how we listen, and what we make of it. To the extent that Larry, Dan and the others have been able to articulate what is an intensely private process, I've found that valuable.

As for Bill, I think you're experiencing the disconnect between how much you enjoy an artist and hearing from people who genuinely disagree with you, with perhaps the added dollop of those disagree-ers being very persuasive writers. Sorry, but they're out there, and you can't stop them. But you can be content in your own opinion, and hope that you can persuade some others to agree with you.

Not me, though. I think Scott is pretty lightweight. But I do love Warren Vache.

[Tom Storer]

"As for Bill, I think you're experiencing the disconnect between how much you enjoy an artist and hearing from people who genuinely disagree with you,"

Cool. Maybe you can tell me where I said I enjoy Scott. And please point out where they disagreed with me.

I think you will find I never mentioned what I think about Scott's playing. I did mention however that I have a lot of respect for Warren Vache.

Maybe I should just put blank posts up and you can all fill in what you think I actually said.

Sort of like a 4' 33" on an online forum. The post is what ever you think it is.

Come on, Bill, don't be so thin-skinned. Are you drunk? (JUST A JOKE!) You implied that you liked Hamilton when you said:

"Or is my appreciation of Scott supposed to be diminished because how some critic feels he stacks up against the 100 year history of jazz?"

Besides, mjzee said "an artist," not "Scott Hamilton." Note that you didn't just say you liked Warren Vaché, you explicitly said that you were upset because Larry disagreed with you about him:

"I'm still bristling at some of the things I've read you say about Warren Vache"

[Dan Gould]

No wonder Scott has such a hard time on ballads:

[JSngry]

No wonder Scott has such a hard time on ballads:

Can ya' help a slow-witted bruther out on this one, Dan?

[Larry Kart]

No wonder Scott has such a hard time on ballads:

Can ya' help a slow-witted bruther out on this one, Dan?

Sultry...

[JSngry]

Oh... I thought is was something in the photo.

Hey, "Sulky Serenade" seems like a dandy title to me...for something...didn't cause me a moment's pause.

[Dan Gould]

"Moody silence" not being especially conducive to effective ballad playing.