Brad Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 I was talking to a friend of my son's this past weekend. It seems he'd given up his business to study guitar and voice full time and he's now cutting a record. He mentioned to me that he was trying to do some jazz things on his disc and so we started talking about jazz. He mentioned that he'd listened to Wes quite a bit but when I asked him about Grant, I got a big questioning look. He'd said he'd heard of him but didn't know much about him and certainly never heard any of his music. This doesn't seem to be an atypical reaction. A lot of people seem to know Wes but not Grant or if they know them both, they certainly know Wes better. I'm not sure I understand why. The only reason that comes to me is that Grant's heyday was somewhat shorter than Wes' as Wes was operating from the mid to late 50s until 1968 whereas Grant made his mark from 1960 to 1965 (I don't see a lot of discussion about his later work). At any rate, I don't feel this oversight is warranted and while I enjoy both Wes and Grant, I prefer Grant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest akanalog Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 i feel like grant got a bit deeper though i think this was due to his sidemen. wes was put into a lot lamer commercial settings earlier on than grant was. but wes also never got to play on albums with larry young and elvin jones and bobby hutcherson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrome Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Wes kind of went the crossover/"sellout" path (depending on how you look at it) during his last recordings ... I'm sure this had a pretty significant impact on name recognition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alon Marcus Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Wes' career was short and I think he recorded less than Grant Green. It's seems natural to me that people know him better. Wes contribution to jazz guitar was immense. The way he produced his sound, the octave and chord solos. To me his lines sound more natural and singing than Green's. Grant sound is somehow "hollow". Grant was a good player but Wes was a genius. Grant too commercialized his music but he limited himself too much to blues licks. He sounds best with Lee Morgan ("Search for the new land"), Larry Young and Sonny Clarke but his solos even when good are weaker and less interesting than the others. It seems that Wes simply was better and much more communicative. Watch Wes' video with PC, Wynton Kelly and Jimmy Cobb. His face shines with a smile and so is his playing. Truly, I think he was a natural genius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidewinder Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 (edited) In addition, I suspect that Grant's profile has only increased significantly over the past 10-15 years, with some publicity resulting from his contributions to numerous BN sessions and 'acid jazz', including work used on remixes etc ('Windjammer' for one). Wes's profile peaked back in the late 1960s as a result of the Verve/A&M Creed Taylor-produced work and has stayed consistently high thereafter. I suspect that another factor too is that previously obscure but excellent BN releases by Grant are only just starting to be really appreciated by the listening community at large, as a result of the CD reissue programme. One case in point would be 'Idle Moments', which seemed to be something of an obscurity until the first BN CD issue. Edited January 5, 2005 by sidewinder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Wes had a good pr agent on retainer! I think very very highly of Grant, and I really PREFER his style and playing personally (just love the way he manages SPACE in his music) and I think Grant loved to plays as deeply as Wes did. . . . But as Sidewinder notes, Green's exposure has grown in the digital age, Wes had a bigger impact on the general public in the day, and I believe he had more success with his "crossover" music than Grant did. . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidewinder Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Absolutely, Jazzbo - Just as Wes was hitting the charts with his A&M albums, Grant was releasing albums such as 'Visions' and 'Live At The Lighthouse' which seemed to sink without trace at the time but are now very much sought after by the sampling merchants. I recall reading that even Madonna has sampled 'Windjammer' (taken from 'Alive', I think). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Fitzgerald Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Wes Montgomery died suddenly in 1968, very shortly after his "prime" - while Grant Green died in 1979, well past it. So it could be that Wes immediately became a dead legend and has had that kind of aura building for 35 years, while Green was kind of forgotten at the time of his death and nothing much ever changed. Agreed that Green's reputation has benefited from the reissues. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Wes Montgomery and Grant Green cds were among my first 10 jazz purchases in about 1992. I bought a best of Wes on Verve for "Bumpin' On Sunset" and Grant's Alive for "Down Here On The Ground." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etherbored Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 i love grant and wes equally, for differeing reasons. what can i say that hasn't already been said? for me, i feel that there's more meat on the bones of most of grant's performances, but there's not a single wes recording that i can't find something to love about. from the early riversides to the last CTI/a&m's. think about how their approach and style differ... wes with his fat round thumb-picked chords and grant with his uber-clean single line phrases. each reward listeners differently. of course we've always heard the pap about wes "selling out", but i see past that. grant was placed in a more commercial context too with the final comedown and his majesty king funk, both of which i love. as a young listener though, i was exposed to wes before i was exposed to grant. -e- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom in RI Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 I agree with ztraug22 that Wes is better known because his octave and chordal solos were considered an innovation (although you can hear examples of this in Django Rheinhardt's and Charlie Christian's playing from the 40's). Interesting observation from Mike F., Grant Green was clearly past his prime. What to make of Wes Montgomery's opportunities had he lived? No doubt with a large family to care for he would have continued to record the Creed Taylor produced sound but who knows what his live gigs would have produced? Maybe Wes would have been on Freddie Hubbard's First Light instead of George Benson (they were both from Indiana, right?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alon Marcus Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Well, just to clarify my point of view. Grant is a good player but I like many other guitarists better than him. I listened this evening to his collection on Blue Note (vol. 2) which contains some of his funky playing. "Windjammer" from "Live at the Lighthouse" is a good example. It's too fast for Green. It's not a matter of using space. Claude Bartee has the sax solo after him, for me he is an unknown but I like his solo more than Green's. GG is locked into some blues licks, he is not articulate, I can't understand and hear clearly what he is trying to say. There is a place where he starts to play fast lines. I think that George Benson could do these things better. GG is a good player, an important contributor to Blue Note sessions and an influence on guitarists but he is totally overpraised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 GG is a good player, an important contributor to Blue Note sessions and an influence on guitarists but he is totally overpraised. Before you make this blanket statement, how familiar are you with ALL of his work, and not just the later era that was mined for that Best of Volume 2 CD? Have you heard the sessions collected in the Grant Green/Sonny Clark Mosaic set? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alon Marcus Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 (edited) GG is a good player, an important contributor to Blue Note sessions and an influence on guitarists but he is totally overpraised. Before you make this blanket statement, how familiar are you with ALL of his work, and not just the later era that was mined for that Best of Volume 2 CD? Have you heard the sessions collected in the Grant Green/Sonny Clark Mosaic set? Yes indeed. Please read my previous post. I wrote that I like this session. I have the double cd not the mosaic box though. Now if you want to discuss this topic please try to listen to "Airegin" from this session. Do you like what he does to the theme? Sorry Dan, to me it seems he didn't study it well enough. Is there a single solo on that session from GG that is as sophisticated and delicate as those of Sonny Clarke? Important edit: Anyway it's just my opinion about Grant. There was a time when I totally disliked him and now I appreciate his works more. Maybe it's a matter of time. I just never understood the admiration of GG. I think there is a bunch of guitarists that are better than he is. I didn't hear ALL his stuff but listened to him a lot. I'll be happy to have recommendations and hear more of GG. Is there anybody who heard ALL Grant Green and ALL Wes Montgomery? Dan, as always it is probably just a matter of personal taste. Edited January 5, 2005 by ztrauq22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etherbored Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 and the fact that these two played in such varying settings is yet another testament to their enduring greatness, no? -e- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim R Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Wes kind of went the crossover/"sellout" path (depending on how you look at it) during his last recordings ... I'm sure this had a pretty significant impact on name recognition. The kind of "name recognition" you're talking about is the type that's associated with the average person "on the street". Wes' reputation in the jazz world was already well established (particularly in guitar circles) before he made the choices he did regarding making recordings that would help to feed his large family. I think ztrauq22 hits the nail on the head when he says "Wes' contribution to jazz guitar was immense". Grant's has been important as well, but Wes was already a legend long before Grant's work began to become more widely known. This occured in the early to mid-80's, after the release of "Nigeria" and "Matador" in the U.S., and those two plus "Oleo", "Gooden's Corner" and "Remembering" in Japan. Guitar collectors were clamoring for those LP's, and would often go around bragging about finding these as well as Japanese BN's with Grant as a sideman. When the Mosaic set finally came out, that was the icing on the cake. I agree with most of what's been said here... I love both players. Grant was a great "singer" of songs, and oh so soulful, but Wes was a guitar master (a genius) in addition to being a beautiful musician. These Wes / Grant threads (there have been a few of them over the years on various boards) always strikes me as a little odd. Why do folks always compare these two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alon Marcus Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 I think ztrauq22 hits the nail on the head when he says "Wes' contribution to jazz guitar was immense". What this expression means? Is it a good thing to hit a nail on the head? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim R Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 It's a good thing. I think you were correct- at least in large part- with that thought. Now, somebody answer my question. Kenny Burrell is just as important (if not more) to some of us!! B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Hey, I've heard all of Wes and all of Grant I think. . . . I would say that Wes has so much more technique, and Grant has so much more soul. . . . And soul wins out FOR ME. Just for me do I speak. I reach for Grant about 12 times more than I reach for Wes. And about five times more than I reach for Kenny! But that's just based on my taste and what I enjoy, what moves me most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 I think ztrauq22 hits the nail on the head when he says "Wes' contribution to jazz guitar was immense". What this expression means? Is it a good thing to hit a nail on the head? Consider the alternative - missing the head of the nail and hitting your thumb. Then see this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alon Marcus Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Hey, I've heard all of Wes and all of Grant I think. . . . I would say that Wes has so much more technique, and Grant has so much more soul. . . . And soul wins out FOR ME. Just for me do I speak. I reach for Grant about 12 times more than I reach for Wes. And about five times more than I reach for Kenny! But that's just based on my taste and what I enjoy, what moves me most. Soul wins for me too! I think that Wes had a lot of soul. His technique is personal and original but it doesn't mean he is merely a technician. Different strokes I guess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim R Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 I think that Wes had a lot of soul. His technique is personal and original but it doesn't mean he is merely a technician. B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 I didn't say it was JUST technique, or that he had no soul in his playing. But to me the technique outweighs the soul in his playing, the opposite in Grant's, and I gravitate that way. It's all just personal preferences after a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alon Marcus Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 No problem jazzbo. I simply disagree with you but then again there is a great quote I saw recently, though I can't recall exactly where I saw it: Hey, I speak for myself. For no one else. It's no one else's opinion here but mine. I'm behind it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted January 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 (edited) These Wes / Grant threads (there have been a few of them over the years on various boards) always strikes me as a little odd. Why do folks always compare these two? This was clearly not my intent although it may seem that way but why one seems to get more recognition than the other. I think Lon hit the nail on the head with Grant having a lot of soul. I just don't get that feeling from Wes. It Ain't Necessarily So stands out one of the most soulful and superb guitar performances I've ever heard. Edited January 5, 2005 by Brad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.