|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.211.121.229
In Reply to: RE: Saxes and fast licks..... posted by andy evans on January 18, 2022 at 11:23:28
Interesting that you bring up Michael Brecker. Ted Gioia recently blogged about Brecker--lamenting that despite other musicians (especially saxophonists) ravishingly singing his praises he is now virtually ignored by critics. So I Googled a bit and found the critical assessment of Michael Brecker (which I think is pretty apt) linked below.
Brecker was certainly an amazing technician and probably a very good person; I (and many others) never found him a particularly interesting artist. In my experience, musicians tend to be in awe of players with more chops than they have, and this speaks to the craft and professional aspects of being a musician. Saxophonist that come off of the jazz academy assembly line tend to revere Brecker; he was at the top of the quantifiable ladder of the jazz meritocracy that they as students are trying to climb. But artistry tends to be ineffable. How do you quantify an Albert Ayler or an Ornette Coleman. I know plenty of jazz college grads. who will tell you flat out the both of these great artists couldn't play their horn. Which is ridiculous; rather they chose to play in ways that made the standard criteria irrelevant. The jazz colleges teach jazz as a fixed body of music and musical practice, and this is at odds with the creation of art.
Follow Ups:
Though we rarely saw each other in his last 10 years, Mike Brecker was a friend. I met him soon after I moved to Manhattan in '71. I played in sax sections with him a number of times, especially in the '70's/'80's. I heard him play in his own groups and others' groups many times. I had lottsa hangs with Mike, of course including plenty of raps about music and saxophone technique as well as personal matters. As the article says, Mike was a great guy and EXTREMELY humble and unassuming.Mike doesn't need a "defense" from me, but I admit that article kinda bugged me. To each his own and obviously this ain't gonna change your taste or make anybody who doesn't care for Mike's music suddenly dig it, but just ponder something.....
Think about the looong list of killer players/musicians Mike played with, both in his own groups and even more telling the guys who asked Mike to play in their groups and on their recordings. Seriously, that list is loaded with some of the very best jazzers alive during that time. There's no point in arguing personal taste and its of no concern to me if some of you guys don't particularly care for Mike's playing/music.
But whuddya think, Gioia is a better judge than musicians like Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea, Horace Silver, Don Grolnick, Metheny, Hal Galper and the MANY other musicians who wanted Mike in their groups and on their recordings? Do you really think they were in the habit of asking players who were just imitators with no voice of their own and/or merely chopmeisters to play with them? Ya think the many excellent players who were fortunate to be asked to play in Mike's own groups just did it to make money? Ever heard/read one of 'em say things like what Gioia said in his article? Did the guys who participated in Mike's memorial at Town Hall know something Gioia doesn't? Liebman, Shorter, Metheny, Hancock, Buster Williams, Joey Calderazzo, James Genus, Jeff Watts, John Patitucci and Jack DeJohnette were there.
Just wanna comment about a couple things belyin said. I know a lotta saxophone players who like me attended music schools, including some who are much younger than me. I certainly know some who don't care for Albert Ayler's playing and some (though fewer) who don't dig Ornette either. But I've never heard any of the guys I know say Ayler or Coleman sucked as saxophone players (though that geezoidal mkVI guy whose ears have been destroyed by high pitched clarinet squeals might be one). It ain't like all young players who come outta jazz programs are only into chops or can't recognize the kind of chops players like Ayler/Ornette had. Ornette happens to be one of my fave players.
I'd also take issue with something else belyin said, to wit:
"The jazz colleges teach jazz as a fixed body of music and musical practice, and this is at odds with the creation of art."
That's probably true for some jazz programs at some schools. But as a musician I can tell you I personally know a lot of superb players who teach in college level jazz programs. In fact, a helluva lot of jazzers whose music you guys dig HAVE to teach to make a living. The list of great musicians who teach in college level jazz programs nowadays would take a long time to type. Their teaching is NOT at odds with the creation of art. Jeez, I'd think by now you've heard enough music by younger players who attended music schools in the recent past to know that blanket statement is not accurate.
Edits: 01/19/22 01/19/22
I have maybe 4,000 jazz records and just 1 Michael Brecker. His date with Hargrove and Hancock.
Early Brecker, before neck problems, is
great.
Hear him with James Taylor?
How about The Guerilla Band?
Can take Ayler in one minute segments...
I think he perfected the Double Teeth Emboucher.
Edits: 01/19/22
Sure, if I were producing a session and needed a sax player I and everyone else would call Brecker. He was a great session player and an excellent sideman if you liked his sound. My point is none of my favorite sax players were ever session players and almost never sidemen in their mature periods because I find iconoclasts and sui generis musicians much more interesting than just great players.
"My point is none of my favorite sax players were ever session players and almost never sidemen in their mature periods because I find iconoclasts and sui generis musicians much more interesting than just great players."
I agree completely with the above.
But there'a another point here. Rick knows a lot of sax players as people which is a whole other situation and one which sets him apart from those who only know the recordings themselves and have no personal connection. I know this myself because my job for over 30 years has been as a psychologist specialising in musicians. In my job I was completely uncritical of the 2,500 or so musicians I worked with - this is what's known as "unconditional positive regard" in coaching. So I really don't need to take any lessons in supporting my fellow musicians - I built my whole life around it.
But now I'm pretty much retired it's liberating to be able to speak freely. I have opinions just like anyone else does and I'm simply being honest about what I do and don't like. Some players I'm pretty passionate about and I've frequently posted tracks I love on the forum. If I didn't love music, why the hell would I have been a musician all my life? And of course other players leave me cold.
If we are not free to say what moves us and what leaves us cold without being criticised for "negative shit", what is the point in having this forum at all? So some of us are not fans of Michael Brecker and some of us find Miles' actual trumpet playing uninteresting, whatever great things he did in the wider context of his career. Deal with it.
nt
I too know many musicians--albeit not 2,500 plus, and live in the small musical world of New Orleans. The tight rope between being supportive while maintaining one's critical faculties is hard to negotiate. Now that my beard is grey I find it easier to say my piece; it is socially acceptable to be an old crank but never a young one. And a critical faculty is necessary for growth. I find myself wondering why many young musicians are doing what they are doing. I am happy to hear any of them have a clear answer, but even if they don't I think they need to see it as a valuable question. A straight up honest answer like "I take every gig I can get because I need to pay the rent" or even "This schtick is a bit of a hustle but it really gets over" offers a clarity well beyond playing just what they think is expected of them. As a listener, I want to hear people play music they have a deep personal connection too and not just making the changes or making the gig. No matter what the genre or form, if you don't make it your own I loose interest. As has been said many times, "All artist borrow, great artists steal."
If I'm not hip to them I'll check their music out.
If we are just talking about "iconoclasts" at the top of my heap would be Monk, Mingus, and Ornette. After that, in no particular order: Rashaan Roland Kirk, Coltrane, Miles, Sonny Rollins, Cecil Taylor, Lester Bowie, Misha Mengelberg, Michael Moore, Lester Bowie, James Blood Ulmer, David Murray, William Parker, Hamid Drake, Kidd Jordan, Carla Bley, Albert Ayler, Steve Lacy, Milford Graves, Eric Dolphy, Wadada Leo Smith for a start--plenty others as well.
It is obvious that we have very different perspectives, and as far as I am concerned that is totally cool--it is what makes a world. And to me, jazz is a world that contains multitudes not just one true path.
I like, own recordings by and listen to music by most of the musicians you listed. Surprised if you've been around this joint for a while and don't know that. I'm gonna reply more later. Gotta go food shopping.
I apologize; I think in part I was responding to someone else and it got crossed up with responses to you. A few points to your post above: Gioia was actually the one writing in critical support of Michael Brecker and wondered why other critics ignored him. I posted another writer to try to give an answer to that. And of course I did make a blanket statement about jazz education. I know plenty of amazing musicians who teach. (All great musicians teach in one way or another, whether in a formal institution or not.} I was thinking of the more narrow , almost "pre-professional" jazz programs of which our local program at the University of New Orleans (or at least did) exemplifies, where "jazz" is taught as a more-or-less fixed practice with a definite Marsalis/Crouch canon as opposed to more open ended music programs. This attitude is exemplified by a published local writer--a Stanley Crouch/Albert Murray disciple--who flat out told me Cecil Taylor was a fraud and that David Murray couldn't play a C Major scale to save his life. And I have had UNO jazz students tell me that Kidd Jordan couldn't read music--a man who taught music for 50 years, who played in the pits for every locally appearing Broadway show and artists like Tony Bennett and Lena Horn, toured with Ray Charles, and contracted horn sections for local appearances by Aretha Franklin and Steve Wonder--all because they couldn't relate to his full on free jazz explosion when left to his own devices. To me that is a put down and very different from saying I don't relate to someone as an artist no matter how great a player they are.
The late Chicago legend Fred Anderson who was a mentor to so many young musicians at his Velvet Lounge jam sessions would always say when some musician would complain about some one else's playing, "Well, that is just the way they hear it." We all hear differently, we all want different thing from musical experiences and that also changes over time and from day-to-day.
nt
I agree with pretty much every word of the link you provided.
Reassuring to find I'm not a lone voice in the wilderness. This may not be how other saxists see it, though, as the link says!
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: