dagblog - Comments for "The Big Keep (Or, Intellectual Property Blues: Hard-Boiled Edition)"

More sympathetic description

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:23:52 +0000

In reply to If I'd thought about it more

More sympathetic description of Armstrong's All-Star years.

I don't criticize John

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:02:57 +0000

In reply to If I'd thought about it more

I don't criticize John Denver, I don't criticize Eagles, I don't criticize Chick Corea. It's all music. I've had periods where I've liked most any style.

I think you do injustice to Louis Armstrong. He was 46 when he started the AllStars, big band was out of favor, his lips and fingers had medical problems, but he turned around a new show including focusing much more on his singing. Sure, it was more conservative and campy than his early stuff, but he was trying new styles, and more out there than Kenny G. (such as playing with Billie Holiday and Ella Fitgerald). And it wasn't until he was 63 that Louis recorded Hello Dolly (his only #1 record, but a letdown to jazz purists).

Plus, Charlie Parker only lived to 35, Coltrane died at 40, Roland Kirk at 42. Monk's career went downhill after 47 (and he only wrote 70 songs total). Miles Davis pretty well gave up at 48, only to have a short revival at 60.

As for Kenny G, my only real issue is still his overdubbing Louis, same as Metheny's. He backed up lots of studio recordings, no more annoying than a lot of sweet jazz in the 70's, etc.

Hmmm, apparently Metheny

ocean-kat — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:41:50 +0000

In reply to If I'd thought about it more

Hmmm, apparently Metheny really hates Kenny G. Of course K doesn't compare favorably with Parker or Coltrane, he couldn't and he's not trying to do the same thing. One can't really compare all the different types of jazz, that's 100 years of music. You can't even compare the "serious" jazz musicians. How would a dixie land player like Armstrong compare to an avantgarde player like Steve Lacy? Or a doo wop rocker with Lady Gaga?

The simple reality is the average listener doesn't have a trained ear sufficient to understand the most sophisticated jazz, just as I and most average "lookers" don't have a trained eye sufficient to understand why Picasso is a great artist. I'm happy that there are those who produce music for those who spend the time and study required to "get" the sophisticated and complex music. But they aren't going to make the kind of money that comes from appealing to either the jazz or the rock mass audience. And there has always been a strain of jazz that tried to appeal to that mass audience.

Sure as a music lover I wish there was more support for high quality music, just as I suppose visual artists wish the public had a greater appreciation of quality art and movie lovers wish the average public wasn't so entranced by bigger and bigger explosions and more brutal bloody murders in horror flicks. Alas, none of those is likely to come to pass.

What's amusing in metheny's defense of "the music of the man who is probably the greatest jazz musician that has ever lived" is in his time, for the bulk of his career, Armstong was Kenny G. Armstrong's first 15 years were so creative he virtually single handedly redefined jazz. the next 30 produced nothing new or creative for serious jazzers. He became a showman, mugging for the audience, singing all his most popular hits like Hello Dolly. and replaying the same fanfare like trumpet licks over and over again. Hard core jazz listeners ignore the last 30 years of Armstong's work as trivial. But if you ignore the first 15 his output is comparable to K G. Simple repetitive music for casual listeners. Show boating and schmaltzy emotionalism played directly for the entertainment of the audience. This isn't a personal opinion. Do some study and you'll find most serious jazzers agree with this assessment of Armstrong's decades long career.

Music is many different things to different people and there's a place for all of it imo. I can enjoy all the different forms without getting all judgmental. I can get into an improvised or memorized rock solo from songs like Hotel California without comparing it to Charlie Parker, Chick Corea or Dizzie Gillespie. I mean really, if one is going to get all uptight about it, the guitar solos in Hotel California don't compare any more favorably with the guitar solos of John McLaughlin than K G's pop/jazz solos compare with the serious jazz solos of Parker or Coltrane.

If I'd thought about it more

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:15:33 +0000

In reply to There are lots of light

If I'd thought about it more than 2 secs, I might have caught the mistake, but I was just blogging under auto-pilot.

I don't care what Kenny G does on his own - I like Top 40 & pop as well as underground music, and I learned long ago that people will like music I don't care for, and it's perfectly fine (especially when I don't have to listen to it - I'm over-sensitive to music torment) and occasionally I come to appreciate it later (examples like Elvis Costello or AC/DC).

I saw the ad for Kenny G's Louis Armstrong bit and thought it sucked. Whether I had the feeling it was an atrocity at the time, or got the attitude from Pat Metheny's interview, I don't know:

http://www.jazzoasis.com/methenyonkennyg.htm

(note: I have about as little use for Pat Metheny as I do Kenny G, but that's just personal taste, not an evaluation of the quality or aesthetics of his music. I used to even like fusion as played by some artists, but haven't felt that need in decades. Maybe in the right mood I could get into it, but I'd rather listen to something more driving and irreverent (NSFW).

There are lots of light

ocean-kat — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:05:37 +0000

In reply to My street cred loses nothing

There are lots of light jazz/pop players out there. Kenny G just happens to make a lot of money doing it. That makes him a good whipping boy for some of those with much greater ability who make less money. People who want to appear sophisticated echo that critique. Its akin to looking down your nose at people who read Harry Potter because, dammit, I read Shakespeare. Most musicians don't play that game. You like rock? There's not a single rock guitarist that can play at John McLaughlin's, or Joe Pass's, etc. level, not Santana or Beck or who ever you think is the best rock guitarist. Yet they all make more cash than McLaughlin. So why pick on Kenny G?

The sax overblows an octave, an eighth, so the fingering for a C will be basically the same in the low and middle register, with the addition of the octave key. The clarinet, a very unusual instrument, overblows a 12th. So the fingering of C is basically the same as the fingering of the G a 12th above it, with the addition of the "12th" key. As you are aware of if you play the clarinet. Whether metal, wood or plastic, the harmonic structure of an instrument that overblows a 12th creates a sound that is distinctive.

Actually I didn't know Kenny G did an overdub with an Armstrong tape. I don't listen to everything he does, but since I've never heard him play the clarinet I was intrigued. So I did a search and gave it a listen. He's clearly playing a soprano sax.

Either you didn't listen to the song and are just echoing some other musician's complaint or you can't tell the difference between the sound of a sax and a clarinet. Neither of which garners you much respect as a jazz critic.

My street cred loses nothing

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 05:15:47 +0000

In reply to You know, your brilliant jazz

My street cred loses nothing by not paying attention to Kenny G.

And I play a metal clarinet - not well - so likely I do have some confusion between the 2 instruments (while most people don't realize there are metal clarinets)

You know, your brilliant jazz

ocean-kat — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 05:01:07 +0000

In reply to I'm glad you see the horror.

You know, your brilliant jazz critique loses some cred when you can't tell the difference between a soprano saxophone and a clarinet.

I agree Ramona. Its not the

ocean-kat — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:22:08 +0000

In reply to I'm thinking as a writer. if

I agree Ramona. Its not the character that's important its the writer that created that character. I just read a "new Asimov" robot novel by some hack about the early life of Susan Calvin. Calvin was always one of my favorite characters in Asimov's robot novels. This new book stank imo. The Dune novels after Herbert died were crap. Most of the time when I read one of these estate sanctioned books they are just not nearly as good as those written by the original author. I think its just a way for some hack to sell a book riding on a great author's name with a payoff to the author's spouse, kids, estate. I imagine if I was an author I'd be happy to see my spouse or kids get a few bucks off my name after I died, if people are stupid enough to buy it. But with my experience with estate fiction I'd never buy one of those books.

What? No Carolyn Keene? Next

erica20 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:31:09 +0000

In reply to When Chandler's creation,

What? No Carolyn Keene? Next you'll be telling me that Laura Ingalls Wilder didn't write all the--oh wait, never mind.

The book market is constantly

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:52:19 +0000

In reply to Fair enough, G. But for

The book market is constantly growing, and specific genres trend up and down within it, but I don't see how broader growth will be be increased if older books come out of copyright. New Marlow novels will increase the number of Marlow novels and (if very successful) might increase the number of detective novels, but they won't have any appreciable effect on the number of novels overall. In any given year, publishers only produce a relatively fixed number of books. If they print a new Marlow novel, they are likely to choose it over another submission.

On the orphan point, I completely agree, but I think that copyright law is not the best place to address the issue. There are a tremendous number of orphaned books written in the past 50 years, well within even a reduced copyright window. What we need is a streamlined process for making out-of-print books available, presumably in digital form at a reduced cost.