Bob Mintzer is one of the greatest musicians I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. His level of proficiency on his instruments, composing/arranging skills, and insight into the core of music, and art in general, is truly amazing. Those who don't know him or his work can read more about him in on his website. The comments below re the OP's question are from the "Blog" page in his website:
***********************************************************************************
Grammys 2013
February 12, 2013 6:14 pm
When I was doing session work in NYC I worked a few times for an arranger who played in the big bands of Glenn Miller and Tommy Dorsey. Most of the guys on the session were 15-20 years older than I. I had some quasi-soloing to do on one of the cues for a soap opera session with these musicians. The arranger commented privately to one of my friends later that he was perturbed that I did not play more like Al Klink from the Glen Miller band. The guys from my generation were emulating Sonny Rollins, John Coltrane, and Joe Henderson. This arranger clearly heard things differently than I did. Needless to say, I was not called back to work for that arranger again after that. I did go out and did some research on the saxophonists of that era subsequently.
I am finding myself in a similar situation today after having attended the Grammy celebration last night. Only this time I am on the other end of the spectrum.
I feel like we were witnessing the further dumbing down of music, the lack of acknowledgement of so much of the profound music that has influenced what we do today, and disguising the lackluster level of musicianship we heard in a mass of glitz, special effects, special sets, and camera work.
First the good news. The Grammy bands, comprised of high school students from around the US were by far the best musicians to perform all day. They played with an amazing level of maturity, poise, and spirit that bodes well for the future of refined, informed playing. Justin Dicioccio and Ron McCurdy did fantastic jobs directing the big band and vocal ensemble. Bravo to them and all the students!
The live band at the pre telecast was great as well. My bandmate Will Kennedy from the Yellowjackets was on board. I couldnt see him, as we were pretty far away, but I heard one snare drum crack and knew it was him.
On to the telecast which, Im told, had the highest ratings of any Grammy telecast for the last 20 years. To me (music is VERY subjective and personal, so this is an important caveat) nobody in the whole telecast sang or played their ass off. There were a few nice tunes, but the live versions were far less compelling than the hyper-produced versions you heard during the announcements of the nominees. TO ME most of the music lacked subtlety, interesting harmony or melody, or rhythms for that matter.
There was no James Brown, Ray Charles, Tony Bennett, James Taylor, John Mayer, Stevie Wonder, or Aretha Franklin anywhere in sight!
One of musics iconic treasures, Dr. John was buried in a large band with the Black Keys and a New Orleans brass band that wound up sounding like a high school garage band jam session. I did not hear Dr. John play one note! Its unfathomable to me that musicians would play with such a great musician and blatantly play right over him.
A tribute to Dave Brubeck, an American musical hero, lasted 30 seconds (Chick Corea, Kenny Garrett, Stanley Clark), and was such an amazing slight to this great artists legacy and to jazz music in general. This made things embarrassingly clear that the Grammys have become all about television ratings and very little about the music.
The so called collaborations (arent you supposed to collaborate on a collaboration?) were very mis-matched, and again the performances were pretty bad.
Out of tune singing and mediocre playing of instruments do not a collaboration make!
The songs were forgettable.
Lots of other little things were disconcerting as well. At the pre telecast an 8 piece faux chamber music group performed a Phillip Glass in odd meter like piece that was not terribly interesting, then went on to win a Grammy. Hard to understand. Jazz musicians do far more interesting things with odd meter coupled with improvisation.
A Gil Evans arrangement from 1949 won best arrangement of a composition over several of the most prominent arrangers of this era. One would think that some note worthy things nave happened since 1949.
Music and art generally reflect some level of what is happening in society.
This years Grammys is a pretty good snap shot of the world we live in. Recognition and prosperity for a select few and the dissemination of information that doesnt necessarily reflect the truth, frequently obscuring view of those who do the best and most profound work.
All we can do is continue to speak out on these issues and keep the flame alive for quality playing, live playing, the craft of musical composition, and informed musical decisions in creating our art.
I think Ill go listen to some Al Klink!
******************* |
I have had an interesting and eye-opening experience concerning "pop" music over the last several months; "pop", as defined by what gets a lot of radio play. The only radio that I listen to are the jazz and classical stations in the NYC area. I have been spending a fair amount of time doing landscaping and other outdoors work at a weekend property in upstate NY far from any major towns and I listen to local stations while I work. The choice of radio stations is very limited and my choices are either current pop or country/western; there is classic-rock station that is difficult to pull in most days. I have never liked country music (to put it mildly), but the surprise for me has been how much better contemporary country music is than the vast majority of current "pop" music. There is no comparison when it comes to how well songs are crafted or the level of musicianship and singing. Most of the pop that gets air play is pretty dreadful IMO, while I find myself actually enjoying much of what I hear from the country music stations. I almost can't believe I am saying that, but it's true. |
I must admit that I am shocked! No, really, I am amazed that musical drivel like the recording on the link to "Does THIS suck?" can be thought to do anything BUT suck. Call me uncivil, arrogant, pompous, elitist; whatever. It is musical garbage, and I thought it was a joke. I really don't mean to offend anyone, but "nice beat"?, "nice sax"?. Really? Repetitive rhythm produced by a drum machine, simplistic and out-of-tune saxophone, and really poor singing. If that doesn't suck, how does one judge the good stuff. There, I said it; it sucks!
As has been pointed out, music reflects the times. We live in a time when standards are being given less and less importance. It is much more important to be "open minded", and to have a strong sense of what is good and what is bad (or what is right and what is wrong), to judge, is looked down upon. I think that is unfortunate, and is a big part of the reason that there is so much bad "pop" music today. Before anyone gets up in arms about my lack of civility, I would like point out that the OP asked "why does MOST new music suck?". He didn't ask "why does ALL new music suck". Of course there is good new music (pop/rock per the OP), but if we answer the original question the answer is a definite yes. |
****Do you think that the great melodies of the past would not exist had those who wrote them not done so? They simply beat everyone else to the punch. There are no punches left to punch.****
I find that to be a strange statement. The great melodies are a reflection of a given composer's musical personality. Many of the great melodies are clearly identifiable as being by Mozart, Bernstein, Bacharach, etc. Are you suggesting that had Bernstein never lived someone else would have come up with "Maria"? |
I guess that's one more to disagree about.
"Writing about art is like dancing about architecture" - Laurie Anderson |
|
Bingo! (to the extent that I agree with the statement) |
****For me, it's progress, even if the results don't move me very often.****
I don't understand that comment. |
Mlsstl, I truly don't understand the relevance of your historical examples in this discussion. About this, and your use of the dictionary as a reference, we will have to agree to disagree. But, I find this comment particularly interesting:
****There are plenty of well regarded critics who will explain to those who wish to listen just how progressive and important rap music is****
Since when do music critics determine which music will be "important" in music history? There are many examples in history of works, now considered masterpieces, that were panned by "well regarded critics" when premiered. I do agree with the critics that rap is progressive and important; but, that still doesn't make it good music. Its importance is not defined by it's inherent quality (or lack thereof) as an art form. |
I find the definition of "progress" as presented above to be typical of the way that "progressives" often justify a stance. The definition, as presented above, is conveniently incomplete. Here is the complete definition:
++++n
1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See Synonyms at development.
4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm.
intr.v. pro·gress (pr-grs) pro·gressed, pro·gress·ing, pro·gress·es
1. To advance; proceed: Work on the new building progressed at a rapid rate.
2. To advance toward a higher or better stage; improve steadily: as medical technology progresses.
3. To increase in scope or severity, as a disease taking an unfavorable course.++++
Notice two key aspects of the complete definition that were omitted:
++++Steady improvement++++
++++To advance toward a higher or better stage; improve steadily++++
I realize that "better" can be considered to be subjective, but then we return to the issue of standards; a good thing.
No one (not I, anyway) is looking for acquiescence re what is good music or what sounds good. Everyone is free to like what they like ((Duh!), these discussions are a great way to share ideas, and serve to minimize complacency and hopefully inspire others to rethink their viewpoints.
****For me, the gear makes it possible to get lost in music and if it's great music, all the better.****
I find it interesting that the music should be presented as taking the back seat to the gear. Good sound is great and it can be a lot of fun to enjoy it simply for the sake of good sound. If that is one's goal, that's great. But, personally, I would be much more inclined to consider someone's viewpoints on the music if the music is always in the front seat. |
Rok, I can't speak to the CD sets, but I can tell you that the Mosaic LP sets are generally very very good. |
Wrong thread, sorry! But Rok, I think you're out there. |
|
Rok, do it! You only live once. And if it is anything less than "good", I'll take it off your hands. After a small discount, of course ;-) |
****The dilemma artists are faced with today is finding good original melody. There's simply none left****
Ah, not so; at all. The well is bottomless. The problem is not the potential of music; a great melody is not "found". The problem is the "artists". |
Excellent post, Emailists; I agree with all your points. |
|
Rok, it is as if you wrote my post for me. I am still waiting for examples of what others consider great current pop music. Not to argue about it (although there may or may not be disagreement), but with honest interest. |
Mapman, thanks for sharing. I like the some of the production values, although I don't feel the song (by itself) conveys the horror and violence of war with it's modern-musical-theater sensibility; and I am not sure it stands up well without the video. The use of vocal harmony is effective, but I find the solo vocal performance to be average with some intonation problems. Overall, a little bubble-gummy for the subject matter. From the standpoint of the music (not the subject matter) with its use of layered vocal harmonies, for me it falls broadly in the same category as this (and a much better composition): http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ9rUzIMcZQFor a song with video that both stands well its own and conveys the ugliness of war: http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=c20-fm_WNewStill, I enjoyed it, and no it doesn't suck. Thanks. |
Acman3, if those comments were directed at me, I think you don't give my open mind enough credit. I liked the Ben Harper a lot, the Jayhawks I get and like but wouldn't go out of my way to listen to, and the Sparklehorse I couldn't download; I will follow up.
For the record, since I don't go out of my way to purchase "pop" music, as I said before I gauge what is "popular" by what gets radio play; and my comments have everything to do with that.
But, man, seriously, if that Roberta Flack performance, with all it's nuance and outpouring of emotion doesn't do it for you..... :-) |
|
Ok, I am going to try to, as Mapman (?) said earlier, "blow the whistle". I think this thread has a lot of potential, has inspired some very thoughtful commnents, and is just starting to get good. As is usually the case with these discussions we don't stay "on point". We don't stay focused on the OP's question and go off on tangents that don't address the ORIGINAL question. The OP made it very clear that his question refers to "rock and pop" music, and goes on to mention ROCK AND POP artists that he "grew up with"; that strongly suggests radio play. He then asks a perfectly legitimate question: "Why does most new music suck"; IOW, why does most new ROCK AND POP suck? Not, fusion, not jazz, not rap, not classical; ROCK AND POP. Chazro, your advise to visit music sites is an excellent one, but your overall post perfectly illustrates my point. First of all, implied in that advise is the notion that posters on this site don't add value to a discussion such as this. You then decry the "insult" of dissenting opinions, but proceed to refer to the OP as "having limited musical acceptance level", that his original question is "ignorant", "silly", "bordering on stupid", and that he is "close-minded". Then you go on to completely agree with his original premise: "New POP music absolutely sux!" Huh!?!? First of all, the cries for "civility" are plain silly. I have seen nothing written so far that is not civil, and it seems that the complaints about lack of it or "insults" come from those not being directly addressed in those "insulting" comments. I think we are all big boys and girls and can handily deal with comments such as "sucking lemons". Is it not a good thing that discussion of music inspires some passion? Are we that thin-skinned? I hope not. IMO, the point that (once again) gets lost on some is that good music is good music; regardless of genre. There is good in any genre. Personally, I have no idea wether Goose likes jazz, classical or rap; frankly, as concerns his OP, it doesn't matter! He is asking about Rock and Pop, and decries what he perceives to be a decline in the quality of Rock and Pop; a perfectly reasonable observation. The reasons for the decline (remember: "Why does new music suck?") are very interesting and could be the subject of great discussion and debate. I think this discussion has scratched the surface of the answer, and musical examples of new and old are a great way of learning about good new Pop music, and for refreshing our memories of how good much of the old Pop music was. Not because of wanting to live in the past, nor because some of us are old (56), not because we are close-minded; simply because more of it was good. What makes good music good? What makes good musicianship or artistry? It has nothing to do with genre. I think that, unfortunately, some of us are quick to pass judgment on the quality of certain artists simply because their music is not in a preferred genre; or, at the very least, let our genre preferences color our feelings about the quality of the music. Conversely, music that is in a preferred genre gets less scrutiny and more of a pass. No one is suggesting that we should all like every genre of music; but, what I think is undeniable, is that anyone who considers him/her self a "music lover" should be able to appreciate great musicianship, great singing (really the same thing), great compositional skill, regardless of genre. Example (and obviously, I am showing my bias here): the Roberta Flack recording that I posted. One may not like the genre, but how is it possible to not appreciate the great singing, the nuance, beauty of expression, and outpouring of emotion in that performance even if the song may be considered "sappy" by those with "edgier" sensibilities? I cannot think of a pop vocal performance that has gotten consistent radio play over the last ten years that I would put on the same level as concerns the above criteria. I admit that I don't follow pop music closely, or at all, so that is where Rok's challenge comes in: I want to be proven wrong! I think that the point that the OP is making is that performances of that quality were much more a part of the pop-music landscape than what we have today. Not that there is NO new good pop/rock, simply that the overall quality has declined a great deal. For me, that is undeniable. It may not be for others, and I would love to hear examples that might convince me otherwise. But, "I like this" does not a discussion make; tell us why. Remember this? This was a HIT on the Pop music playlists in the '70's!!!??? I find that to be incredible when put in the context of what gets played today. One may not like the genre (actually, I don't, particularly) but if the compositional, instrumental and vocal skill cannot be appreciated, then something is wrong. What gets played on the radio today that is anywhere nearly as adventurous while still using traditionally accepted musical criteria? Doesn't suck! : http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tdu4uKSZ3M |
Rok, stick around; as Ray said to Betty: "Baby, it's cold outside" |
Martykl, re Amelia Curran: now we're talking! Thanks. Actually, my wife will love her; I'll check her out. Amelia, that is; my wife, I have already checked out :-) Doesn't suck! http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vMw9hte8IHs |
I seldom disagree with EVERY point made (except the one re Rok's style) in a post. That was one of them. Sorry.
****Musicianship is irrelevant to this question****
Geez!
A great composer is, by definition, a great musician. Please explain your comment. |
****It seems useless to me to spoon feed someone music deemed good by one person. As has been pointed out, individual preferences abound naturally. Seems like a pointless effort.**** - Mapman
****I have near zero hope that Orpheus or Frog will like, or even consider my suggestions.**** - Toodnkaya
Not at all! It is natural to be at least a little complacent in our individual world of preferences. I think its a good thing to know that not everyone shares our point of view. Its also natural in these threads to want things to be a love-fest of agreement. I can't be any more clear than I have been and I will say it again: I WANT TO BE PROVEN WRONG. Now, the facts: out of, maybe, half a dozen examples of the "new", I said I liked two, one I liked a lot (Curran), the others I didn't particularly dislike but wouldn't go out of my way to listen to, one (the first) I truly disliked. Not that my likes should matter to anyone but me, but it sure doesn't sound like "zero hope"; does it? Unless, of course, you know enough about what I consider good, and don't have enough faith in your own choices.
I'd like to go back to something Rok said, and it's a feeling that I share. It's often (not always, obviously) the ones who profess to be the most open-minded who are quickest to put a negative spin on things: "seems useless to spoon feed", "zero hope that .....will like or even consider". And, lastly, let's try do more than just say "I like it". I look forward to your list, Todd.
I'm all ears! |
And they think we are close-minded. Ah, youth! |
Rok, beautiful song, and Oleta Adams has a beautiful voice with a lot of different colors and great phrasing. Music like that is a breath of fresh air in its lack of pretense, as opposed to so many other examples that seem to be trying so hard to be "unique". |
Toddnkaya, thanks for introducing me to Ben Howard. Of all the examples of "new" music so far, probably the only that I would definitely buy. I think the guy really has something to say, and a really interesting voice and singing style. Great stuff. |
Obviously, not all new music is rock n roll, but one of the things that I miss (and I have a feeling it is one of the things that Goose also misses) is this kind of raw abandon and "I don't give a f&@k attitude": http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0WzG64syKHA |
Ohnwy61, thank you for the link.
I am trying, really trying; trying to find meat in a lot of this music. It's just not there. I listened to #1-10, and, frankly, almost couldn't stand it. That list is important to this discussion because it goes to the core of the OP's question re popular new music. The "best" 150 tracks of the last 15 years; according to NME.com. I confess that I have no idea what/who NME.com is; but after listening to #'s 1-10, I frankly don't care to know.
Conceptual value is subjective to a much greater extent than sheer musical skill. There are certain things about musical skill that are simply not up for debate. The fact that drummer A can play a groove so hard that it can make one forget about how good the beer tastes, only makes drummer B sound that much more like a garage band drummer; even if he is part of a conceptually "artsy" band. So, we can disagree about what is good conceptually, but in my book there is not much room for disagreement about musical skill. One can disagree about wether Hendrix was a better (or preferred) guitarist than Clapton, but not about the fact that they both deserve to be in "the best" category.
I like the Amy Winehouse cut, and I admit that it is the only tune that I had heard previously. She had a soulful, if very one-dimensional, voice. I find that pop singers like her garner a lot of attention, at least in part, because it is such a relief, in the overall scheme of pop music, to hear a singer with some real grease.
I liked The Libertines cut. Pretty interesting voice and concept, but unmemorable instrumental playing.
The Strokes held my attention with their concept and a pretty good singer, but the playing is embarrassing. Listen to that drummer; nothing going on.
This one just blew me away. That bullshit such as the cut by "Hot Chip" should garner the # 7 slot in a "best 150" list leaves me at a loss for words.
It has been said many times; that music is a reflection of the times. I believe it is really true. I find a lot of this music to have a common thread that mirrors what I think is a sociological force that is much more prevalent today than in the past. To me, when I listen (and watching videos makes that much more obvious) to a lot of this music there is a sense of narcissism evident. "I am good because I say I am good". I don't think so! Please notice that I said "a lot", not all. The music appeals to a younger generation (duh!), and likewise reflects something prevalent in today's younger generation. I am the father of two boys; I know.
Maybe there are some gems in the other 140, but I need some time time to recover for the first 10.
Thanks again; sincerely. |
|
Not yet, Todd. Soon; thanks. |
Toddnkaya, been checking out The Raconteurs. I was aware of Jack White from a few White Stripes performances that I had heard by chance. My thought was always: "that kid deserves a much better drummer". But then, it wouldn't be The White Stripes; would it? Kinda the way some are quick to point out how Ringo was not a great drummer, when in fact he was THE PERFECT drummer for THAT band.
Anyway, Jack White is one talented dude! He's got "the thing"; a true artist. Really good band "The Raconteurs". Man, they can ROCK! Interesting writing and really good playing. Thanks for another recommendation that works for me. |
We bend over backwards trying to find meaning in today's popular music, when the problem is that, as always, the music is simply reflecting life. In an earlier post, Orpheus10 was chastised for pointing to the politics and social movement of the times as important forces; he is exactly correct, those cannot be taken out of the equation. There will always be well crafted music; but, that does not great music make. It has nothing to do with wether it might be rooted in the blues or not. One can write (compose) a great poem (song) about Mickey Mouse; but, it's still just Mickey Mouse.
What made a lot of classic rock great was not just how well crafted much of it was, but also, and most importantly, how relevant the subject matter was. Even if the subject matter was, say, love, it was very new (revolutionary) to speak (sing) about love/sex with so much abandon and openness. Today, that's all old hat. We live in a society with much complacency, smugness, and COMFORT on a level never seen before; we take a lot for granted.
I am very hopeful, however. I am hopeful about the future of pop music because the problem is NEVER music's potential for greatness. First of all, I don't subscribe to the idea that the font of great melodies has run dry; it is a bottomless font, and that is the very meaning of CREATIVITY. More importantly, the forces that inspire greatness in pop music will come roaring back and hit creative artists in a big way. It is highly ironic that in spite of example after example of the failure of social trends that this country is currently flirting with, we continue to head straight for that inevitable disappointment (to put it mildly). THAT inevitable disappointment, and subsequent revolution, is what will ultimately inspire greatness in artists again. |
Again, all the calls for open-mindedness and non-judgment are commendable; up to a point. Expressing a viewpoint, and more importantly, explaining that viewpoint in a way that is meaningful is not the same as being judgmental of someone else's tastes. It's simply an expression of MY tastes; and if someone is offended by that, I would say the problem is with that person's insecurity in his own tastes. Of course, as Acman3 say, it's all OK. But, if I say a certain music sucks (BTW, I think the Iggy Pop cut sucks, big time) I am saying that it sucks for me, not that the individual who says it also sucks. This notion that we should only speak about music if we happen to also like it, or if we happen to agree with someone's comments seems a little ridiculous, unproductive, and close-minded. What commentary, then, is allowed if one truly does think artist A sucks? Oh wait, I might offend someone if I say that! Seems ridiculous, no? |
****44 years from now they'll be saying the same thing. ****
I'm not so sure. Throughout history, there have been particularly great periods of creativity in the arts; and also particularly stagnant periods. |
****"Doomed to what?****
Doomed to not being open to letting musical tastes grow and evolve. Not simply being open to new music in a given genre, but open to other genres that offer music created with more sophistication and a higher level of craft. We love our rock and roll (I do), but the undeniable truth is that classical, jazz and some ethnic music offers far more substance, sophistication, and if one is open to understanding these genres on a high level, just as much of the visceral feeling that good rock and roll does.
A true music lover sees (hears) no boundaries. Music is music. A cliche for sure, but there are only two kinds; good and bad. |
****I can accept Count Basie's records sounding awful, but not contemporary bands' that have at their disposal the most advanced recording technology and still release ear-bleeding music****
Some of Basie's records sound awful for a lot of the same reasons that some of today's records sound awful; lack of care. It was not because records from that era could not sound fantastic; I think we all know that many do. I find that there is a direct relationship between quality of the music and tolerance for inferior sound. IOW, the better the music (Basie) the more I am willing to accept inferior sound. What does that say about the quality of much new music that one may not be able to listen to because of inferior sound? |
Actually, I think that there have been some good recommendations (particularly from Toddnkaya; IMO). You can compile your own list from these.
Now, sound quality. I think you may be looking for the impossible. Personally, I don't think it is possible to expect sound quality that is anywhere near up to audiophile standards from an "artist" such as Pink. This is not meant to offend, but, artistically, there simply is not that much "there" there. While not every truly good artist has been recorded with stellar sound (duh!), I think it is much more common to have a good sounding recording of good music than of mediocre music. This should not be surprising since an artist who is discerning will insist on better production values. Additionally, we run up against the "aesthetics gap". Music (artist) that relies more on attitude vs substance will tend to have a certain aesthetic re sound quality that doesn't jibe with audiophile tastes. IOW, those cymbals that will saw our ears off is exactly what the producer wanted. Remember, the expectation is that most Pink fans don't have audiophile quality gear. |
The subject of our age relative to our perception of some music's quality has been mentioned a couple of times, but has been given short shrift. As we age we (hopefully) become more discerning and mature in our tastes. We also tend to become more cynical. The focus on the perceived decline of the quality of pop music is ultimately pointless and, in a way, self-serving and potentially limiting. As Don_c55 points out music (all art) reflects the time it was recorded or performed in. Pop music, by definition, appeals primarily to the young as they ARE the time; it is their time. Every generation produces quality art, as defined by how well it reflects the time; wether we like what the art says or not is a different matter. We may not be able to relate to it because it is not our time, or it may be harder to find due other changes in our culture. But, it's out there to be sure and we should see this as an opportunity to explore other music genres, current and from the past, that are not "popular", but are music that is more sophisticated and mature; as we are supposed to be. |
