Show Posts
1231
Local Forecast / Re: Independent Music Removal
« on: July 02, 2009, 12:10:11 PM »
Jazz Nazi. Haha. Love it! 
You're right, Jeanne. Jazz critics and traditional jazz fans are so narrow-minded when it comes to what jazz music is. What I find interesting is that they all say the same thing. It's like they're reading from the "Non-Traditional Jazz Hater's Guide Book." Take a look at a typical "review" by allmusic.com critic Scott Yanow.
According to Mr. Yanow, the backup musicians are bad because they stay "anonymous." Um, isn't that what backup musicians are suppose to do? I love his quote about how "potential radio airplay was obviously the main purpose behind the music." That comment is typical in his reviews. Apparently, Eric is an artist that wants to make money and get fans by having his music played on radio. Who does he think he is!? Seriously, what artist doesn't want airplay, fans, and a steady paycheck?
And what exactly is "a close listen?" You're either listening to the music or you're not. And fans will be frustrated because "Eric Marienthal is capable of much more." Really? Funny, anytime I've listened to (oh, excuse me..."closely" listened to) a song by an artist I liked, I either liked the song or I didn't. I've never been "frustrated" thinking they were "capable of much more." Sounds like something you'd say to your kid.
As for the originals being "forgettable." I agree somewhat. There are some duds on that album. But most albums are like that. But there are some songs that are memorable. Most of Yanow's reviews are like this. However, if you go to his website, he says that he "loves all eras of jazz and blues." Really!? You have a funny way of showing it. Look, I don't expect a critic to like all forms of music, but why in the world would you review a genre (or sub-genre) that you clearly loathe?
Not only does it make you look like a douche, but it's useless to those who do like it. I'd say about 90% of the jazz albums I like have scathing reviews. And they pretty much all say the same thing. "Predictable background music," "anonymous backup musicians," "clearly written for commercial airplay." Gee, thanks Mr. Critic. You've been really helpful. Now I know what to buy and what to pass up.
In addition to jazz being a business like any other genre, "jazz nazi's" don't seem to realize that jazz is a melding of genres. It's rock, it's R&B, it's blues, it's pop. Combined in various forms, improvised, and jazzed-up. That's why I have a tremendous amount of respect for Miles Davis. He understood both. He never stayed with any style for too long. He was always evolving and willing to try new things. Sadly, few artists have that mindset. They're comfortable staying where they are. Never really going out on a limb to try something new, at the risk of it being a flop.
While I have a lot of respect for Miles, I've never really cared for his music. You hear jazz fans all the time saying how "Kind of Blue" is one of the best jazz albums ever made. I honestly don't get it. Sure, it's thoughtful and "cool," but it's also rather dull. The title track, in particular, seems like it's just the same few notes over and over. The only Miles Davis album I like is "Aura." Which was one of his last recordings. I love it because it's unlike any album he ever did. In fact, it's unlike any album you'll probably ever hear! Especially "Yellow." Love that song!
You're right, Jeanne. Jazz critics and traditional jazz fans are so narrow-minded when it comes to what jazz music is. What I find interesting is that they all say the same thing. It's like they're reading from the "Non-Traditional Jazz Hater's Guide Book." Take a look at a typical "review" by allmusic.com critic Scott Yanow.
Quote
Altoist Eric Marienthal (who is also heard on tenor, soprano and baritone) plays well throughout One Touch but he is the only reason to acquire this disc. The backup, which includes keyboardist-producer Jeff Lorber, a few vocalists and guest appearances from pianist David Benoit and bassist John Patitucci, is mostly pretty anonymous. The originals are forgettable and usually fade out when the music gets too heated. With all of the selections clocking in between three-and-a-half and almost five minutes, potential radio airplay was obviously the main purpose behind the music, which is consistently commercial, accessible, mildly soulful and very predictable. At best, One Touch succeeds as background music but a close listen will frustrate listeners who know that Eric Marienthal is capable of much more.
According to Mr. Yanow, the backup musicians are bad because they stay "anonymous." Um, isn't that what backup musicians are suppose to do? I love his quote about how "potential radio airplay was obviously the main purpose behind the music." That comment is typical in his reviews. Apparently, Eric is an artist that wants to make money and get fans by having his music played on radio. Who does he think he is!? Seriously, what artist doesn't want airplay, fans, and a steady paycheck?
And what exactly is "a close listen?" You're either listening to the music or you're not. And fans will be frustrated because "Eric Marienthal is capable of much more." Really? Funny, anytime I've listened to (oh, excuse me..."closely" listened to) a song by an artist I liked, I either liked the song or I didn't. I've never been "frustrated" thinking they were "capable of much more." Sounds like something you'd say to your kid.
As for the originals being "forgettable." I agree somewhat. There are some duds on that album. But most albums are like that. But there are some songs that are memorable. Most of Yanow's reviews are like this. However, if you go to his website, he says that he "loves all eras of jazz and blues." Really!? You have a funny way of showing it. Look, I don't expect a critic to like all forms of music, but why in the world would you review a genre (or sub-genre) that you clearly loathe?
Not only does it make you look like a douche, but it's useless to those who do like it. I'd say about 90% of the jazz albums I like have scathing reviews. And they pretty much all say the same thing. "Predictable background music," "anonymous backup musicians," "clearly written for commercial airplay." Gee, thanks Mr. Critic. You've been really helpful. Now I know what to buy and what to pass up.
In addition to jazz being a business like any other genre, "jazz nazi's" don't seem to realize that jazz is a melding of genres. It's rock, it's R&B, it's blues, it's pop. Combined in various forms, improvised, and jazzed-up. That's why I have a tremendous amount of respect for Miles Davis. He understood both. He never stayed with any style for too long. He was always evolving and willing to try new things. Sadly, few artists have that mindset. They're comfortable staying where they are. Never really going out on a limb to try something new, at the risk of it being a flop.
While I have a lot of respect for Miles, I've never really cared for his music. You hear jazz fans all the time saying how "Kind of Blue" is one of the best jazz albums ever made. I honestly don't get it. Sure, it's thoughtful and "cool," but it's also rather dull. The title track, in particular, seems like it's just the same few notes over and over. The only Miles Davis album I like is "Aura." Which was one of his last recordings. I love it because it's unlike any album he ever did. In fact, it's unlike any album you'll probably ever hear! Especially "Yellow." Love that song!
