| LearnJazzPiano.com archives: Medeski | |
| onimousomnibus -- 05/10/2005, 22:10:10 -- #13703 | |
| I just wanted to bring up John Medeski cause some of y'all said that you didn't think he was that hip a while back...I think he is awesome, not only in his playing but also in his ability to control sounds (Listen to some of his Moog and Clav stuff) Sure he doesn't play like McCoy Tyner, but hes got his own voice and style. I think that he could rip Mehldau and Moran new assholes...just my thoughts | |
| asteffen -- 05/11/2005, 02:13:32 -- #13704 | |
| know him but never listened to one of his albums. Any recommendations ? | |
| Mike -- 05/11/2005, 04:24:03 -- #13706 | |
| I like some of Medeski's stuff quite alot, but to put his ass in the same class as Mehldau is bullshit. | |
| jazzwanabee -- 05/11/2005, 11:03:03 -- #13715 | |
| Curious. What do you find wrong with Moran and Mehldau? I am not a defender of either one of those guys. I am just curious to know what the beef is. | |
| onimousomnibus -- 05/11/2005, 14:35:57 -- #13722 | |
| check out lunar crush for some crazy fusion...Most of his albums are more hip hop than jazz, but MMW did some more jazz type stuff earlier on. I don't have any beef with Mehldau or Moran, I just think that Medeski has a cooler sound. Mehldau's music may be more complex harmonically, but it doesn't have the same amount of originality in my opinion. I think to make truly unique music these days you need to really combine a lot of styles. When Monk and Powell played Bebop and Jazz it was fresh, cause they invented it, and that's where its at. I think that its time for somebody to push the style in whole new direction, and Medeskis doing just that. Plus I love the Wu Tang...give me a break im only 19 | |
| onimousomnibus -- 05/11/2005, 14:38:09 -- #13723 | |
| I meant the Bud and Monk invented Bebop, not jazz...At least they did a lot on the piano side of things | |
| sdm -- 05/11/2005, 15:49:29 -- #13726 | |
| That's a good point. My teacher said something interesting the other day that got me thinking -- "jazz is a very conservative art form.” That wasn’t the case when Powell and Monk were doing their thing was it? For myself I haven’t heard all that much that is new and different and really moves me like earlier stuff. I guess that makes me conservative too at least in this realm (not a characterization I’m comfortable with!). | |
| marksdg -- 05/11/2005, 17:30:34 -- #13729 | |
| Whether jazz is a conservative art form (does not change much over time) really depends on what you define as jazz. I think in general, music has not changed a lot over the last 10 years. Is there anything out there today that would not have been made 10 years ago, in any genre? There are always individuals with original ideas, but I don't see any new movements in music. | |
| Dr. Whack -- 05/11/2005, 18:36:34 -- #13731 | |
| As far as jazz is concerned, I would say there has been nothing new in the last 30 years or so. I feel like jazz was a period that we now try to reproduce, much like any other period; Baroque, Classical, Romantic, etc... I guess we could also say though that jazz can be broken down into periods - blues, dixie, bebop, cool, fusion and now smooth jizz... So where does this Medeski guy fit in? Maybe he is part of a new era? | |
| onimousomnibus -- 05/11/2005, 22:02:54 -- #13734 | |
| My sentiments exactly Dr. Things may seem dead, but there are sparks out there. Its cools to emulate a style (especially if its a really hard one), but I think the true spirit of jazz is innovation. What I would do if I had the chops of all these wankers... | |
| Dr. Whack -- 05/12/2005, 00:16:57 -- #13735 | |
| I'm not really choosing sides and I wouldn't call any of these folks "wankers" - just playing devil's advocate I guess. I've only heard one Medeski tune and it didn't seem very inovative to me, new era or not:) Not all eras are good ones - hehe - like 80s pop - yuck! | |
| hepcatmonk -- 05/12/2005, 01:15:59 -- #13736 | |
| I don't know. I like Medeski okay, but I don't know how innovative it is. A lot of it is emulation of older soul and funk playing styles, and combining hiphop and soul idioms in sometimes jazz contexts? I don't know. I don't find it particularly innovative...there are a lot of other people that do what Medeski Martin and Wood do better. I was definitely not impressed by their latest album. I don't think Medeski's improvisation is THAT good...certainly not on the same level as the other players you cited. To be perfectly honest, whenever I hear his playing, I am bored. Brad Mehldau, on the other hand, though, blows me away. Contrary to what you say, I think he is REALLY original and interesting. You know his introduction to All the Things You Are on "The Art of the Trio" volume 3 or 4? That's so unusual, innovative and compelling in a way that Medeski always leaves me cold. One aspect of Medeski that is good though is that he introduces a lot of listeners to jazz that might not have listened in the first place. Anyone who gets more people interested in this amazing music is a positive player in that respect. | |
| Jazz+ -- 05/12/2005, 01:51:03 -- #13738 | |
| I agree that Medeski is not especialy innovative. He's does the old edgey funk fusion layed with solos based on showing off his agressive chops. I'm also bored by his shows and left one of his jam-fests before it was over. | |
| onimousomnibus -- 05/12/2005, 01:51:42 -- #13739 | |
| I disagree stongly that he is not good...The new album is pretty standard, but its geared towards a certain audience. Im not saying that Mehldau or Moran is a wanker (I'm talking about people that I personnaly know) and I have great respect for their music. In a balls out soul match i think Medeski would make them look like overtaught tightasses...and hes got just as much schooling. I hear what you are saying about his recordings though, one chord jams get old very quick. Out of curiosity who is doing this style better? I guess I can sum up my whole argument by saying that I can listen to Monk and then put on some MMW and it doesn't make me feel depressed. that is not the case for of the others | |
| onimousomnibus -- 05/12/2005, 02:08:02 -- #13742 | |
| Getting away from piano players for a sec, try and compare Pat Metheny to Jimi Hendrix. Pat Metheny is way way better at the guitar. But Hendrix is still the king and always will be. Sometimes how you say something is more important than what you are saying. Frisell, Fiuczynski (another pol) and Sco are all keeping style alive I think. | |
| Dr. Whack -- 05/12/2005, 10:25:47 -- #13747 | |
| I don't think anyone said Medeski is not good. Most of us just don't feel he is innovative. Why would anyone compare Pat Metheny to Jimi Hendrix? Because they both play guitar? That's kind of like comparing Bill Evans to Rick Wakeman don't you think? | |
| onimousomnibus -- 05/12/2005, 10:55:26 -- #13751 | |
| I listened to a lot of Mehldau last night...He is an excellent and creative player who could burn my asshole closed. That said, I still feel like Medeski has a more dynamic voice. He is expanding the Jazz pallete to a whole lot of new sounds and styles. Most of Mehldau's music could have been made 50 years ago. If your not convinced by his B3 freaking listen to Notes From the Underground (which came out when I was 6) | |
| Scot -- 05/12/2005, 12:56:40 -- #13753 | |
| In the mid 90's, MMW put on a really nice show. Their music had sparks flying, they were innovative in as much as they were creating a music out of three people, but one mind. After a while, MMW lost the edge. Their music turned predictable, noisy, and lost that spark that it had before. They became formulatic. You know what's going to happen now when you listen to them. This is the exact reason I retired my funky/acid jazz band, Chico's Paradise- the music was losing it's spark, we were playing stuff as if there were a path we had to take instead of searching out new frontiers all the time. MMW make some nice music and certainly know how to lay down a thick groove, and back in the mid 90's they had something neat going on. But now I don't listen to them or go see their shows. Either I'm past what they do, or what they do isn't as good as before. Medeski isn't expanding the jazz pallette to new sounds, though. They just picked up where 70's jazz rock bands left off, a version of acid jazz or something. Listen to Chase, Blood Sweat and Tears, and bands like that. The rhythm section and organs are the masterpieces that Medeski studied to get his sound. There's even some old Jimmy Smith stuff that gets as funky as MMW. John Clayton said this: When you're into a player, be sure to do some historical research on that player. Find out who he listens to, who his music idols are, who he patterns his stuff after. Always do this research because then instead of saying something like, "Medeski is the best" you will know exactly where it is that Medeski got his stuff from and then you can point to that source and say, "Medeski is damn good at what he does. It's a good thing so-and-so was around so Medeski could get some inspiration and learning material." I recall when I was going off about Monty Alexander back quite a few years ago. Talking him up like the next Art Tatum or something. Then someone said to me, "You like Monty, eh? Why don't you check out some old Nat King Cole trio recordings and some Ahmad Jamal?" I checked that stuff out and realized Monty got his stuff from Ahmad and Nat (among others of course). So I started listening to a lot of Ahmad and Nat and heard all those seeds of music that Monty has grown into a garden of his own, but he wouldn't be where he is without Ahmad and Nat. I think that's the moral of the story for the day :) | |
| Jazz+ -- 05/12/2005, 15:19:37 -- #13758 | |
| Well said, Scott! Regarding, Monty , I've always felt he took more from Oscar Peterson than anyone. | |
| Dr. Whack -- 05/12/2005, 15:56:38 -- #13761 | |
| yeah, but no one has Oscar's touch:) | |
| Scot -- 05/12/2005, 16:26:43 -- #13763 | |
| It was John Clayton who told me Monty loved Ahmad and Nat, but any pianist who enjoys that kind of music would of cours steal stuff from Oscar- he wrote the book on pentatonic licks and how to make 'em sound cool. | |
| onimousomnibus -- 05/12/2005, 17:24:16 -- #13766 | |
| i agree Scot...Medeski took a lot from Jimmy Smith, Doctor Lonnie Smith, and other B3 masters. He also took a lot from Jan Hammer esque fusion styles. I mean everybody copps shit from other people, thats sort of the way people get their own sound. Ive been to a couple recent MMW shows ( including a free improv show which kicked ass) and they get down man. Aside from Medeski, Wood is solid as hell, and Martin has got lots of World influenced stuff going on. Its funny that you brought up Monty, cause i recently got into an argument with my guitaring playing friend when I told him that Monty is a lot tastier on the piano than Medeski. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. | |
| Scot -- 05/12/2005, 18:07:48 -- #13767 | |
| Well, you can't judge art or people's tastes in art because it is, as you say, in the eye of the beholder. I guess that's why some people paint their houses watermelon pink. | |
| Mike -- 05/13/2005, 04:11:25 -- #13776 | |
| What a silly thread. i am surprized someone did not start tying to claim Keith Jarret is better than Jerry lee Lewis. | |
| 7 -- 05/13/2005, 12:28:45 -- #13792 | |
| Keith Jarrett is definitely a better singer than Jerry Lee Lewis. | |
| Dr. Whack -- 05/13/2005, 14:04:52 -- #13797 | |
| But no one can tear up a piano (literally) like Jerry Lee Lewis - well - maybe Jamie Cullum? hehe Silliness is good for the soul:) | |
| Ole -- 05/14/2005, 16:05:25 -- #13830 | |
| Is Jamie Cullum a good player? Haven`t heard much of him.. but isn`t he more of a singer/entertainer? | |
| 7 -- 05/14/2005, 18:30:24 -- #13834 | |
| That depends on your personal definition of what entertainment is. Some people think bullfights are entertainment, others define them as torture. Also what you mean by "singer"... | |
| onimousomnibus -- 05/14/2005, 23:07:32 -- #13838 | |
| everybody needs a good wank from time to time...do you go weedly weedly we OR deedly deedly dee? (this is the difference between the jazz wank and the rock wank)...smashing a bench though thats some crazy shit...at least it wasn't the grAnd, my out of tune upright would cry | |
| Dr. Whack -- 05/14/2005, 23:33:29 -- #13839 | |
| >>everybody needs a good wank from time to time<< now that's poetic:) | |
| Copyright © 2005 by Scot Ranney. All rights reserved. | |
| Click Here for more information about performances and clinics. Click Here to sign up for Scot's music announcements. | |