Marian said >>Within the context of Kenny G, he might be playing saxophone better than he ever played before - to the best of his ability. There is value in that effort at perfection. << Fred said >>Why, for instance, almost 200 years after his death, do most of us still agree that Beethoven was a great composer? It can't only be because a lot of people simply dig his music ...<<
now me: If we look at people who write words instead of people who write and play music, then perhaps we can ask, and provisionally answer, another, related question. "What's the difference between writing and literature?" Answer- "Literature (the big L is important) is what gets taught in school/university" (in preference to other stuff which is written but not considered worthy of being taught). Artistic judgments are made, obviously, but the argument is about the criteria used when making these choices. In relation to literature, at least in the 'west', we have what Harold Bloom refers to as 'The Western Canon' and this canon is chosen by a very small number of academics, based on whatever criteria they decide is relevant. Thus if, say, Mike Pritchard, were considered an important and / or influential author by Malcolm Bradbury, David Lodge, Frank Kermode etc (in the British context; substitute Bloom, Said, Sontag, Culler etc in north america) then his work would appear on the curriculum at the universities where they teach and thus successive generations would study his work, doctoral theses would be written about him and his work, and these doctoral students would, once they get tenure, specialise in the teaching of his works. Thus successive generations etc. The publicity snowball effect works here too. The book reviewers are frequently influenced by what the academics believe to be 'worthy' books (after all, the reviewers are often the same academics) therefore elevating the sales of the books (frequently written by their colleagues) and reaching a wider audience. Thus we have a nice little mutual back-scratching mafia saying wonderful things about each other's novels. Look at the nepotistic and incestuous (do I go too far?) novels and reviews by Amis, Hornby, Barnes, McEwan and others in the british arts scene. I'm sure jonilistas in the US and Canada can think of similar cases over there. I'm not saying there are people in the canon who don't deserve to be there, or that the canon excludes people who deserve to be in - this is a much longer and complex argument - but the point is that some are in and some are out, some are good and some not so good. Unfortunately there will always be people who are unhappy with what is defined as literature, and often rightly. To try and tie in Fred and Marian's arguments I would agree with both of them up to a point. Beethoven has lasted because he is a canonical composer; he has entered the pantheon of composers, and has achieved all the 'solidity' associated with the metaphor. Many people would name him as an important composer or as their favourite composer without knowing much more than the opening motif (is it sacrilegious to say 'riff' here?) of the 5th symphony, or 'Nessun Dorma' as sung by Pavarotti, best known to brits from the 1990 soccer world cup. Many people would instinctively screw up their face at the name Stockhausen and Schonberg (AO accents omitted) yet would be hard pressed to say when they have heard anything by these composers. The reputation (and what is fashionable) is all. 'Land of snap decisions, land of short attention spans, nothing is savoured long enough to really understand'. People don't have enough time or inclination to do the work, they base their artistic criteria on Sunday Supplement reviews and decorate their coffee tables with the flavour of the month. How many times have we heard people talk of the works of Toni Morrison, James Joyce, Heinrich Boll and Julio Cortazar (AO) when they have only, at best, a superficial passing relationship to their work? Remember Woody Allen's scene in 'Annie Hall' about Marshall McLuhan? There is so much bullshit about that it is wonderful to read people on this list who have taken time to get under the surface of the work. Thanks for enlightening me / the others. Kenny G may 'technically' be a very good musician (damning with faint praise!) but lacks something; call it soul, call it feeling, call it what you want but whatever it is, it's not there when you hear him play. Michael Bolton singing like Marvin Gaye is another example. Technically, I suppose Bolton is a good singer (what do I know?) but he leaves me cold. Some players are 'inferior' but have 'it'; maybe 'emotion' is the word. I love Miles Davis and happily accept that there are other, better players than Miles but he does it for me. Think of the absurdity of those comparisons of the fastest guitar player. When I was a teenager everyone talked about Alvin Lee of Ten Years After as the bees knees 'cos of his speed. Well, speed isn't everything, but put that speed together with technique and 'feeling' and you have the makings of a great guitar player. I'm thinking here of Albert Lee but jonilistas will be able to choose their own favourites. Marian, Kenny G may be able to play better now than when he was younger and may be putting more effort and 'art' into his playing and that effort does have value, but for me he is objectively and subjectively inferior to Wayne Shorter, Jan Garbarek and Courtney Pine to talk of only three current soprano players. One of my all-time musical highlights was listening to Wayne Shorter and Herbie Hancock's quartet playing here in BCN in around 1994. They played a piece without bass or drums, just the two of them, a very slow, tender, beautiful piece of music which was as perfect as music can get. If I ever reach that state of bliss again I'll be very happy, and I'll let you know about it. I can't imagine Kenny G, the Jeffery Archer of Soprano players, even getting close. Sorry this was so long, it's a long weekend here and there's nothing worse than someone with opinions, a modem, and with time on his hands. mike NP Jim Hall et al 'Concerto'
