Kurt Rosenwinkel - minor blues
Top Comments
All Comments (201)
-
Re: "Ok, well I disagree because a. I wouldn't class 1945-1975 as the "golden age" of jazz.." Read my post again; you omitted the word "modern" before the word "jazz." Jazz historians typically separate jazz into eras, i.e. modern jazz - as defined by the advent of bebop - started in the period 1940-45 and ended in the period 1970-75. That's what I meant by the "golden age" description.
Re: "So any achievement by any artist is contextual to the style." This is a non sequitur... and means ?
-
Ok, well I disagree because a. I wouldn't class 1945-1975 as the "golden age" of jazz, because I believe you would have to class the era of when it was popular as the golden age ( 20s 30s 40s and the 50s to a lesser degree.) Although my favorite era would have to be the 60's, it was all about pop and rock at that time. And b. because each style had their masters, eg. Armstrong in the 20s, Miles form late 40s to 60s and many others. So any achievement by any artist is contextual to the style.
-
Georgiaboy you have to right to have your own opinion of course. But I think the approach of remembering the old masters like they have already done everything and the good times have passed is a dangerous idea that will rob you from higher aesthetic and intellectual experiences. The fact is even Wes himself was worried in his days that a young boy named Pat Martino was playing ferociously fast and he might have to work on his thumb more. This explains a lot for me :)
-
That's my point: the golden age (c. 1945-1975) of modern jazz as a cultural and creative force has already come and gone. Will there be talented players in the future, and are there now? Yes, but their achievements will not and cannot supass the masters who came before.... that ground has already been plowed.
-
CaptainSpok wins!
Flawless victory :)
-
Ah I failed to read this part. Well what do expect me to say to this? We could go on and on about who is better and wouldn't get anywhere with the conversation. But what I can comment on is the level of respect and admiration Rosenwinkel has within jazz at the moment, with artists such as Brad Mehldau writing songs inspired by Rosenwinkel.
-
your*
-
Well I think you misinterpreted my response to your original argument. my point was that he is just as good as any of the old "masters" that I have heard. And you're point about people believing that the present is always better also goes the other way as well with some purists that believe that the era of Wes, Benson, Smith and even McLaughlin and co. will never be rivaled again.
-
(continued) But let's not kid ourselves that the every new artist is at the level of the greats of the past - because it isn't true. You want to hear greatness on jazz guitar, played by a modern player? Go listen to Henry Johnson or maybe Randy Johnston. From the past, the all-time greats from the modern jazz era 1940s - early 1970s will do the trick. Sorry, but Rosenwinkle isn't qualified to carry Wes' guitar case, let alone be mentioned as among the same elite.
- Loading comment...
Kurt is a great present for the moder jazz guitar world, nice to see how the jazz guitar sound evolved since Wes, Smith, Pat Martino, Pass, Benson, Metheny.. till Philip Catherine.
The mood is reached, now jazz can make people even fly.
Thank you for sharing
stopthatnoise 1 year ago 13
Kurt's playing displays a combination of two traits rarely found together in contemporary jazz: a highly virtuosic approach to the contour and content of his lines, as well as a keen ability to weave arresting and emotional melodic material into his improvisation. That he is able to incorporate a wide variety of harmonic and melodic ideas from both jazz and western classical music - all while keeping his melodic lines sensitive and organic - should inspire musicians at every level and style.
jeminikes 1 year ago 9