Jazz for aficionados

Frogman:
Frank Vignola is a guitar virtusos!! The guy is like the Maurice Andre of the guitar. I looked him up on Wikipedia to see his background. It ain't Jazz. As I suspected, he is a great master of the instrument and apparently teaches and publishes how to books on guitar playing. He is good enough to do that.

I listened to more of his youtube stuff to sort of get a context in which to put him. He has clips playing, Scheherezade, Beethoven's Fifth, and several Jazz Standards. Almost as if he is an exhibitionist. He is shown with some other guitarist at something called the Long Beach Jazz Fest. Not very impressive.

The bottom line is this, IMO, he is, as I said a virtuoso. He can play anything. Is he a Jazz guitartist? He has the skills for sure, the question is, does he have an affinity for the music?

Sweet Georgia Brown (SGB)
Could you subconsciously be under the influence of Django and people of his ilk. For instance, When I hear SGB, I think, Stephane and Django. I don't know why. After all, no one does it, or can do it, like Ella. It's that 'bounce' of the guitar. Makes me think that's the way SGB is 'supposed' to sound. Le Hot Club? But that's not correct. It can sound anyway the artist wants it to sound. I liked his solo and I liked the Quintet just as much.

Tiger Rag:

His playing on Tiger Rag was good. I listened to it again and appreciate it more now. I still think a duo of guitar and clarinet does not have the 'weight' to do Jazz justice. His solo on SGB was better due to the backing of Carlos Henriquez on bass.

The most I see him doing in Jazz is having a nice career in Europe or carve a niche for himself here in the USA as a player / teacher. Sort of like Grappelli.

As always, IMO.

Cheers

Rok, in NYC (and I am sure, in every major city) there are different scenes within the larger jazz scene and community of musicians. You have the be-boppers, the fusion guys, the "out" guys and, believe it or not, a vibrant retro swing scene; with guys like Peplowski and Vignola who specialize in the traditional swing repertoire. Of course, some of the players "cross-over" with various levels of success. FYI, Vignola is considered THE swing guitarist on the scene right now. He has his niche (as does Peplowski) and is most certainly a jazz player who is hugely respected by his peers.

I think one of the tricky issues with these discussions is that we tend to judge a player's ability, at least in part, by the player's visibility to the general music-loving public. Of course, a genre (swing) that is not the most popular at any given time reduces greatly that visibility of these players. That unfortunate reality does not, in any way, diminish their clout as players. Many of these guys are extremely dedicated to a particular style of jazz, no matter how unpopular or superseded by other styles it may be; and their command and understanding of the style and it's musical vocabulary is far superior than it often is to higher-profile players who may be considered "hipper" by the general public. Of special note is the fact that it is these "hip (per?)" musicians themselves who most respect and sometimes revere the niche players.

Frogman, I'd certainly consider Wayne Krantz to be one of the 'hipper' players, so maybe he lives in Soho but I don't consider him as un-deserving of his popularity. Yes, popularity doesn't account for musicianship, artistry or technique but it doesn't refute a musicians capabilities either. 'Money can't produce good poetry'. I suppose fame could erode integrity but ultimately an artist has a choice. The sad reality with all of the arts in this country is that it is underfunded and seen as insignificant unless it's able to sustain itself financially. The niche players will often maintain a higher level of artistic integrity but they're also more susceptible to burdening financial woes.

I said Soho, I should have said Chelsea.

Goofyfoot, why do I feel we need to argue, when there is no argument at all? You are reading into my comments things that I am not suggesting at all. Where do I say anything suggesting that the "hipper" players are not deserving of their popularity? I don't disagree with anything you wrote (I LOVE Wayne Krantz, BTW) with the possible exception of your comments re funding for the arts. That's a discussion about the politics of all this, and I think it wise to stay away from that one; or, at least, save it for another thread.

Vignola and Krantz are completely different players, and I suspect they would be the first to say it. When I say "hipper", I mean "in a more contemporary style", and not in a style that is a kind of throw-back to a what can fairly be considered a bygone era (swing). In the case of my comment, "hip" is a nod to popular vernacular. The truth is that in musicians' vernacular hipness can be found in ALL styles, retro or not. It is a statement about a player's mastery of an idiom, and ability to be inventive within that idiom; wether that idiom was popular 70 years ago, or on the cutting edge of the present.

****The niche players will often maintain a higher level of artistic integrity but they're also more susceptible to burdening financial woes.****

Often, but not always. Yes, susceptible to financial woes. But, many outside the music industry would be surprised at the level of financial success that players like Vignola enjoy. It is all relative. Is it the kind of success that the Kenny G's of the world enjoy? Of course not; not even close. I prefer to consider the Kenny G's of the music scene to be anomalies. These kinds of anomalies have always existed in the arts, and are pretty irrelevant as far as what defines the true merits of any art form; they are to be simply ignored.