TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
I'm pretty sure the ocean of difference between can't and being a master of something is that they are practically unrelated categories all together. Being a master of something implies a certain adeptness at doing something. Can't means one isn't able to do something. The only paradox would be if I said Paul chambers is a innovator of jazz bass that can't innovate in the field of jazz bass. Saying Paul Chambers is an innovator of jazz bass who can't (as in right now, not as in can't learn) or doesn't have mastery of tp is totally plausible. There's no way to measure human potential so I try not to base my influences on people's potential accomplishments. Otherwise we'd all be listing unborn fictional people as our major influences, since they have more potential then anyone who's been limited by the decisions they've made since birth.
I think it is ok to criticize the successful, even if one does not have a track record that compares. However, how much meaning others may put to our own opinions may be directly related to our own track record of success or failure. That is fine.
ie. I am not a professional film-maker... and I've never been in charge of anything with a $200 000 000 budget , but I absolutely have the right to say that "Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen", sucked as a movie. It was crap, even within the 'summer blockbuster, special FX, made for boys, mindless fun' genre. I watched it... it was not good. Do I have to be a professional film maker to critique it? Or even more strict, are only professional film makers who have been in charge of films costing more than $150 000 000 allowed to critique it? I say no. Not if we critique the final product on screen as a viewer. However, that small club of elite movie-makers who have been in charge of big-budget movies can critique Michael Bay's handling of the whole production process, in ways that the rest of us cannot.
I agree 100% and I suppose this is really the point of the OP. I don't think this particular critique of KJ is good (it sucked) but he(KJ) in not above being criticized even by the likes of us TBers.
-J
I am not really asking for an un-tempered flow of s$&t talking.
The primary issue is that music has no oversight. My opinion is that it needs some. I don't think what Shipp wrote is perfect, but it is start of some that could be positive for the music.
The music needs to be more important than these guys making expensive car payments.
Sorry to go off topic but this thread made me look up Keith Jarrett. I don't listen to Jazz so I didn't know who he is. I'm watching/listening to "Keith Jarrett Standard Trio" on Youtube. Again, I don't know anything about Jazz but I do like how this sounds. However, Jarrett's vocal noises are hilariously distracting. It sounds like Cartman from South Park.
and with the money they earned they prolly got lots extra, right?,..and hey, it's not like they ever mentor new talent either, or donate to causes they feel are important to their community and world.In terms of budget, for the price of one Jarrett show, you could probably put on a Paul Bley trio, a Cecil Taylor solo and a Bobo Stenson trio (mix and match your own favorites!).
I don't think he is worth that!
To quote/paraphrase the article, "[Keith is] not a music writer just an ***hole musician so don't put any weight behind his taste.
The point is Paul is amazing at so many things, but in the end, none of his output was in TP,