What album turned G. Benson over to the dark side?

[Big Beat Steve]

who said he EVER stepped over to the dark side?

Benson as jazz guy = bad mutha on a guitar

Benson as pop/R&B guy = great voice, great groove, wish he was more of a bad mutha on that guitar.

Nothing in there, as far as I can see, about any sort of dark side.

To me the problem seems to be that too much of that pop stuff was played and featured as "jazz" everywhere. I remember back in the 80s over here he was all too present in specialist jazz radio shows here but the stuff of his that noodled and doodled over the airwaves might have fitted in very well with easy listening pop stations (where it probably belongs) but not with jazz, not even in jazz programs that leaned more towards more "classic" jazz material (and not avantgarde).

THAT's the point ...

The music may have been fine for what it was meant to be, but could it be that even in the 80s by typical pop standards he just did not have a youthful and/or energetic enough image to fit in with pop/rock music that was supposed to appeal to the young'us?? :D Which would only have left easy listening programs, but he ended up on jazz programs again instead, and diehard jazzers over here probably resented this as much as they resent(ed) it in the States. It may have been wrong resenting the music for that because it probably never was meant to be jazz anymore, but then it ought not to have been aired on jazz programs in the first place.

Edited July 10, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Reading a good deal of this thred made me ask myself this question:

How would a similar discussion of WES MONTGOMERY have evolved if he had lived a lot longer?

(And this was before I came up to today's post from Jazzshrink that mentions Wes )

Indeed!

MG

[jazzypaul]

who said he EVER stepped over to the dark side?

Benson as jazz guy = bad mutha on a guitar

Benson as pop/R&B guy = great voice, great groove, wish he was more of a bad mutha on that guitar.

Nothing in there, as far as I can see, about any sort of dark side.

To me the problem seems to be that too much of that pop stuff was played and featured as "jazz" everywhere. I remember back in the 80s over here he was all too present in specialist jazz radio shows here but the stuff of his that noodled and doodled over the airwaves might have fitted in very well with easy listening pop stations (where it probably belongs) but not with jazz, not even in jazz programs that leaned more towards more "classic" jazz material (and not avantgarde).

THAT's the point ...

The music may have been fine for what it was meant to be, but could it be that even in the 80s by typical pop standards he just did not have a youthful and/or energetic enough image to fit in with pop/rock music that was supposed to appeal to the young'us?? :D Which would only have left easy listening programs, but he ended up on jazz programs again instead, and diehard jazzers over here probably resented this as much as they resent(ed) it in the States. It may have been wrong resenting the music for that because it probably never was meant to be jazz anymore, but then it ought not to have been aired on jazz programs in the first place.

I understand every word you're saying. But did George Benson put a gun to a music director's head and say, "play gimme the night you no good blah blah blah?"

Of course not.

Blame the program directors of jazz stations dumb enough to think that the guy who wants to hear Trane wants to hear Benson's version of On Broadway, too.

Benson was just playing some music (that I'm hoping) that he wanted to make.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

but then it ought not to have been aired on jazz programs in the first place.

I think I'm of the view that there shouldn't be jazz programmes anyway. When I was a kid, you could hear all sorts of stuff on the same programmes - classics, jazz, R&R, R&B, pop, comedy, gospel, country. That's the way to run radio - I can't see any merit in drawing lines the way people do.

MG

[Big Beat Steve]

MG; in the era ot Top 40 soundalikes I think it cannot hurt if at least a certain (minor, anyway) share of the programs retains a clear-cut musical profile aimed at a particular audience. After all, to this day this still is no problem with strictly CLASSICAL-MUSIC programs (at least in Germany and elsewhere on the continent) so why should everything else be lumped together all the time?

OK, I'd better bow out now before it gets too off-topic ...

[Christiern]

The "dark side" is the side you can't see--or, in this case, hear.

This might help...

[ghost of miles]

And no matter where you go, there you are.

(geez, what's next, Keep On Truckin'?)

Damn, you beat me to it, sir! That was gonna be my next well-worn pearl of wisdom (as opposed to yours, which have the sheen of true originality, insight, and thoughtfulness).

But along these lines, I always liked Ian Brown's (of Stone Roses fame) "It's not where you're from, it's where you're at." (And one of these days I gotta get around to finally finishing and sending you that cd-r.)

[paul secor]

Never had much of an interest in Mr. Benson - many other guitarists I'd rather listen to, and hundreds, perhaps thousands of other singers I'd rather listen to.

I have no problem with pop music, as long as it doesn't insult my intelligence or sensibilities. George Benson's pop music insults both of those.

[bluemonk]

George Benson can kiss my ass! I hate him and his music.

Well now. Tell us how you really feel.

Sorry, but his music is like Top 40 Radio minus the vocals. He might have been able to swing at one time, but he gets my vote for biggest sellout in jazz history.

Being a sellout would imply that he's doing it only for the money. History says otherwise.

So he's not doing it for the money? I think you're way off base here, Jim. Everything he does is motivated by money. It has to be. Listen to his music. It sucks!

I do things that are motivated by money, too. Does that mean I'm a sellout?

You do what you can do to make a living; he found something he was good at and could make money at and he stuck with it and made a whole bunch of bread. Good for him. It's obvious from bootlegs that I've heard and from the stories of people in this thread that he can still burn on guitar in a jazz setting. Does that mean he is required to do so by some strange obligation to jazz / guitar nerds? And if he doesn't he sucks?

The music business is extremely tough. I applaud anyone who actually has talent and musicianship for making it, however they can. Is Larry Goldings selling out because he's touring and recording with James Taylor?

You know you're right, Jim. Benson has no obligation to anybody. People like his music and hey if you're cool with him singing "On Broadway," then who cares what others think, right? Enjoy his crappy music.

I told people on here what I thought about him, so take it or leave it. I'm just expressing my opinion, and that's all it is, an opinion.

[jazzypaul]

I dunno. I think it's the height of arrogance to say that a guy sucks and that his music is crappy, when he could likely demolish most any of us on this board in a cutting session.

"I don't like his music." That's opinion.

"He sucks," means you're not listening hard enough.

Sorry.

[RDK]

I dunno. I think it's the height of arrogance to say that a guy sucks and that his music is crappy, when he could likely demolish most any of us on this board in a cutting session.

"I don't like his music." That's opinion.

"He sucks," means you're not listening hard enough.

Sorry.

Agree completely. Can't say I listen to Benson much these days, but as a jazz cat the guy can play and as a pop singer he's mostly entertaining as well. Can't fault a guy for doing what he (presumably) likes to do - and do well. Saying he sucks is also insulting to his many, many fans. I'm not a musician, but I strongly suspect that one of the joys of being a musician (an artist of any kind actually) is not just the satisfaction one gets from producing/performing one's own art but also from the reciprocation (and not just adulation) one gets from a receptive audience. If that makes him a "sell out" then I guess he's a sell out - and I guess most of the rest of us are as well.

[Jim Alfredson]

That biography should be required reading to anyone who bashes him. When he talks about getting people's feet to move and then being able to take them pretty much anywhere, he is spot on. When organissimo plays college bars, we start out with funky tunes. Kids nod their heads, some get up and dance, and by the time we pull out something in 7/8 or even a swing tune in 3/4, they are still with us, dancing and having a good time.

You have to respect your audience. Sitting up there and playing a bunch of heady music while thinking, "These people are morons; they don't understand my genuis or this awesome music," is certain death. Respect the audience and they will respect you. When we play a listening room or a club that is a "jazz" club, we do things differently.

It doesn't mean you have to dumb things down; you just have to approach things from a different angle.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

That biography should be required reading to anyone who bashes him. When he talks about getting people's feet to move and then being able to take them pretty much anywhere, he is spot on. When organissimo plays college bars, we start out with funky tunes. Kids nod their heads, some get up and dance, and by the time we pull out something in 7/8 or even a swing tune in 3/4, they are still with us, dancing and having a good time.

You have to respect your audience. Sitting up there and playing a bunch of heady music while thinking, "These people are morons; they don't understand my genuis or this awesome music," is certain death. Respect the audience and they will respect you. When we play a listening room or a club that is a "jazz" club, we do things differently.

It doesn't mean you have to dumb things down; you just have to approach things from a different angle.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

MG

[bluemonk]

I dunno. I think it's the height of arrogance to say that a guy sucks and that his music is crappy, when he could likely demolish most any of us on this board in a cutting session.

"I don't like his music." That's opinion.

"He sucks," means you're not listening hard enough.

Sorry.

As I said before, I don't like him and I'm just going to leave it at that.

[robviti]

i don't think "he sucks" necessarily means you're not listening hard enough. what it does suggest to me is that you think you have the right to judge him. "he sucks" isn't just an opinion, it's more like a final judgment. now don't get me wrong, i've said the very same thing about many people (stevie nicks, kid rock, kenny g,....), and i'll probably do it again in the future. what i try to say instead when i'm using my brain is "i don't like/appreciate their music" or "this stuff doesn't move me, or speak to me, etc." as jim pointed out, passing judgment on an artist that other people like is being disrespectful to an audience that just doesn't deserve it. it's one of the reasons why a lot of people think we're snobs, exerting more effort into putting other people's music down than we do in supporting the music we love. right or wrong, that's the reputation we've earned by letting other people know their music "sucks." that's just my two cents.

oh, and if you must pick someone to say "he sucks," then say "mark sucks."

take it from me, his friend. he does, and he knows it too.

[Teasing the Korean]

George Benson can has cheezburger, onest.

[RDK]

Where's Clem when you really need him?

[Big Beat Steve]

Suck or not suck, but is this what it's all about?

Have any of those who complan about this "George Benson sucks" opinion (lilke Bluemonk said, it's nothing but an opinion, however clear-cut or radical it may be) ever complained just as loudly about all those who generically state "JAZZ SUCKS"??

C'mon gents, it IS just an opinion, like it or not. For every "George Benson (or any other controversial musician) sucks" statement there is another statement that says this or that "(place name of any pop or easy listening artist here) is the greatest jazzman ever".

So what? No big deal.

@Jim Alfredson:

Respecting your audience is all very well (though the way you put it this does read a bit like "keep the cash register ringing" to me) but doesn't it mean that if an artist or a band is playing to a pop or easy listening audience and "respects" it by adapting to this audience's tastes they are actually making pop or easy listening and NOT jazz music? (As opposed to playing THEIR brand of music without any major concessions and winning them over anyway) Nothing wrong with that per se, but why not call a spade a spade?

Artists like this just have made the decision to leave one style (jazz in this case) behind and move into another style of popular music. It all falls into those categories that later on show up in discographies where an artist's recorded opus is included only to a certain extent within any given genre and (like Brian Rust used to do in his discogs) it then says "Other recordings by this artist are of no jazz interest" (and there were and ARE such artists).

I suppose if the money is right the artists concerned can live pretty well with this but jazzwise they then "suck" to some. That will have to be accepted too. Or else Kenny G and others like him would have to be right up there in the pantheon of the greatest jazzers ever because any stylistic identity that defines any type of musical style (and therefore obviously has to include some and EXCLUDE others) would be negated right from the start.

And to carry your argument one step further, would you say all that to Ornette Coleman too? Are artists like him just disrespectful, inconsiderate, arrogant snobs who kick their audience in the you know where with their music because they do THEIR thing and do not oblige to the public's whims?

[Jim Alfredson]

Ornette Coleman has a name. He can do whatever he wants. I'm talking about playing in the trenches, so to speak. In regards to organissimo, funk and danceable grooves are part of our repertoire and have been since the beginning, so we're really not making concessions. We just choose not to play our more "traditional" material until we've got the audience's attention, if we're playing in a venue that needs that approach. If we play a jazz room, we leave the funk until later.

It's pretty easy to see what's working and what's not in a room. You build the show around how the audience is reacting.

In regards to Benson, keep in mind that he was coming up after Wes, Burrell, Grant Green, etc. Just as he started to hit his stride and become well-known, jazz started to fall to the side. So here was a guy that could obviously play the shit out of the guitar, but could also sing his ass off, too and not just to be gimmicky. He truly loves to sing and R&B has always been a part of that for him. So what was he to do? Keep making straight-ahead jazz guitar records or explore another avenue, another side of his musicianship, a side that (luckily for him) has more commercial potential?

As someone else said in this thread, if all he had done were those straight-ahead records, we probably wouldn't even be talking about him.

[JSngry]

...doesn't it mean that if an artist or a band is playing to a pop or easy listening audience and "respects" it by adapting to this audience's tastes they are actually making pop or easy listening and NOT jazz music? (As opposed to playing THEIR brand of music without any major concessions and winning them over anyway)

Not necessarily. Choice of material & presentation are one thing, spirit of the music something else altogether. The former is a business consideration, the latter a spiritual one.

Those musicians who fail to grasp that have either incredibly strong visions or else a failure of imagination. The first group gets to be the Ornette Colemans of the world. The second gets to be the dark souls who bitch about what idiots the public is.

Listeners who listen to "style" without getting the "spirit" of any music also suffer from a lack of imagination, I think.

[Larry Kart]

That biography should be required reading to anyone who bashes him. When he talks about getting people's feet to move and then being able to take them pretty much anywhere, he is spot on. When organissimo plays college bars, we start out with funky tunes. Kids nod their heads, some get up and dance, and by the time we pull out something in 7/8 or even a swing tune in 3/4, they are still with us, dancing and having a good time.

You have to respect your audience. Sitting up there and playing a bunch of heady music while thinking, "These people are morons; they don't understand my genuis or this awesome music," is certain death. Respect the audience and they will respect you. When we play a listening room or a club that is a "jazz" club, we do things differently.

It doesn't mean you have to dumb things down; you just have to approach things from a different angle.

Interesting points, but let me come at this from another angle. Having heard Organissimo both live and on record, I've enjoyed all the various kinds of material the band plays (from the overtly funky to the more complicated) -- in part because you guys are just good but more important, in the context of this discussion, because you yourselves respect and enjoy the various kinds of music you choose to play. So I'd say that the key is (if you're also good): "Respect yourselves and the audience probably will respect you." Maybe that's the same thing as "Respect the audience and they will respect you," but maybe not. The latter approach, beyond the application of simple common sense (which as I'm sure you know will not at times turn out to be that sensible), seems to me like it might involve too much upfront tea-leaf reading, either by you or (if you have such resources, and this is where it can get tricky), producers, managers, promoters, and the like. In any case, having been a member of your actual in-person audience a couple of times, I never felt that I was being talked down to musically.

[AllenLowe]

I agree - but would add - when Jim refers to an "audience" I would cite Walter Benjamin, who has pointed out that there is no such thing - audience means too many things to too many people to cite it as a singular and specific entity - there are indeed audiences who like difficult and cerebral "heady" music; there are audiences who can listen to a Lamont Young drone for 45 minutes - there are some who would walk out; some who can only listen to vocals; some who can only listen to music if there is also a stripper along side (at least this is what 7/4 has told me he likes); point is, we have to avoid reverse-snobbery and anti-intellectualism and realize that there are a lot of different audiences out there -

Edited July 11, 2008 by AllenLowe

[RDK]

I'd suggest that most forms of music sound better with a stripper dancing alongside.

[JSngry]

Having heard Organissimo both live and on record, I've enjoyed all the various kinds of material the band plays (from the overtly funky to the more complicated) -- in part because you guys are just good but more important, in the context of this discussion, because you yourselves respect and enjoy the various kinds of music you choose to play. So I'd say that the key is (if you're also good): "Respect yourselves and the audience probably will respect you."

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Thing is, there's always cynics who think that if you play something else other than "hardcore" music that you're doing it because you feel you have to, not because you might actually enjoy it.

What was it that Cecil Taylor said in response to Baraka's analysis of his take on "This Nearly Was Mine" and how it represented Death to All That That Type Thing Stood For?

"Doesn't that fool realize that I recorded that song because I like it?"

Ornette's been going on foir years about how "style" is the enemy of true feeling in the playing of music. I respectfully submit that the same is true of listening to music as well. There can be soul & spirit anywhere in any type music, and just because it "appears" to be there more in some types than others, it would be wrong to confuse what one responds to personally with that which is actually there as long as one presupposes that one is going to get it more in one place than another just because of the type of music that it is.

Although there's certainly nothing wrong with "liking what one likes", I do believe that it is harmful over the long haul to convince one's self that what one likes is the only true source of soul, spirit, and substance in degree and/or quality.

[7/4]

I agree - but would add - when Jim refers to an "audience" I would cite Walter Benjamin, who has pointed out that there is no such thing - audience means too many things to too many people to cite it as a singular and specific entity - there are indeed audiences who like difficult and cerebral "heady" music; there are audiences who can listen to a Lamont Young drone for 45 minutes - there are some who would walk out; some who can only listen to vocals; some who can only listen to music if there is also a stripper along side (at least this is what 7/4 has told me he likes); point is, we have to avoid reverse-snobbery and anti-intellectualism and realize that there are a lot of different audiences out there -

and that's the extremely short version.