Kenny Burrell

[robertoart]

OK, I'll take a crack. This is one of those areas where I think those with training instinctively "get it" and those without don't.

The part I didn't get about sgcim's comment was the idea that Burrell ought to have been expected to play the song a certain way, or at a certain tempo. Should anybody be criticizing a jazz artist- a legendary one at that- for such things? Can we really assume that he was incapable of playing it faster? Do we really care?

In most such cases, yes, it's fair to offer this kind of criticism. "Oh but this guy is a LEGEND you can't criticize his note choice or phrasing or rhythmic feel, because he's a legend for a reason" doesn't wash.

There's a long tradition of older players coming down hard on younger ones for various deviations from "authenticity" when playing. The big example that comes to mind is inattention to detail to the lyrics of standards, leading to phrasing that sounds awkward or weak when you know the original sheet music. But there's no reason this can't cut the other way too.

In this case, the essence of Oliver Nelson's writing isn't just the melody or the changes, it's the voicings in the harmony. That's the reason The Blues and the Abstract Truth is a top-100 jazz recording and every cover of it is just some dude blowing over a minor blues after playing the melody line. So unless KB (or another player) is doing something else that's equally hip on the head, it's fair to ask "why are you even bothering to play THIS tune rather than Equinox or whatever if you're not going to show that you've thought about what made the tune interesting in the first place?"

...adding to say, this is the same reason Larry Goldings's "Hans Groiner" character is hilarious. He's taking things to an extreme by not treating Monk's music with the same pedestrian attitude as 95% of players playing the tunes out of the Real Book. Only the gag in this case is that Groiner has thought very carefully about Monk's music...and as a result has made deliberate harmonic/rhythmic choices that are the exact opposite of what makes Monk's music tick, taking care to iron out every single quirk.

Hilarious. Maybe. Sounds racist to me. Does he do it with a German accent?

According to sgcim, Burrell 'has' made the attempt to deal with Nelson's voicings, but has not done the tune justice. Accept in the blowing.

Edited March 6, 2013 by freelancer

[sgcim]

OK, I'll take a crack. This is one of those areas where I think those with training instinctively "get it" and those without don't.

The part I didn't get about sgcim's comment was the idea that Burrell ought to have been expected to play the song a certain way, or at a certain tempo. Should anybody be criticizing a jazz artist- a legendary one at that- for such things? Can we really assume that he was incapable of playing it faster? Do we really care?

In most such cases, yes, it's fair to offer this kind of criticism. "Oh but this guy is a LEGEND you can't criticize his note choice or phrasing or rhythmic feel, because he's a legend for a reason" doesn't wash.

There's a long tradition of older players coming down hard on younger ones for various deviations from "authenticity" when playing. The big example that comes to mind is inattention to detail to the lyrics of standards, leading to phrasing that sounds awkward or weak when you know the original sheet music. But there's no reason this can't cut the other way too.

In this case, the essence of Oliver Nelson's writing isn't just the melody or the changes, it's the voicings in the harmony. That's the reason The Blues and the Abstract Truth is a top-100 jazz recording and every cover of it is just some dude blowing over a minor blues after playing the melody line. So unless KB (or another player) is doing something else that's equally hip on the head, it's fair to ask "why are you even bothering to play THIS tune rather than Equinox or whatever if you're not going to show that you've thought about what made the tune interesting in the first place?"

...adding to say, this is the same reason Larry Goldings's "Hans Groiner" character is hilarious. He's taking things to an extreme by not treating Monk's music with the same pedestrian attitude as 95% of players playing the tunes out of the Real Book. Only the gag in this case is that Groiner has thought very carefully about Monk's music...and as a result has made deliberate harmonic/rhythmic choices that are the exact opposite of what makes Monk's music tick, taking care to iron out every single quirk. Well stated, BW. I can't wait to hear the Hans Groiner thing. Is it on any of LG's records?

[Larry Kart]

Look for it under the name on YouTube.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

OK, I'll take a crack. This is one of those areas where I think those with training instinctively "get it" and those without don't.

The part I didn't get about sgcim's comment was the idea that Burrell ought to have been expected to play the song a certain way, or at a certain tempo. Should anybody be criticizing a jazz artist- a legendary one at that- for such things? Can we really assume that he was incapable of playing it faster? Do we really care?

In most such cases, yes, it's fair to offer this kind of criticism. "Oh but this guy is a LEGEND you can't criticize his note choice or phrasing or rhythmic feel, because he's a legend for a reason" doesn't wash.

There's a long tradition of older players coming down hard on younger ones for various deviations from "authenticity" when playing. The big example that comes to mind is inattention to detail to the lyrics of standards, leading to phrasing that sounds awkward or weak when you know the original sheet music. But there's no reason this can't cut the other way too.

In this case, the essence of Oliver Nelson's writing isn't just the melody or the changes, it's the voicings in the harmony. That's the reason The Blues and the Abstract Truth is a top-100 jazz recording and every cover of it is just some dude blowing over a minor blues after playing the melody line. So unless KB (or another player) is doing something else that's equally hip on the head, it's fair to ask "why are you even bothering to play THIS tune rather than Equinox or whatever if you're not going to show that you've thought about what made the tune interesting in the first place?"

...adding to say, this is the same reason Larry Goldings's "Hans Groiner" character is hilarious. He's taking things to an extreme by not treating Monk's music with the same pedestrian attitude as 95% of players playing the tunes out of the Real Book. Only the gag in this case is that Groiner has thought very carefully about Monk's music...and as a result has made deliberate harmonic/rhythmic choices that are the exact opposite of what makes Monk's music tick, taking care to iron out every single quirk.

I'm most grateful for that explanation, which I'm sure is right, as far as it goes. But acknowledging that most listeners are like me - I have Jaws' version of 'The stolen moment' but not 'Blues & the abstract truth' - and Kenny, I feel, has always played more for people like me than for a musicianly audience, what we want is for jazz musicians to play a variety of material, some familiar, some unfamiliar, and to create thereby an entertainment for us (which may move us greatly, or not). In this, tunes are more important than the harmonies and the voicings (though there are some exceptions, such as Fats Domino's recordings, where the way the band is massed is the most important thing). Since I don't think I've heard Kenny's version of SM, (or the Nelson version on BATAT) I can't be sure whether his carrying those voicings into the head of his version would make any difference to me. But IN THEORY, it doesn't matter; us oiks have to accept what musicians offer, because we can't do it ourselves, or even know (or want to know) how it's done.

MG In the end MG, it's all about how the harmony hits you emotionally. Technically, I could say that ON did something that I've never heard any composer before him do; use a Major 3rd in a measure that is a minor chord, eg. in Cminor he used an E natural in the harmony of the fourth note of the melody.It's not just that he used cluster harmony, which many people have done.

But when I heard that as a kid in HS, it gave me a mental orgasm! If it can't affect a music lover on an emotional level, whether subconsciously or consciously, it's meaningless.

What is interesting historically is that I still haven't found an example of that being done in a systematic manner like ON did, by any classical composers. It probably exists in an isolated instance, but ON used it repeatedly in a very deliberate way, that created a mood that is very intense; hence the many "covers" of it.

The version I hate the most is Carmen McRae's. ;'(

I do agree with you there. To me, the skill of a great musician is in getting through to people who don't have the means to appreciate his skill.

Did ON use that device in the Jaws version of the tune?

MG

[robertoart]

As creator of the thread, I can only say I never expected it to hit 122 posts!

Any thoughts on Kenny's work with Coleman Hawkins? There was "Soul," and also "Bluesy Burrell (a bit less successful and Hawk was not on all the tracks). Wasn't there one more?

And I'm sure Kenny Burrell is sitting on his couch - with his feet up - having his warm milk in his cup marked 'world's greatest Soul Jazz grandpa' - and reading this thread...thinking....geez I wish I spent another day on the head arrangement of 'that one'!

[Jim R]

OK, I'll take a crack. This is one of those areas where I think those with training instinctively "get it" and those without don't.

I respect those whose training exceeds mine (I'm an ear player), to the extent that it's appropriate, but as a musician with decent ears, and a longtime jazz listener, I think I'd perhaps put myself in a slightly different gray area than that of a non-musician. Anyway, I think that "getting it" is possible without a high level of training, and I think there's a level of subjectivity in play here.

The part I didn't get about sgcim's comment was the idea that Burrell ought to have been expected to play the song a certain way, or at a certain tempo. Should anybody be criticizing a jazz artist- a legendary one at that- for such things? Can we really assume that he was incapable of playing it faster? Do we really care?

In most such cases, yes, it's fair to offer this kind of criticism. "Oh but this guy is a LEGEND you can't criticize his note choice or phrasing or rhythmic feel, because he's a legend for a reason" doesn't wash.

The "he's a legend" part was not the main point, and could have been left out entirely. I think I added that due to the laughable (even if true!) "I can do it better" comment from this guy (talk about something that "doesn't wash"), and just to emphasize the level of respect that someone like KB deserves. The point I was aiming at was that jazz artists (legendary and otherwise) re-harmonize, re-arrange, change keys, change tempos, etc etc, quite freely and often, obviously. In this particular case, is the argument that Burrell (on a recording that still has not been identified here, I might add) may have altered the theme statement only by subtraction, and thereby committed an "error" of some kind? I'm not buying it, but that's just my opinion, and I do think this is subjective. The part about Kenny playing at an "incorrect" (as opposed to non-original) tempo pushes the needle even higher on my nonsense meter. We DON'T know whether KB could have executed it at a quicker tempo or not, even if we agree that it's something worthy of criticism (I don't).

There's a long tradition of older players coming down hard on younger ones for various deviations from "authenticity" when playing. The big example that comes to mind is inattention to detail to the lyrics of standards, leading to phrasing that sounds awkward or weak when you know the original sheet music. But there's no reason this can't cut the other way too.

In this case, the essence of Oliver Nelson's writing isn't just the melody or the changes, it's the voicings in the harmony. That's the reason The Blues and the Abstract Truth is a top-100 jazz recording and every cover of it is just some dude blowing over a minor blues after playing the melody line. So unless KB (or another player) is doing something else that's equally hip on the head, it's fair to ask "why are you even bothering to play THIS tune rather than Equinox or whatever if you're not going to show that you've thought about what made the tune interesting in the first place?"

Maybe sgcim can confront Kenny Burrell with that question. Edited March 6, 2013 by Jim R

[robertoart]

OK, I'll take a crack. This is one of those areas where I think those with training instinctively "get it" and those without don't.

I respect those whose training exceeds mine (I'm an ear player), to the extent that it's appropriate, but as a musician with decent ears, and a longtime jazz listener, I think I'd perhaps put myself in a slightly different gray area than that of a non-musician. Anyway, I think that "getting it" is possible without a high level of training, and I think there's a level of subjectivity in play here.

>

The part I didn't get about sgcim's comment was the idea that Burrell ought to have been expected to play the song a certain way, or at a certain tempo. Should anybody be criticizing a jazz artist- a legendary one at that- for such things? Can we really assume that he was incapable of playing it faster? Do we really care?

In most such cases, yes, it's fair to offer this kind of criticism. "Oh but this guy is a LEGEND you can't criticize his note choice or phrasing or rhythmic feel, because he's a legend for a reason" doesn't wash. The "he's a legend" part was not the main point, and could have been left out entirely. I think I added that due to the laughable (even if true!) "I can do it better" comment from this guy (talk about something that "doesn't wash"), and just to emphasize the level of respect that someone like KB deserves. The point I was aiming at was that jazz artists (legendary and otherwise) re-harmonize, re-arrange, change keys, change tempos, etc etc, quite freely and often, obviously. In this particular case, is the argument that Burrell (on a recording that still has not been identified here, I might add) may have altered the theme statement only by subtraction, and thereby committed an "error" of some kind? I'm not buying it, but that's just my opinion, and I do think this is subjective. The part about Kenny playing at an "incorrect" (as opposed to non-original) tempo pushes the needle even higher on my nonsense meter. We DON'T know whether KB could have executed it at a quicker tempo or not, even if we agree that it's something worthy of criticism (I don't).

There's a long tradition of older players coming down hard on younger ones for various deviations from "authenticity" when playing. The big example that comes to mind is inattention to detail to the lyrics of standards, leading to phrasing that sounds awkward or weak when you know the original sheet music. But there's no reason this can't cut the other way too.

In this case, the essence of Oliver Nelson's writing isn't just the melody or the changes, it's the voicings in the harmony. That's the reason The Blues and the Abstract Truth is a top-100 jazz recording and every cover of it is just some dude blowing over a minor blues after playing the melody line. So unless KB (or another player) is doing something else that's equally hip on the head, it's fair to ask "why are you even bothering to play THIS tune rather than Equinox or whatever if you're not going to show that you've thought about what made the tune interesting in the first place?"

Maybe sgcim can confront Kenny Burrell with that question.

Thanks for the heavy lifting jimr.

[Niko]

As creator of the thread, I can only say I never expected it to hit 122 posts!

Any thoughts on Kenny's work with Coleman Hawkins? There was "Soul," and also "Bluesy Burrell (a bit less successful and Hawk was not on all the tracks). Wasn't there one more?

And I'm sure Kenny Burrell is sitting on his couch - with his feet up - having his warm milk in his cup marked 'world's greatest Soul Jazz grandpa' - and reading this thread...thinking....geez I wish I spent another day on the head arrangement of 'that one'!

honestly, i have no trouble at all imagining that KB did try to capture Oliver Nelson's arrangement but didn't have the time - one genius against another, that sgcim's guitar arrangement which - as he said - did take him some time comes closer to ON's intentions - doesn't take a genius for this, just a journeyman with time on his hands. and that KB would agree upon hearing sgcim's version of the tune that this was closer to his intentions than what he himself had worked out on the spot decades ago (even though we can't hear/feel the difference).

This has nothing at all to do with diminishing KB as a guitarist or claiming that sgcim is "better". And yes, its "only" about technique, but then so much of our most beloved jazz is, and its part of the art not to let us hear it all the time. It's part of appreciating how much "technique" is actually behind the work of someone like KB to acknowledge that there are thousands of places where someone with the determination and a "normal" above average talent can actually surpass him at what he is trying to achieve.

learned this quote today: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[JSngry]

Did ON use that device in the Jaws version of the tune?

MG

My ears tell me that the same voicings remarked on here were carried over from the Jaws version to the BATAT arrangement, just adjusted to fit the instrumentation.

[robertoart]

[Milestones]

Much is made of technique in jazz, and maybe that's why it's not a very popular music...all told. I do admire technique sometimes (it's really a "sense" thing for my non-musician ears), but certainly it's not ALL about technique. And I'm sure technique comes into play with ballads; just because the tempo is slower, that doesn't mean it's easier to play.

Anyway, my point is that we should be more concerned about what a player CHOOSES to play, rather than what he/she CAN play.

Or not. If your vision of music is all about technique, then that has to be the central focus.

[JSngry]

Much is made of technique in jazz, and maybe that's why it's not a very popular music...all told. I do admire technique sometimes (it's really a "sense" thing for my non-musician ears), but certainly it's not ALL about technique. And I'm sure technique comes into play with ballads; just because the tempo is slower, that doesn't mean it's easier to play.

Anyway, my point is that we should be more concerned about what a player CHOOSES to play, rather than what he/she CAN play.

Or not. If your vision of music is all about technique, then that has to be the central focus.

Ah, but there's the cosmic joke - what an artist "chooses" to play is only relevant to how they play it, and that's where technique IS what matters. Might as well say it again - this shit don't play itself, these instruments and these notes.

Now, I certainly agree that the "end result" is the object of the game, but people who play the "I don't care a thing about technique, it doesn't matter one whit to me because I'm not a musician, all I care about is how it feels" are kidding themselves, because how it feels is a direct result of how it gets played, and that's a direct result of technique. You might be bored by the discussion and/or the specifics, but you DO care about it, whether you want to admit it or not.

And make no mistake, there is no on "proper" technique" to making music. Technique is only relevant to the desired end, and desired ends vary widely, to put it mildly (and with a straight face).

There's a lot of Romantic Notionhood about the "creative process", and ok, good, the mystique helps sell the product, and yeah, sometimes their is some magic involved. But between the magic happening and it making to/coming out of your speakers (or wherever), there's execution involved. Just good old-fashioned, you've-either-learned-how-to-do-it-or-haven't-(and-if not,-hopefully-you're-getting-better-at-it)-execution. Without it, you got nothing except ideas, just as without ideas, all you got is manual labor. That's all playing music is - manual labor. Whether or not it gets elevated to "art" at some point is entirely optional.

Just remember that when some badass motherfucker who can genuinely play tells you that "it's not about the technique, it's about the music". They just tell you that because they know that if you knew about the actual work, you'd be bored shitless. So they game you, because boring people shitless is not a good career strategy, if you know what I mean.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Much is made of technique in jazz, and maybe that's why it's not a very popular music...all told. I do admire technique sometimes (it's really a "sense" thing for my non-musician ears), but certainly it's not ALL about technique. And I'm sure technique comes into play with ballads; just because the tempo is slower, that doesn't mean it's easier to play.

Anyway, my point is that we should be more concerned about what a player CHOOSES to play, rather than what he/she CAN play.

Or not. If your vision of music is all about technique, then that has to be the central focus.

Ah, but there's the cosmic joke - what an artist "chooses" to play is only relevant to how they play it, and that's where technique IS what matters. Might as well say it again - this shit don't play itself, these instruments and these notes.

Now, I certainly agree that the "end result" is the object of the game, but people who play the "I don't care a thing about technique, it doesn't matter one whit to me because I'm not a musician, all I care about is how it feels" are kidding themselves, because how it feels is a direct result of how it gets played, and that's a direct result of technique. You might be bored by the discussion and/or the specifics, but you DO care about it, whether you want to admit it or not.

And make no mistake, there is no on "proper" technique" to making music. Technique is only relevant to the desired end, and desired ends vary widely, to put it mildly (and with a straight face).

There's a lot of Romantic Notionhood about the "creative process", and ok, good, the mystique helps sell the product, and yeah, sometimes their is some magic involved. But between the magic happening and it making to/coming out of your speakers (or wherever), there's execution involved. Just good old-fashioned, you've-either-learned-how-to-do-it-or-haven't-(and-if not,-hopefully-you're-getting-better-at-it)-execution. Without it, you got nothing except ideas, just as without ideas, all you got is manual labor. That's all playing music is - manual labor. Whether or not it gets elevated to "art" at some point is entirely optional.

Just remember that when some badass motherfucker who can genuinely play tells you that "it's not about the technique, it's about the music". They just tell you that because they know that if you knew about the actual work, you'd be bored shitless. So they game you, because boring people shitless is not a good career strategy, if you know what I mean.

Well yes. As Sonny Stiff said, 'This shit ain't easy, baby.' But he made it SOUND so easy so, even though you knew it wasn't easy (because that statement is the TRUTH), he was like a great film director or novelist, who can make you suspend your disbelief and think you're not watching or reading a story he's made up, but something real. Now as for analysing what had been done in order to achieve that novel, film, or piece of music, you have to reverse that suspension of disbelief and that fucks the thing up; because all you're left with is the guy's skill and none of that content that drew you in the first place. Now a professional, whether novelist, film director or musician, HAS to do that because that's an essential part of them getting there. Maybe you, as musician and fan, can see both sides of this piece you've dissected; I'll believe it if you say that's true. But us oiks aren't going there anyway; we've got other stuff to do, other directions to take; we just want to pay our money and suspend our disbelief for what seem to us good reasons.

A further aspect is that all the novels, films and pieces of music are reflections of a culture, which exists at a point in time and also as a past (and possible future) and that is also of significant interest. It's also not necessarily dependent on technique, in the sense that a poor writer, director or musician can reflect his/her cultural milieu as fully as (perhaps even more representatively than) a genius. (See Hippolyte Taine's 'History of English literature' for lengthy analysis of this issue.)

I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I'm right But it's a different question.

MG

[JSngry]

I'm not really a fan of suspending disbelief. I'd rather know what it is that is being believed and then proceed from there. I don't have to like it, I just need to figure out exactly what it is that somebody's trying to tell me, and whether or not they're trying to lie about it or if maybe they just see a different "there" than I do..

[robertoart]

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I'm not really a fan of suspending disbelief. I'd rather know what it is that is being believed and then proceed from there. I don't have to like it, I just need to figure out exactly what it is that somebody's trying to tell me, and whether or not they're trying to lie about it or if maybe they just see a different "there" than I do..

OK, so what's your favourite novel?

MG

[JSngry]

I don't read, remember?

And truthfully, fiction has never appealed to me that much. Truth is stranger, and all that. Same thing for movies. Hardly have the urge to watch anymore. I got a few weekly TV things that I follow for fun, but it's always done out of appreciation for the writing, acting, and directing more for than the "story". Hell, I got more than enough "stories" right in front of me, dig? And the consequences of the outcomes are all real.

I guess my favorite novel to this point would be American Popular Music and all its variants, and how it's in the process of becoming more American by becoming less "American", less "Popular" and less traditionally "Music". Can't wait to see how that one turns out!

What, that's not a novel, you say? Well, it all depends on what you do with what you hear, I would counter.

Edited March 7, 2013 by JSngry

[Milestones]

OK, so let me speak now as someone who has written 30+ short stories and three novels--not that you will find them at your local Barnes & Noble. I am also a composition teacher (at a community college), so what I do is teach the technique of sentences, paragraphs, entire essays.

No, I don't know (firsthand) the techniques of jazz or music in general, but they are there...beyond question. Without it, you are not a musician. Without a serious amount of it, you are strictly an amateur.

Even my ears can hear the unorthodox techniques of musicians like Monk, and I can hear the considerable technique of Wes Montgomery(also recognizing how easy he makes it sound).

Edited March 7, 2013 by Milestones

[robertoart]

OK, so let me speak now as someone who has written 30+ short stories and three novels--not that you will find them at your local Barnes & Noble. I am also a composition teacher (at a community college), so what I do is teach the technique of sentences, paragraphs, entire essays.

No, I don't know (firsthand) the techniques of jazz or music in general, but it is there...beyond question.

And even my ears can hear the unorthodox techniques of musicians like Monk, and I can hear the considerable technique of Wes Montgomery(also recognizing how easy he makes it sound).

Yeah, well don't tell that to jsngry, he seems to be in a disagreeable mood. I think his lunch is repeating.

[Milestones]

Oh, I very much enjoy JSngry's posts. But with over 43,000 over them, I won't claim that I will read them all.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Milestones

[robertoart]

Oh, I very much enjoy JSngry's posts. But with over 43,000 over them, I won't claim that I will read them all.

[JSngry]

Nor should you! If you do, you have too much time on your hands (and would have even less in your brain by the time you finish)!

And I'm feeling just fine, thanks. I very much appreciate the written word, I'm just at a point in my life where reality has kinda rendered fiction...irrelevant, at least for the time being. But it's a personal thing, not meant as an indictment or anything. Same thing with movies, "classical music", and more jazz than you can shake a tree's worth of sticks at. Anything where you know it's about reenacting than being, just...not in the mood for it. And that includes me and my own shit, here, musically, personally, everywhere. After a while, it's like BLHUCK do something ELSE motherfucker. And it's not like being "un"happy is the same as being SAD. It's not, believe me! It's pretty funny, truth be told.

Seriously.

[Milestones]

Phases, you know. I used to a pretty big movie buff, but now I hardly watch them, either at the theater or at home. I used to think of nothing of reading a 600-page novel. Now I prefer to stick to 200 or 250 pages; or better yet, novellas and short stories.

[JSngry]

Do you really think that the hip-hop/R&B of today really needs any good musicians to play it?

I think it needs imaginative minds more than it needs "good musicians".

An imaginative mind will find the way to make the music. A "good musician" will always be a laborer first and foremost, and when the call for that labor is gone, then what? Just another unemployed steelworker or some such, a proud remnant of soemthing wonderful that nobody rally needs any more.

I'm certainly one to groove on good craftsmanship, and would like to take up woodworking when I retire for that very reason, but give me a guy who can sincerely discombobulate me with a laptop/etc over somebody who can make the bridge over TSIY in any key and move nobody in the process any day.

Burrell, though, can make that bridge in any key and move me, or could...maybe still can. But would you advise your babies to go to Pittsburgh to make steel for the rest of their lives?

Different types of bridges, but maybe not so much?

I like the "suspension of belief" metaphor....They can achieve suspension of belief without any musicians, and the younger generation couldn't give a shit.

No, they (the manipulated pop-mechanics, not the inventive minds lurking in or about "the underground" destroy belief, they do not suspend it.

"Belief" and "know" are not nearly the same thing. You can know the obvious so well that it's ALL you know, and then what do you have left to actually believe? TRAPPED!

I'd much prefer to expand belief than to suspend it.

[John L]

Do you really think that the hip-hop/R&B of today really needs any good musicians to play it?

I think it needs imaginative minds more than it needs "good musicians".

An imaginative mind will find the way to make the music. A "good musician" will always be a laborer first and foremost, and when the call for that labor is gone, then what? Just another unemployed steelworker or some such, a proud remnant of soemthing wonderful that nobody rally needs any more.

I'm certainly one to groove on good craftsmanship, and would like to take up woodworking when I retire for that very reason, but give me a guy who can sincerely discombobulate me with a laptop/etc over somebody who can make the bridge over TSIY in any key and move nobody in the process any day.

Burrell, though, can make that bridge in any key and move me, or could...maybe still can. But would you advise your babies to go to Pittsburgh to make steel for the rest of their lives?

Different types of bridges, but maybe not so much?

Interesting. I have thought for some time that that is the general direction that we are moving. Computerized instruments and do-it-yourself studios will increasingly allow creative musical minds to get the sounds out of their heads without the prerequisite years of woodshedding needed to really master a musical instrument. At least that is the good scenario...