For simplicity's sake, lets just say there are three types of famous artists.
The first are genius innovators like Charlie Parker or Henry Miller who have such completely original ideas that they introduce a whole new wave of thought to the generations.
The second type is the most common, which I would term the "bridge artists" or "carriers of the baton." They take an already established form and add their own generation’s twist to it. Make it fresh again until its new. Or at least, seem new. In a healthy culture, one bridge artist seamlessly leads to the next; but as a culture dies-out so does its art. Until a new Charlie Parker comes along.
Of course the last type of famous artist really isn’t an artist at all. These are the fads or the personalities. The Fonzies, the Farrah Fawcett Majors’; the Paris Hilton’s and the Britney Spears’.
My man Guru was a bridge artist. For those of you too young to remember or too old to care, Guru first broke-out with a band called Gangstarr. They had a few hits and were highly influential before Guru left to form Jazzmatazz.
Jazzmatazz never had a legitimate hit (at least as far as I remember), but they fused hip-hop with real jazz instrumentalists like Donald Byrd and Branford Marsalis. In that way Guru literally “bridged the gap” between the hip-hop generation and their older siblings, who still couldn’t or wouldn’t respect music that didn’t have live musicians. He may not have been my generation’s best artist, but he was damn good and represented us well. A kind-of Mos Def before Mos Def; Guru was not only an ambassador for the kind of hip-hop that was still fun and positive, but had a unique tone to his voice that may have been equalled, but never surpassed.
Guru’s my generation. He died yesterday at 43 years old, which is the same age I am now. He was born in NYC, which is where I live, and his name Guru has certain syllabic qualities that match my own--Lodo. I never met him, but in many ways we were connected. His time on the charts was short, but he was no fad. In my book he achieved the highest level that man can achieve. A genuine artist.
A lot of rappers got flavor,
and some got skills,
But if you're voice ain't dope,
then you needs to chill.
R.I.P Guru!
Guru w/ Jazzmatazz and Chaka Khan: Watch What You're Sayin'
Guru Live w/ Donald Byrd (trumpet); Roy Ayers (Vibes): Transit Ride
6 comments:
I'm not familiar with Guru, but I think your categorization of artists is interesting.
Have you read George Orwell's essay on Henry Miller? It's pretty good.
I think he would've agreed with where you put Miller on the scale.
If I could spell "simplicities sake" correctly (simplicity's sake?) I'd be a happy man.
I really liked the tone of Guru's voice a lot. His Jazzmatazz experiment worked at times and at others...not as much. But being an artist means trying new things and he did that.
Jazzmatazz suffered from the same ills as the jazz/rock fusion genre. Mainly, that it never quite rocked hard enough for the rock fans and never quite demonstrated the soul or technical proficiency jazz fans expect. Same problem (at times) with Jazzmatazz.
But I do believe there was a progression from Guru to guy's like Mos Def. And if you've ever heard Marcus Strickland's Twi-Life Group, that's the best example of hip-hop elements and jazz actually coming together that I've heard.
In regards to Henry Miller, he's my all-time favorite. Not saying he's the best writer ever; but he's definitely my favorite and I think he's probably the most influential voice of the last 75 years; at least in terms of his life perspective. Guess I need to read that Orwell article.
I think the jazz/rock thing can be pulled off, but only in the more deviant forms of each kind of music. The Bad Plus fuses some punk energy with decent jazz chops, and I think a few of Jim Black's efforts have come close to getting at some kind of Pavement meets Herbie Hancock vibe from time to time.
I'll take a look at Marcus Strickland. The jazz/hip-hop thing sounds good in theory. I would be afraid that it would inevitably veer to far in the polished & overproduced direction that can happen to both forms, rather than the gritty, urgent stuff that resonates with me so much better.
Henry Miller is great. 'A Devil In Paradise' is one of my favorite books.
If you get a chance, Orwell's collected essays is worth picking up. His essays are far superior to his novels, if you ask me.
I'll definitely check out that Orwell book.
The jazz/fusion thing...gosh, thats a tough call. Miles Davis' Bitches Brew? Jeff Beck's Blow by Blow? Those definitely worked. Dave Douglas' Keystone works. I think Chris Potter's Underground works. But some of that fusion stuff--Ugh!
Fusion is a good metaphor for secular culture. I'd argue that when you're young, its good to have a bit of a fundamentalist base (just a tiny bit). You have to be raised as something: A Christian. A Muslim. A Hindu. A Jew. A unitarian. But then, once you have an identity (say at about 18 years old), its time to dabble into some other stuff and become a world citizen. But if you start out just dabbling right from the get go, you cant bring anything to the belief system and you become a big nothing.
The same holds true for jazz and fusion. The great fusion artists like Miles, Herbie, Jeff Beck, John McLaughlin, Zakir Hussain, they'd mastered a genre first. Then they brought that sensibility to the larger music world and were able to create something. But when you start off playing fusion right away...there's no soul there.
Thats my take anyway.
I'm not sure if I buy into that totally. How can anybody be raised in a pure system? We're all hybrids, no matter how much we may seem to tow some line to others.
I think the trick--when it comes to expressing yourself through art--is whether or not you believe it. If you are creating something that is a true expression of where you're coming from, and if you have the talent to make the thing you create match the impulse you had to make it, your work will resonate. But that's just the expressive side of art. When it comes to the science of it, I definitely agree with you that you have to know the rules before you can break them.
Spence:
I think you're defining what art is or how to make it, just in a general sense. Like a definition. But "good" art is going to be distinguished by the power of the voice and the speaker that makes it. And if the artist--particularly a very young artist who hasn't mastered anything yet decides, "Well, Im a little of this and a little of that and Im interested in this.." I mean, that probably is the reality for young people today. You can't deny that. But can you can make soulful music that way? Interesting art? Or is it just milk-toast muzak?
I really think thats the problem with today's art--or at least, music. Its not that the artists themselves are any worse or less talented than they used to be. But the art they produce is definitely worse and far less hard-hitting because...I dont know. It seems like there a lot of.."implying" going on. Borrowing. The producer is more important than the musician. Its about audio collage and mixing as opposed to actual playing. A lot of "feels" are being generated but not so much actual music.
I don't think this generation of young people have found their musical voice the way the electric guitar was the vox for the 60's, or bass guitar in the 70's or hip-hop and synths in the 80's and early 90's.
On the other hand, as I review my previous comments, they do seem to stink a bit of BS. Maybe more than a bit. But hey, there's a difference between commenting and writing an actual post. Like to think I'd have fleshed my ideas out a bit better. Must have had Philip Roth on my mind.
Post a Comment