Man, this kind of bums me out. But you have to sit there and realize what this guy speaks volumes alot about the state of most of the jazz guitar scene. It's brutally honest but real talk in every aspect of the climate right now.


Poor Stanley a genius like this deserves a album that does him justice to his ability and craft. Jazz Happy meals Oh man..this guy does not keep the knives in the drawer. I would have never fathomed to say that. I hope Stanley doesnt read this review. Stanley, if you are on this forum please stay away from this review. As for others, I think this pretty much sums up why Jazz Muzak does not get spins from so many audiophiles. I understand why recording artists do it. But it really does deteriorate the scene over time. Turn on the radio and you can see for yourself. This review is "TORTURE" (C) JACKSONS But oh so true. I was excited to get this too.


from popmatters:

http://www.popmatters.com...of-nature/




Read the review:



In the 1980s, mainstream jazz suddenly seemed relevant again. After that first wave of rock (and then that first wave of too-often indulgent and gimmicky jazz-rock fusion) had passed, there seemed to be a fresh interest in jazz—and new jazz at that. The headline, of course, was the return to “mainstream” playing as signaled by the sudden star treatment for a certain young trumpeter out of New Orleans who could play classical, play jazz, and wear suits.

But just as 1980s housing prices rose then crashed on a gimmick, so was the jazz renaissance only half-true. Two of the jazz Happy Meals from that time are vocalist Bobby McFerrin and guitarist Stanley Jordan. Not that McFerrin and Jordan aren’t talented musicians—they are. But they were sold to jazz fans in the ‘80s like a Reagan tax cut—all pleasure and no cost, “Don’t worry, be happy.” McFerrin was a magical singer who could create an entire band alone on stage with no overdubbing, but just chest slapping, falsetto, bass line, and everything in between. I remember seeing him do every song from The Wizard of Oz in 15 minutes before a packed concert hall, and it was a standing ovation moment. Twenty years later, I still cherish the memory, but McFerrin—and I—have moved on to more substantive work.

Stanley Jordan was sold on the same gimmick, in a way, with a side of Eddie Van Halen.

Jordan had perfected a “new way to the play the guitar”—a revolutionary tapping technique that allowed him to play separately with both hands. Without overdubbing, Jordan could play a lead line and chords simultaneously, simply by tapping the strings against the fretboard in the manner of Van Halen’s iconic solos of the time, from his own discs and from Michael Jackson’s Thriller. I mean, it was amazing! How did he do that?

But, as all artists who rely on this sort of thing normally find out, amazingness has its limits.

The year 2008 finds Jordan releasing his first album in a decade. According to Jordan, “frustrated with the demands of the commercial music industry among other things, [he] went into a self-imposed exile from the rat race,” which entailed a retreat to the mountains of the southwest and an involvement in healing and study in “Music Therapy and Sonification.” Now, I’m not sure what “sonification” is, but if it involves making a wildly inconsistent and craven pu-pu platter of a comeback album, then Jordan has indeed mastered it.

On State of Nature, Jordan proves that he can still play, but he also proves that his playing has neither deepened nor focused since his 1985 debut. If his “tapping technique” ever meant anything, time—and Garage Band or ProTools being available in every basement all over America—has erased it. The advance publicity for the album trumpets the fact that “beyond his signature touch technique, Stanley utilizes other revolutionary techniques such as playing two guitars at once, playing guitar and piano simultaneously, and incorporating sounds of nature that he recorded himself.” Wow! But, does it sound good? The answer is that it sounds pretty okay-ish on some tracks, not so great other places, and, pretty much everywhere, there is an aimless awkwardness afoot.

It’s useful to catalog the tunes to get a handle on the lack of direction here. (A) There are two folkish duets with cellist Meta Weiss that are harmless pseudo-classical compositions in the Windham Hill “new age” style. (B) There are three ditties less than a minute long where Jordan fiddles about on guitar and piano in counterpoint. (C) There is one overt show-off piece for tapping on which Jordan plays an arrangement of a famous movement from Mozart’s Piano Concerto #21. (D) There are three played-to-death jazz standards ("All Blues”, “Song for My Father”, and “How Insensitive") done with little distinction. (E) There are three vaguely Pat Metheny Group-ish songs that have an inoffensive smooth jazz groove, and feature either a sitar-sounding instrument ("Ocean Breeze") or a rocked-out lead sound ("Shadow Dance") or blippy keyboard sequencing ("Prayer for the Sea"). (F) There is one shameless tack back to the 1980s—and bid for radio play—in a cover of Joe Jackson’s 1982 hit “Steppin’ Out” that includes the obligatory cheesy background vocals behind Jordan’s lead. And finally, (G) There is one tasty original that bids for jazz legitimacy ("A Place in Space"), but is then destroyed by a double-time section that tempts Jordan to play as fast as possible with little regard for melody or taste.

So, it’s a mess.

There’s plenty of verbiage in the advance material how this album is “about” getting back to nature, and one wonders if omitting the jazz material (and “Steppin’ Out") might have created a more cohesive and contemplative album that would allow Jordan to reemerge as the new man he apparently is. But that’s marketing talk. Musically, the problems are harder to diagnose. Jordan plays a good deal of adequate, but less than scintillating piano—a mixture between cocktail-y jazz tinkling and pop styling. It’s neither unprofessional nor weak, but on the tunes where it takes away from solo time for bassist Charnett Moffett, this indulgence is hard to fathom. The guitar playing, then, should pop as Jordan’s obvious strength, but somehow that has started to sound quite tinkly too. When he using the tapping method, Jordan’s tone is paper thin-to-nonexistent, and in other spots he seems like a player in search of a real identity. In a jazz guitar marketplace where the best-selling players (Metheny, Scofield, Frisell) and the upcoming cats (say, Lionel Louke) all have distinctive and rich sounds, there would seem to be little room for Jordan’s lack of clarity.

There are some moments here, of course, where having Stanley Jordan back feels just right. I would rather like to see him play the Mozart arrangement all alone on a stage—it is both wonderfully faithful to the original and pleasantly its own. And the first half of “Place in Space” reminds me how great it was to have a jazz guitarist who was aware of a tune like “Milestones”, but also understood that we needed some breezier music too, particularly on a Sunday afternoon during those mad years when you were never sure whether Ronnie was going to condemn the Soviet Union or squash the air traffic controllers’ union.

In 2008, of course, we have just as many needs for solace and creativity. And while Stanley Jordan hopes to heal us and green us with his music, State of Nature contains too much variety and too little nurturing sunshine to make an impact. It arrives at your ear like an old girlfriend—a pleasant memory bathed in generous affection but, honestly, no longer to your taste.
[Edited 4/29/08 10:03am]

"If his “tapping technique” ever meant anything, time—and Garage Band or ProTools being available in every basement all over America—has erased it."
This statement leads me to believe that the reviewer is:
a. a guitarist who is jealous of Stanley because they tried to learn his technique and couldn't get it
b. Someone who does NOT play and doesn't understand what Stanley is doing and therefore seeks to lessen or invalidate it.
Artists do what they do. Stanley is an artist in the truest sense. I've hung out with Stanley on several occasions. He's cool as hell. He's a laid back cat, a brilliant guitarist (more so than the person writing this article about him) Now I don't know about the new record because I haven't heard it but live - Stanley can get in the zone and even the most observant musicians can loose track of his playing because he's that deep with his. I'm not gonna comment about his new record because I haven't heard it but this reviewer seems to seek to diss Stanley himself and try to reduce him to a "gimmick artist" when Stanley chose and developed a playing technique to express his genius. The reviewer also basically tried to say that Stanley hasn't grown as a player since 1985. That is a flat out LIE. I've seen him enough times to know that for a fact.
That seems to be the nature of a lot of people today. When they can't be great, they just try to reduce greatness to subjectivity. All the Protools and overdubbing in the world ain't gonna make your ass play like Stanley.

Just to add to what was said, this is coming from a site called "Pop matters" which in and of itself denotes the idea of making mainstream mediocrity more relevant.
[Edited 4/29/08 10:52am]

BlaqueKnight said:

I was a young teenager and i purchased stanleys debut album with the same "ALMOST NON EXISTANT" cash that i spent on Michael and Prince stuff...
Stanley was the man then..and Im sure he still his...
sounds like this dude is taking a bit too much liberty with his "professional critic" title...
thanks for the review..

Hummmmm.....critics. Never had value 2 me.

BlaqueKnight said:

While I agree with you in part, I think he makes alot of Valid points about alot of accomplished guitarists in the Jazz world who follow a similar path. But you do understand when he says "Jazz Happy Meals" He is saying something that alot of people hold their tongue when it comes to the state of contemporary jazz.

Most people won't speak out because of the intimidation of a Iconic genius innovator like Stanley. The same phoned in standards and the catering to an audience that has completely made the scene devoid of any substance. It's why Charlie Hunter refuses to sign to GRP or any of these Jazz Muzak rapefests. (Yes, I did say Rapefests and alot of people know what I am talking about. And you know what I am talking about)

That isn't Stanley's fault but the lack of creativity in Jazz guitar is apparent with every release on the brand labels. GRP is guility as sin for doing this. It's why so many people are running to indepedent labels for another avenue and outlet to their music consumption. I wouldnt take anything away from Stanley's ability or brilliance at all,blaqueknight. But there is a big issue when it comes to actual creative effort in Jazz Guitar. And it looks like with this release, Stanley isnt willing to challenge that. Stanley will always be a revolutionary guitar genius but his catalog of commercially released projects is becoming painfully obvious that Stanley wants a commercial docile submissive audience.

I think genius renaissance artists like Stanley need to hear a little bit of this. I think it can only help with the dialogue and debate. We shouldn't stifle that at all. This guy may be harsh but he's only amplifying what alot of people think in silence. And you have to admit it's true,BlaqueKnight. That artists like this people are intimidated to say anything unfavorable because of their ability.



With that said I am interested in getting his fan releases "Ragas" on his official page. Because I am still a Stanley listener just not one for something that sounds as uninspired as this. I will have a listen to it though. But I have to say this review probably does ring true even if it is harsh up to .....

Trickology said:

Right on. The contemporary jazz scene isn't that healthy on the surface. I haven't followed in in several years because I got tired of hearing people play the same old standards. So precious few of the Stanley Jordans, Charlie Hunters, and Brad Mehldaus make it thru and are able to sustain any kind of career without having to pander to people who want to hear standards and that' what's killed jazz. There have been so many great tunes written since the Broadway era, yet most of what we end up getting are those tunes. Good as they are, they've been played to death.

But back on topic, Stanley's albums have always (at least the ones I've heard) had that format of a few standards, some originals, and some out-there originals. In a sense, the variety is a format in and of itself. So this doesn't sound like anything out of the ordinary for SJ. On one hand, I think a reviewer can only be taken so seriously, but at the same time he's right. It's not enough to perfect a new style of playing, you have to go beyond that and do something with it. Jimi, Jaco, and Bird were lucky enough to die before they really had a chance, but for someone like Stanley or Eddie, it's tough. Inspiration doesn't grow on trees and when someone shows the initial brilliance that SJ did, I'm sure a lot of people expect them to reinvent themselves all over again and very few artists can actually do that and do it well. Miles and Trane did it, but how many artists are Miles & Trane?

I've been into Stan from the gitgo. Drooled over his debut and saw him live a few times. Thought he had a lotof promise, but I have to say I lost interest when he started doing Led Zep covers.

.

That album bored me, so I haven't seen him since then nor have I bought his albums.

Not saying I've formed an opinion of his new work, but I don't have a strong interest in anything he does lately.

4 star review on allmusic.com





http://www.allmusic.com/c...z9jldje~T1
[Edited 4/29/08 15:11pm]

It's a bit unfair to diminish his talents. He does what he does, and he's about the best there is.

It's kind of like criticizing James Brown for doing "just another funky song."

That said, I can understand not loving his albums. His cover of Stairway to Heaven, as mentioned before, was a bit much to take.

BlaqueKnight said:

PREACH!

I saw Stanley this past summer and was completely blown away. Such a sincere musician. Not a gimmick to be found.