by Philip on 19 Dec 2006 18:33
georgygirl, you ask good questions.
some of you will hate me, but, hopefully, some others will appreciate that people try to give their mind:
- Until now, Stewart Copland's solo is good, but a little bit to selective, It’s a strange universe of mixtures. But, for the day now, in 2007, I think some sounds from the rhytmatist, are really contemporary. It has perhaps something to do with the revolution in the media. The exotism Stewart always had is more and more absorbable now. His latest music (taken apart from the dis-arrangements, that I will appreciate in another 10 years) is really for a vast audience.
- Andy’s solo work, except XYZ, I think, which was more pop than jazz, is very good too. But to selective. It’s some intellectual sophisticated music. Not completely for everyone’s ears. So, yes, his playing has clearly more impact when confronted to arrangements of Sting.
- Sting at the contrary went more and more to a mass product! I’m wrong to say it’s is too easy ! Soap ? To the point, his wirtuosity isn’t really relevant to the people? Hi does under his only name, what every popstar does. Nothing really amazing. His genius is lost by THE TOO STANDARDISED SOUND HE HAS ON THE LATEST ALBUM. Just listen, it’ boring after you’ve heard it too much time.
It’s too smooth, and needs the influence of Andy and Stewart.