If you want intellectual challenge then maybe you should enroll for a graduate program in Theoretical Physics :)
http://www.jazzoasis.com/methenyonkennyg.htm
If you’d like a short answer by someone who isn’t qualified, it comes down to the disparity between his record sales and talent. Purists feel he has sold a shit tonne of records despite not being up to the technical standards set by the great sax players.
I’m not much of a Kenny G fan but I find that kind of criticism rather unwarranted. I don’t think it’s particularly fair to compare him to people like Coltrane or Cannonball as they’re almost completely different genres. To me (I’m not qualified), it’s like comparing baseball players to cricket players.
All that blah blah blah aside, like what you like and be proud about it. Purists can be wrong and they’re definitely not you.
I agree, it is not fair. However, a more apt comparison would be between a top 3 major league baseball player and a top 3 little league player. And many people enjoy watching little league games (often when their kids are playing) and are not interested in pros, and that's totally their right.
Edit: and I just realized my comparison is between Kenny G and Coltrane's performances. It is entirely possible, and even likely, that Kenny G can play at a high level, but he just gives his audience what they want.
I don't think my analogy was very effective, but I'm not sure the minor/major league baseball player analogy is much better. This one might just not be fit for analogies and the truth might be best.
John Coltrane and Kenny G are extremely good at what they do. They do dramatically different things and that's okay.
If you're right about Kenny G being able to play at a Coltrane-esque level, I'd argue that he's even better at marketing than music. It would mean that he could easily prove everyone wrong but he'd rather have the free press (and boatloads of cash) of infamy than bragging rights.
Well, it appears my assumption was false!
I finally read The Pat Metheny article you posted, and he's pretty clear that Kenny G is not on the level of the greats:
> He had major rhythmic problems and his harmonic and melodic vocabulary was extremely limited, mostly to pentatonic based and blues-lick derived patterns, and he basically exhibited only a rudimentary understanding of how to function as a professional soloist in an ensemble
> The other main thing I noticed was that he also, as he does to this day, played horribly out of tune - consistently sharp.
> There must be hundreds, if not thousands of sax players around the world who are simply better improvising musicians than Kenny G on his chosen instruments. It would really surprise me if even he disagreed with that statement.
Mind you, he is comparing Kenny G (unfavorably) to the best jazz sax players (because he also argues that it is jazz, despite what the naysayers may say).
I agree that the purpose is enjoyment. But art that demands attention, and, yes, some work, repays with a higher level of enjoyment. This is true for music, literature, movies, anything.
Music is like everything else, the more work you put into it, the more enjoyment you'll get.
But it's perfectly understandable if non-musicians (or musicians not really interested in music theory, formal or informal) stick to Smooth Jazz and stay away from bebop and its successors, and prefer simple melodies and minimal harmony instead.
But as a listener who likes it, it’s just really interesting to hear. It’s not a challenge or an intellectual pursuit.
John Coltrane is the mac daddy saxophonist. He is the capo da tutti capi. The recordings of his golden period (eg Crescent, A love Supreme etc) are the Mona Lisa.
Coltrane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa#/media/File:Mona_Lis...
By contrast Kenny Gs recordings are Trechikof's "Chinese Girl" - Extremely popular but kind of terrible.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/958528/images/o-CHINESEGIRL-facebo...
Just like it's fine to prefer Phil Collins' version of "You Can't Hurry Love" to the original[1], it's fine to like Kenny G's music - you should like whatever you like. But it's not being a "purist" to dislike it. When people get to a certain level of education in their music taste they start to realise some of its shortcomings.
For anyone intimidated by Coltrane, I recommend just getting "Ballads" or "Coltrane and Johnny Hartman". They are incredibly beautiful music that I have successfully played to all manner of non jazz enthusiasts.
[1]Actually that one really isn't fine. He messes up the iconic James Jamerson bassline by removing the beautiful anticipated quavers that give the original so much drive. Once you hear it the Phil Collins version seems so incredibly pedestrian.
Jazz might sound like an “old” style, but it was always bold, and audacious genre. You don’t have a 10year span without someone kicking the table and experimenting with something completely new and crazy (for the time being). Jazz is also consumed by people that know a lot about music, and these people get “bored” pretty quickly if they’re not stimulated by bold moves and perfect execution.
And Miles had a lot to do with this (I didn’t read the article).
Btw, there’s nothing wrong if you like Smooth Jazz or Kenny G or whatever. Music is music. Whatever makes you feel good.