Contact us

Did you guys check out Gilad Hekselman's new record? It's Killing!

(32 posts)
  1. JazzGuitar83
    Member

    Hey, did you guys hear Gilad's new CD Hearts Wide Open? It was released just a few days ago.
    I really liked it - totally worth checking out!

  2. JorgeRubiales
    Member

    Nice to know, I've not been able to check it out yet...

    Contact us
  3. Bozzwell
    Member

    I don't know much about Gilad, but read this review last week about the new album which has totally piqued my interest:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/arts/music/new-music-by-daniela-mercury-and-gilad-hekselman.html

    Would be amazing to hear him and Kurt playing together.

  4. jorgemg1984
    Member

    I really have to say this one (sorry): only a gringo could review Daniela Mercury and Gilad Hekselman on the same article... sorry mates! :)

  5. JorgeRubiales
    Member

    lol jorge

    If it's Mark Turner in there, I definitely have to check it out!

  6. Bozzwell
    Member

    In fairness to Ben Ratliff (the NY Times jazz reviewer), he didn't review the Mercury album. That was some other 'gringo', jorge (check the article).

    I really like Ben's writing, and he doesn't rave about a musician often like he does over Gilad on this album. It's pretty great when a young guy gets props like this. Gilad's sound reminds me of Kurt's, and I wonder how much Gilad was influenced by him.

    Again, would be amazing to hear both these guys on stage together.

  7. jorgemg1984
    Member

    I know he didn't review it, I just thought it was funny to put Daniela Mercury and Gilad Hekselman on the same page (and yes Ben Ratiff is a very good critic)

    Gilad was heavily influenced by Kurt, just read this

    http://nextbop.com/blog/mattkasselsitdownwitharihoenigandgiladhekselman

  8. jazznan
    Member

    Who cares about "good critics" and Ben Ratliff. I can't stand critics and I think it's pathetic that somebody would try to make a career out of being a critic. I'm glad he gave Gilad a good review, but I think it's egotistical and incredibly destructive to either over-praise or to belittle someones efforts in print.

    Here are some highlights from a good article on music critics:

    One difference between writers and musicians is that musicians avoid criticizing each other in print. Most book critics are published authors, seemingly the minimum qualification for publicly judging other people’s work. Musicians, however, tend to leave this job to a scorned class of musical eunuchs whose only qualification is, of course, that they can’t do the dirty deed themselves.

    Critics, on the other hand, have nothing to lose. Their careers are already over. I have never met a music critic who is a successful musician. They either used to play, play in a garage band, pretend to play, or quit piano lessons when they were eleven. They start out hoping to make a contribution by pointing out how the real musicians fall short of the critic’s lofty standards. But in the end, most wind up as music-industry shills, hired suck-ups who hang at the teats of magazines and web sites that make their money from record-industry advertising. Even newspaper critics have to be careful not to offend the major venues and record labels whose money makes the Sunday Arts Section possible.

    So why don’t musicians speak out, demand higher standards, or at least require critics to get the facts right? Truth is, they’ve got us by the short hairs, or at least we think so.
    Everyday, independent musicians send copies of their latest CD to print and on-line media, praying they will get a mention. The goal is to generate a buzz and, hopefully, some sales. Guys, don’t get your hopes up. At least for independent music, reviews have little impact on sales. Word-of-mouth and selling from the stage move independent CDs, not reviews. Think about it. What idiot would spend fifteen dollars on a CD by a band they’ve never heard of, just because some guy they’ve never heard of recommends it? Remember, critics are mosquitoes sucking at the elephant of Art. Unless they’re diseased, they make no mark at all. And the only way you can catch their musical malaria is by believing what they say. Trust me, you know better than they do.

    “But wait!” I hear you crying, “Don, you’re such a hypocrite! Here you are, referring to critics as parasites, yet you post their reviews on your web site and you write reviews of other peoples’ CDs as well.”
    Correct. I’m not saying people should stop writing about music, but I’m not a critic, either. I don’t shill for the record companies or promote any of the indie ideologies which seek to politicize the art of music. I write reviews as a way of exploring artistic and professional issues that interest me, and to recommend music I think is cool.

    One of the most important lessons we can teach them is that it’s okay to have negative opinions, but that it’s not beneficial to continually voice them. It doesn’t do anyone any good to condemn the work of other artists. One of my teachers told me you should never criticize anyone, especially if they’re better than you. Music critics should take heed, because in their case, that’s just about everyone.

    I think part of the music critic problem is that so much of the public has little musical training and/or understanding. They hear something and either like it or they don't. But they never studied music as much as they studied math, history, etc. Many who did study an instrument as a child set it down years ago to focus on a non-music related career. Many couldn't criticize a musical performance other than saying I didn't like it or I liked it. So most don't even realize that a critic is inept and wouldn't know how to criticize the critic. If music was a bigger part of our basic education there would probably be more of a demand for better music and an intolerance of inept music critics.

    Mark Riordan

  9. JorgeRubiales
    Member

    I've checked it out today, and even before listening to it more carefully, I would say that Gilad has been too much time in NY. I miss several things on this album compared to his first one. One is the melodic content, which has changed for angular lines (that's ok, but it gets old after a few songs). Another one is his tone. What has happened to that beautiful tone he had? Now he seems to be after Kurt's soundalike, and that may be influencing the previous point. The third thing I miss is speed. The songs are all too low tempo for my taste, and I don't even like shred. It's not a bad album, but come one, Gilad can make it a lot better. Maybe I will come to love this album with time, but right now I'm dissapointed (even with Turner there, maybe they weren't inspired that day or something).

  10. jorgemg1984
    Member

    Well Jorge I said exactly the same thing you did on another thread and a lot of guys here took it very personally. Gilad had a very beautiful clean tone on his first two records and a ferocious stacatto groove. He sounded influenced by Kurt but had a very personal tone and compositional approach. With his new semi-hollow overdriven legatto tone he sounds too much like Kurt which is a shame. I guess the album is on the same league as his recent youtube videos... I still think he is a monster player and I wish he comes back to his original sound.

  11. JorgeRubiales
    Member

    Yep, he went from the nice "influenced by" to the not so nice "clearly influenced by". And as I said, this tone doesn't fit his way of playing, with all that ringing arpeggiated chords, and maybe that's why this album doesn't cut it for me.

    But I don't think anyone can take it personally (maybe just Gilad himself) as I'm not being rude or anything like that. And if someone it's too upset with my opinion, well...welcome to the internet lol

  12. patfarlow
    Member

    i bought it, i gotta listen to it more. but im also not crazy about the tone

  13. david6strings
    Member

    i'm trying to get the album, i have no money now hahaha, but im glad when you recommend things because i discover a lot of good music because of you, so thank you.
    i think we have to make a list of our favourite players as a side man because most of the players don't have the talent that kurt have as a composer but they are wonderful players and they shine in other's albums, and just because maybe i don't know the recordings i miss (sometimes) the best of his playing . i'm thinking know in how wondelful rodgers (bad exemple, adam is fine as a composer for me) was in alex sippiagin work or the guitarist in the christian scott's "rewind that" . i don't know...sometimes i hear a recording, i just love the guitar player, then get his own album, and realize that i like him a lot more in the recording when he plays as a sideman. that's not bad, not easy. so i'm checking the recommendation on chris cheek's a girl named joe by a guy of the forum right now hehehe cheeers

  14. jorgemg1984
    Member

    Anything by Chris Cheek is recommendable! :) One of the most underrated players these days, brilliant composer and improviser - one of the few sax players that manage to avoid the common coltrane cliches. He has a very unique strong voice on his instrument (his record with Kurt "I Wish I Knew" is my favorite standards record ever).

  15. Neither
    Member

    And Chris Cheek's "Vine" is great too, featuring Kurt Rosenwinkel, Brad Mehldau, Matt Penman, and Jorge Rossy. Some great compositions on it.

  16. JazzGuitar83
    Member

    I agree, Gilad is influenced by Kurt. But I still think he has a very strong personal voice and concept.
    Also, as far as sound goes, I believe he only started using this new guitar about half a year ago. The record was recorded a year and a half ago so it's still with his old setup...

  17. JorgeRubiales
    Member

    Then maybe he bought his new guitar because he was experimenting with different sounds and found out he wanted a more electric sound...

    I listened more carefully the album today. I would say that it went downhill in the second half, but I actually enjoyed some moments in the first half of it.

  18. silverwater
    Member

    I got the album a couple days ago, definitely worth the $9.99 (I definitely don't miss the days of paying $17.99 for a CD!)

    My highlight so far is the track "One More Song". Brilliant melody and solo vehicle and Mark Turner doing his thing like no one else.

    And although there are similarities, I think it's unfair and would disagree with the statement "he sounds like Kurt". As for the tone, Kurt didn't invent delay and distortion pedals. They use way different amounts of both, not to mention the numerous other differences, and the fact that these kinds of effects are commonplace in Jazz today. And with regards to his lines/melodies, Gilad sounds like a lot of other guys (including Kurt, Kreisberg, Lage, etc,) and what I mean is that he has a sound that many want to have these days, but only few are able to do so at that high a level.

    I'd simply say that Gilad's sound is a product of his location and generation, not stemming from a single source. There are probably a couple dozen guitarists under 35 living on my block that are trying for that sound.

  19. jazznan
    Member

    totally agree with you silverwater about, "didn't invent delay...". It's like saying this guy sounds like Kurt:

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Video Plugins

  20. wilmore
    Member

    great album! his clean tone is much brighter than kurt's IMO. also his harmonic conception is very different to my ears.

  21. david6strings
    Member

    sure the guy has his own voice...but i disagree in the sound. yes everybody now is a product of his generation, but when i heard kurt for the first time in the recording Yam Yam, 1994 nobody sounded this way. come on, in terms of sound, kurt has been so imitated as sco and metheny were in 80's, this is not a secret, there is people who knows how to do it well and the rest. also he has his unique combination of human voice over the guitar that gives his sound that texture with the diference of the two pitch, that is not the same benson used to do, this is a lot of more modern sound. now is easy to say everybody sound in a similar way but the truth is that everybody sound like kurt, he already did that twenty years ago

  22. JorgeRubiales
    Member

    My point was that, even if he doesn't get the same sound, he is clearly going for it, in his setup and in his improvisations. Hell, there's an intro in thsi album that reminds me a lot to a kurt's song (I can't remember both right now). And my other point was that he must have made that movement consciously and he tries to adapt his phrasing. I'm sure Kurt's process was the other way, he found(ed) his sound in response to his vocabulary. I just critizise this aspect from him, because he would help is music better if he searched for a sound that answers to his phrases, instead of looking for a "new voice" (which has already been invented).

    The perfect example of this is Peter Bernstein. Hell, the guy doesn't even uses reverb! But that's perfect for the kind of phrases that he does...

  23. jorgemg1984
    Member

    Bernstein doesn't use reverb? He sure does, its just in his vibrolux instead of a stompbox.

    Well the discussion turned exactly the same direction as did the other one. The point Jorge and I are trying to make here is that he is sound is much similar to Kurts these days than was some years ago. On his first two records his sound was influenced by Kurts but very personal - as someone said before was much brighter. I find his sound these days much more closer to Kurts sound and I wish he stayed with his old sound.

    Of course Kurt didn't invent hall reverb, short delay or RAT pedals. He just invented a way of using those effects that was completely different to the ones used before. And its a new trademark used by almost everyone. The thing is to use that influence and remain original - Gilad did that in the beginning and its not doing it now IMO.

  24. JorgeRubiales
    Member

    Oops, maybe when I saw him he didn't like the house amp, or I got fooled because it was a theater, hehe.

  25. wommusic
    Key Master

    Can I just say HEAR, HEAR on the positive comments about Chris Cheek? He is a wonderful, original musician, and I agree he doesn't play cliches, he plays music. I just wish he'd release more of it!

  26. jorgemg1984
    Member

    I will also say it again - listen to Chris Cheek! And its also a good excuse to hear Kurts playing.

  27. Joxo
    Member

  28. jorgemg1984
    Member

    Since there two Jorges here, I am not sure which you one you meant. If it was for me I will say it one more time: Gilad is a great player and I love his first two records. Just think his tone changed, its now closer to Kurts tone and I liked his old tone better. Just it.

  29. JorgeRubiales
    Member

    @Joxo: Sorry, but I don't buy the whole "if you can't do it, you have no right to critizise". I have a degree in music education and study in a conservatory, so I think I'm qualified enough to give an informed opinion about music. And I'm argumenting on the same line as jorgemg1984, I loved Gilad's previous albums, and I find this one a little bland. There's no need to be rude, the whole issue jumped at me as I was listening the album for the first time (and I was going with good preconceptions, as JazzGuitar83 recommended it).

    I will definitely check out Chris Cheek, as it seems a few people are raving about him over here (watch out Chris!! you're next on my list!! lol)

  30. Sandemose
    Member


Reply »

You must log in to post.