Ok, what's so great about... Steely Dan?

[progholio]

whatever it is that's "so great" about Steely Dan I love it.

My personal favorite is Countdown To Ecstasy, from the opening drumbeat of Bodhisattva to the closing outro/freaking teaser of an amazing guitar solo (Skunk Baxter if i'm not mistaking) on King Of The World - it's sublime perfection in my book.

[Jerjo]

After decades of Aja holding down the #1 spot, now I go through phases of which Dan album I prefer. It seems to be Pretzel Logic this month.

[Jefferson James]

I revisited Pretzel Logic last night after seeing some ho-hum comments here, I think it's a great album. Always loved "Barrytown".

[progeezer]

I revisited Pretzel Logic last night after seeing some ho-hum comments here, I think it's a great album. Always loved "Barrytown".

Not among my favorite SD albums (much love for Can't Buy, Countdown & Scam-top 3 here) but any album that has the lines "we'll be groovin' high, relaxing at Camarillo" & "we will spend a lazy weekend smacked into a trance" deserves props!

[Guitarplyrjvb]

^^ Despite Frank Zappa making fun of it, I love Rikki Don't Lose That Number on Pretzel Logic! Isn't Boston Rag on that, too? That's a great tune!

[progeezer]

Boston is on Countdown.

[No Pride]

My favorite SD album is and will always be "The Royal Scam." Every tune is a winner and Larry Carlton at his best!

[Jefferson James]

My favorite SD album is and will always be "The Royal Scam." Every tune is a winner and Larry Carlton at his best!

I was lucky to see the tour where SD played Scam in it's entirety with Larry Carlton sitting in the whole concert -- amazing!

[No Pride]

One SD tune that I went from not liking to loving is Gaucho. This came about when I had to learn it for a gig, subbing with a SD cover band. The arrangement is full of detail and being that I prefer memorization over trying to sight read, I had to spend more time on that one than anything else in the book. Interestingly, it's mostly diatonic (not much deviation from the tonal center), but it's the chord voicings and little things going on instrumentally that keeps it interesting, not to mention the beautiful melody. And of course there's the glorious guitar solo stating the melody (with some slight variation) at the end; I had fun with that! The lyrics are a little weird (it appears to be about a homosexual love triangle), but we come to expect that from The Dan. I used to skip that track on the album, but all that has changed now!

[No Pride]

I was lucky to see the tour where SD played Scam in it's entirety with Larry Carlton sitting in the whole concert -- amazing!

Cool!

[Baribrotzer]

The lyrics are a little weird (it appears to be about a homosexual love triangle)

Couldn't quite figure it out myself. I had guessed, though, that it was sung in the persona of some Big Shot, who'd been able to ignore the (gay) private life of a fellow Big Shot - but suddenly couldn't any more when that erstwhile business partner showed up for a meeting with his latest pick-up.

[proggy_jazzer]

For years I thought the lyric in Gaucho was "...no he can't sleep on the floor...what do you think I'm married for..." which I think actually fits into the narrative rather well!

[jkelman]

It seems that every rock journalist is required to refer to Steely Dan as 'smart', 'clever', 'thinking man's rock', with further requisite remarks about the 'skillful production'. No pundit dare dis them.
Ok, Riki, Do It Again, and Reelin' In The Years are indeed on a level above 90% of all radio fare from the 70's, with the latter tune containing The Greatest Opening in Rock Music History. But a lot of their other stuff seems to me to be pretty MOR, the production slick to the point of muting the dynamics, a bit emotionally detached, even --dare I say it -- sonically predictable.

So, what makes them earn all the plaudits? Theories, ideas, samples, references please...

I'm not going to read 8 pages that dissolve into the same old, same old. So forgive me for any redundancy.

In a nutshell, Becker and Fagen, with Steely Dan, were amongst the first to really find a way to marry the more complex language of jazz with pop and rock music. I can't agree with you about much of their music sounding like MOR, but to each their own.

But the real deal, and as a writer who hasn't used those clichés but have used some of my own (!), is that the Dan IS intelligent pop music, because of (a) integration of the aforementioned jazz language; (b) the pair's acerbic, dry as a bone lyrical wit; (c) the spectacular playing on every album, from the early days when they were actually a group to later, when Becker and Fagen would often try multiple combinations of musicians until they got exactly what they were looking for...many of them jazz musicians, like Wayne Shorter, Steve Khan, Larry Carlton, Steve Gadd, Chris Potter, Wayne Krantz, Jon Herrington and many others; and the outstanding production..which some might call slick and overproduced, but which I call exactly what this music needs.

Now, if you're not a jazz fan, I can understand why you might not like the Dan (though many fans are either not jazz fans...or find the Dan the gateway drug to the genre)...or if you only like your music raw, warts and all, their perfectionist demands and near-perfect productions - from sonic, writing and performance perspectives - might be off-putting.

But me? I love 'em, and consider more recent songs like "Gaslighting Abbie," "What a Shame About Me" and "The Things I Miss the Most," from their two new millennium studio albums, to be every bit as good as "Don't Take Me Alive," "Aja," "The Royal Scam," "Any World That I'm Welcome To" and "Here at the Western World" - and, for a progressive connection (and the Dan may not have been a progressive rock band in the conventional sense but with emphasis on the word "progressive," they absolutely were a progressive band, pushing music forward in ways nobody else had or has done since), it's interesting to note that Britain's Sanguine Hum did a terrific version of the latter song on their last release, What We Ask is Where We Begin - The Songs for Days Sessions.

Hope that helps. But the Dan seems to be either a love it or hate it group, and the hate mostly comes from the very jazz that underscores most of the group's music, and the perfectionist polish that also is fundamental. There are, of course, plenty of perfectionist musicians, but few are quite so anally so as the Dan. While there are exceptions, most albums take months or years to make, with multiple sessions with, as I said, different musicians as Becker and Fagen look for just the right sound.

Cheers!
John

[jkelman]

I did an interview with the 'jazz'guitarist Jean Paul Bourelly in the 90'ties who said about jazz:

jpb - At this point jazz is a term used by the industry to categories music that either can't be categorized by industry standards or where there is improvisation as a fundemental activity within the music.
I have no personal opinion on what "jazz" is. But I know all of the music that can be found in the jazz section of a record store is not same type of music. So obviously there are huge inaccuraces that I hope music buyers will be aware of in the future.

Good quote! To be clear, when I talk of the "jazz language," I mean of the more traditional, American-centric variety (it's no surprise the Dan tip their hat to both Duke Ellington and Charlie Parker on Pretzel Logic, their third studio album); that said, jazz has evolved from its American roots into something global, with the influence of many cultures upon it...in fact, I'd suggest jazz is the most cosmopolitan music there is, because even its early days were always about cross-pollination; listen to Sidney Bechet in the '20s through '40s, and you'll hear quotes from Italian opera in his solos, as just one example. New Orleans, often considered jazz's birthplace, was a cosmopolitan blend of Americans, French/Acadian and the African slaves who were allowed to play their music in Congo Square once a week, on Sunday mornings. All these things fed into what early jazz would be.

[jkelman]

I was lucky to see the tour where SD played Scam in it's entirety with Larry Carlton sitting in the whole concert -- amazing!

Lucky...lucky....bastard!

[jkelman]

I don't think anybody is describing them as major jazz innovators, or even minor ones. They aren't, and they'd probably be the first to tell you that. They're just a couple of pop/rock/R&B songwriters who really love jazz, who have studied it to the point of understanding its harmonic language and how to work within that vocabulary, who employ jazz-rooted sessionmen to play on their records and fill out their live band, and who occasionally hire real full-time jazz musicians as soloists. And who get a certain amount of respect from some jazzers for their writing, and for their love of and championing of the music.

A perfect explanation!!! Great post!!

[jkelman]

By comparison, it's a tiny list. I've been studying jazz (and believe me, following it can be considered a second career compared to following rock) for over a quarter of a century, and I'm well aware of the sociopolitical circumstances involved. With the way black musicians have traditionally been treated in most American music genres (do some research - many felt the need to move to Europe to find respect), it only compounds the problem when guys like Steely Dan are given credit for things they (a) had nothing to do with AND (b) are getting more vocal massaging and hero worship than the inventors of the art form. I don't understand all the "jazz yanking" that these guys get, especially when there are real heroes who actually made a difference and exerted influence that SD could only dream of. Part of the problem is the lack of recognition that jazz players have traditionally played in rock settings (and they can all hang there, whereas the opposite is definitely not always true) to earn the type of dough they don't playing jazz. As a result, the fact that some of them have played with SD is not always a sign that they admire them. Similarly, do you really think that jazz musicians liked playing in Broadway pit bands and in talk show bands to earn a decent living?

I haven't read this whole thread, MiL, but I'd certainly not suggest the Dan were jazz innovators. If anything they were, with their infusion of jazz vernacular into pop music, pop innovators. But innovators they most certainly were. As for getting more notice than those who created jazz...well, really, what would you expect? They were in a genre with the capacity to sell literally millions and millions of records, while jazz's commercial apex was for a relatively brief period.

Is it fair? Of course not. But it is what it is, and can't really, in all fairness, be used to denigrate the Dan's success. If anything, as I said in another post, Dan acted, for some, as the gateway drug into jazz, and so if their incorporation of jazz harmonies into their music did nothing more than that, it would have value.

But to be clear: Steely Dan has never been about jazz innovation; it's been about pop innovation where, at least IMO, they were progressive the same way Earth, Wind & Fire and Stevie Wonder - two other artists who, in different ways, brought jazz harmony into soul/r&about music.

As for admiration? I doubt one-timers, like Shorter, might have particular fondness for the group (but then again, he might; I doubt he's ever been asked, has he?), but regulars like Carlton, for example, did. Steve Khan was a fan, too. For some, no doubt, it was just a gig (though the Dan sure managed to get the best out of them, I think), but for others it was more...as is often the case.

Bemoaning the "real" jazz artists who've not received the recognition they should? I'm not sure as I've not read the whole thread, but if you're saying the number of white cats who can play jazz is small relative to the AA community? Sorry, man, but that's pure poppycock. As someone who, at his peak, was receiving upwards of 300 CDs for review consideration/month, I can tell you that the lion's share of jazz albums released today are from white musicians. And I'm talking major labels (what little they do!), indie labels, artist-released albums...the entire gamut.

It's true that it's unfair and a major shame...but it's a fact. All About Jazz was, at one point, targeted by some AAs, complaining at the relative dearth of AA coverage; Michael's response was exactly mine...that probably 80% of the jazz albums being released are coming from white jazz musicians. So, while the site absolutely covers black musicians, it's not a surprise that the preponderance of articles are about whites. But it's not any kind of preferential treatment on the site's part. It's based on a simple truth.

[jkelman]

It sounds like you're doubting what has been true for years - that jazz does not provide nearly as many opportunities for making a comfortable living as rock does.

To bolster that: when Dave Liebman teaches, it's not uncommon for him to tell his students (in jazz programs) that if they think they're going to be able to pay off their student loans playing jazz, well, think again.

There was even a brief movement in NYC called the Stretch Movement, created by young musicians who'd recently graduated from jazz programs, to try and create work in others genres, for exactly that reason. We even gave them a forum at All About Jazz to express what they were about, and you can check out their series of articles here.

[jkelman]

What's NOT great about Steely Dan?

Indeed!

[jkelman]

Yeah, totally. Steely Dan and The Police -- two bands I can appreciate as being very successful in decoding what makes a hit, and then using their not-inconsiderable musical skills to write a lot of hits. On purpose. With no higher goal than to get rich doing it.

In both cases, I feel like I'm listening to a a corporation that ought to sell shares to their "product."

And this is totally untrue in both cases. Yes, they were looking for success - and if anything, the Police's egos got the best of them, which is not the case with Dan) - as were many groups. But both groups also innovated, in their own ways. How many guitarists and groups tried to incorporate the sound of the Police, in particular Andy Summers' guitar tone? The Dan were a bit harder, as you needed to have a broader understanding of harmony.

But as successful as both groups were, neither sounded to me, ever, like product. And if a band's true measure of success can be the influence they had on the music world, then how can that be product? At least IMO.

Heck, in the '70s, Elton John would check out the top 40 chart to see what was appealing to the larger public, to help him write his songs. Was it calculated? Yes. Was it, at least for the first half decade or so of his career, "product"? I sure don't think so, when you look at albums like Madman Across the Waters, Honky Chateau, Tumbleweed Connection and Goodbye Yellow Brick Road.

[jkelman]

Speaking of Stern - he messed himself up. He should've ended up being more popular than Scofield.

Well, I'm not so sure about that. He's great - and has cleaned himself up now for decades - but I do find that his approach to tone and harmony when constructing solos, is relatively limited, compared to Sco. I mean, I'd love to know what he knows and he able to play even his more limited stuff, honestly, so no disrespect. But other than that he got booted by Miles for his substance abuse problems, and so had he not been replaced he might have been bigger, yes. But Miles also regularly shifted personnel, and I suspect once he heard Sco he wanted him. That Sco has had a bigger career isn't as if Stern hasn't had major label exposure, lots of work (not so much now it seems, but in the '90s and early '00s) and all. But Sco's breadth of exposure - from jazz purists to jamband hippies - has ensured a far greater degree of success than even his association with name labels and artists has done.

Just some thoughts.

[jkelman]

Define the word "troll" appropriately. One who has an opinion which doesn't match up to the 5 people here touting Steely Dan as the second coming (very strange for a prog board, btw) is not one. Trust me, I know my shit. There's something wrong with jazz not getting the love it deserves and the Dan being called sophisticated. Puhleeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaasssssssse.

See, and I cannot agree. The two are not related. Yes, it's unfair that a lot of jazz musicians don't get the credit and success they deserve, you know I believe that with all my heart. But what does that have to do with the Dan being called sophisticated?

In the context of the pop world in which they've lived unequivocally (I doubt they'd consider themselves a jazz band!), they were both progressive in their marriage of jazz harmony with pop sensibilities and, in pop terms, sophisticated. Very sophisticated.

Now, being sophisticated doesn't make you great, but I think the Dan are, as a progressive pop band, just as I think Neil Finn/Crowded House are...and they are also sophisticated, but in a very different way.

More food for thought?

[jkelman]

Point? Chicago had horns. So did Blood, Sweat and Tears. Were they jazz/not jazz too? Weren't Steely Dan just doing what they did? As a matter of fact, the great Joe Henderson was a member of BST for a while. Do you really think that that was his choice? He was doing it for a paycheck, the same as Phil Woods, or Larry Carlton, or Victor Feldman. Not sure why Shorter took their money - he was already a co-leader of a band that was more popular than Dan when he soloed on Aja.

Well, maybe Wayne was a Dan fan; if money is not an issue, then why would a jazz legend like Wayne take the gig? I think that speaks volumes.

Yes, Chicago and BST had horns, and their early albums were also quite sophisticated. But the way they incorporated jazz influences was very, very different...but, while certainly progressive for their time, not as influential, I don't think, as the Dan. I'm not even sure why, as much of Kath-era Chicago was pretty damn sophisticated, in the writing especially. But because the Dan didn't lose their mojo, whereas Chicago and BST both went far more overtly for commercial success (not denying the Dan did, but it didn't seem to affect their music as much) and that diluted the progressive leanings of their early stuff.

And also, to be clear: not all jazzers who played with Dan did it strictly for the money. As I've said, first hand I know both Carlton and Khan were happy to have the chance to play with a group like the Dan, even if only in the studio (for the most part). Some did, to be sure. But there's nothing wrong with taking a good gig that appeals to you to make some scratch.

It's good news that, 13 years on, people have finally stopped saying that Nels Cline is "moonlighting" in Wilco. Again, first hand, yes, he's grateful that Wilco has not only allowed him to be a full time musician that can pay his rent (!) and do jazz projects that he could never have previously afforded; he also loves playing with them, because in addition to being a Jim Hall, Wes Montgomery, John Coltrane etc fan, he was also a huge Byrds, Dylan, Allman Brothers, etc fan when he was growing up. So he's in the lucky position of being able to play almost everything he loves.

Life rarely works out that way. But yes, most musicians want to make a living...and most, while not looking to be millionaires aspire to what we do: a home, food on the table, some comfortable living. That, however, need not be mutually exclusive from playing music you will enjoy. I do know some musicians who, irrespective of the money, take only gigs that appeal to them.

And while playing with the Dan and Fagen solo brought him a nice pay check, I'll bet Wayne Krantz dug every moment of it.

[jkelman]

Offended? LOL

When you've polled (or poled) all jazzers and jazz lovers, let me know. And why exactly does the fact that many here love them matter to me? If it did, I would've been listening to the Eagles and Blue Oyster Cult for the last 40 years.

Well, it may disappoint you to learn - huge jazz fan that you know I am - that in recent times I've started warming to the whole Southern California rock/pop scene, starting with the Byrds and Buffalo Springfield, through to Eagles and Fleetwood Mac (I think, now, that Lindsey Buckingham is vastly underrated).

As I get older, I'm finding, in addition to new stuff, that I'm revisiting stuff I tended even, at times, to revile...often because of overexposure. Mac's Rumours, for example. But 40 years later, it holds up as a terrific pop record, start to finish, with great hooks, terrific production values and, for what they are, great performances (and I think drummer Mick Fleetwood is also underrated...an imaginative drummer who, in a pop context, rarely if ever plays what you'd expect him to play). And their follow up, Tusk, is a middle finger salute to Rumours' success, a quirkier, more idiosyncratic record with a lot to offer.

Anyway, I've always said good music is where you find it. And for me, I keep on finding it, whether it's rediscovering to older stuff I'd largely ignored, or new music from younger artists looking to push the envelope.

[jkelman]

I grew up in NY, and spent many weekends from my late teens to late 20's at jazz clubs in NY. The Vanguard, Sweet Basil, Zinc, Blue Note, etc., etc. as well as hole-in-the-wall places with no notoriety outside of the hardcore jazzbo scene. Man, every time I was at 55 Christopher, no matter who was playing, I heard some standards. The fact is that Jazz, as an art form, still relies very heavily on standards.

As an educational tool, yes. But less and less in performance, especially if you factor the European scene into the picture.

Sorry, but I've seen jazz everywhere from Canada and the USA to Norway, Germany, South Africa, Malaysia, Estonia, Finland, Italy and elsewhere. The value of jazz standards remains inestimable, but few play many of them anymore. That was not true during the neocon explosion of the early '80s, but now? Sorry, man, but you couldn't be more mistaken.