[Joe Hancock]

I was listening to NPR on the way home (only a 4 minute drive) and there was an interview in which the subject was about musicians. The interviewee said that often, artists will do something shockingly different later in their career to avoid the some, predictible and comfortable results that people come to expect from them.

Have any architects strayed from their M.O. in a shockingly different way later in life? Do you think it was for personal reasons as old age started to become reality?

I wonder if Nicklaus' contributions at Sebonack would qualify?

Joe

[Ian Andrew]

Joe,

Don't see the Nicklaus example with Sebonic. I liked the change at Ocean Hammock from works I had seen previously, but I'm not sure if that was Jack's change of thought, or imput from certain staff. Jim would definately be able to help there.

Wouldn't Mr. Dye be a good example. When you think of the Golf Club and Whistling Straights, the different approaches are jarring. But you can watch the progress from one idea through to the next over his career; so may be he's not a good example.

Walter Travis was far wilder and different early, and became much more consistant/predicatable later on.

Thompson never really deviated much from his beliefs or his style. Some was more flamboyant, and other courses were reigned in by cost.

[TEPaul]

How could the best example not be Desmond Muirhead? I mean what can you say---sometimes LSD works out and sometimes it doesn't.  

[Tom_Doak]

I would certainly second Desmond Muirhead.

Pete Dye, too.  The "shocking" course was the TPC at Sawgrass.  That's when he started designing for the Tour pros instead of for good amateurs.  All of the professionals loved Harbour Town and wanted Pete to build the TPC, and they were completely shocked by what they got.  [Of course, they forgot to tell Deane Beman what they expected, and his instructions to Pete were not exactly what the players were thinking.]

If Nicklaus did something shocking, it was Colleton River -- a low-key design with flat greens, a complete reversal from his courses in the early to mid 1980's.  But I don't think that was a clear reversal, just a response to feedback and to that client's wishes.  Seems like Jack is trying to be all things to all people now.

[Paul Payne]

TPaul,

I am not as familiar with Muirheads work but I have seen similar comments before on this site. The only course of his I've played is Indian Creek in GA. It is a nice but not all that unique course. (It was raining the whole round)

What are some examples of his more extravagant work?

[Paul Payne]

BTW,

I would have voted for Dye on the straits and Irish courses. This would simply be on the merits of what the property was before plow touched earth, and what they look like today.

It may not seem shocking when you look at it now, but to consider what his thought process was in building the courses, I would think an evesdropper would have considered him mad.

[Peter Pallotta]

A smart fellow pointed out to me that most jazz fans can recognize a Louis Armstrong solo in just two or three bars; likewise Stan Getz, or Charlie Parker or Thelonious Monk. Why? Because the greats REPEAT themselves EVERY SINGLE TIME. As hard as it is for an amatuer musician like myself to embrace, it's the repetition (of favourite licks, runs, chords) that gives the greats their STYLE. In other words, it's their  willingness to repeat themselves that makes the greats GREAT.

Does the same apply to golf course architects?

Thanks,
Peter    

[Cliff Hamm]

Peter...great question and one i've thought of...one can immediately recognize mozart, picaso, van gogh, etc.  Is that good?  Joni Mitchell on one of her albums comments ' Van Gogh already did Starry Nights why should I sing Both Sides Now again?  Interesting question.  Should one be able to say that's Fazio, Ross, Jones,, C & C, Doak or whomever?  We see many threads on  who did this course?  Would it not be better if it was new and not recognizable?  Is it good that one can look at a course and guess the architect?  Or should one be so creative that their work differs from course to course as to not be recognizable?  Good question.

[Joe Hancock]

Peter

You're right in that a musicians' style is a matter of repetition. BB King, Miles Davis, Woody Herman, Buddy Rich, Eddie VanHalen....Liberace...well, maybe not Liberace! But, the greats were great not because, like Doak pointed out, that they tried to do everything great....they did what THEY did great. All that comes from a guy (me) who can't play a lick on any instrument, so I may be all wet.

Which leads to a quandary of sorts. We tend to think variety is king when it comes to architecture. Do architects try to change things up so they don't get pigeon-holed into the "formulaic" camp? Do they make more attempts at this the deeper into their career they get? And, what's so wrong with sticking with ones' style (think Engh)?

Joe

[Peter Pallotta]

Cliff, Joe

you both put the question better and more succinctly than I did.  

Tom D says that nowadays Jack N wants to be all things to all people. I'd put it differently:

Jack N wants to be all things to all people, as long as what all the people want is only and exactly what JACK is willing and able to give them.

Jack REPEATS himself, constantly. Does that make him a bad architect? an un-creative one? Or does 'playing' the same riffs and licks over and over again make him a GENIUS, and explain the huge fees he commands?

And whatever our answer, would we/should we apply the same criteria to, for example, C&C?

Peter

[Joe Hancock]

Peter,

I think we do apply the same criteria....it's just that I don't always understand the criteria!

I'm not so well traveled that I can speak intelligently about Nicklaus, Doak, C&C...heck, anyone but DeVries, really, as far as repetition, style, etc. If Jack repeats himself ALL the time, I wouldn't know it because I've only played a few of his courses. It seems to me that his course on Kiawah Island was much more subdued than anything else I saw from him, but that was a long time ago and my memory could be bad.....call it grandpa-itis if you will.

I've heard others mention a C&C formula....it may have included ramped approaches to greens, but I've never played any of their courses. Does Doak have a riff? What about MacKenzie? What was his repeatable, identifiable sound?

I think the favored archies here are more like musicians who play by ear...they don't "feel" it if they read the notes....they get a piece of ground and do their thing on site, not in the studio. That's why I think great golf architecture and jazz are so similar.

Well, that's getting dangerously close to off topic, but anyway....did Brubeck do anything shocking when he was 70?

Joe

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()