I've read the various comments on Maret with interest. I presume we all agree that his playing exhibits a very high degree of technical mastery; certainly I would be hard-pressed to pull off some of the things he plays without apparent effort. I think we would also agree that some of the best jazz musicians of our time have sought his contributions to their music.
So what does that leave to complain about? His style, I guess. What most of the complaints boil down to is some people don't like the music he plays. It's too outside, or too complex, or too something (or not enough of something else) for those listeners.
To which I say: in matters of taste, there is no dispute. There's no point arguing about whether someone likes someone else's work: you do or you don't. Either way, it says as much about the listener as it says about the artist. Audiences like boundaries; artists tend to push boundaries, because it's the only way to find out just how far their ideas can go.
Whether you find Maret's work enjoyable or not, there's no point arguing about his artistry. He's an artist with a capital A. I'm going to listen to anything he does at least once, because there are very few harmonica players in the world who have (or ever had) his utterly mad musical and instrumental skills, and I learn something from him every time I hear him. I don't expect to like everything he does, but that's no big deal.
We can let history figure out whether his path is the way forward for harmonica players in general.
Regards, Richard Hunter
author, "Jazz Harp" latest mp3s and harmonica blog at http://hunterharp.com Myspace http://myspace.com/richardhunterharp Vids at http://www.youtube.com/user/lightninrick more mp3s at http://taxi.com/rhunter Twitter: lightninrick