The Grammys!

In my second blog, I talked about the female figure in jazz and considered the ways in which jazz as a whole has dealt with gender discrimination. I mentioned briefly Esperanza Spalding, the new up-and-coming jazz bassist/singer with a killer image and great talent. This next blog is sparked by the latest post by Patrick Jarenwattananon in A Blog Supreme. In essence, the author notes the jazz surprises in the 2011 Grammy Award nominations and notes that Spalding received a nomination for best new artist, yet did not receive one for best new jazz musician. As Jarenwattananon did, here is the full list of Grammy Nominees.

My first reaction to this is enthusiasm. It seems like finally a jazz musician is touching America just as deeply as Drake and the teen heart-throb Justin Bieber, whom both appear on the nominee list alongside Spalding. With Best Song nominees such as “Fuck You” by Cee-Lo Green making the list makes me wonder what America really considers to be great and progressive music. (Don’t get me wrong. This particular song has a sweet beat and is appallingly catchy. I just would not deem it the Best Song of the Year.)



In the categories having to do with jazz such as Best Jazz Vocal Album, Best Improvised Jazz Solo, and Best Instrumental Jazz Album (Individual or Group), Spaulding’s name does not appear. This makes me wonder how this reflects upon her success as a musician, an artist, and a performer. It also makes me consider the question of how much Spalding’s commercial success outweighs her musical accomplishments. My feelings are similar with the success of Norah Jones Grammy success in 2003, another woman whose image may have boosted voter confidence.

Overall, I am pretty pleased with the nomination. After all, this particular category is not called Best New Jazz Artist, but Best Artist overall. This category has always been dominated by pop stars and I don’t recall a jazz artist ever finding themselves in this specific category. And as for who will win the title of Best New Artist, that I cannot say. Trying to compare Spalding with Justin Bieber is just… something I never thought I would have to consider. What I do know is that the Grammy Awards are not always all about musicianship and talent, so I am sorry to say that Bieber might just come out on top for this one.

Christmas Time!

It was November 5^th when I first heard Christmas music on the radio this year. I thought that was pretty ridiculous. And then I noticed last week that Wynton Marsalis released a Christmas album this year with Wycliffe Gordon, Victor Goines and many others. It made me think about how much jazz has been used in Christmas music. From Vince Guaraldi’s A Charlie Brown Christmas to numerous jazz vocalists producing albums full of Christmas music, jazz has become a mainstay in the American Christmas soundtrack.

Christmas music is a giant industry and we hear it on the radio constantly for 2 months out of the year. Most of what we hear is not religious and just has to do with the modern tradition of being with family and gift-giving. Christmas has become much more of a family tradition than a religious celebration. I know lots of people, myself included, who never go to church, yet keep a pine tree in their living room every December. So Christmas music is no longer sacred, but it’s become a folk tradition.

Jazz began as a folk tradition, learning traditional tunes and telling stories. So it’s only natural that jazz has become such a huge medium for creating an American tradition of telling new Christmas stories. We sing about Santa Claus, chestnuts roasting, and snowy weather and these American stories are best told through America’s own music.

It is important to remember tradition and Christmas and Jazz both have such a rich tradition in America. I think it’s great that we have created our own national version of this widely celebrated holiday, even though a lot of it can be a bit annoying. I’d prefer if we could at least wait until Thanksgiving to start the constant influx of Christmas music.

Finding your own Identity

Every one has an identity. Rather, they have several things to identify with that make up who they are.

I am white.

I am male.

I am from New Jersey.

I like baseball.

I was raised Roman Catholic.

None of these are particularly interesting or extraordinary, but they define who I am by creating a set of experiences that I have known throughout my life. I have never really felt what it’s like to be in a minority (besides being a Mets’ fan in a sea of Yankee’s fans), but I imagine it allows a much clearer sense of identity. Whether it is race, culture, sexual preference, gender or anything else with a strong history of identity, you can choose how to let it into your life in different ways.

You can shun it, disassociate yourself from it and assimilate yourself to the norm.

Or you can exploit it, allow it to permeate all that you do, and when people look at you they can say, “Wow, that person is one specific thing!”

Or you can simply embrace your identity, let it influence who you are, but not let it become your entire being.

Vijay Iyer and Rudresh Mahanthappa discuss this at length in their conversation transcribed in the article Sangha: Collaborative Improvisations on Community. Vijay and Rudresh are both Indian American jazz musicians who have seen success in the US for the past 15 or so years. Both have a strong identity of their cultural roots, but have gone through phases of how they let into their lives.

Rudresh, speaking about how an entertainment lawyer was trying to sell him as blatantly Indian says,

“You need to pigeonhole yourself further, because you’re just a wild card. Here you are, you’re Indian American but you’re playing jazz, so you don’t fit into any preconceived notion of what a jazz musician is supposed to be. It all seems so edgy, if we could put you in a box, that way people could understand.”

Rudresh seemed uncomfortable with the fact that this lawyer wanted to take this angle. Both Rudresh and Vijay express throughout their conversation that they just want to be considered as jazz musicians and be judged on the merit of their music. While they do admit that they have explored Indian music and it can sometime have strong influence on their compositions, that is only a part of what their music means and it becomes part of their music’s identity.

On the whole I agree with Vijay and Rudresh’s ideas that although racial identity (or any identity) may have an influence on your art, it doesn’t and shouldn’t have to be the point of it. Hopefully, listeners will listen to the music without putting a label on it and just decide whether or not they enjoy it.

I think it’s great that identity and upbringing can have an influence on how one writes music, but it I don’t think it can ever be the focus. No one person is ever just one thing and that’s what makes everyone individual. If you’re able to embrace the individuality of yourself and everyone around you can begin to appreciate all art just for what it is.

Problems in Education: an Exercise in Efficiency

With the thought-provoking presentations in today’s discussion, I have been thinking of the sources for problems in our education, and specifically jazz education. Jazz in either performance or education must run very efficiently stay viable, let alone lucrative. Think about the modern jazz artist: the ability to recognize, play, and even live-transcribe hundreds of standard songs with endless creativity and variety across gigs lasting hours. With this skill in mind, not even counting artist compositions, doubling skills, or ability to take audience requests, a newly-formed jazz ensemble can gig or record often with little or no rehearsal time. This level of flexibility and efficiency is not expected out of classical musicians, yet comparable talent in the classical world is often met with greater financial reward.

Why do we have grades? Even if we could devise a meaningful way to critique and motivate each individual student in each class, this would compromise the efficiency of the program, its viability, and therefore its ability to meet the needs of future students. As for jazz educators who know they are accepting too many students to sustain in the field, they are also subject to other pressures. I find it difficult to believe that I would turn down an opportunity to teach some eager students at a school that wanted my services and could sustain my living. As far as being honest with each individual student, I don’t think teachers should sugar-coat anything but should not be too quick to judge who they think can make it in the field. Maybe they should, I am not quite sure; I just know that teachers have been discouraging to me and it has only spurred me to success as I have tried to prove them wrong. This is only true for my skills in which I have confidence; when teachers have mirrored my internal criticism, it quickly becomes an obstacle and a detriment to my education, when it could have been only a minor struggle.

I don’t bash efficiency for the institution, if you know what you’re getting before you sign up, because the institution functions only if it can create enough output with its capital. However, large classes and firm academic structure make for a sub optimally efficient education for each individual student, and the student should take the initiative to search for learning opportunities in the real world. Unfortunately it is hard to motivate students in this way if they aren’t motivating themselves, and the reward is only a slight improvement for students who are not ready to be ambitious in the real world.

In my own education I have balanced public school, the conservatory, and private mentorship outside of the school setting. As I have been exposed to more methods of education consumption, I have been acutely aware of the areas in which I lack education or could have learned much more efficiently. With this in mind, it is a paradox to say that I found this hodgepodge of educational systems to teach me the most in the least amount of time.



BY THE WAY, MAKE SURE TO CHECK OUT THIS YOUTUBE CLIP---SUPER FUNNY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLW5KINBw9s

You are all racists and sexists!

I would like to talk about some taboo subjects, as they at times hinder meaningful collaboration. I talked today in my presentation about the “feminism pill” being hard to swallow because men feel they are unfairly being cast as the enemy, but in reality often face the same challenges women do. The truth is, both men and women often stand in the way of fair treatment across the gender border, even women against women and men against men. Women often support hurtful stereotypes such as displaying themselves provocatively in their media sources such as their publicity packages and facebook pages, using this to try to allure more patronage. I see this as very different as sexuality being a form of self-expression. It’s a matter of where you would like to put your control border…do you want to control only yourself, or do you want to extend your borders out to control other people? When I conduct my interviews to round out my term paper, I will be asking the following questions:




“How do you feel men are affected by issues of sexuality and marketing? What kinds of choices in self-representation do you see with male artists and do you think this fundamentally differs from the stereotypes afforded to women? “


It would be silly to say that oppression is equal for men as it is for women, or for white people as it is for black people. However, we shouldn’t dismiss their less-voiced complaints. But are women judged on different criteria, or just more harshly on the same set of criteria?


I heard an Ethnic Studies professor give a lecture during my undergrad, which she started by saying, “If you are white, you are a racist.” I am white and became obviously offended by this remark, but as she spoke she clarified and redefined the word “racism” to include many subconscious acts. Racism doesn’t have to be intentional to be wildly hurtful. She talked about “white privilege,” which is the concept that through generations of cultural stigma and whites enjoying more wealth than blacks, white people have had more opportunities and incentive to pursue education, lucrative jobs, and status (this not a groundbreaking idea, but I use it to set up the next concept.) By simply holding on to white privilege, white people support this inequality, although it is natural and presumably healthy to want to preserve the greatest opportunities for oneself. Unfortunately, white privilege is impossible to escape as it is impossible to escape your skin. We are not even fully aware of the opportunities afforded to us due to skin color, or gender, and thus support harmful systems without realizing it.


No, I don’t mean anything hurtful when I say, “you are all racists and sexists!” I don’t mean just men, or just white people; even those of us with the best intentions should become aware of what’s really going on.


Posted by UrbanDiction

XXL: The Bigger the better!

So, why'll sitting in my room drinking my second pot of coffee for the day, I was again listening to my most favorite composer of all time, David Maslanka. However, he hasn't come out with anything new in a little while, and I can only listen to his 8th Symphony be helplessly played by the Illinois State University Wind Ensemble so many times. So, I turn my attention to the other 42.7 days of music I have sitting on my computer. And I happened to come across some Jazz! All right!

Looking through, I honestly thought that none of my jazz collection would be cool or hip enough for the likes of my fellow peers. So I skimmed through again, thought to myself, "I like big band music too much to not write about it" and started writing. So here we go!

A good friend of mine gave me a CD entitled XXL: Gordon Goodwinds Big Phat Band a while back, and sad to say I thought I had lost it. Luckily, due to the technological age we live in, I told him this, and he gave me another. As I finally listen to it now, I wonder why I haven't listened sooner! Ever hear of Gordon Goodwind? Ever see the movie The Incredibles? He arranged the ending credits to the movie, and won a Grammy in 2006 for it. Pretty hip, if I do say so myself. Take a listen if you want.

This CD is so much fun to listen to, with of course a few exceptions of pieces that I just skip whenever they come along. One track called "The Quiet Corner" is drenching with smooth jazz, and would most likely be heard in elevators across Americas shopping malls. I also suggest not listening to it when your alone with anyone...they might get the wrong impression. Another track I would skip is "Comes Love", which sounds too much like an American Idol audition than anything else.

However, the rest of the CD is great! The clarinet solo in "Thad said no" is very well performed, and probably my most favorite track on there has to be "Hunting Wabbits." It's Gordon Goodwinds take on the classic Warner Bros. cartons of Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, and it makes me smile every time I listen to it. Goodwind also has an incredible arrangement of Mozart's 40th Symphony in G minor on this CD. Sometimes when you hear jazz arrangements of symphonies like this, most writers do not do them justice. This one however is a very classy arrangement, and just like the rest of the album, it's very fun to listen to.

So if you're looking to get back into listening to big band, I would say this is a good place to start. It's a tight group, the soloists are outstanding, and the music can just put you in a good mood.

Artistic Genius as Primitive Being

“…aesthetic pleasure in the beautiful consists, to a large extent, in the fact that, when we enter the state of pure contemplation, we are raised for the moment above all willing, above all desires and cares; we are, so to speak, rid of ourselves.”

The lofty artist has always been seen as somehow above the rest of society. This quote from early 19^th century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer shows that long before jazz, the true artist was seen as entering a state that was not at all physical, but existed only on a spiritual level. What Schopenhauer was getting at is that a human achieves art by leaving behind all the burdens of the material world and becoming something more than human. This same concept can be applied to the “hip” jazz musicians of the mid-twentieth century.

In Ingrid Monson’s article, “The Problem with White Hipness,” she talks a lot about how jazz artists were viewed as primitive beings that existed only for the music. The hip artists seemed unconcerned with worldly problems and were always seeking the more spiritual side of life. She points out that “negative social behaviors could be transformed into positive markers of artistic genius.” I think this perspective is very related to Schopenhauer’s philosophy of purity of being. Whether it be through the use of drugs or just being completely absorbed into the aural sensation of the music, jazz musicians seemed to step up to that next level of being in the 1950s. This is when jazz truly became known as an artform instead of a simple means of entertainment. Fans of jazz at the time really felt they saw the transformation from human to artist when they watched these performers.

I find it interesting that over a century before the primitive view of jazz musicians made them seem more artistic, people were philosophizing about separating body from mind and mind from society to make art truly beautiful. This shows that jazz became an established transformative and moving artform through this concept of hipness.

Classical Crossovers

The issue of classical artists crossing over into the jazz realm has been hotly contested by music critics and aficionados. Classical musicians such as violinist Nigel Kennedy, vocalist Renee Fleming and bassoonist (yes, bassoon) Daniel Smith are some of the names today that have released jazz albums. All of these musicians are well-known and respected artists in their field and chose to explore a different style of music than what made them successful. These albums can be fun for fans of the artists to hear different styles and I’m sure the performers have a blast trying out new means of expression.

However, if an established, well-known classical musician suddenly decides they want to venture away from their comfort zone and create a jazz album, suspicions arise. Are these crossover albums being made for the sole reason of making more money and, if so, doesn’t this signify a complete lack of artistic integrity?

For some reason, these two questions always seem to be intertwined. Of course these albums are being made to make money. An artist’s talent is his product and any way he can get people to buy his product is fine by me. But just because they’re out to make money, does not mean there is no artistry behind the music. These people are some of the top artists in their field, and if they can interpret one type of music well, why not another?

A lot of people don’t listen to classical music, or jazz for that matter, because they feel that it’s inaccessible and they have to know something about it in order to enjoy listening to it. For this reason, I think there is always value in artist expanding their repertoire into other genres. If Nigel Kennedy’s jazz album encourages a listener to buy a recording of a Beethoven Violin Concerto, I think that’s fantastic. That’s not going to happen every time, but musicians need to appeal to as large an audience as they can. If a die-hard jazz fan doesn’t like it, he doesn’t have to buy the album. Everyone has different tastes in music and I think that it is helpful to the progression of creativity in music that performers and listeners alike be exposed to as many different kinds of music as possible.

The Game Concludes: Did America kill jazz?

The last suspect on our list is none other than the birthplace of jazz. We gave birth to this great American art form and then, a few decades later, developed some sort of Abraham complex and slew it… allegedly. For the prosecution we have Stuart Nicholson, author of the book entitled “Is Jazz Dead? Or has it Moved to a New Address”:

For years Americans have regarded European jazz with the same tolerant smile they reserve for Japanese baseball. But something is stirring in the Old World. A generation of musicians is emerging from Europe's jazz underground, and now they're raising a tolerant smile at the mention of American jazz. Talk to them about the current state of the music, and it's as if an old and dear friend has passed away. They believe American jazz is retreating into the past while Europe is moving the music into the 21st century.

-Stuart Nicholson, 2001

Nicholson essentially goes on to argue that American jazz is no longer innovative. We all share the philosophy of Wynton Marsalis and simply hang onto the traditions of the past as though they were law. The reason 80% of Ken Burns’ documentary on jazz was before WWII is because sometime shortly after that jazz died, along with its innovative nature. Where the European jazz scene once followed America’s lead, they now have completely moved on, while America still lies in the 40s. He presents quotes of European artists like the Norewegian pianist Brugge Wesseltoft as evidence:

“I think American jazz somehow has really stopped, maybe in the late 70’s, early 80’s. I haven’t heard one interesting American record in the last 20 years. It’s like a museum, presenting stuff that’s already been done.”

-Brugge Wesseltoft, 2001

Certainly this evidence is quite damning. It’s really America’s own fault for not creating anything new since 1965. We all blindly follow the lead of Wynton Marsalis, who is obviously the only jazz musician worth mentioning in America today, and that has landed us on this retreat into the past. Nicholson goes on to tell us that if American jazz is to ever have a hope of sticking around, it will have to survive of a protective government subsidy, since there are no audiences to support it anymore. This definitely sounds like we’ve finally closed the case and found our murderer, but before the gavel sounds, there is one counterargument I would like to make.

Stuart Nicholson is an idiot.

Wait one second! There hasn’t been any American contribution to the innovation of jazz for over 20 years? I would like to call the following musicians as witnesses to the contrary:

Ralph Alessi

David Gilmore

Tyshawn Sorey

David Binney

Jason Moran

Gary Thomas

Steve Coleman

Greg Osby

Mark Turner

Dave Douglas

Lonnie Plaxico

Robin Eubanks

Kurt Rosenwinkle

No, Wynton Marsalis is not on that list, but there is a reason his name sparks controversy among American jazz musicians. We don’t all share his philosophy of music. It’s great that Marsalis keeps tradition alive. I mean, it’s always a good thing to remember and appreciate your roots, but his music is far from the rule in America.

That being said, Europe is certainly doing some great things with jazz. They are now at a point where they are no longer imitating American jazz as they did in the past, but have now taken the music in a new direction of their own. This is wonderful, but it doesn’t mean that American jazz is dead. Jazz in America is very much alive. In 1972 there were only 15 universities that offered degrees in jazz studies. That number in America alone is in the hundreds today, stretching from coast to coast. Every year, American schools turn out hundreds of new jazz musicians into the field.

Jazz is not dead. Period. What started in the American south in the late 19^th century has now spread worldwide. Musicians from all over the world can commune with this one common language. Jazz in America has seen more than its share of bad times, but that certainly doesn’t mean that it’s dead. Far from it, in fact. And now, without a victim, we have no case. America is cleared of all charges and free to go listen to some new jazz. Case dismissed.

(some inspiration for this blog comes from http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread.php?t=11829)

NAME ME YOUR 10 JAZZ ALBUMS!

NAME ME YOUR 10 JAZZ ALBUMS!

A semi-response to A Blog Surpreme - Best Jazz from 2010

This past weekend, as I was driving back to Boston from a friends place in Brooklyn, NY, I was listening to a jazz radio station.  Unfortunately, as the program progressed, the static increased as I drove further away from the radio tower.  Luckily though, I was able to decipher most of an interview with drummer, Jimmy Cobb.  

At the time, I had no idea that Cobb was the last living member of the Kind of Blue recording session.  He's the last person who can talk about recording the number one selling jazz record of all-time.  Pretty amazing.  Cobb talked about how he ended up playing with Miles Davis.  He was replacing Philly Joe Jones at a gig and nailed the ending of the bridge section to "Round About Midnight."  Cobb said that once he played that section, Miles was very impressed and hired him for many sessions after that.  He sounded just as excited now, talking about the opportunity to play with Miles, as I'm sure he was back then.

However, an interesting point he made was, for everyone in the group, it was just another recording session.  He did mention however, that the music was different from other sessions - more laid back, and very little written music.  He also expressed his concern to Miles that he wasn't sure what to play over "Flamenco Sketches" and that Miles told him to play the colors of Flamenco on his drums.

The interviewer made a point to say that for most jazz fans, this record falls into their top 5.  

This made me remember a post on facebook that I had yet to reply to...

A friend of mine recently sent me a facebook note, asking me to name 15 albums that were important to me.  I'm ashamed to say that I haven't done so yet.  For this post though, I will limit it to 10 albums in the genre of jazz.  The list however is not a top 10.  The albums don't have to be anything you listen to now (although, they could be).  Quoting the note, "they should take you to a certain place... reminding you of people, places, emotions, smells, etc."  

Here are 10 albums that influenced me:

 - Arturo Sandoval Hot House - mad props to my mother for keeping this record in the car for the better part of 1999. More from the "athletic" side of music - Arturo dominates the trumpet.  The cuban rhythms that fill this album really captured me.

 - Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers Moanin' -  bweeep bap doo-bap / boo boo bop dah bweep bap doo bap... 'nuff said, Lee-Mo, 'nuff said. 

 - Hank Mobley Soul Station

 - John Coltrane A Love Supreme - I'll admit it... the first time I was exposed to this masterpiece was when I saw the LCJO in Edmonton in 2005.  I didn't listen to much Trane or Miles when I was in HS.  I will admit though that nothing... nothing tops the original! 

 - Miles Davis Kind of Blue - not necessarily my favorite MD album... but one of the first times I ever "smoked" in my freshman year I had to leave the room to listen to this record.  Magical. 

- Oliver Nelson Blues and the Abstract Truth

- Ray Brown Some of my best friends are... the trumpet players  - I came across this record at The Lionel Hampton Jazz Festival in 2003.  Clark Terry, Nick Payton, Roy Hargrove, James Morrison, and Jon Faddis.  A trumpeters wet-dream.

- Ornette Coleman The Shape of Jazz to Come - To make up for my early lack of interest in Miles and Coltrane, I can say that this is one of the first jazz albums that I bought.  I must have been in 7th grade when I found this at the mall music store on a school band trip.  

- Kenny Wheeler Windmill Tilter  - Thank you Russ Macklem!

- Dave Holland Critical Mass

CAN YOU NAME ME YOUR 10 INFLUENTIAL JAZZ ALBUMS?

 - by sask4myopinion

The Hall of Fame

The Hall of Fame

After reading a post about athletically stimulating music vs. emotionally stimulating music and myself writing a blog about jazz and the NBA, my curiosity lead me to wonder if there was a "Jazz Hall of Fame."  To little surprise, after a few google searches, I was able to find something.  Though, what I found was not exactly what I was expecting.  

According to Wikipedia, when searching for a "Jazz Hall of Fame," you are limited to 5 choices:

- Alabama Jazz Hall of Fame (1978-present)

- The Big Band and Jazz Hall of Fame (1978-2004)

- Canadian Jazz and Blues Hall of Fame (2001-present)

- Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame (1952-present)

- The Nesuhi Eregun Jazz Hall of Fame at J@LC

I decided to take a look at the Down Beat version seeing that it has been around the longest.  And to no surprise, I learned that in 1952, Louis Armstrong was the first person inducted into the Down Beat Hall of Fame.  However, I was fascinated to learn that (according to the Down Beat webpage) "The Hall" only includes 117 members - Chick Corea being the latest inductee for 2010.

Now, it is a well known fact that in sports, the National Baseball Hall of Fame is the hardest to crack.  I've heard before that less than 2% of the total number of professional baseball players all-time make it to Cooperstown.  There are currently 292 inductees.  Of the 292, 66 are alive today.  According to a site I found, there have been just over 17,250 professional baseball players all-time.

Unfortunately, it is a lot harder to determine how many professional musicians there have been all-time.  I guess you could look at member lists of music unions. Or you could look to discographies, but that could still exclude many musicians from the early days when recording sessions were less common than a paying steady gig.

The idea of a Jazz Hall of Fame is intriguing though.  In sports, you can look to statistics, championships won and lost, clutch performances, and many other factors to determine the mettle of a pro player.  However, in music, there are so many aspects that can't be judged like sports can.  Sure, I'm sure we could all go to our iTunes library and grab our favorite player playing a blazing tempo solo.  But how would that player stack up against your favorite ballad performer?  I'm a trumpet player, so I will go right to range.  Should my Hall of Fame favor Maynard Fergusson over Kenny Dorham?  Could you imagine if the number of 16th notes you played over your career could get you into inducted into the Hall? 

Another difference between sports and music is that, generally (not in all cases), careers are much shorter in sports.  And, in most cases, being inducted into a Hall of Fame comes after your career is over.  However, for most musicians, careers end when life ends.  Should there be a timetable on when you can be inducted?  Should you have passed away already?  But then who are we honoring, the person or the legacy?  Miles was inducted into the Down Beat Hall of Fame in 1962.  Sure, he had already recorded The Birth of the Cool and Kind of Blue... but he still had the 2nd great quintet and a whole electric period (to grossly generalize) still left in him.  Was his induction pre-mature? 

There seems to be very little published criteria, at least online, about how one gets inducted into the Down Beat Hall of Fame.  And quite possibly a factor that there are only 117 members?  According to the hard facts from Wikipedia, the Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame includes winners from both the readers' and critics' poll.  Hmmm. Ok. Sounds good to me!

- sask4myopinion

The future of music? I hope not!

This may not be the end of the world... but you can sure as hell see it from here!

I know, I know... you might be thinking about that robot that plays Giant Steps including Coltrane's solo. If you haven't seen it, here, check this out:

Can you imagine, lets say in 25 years, watching a symphony of robots? Or going to The Blue Note in NYC and watching robots perform jazz.  There would be outrageous backlash of course, and in NYC especially.  But could it be considered "hip" if the jazz being performed was all original music created by a human?  Could they create an artificial intelligence program in which robots could improvise, say, possibly drawing from a hard-drive filled with an endless amount of jazz solos?  

Could you imagine sending your robot as a sub to a rehearsal that you just couldn't be bothered to be at?  Well, probably not, seeing that musicians aren't typically the richest folk... and of course, if this robot fantasy/nightmare (definitely, more of a nightmare) of mine were to come true, there would probably be less money and gigs to go around. 

The advancements in robotics - especially from both the Honda and Toyota camps - have come leaps and bounds (literally) from when they started in the late 1980's.  Some of the robots in Toyota's line, not seen in the video, include: a violinist, a "smart" wheelchair, and a robot that can run and dance.  Personally, I find the trumpet playing robot to be the scariest and most intriguing.  For both the saxophone and the violin, the apparatus needed for vibration is located externally.  However, a human (or so, I thought) embouchure is needed to play the trumpet.  This is what scares me the most.  Not only did Toyota simulate a trumpet players embouchure, but also, the robot actually is breathing!  Side note... is this good news for smokers?

Honda has taken a more positive approach towards building robots in my opinion.  One aspiration for their robot, "Asimo", was for it to be integrated into hospitals.  For example, "Asimo" could go from a surgery, take the elevator to another floor, collect items needed, and return to the operating room.  Saving lives rather than killing jazz sounds a lot better to me!

I'll leave you with this video that is definitely "pro-robot."  I will say however, my pessimistic attitude towards the robotic industry is aimed more towards Toyota and its line of musical robots.  Yeah, advancing technology is cool and great and all that... jazz, but where is the need for this musical robots?  I sure as hell hope there wouldn't be a demand.  Any thoughts?

- by sask4myopinion

blog 5.

During my lesson today I decided to ask my teacher the question of whether he improvises. His answer was quite simply ‘no’. I then asked him why not, to which he answered ‘I don’t know, I guess I was never taught’. Please bear in mind that I have the most amount of respect for my teacher so this definitely came as a huge blow. How does such a great musician not show the slightest bit of interest in doing this! The most part of my lesson was a discussion or more a rant on my behalf on why I think it is so necessary. I would like to look at the issues that he brought up because some of them are valid.

Firstly, the issue of not being taught to is a poor excuse because I don’t believe that on the basic levels of improvisation that you can’t do it on your own. I was lucky that on all the music courses I had been on that they had an improvisation teacher, which at the time I thought was ridiculous but now see how it trained my ears to follow the chords instinctively.

         After this first point, I went on to say that I didn’t agree with the fact that in a way we are just living in a museum constantly playing things by dead white men. He agreed that it can look like this but that depends on how you play it. If you play a piece by Bach without any new ideas for example just like the recordings by Casals then that is boring because you have not put anything new into it. He compared it to what actors do – acting Shakespeare they don’t add things in. I argued that there are so many more things that can be changed in theatre because there is the set, the music and costume. However, fundamentally I agree with this point of his because if you play a Beethoven string quartet how you feel it and really invest with your interpretation this is not in my opinion living in a museum, it is a different art form.

         Another point that he had when I asked why it only stopped being a tradition to improvise in music after the composer became so domineering during the mid.19^th century, was that the musicians did not have as huge a repertoire to play as we do now. He said that until Mendelssohn brought back playing Bach, musicians would only focus on playing music of their time. Therefore, it has become increasingly difficult for musicians to learn how to improvise in a Romantic, Classical and Baroque style well and have enough time to really be specialized in each area. I think this is a bit of an excuse – when you play a piece from any time you, to really get a deeper understanding of the music you should be able to improvise at any given moment. I will try this with Bartok concerto, which is hugely influenced by Hungarian music. I don’t think it is a good enough excuse that classical musicians have too much repertoire to learn to do others. Why should jazz musicians have the freedom to improvise and classical musicians think it isn’t their job to do this. Of course this is not always the case. My teacher at the end of the conversation said that a great cellist friend of his was telling him how helpful she finds it to improvise. Barenboin sometimes improvises his cadenzas as do many other musicians. I hope I have helped to change his view a bit. 

blog 4

Following my previous blog, I am continuing to look at the beginning part of my essay about the history of improvisation and the subsequent erasure. This is such an interesting topic for me the more I look into it.  I think it is important to explore the history of music – something that to be honest never really interested me before - so as to try to come to terms with the difficult and ever existing question of why music is how it is and what we can do for its progression. I think it is a phase that everyone at one point will go through – I mean, the struggle of deciding what and why you do something. This is all rhetoric of what I have already written for which I am very sorry!

I read a few chapters from the book ‘The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works, An Essay in the Philosophy of Music’ by Lydia Goehr, which explain very clearly the way in which music was viewed, written and then the development and gradual removal of improvisation between the mid 18^th and 19^th century. From what I understood – Until the mid 18^th century, music was used solely for social, political and religious functions. It wasn’t respected as an individual form of art – unlike the fine arts, but seen as a performance rather than something that had a finished product. Music had been known to empower religious and moral beliefs, for this reason, purely instrumental music was rejected because words were much more intelligible than just melodies. During the late 18^th century, however this began to change, theorists such as Schilling who was quoted as saying ‘No aesthetic material is better suited to the expression of the ineffable than is sound’. Instrumental music was said to have a meaning of its own which was more transcendant, Herder is quoted in 1800 to have said ‘Music has developed into a self-sufficient art, sui-generis, dispensing with words’. It was now viewed as one of the highest forms of art leading to the important change to the way in which composers were looked at.

Thus followed the beginning of the ‘Musical Museum’, which Lizst wanted to create in the 1800s, whereby ‘In the name of all musicians, of art, and of social progress, we require … the foundation of an assembly to be held every five years for religious, dramatic, and symphonic music, by which all the works that are considered best in these three categories shall be ceremonially performed every day for a whole month in the Louvre, being afterwards purchased by the government, published at their expense’.

During the 19^th century, the composer was looked at as being almost supernatural. The cadenza became the only part of the piece where the musician was given the freedom to improvise a virtuosic solo. The composer had such a dominant effect on music that their composition was not to be touched by the musician. There were pieces, which were specifically for improvisation which were virtuosic and then ones written by the composer, that gradually were lost when the audience objected to the obvious nature of them. Another aspect that finished improvisation in classical music was the introduction of the larger symphony and the necessity of the conductor. The conductor and the composer had gradually less to do with one another. After the 1800s, the previous role of the conductor as someone to keep the beet facing the audience was replaced when the symphony expanded and the musicians needed help reading the score, resulting in him facing the orchestra and leading them in interpretation. This move between the composers, conductors and the musicians limited the music moving further away from the freedom of any improvisation.

blog 3

My essay is going to be about the necessity of improvisation in classical music. In doing this I want to explore three main issues. I will begin by explaining the importance in a historical context of improvisation for classical music and its subsequent loss. The recent revitalized interest in improvisation for classical musicians noticeably in conservatoires will be my second part. Thirdly, I will discuss the difference in how improvisation is taught for a jazz major in contrast to a classical major and the obvious division for these two types of music at a conservatoire.

As part of my research I have been reading the interesting and thorough book ‘Improvisation’ by Derek Bailey who explores the different kinds of improvisation in all it’s forms. Divided up by individual chapters starting with Indian music, flamenco, baroque, organ music, rock, jazz, contemporary and ending in free music. The main point reaffirmed throughout the book is that every type of music is kept alive and fresh by improvisation. Whether it be in flamenco music where the great flamenco guitarist is quoted “Being creative within flamenco is essential… You cannot play anybody else’s material forever – you’ve got to make your own otherwise you are just very unhappy…”  or when Bailey writes in ‘Baroque music’, “improvisation has been deprived of its usual function of being the sap through which music renews and reinvigorates itself and, if used at all, is retained to serve only as a carefully controlled decorative device”.

 The problem in classical music now is that it has been preserved in a museum like manner. Classical musicians don’t believe that it is part of their job to move music forward and that a way of doing this is by improvising.  When I suggested to a fellow classical musician that only playing music from 250 years ago was living in a museum they answered that what do we expect when playing on a piece of wood with strings. This is the sort of narrow mindedness that other types of music have avoided.

The risk involved in improvisation is contrary to the modern day polished recordings. Audiences want to hear something that they know played note for note perfectly. With improvising there might not always be every note that you want to hear but do not realize that this is a way of discovering new material and moving music forward rather than trying to preserve what has been there for so many years with little exploration. The minute the typical classical audience hears or sees anything that is modern it seems to be a big turn off.  It also is due to composers not wanting improvising to ruin their composition. I would like to look at this in further depths for my next blog.

The Sound of Silence

Just trying to figure out how to post video...

Loving these conversations! Looking forward to tomorrow's presentations.

T.

Dave Douglas: Keystone

All right, there has to be some unwritten blogger rule that I am breaking by posting consecutive posts that involve people that have been accused with rape... That being said, I would like to continue and talk about the topic of my presentation: trumpeter/ composer Dave Douglas and his album Keystone.  

Keystone, recorded in New York between Jan-May, 2005, features compositions by Dave Douglas playing trumpet; Jamie Saft on wurlitzer; Gene Lake on drums; Marcus Strickland on saxophones; Brad Jones on bass; and DJ olive on turntables.  It was released by Greenleaf Music in 2006.  The album is accompanied by a DVD that sets the music from Keystone to a Roscoe Arbuckle film entitled Fatty and Mabel Adrift (1916/ Keystone-Triangle).

Roscoe Arbuckle (1887- 1933) was best known as a silent film actor, comedian, director, and screenwriter.  Arbuckle's career however, was derailed by accusations of raping and murdering actress, Virginia Rappe.  From Keystone's liner notes written by Douglas:

Of the many celebrity trials of the 20th century, one of the most tragic and unjust was one of the first.  It was the trial that caused Roscoe Arbuckle's third jury, after deliberating a total of six minutes, to issue him this extraordinary apology: "Acquittal is not enough for Roscoe Arbuckle. We feel that a great injustice has been done.  We also feel that this was only our plain duty to give him this exoneration.  We wish him success and hope that the American people will take the judgement of 14 men and women who have sat listening for 31 days to the evidence that Roscoe Arbuckle is entirely innocent and free from blame."

To give you an idea of what my presentation will cover, I would like to share with you another Dave Douglas composition that is set to a Roscoe Arbuckle short film.  Here is "Moonshine" (1918) released by Douglas in 2007 under Greenleaf Music:

In my presentation I would like to cover some themes that Douglas uses to capture the mood of different scenes, as well as motifs that are attached to specific characters.  Not all of the music from the album is part of the DVD, and likewise, there are some parts on the DVD that are not part of the CD tracks.  The music has been edited to fit the film which makes for some interesting scene transitions and jump cuts.

All that and more, tomorrow, during my presentation!

- post by sask4myopinion

Perception

Avant-garde jazz has been in a constant state of change. Whether it was Charlie Parker and Miles in the 1950s, Coltrane and the AACM in the 60s, or the jazz fusion craze of the 70s, avant-garde jazz was not always readily accepted, often considered outside the comfort zone of the majority of listeners.

A while back in class we talked about Jon Irabagon, the talented jazz saxophonist who not only performs by-the-book jazz, but also gigs with the avant-bop quartet Mostly Other People Do the Killing. In Hank Shteamer’s article, Irabagon admits that it has been tough assuming both roles within the jazz context. His friends whom are associated with the straight-ahead medium regard the avant-bop group as “circus music,” and assume that he is only doing it for the gig. This is not the case for Irabagon, but he does make a good point about a lot of musicians that end up playing in this genre. A lot of times they are “people who love making noise on their horns because they tried to be a jazz musician for a while and it just wasn’t working out, and they saw this escape hatch.” If this is a commonly shared view of the musicians who make up the foundation of avant-garde jazz, it is really no wonder why there is such a lack of support for this genre. Irabagon may not be too far off if history does in fact repeat itself. In the 40s, swing enthusiasts opposed bebop and Coltrane was met with ridicule as he took hold of free-jazz in the 60s. Today, the traditionalist hungers for jazz played by artists such as Wynton Marsalis and dismiss the experimental sound of Irabagon avant-jazz.

The Bad Plus, another avant-garde jazz group is met with a similar perception. They are not exactly labeled under the category of “circus music,” but they are not always taken completely seriously. My first hand experience in this happened sometime last year at a small get-together with a few of my friends. The Bad Plus’s cover of “Iron Man” started playing and one of the individuals said something to the extent of “Wow. Listen to this silly little jazz band trying to sound like a metal band. This is pathetic.” Now my next question is why when a jazz trio covers a pop song is it considered a joke? But when an already pop star experiments in classic music it is considered serious and reflective? David King, the band’s drummer, illuminates their intentions well. “We feel it’s a trajectory of improvised music, perfectly in line with the history of jazz. It it’s got a good melody, some great changes, if it relates well, if it can be interpreted in a way that sounds like its own music…what’s the problem?”

In Ethan Iverson’s interview with Wynton Marsalis, they briefly discuss conservative and radical views of jazz. Marsalis made a great point when he said, “I like the music. I don’t have any problems with it. But it’s got to have meaning. Everything can’t be it, if only because you can’t teach it to other people.” I wish more people shared this view on what it meant for the innovation of music to be considered it. Perhaps if the jazz musicians that Irabagon talks about (the ones where it didn’t work out in the first place) did not automatically gravitate to the free and progressive jazz, the other artists such as Irabagon might be taken more seriously. Marsalis also comments on the attractiveness of conservatism, “…the comfort in numbers. Everybody agrees.”

Ethan Iverson acknowledges that there is an awkward split in this generation of jazz music between traditional and progressive practices. He writes, “One thing that could help the schism is if the centrist players swallowed their understandable pride in achieving straight-ahead mastery and encouraged the experimentalists. (This almost never happens.)”

Women: Jazz and Basketball

I'd like to talk a bit about two of my passions - jazz and basketball.  I've been playing and listening to jazz since the age of thirteen and have been a fan of basketball (more specifically, the NBA) for as long as I can remember.  One similarity that the two share is that it's greatest players live in, or visit New York City to perform at the highest level.  

I'd like to bring up two of the most polarizing figures in jazz and basketball - Kobe Bryant and Wynton Marsalis.  Kobe is currently my favorite active player and while Wynton might not even crack my top 10 active trumpeters, I still have tremendous respect for what he can do on the horn.  The two are actually very similar in their approach to their craft.  They both demonstrate near flawless technique and are both considered to have extremely "high IQ's" in their respective fields.  The two of them also share a certain level of controversy surrounding them.  Coincidently, a main issue encompassing them both involves women. 

In July 2003 Kobe Bryant was arrested under charges of sexual assault.  Kobe was never found guilty of the crime but he did end up settling (an undisclosed amount) with his accuser.  Up until that point Kobe was the poster boy for the NBA.  He was smart (fluent in many languages), heavily endorsed, a dominant basketball player (a main contributor to 3 Laker titles won consecutively), and was even tattoo-free.  After his arrest, and much like Tiger Woods is experiencing right now, Kobe lost most, if not all, of his sponsors and received endless public scrutiny.  Thankfully, for Kobe, he stayed focused on being the best basketball player in the world and is now being considered as one of the top 10 greatest players of all-time.  Recently, Kobe even eclipsed both Michael Jordan (visitor record holder - 55 points) and Bernard King (record holder, 60 points) by scoring the most points ever (61) at Madison Square Garden.  Who knows, maybe Wynton was even attendance?  He is known to be a big fan of basketball.

Now, even though Wynton has somewhat of a reputation as being a "dog" when it comes to women, he has never been accused of something as serious as sexual assault.  Rather, the controversy surrounding Wynton deals with his role as Musical Director of the Lincoln Jazz Center Orchestra.  To date, there has never been a female member of the group.  According to Wynton, he hires orchestra members based on merit and reputation.  However, this process seems to be quite old fashioned.  Most orchestras now hold "blind auditions" to avoid special treatment towards an applicant.  Since this audition process has been instated the number of orchestra positions awarded to women has increased exponentially.  I think this audition process would be fair to establish for the LCJO considering the amount of public funding it receives.  

The NBA has also faced gender issues with regards to having women compete for an NBA salary.  Just like the LCJO, the NBA has never had a woman lace up with the men.  In 1979, Ann Meyers from UCLA was invited to try-out for the Indiana Pacers, however, she never made the final cut.  Same for LCJO.  They have had female members sit-in on rehearsals, but never for a public performance.  It's easier to debate the absence of women in the NBA based on physical ability and risk of injury.  Not to say that all men are better athletes than women, but when you get to the professional level the competition does favor male athleticism.  However, when it comes to women and jazz, there isn't really much of a debate.  You don't need a 45 inch vertical leap to play Giant Steps.

I find it surprising though that it's the NBA that has taken a public stance on including women in the NBA.  When asked about whether we would see a woman playing in the NBA in the next ten years, commissioner David Stern was quoted as saying, "Sure...  I think that's well within the range of probability."  The LCJO's stance seems intent on preserving current audition methods.  Methods that favor male performers.

There are currently over 400 players in the NBA, whereas the LCJO employs only 15 members.  So in conclusion, my question to the blogger nation is, which will we see first... a woman play in the NBA, or perform as a member of the LCJO?

   - by sask4myopinion

The Game Continues: It was technology, in the 1970s, with...a candlestick?

For those that believe jazz is dead, they typically cite the 1970s as the time of death. The 70s saw the birth of a cultural revolution, the likes of which had never been seen in the US. This decade saw a number of events which would begin to shape the culture we have today. The 70s was a period marked by the end of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, the Watergate scandal and President Nixon’s subsequent resignation, Steve Jobs introduces the Apple Macintosh PC and suddenly the population finds their obsession with personal technology, and the British Invasion dominates the music scene with groups like Led Zepplin, The Who, Black Sabbath etc, as well as the birth of heavy metal. The 70s also saw the first real use of electronic music and synthesizers, and by 1976, the use of digital recording. The foundation and building blocks for the pop music of today had been laid out, all in a very short time.

In a very short time, we see the popularity of jazz give way to funk, fusion, British rock, and heavy metal. Our world becomes much faster paced, and the evolution of music gets kicked into overdrive. The “quantity over quality” mentality begins to kick in, as the sheer amount of music available grows exponentially as well as the accessibility of music due to the advances in technology. America was quickly sprinting to the digital age.

Still, I’m not convinced that the case against technology for the murder of jazz has been substantiated. Certainly I concede that the 70s brought about vast change, not only in the world of music, but reconstructed our entire culture. Technology has certainly changed the world of music more still since the 70s. Between technological innovations such as Auto-Tune and GarageBand some begin to worry that someday actual musicians will no longer be needed. Pop stars today can almost be manufactured, and after hearing some music today I use the word “almost” very generously. But there was still great jazz being made in spite of this cultural revolution. Even though jazz was being pulled into a plethora of directions, there were still those that held onto more traditional forms of the music which is so deeply intertwined in American heritage. The big bands of Duke Ellington and Count Basie were still very active and continued to play even after these legends died (1974 and 1984 respectively). Free jazz players who had made a name for themselves in the 60s such as Ornette Coleman, Sun Ra and the Art Ensemble of Chicago. The 1970s also brought about the inclusion of jazz into academia. In 1972 only 15 schools in the U.S. offered degrees in jazz studies. This number would increase to 72 in the next 10 years.

All in all, I would say that while the 70s brought about great change in music and in culture, it cannot be appropriately cited as either time or cause of death of jazz. Jazz evolved during this time, and in many ways became something new. This helped shape our culture and lay the groundwork for the music of today. Change doesn’t mean better, and it doesn’t mean worse. Most importantly though, it does not mean “dead”. The case against technology and the 1970s is hereby dismissed.

(some of the inspiration for this blog can be found at http://www.jazzstandards.com/history/history-7.htm . Check it out for more info)

What exactly is a jazz singer?

Sitting at Espresso Royale the other day, a conversation arose amongst my fellow NEC students as to what exactly constitutes a jazz vocalist. It is a difficult question considering most instrumental jazz music is defined by some form of improvisatory playing. It would be tough to argue that improvisation is what makes a singer deserving of the qualifier “jazz” for a number of reasons. Take for instance Ella Fitzgerald; it is often a point of discussion that many of her scat solos are strikingly similar from take to take and perhaps “composed”. Furthermore many well established jazz singers do not improvise at all. Also it seems to be the case (among those who do improvise) that the more commercially successful the singer the less improvisation is involved on the record. Kurt Elling for instance, once reined over Chicago’s green mill is able to improvise and sing transcriptions of horn players solos as if he actually and buttons on his vocal chords.

[many critics of course take this improvisatory style to be a tad ridiculous...regardless of your opinion it is definitely and impressive show of virtuosity]

As he becomes more commercially successful we see a conscience departure from that kind of music. This is generally the case with many vocalists including Dianne Reeves, Dee Dee Bridgewater(to a lesser extent), Sarah Vaughn, as well as a host of other singers who simply don’t improvise at all. Repertoire is perhaps an equally troublesome consideration for what makes a jazz singer. Most singers in the first half of the century drew their repertoire from great american song book and tin pan alley composers such as Gershwin, Rodgers and Hart, Cole Porter and more. Everyone from Tony Bennett to Frank Sinatra to Ella to Billie all have recorded essentially the same core of material: All of Me, Night and Day etc. Modern “jazz” singers run into the same problem, adding of course the music of antonio carlos jobim as well as covers of pop and classic rock and folk tunes. Perhaps the term jazz singer refers to the style and attitude with which a vocalists interprets the material. As the jazz began to developed beyond swing and bebop, there began to be a new type of singer that emerged. In an almost paradoxical approach we see more and more singer imitating the sounds of instrumentalist in a very versatile and virtuosic way. Also taking cues from instrumentalists many singers strayed further and further from the melody feeling and exploring the freedom to intrepret these popular and classic songs in ways that often baffle the audience. In my opinion Betty Carter did this better than ANYONE!

[feel free to disagree with me... but I will always stand firm on this point]

Before I go on … Take a listen!


To me, no other singer freely interprets he repertoire quite like Betty. She also defies notions of vocal technique and what a singer is suppose to sound like (sort of the antithesis of a crooner). In many ways she all leaves the melody completely behind, especially in the recording above. Furthermore, despite not really taking “solos” in the bebop sense of the word, Betty’s phrasing is distinctly improvisatory. However if that is the measure of a jazz vocalist, then it becomes an incredibly subjective job to qualify these musicians. So I ask, of the following clips what makes the following vocalists Jazz singers?





Truthfully... I am not sure it really matters...but it’s an interesting thing to ask!