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!