Hi all. In conjunction with the release of my second cd entitled "Kannaskis" here is a little video of one of the tunes from the album called "Separation". The film was shot by a Montreal film maker named Randy Cole who, among other projects, has a really nice developing series of profiles of Montreal jazz musicians. I especially like the films he did of Kevin Dean and Al McLean. The piece I'm playing here was composed for my brother and sister-in-law after they experienced a painful loss however the metaphor extends to include the separation between the urban and natural environments here in Canada. I hope you enjoy it.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Post Secondary Education: a purely politcal post
For those of you who read my blog you know about my increasingly sporadic posts. You've read my meandering theses on various topics relating to jazz education. You've been patient with me while I self-promoted, you've been open minded when I've ranted, you've been like a friend when I've gushed about my family. I'd now like to take the next step outside of the sphere of jazz education and write something briefly on education itself.
Here in Quebe where I live and work we are witnessing the beginning of the end of state funded post secondary education. Up until now we've literally been the most enlightened society in North America by subsidizing the greatest portion of university tuition than any other province in Canada or State in the US. This is something that I am unflinchingly proud of and I will gumb you down if you try to argue with me about this. I simply can't believe those people who argue against the benefit of post secondary education to society at large. Their arguments seem trite to me, similar to those arguments people make against society's responsibilities towards the rearing of children and young adults. Simply because those making the argument themselves have no children they feel that this should absolve them from playing a role in the shaping of the human beings they share the planet with and whose future financial, emotional, and intellectual contributions will be of great benefit to them when they require care in their old age.
I would like to take 2 arguements that are being thrown out against subsidized post secondary education by everyone from my neighbours to high profile economists and argue against them.
#1. is the argument that university education is primarily a personal choice that benefits the student only.
This is in essence a consumeristic attitude toward higher education and an argument recently articulated by an economist in the Montreal Gazette. There is more to highter education than mere personal choice or self-improvement. Nor is subsidizing tuition a mere investment in an individual's future income. Education does indeed improve the student, but it also produces graduates who are better able to contribute to the development of society at large. Society benefits from doctors, lawyers (supposed to, maybe I should say in Canada at least) engineers, philanthropist business leaders, theologans, ethicists, chemists, physicists, musicians, artists.....even economists!
#2 the argument that free education produces inferior education, citing the claim that "no German university is ranked among the best in the world," and suggesting that this is because most German states offer free university.
Setting aside the veracity of the claim, perhaps the authors of this argument could explain how Oxford and Cambridge managed to become such world reknowned universities in spite of the fact that, until recently, Britain also offered free higher education. McGill university itself is considered the top university in Canada and yet has one of the lowest tuitions. A policy offering low-cost or free higher education is a choice that many enlightened societies have made because they understand that it is an investment, not just in the individuals who receive that education, but in the ongoing development of of society as a whole.
This is a choice that the Quebec society made years ago. The trouble is that successive governments have not lived up to their side of the bargain by funding the universities adequately. And now the problem with Quebec universities is not that they charge such low fees, but that they receive inadequate support from the very governments that have set the low-fee policy. This paints an inaccurate picture of the issue for people. What is in the public's best interest is to push hard against the government to live up to the values and expectations of society, but instead people are adopting the values of cutting back on education. Cuts that themselves represent merely the values of a government who is doing everything it can to make up for bad policy and corruption in other sectors.
Here in Quebe where I live and work we are witnessing the beginning of the end of state funded post secondary education. Up until now we've literally been the most enlightened society in North America by subsidizing the greatest portion of university tuition than any other province in Canada or State in the US. This is something that I am unflinchingly proud of and I will gumb you down if you try to argue with me about this. I simply can't believe those people who argue against the benefit of post secondary education to society at large. Their arguments seem trite to me, similar to those arguments people make against society's responsibilities towards the rearing of children and young adults. Simply because those making the argument themselves have no children they feel that this should absolve them from playing a role in the shaping of the human beings they share the planet with and whose future financial, emotional, and intellectual contributions will be of great benefit to them when they require care in their old age.
I would like to take 2 arguements that are being thrown out against subsidized post secondary education by everyone from my neighbours to high profile economists and argue against them.
#1. is the argument that university education is primarily a personal choice that benefits the student only.
This is in essence a consumeristic attitude toward higher education and an argument recently articulated by an economist in the Montreal Gazette. There is more to highter education than mere personal choice or self-improvement. Nor is subsidizing tuition a mere investment in an individual's future income. Education does indeed improve the student, but it also produces graduates who are better able to contribute to the development of society at large. Society benefits from doctors, lawyers (supposed to, maybe I should say in Canada at least) engineers, philanthropist business leaders, theologans, ethicists, chemists, physicists, musicians, artists.....even economists!
#2 the argument that free education produces inferior education, citing the claim that "no German university is ranked among the best in the world," and suggesting that this is because most German states offer free university.
Setting aside the veracity of the claim, perhaps the authors of this argument could explain how Oxford and Cambridge managed to become such world reknowned universities in spite of the fact that, until recently, Britain also offered free higher education. McGill university itself is considered the top university in Canada and yet has one of the lowest tuitions. A policy offering low-cost or free higher education is a choice that many enlightened societies have made because they understand that it is an investment, not just in the individuals who receive that education, but in the ongoing development of of society as a whole.
This is a choice that the Quebec society made years ago. The trouble is that successive governments have not lived up to their side of the bargain by funding the universities adequately. And now the problem with Quebec universities is not that they charge such low fees, but that they receive inadequate support from the very governments that have set the low-fee policy. This paints an inaccurate picture of the issue for people. What is in the public's best interest is to push hard against the government to live up to the values and expectations of society, but instead people are adopting the values of cutting back on education. Cuts that themselves represent merely the values of a government who is doing everything it can to make up for bad policy and corruption in other sectors.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Kananaskis | Effendi Records :
Hi guys. Given my last post I thought it would be nice to put up a link to preview my upcoming disc. Feel free to leave a message and let me know if I've inadvertently stumbled on any marketable hooks!
Kananaskis Effendi Records :
![]() |
"9 out of 10 people say Josh's playing grates!" |
Kananaskis Effendi Records :
Hooked on jazz?
I recently had the pleasure of attending the new season launch for my record label here in Montreal, Effendi Records. I am releasing a new CD next month which entitled me to a couple of free drinks and some face time with the media. Or should I say whoever showed up claiming to be a reporter of any kind. Since the free drinks were also flowing for the media representatives I was a little dubious of some of the characters I was rubbing shoulders with. There was even a person who showed obviously intoxicated who got served. But isn't that what's great about a Montreal jazz community shindig: "All are invited" and in Quebec it doesn't undermine anyone's credibility to be drunk at the beginning of the show.
All kidding aside I had an interesting conversation with a radio host who gave me his perspective on releasing a CD in today's over-saturated market of recordings and what made him want to listen to something new. As we chatted on the patio of Upstairs I enjoyed his frankness while at the same time feeling disappointed by the message: Novelty! He was tired of seeing a barrage of white-faced jazz pianists putting out boutique recordings that all sound the same to him. He wanted to feel a story behind the artist, something that he could think about while listening to the music. And the cd needed to have a concept. It couldn't just be a bunch of tunes (like mine will be when it comes out next month!). A cd now needs to have a theme. As an example he offered Marsalis' partnering with Eric Clapton. Or Bill Frisel's new record of the music of John Lenon. Basically there needed to be a marketing angle, or if you will a hook.
Apparently without these things nothing will stand out on it's own. As disappointed as I was I had to agree with him. Distinguishing characteristics aside, the race card is really important to the white middle-class because it does tell a story. A very interesting one. It's a story about humans overcoming inequity, rising up in a system that is angled against the poorer classes. It's a story that includes flavours from different cultures. White people in this situation want to cheer for the underdog while at the same time enjoying the contrast of cultures. When I attend ticketed events at jazz festivals it is this white middle class I see in the overwhelming majority. I can't help but feel that part of the charm of watching a non-white musician from a poor country (all playing aside) is the good feeling that it generates while diminishing a smidgen of guilt.
But to address the music itself, the message from not just the media but club owners and promoters at large festivals is that you need to have a hook. And this is where the novelty of innovation plays a prominent role. People want to hear something they have never heard before. It can be forgettable, it can be bad, but it must be new! It must be immediately accessible and digestible apparently to those who are pondering the "story" of the musicians themselves while they listen to the music. On this subject I came across a great quote from one of my favorite pianists Mulgrew Miller from a downbeat interview:
"A lot of people do what a friend of mine calls "interview music," [Miller said]. You do something that's obviously different, and you get the interviews and a certain amount of attention. Jazz is part progressive art and part folk art, and I've observed it to be heavily critiqued who attribute progressivity to music that lacks a folk element. When Charlie Parker developed his great conception, the folk element was the same as Lester Young and the blues shouters before him. Even when Ornette Coleman and John Coltrane played their conceptions, the folk element was intact. But now, people almost get applauded if they don't include that in their expression. If I reflected a heavy involvement in Arnold Schoenberg or some other ultra-modern composers, then I would be viewed differently than I am. Guys who do what I am doing are viewed as passé."
I can't think of a musician more respected by other musicians (I mean count the records that Mulgrew plays on as a sideman!) and more overlooked by the media, promoters of festivals etc. But knowing that his playing is so great makes me wonder if the media should play a different role in the music industry. While my conversation with the radio host exemplifies only one viewpoint it still evokes questions in my mind about the buffer zone of media and information content that we wrap ourselves in. Is it really working out for us if it prevents musicians like Mulgrew Miller from being heard? I mean I know none of my students at McGill have heard of him (I've asked) and yet he is so disproportionally represented on the jazz recordings of the last 20 years. The pianists that my students have heard about are extremely young and have barely appeared on a handful of records but exemplify today's earth shattering new sounds in jazz. I guess it begs the question: what will happen to them when they grow up and play better and more maturely than they do today? Will we get a chance to hear them in the future once they've changed the game?
All kidding aside I had an interesting conversation with a radio host who gave me his perspective on releasing a CD in today's over-saturated market of recordings and what made him want to listen to something new. As we chatted on the patio of Upstairs I enjoyed his frankness while at the same time feeling disappointed by the message: Novelty! He was tired of seeing a barrage of white-faced jazz pianists putting out boutique recordings that all sound the same to him. He wanted to feel a story behind the artist, something that he could think about while listening to the music. And the cd needed to have a concept. It couldn't just be a bunch of tunes (like mine will be when it comes out next month!). A cd now needs to have a theme. As an example he offered Marsalis' partnering with Eric Clapton. Or Bill Frisel's new record of the music of John Lenon. Basically there needed to be a marketing angle, or if you will a hook.
Apparently without these things nothing will stand out on it's own. As disappointed as I was I had to agree with him. Distinguishing characteristics aside, the race card is really important to the white middle-class because it does tell a story. A very interesting one. It's a story about humans overcoming inequity, rising up in a system that is angled against the poorer classes. It's a story that includes flavours from different cultures. White people in this situation want to cheer for the underdog while at the same time enjoying the contrast of cultures. When I attend ticketed events at jazz festivals it is this white middle class I see in the overwhelming majority. I can't help but feel that part of the charm of watching a non-white musician from a poor country (all playing aside) is the good feeling that it generates while diminishing a smidgen of guilt.
But to address the music itself, the message from not just the media but club owners and promoters at large festivals is that you need to have a hook. And this is where the novelty of innovation plays a prominent role. People want to hear something they have never heard before. It can be forgettable, it can be bad, but it must be new! It must be immediately accessible and digestible apparently to those who are pondering the "story" of the musicians themselves while they listen to the music. On this subject I came across a great quote from one of my favorite pianists Mulgrew Miller from a downbeat interview:
![]() |
Pictured: Mulgrew Miller NOT performing Bjork's "All Neon Like" |
I can't think of a musician more respected by other musicians (I mean count the records that Mulgrew plays on as a sideman!) and more overlooked by the media, promoters of festivals etc. But knowing that his playing is so great makes me wonder if the media should play a different role in the music industry. While my conversation with the radio host exemplifies only one viewpoint it still evokes questions in my mind about the buffer zone of media and information content that we wrap ourselves in. Is it really working out for us if it prevents musicians like Mulgrew Miller from being heard? I mean I know none of my students at McGill have heard of him (I've asked) and yet he is so disproportionally represented on the jazz recordings of the last 20 years. The pianists that my students have heard about are extremely young and have barely appeared on a handful of records but exemplify today's earth shattering new sounds in jazz. I guess it begs the question: what will happen to them when they grow up and play better and more maturely than they do today? Will we get a chance to hear them in the future once they've changed the game?
Saturday, October 1, 2011
It Goes to Credibility Part II
So I thought it would be time for me to put my money where my...fingers on the laptop are and offer a positive spin on some of the things I said in the first post on this subject. In retrospect my tone was a little negative, and I was critical of society and culture. Ok I dipped into some heavy pessimism when I discussed what in our culture represented an admirable level of credibility on an artistic level. I don't try to be negative. Maybe I just needed a coffee or something.
Well here's a musician who has yet to really be discovered. While we continue to get inundated by singers who deliver dreary ballad-based repertoire with clenched mouths and vacant expressions, packaged in the blandest of generic musical settings and who are clearly being rammed down our throats by the ubiquitousness of their images in the media, here is an example of someone who is well deserved of our attention.
I've been aware of Champian Fulton only for a few months and have yet to see her perform but I sincerely hope someone, somewhere in the world of corporate jazz takes notice of her. Here's a little taste for you. Enjoy!
You know what, I'm not even finished talking about her. I just watched this again and I'm really blown away. She has an enormous sense of swing, poise at the piano, and a phrasing that is already, at the age of 27, coming together for her. For me her credibility as a musician stems from her ability to elevate a standard tune to an artistic level while at the same time having fun with the music. One really needs to believe in this music in order to do that. They really need to be breathing it and not just performing standards as "covers". The feeling for me is one of hearing a performance of a standard tune and having that song sound as if I've never heard it before and I'm falling in love with it for the first time. And let's face it for most of these tunes at this point one might argue that we have more reason to hate them than to love them given the accumulation of shmaltzy, mediocre performances we have of them.
I'm just so heartened by how real and honest this concert sounds. Here's another video.
Well here's a musician who has yet to really be discovered. While we continue to get inundated by singers who deliver dreary ballad-based repertoire with clenched mouths and vacant expressions, packaged in the blandest of generic musical settings and who are clearly being rammed down our throats by the ubiquitousness of their images in the media, here is an example of someone who is well deserved of our attention.
I've been aware of Champian Fulton only for a few months and have yet to see her perform but I sincerely hope someone, somewhere in the world of corporate jazz takes notice of her. Here's a little taste for you. Enjoy!
You know what, I'm not even finished talking about her. I just watched this again and I'm really blown away. She has an enormous sense of swing, poise at the piano, and a phrasing that is already, at the age of 27, coming together for her. For me her credibility as a musician stems from her ability to elevate a standard tune to an artistic level while at the same time having fun with the music. One really needs to believe in this music in order to do that. They really need to be breathing it and not just performing standards as "covers". The feeling for me is one of hearing a performance of a standard tune and having that song sound as if I've never heard it before and I'm falling in love with it for the first time. And let's face it for most of these tunes at this point one might argue that we have more reason to hate them than to love them given the accumulation of shmaltzy, mediocre performances we have of them.
I'm just so heartened by how real and honest this concert sounds. Here's another video.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Happy Birthday Bud Powell
It was Bud's birthday this week. Here's my transcriptions of a couple of his solos. Happy Birthday Bud!
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
It goes to credibility Part I
If there is anything that summarises the state of credibility in our culture it was this year's speech given by the dean of the university of Alberta to the graduating class of medical doctors. In it he told very personal stories about his family, recounted anectdotes that brought tears to the eyes of the students and their families. All of it was fake. Actually that's not entirely accurate. The stories were real but they belonged to another person. Check out an article here.
On the pianist George Colligan's blog he quotes an interview he did with drummer Ralph Peterson. On the topic of the state of music business he says:
If you don't believe let me ask you this: when was the last time a jazz singer over the age of 40 was promoted aggressively by a large marketing engine? For that matter how many jazz veterans, legendary musicians who played in the important groups of the past and who are still alive and playing and are shining examples of refinement and beauty at their instruments; how many of these musicians are receiving attention in the form of marketing dollars and public promotion?
It was with heavy hearts that the jazz community said good bye to Hank Jones who was still playing great well into his 90's, who passed away in virtual obscurity. A man whose playing connected the listener directly to the vital lineage of modern jazz. A pianist whose harmonic inventiveness embodied modernity while his elegant touch on the instrument left an indelible mark all pianists who heard him. You know all those guys you hear playing really smooth and quiet while they throw complex and angular lines at you? I'm thinking of players like Gerald Clayton, Robert Glasper, Danny Grissett. Hank was truly the role model for this style of pianism. If it wasn't for Joe Lovano who's notoriety allowed Jones one last look in the public's eye, Hank would have died in almost complete obscurity.
If the strength and beauty of jazz music is at least due in part to some notion of credibility, authenticity, just plain honesty then we need to be wary of the ways in which our culture erodes these qualities. These qualities I feel transcend art and are crucial to our evolution as individuals, crucial to our happiness and also act as the foundation for us to build our legacies. Here I'm not just speaking about musical legacies because very few us (and usually the least likely) will successfully do so. Here I'm speaking about how we will be remembered by those genereations who come after us. Here we will all leave some kind of legacy in the minds and hearts of those we've spent the most time with.
On the pianist George Colligan's blog he quotes an interview he did with drummer Ralph Peterson. On the topic of the state of music business he says:
RP: The nature of the business is exploitative. So, once you’ve realized that, as an artist, you fall out of favor with those who have the power. The "chosen ones" are just getting younger and younger now to where all the guy has to do is get into college and he’s trying to get calls for gigs. I think that the cats who are now teaching in the colleges should be the development network. It should be, for example, that I could call Mulgrew Miller and say, “Ok, Who is the killing piano player out here? ” Or I’d call you and ask “Who is the killing piano player I should know about? ” And then, musicians can determine who is the next great player. Unfortunately, now it’s competitions and record labels that are determining who is the next great player.I like how he says it should be the musicians themselves who determine another musician's credibility. This, of course, is also problematic because there are just as many different tastes in music as there are musicians. However the point really is that there are a collusion of factors against musicians determining for themselves who of their peers deserve credibility and instead credibility is engineered by people and companies with lots of money. It seems that with enough money and/or business connections a person can easily pull the wool over a mass market at least long enough to establish a career in the minds of people who aren't willing (or who simply don't care enough) to take the time to refine their own aesthetics. And that's most people. Let's face it people are busy and they want art and culture in their lives. The engine of promotion is the only way a musician competes for space in the market place. Companies know this and they look for artists with the biggest "hooks" to become the fuel for that engine. A musician who doesn't already embody those "hooks" will be looked over by the big guns and faces an uphill struggle despite their musical abilitities and accomplishments.
Sometimes it’s not even the professors. It’s the administrators and the trustees and the Board of Directors deciding to put the weight and full force of support at a program behind a particular individual. You dig what I’m saying? When on the other hand, there are young students who are trying to go through the process and come out credentialed as well as experienced; like pianist Victor Gould...Yeah, Victor Gould is a cat that you should hear. He would leave you feeling encouraged about the future of your instrument...
If you don't believe let me ask you this: when was the last time a jazz singer over the age of 40 was promoted aggressively by a large marketing engine? For that matter how many jazz veterans, legendary musicians who played in the important groups of the past and who are still alive and playing and are shining examples of refinement and beauty at their instruments; how many of these musicians are receiving attention in the form of marketing dollars and public promotion?
It was with heavy hearts that the jazz community said good bye to Hank Jones who was still playing great well into his 90's, who passed away in virtual obscurity. A man whose playing connected the listener directly to the vital lineage of modern jazz. A pianist whose harmonic inventiveness embodied modernity while his elegant touch on the instrument left an indelible mark all pianists who heard him. You know all those guys you hear playing really smooth and quiet while they throw complex and angular lines at you? I'm thinking of players like Gerald Clayton, Robert Glasper, Danny Grissett. Hank was truly the role model for this style of pianism. If it wasn't for Joe Lovano who's notoriety allowed Jones one last look in the public's eye, Hank would have died in almost complete obscurity.
If the strength and beauty of jazz music is at least due in part to some notion of credibility, authenticity, just plain honesty then we need to be wary of the ways in which our culture erodes these qualities. These qualities I feel transcend art and are crucial to our evolution as individuals, crucial to our happiness and also act as the foundation for us to build our legacies. Here I'm not just speaking about musical legacies because very few us (and usually the least likely) will successfully do so. Here I'm speaking about how we will be remembered by those genereations who come after us. Here we will all leave some kind of legacy in the minds and hearts of those we've spent the most time with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)