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:

Pictured: Mulgrew Miller NOT performing
Bjork's "All Neon Like"

"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?

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.

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:

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.


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...

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.

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.

Work HARD not LONG

"Hurry....hurry....hurry harrrrrrrrrrd"

Anyone watch curling?

One of the themes of my blog XY...Jazz is information versus knowledge. In the context of being an improvising musician this means what comes out in one's soloing is what one has learned, what one currently knows.  Where I have been critical in the past of institutionalized jazz education is in its emphasis on the dissemination of information to the detriment of acquiring the skills which make that information become knowledge. It's actually not just jazz education I have a beef with.  For example can you remember what you crammed into your head back in high school for your exams? Probably a little but what you do remember is most likely still in use in your current day to day existence. That's not to say that there aren't great teachers who understand that this is an important issue when it comes to the nuances of language play in jazz improvisation. It's just that the way the system is set up a university or college wants to see just how much one can stuff into their heads in 3 or 4 years because that is testable. It is far more difficult to test a student's ability to improvise with depth and facility.

Or is it? What if, for example, instead of learning 15 tunes in one semester for a jury a student was expected to learn 3 new tunes and that's all. Ok so that's just not as fun but let's continue this thought experiment anyway. Suppose students were expected to become masters on 3 really important tunes before they went on to develop their repertoire. Say, for example, they had to learn the Blues, Rhythm changes, and Body & Soul by listening and memorizing great recordings and solos of these tunes. They would need to learn alternate chord changes, how to comp through the tunes on the piano. Horns players would write out solos, and pianists/guitarist would write out voicings and comping patterns. Etc... I think you get the point. When I was 18 I for sure would have found it unpleasant to stick to 3 tunes for such a long time.

But let me ask this: how much fun is it for a first year jazz university student to play "rhythm changes" or "Body and Soul"? Or even a major Blues (I love how some people say "just a blues" as if playing the blues is like falling off a pick-up truck) In my experience it isn't very fun for them. In fact as their juries begin to loom somewhere around February the fun stops and they get pretty stressed out by these tunes. What’s worse is that the cursory, half-assed work they get done on the tunes kind of taints them and leaves a bad impression of the music. Once a student remarked to me that the transition out of the bridge on Body & Soul sounded cheesy. I had to agree with him because what he was playing there did sound cheesy!

Or perhaps how about applying this idea to licks as a way of building vocabulary. I always found it odd as a student myself that the licks I learned out of a book and practiced as bits of jazz "information" wouldn't come out naturally in my soloing whereas the licks which would come out were usually material that I hadn't even transcribed or thought about that much but had somehow internalized from listening to albums.  The un-transcribed and not practiced licks were also shorter and simpler than the hip 4 bar II-V-I "information" lines that I tried to learn from a text book. They were instead 4 or 5 notes that would simply express, say, a dominant sound the way that Wynton Kelly did. These shorter licks felt better rhythmically and also seemed to connect with my other ideas more naturally. They weren't complex or impressive but somehow I owned them because they were simple enough to be entirely deconstructed in my mind and I could easily play with them when I was improvising.

The 3 tunes I mentioned above (insert the word "just" wherever you like) are HARD!!!! Why do we still listen to Coleman Hawkins blowing lines on Body and Soul from way back in 1939? Because this song is deep and presents an infinite education on harmony and melody. These songs are both simple and sophisticated and negotiating one's way through the changes requires a lot of study to sound convincing on them. Why not spend all of one's practice in first year on these 3 tunes if they represent a clear and comprehensive basis for jazz harmony, voice-leading, melodic construction and phrasing? Every jazz musician returns time and again to this repertoire throughout their lives as a way to touch base with the foundational aspects of making jazz music. It is a sign of musical maturity when a jazz musician can eventually speak with their own voice using this repertoire.

So when I say practice hard what I mean is practice the fundamentals. It isn’t realistic to expect a young player to really get themselves stuck on 3 tunes for a semester but it is a formative time when learning the skills of mastery can really leave a lasting impression. Sometimes the hardest things are often the simplest ones and understanding them can be one of the most rewarding things about playing music.  

Perspectives on Time IV

This was just so freaky I had to post it. Thanks to Ronan Guilfoyle for putting this up. I think it makes a poignant completion for my series entitled "Perspectives on Time. Watch how these metronomes are able to "listen" when they are able to feel the actual vibrations of each other.

Living the Jazz Dream

Recently I was interviewed in the McGill Daily for an article about the jazz scene in Montreal.
(http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2011/01/education-gets-jazzed-up/.) 


I have heard several student comments and I'm glad that this article inspired a discussion about the reality of of succeeding in life as a jazz musician. I thought I would just expand and clarify some of the ideas I was quoted saying.


First of all, for some students the tone of the piece was somewhat apprehensive towards the issue of making money as a musician. I think most students are generally terrified at the idea of going out into the world and making a go of it. I would even go as far as to say that some of the allure of being an artists is to by-pass the societal pressure to earn a traditional living and eschew the value that society places on the accumulation of wealth as an indication of success. 

I know it was for me. As a youth who had numerous part time jobs growing up I really liked the idea of finally getting out of school and working for myself, setting my own schedule and accomplishing my own goals. I am very grateful to the various arts councils that supported me while I was getting my skills together in my 20's. I was also able to release a CD and tour with my band during this very formative period in my life. I am also really proud that I never had to play a wedding band or go on a ship to make ends meet. Gradually as I got to be a better player I found myself working more and more as a jazz pianist in Montreal.


Eventually I started teaching a little at McGill when I went back to do my Masters in 2003 which was a really important part of this post graduate training. I was very lucky to be able to get my teaching chops together while I did my masters degree and I owe a great deal of gratitude to the faculty at McGill for sending me that teaching work which I am still doing. 


Although I wasn't rich I felt that I had succeeded making a living as a jazz musician. I was playing with great players on a regular basis and continuing to grow and expand on my skills at the piano. But the general upward trend in my career development was about to hit a ceiling.

An important decision came after a couple years of touring with the young jazz vocal phenom Nikky Yanofsky. At first the gigs were sparse but gradually we were playing bigger and bigger venues. Eventually her disc was nominated for some Junos and we performed at Carnegie hall with Marvin Hamlisch conducting the New York Pops. For the first time in my life at the age of 30 I was making a decent income and even paying taxes! Gradually it dawned on me that I wanted to expand my family and that actually I had always really wanted to raise kids. All of a sudden the thought of having a child seemed to make all of this other stuff make sense. It became part of my musician's dream of success because if I could share my success with a family it would make that success even sweeter for me as well. Surprise, surprise, before you know it you're all grown up.




And then something happened to me that lead me to finally get off the fence and own the new dream of personal success. My son was born when I was 32. In a very short period of time my focus shifted from the shaping of a musical career to the shaping of a human life. Early in Max's life he experienced some health problems. They were minor but required surgery to fix. Our lives were thrown into chaos as my wife and I navigated the feelings of helplessness and anxiety that went along with this experience. All of a sudden it just didn't feel right to ditch my wife and baby son for weeks. And Nikky's schedule was beginning to become very demanding. 


I got fired. Actually nobody called me up to say that my services were no longer needed. When I informed Nikky's management that I was going through a rough time with my 3 month old baby the company just replaced me and that was that. All of a sudden I wasn't getting the call after I worked with them for 2 1/2 years I was just replaced quickly and quietly. 

Well that's the music biz. Sure it sucks to lose a job but what I gained from that experience was that I realized that my family would come first for the rest of my life and that not everybody I would work with would have that value. Despite portraying very publicly to the media Nikky's grounding in "family values" I know the truth about what those people are about and I cherish the path I've taking which has diverged from them.

So here's the point that I made in the article in the McGill daily. I couldn't have in a million years forseen the choices I would have to make in my future regarding my career. I couldn't have really known what I would have needed to let go of in order for me to stay true to myself. When I was 20 all I wanted was to be a jazz pianist. How that would fit into my life as a human being just wasn't on my mind. If I knew it was going to be a struggle and a challenge I certainly didn't understand the ways in which those struggles and challenges would manifest themselves.


So here's the point I make to my students: Follow your dreams but never let your dreams hold you back from living. When we grow and mature as human beings we need to allow our dreams to grow mature as well. Our dreams are a part of us. If stifled and rigidly kept in the same state as they were at a different point in our lives, our dreams may keep us from the path to success. 


What is your personal definition of success? 


Here's mine:

The low cost of music...Priceless!

I'd say this video pretty much describes a major reason why musicians are struggling. It's not that we want to have lots and lots of money it's that you just can't put a price on invisible sound waves stimulating the eardrum....Enjoy!

And above all.....
Happy New Year!

Perspectives on Time III

Here are some questions that I've asked myself over the last 2 years.


Will there ever be a point at which you will say to yourself "this is it, the arrival point. I have reached my goals with my abilities as a musician." ?

What would you do if you weren't on Face book? Could this activity potentially be conflicting with an activity that would give you greater happiness?

How would you practice if you didn't have the mind that this (whatever it is you're working on) needed to get done by yesterday? Would you be more relaxed? Could this relaxed state be more productive?

How much can you accomplish in an hour, a day, a month, a year? Is your assessment really accurate?

do you set too many goals to be achieved in the short term with unrealistic expectations? As a result of this, do you then have unrealistic expectations about what can be achieved in the long term considering so many short term goals are being glossed over?

Do the things you achieve in a longer time span mean more or are more beneficial to you than the things you achieve in a shorter time span?

Perspectives on Time Part II

Going back to the initial idea of my last post which was that our experience of time changes proportionally to our age I'd like to continue to expand on my beleaguered philosophical position of "life=music". If the experience of time changes as we get older it has been my own personal experience that time seems to speed up. It's not that I sleep more, or that I'm that much busier than I was 10 years ago (Sure I wasn't changing poopy diapers but I was wasting my time with the tv or Myspace or wondering if my girlfriend was really that into me, all equally intense to a younger person). It's that my interpretation of a minute, an hour, a day, a year has shifted such that the delineations of units of time themselves, whose numbers I'm beginning to grow tired of counting, are becoming more or less insignificant to the quality of the activities I'm doing during those delineations of time. For example I don't care anymore how long it takes me to do things that are important to me. Conversely I have no desire anymore to waste a second of my life on things that are of no importance to me (I still do though, like when I'm in my car yelling at my gps for giving me bad directions). The net result is that I feel that I just have less time because as I get older it seems more challenging to achieve a quality use of the smaller units of time since they go by so much more quickly.

Time feels linear which is why it seems plausible
that we could travel through it in a vehicle. Just get out
your sled and strap a clock to it!

For sure when I was younger time was not only plentiful but existed in large quantities that were almost intoxicating. My boredom could cause me, with droopy eyelids, to bump into people on the street. I could sit at my desk "studying" for my history exam and count the number of patterns in my 1986 styled wall paper on my bedroom walls with the observant fascination of someone on acid. Maybe it was just hormones. The thing is that I can remember vividly that I almost didn't care what I was doing from one moment to the next as long as it was fun. I resisted, as do most kids, doing things that didn't give me immediate gratification. The whole experience of time itself was slower.

Unfortunately, that particular life skills model had to end when I grew up. Maybe it's one of the things that make us a little nostalgic about our childhoods, the time in our lives when it was all about "fun".  I think now it's still about "fun" but much to my chagrin that "fun" has widened to include the things I care deeply about. I think once we get the taste of things greater than an all afternoon pac-man session fueled by pop-tarts then there is no turning back. For me that taste came when my parents got a piano. I couldn't any longer sit in front of the tv without thinking to myself that there was this piano upstairs, this thing that represented infinite exploration and creativity. I could no longer really get into the "Dukes of Hazard" without wondering what I might be able to experience fooling around (pracitsing?) at the keyboard.

But the problem was that the piano, after a certain point, was time consuming and not always easy. I was blessed with certain natural instincts in so far as my technique was concerned since I was able to, with enough time, accomplish any of the pieces that my teacher would give me. Eventually I completed my grade 10 certificate from the Royal Conservatory of Music, Toronto with first-class honors. Whoopdy-doo. But inevitably as I advanced into more personal and creative musical endeavors my fooling around needed to become full-on practicing or I was simply not going to move ahead. And then I tasted something else. Something new and terrible. I had to do things, and face things in my self, scary things, in order to get that new found taste. Now there was really no turning back because what was once purely play had become both pain and ecstasy in an inseparable tangle of emotions. Time started to pinch me a bit.

Then time took on a whole new dimension. How long would I need to endure the discomfort of practicing, the discipline required to accomplish a goal oriented task, until the point of achievement? How could I cultivate time to reap certain rewards from it? Once something musical had been achieved could I really be happy knowing that there was something else to start on?

Today in my teaching I find questions of this nature to be on the forefront of the minds of almost every serious music student I encounter.  Because in the process of self actualization, the increments are often brutally tiny and sometimes even the smallest incremental growths extracts an enormous price.  Developing as a musician can sometimes feel a lot like trying to fill a whole beach with sand using only a teaspoon. The most common manifestation of this kind of grappling with time for a student is when they indicate to me that they don't want to do something (practicing a transcription for example) for fear of wasting their time. On the one hand they usually feel quite overwhelmed by the enormity of trying to become a jazz musician and yet they also seem to find comfort in that head-space. Somehow the immobilizing fear, the confusion about how to proceed, is a great place to hang-out in because it requires very little effort while at the same time offering certain rewards to the ego (as in the thought "I don't want to transcribe anyone because I want to sound like myself") It also doesn't require the student to take any chances. They don't force themselves to prove that they won't fail at something difficult. Of course it doesn't prove that they can achieve something important either. So it becomes a sort of a state of limbo. The perceived preciousness of time can actually prevent important growth.

The concept of time as it applies to the achieving of goal oriented tasks is slippery. It is slippery because our experience of time seems to indicate that it is something both linear and moving in one direction forward. The fact is that almost nothing about our own internal realities as human beings is linear, all of our thoughts, minds, emotions, hearts, souls whatever your own personal definitions of your internal self is. Music is a result of us using instruments to reflect those internal realities. As such you cannot "achieve" music any more than you can achieve happiness, or love, or concentration. These states are constantly in flux and the most we can do is to let go and flow with them.  For us to feel love we have to allow it into our lives. In order to swing we need to relax and feel it inside our bodies. The mental state of concentration is only achieved when we learn not to be drawn into distracting thoughts. Much of what we're practicing (like technique, vocabulary) will be achieved "with time" or "in time" as the expressions go. But music to me always has a kind of timelessness even if the skills required to play it can be taught and learned in a linear fashion.

Perspectives on Time

What bigger topic in jazz is there but "time"? In many ways it's a prevalent theme in everyone's life because it has such deep implications for our consciousness both in the sense that we experience time passing at different rates of speed depending on the number of years we've been alive and also we experience variances of the quality of time that has passed and that we anticipate to pass in the future. We may, for example, look back on our experience in high school and remember how it seemed it would never end and that we'd always be trapped in an awkward sophomoric existence. And yet now, after years have passed, it really seems that those days actually came and went quite quickly and perhaps we might even have developed a longing to recapture some of the simplicity of that youthful life (although in my own case I believe I had a penchant to create complexity for myself as a youth by confounding with my behavior those who had taken on the chore of raising me!)

"The Persistence of Memory"... Time feels malleable

In jazz music time refers usually to the style of articulation given to the pulse in the music. Usually we discuss a time "feel" because time determines how the music creates the illusory sense of "pulse". It's the spirit and energy that is behind the notes, that make them seem to dance. This is the stuff of dialects and accents and other linguistic conventions that can't be notated but must be experienced. In a sense to "know" the German culture one must inevitably converse with a German and study the language to understand the mind of a German. In the very same way to "know" a swing feel one must study the language of "swing" and converse (or transcribe the masters) with other musicians.  My favorite musicians to study have been Wynton Kelly, Paul Chambers, and Jimmy Cobb. I can't think of a better example of what it means to swing than listening to those guys. And the thing about it is that after having studied them a bit I hear that same swing feel in other more modern groups and musicians. It's like we all experience a strong connection to the past through the "time".

Sure this is a misplaced (and yet very poetic don't you think?) metaphor. That somehow time feel in jazz is linked to the passing of time in external life. Somehow to me what makes sense about it is that I feel close to those musicians who've come before and who exist today and (excuse me while I take another toke...) those who will come after. What is timeless about music links us all. Studying music is a way into the past, present, and future. And in the same way what is timeless about living and being alive also links us together as well. Our families, our ancestors, our children, eating well, living well, being happy, mourning loss...these are all things that have existed since the beginning of our species and perhaps even beyond.

Think back to the era when there was barely any language, everyone was called "Grog" and we basically groped through the forest looking for food, fucking, then sleeping. One day this guy named "Grog" picked up a stick and hit a rotted out old log on the forest floor. It made him feel something different that he had never felt before so he hit it again. And then again. Pretty soon other "Grogs" came over and asked "What you do that, Grog?" So his response what to hit the log again, and again. There was nothing he could say to explain that feeling.  The sound and the pulse generated from repeatedly hitting this low pitched log said everything he couldn't and in that moment music was born.  It has recently become more evident through the archeological discoveries of painting, jewelry, and crafted stone carving that 100,000 years ago we had artists. My guess is that what captivated the evolutionarily young homo sapien's minds and hearts would be exactly the same as what draws us to art today.

All this is to say that "time" as it applies to music and life, for me, is a powerful metaphor, weaving together both of those things. It might even be the source of the "religious epiphany". When I think of my connection to the past through my ancestors it gives me the same heavy feeling as when I hear a group swing like the Wynton Kelly trio or when I hear Mehldau's trio. I don't want to downplay the exceptional nuances that distinguish these great groups from each other but rather I'd like to suggest that the depth of the music we create, just as the depth of life we live has a lot to do with how we see, feel, and hear ourselves in time.

Is there a jam session etiquette?

It is a relatively rare thing for me to go to a jam session. I don't have anything against them. I recently played with some really great students in Montreal at a jam session and we all had a great time. I love the hang both musically and personally with musicians especially students who I only see around McGill. I guess it's just hard to get out of the house with a 2 year old at home or some lame excuse like that. The truth is I was really grateful to get the chance this summer to get out to see some of the jamming both here in Montreal and in Ottawa during the jazz festivals. A couple of summers ago I played with Julian Lange, a young guitarist from the states. I also got to play with Bill Evans who was touring with his Bluegrass band and I still remember the amazing experience I had sitting in with both Bill and his band. They weren't primarily jazz players but jamming on tunes was still an effortless and truly enjoyable experience.

"Yo mang, I got some
chit to play ya"

At their best jam sessions are really about unwinding and letting it all hang out. Like shooting the breeze with people at a party it doesn't seem to matter who knows each other if the attitude of openness and positivity is there. Sometimes nothing spectacular is discussed but then sometimes (often unexpectedly) we encounter someone we realize we can really share ourselves with. I remember recently at a dinner party I ended up chatting with the elderly mother of a mutual friend. I had never met her before but I remember being entirely engaged and enchanted with this person to the point where I couldn't remember having ever laughed that hard in my life. The age difference between us was so great that if I had the opportunity at the beginning of the evening of choosing who I was going to hang with I never would have picked this person. And yet there we were cracking each other up with our conversation and patting each other on the back like drinking buddies. It must have been quite a sight.

I really relate my own understanding of what jam session are about to this experience. I have been in situations on stage with musicians from all kinds of different ages and musical backgrounds and have had really heavy musical experiences. Sometimes I've been jamming with players and nothing really gets off the ground but we still hang and have a good time. I just can't understand musicians who give up the opportunity to take that chance and hang with people they may have just met and instead play what amounts to be a showcase with their own band. It would be like showing up at a party with my posse and refusing to converse with anyone else but the people I came in with.  I was pretty taken aback by how many touring musicians I saw doing this at the jam sessions in Ottawa and Montreal this year. The worst example was watching a certain well-known young pianist (records on Blue note etc) sit in on drums and literally run the poor band down with his playing. I guess he wanted to practice his "shit" or something. But when it came time to play his primary instrument he brought up his trio to accompany him. For sure they sounded great. They brought the house down. The people there were getting another taste of his concert and for free. But I couldn't help but think to myself "ok but what do you sound like with other guys?" My guess is that from experience he knew his bag wouldn't hang well with other players. And what does that say about a jazz musician, I wonder, if they don't like taking chances with other musicians?

So back to my question : "Is there an etiquette at a jam session?" Are you there to hang with musicians who, for better or worse like the mortal human beings we all are, might not allow you to get off the way you know you can with your band? Or are you there to give up your own agenda and be curious about what what life could offer you when you're willing to take a chance and really let it hang out?  For me these choices say a lot about what I find interesting in the people that I want to hang with and I'm really perplexed when I see musicians generally credited with playing daring and innovative jazz but are unwilling to take part in one of jazz's most enduring and edifying experiences. Life's a funny thing because you never really know who you're going to connect with. And when it happens, for me, that's what gives life and music its magic.

A personal post

Hi folks...that is if any of you are still around despite my lack of posts in the past few months. I guess the good thing about reading blogs is that there are so many out there. It seems that there are always good posts from someone, somewhere to read...about something. One of my own personal favorites is Peter Hum's great blog of opinions and reviews (please see my blog role). And of course Ethan Iverson's seminal and mind blowing blog "Do the Math". Honestly I think if there is anything that could potentially influence the contemporary jazz community in terms of insight into the lineage of the music from incredible interviews and discussions on philosophy and aesthetics it could very well be this blog. I'm not a big fan of the Bad Plus and I'm even shocked by the depth of influence from the past that Ethan claims to have. I must say from what I've heard I don't hear the influence on his playing from James P. Johnson's "Carolina Shout" which he states is mandatory for all jazz pianists to study. He makes some really funny statements about music (he loves "Chariots of Fire" and refuses to concede that he's making an attempt at humor by performing it with his trio) but his interviews really unlock true insight into music, improvised music, and the musicians who make jazz.

This isn't supposed to be a review of anyone's blog. I'm mostly just reaching out and hoping there may still be some hanger's-on to my humble blog. So what have I been up to? I've moved to a new home this month. 2 days later my wife and I embarked on a family mission to Korea (where she's from) to reconnect with her biological mother's family, sadly, on the occasion of her death. This was a really intense trip for us and one that has left us changed people. It was a trip that I think detailed to me, in ways that I have never really thought about before, the unfortunate potential for waste in one's life. It made me realize how quickly time won't wait for you to get your shit together and figure out what is really important. I've sat on a Canada Council jury for the first time (can't say which one yet) and that has really been inspiring for me to hear what the great musicians have been up to. Since I'm not on Facebook I suppose that I have to get on a Canada Council jury to get reconnected to the musicians around our country (I don't know...does that even happen on Facebook?) I'm really kicked in the behind to get back to my work at the piano and with my own writing as a result of this experience. I'm also a hell of a lot savvier about the process of getting grants through our grant system here in Canada. I must say that I have been pretty lucky thus far so I've never had any complaints about the Canada Council or the way in which we've distributed public funding for individual artists. I've received several grants for my own writing projects, for living in New York and taking some great lessons with Kenny Werner, for recording my record 3 years ago (I hate it now, haha), and especially for my touring opportunities as a leader. I've always been of the mind that this system seems to work out for everyone in the long run and it makes me really celebrate our country and it's attitude towards the arts, even if that attitude has evolved over the years. I think if any Canadian independent jazz musician wants to feel good about their career they should just talk to some of their counterparts south of the border.

This isn't supposed to be a review of the state of arts funding in Canada either. Anyway I'd just like to say that I haven't given up blogging just yet and that I've already been planning some juicy posts which will include more of a focus on jazz piano for the upcoming year. Also I've discontinued the comments to non-subscribers. It's not that I want to limit anyone's comments but I've just been getting too much spam in the form of commenters recently. I must say though I'm really impressed by the tenacity of the sex industry in Tawain. Ni-How and have a great day!

The Cultural Significance of jazz

Last summer before my performance at the Ottawa Jazz Festival a journalist asked me a series of "get-in-your-head" questions. One of them was "what gives you the chills?". My answer at the time was snakes but I'd like to officially change that now to "Discussing the cultural significance of jazz". Don't you just wish you could get in my head?

I think I should say out-right that I find this topic both pertinent and stimulating. I also find it completely irrelevant to my own processes artistically. And this is what gives me the chills I guess. It is difficult for me to reconcile what seems to be an important discussion with an undeniably intense desire to eschew it. But then again I didn't grow up poor or black in a society that is still trying to cope with social injustice. However neither did any of the bloggers I've read who have weighed-in on this topic. In fact I've found the discussion to take a particularly "ivory-towered" and academic twist. Chills again. In light of the recent posts in blog-o-land I thought I'd give my two cents here

Recently the prolific blogger Jason Parker wrote"

"As jazz musicians, this is a central issue that we have to struggle with." 
"... I do think it’s imperative that we try to connect our music to our own culture, our own experience of the world, our own lives. This is what makes the music of the 50’s and 60’s so powerful, that it was speaking directly to the issues of the day. But when we play that music now, however skillfully we may play it, isn’t it still referencing a bygone era? It’s the reason Miles Davis stopped playing the music that made him famous. It’s the reason Coltrane experimented with different song forms and extended group improvisations. And it’s the reason that cats like Dave Holland, Esperanza Spalding,Christian Scott and Aaron Parks are trying to fuse the music of our time with various jazz aesthetics."

To be fair to Jason he quickly distances himself from the notion that we need to completely separate from the musical language of the past (bebop for example) in order for us to achieve that "fusion of the music of our time with various jazz aesthetics". However Jason neither references his explanation of Miles' and Coltranes' artistic decisions nor does he try to articulate what specifically are those "jazz aesthetics" that are somehow nearly inextricably linked to the past, implying that whatever those aesthetics are they are have lost relevance to our modern age unless they become fused to something new.

I find this to be a very popularly espoused sentiment that the great jazz music of the past was knowingly created to reflect the social, political etc issues of it's day.  In our mind's eye it is a quaint image to equate the movement in the 40's and 50's to legitimize jazz music as an art form by young, well-dressed black men with the social rights movements. In the case of Miles he made it clear in many instances that social rights were on his mind. In his autobiography he talks about listening to white bands as a youth and trying to figure out what he could play that would go over well with white audiences (Yes he was a self-professed sell-out!). Several of Miles' recordings are direct references to black figures such as his soundtrack for the documentary on Jack Johnson or of the black community on On the Corner. However Miles was also very concerned with fashion, fast cars, and women. In fact Miles was greatly influenced by a lot of things in society. To speak specifically to his music part of his concept (not that he ever admitted this) was to play mind-games with his band. It was his way of keeping everyone guessing, keeping the music moving forward at any cost even if it meant sometimes a train wreck of form (check out how lost everyone is at times on the album Nefertiti). His artistic intentions always had tangible results if not always pleasant ones. Miles could never sit still musically and needed to reinvent himself every decade. Could we really say that these kinds of artistic decisions were a result of society changing around Miles? Or perhaps did Miles play a role in affecting that change in society? If he did base his musical decisions on notions of social relevance what does that actually mean in musical terms? The thing is that Miles had so many influences, both politically and artistically that it is almost banal to try and make a connection between his deconstruction of the melodic line until he left painful amounts of space with the social rights movement. Yes it's fun but there is no evidence for it.

I guess the point that I'm trying to make (with some difficulty) is that at a certain point the argument breaks down. It breaks down because as we get closer to the actual brass tacks of how a musician expresses themselves the more it makes sense to use the vocabulary of music and aesthetics. It becomes almost insulting to a great musician such as Coltrane or Miles that the reason they reinvented themselves was for external reasons rather than as a result of their own internal processes. And in the broader context of history I believe that the great artists are social leaders and not followers. The proof is that their social relevance usually waxes and wanes even within their own lifetime. For example J.S. Bach although employed throughout his lifetime was ultimately rejected as being too erudite, too dissonant for public consumption. It wasn't until the 19th Century that his influence didn't start to creep back into the music of composers such as Berlioz.

Another artist whose work is inextricably linked to society is Picasso. In his painting Guernica his goal was to explicitly affect social change by drawing the public's attention to the bombing of the city Guerninca by the Germans and Italians during the Spanish civil war. Picasso's pain is felt as mankind's suffering throughout the ages. But the pain we feel is the result of the internal artistic processes of Picasso and not his political motivations. His pain is communicated to us not by a political desire but rather as a result of his skills as a painter and the depth of his artistry. We are moved in other words by the art and not Picasso's intentions as a man, noble as they were. As men Picasso and Miles Davis did some ignoble things too and these in no way have ever become a detriment to my enjoyment of their art. 

This begs the question: why are we bloggers, musicians,....just about everyone so concerned with the social relevance of jazz? Are we really just trying to bybass the tired old discussions of aesthetics? I think we are sometimes struggling to intelligently address the merit of jazz music on it's own terms, using the vocabulary of music. For example if a piece is original or derivative, melodic, rhythmic etc...Then we could talk about jazz that is and isn't accessible to a wide audience. It could all just be a part of a spectrum, one that we can acknowledge will change as the decades pass. To me it is all very pretentious when I hear a musician go into the social significance of their music. Perhaps you don't agree with me but let me ask you this: Do the extended liner note essays on theWynton Marsalis album covers discussing the cultural significance of the "blues" really make the music mean more? When Christian Scott goes on about how he's trying to bring jazz to "the people" in comparison with Bob Dylan are we supposed to take that to mean we should listen to his music any differently than we would someone who isn't trying to bring jazz to the people using idiomatically obscure influences? Actually I'm not sure if his aesthetic appreciation of Bob Dylan's music doesn't have more to do with the album covers than the music.





Hmmm....It seems to me that music which makes it a goal to be accessible to as wide an audience as possible has existed for quite some time. Why is Christian Scott so excited about that?

Ok so let me bow-out as gracefully as possible. Jazz musicians are basically lamenting the sad fact that ours is an art form largely ignored by the public. On the surface it seems plausible that this is because Jazz has lost its connection to society, its greater cultural significance. It seems that all of the goodies Jazz has to offer in terms of melody, harmony, swing feel, and personality pretty much goes over like a lead balloon. But I don't feel that this fact burdens me with the responsibility of trying to make jazz appeal to my culture. We live in a society that is helplessly inarticulate and aesthetically confused and we need to address that without becoming harsh or judgemental. I believe that art is one of the best ways to affect social change. We live in a time and place when a talented and accomplished person is no longer considered very entertaining performing music on an instrument. Wynton Marsalis (despite what I said above about his pretentious album covers) is actually a great ambassador for jazz because of the time he spends with young people demonstrating the music on his instrument. Granted, public performance is an artform and one that jazz musicians cannot disregard. But to say that we should try to fuse jazz aesthetics with the music of our time (does that mean popular music?) in order for us to make jazz popular again is to pay a great disservice to the process of creating art. A process that involves a deep personal commitment to oneself to listen to that "voice" inside at all costs. It is just as disingenuous for a pianist to decide to play Bjork tunes in a jazz piano trio context because they think it will have an audience as it is for that pianist to perform Bill Evans transcriptions in public. If our career aspirations become a hinderance to the creation of our art then we don't stand a chance of making a contribution.