Jazz Schools a Good or Bad Thing?

[A Lark Ascending]

Bev, I don't know about accountants, but the law schools in the United States have for decades been a refuge for college graduates with degrees in the humanities and arts, who did not know what to do next, and wanted a paying job when they were all done. Whether those people have an overall enriching effect on society when they come out of law school, I am not sure.

No, it's hardly quantifiable. But imagine a society where all non-vocational courses were abolished in favour of those of proven economic or social service use. I know there are many who would like to see educational courses justified on just such grounds. Maybe society would be no different. I'm not sure what I would have done at 18 in such a system.

I'm comfortable with my taxes being spent on allowing young people to pursue a discipline with some system and rigour in as wide a range of areas as possible. Following something that fires you makes really want to go at it and I'd hope you get a 21 year old with a range of transferable skills (which will almost certainly need more specific honing). In my view society always benefits from breadth and variety, a willingness to follow paths that might not lead anywhere. Rather than a narrower, more closely targeted approach which can only ever target what looks today like it might be important tomorrow.

Idealistic and unaffordable in our credit crunch world? Perhaps. It's interesting that in the UK such utilitarianism has always been thought a good thing for 'the masses'; private education has always insisted that the sons and daughters of the rich and powerful embrace a much broader curriculum (where do most of the Ancient Greek and Latin scholars at university come from?).

Which is why I'm all for giving kids a chance to study music, even if the jobs are not there in music at the end.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Bev Stapleton

[fasstrack]

Perhaps this topic was broached before, but what the heck. I was recently contemplating the fact that there aren't as many unique jazz "stylists" as there used to be. (Are there any today?) I mean, there were so many players in previous decades for whom you only had to hear a few notes and you knew it was them. Coleman Hawkins, Lee Konitz, Johnny Hodges, Jaki Byard, Lennie Tristano, Art Tatum, Gerry Mulligan, Sidney Bechet, Lucky Thompson, Bud Powell, Monk (of course), Errol Garner, Wynton Kelly, Cecil Taylor, McCoy Tyner, Jackie McLean, Ornette Coleman, Horace Silver, Lou Donaldson, Larry Young, Frank Rosolino, Clifford Brown, Louis Armstrong, Eric Dolphy, Benny Carter, I mean the list is practically endless. Unfortunately, I have to struggle to think of players today who demonstrate the same kind of individuality. Could this be because the majority of professionals these days are graduates of formal jazz schools, where they are taught by the same people using the same curricula and therefore sound the same? Is it simply a lack a creativity? Any thoughts? Thanks.

NOTE: Please forgive me if I have insulted any jazz educators or players out there. I just want to understand the music better.

I both went to school (after starting gigs way before) and played with at least one of those on the list (Jaki Byard). I also have observed people on the scene for a long time. It's funny you mention Jaki. He made most of his living teaching at NEC and I think BU). To further clarify, I also had great individual instruction from my heroes that was tremendously useful. I'm still working on what certain people told me years ago.....

I came on the scene in the earliest 80s and just squeaked by to catch the very tail end of what you are talking about. Those guys---that generation (the people I had exposure to other than Jaki were C. Sharpe, Pat Patrick, Chris Anderson, Tommy Turrentine, Percy France, Vernell Fournier, and to a lesser degree Clifford Jordan---all on the scene and accessible to play and hang with in NY then) all learned it on the stand and from hanging with their idols. I couldn't say who went to school or not, but I know the real goodies they got came from hanging and musical ass-whuppings----the old-school, sink-or-swim type. Chris also sat in movie theaters as a kid and, being blind and amazingly sensitive, pretty much memorized, if not the scores, all the tunes. They also were all personalities and it came out. I believe that is what you are talking about. And, critical to my point, they had to be personalities back then----or would've receded into the furniture. I think that's what you are talking about too.

I think there are fallacies on both extremes: All the knowledge in the world can only help what you have, and what great players teach you. I think Wynton is right about a lot of things---especially that, and a great teacher probably. But he also has a lot of road years. I remember one night at a toilet called the Star Cafe a guy was heckling everyone on the stand, finding one nasty thing to say about everyone---and these were not slouches up there. He concluded his tirade by saying "MFs go to Julliard, and ain't got no feeling". OK, that's a dumb-ass cliche from a non-musician, but a lot of guys used to buy into that. But knowledge of 'syntax', rules, etc. also can't make you play. There are a lot of sound-alikes these days, and it is disconcerting. I think Jim's point is also well-taken about 'where the hell will they work to apply this theoretical knowledge?'.

I don't think that school is a bad thing at all. I had great teachers all down the line from elementary, and I remember many and many shaped me and others. In the end, though, you have to shift for yourself in life. If you don't know the tunes or can swing or have a sound anyone wants to hear what the hell good is a degree---unless you want to teach? You eventually have to shit or get off it----school or no school. Just like if you can't get through life without crutches of some type or 'bruises', you'd better stop and figure out what the hell you aren't doing right.

But, no, education not a bad thing at all, taken with empirical knowledge and self-awareness.

Edited April 20, 2009 by fasstrack

[WorldB3]

While the posts regarding education, gigs, mentoring ect are all true I think it also depends on how much time you want to spend absorbing the new stuff. I try and support/listen the best I can by at least getting a few records and attending shows of some of the newer well-known players.

While I may not have that instant recognition of say a Monk, Trane, Bill Evans, Wes or Grant Green but I can for the most part not mistake Chris Potter for Josh Redman, Sefano Bollani for a Brad Mehldau or Jason Moran or Kurt Rosesnwinkle for a Adam Rogers or Steve Cardinas.

I can’t speak for everybody coming up and the lack of their individuality but for the people I am familiar with that are considered the new and notable I have no trouble differentiating them from each other.

[ejp626]

Which is why I'm all for giving kids a chance to study music, even if the jobs are not there in music at the end.

One thing that does change the equation a bit in the States is that it costs so much to go to university, even a public university. It is now pretty common to be $20,000 in debt after getting your BA/BS. That may or may not be sustainable, but then to openly encourage students to go for further education (MFAs and so on) in fields where they will almost certainly not find employment, that is borderline abusive. Most kids right out of college still don't know anything about the world, but for the most part, they would be better served by avoiding MFAs (or cooking schools which are an even bigger scam).

My parents were able to get me through undergrad debt-free (along with my scholarship and work contributions) and said that I was on my own beyond that, which did focus the attention a bit. Knock wood, it looks like I will be able to do the same for my 2 kids. I'll still probably steer them away from humanities as their major, but ultimately it is up to them.

[JSngry]

I still say not only that those who have it will find a way (and schooling can be of enormous help, make no mistake), but I'll also say that those who don't have it - and they are virtually by definition The Many - can, will, and do find open arms for as long as they got the money. The repercussions of several generations of this Mafia of Mediocrity on the overall jazz scene cannot be underestimated.

As individuality becomes harder to obtain (options are running out...), Proficient Mediocrity becomes easier to achieve. And there is strength in numbers, make no mistake.

So the next time you go to a local "jam session" and it's populated my people who play the same tunes the same way and it all goes on and on and on and there's like, 10-15 people in the house and you wonder why this, and a few other gigs like it, is the only jazz in town, ask yourself why & where these guys got the idea that this was what they were supposed to be doing, anyway. And then ask yourself if there's anybody around who don't do it like that. There just might be. Or not. Who knows?

There's next to no ways left to thin the herd. Used to be that the "street" did it as players came up through it. Now, with so many players coming up through the schools, the schools in theory should do it. But they can't because that's not good business. I'm not talking about weeding out the grossly incompetent, mind you, they still do that. I'm taking about the highly competent mediocrities who end up with a degree or something and then go out into the world to settle in somewhere plying their craft in a seemingly harmless manner.

That type thing has always been around, but there used to be a healthy enough street scene to counter it, if you wanted it to be countered. But that was then, this is now, them streets ain't nowhere near the same, and what cha' got left?

Here's a modest proposal - take everybody who graduates from a jazz program and keep them from getting any gigs for five years. You got five years where if you wanna play, fine, but only on your own, and no money involved. Co-mingle as you will, but for money, flip burgers, sell insurance, whatever comes to you to put you & and your music where you want to be. Then call them back together, after five years of every tub on its own bottom and then see who's got what going on, who's gonna keep doing it and moving ahead when it's all on them.

It ought to be a law, I tell ya'!

[fasstrack]

I still say not only that those who have it will find a way (and schooling can be of enormous help, make no mistake), but I'll also say that those who don't have it - and they are virtually by definition The Many - can, will, and do find open arms for as long as they got the money. The repercussions of several generations of this Mafia of Mediocrity on the overall jazz scene cannot be underestimated.

As individuality becomes harder to obtain (options are running out...), Proficient Mediocrity becomes easier to achieve. And there is strength in numbers, make no mistake.

So the next time you go to a local "jam session" and it's populated my people who play the same tunes the same way and it all goes on and on and on and there's like, 10-15 people in the house and you wonder why this, and a few other gigs like it, is the only jazz in town, ask yourself why & where these guys got the idea that this was what they were supposed to be doing, anyway. And then ask yourself if there's anybody around who don't do it like that. There just might be. Or not. Who knows?

There's next to no ways left to thin the herd. Used to be that the "street" did it as players came up through it. Now, with so many players coming up through the schools, the schools in theory should do it. But they can't because that's not good business. I'm not talking about weeding out the grossly incompetent, mind you, they still do that. I'm taking about the highly competent mediocrities who end up with a degree or something and then go out into the world to settle in somewhere plying their craft in a seemingly harmless manner.

That type thing has always been around, but there used to be a healthy enough street scene to counter it, if you wanted it to be countered. But that was then, this is now, them streets ain't nowhere near the same, and what cha' got left?

Here's a modest proposal - take everybody who graduates from a jazz program and keep them from getting any gigs for five years. You got five years where if you wanna play, fine, but only on your own, and no money involved. Co-mingle as you will, but for money, flip burgers, sell insurance, whatever comes to you to put you & and your music where you want to be. Then call them back together, after five years of every tub on its own bottom and then see who's got what going on, who's gonna keep doing it and moving ahead when it's all on them.

It ought to be a law, I tell ya'!

A MODEST PROPOSAL?

A MODEST PROPOSAL???

[seeline]

I still say not only that those who have it will find a way (and schooling can be of enormous help, make no mistake), but I'll also say that those who don't have it - and they are virtually by definition The Many - can, will, and do find open arms for as long as they got the money. The repercussions of several generations of this Mafia of Mediocrity on the overall jazz scene cannot be underestimated.

Maybe. Last week the Juilliard School announced that it was cutting its scholarships for low-income middle school and HS kids, for who knows how long. There are 12 and 13-year-olds on an audition waiting list, or maybe I should say that there were... You'd think that some of their major donors would come to the rescue, but so far, nope.

[JSngry]

Times is tough all over.

So why don't they cut scholarships for more well-to-do kids instead? Could it be that they have an eye out on sustainable legacy contributions? Nah...couldn't be.

Now that's Julliard. A big kid on the block. Taking care of #1. Business is business. And indeed it is. But imagine some not-outstanding but not totally sucky jazz-ed program, what are they gonna do? they're gonna take'em in, make 'em happy, and churn 'em out, that's what. They're not gonna be "challenging" their creative psyches or anything. And I don't blame 'em. Times is tough all over. But whenever the question comes up why do all these school players sound just about the same, remember a big part of the why - it's what the customer wants!

Everybody gotta eat, which means that there's gonna be a lot of bitin' going on...

[Jim Alfredson]

So the next time you go to a local "jam session" and it's populated my people who play the same tunes the same way and it all goes on and on and on and there's like, 10-15 people in the house and you wonder why this, and a few other gigs like it, is the only jazz in town, ask yourself why & where these guys got the idea that this was what they were supposed to be doing, anyway. And then ask yourself if there's anybody around who don't do it like that. There just might be. Or not. Who knows?

You just neatly described the impetus behind forming organissimo.

[JSngry]

Q.E.D. !

[blind-blake]

Fasstrack, that was a very well reasoned reply. Thanks. Your points about Jaki Byard and other "individualists" having taught at schools, as well as about the bandstand challenges, the personalities, and that "education taken with empiral knowledge and self-awareness" is the way to go are right on.

The ass-whupping point brought to mind a story that the librarian of the Louis Armstrong archives once told me. He said that when he first came to New York, he would go to some jam sessions, and then someone would call out something like "Giant Steps in A." Unfortunately, he learned it only in G and got blown off the stage. The thing about it was he was cool with that! He said that's how you learn (and how we remove the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, as someone remarked above).

Edited April 21, 2009 by blind-blake

[blind-blake]

I think JSangry's point about individuality becoming harder to obtain as options run out is a good one.

[papsrus]

I think JSangry's point about individuality becoming harder to obtain as options run out is a good one.

Maybe. But I'm not sure I entirely buy the premise that just because things are different today, that means they are inferior. As noted earlier, there's a pretty broad range of music being made today -- much more so than perhaps at any time in the past, I would guess. What does that say about music education? Are the opportunities to perform music really that limited? Are the opportunities to publish your own music really that limited? Or are they in some respects just the opposite? I wonder.

Not every law student goes on to become a Supreme Court justice. Some become public defenders. Should we expect the arts to be any different?

Now, I could be completely full of shit, cause this is all just my vague sense of things, but I don't get the sense, from the evidence I hear around me, that net/net, music schools are a bad thing. ... I'd love to hear from some music educators on the topic.

[seeline]

papsrus, you and Bev have suggested some viable options. I think part of the problem might lie in our (musicians') own wanting X kind of gig/session (etc.) and not being willing to explore other avenues that lead to opportunities for playing. (and I'm not talking about playing weddings, bar mitzvahs, etc.)

It's one thing to specialize (and I have - in Middle Eastern and W. African percussion), another to find opportunities where I can put the skills I've learned in those specific areas of study to use. A lot of what I've learned in both of these "fields" is transferable to most any other kind of music... So the question becomes, am I interested in - or willing to - play something else? Since there's not exactly a whole lot of demand for the stuff I've specialized in, the answer is "yes." (Though I definitely *do* try to pick and choose, not just accept everything that might come my way...)

I guess I should add that playing in pickup bands and doing some comping for folk/soft rock/theater gigs has been where I've learned the most about musicianship, ensemble playing, and lots more. Most of these gigs haven't been anywhere close to what I'd *like* to be doing, but they've been a good school. (And fun at times; draining at others.) Being forced to think outside the box can bring about some really good things. One of the results is: trying to diversify my own playing, wanting to learn more about how to play (for example) "Latin" rhythms and more.

imo, fwiw, etc.

Edited to add: I don't mean to give the impression that I've got lots of gigs - it's been a while since I actively sought anything, although I'm thinking that the summer might be a good time to see what's out there... (I live in the middle of nowhere; gigs and sessions seem to be pretty dependent on the tastes of the academic folks who live in a nearby university town. Am not wanting to try and organize my own band - who needs the hassle? )

Edit edit: I started W. African percussion classes 2 years ago, as a chance to learn something new (also because I'd wanted to study before, but it was very hard to find good teachers). To my surprise, I fell in love with the music and dance, and one of my fave things these days is to do small ensemble accompaniment for dancers. The music really isn't complete without the dance; both drummers and dancers are constantly trading fours (though the music is rarely in 4!), egging each other on, etc. It's a very dynamic style; lots of fun to play!

Edited April 21, 2009 by seeline

[seeline]

Thank you Bev; all points I was wanting to make.

I was just talking with a friend of mine who is an excellent and multi-faceted drummer. He went to school here at Michigan State as a jazz performance major; afterwards, he went for a degree in speech pathology, the field in which he now works. He told me that he felt he had made back everything he had put into his jazz schooling and then some.

I'm a part-time instructor of jazz guitar at MSU now, and I try to impart to my students that music school is just a short stretch of road in what will hopefully be a long and varied musical life. I take pleasure in learning new music, materials, approaches, etc., and hopefully I impart that curiosity to my students. It's then up to them to decide what to do with what they learned.

Amen to this, Joe!!!

Edited April 21, 2009 by seeline

[papsrus]

papsrus, you and Bev have suggested some viable options. I think part of the problem might lie in our (musicians') own wanting X kind of gig/session (etc.) and not being willing to explore other avenues that lead to opportunities for playing. (and I'm not talking about playing weddings, bar mitzvahs, etc.)

It's one thing to specialize (and I have - in Middle Eastern and W. African percussion), another to find opportunities where I can put the skills I've learned in those specific areas of study to use. A lot of what I've learned in both of these "fields" is transferable to most any other kind of music... So the question becomes, am I interested in - or willing to - play something else? Since there's not exactly a whole lot of demand for the stuff I've specialized in, the answer is "yes." (Though I definitely *do* try to pick and choose, not just accept everything that might come my way...)

I guess I should add that playing in pickup bands and doing some comping for folk/soft rock/theater gigs has been where I've learned the most about musicianship, ensemble playing, and lots more. Most of these gigs haven't been anywhere close to what I'd *like* to be doing, but they've been a good school. (And fun at times; draining at others.) Being forced to think outside the box can bring about some really good things. One of the results is: trying to diversify my own playing, wanting to learn more about how to play (for example) "Latin" rhythms and more.

imo, fwiw, etc.

I like this. Finding creative ways to make your music work. Would it be fair to say there are a lot more opportunities today along the lines of creative dance performances that require music, than there were 30, 40, 50 years ago?

EDIT to say, not just creative dance, of course, but all sorts of performance art.

Edited April 22, 2009 by papsrus

[seeline]

I think you already know the answer, which is "yes."

Edited to add: there's an NY-based percussionist who used to post on the AAJ board. He's capitalized on his interests and studied "Latin" (both salsa and Afro-Cuban, I think) and W. African styles. That way, he can do quite a wide range of stuff - conga "works" in just about any setting/genre these days, and I have a feeling that that'll eventually be true of certain W. African drums as well. "Latin" fits very nicely into a jazz context, and greatly adds to one's ability to find decent gigs and sessions.

To give another example, Don Byron has been playing klezmer since he was at the New England Conservatory; also classical. (The latter, I think, for his own pleasure.) he belonged to the Klezmer Conservatory Band when he was at the NEC and was filmed by 60 Minutes playing with them, for a story on the resurgence of klezmer music. This was back in either the late 70s or very early 80s; I saw it 1st run and grabbed his 1st CD when it hit the stores because of having heard him in that context. (Even from short clips, you could tell he was something special.)

I think there are lots of creative solutions available if people really want to play. If they want to just sit and bemoan the sad state of jazz and lack of gigs, well, that's another thing. I personally don't have much sympathy for that attitude, which is not meant as a slam to anyone here. (Comes from a prevailing attitude on another board. )

Edited April 22, 2009 by seeline

[seeline]

As for the many vs. the few; or there not being that many truly creative people out there... I personally don't buy that. Creativity doesn't necessarily mean that those who possess it are going to seek out the limelight - or that they're going to choose music (or the other arts) as their main "hang."

Two of the best jazz guitarists I've ever heard live - by choice - in relative obscurity. They compose, they arrange, they play regular gigs with local and out-of-town musicians, they teach private students - the works. But neither of them wants to be bothered with "the business." And I'm honestly not sure if either of them has recorded a single thing (meaning commercially available recordings), except for studio work. I don't think either of these people give a damn about being "known." They just enjoy music, and have kept playing over the long haul.

One thing about arts education: It's something that provides life-long benefits, if people want them. It's analogous (in some respects) to school sports programs: football is *not* something you can keep on doing for decades; golf, tennis and a bunch of other lower-impact sports are. So why the relentless focus on football? (And so on; I feel a rant coming on and will stop before I take this thread even further off-topic. )

Edited April 22, 2009 by seeline

[fasstrack]

Fasstrack, that was a very well reasoned reply. Thanks. Your points about Jaki Byard and other "individualists" having taught at schools, as well as about the bandstand challenges, the personalities, and that "education taken with empiral knowledge and self-awareness" is the way to go are right on.

The ass-whupping point brought to mind a story that the librarian of the Louis Armstrong archives once told me. He said that when he first came to New York, he would go to some jam sessions, and then someone would call out something like "Giant Steps in A." Unfortunately, he learned it only in G and got blown off the stage. The thing about it was he was cool with that! He said that's how you learn (and how we remove the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, as someone remarked above).

Thanks. Funny, at first I thought you meant Louis Armstrong had trouble with Giant Steps. That would make Trane like 190..........

Are you talking about a guy named Cogswell? I met that guy, but he's the curator, that's his title.

I really do miss the personalities....and all those cats. More than I could say here.

[Hot Ptah]

One thing about arts education: It's something that provides life-long benefits, if people want them. It's analogous (in some respects) to school sports programs: football is *not* something you can keep on doing for decades; golf, tennis and a bunch of other lower-impact sports are. So why the relentless focus on football? (And so on; I feel a rant coming on and will stop before I take this thread even further off-topic. )

A member of my alma mater's fundraising office explained it this way to me: It is not difficult to get alumni to give us millions of dollars when the football team had a good season. It's a lot more difficult to get alumni to give us money because the chemistry labs on campus are good.

[fasstrack]

As for the many vs. the few; or there not being that many truly creative people out there... I personally don't buy that. Creativity doesn't necessarily mean that those who possess it are going to seek out the limelight - or that they're going to choose music (or the other arts) as their main "hang."

Two of the best jazz guitarists I've ever heard live - by choice - in relative obscurity. They compose, they arrange, they play regular gigs with local and out-of-town musicians, they teach private students - the works. But neither of them wants to be bothered with "the business." And I'm honestly not sure if either of them has recorded a single thing (meaning commercially available recordings), except for studio work. I don't think either of these people give a damn about being "known." They just enjoy music, and have kept playing over the long haul.

One thing about arts education: It's something that provides life-long benefits, if people want them. It's analogous (in some respects) to school sports programs: football is *not* something you can keep on doing for decades; golf, tennis and a bunch of other lower-impact sports are. So why the relentless focus on football? (And so on; I feel a rant coming on and will stop before I take this thread even further off-topic. )

Yes to all. Musicians crack me up when they think they are special. We need music in our lives. We also need someone to take away the garbage and candy wrappers. That's 'creative' too, since it creates a nicer environment.

As far as those guitar players go, they are better off. I won't even go into why, but I figure having wrote it you'd know.......

[seeline]

Those guitar players had their fill of "the business." They didn't want to spend their entire lives that way.

Buck Hill (D.C.-area tenor player) spent his working years as a mailman. He had offers from a number of top-notch big bands when he was a young guy, but he opted to stay home, have a family, avoid the road. (I think he'd seen too many casualties among those who took up that life.) After he retired from the USPS, he stated gigging again, and made a great, enjoyable second career for himself. Not a bad way to do things *at all*!

I should add that I got to hear some truly marvelous "local" musicians when I lived in the D.C.-Baltimore area. many of them were better than most "names" (in the 80s, 90s and 00s), but they didn't want to mess with the biz. There are people like them all over the country - and the world - involved in every kind of music, not just jazz.

Edited April 23, 2009 by seeline

[fasstrack]

Those guitar players had their fill of "the business." They didn't want to spend their entire lives that way.

Buck Hill (D.C.-area tenor player) spent his working years as a mailman. He had offers from a number of top-notch big bands when he was a young guy, but he opted to stay home, have a family, avoid the road. (I think he'd seen too many casualties among those who took up that life.) After he retired from the USPS, he stated gigging again, and made a great, enjoyable second career for himself. Not a bad way to do things *at all*!

I should add that I got to hear some truly marvelous "local" musicians when I lived in the D.C.-Baltimore area. many of them were better than most "names" (in the 80s, 90s and 00s), but they didn't want to mess with the biz. There are people like them all over the country - and the world - involved in every kind of music, not just jazz.

I don't know how 'marvelous' I myself am, but I am one of those people. Gonna go back, oddly enough, to teaching. Mostly to stave off having to eat Alpo when I'm 68 and shit.

The 'business' is a wonderful way to die young, pissed off, and spent.

That's how I knew........