The 2014 First Annual Colligan Awards

Since I've been on the subject of movies lately, one great film I saw recently was "Birdman," an incredible vehicle for Michael Keaton, who plays a former action star trying to produce a darkly serious play while trying to keep his dark mental difficulties at bay. The acting by Keaton and co-stars which include Edward Norton, Zach Galafanakis, and Emma Stone, is solid. However, the cinematography and special effects are absolutely amazing. Furthermore, the musical score, which is mostly solo drum set, really blew me away. It sounds somewhat improvised, but it really fits the emotion of the story, as any good score should. ( When I think of my disappointment with "Whiplash," it's nice to hear truly great drumming in a movie.)

I recently discovered that jazz great Antonio Sanchez is responsible for the score for

"Birdman." I also discovered that his score was rejected by the Academy of Motion Pictures for consideration for an Academy Award. Sanchez' fans are wondering why. The reasons the Academy gives have to do with the amount of original music related to known songs, I think bottom line it's because the Academy is stupid. And racist. And just plain evil. Do I think the Academy and it's members are worse than Hitler? That would be pushing it a bit too far. So then the answer is yes. 

Antonio Sanchez is an incredible drummer, having played with Pat Metheny, Chick Corea, Miguel Zenon, and plenty more of the heavyweights. He's very successful as a musician, so I'm betting that he could probably care less about whether he is snubbed by the aforementioned Worse-Than-Hitler-Academy of Motion Pictures. However, since so many of these awards are so pointless and arbitrary, I'm starting my own Awards.

Good Evening And Welcome to the The 2014 First Annual Colligan Awards. I'm your host, Ellen DeGeneres. We have a really great show for you. We have many special guest, and so many great song and dance number. I have lots of great joke(Rim Shot)......ahem..... Moving right along, presenting the award for Best Musical Score is Jack Black.

Jack Black: ( In a loud, rock and roll type voice) Hey everybody, the nominees for Best Musical Score are:

Antonio Sanchez for "Birdman"(Roll Clip)
"Birdman," Antonio Sanchez (Roll Clip)
(Roll Different Clip)
" Big Momma's House 13," Kanye West ( Roll Clip.....Ugh..)
" Indian Jones and the Quest To Find A Good Hip Replacement Surgeon," John Williams( Roll Clip, I guess...)
Antonio Sanchez for "Birdman"(Roll Clip)

And the Colligan Award goes to......
Antonio Sanchez for "Birdman!" 

( This is Antonio Sanchez' first Colligan Award....)

Anyway, I have a vivid imagination. I recommend the film, Antonio Sanchez got robbed, and F the Academy. 




“What's with all these awards? They're always giving out awards. Best Fascist Dictator: Adolf Hitler.”
Annie Hall (1977) – Alvy Singer (Woody Allen)

“Awards are like hemorrhoids. Sooner or later every asshole gets one.”
Swimming Pool (2003) – Sarah Morton (Charlotte Rampling)

Haitian Fight Song

Chris Rock in "Top Five"

I recently wrote about my disappointment in regards to a movie I went to see with my wife; part of my lament was that I don't get to actually go to the movies often. Well, I actually was able to get out again to see "Top Five," a hilarious film starring one of my favorite comedians of all time, Chris Rock. I was a fan of his HBO program in the late 90's, although he hasn't made a ton of great films. I really enjoyed this one, especially one scene with a famous rapper surprising us with some of his "unknown" talent( don't want to spoil it for you). Rock  and supporting actors Rosario Dawson, JB Smoove as well as a host of other surprise comedians really made this one work for me.

Rock is great with observational humor, but he's not afraid to push the political envelope. Rock's character, Andre Allen, is a comedian turned actor who had financial success with a string of "Hammy The Bear" films. Allen, a recovering alcoholic, decides he wants to make "serious films" (perhaps a nod to one of my favorite Woody Allen films, "Stardust Memories") and ends up starring in "Uprize," a movie about the Haitian Slave Revolt of 1791-1804 in which thousands died and Haiti gained independence from France. It's amazing to me how Chris Rock is able to make the idea of this film ( which I'm fairly sure no one, even a Hollywood superstar would have an easy time financing) into something hilarious. It's kind of a complex idea; it's funny because it's such an intense departure from the silly "Hammy The Bear" character; it would be like Tyler Perry doing a movie about Nat Turner.....( actually I would pay to see that!) During a scene where Allen sneaks into a theater to see whether people like his new movie,  I was pleasantly surprised to hear Charles Mingus' "Haitian Fight
Song" as the background music. ( I wonder if Questlove, who is credited with the score, was responsible for that choice?)

 

All levity aside, the Haitian Revolution was no joke; considered the most successful rebellion in history, it culminated in driving out the French and appointing governor-general Jean-Jaques

Haitian Rebellion

Dessalines, who in 1804 ordered the massacre of almost all of the remaining whites on the island. I guess I can't help but wonder why we study the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and the Russian Revolution in school- but not the Haitian Revolution? It seems like this would have been interesting to mention.....

In the fake "Uprize" movie within a movie, the Allen character plays Dutty Boukman ( which I hate to say but it sounds like somebody from the Pootie Tang bits from the Chris Rock Show......never mind, I'll be quiet...) who was a voodoo priest and leader of the Maroon slaves. Haitian voodoo religion originates in Africa and uses mystical dance and music ceremonies where spirit possession is involved. This reminded me of a recent performance I saw while visiting Birmingham, U.K. A young composer named Bobby Avey recently released an album entitled "Authority Melts From Me." This is a large form suite which is inspired by the Haitian Uprising; Avey actually traveled to Haiti and recorded actual voodoo ceremonies, transcribed them, and used the musical and political inspiration to create some incredibly intense music. Pianist Avey and his all star band of Miguel Zenon on alto saxophone, Ben Monder on guitar, Jordan Perlson on drums, and bassist Michael Janisch created a dense musical jungle full of dense chromaticism and brain-bending odd meters; the severity of the music made me see things differently upon completion of the performance. 

I need time to study the Haitian Rebellion. I think it's strange that such a striking and significant event seems to be relatively forgotten. I'm under the impression that the tragedy of modern day Haiti may have a lot to do with the circumstances under which it became a nation. I didn't expect a history lesson this evening, but I'm glad to get to laugh and also learn something.

Hey, what about Tyler Perry as W.E.B. Du Bois? Ok, never mind, I'll shut up.....

The Endless Mystery of Booking Gigs

Sometimes things annoy you to the point of anger, but then it moves beyond anger into humor. I just have to laugh at the endless frustration of trying to be your own booking agent. Everyone knows it takes a lot of time and energy, but it's a very weird way to spend your time. I'm talking about the constant emailing of jazz venues. On the good side, some of these better venues, usually run by folks who actually have played an instrument themselves( and they've been in your situation so they understand), will actually respond; it might still take a while, but eventually they might get back to you and tell you: A. We have these dates available, or B. We aren't booking in advance of March yet, or C. We are all booked up at the moment please try back in a few weeks or, D. Sorry but we don't have a spot for you, your music isn't what we are looking for or you don't have a following or you need a few more years to develop. It shows respect for the artist and respect for the scene. On the negative side, some of the venues are booked by people who probably don't have much sympathy for what musicians go through and just string you along forever. Sometimes I wish they would just tell me to kiss off.

I think the worst though is after days, weeks, months, and years(yes, years, people!) of emails (or pre internet: phone calls) you never hear anything, or you might hear once something like, "Oh, it's really busy now, try me next week." and then you just stay in this endless loop of emailing and never hearing anything. Sometimes you wonder if you should stop emailing altogether, or perhaps just be more aggressive and step up the emails. Unfortunately, I don't have any definitive line on what the etiquette is for something like this. I don't know if there are classes on how to approach booking yourself. Pianist and educator Hal Galper has some books on booking your own jazz tours and gigs, and of course there are many things online about this, although these are more geared towards Indie Rock and Pop groups.

I suppose Hollywood movies deals with various theories on the etiquette of things like "How many days after I give a guy my number should he call me?" or "How much should I tip the Red Cap at the airport?" So in this case, is there some rule like, "If you email a jazz venue 5 times and you don't hear back, should you assume they aren't interested? Are They Just Not That Into Me?" This is especially frustrating when you have already played at said venue, and even had what was deemed to be a great, or at least good turnout. "I thought we really had some special......sob.......Oh I just want to eat a pint of Hagen-Daz and cry myself to sleep..."

It's important to realize that anyone who is in charge of booking a jazz club  has pressures that we as the artist don't have to worry about. If we play at the venue, and no one shows up, then yes, we will be depressed, but we can also just move on to another venue and try again, whereas the booking person has to answer to the owner, who needs to worry about keeping the lights on, etc... That booking person could be out of a job if he or she books too many duds. And if the person who books the music owns the joint, they might be even more worried about whether the business is good. They also might be busy running the restaurant, so they might have even less time to get back to you than someone whose only job it is to do the booking.

Furthermore, and this is key, that when you consider how few jazz clubs there are and how many jazz musicians there are in the world, then just imagine how many emails each booking agent gets. Some of these places get 500 emails a day from various musicians, some whom they know and many that they don't, and they all want to play at the club. Can you imagine having to answer 500 emails a day?
I can relate somewhat because as Jazz Area Coordinator of Portland State University's School Of Music, I get so many emails a day and it is challenging to answer all of them. I don't get nearly 500 a day.

Also, it should be noted that traditionally in the arts, the artist is not supposed to book themselves. You are supposed to have a booking agent, or at the very least a manager who does that. This is because artists are notoriously bad with things pertaining to the business. They are also very egotistical, so it can be hard to deal with the realities of making a gig successful when you are dealing with somebody who thinks of themselves as the greatest thing since sliced cheese. "What do you mean I can't fill a 500 seat hall? Have you ever heard me play?" This is why it's better to leave this sort of negotiation to someone who is a little more detached from the situation. Also, you want someone who understands the business so that the artist doesn't get ripped off.

The problem now in jazz is that there just isn't enough money to be made in order for people to want to spend the time booking you, or managing you. As Vanessa Rubin used to say, "If you want a manager, you have to have something to manage!" Most people in this part of the business will come to you if you have already proven yourself in some capacity. Unfortunately, this is also rather abstract. I feel like the guy in the old commercial for joining the Army. The guy tells him he can't have the job because he needs more experience. "But how do I GET the experience?" In years past, jazz musicians made their name as a sideman playing with the greats, and then , if they were so inclined, branched out into leading their own bands. But now that doesn't seem to matter as much; oftentimes promoters and so forth (definitely in my case) just see you as a sideman. Sometimes it's almost easier if you BEGIN your career as a leader, which really makes little sense if you think about it. Do you become the teacher BEFORE you go to school?(This is kind of what was happening in the 90's when record companies were looking for young players-Young Lions, if you will, and musicians who had very little experience were leading groups. Some actually did go on to mature and grow, but many of the Young Lions sort of dropped of the scene; perhaps they might have benefited from having more sideman experiences, in my opinion.)

So we are trying to be our own booking agents for ourselves. I think there is something to be said for working on a lower level regularly and building a following; I believe Kurt Rosenwinkle did this by playing at Small's every week and building his reputation as well as developing his sound. Rosenwinkle definitely paid dues in that sense, and over time has become the sensation that he is. However, I noticed a number of years ago a young vocalist I worked with a bit, who had never actually performed any gigs prior, go from playing a weekly stint at a Greenwich Village restaurant to playing 2,000 seaters in one year. How does THAT happen? Well, when you know the right people and have the right connections and the right people behind you, I suppose anything can happen. Unfortunately, I think that's just luck. You can't go looking for that. Although I suppose you could rob a bank and use the money to rent a 2,000 seat venue. Or perhaps become the Heisenberg of jazz. (That's a Breaking Bad reference. I mean that you could cook and sell drugs to finance a major career in jazz. I don't really condone this.)

So some people end up filling huge venues overnight somehow, and some of us keep plugging away trying to get gigs at small clubs. What can be frustrating is the amount of thought and work it takes to get a gig that either pays very little or even nothing. There are a few places in particular that I think of how long it took me to get them to give me a gig and in the end it was hard to justify all the effort. One place in particular, and I swear this is true, I called on and off for 3 years before they gave me December 26th. Yes, the day after Christmas. Needless to say, it was not a good night in terms of turnout, and I took home 60 dollars, a good portion of which went to my taxi ride. (What was really weird is that the booking person would answer the phone and pretend to be her own secretary. I would say, " Is Monica there?" and she would say, in Monica's exact voice, "Monica's not here." That was really strange to me.)

Another venue did call me back and tell me " We really love your music, but we just don't have a place for you at this venue." Which in retrospect was actually very cool. At least I had an answer. However, after a few years of playing there as a sideman,  I guess at some point it seemed as though I had a shot at playing there. At the time, I did have someone helping me with booking. She got me a last minute Mother's Day spot. Again, not the best attendance. Not only was it Mother's Day, and a Sunday, but since it was last minute, we couldn't do much to get the word out even if we wanted to. However, the music was amazing( I brought my organ trio of Tom Guarna and Rodney Holmes), although the guy who booked the music didn't come to the gig, so he never heard the band. ( I also had made it a double bill with the Casey Benjamin Band; Benjamin is an awesome saxophonist and musician and his band was also quite amazing.) It took me another 3 years to get another gig there; my recollection was that it was a pretty good turnout; I had Steve Wilson as a guest, and again the music was really happening. So it only took another SIX YEARS to get another spot there. That's right. SIX YEARS. I emailed, hired someone to send emails,  then went back to doing it myself. Finally, I got another weeknight. Yippee. Not a holiday, at least.

This time, which was my last to date, was an undeniably good night. That's because I put money towards radio spots on WBGO, which were not cheap. I believe that the radio spots plus the all star line up of Lonnie Plaxico, Clarence Penn, Jaleel Shaw, and Debbie Deane really helped to bring folks out. As you might have guessed, after this success, I'm basically back where I started and have been unable to secure a follow up gig after many, many, many emails. Who knows? Maybe in 12 years I'll get another chance.

I guess my issue is that on the last gig, because I spent money on publicity, plus paid for all my own expenses getting to New York and staying somewhere, plus paid the band, in the end I lost quite a bit of money. Which isn't that big a deal; however, if I'm going to continue to try to have a relationship with these venues, what is in it for me? A chance to play my music? Possibly. Am I developing an audience? HELL NO! How can you develop an audience if you only play somewhere once every 3 to 6 years? The problem I have with venues is they don't want to actually help anyone develop an audience. If you can't get a gig with any kind of frequency, how can you develop a following?

Anyway, it's gotten to the point where it's just comical. The venue I mentioned where the lady would pretend to be her secretary? She passed away, and her son runs the club now. I played there a number of times as a leader when someone else booked the gig. I tried to get a repeat myself and never got any response-again after countless emails. When I saw Monica's son at the club, he smiled at me and said, "George! Man, we should get you in here again!" I said, "I would love to do that!" I tried again with the emails and he never responded to a single one.

I'd love to get more feedback on this post. Feel free to share your own experiences. What's the most amount of calls or emails or YEARS you've spent trying to get a gig? I wonder if there is a world record in the category of "Most Emails Sent To Get A Gig...."

Justice

A few years back, I was on tour with a jazz quartet, hurtling through the Midwest in a van. On long drives, musicians can have pretty involved conversations. Some border on the mundane, or sometimes you just throw jokes or stories back and forth. Sometimes, you try to take apart the entire world and solve it like a Rubik's Cube. On this ride, we were talking about 9-11 and conspiracy theories. (If you've ever watched documentaries like "Loose Change", you might have the same questions about 9-11 that I have.) The most common conspiracy theory is probably the one that 9-11 was not the work of terrorism; it was instead, our government attacking its own people, thereby creating an excuse to invade Iraq. But even as lefty as I admit to being, it's difficult to imagine my own country essentially attacking itself. I had one of those moments where, upon speaking, I could hear how naive and stupid the words were as they resonated: "Why would the government do that to its own citizens?" I was the only white person in the group, the other three musicians were black; two were a fair bit older, old enough to have a vivid recollection of the turbulent 60's. The two older black men, justifiably so, gently laughed at my sentiment, as if to say, "Ah, this poor naive white boy..."As they laughed, the full weight of my words hit me. When you take an honest look at U.S. history, you would have to think: why WOULDN'T the government kill its own people? Look at our history. If you really look at the sordid past of our beloved U.S.A., it's a wonder that we ever have any justice at all.

The Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman fiasco is a perfect example. I didn't follow the case that much during the sensational trial. I'm not a lawyer, and I only know as much as I am able to read about in the news. The more I read about it, and the more I think about it, the whole thing is a nightmare. The jury decision, while disgusting and tragic, doesn't surprise me. To think that we live in a "post-racial" country is incredibly naive. Sure, we don't have separate drinking fountains and restrooms and baseball teams. Having a black President does not magically fix the problems of the entire black population of the U.S. (In fact, white people who say "We have a black President! Why are black people still complaining?" should be sent into outer space.) The racism which created Jim Crow, segregation, minstrelsy, separate but equal, lynch mobs, the KKK, and the current state of Black America is still very much alive; in some ways, the election of Barack Obama has brought the racism out of the woodwork (in the form of the "Tea Party" and the "Birthers”). So to say that the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case is not about race is completely insane, especially in a state like Florida.

I suppose the jury in this case, on paper, made their decision based on the "stand your ground law." It's interesting that somehow this "law" is on the books in Florida, yet when I consider the fact that the U.S. Congress NEVER passed an anti-lynching law, it reminds us of the hypocrisy that is our government. Thousands of blacks were murdered by lynching from the late 1800's through the 1960's. Many anti-lynching bills were introduced during the 20th century, but they were always blocked by southern Democrats (the Democratic and Republican parties used to be quite different). This was basically mob rule; fewer than 1% of lynchings ever resulted in a murder prosecution. So in effect, folks in the American South could decide that a black person was a "threat" and murder him without regard for any legal consequence. This aspect of U.S. history, like many other aspects of U.S. History, makes me ashamed of my country.

Now, the Zimmerman verdict has once again affirmed that self-righteous citizens (or just plain old white racists) can murder without punishment simply because they are "threatened" by someone. Most lynchings were attributed to things like "a black man looked at a white woman" or false accusations of rape and so forth. Now, you can just be walking down the street with a hoodie, and you can be considered a "threat". Lynching was not legal, but it was sadly tolerated (in fact, many lynchings were public spectacles). "Stand Your Ground" is a LAW, and versions of it are on the books in about 30 states. This law, at least in Florida, was controversial BEFORE the Zimmerman case. From Wikipedia:

Stand-your-ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. In Florida, self-defense claims tripled in the years following enactment. The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue that he felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the deceased. This problem is inherent to all self-defense laws, not just stand your ground laws. Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."

Many are angry about the verdict. Some people are saying, "Well, the jury spoke, whether you agree or not. It wasn't about race; it was about the law." OK, fine. What about the case of Marissa Alexander, a black woman who tried to use the defense when she shot a warning shot at a wall to deter her crazy violent husband from killing or hurting her. She got the mandatory 20 year sentence-that's right, 20 years in jail, for STANDING HER GROUND! What gives, Florida? Does the law not apply to black people? Here's some highlights from the Chicago Tribune article:

"In one case Mr. Zimmerman kills a young man and walks away, free to kill again," Jackson said. "And Marissa shot no one, hurt no one, and she's in jail for 20 years."

"Ours was a moral appeal," he said. "This mother has three children. They need their mother," he said, noting that Alexander had already served the three years originally offered to her by the state in a plea deal.

Michael Dowd, a New York domestic violence attorney handling Alexander's appeal, contends she should not have been charged with felonies, but rather a misdemeanor, such as unlawful discharge of a gun.

Alexander, a slightly built woman, said her husband, Rico Gray, was moving toward her threateningly when she fired into a kitchen wall. He had previously been convicted on a domestic violence charge for attacking her.

Alexander filed a "Stand Your Ground" claim, but a judge ruled against her because Alexander chose to go back into the house with her gun.

A jury took just 12 minutes to find her guilty of three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Because Alexander fired a gun in the incident, Florida's "10-20-Life" mandatory-minimum sentencing guidelines required the judge to sentence her to 20 years in prison.
At the time, Alexander had an active restraining order against her husband and she carried a concealed weapons permit.

The injustice is crystal clear. What's being done? Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, and other groups are calling for Alexander's release. There are also many protests and rallies going on around the country in response to the Zimmerman verdict. There is a call to boycott Florida Orange Juice and tourism of Florida. Some don't think it will work; Democratic leaders in Florida say this:

"The right-wing ideologues who control the Florida legislature couldn't care less about a state-wide boycott. All they care about is the right – these so-called rights – for everyone to bear arms," Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said Friday.

Yes, the SO-CALLED right to bear arms, or in this case, the right to kill black people without consequence.  Just like the lynch mobs of history. These ideologues are insane; they can't listen to reason. They don't care about justice; they care about their own jobs at best and at worst they really believe in white supremacy. (There, I said it.) George Zimmerman was a one-man lynch mob, and the mostly white jury, ironically all women, let him off in a showing of southern good ol' boy justice.

And if you are black........."Oh, I'm soooory...... but that law doesn't apply to YOU. But thanks for playing. Good luck in jail! I guess you shouldn't have stood your ground..."

"But why would our government and our laws and the system be unfair?"

Why would it EVER be fair? When WAS it fair?

Norway Stakes A Claim in Jazz

That little Red house might be a jazz club!

While browsing the news feed on Facebook, I came across this article on the NPR Site: "How Norway Funds a Thriving Jazz Scene" by Michelle Mercer. (The writer, who recently penned the biography "Footprints: The Life and Work of Wayne Shorter," happens to be married to an old friend of mine from Baltimore, bassist Marc Niehoff).

This article piqued my interest for many reasons. I have always been aware that European nations, due to their financial contribution to the arts in general (much more so per capita than the United States), have supported so many more jazz tours than the nation where jazz was born. However I have always resisted the notion that Europe should become the de facto "new home of jazz," maybe because 1) I have not figured out a way to live in Europe, and 2) perhaps I have some kind of subconscious national pride about Jazz music. (I suppose those who who would label me a "Blame America First" sort of liberal might be surprised to hear that occasionally, under circumstances, if the wind is just right, I'm slightly proud to be American. It usually clears up after a good night's sleep and some Tylenol...)

As I have mentioned in previous posts, the British writer Stuart Nicholson wrote a book a few years

ago called "Is Jazz Dead? Or Has It Moved To A New Address." This book was actually a more in-depth version of a New York Times article written in 2001 (the book was published in 2005) based on the same premise; Nicholson contends that European jazz musicians are not only better funded, but also more innovative and more interested in furthering the development of the art form, while American musicians like Wynton Marsalis and others are merely regurgitating the past, treating Jazz more like a museum piece rather than a living contemporary art form.

While Nicholson makes some valid points, I feel that he uses pretty selective and at times, dubious examples to prove his point. Let's take the example of Wynton Marsalis, who, as we all know, has a very rooted philosophy: Jazz music is about the blues and swing and if that isn't in it, it's not happening and it isn't Jazz. OK, fine, but that's ONE musician out of hundreds who are known, and thousands who are unknown. Many American Jazz musicians are going further; it;s just that we can't get funded. Our cultural system in the U.S. is mostly based on commerce. If you sell, you get to play and you get attention. And usually, you will sell if you get a record deal, or you have a hit song, etc... It's also incredibly competitive in the United States; most people cannot compete with Wynton Marsalis' fame. Meanwhile, in European nations, there are considerably fewer jazz musicians, and it is much easier to get public funding.

E.S.T.

Case in point: the Swedish trio known as E.S.T., or the Esbjorn Svensson Trio, was a very successful jazz group in the late 90's and into the last decade. (Svensson tragically died in a scuba accident in 2008.) Our writer Nicholson holds up E.S.T. as an example of music with the "Nordic Tone," and claims that they are much more innovative than the current crop of American musicians. E.S.T was highly popular in Europe, it's true. They had major funding from the Swedish Government, to my recollection. Musically, I think E.S.T. was pretty good; not particularly innovative to my ears, and certainly they didn't play anything that the Keith Jarrett Trio played better years before. Honestly, it seemed unfair to me that a pretty OK Swedish group, thanks to plentiful Swedish money, could become mega-stars playing jazz while so many great American jazz musicians I knew could barely get one gig a year. (I'm not really trying to bash E.S.T., I'm just saying that an American group playing the same music without funding would be unknown.)

That silly national pride combined with my own glorious self interest made me think quite unfavorably of Nicholson's suggestion that Jazz is now a European phenomenon. I don't necessarily mean the book itself; many have taken issue with it's selective journalism and I think they are right.  Many of Nicholson's arguments just don't hold up when you really think about it. I'm talking about just the idea of Jazz in Europe. I still wanted the old paradigm of Europeans booking American jazz musicians in their festivals to go on forever. Instead, nowadays, when you look at the European festivals and venues, it's more often than not European musicians and groups. This is not only due to more interest in European jazz musicians, but it's also for basic economic factors: why pay 1500 dollars for a plane ticket from New York when you hire someone from Berlin and pay only a few hundred Euros for a ticket? Plus, the fact that it's far easier for European musicians to get government money for a tour; in the U.S., it is really difficult to get any kind of grants.(I've gotten a few; back in 2003 I received a Chamber Music America Grant and an Arts International Grant. It's very competitive. I applied for the CMA grant many times again and never made the cut. Arts International is now defunct as far as I am aware.)

This, from the NPR article by Mercer, really struck me:

For now, though, most Norwegians still consider art and culture too important to be left entirely to the markets. As long as art is considered a public good, it will pay for Norwegian jazz musicians to dream big — and write lots of grant applications.

Lage Lund-a seriously bad cat from Norway

I still believe that Jazz is America's art form. I question whether the music being called "Jazz" in Europe is actually Jazz; it might just be jazz influenced improvised music. There is nothing wrong with that at all. But this idea of music and the marketplace is the dilemma. In America, we are all about the market. The success of your art is based on sales. YOU as a person are judged by how much money you make, how big your house is, what kind of car you drive. I think many Europeans don't see the world in this way. They see culture as part of the public good, rather than a commodity. Despite the economic doom and gloom going on worldwide, Europeans have at least built societies which have the people's interest at heart. When I look at how our government lets the interests of the 99 percent slip into the ocean, then I wonder whether we have the strength as a society to save our own cultural institutions. And if this is the case, if we as a society cannot hold on to what's important, then I say Europe already has more of a claim to Jazz than we would like to admit.

Newtown

I'm still reeling over the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut last week. Gun violence in the United States is something to which we have become disgracefully desensitized. However, when a troubled young man brings military grade weapons and ammunition into an elementary school and senselessly murders 26 people, 20 of whom were young children, it rouses an oftentimes indifferent populace into outrage and collective sorrow.

I admit that a shooting incident close to my home in Portland a few days earlier didn't phase me all that much; we had been about a year before to that Clackamas Mall where a young man opened fire in a Macy's store. The difference between that and the Newtown incident was that, in the latter, I actually knew one of the fallen children; she was Ana Grace Marquez-Greene, the daughter of well respected jazz saxophonist Jimmy Greene. Our family and the Greene family became very close during our two years as colleagues at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada.

Ana was a bright, sweet young girl. My wife and I were always impressed with Ana and her older brother Isaiah, and how smart, polite, and well behaved they were(although they were older, they seemed very different from our rambunctious toddler). Kerry spent a lot more time with Jimmy's wife Nelba Marquez-Greene and their kids; she would sing her made up "kid songs" and Ana and Isaiah had apparently memorized them. It was helpful to have some fellow ex-pats to share the challenges of teaching music, raising kids, and living in a different country.

As my readers already know, I and my family left Winnipeg in 2011 for Portland, Oregon. The Greene family stayed another year; this year, Jimmy Greene got a new job at Western Connecticut State University. We were happy for the Greene family to finally be able to return to their home state; it seemed as though they were on a great new chapter in their lives.

Jimmy and Nelba are indeed more devoted to their family than anyone I can think of. Indeed, Jimmy is the perfect example of the family man. Plus, he's overall one of the nicest people you'll ever meet in your entire life. Incidentally, if you haven't heard his music, he's one of the baddest saxophonists on the planet. It was indeed an honor to be able to share the bandstand with Jimmy on a regular basis for two years.(I don't think I can play the Theolonious Monk composition "Eronel" without thinking about how much bad stuff Jimmy used to play on it every week at the Wednesday Night Hang in Winnipeg.)

When we heard about the shooting in Connecticut, we thought that the Greene family had moved to Danbury, so we figured they wouldn't be anywhere near Newtown. When I saw Nelba's Facebook post regarding Ana, I was shocked. I'm still shocked. It doesn't seem real. I was sad not just because of Ana's needless death, but I of course thought of my son. And I thought about how Jimmy and Nelba, and Isaiah must be feeling. They are devout Christians, and I believe their faith makes them better equipped than many to cope with such a difficult experience. I don't know what I would do if I lost my son that way. I don't know if I could handle it at all.

I was sad, but then I was angry; I was angry because this should not have happened. No one should have these assault weapons in their home. Sadly, the mother of the shooter owned all of these firearms legally, the firearms which her own troubled son used to kill her. She was described as a "gun enthusiast." I don't understand why "gun enthusiasm" is considered a legitimate hobby in this country. Some things are illegal for a reason. Murder is illegal. So is rape. So is robbery. No one who holds up the local bank is every spoken of as a "robbery enthusiast." They are called a "thief."

I'm angry, but I'm also concerned. I think about my son, Liam. If the laws don't change, he might have to be home schooled. And no more shopping at malls, and no more going to movie theaters. I'm partially being facetious, but only partially. Who knows how many gun toting maniacs are waiting for their chance to go out in a blaze of glory? It's really troubling that even after a tragedy like this, there will be those who will insist that we should not take away our right to stockpile AK 47s for, what? Hunting? Spare me.

The ray of hope is that little Ana's death, while tragic, might actually be what turns the tide against the madness of the gun situation. The public outrage is so loud that change might be right around the corner. Senator Mark Warner, a NRA supporter, says that "enough is enough." President Obama has pledged to do whatever he can to change the laws. Many stores which have sold semi automatic weapons have announced that they are no longer selling them.  It's sad that so many have had to die over the past few decades, but maybe we are finally seeing the straw that broke the camel's back.

If you are hanging out on Facebook or reading the news, this has become a national discussion; the tragedy of the deaths of children and teachers, and how to prevent it in the future, is what seemingly everyone is talking about.(Note to anybody who says the teachers need to be armed:that's stupid...)My wife and I were crushed to hear about Ana's death. It's made me think about what's important in life. It's made me question whether I can do more to help the greater good. I may be outspoken,  but what can I actually do to make a difference? Some say music can be a healing force. Sure, but maybe we need to do more. Signing petitions, calling our representatives, and taking it to the streets might be better.

One thing we might want to do is donate to a good cause. There are groups which are essentially the opposite of the NRA:

The Coalition To End Gun Violence
http://www.csgv.org/

The Brady Campaign
http://www.bradycampaign.org/

I, and those of you who answered my Facebook poll, agree that the NRA is more detrimental to our safety than Al Queda. Look at how our country changed after 9-11. With gun deaths becoming more common than deaths by car accident, isn't it time we acted?

My New Year's resolution is to do my part to not let Ana Grace Marquez-Greene's death be in vain. She was everything to her family. maybe she'll be a hero for all of us.

Cutting Contest: Romney and the Arts

"I don't know Art, but I know what I hate....and that's the NEA."

I think I would be correct if I said that over the past two years I have somehow kept my political leanings out of this blog. There may have been a few asides, but mostly I've tried to deal with things related to music. My Facebook page? Well, that's a completely different story, and a completely different venue. It's not every day, but every once in a while, I get so riled up that I have to post something on Facebook regarding John Bohner's latest fake tear-fest, or Michelle Bachmann's latest phony outrage, or something else that we are just now discovering about the dreaded Bush presidency.

You might have guessed, if you didn't know already, that I'm a liberal. Well, I'm a human being, but I tend to favor liberal policies, politicians, and ideas. As someone who favors these ideas in America, I refuse to be demonized by the right wing as someone who is un-American. If I was un-American, I wouldn't be so sad that the country is slowly going down the drain! Furthermore, I really identify culturally as an American. I love Europe and Japan, and even parts of Canada. But even while I lived in Winnipeg on and off for two years, I still felt out of place at times. 

I'm liberal, and sometimes I'm embarrassed to be American; but that's because of our politics, and when a select few numb nuts get a lot of attention for doing something stupid- NOT because of our overall culture. After all, without America, you wouldn't have JAZZ! (You're welcome.)

I think America COULD be the greatest nation on Earth. But it isn't just because some dumb reactionaries SHOUT it out loud! "U.S.A.! We're number 1!" Yeah, you say we're number one--- because you didn't learn any numbers HIGHER than one, because the education budget was slashed, because we sent troops and billions of dollars to Iraq for no reason, etc......Anyway, I could go on like that for days. My point is we should try to fix the problems so that we can be the greatest nation on Earth again. (Also, so I don't have to move again!)

I believe Obama and his administration are trying to do that. Unfortunately, in some ways, our system might be broken beyond repair. Also unfortunately, Romney wants to do the same things that got us here in the first place. Anybody remember the 8 years of W? Lower taxes for the wealthy and deregulation and subsidies for corporations were his specialty...

I realize you might not agree at all.  Ideologically, our nation is extremely polarized. It seems as though we are divided right down the middle. Current polls for the upcoming presidential election are a statistical dead heat, even though Obama is a few points ahead since a few days ago. So, for as many people that think like I do, there seems to be an equal number who would vote for Mitt Romney, a guy who was born with an oversize silver spoon in his mouth. Considering the problems we are facing in this country, and considering what caused many of them, Romney seems like the worst candidate you could have on the ticket; not only is he super rich, and a friend of Wall Street, but he's not a terribly charismatic guy. At least the right got the impression (whether it's true or not) that George W. Bush was a guy "you could have a beer with." Romney, as a Mormon, doesn't drink alcohol, but I don't get the feeling that even sitting and having a glass of water with Romney would be fun. He seems like a cold fish. And he shifts his positions on policy constantly; almost as if he really wants to be liked at any cost.

Believe me, if it really made sense that Romney and all of his "experience in the private sector" could turn the country around, I would want to know what he is proposing. But something NEW. Cutting taxes on the wealthy, deregulating Wall Street, and cutting social programs are not the things I want to hear about. (Romney's so-called private sector experience was as head of Bain Capital, a company which made millions with leveraged buyouts; sure, they helped some companies, but a lot of companies went out of business while Bain made enormous profits. Do we really want someone who made his money like THAT as President?)

Speaking of cuts, Romney wants to cut all federal arts funding in America. Well, he said he would cut PBS, NPR, and the NEA. They would essentially be eliminated. If you are a musician, or anyone who likes art and culture, you should be outraged. Romney said this in a recent interview in Fortune Magazine:

"Some of these things, like those endowment efforts and PBS I very much appreciate and like what they do in many cases, but I just think they have to stand on their own."

This completely misses the point of funding for the Arts. If you think that only worthy arts are the arts which can "stand on their own", meaning survive in the modern marketplace based on sales or voluntary philanthropy, then you must not think jazz or classical music is worth having around in the next century. If we only judge our culture based on commerce, then the music of Taylor Swift and Katy Perry is the best music in America. I'm not saying that those, ahem, "artists" don't have the right to exist. I'm saying that if we really based all of our music on commerce, then we would have no real art. Artistic expression is by nature not commercial: it's using the skill of a medium to express some kind of feeling or idea in different levels of abstraction. Sure, artists would love to make money, but look at how many of us do it for NO money! There's a lot of art that is really great, but it's not loved by millions of screaming moronic teenagers. Does that mean it should drop off the face of the Earth? According to Romney, yes.

I think that a certain level of commercialism is ok, and even essential for art to survive. But at what level? For example, can you imagine watching a television program that was ALL commercials? Even with the rise of reality TV and some of the crap that has always been on TV, there is still some great comedy, writing, and acting which exists. Advertising helps TV and the movies survive. But where do you draw the line? Would you want to hear this?"Honey, make sure you TIVO that half hour Doritos commercial....". Or this, "Hey, baby, I'd love to take you to that new Coca-Cola movie at the Cineplex." (And yes, when you consider how commercial movies and TV have become, I think we are getting close to that already.)

And consider this: if the playing field was really level, then perhaps things like PBS and jazz music could "stand on their own", as Romney believes. However, the fact remains that art only does but so well in a vacuum. People have to come and pay to see or hear it; otherwise, the artist or musician has to get a day job. The so-called "art" and "music" that becomes successful has to have some kind of backing eventually to be successful. When you have major companies with millions of dollars to begin with pushing crap on the American public, then that's unfair competition. If PBS and jazz musicians had the same kind of promotion as NBC and pop music, they would be able to compete. But they are starting with less. So they get less. 

I think that this is in some ways analogous to Romney and the ruling class way of "thinking" about everything. "People shouldn't need handouts, etc...Stand on your own two feet, etc....I worked hard, don't hate successful people, etc....". Romney is FAR from self made: his father was Governor of Michigan, for crying out loud! Life was not a level playing field for Mitt Romney. It's as if someone like him were to tell a poor kid from the projects; "You've got to stand on your own." (Sure, people can work their way up the ladder, but these days, it's more the rare talent and opportunities combined with luck than simply working hard.) In the marathon of life, Mitt Romney started at the 26 mile mark, ran the .2 miles to the finish, and declared himself the winner!

(By the way, if you have extra free time, you should read the wikipedia entry on Mitt's father George Romney. He was Governor of Michigan, and was actually in favor of Civil Rights in the 60's. He was born in Mexico, and campaigned for President; however, he dropped out before his birthplace became an issue(OHHHH THE IRONY). He actually did spend his early years in poverty, and when he became rich, he gave 4 percent of his money every year to charity. He also released 12 years of his tax returns during a campaign (OHHHH THE IRONY).)

Also, consider the fact that cutting federal arts funding(as well as the funding for Amtrak) does not save that much money, when you consider the entire federal budget. According to the Washington Post:

Here’s how it breaks down: In fiscal year 2012, the federal government spent $1.42 billion on Amtrak, $444 million on PBS, and $146 million on the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. Getting rid of all these subsidies would have saved the government about $2 billion this year — chump change relative to the scale of cuts that Romney wants.

 I think that Romney, like most conservative politicians, likes to give lip service to things that sound good to their potential voters. Cutting the arts, while not actually making a dent in the budget, sounds like wasteful spending to red state conservatives, especially the ones who love Taylor Swift and Katy Perry, and can't possibly understand why their tax dollars should go to some East Coast Liberal choreographer who wants to put on a ballet inspired by the The Bay of Pigs incident.  

In all seriousness, it was the tour of a publicly funded Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit which sparked a debate on whether our tax money should go towards "filth", which is how Mapplethorpe's art was seen by some. From Wikipedia:

Mapplethorpe's X Portfolio series sparked national attention in the early 1990s when it was included in The Perfect Moment, a traveling exhibition funded by National Endowment for the Arts. The portfolio includes some of Mapplethorpe's most explicit imagery, including a self-portrait with a bullwhip inserted in his anus. Though his work had been regularly displayed in publicly funded exhibitions, conservative and religious organizations, such as the American Family Association, seized on this exhibition to vocally oppose government support for what they called "nothing more than the sensational presentation of potentially obscene material."As a result, Mapplethorpe became something of a cause célèbre for both sides of the American Culture War. The installation of The Perfect Moment in Cincinnatti resulted in the unsuccessful prosecution of the Contemporary Arts Center of Cincinnati and its director, Dennis Barrie, on charges of "pandering obscenity".

 (In a way, Mapplethorpe sort of ruined everything for those of us who make a bold statement with Major Seven Sharp Eleven Chords, rather than Bullwhips Inserted Into Our....well, you get the idea.)

So, since all of that, the NEA has been a target of conservatives.

Furthermore, I happened upon an article written by William Osborne called "Marketplace of Ideas: But First, The Bill." Osborne puts it in incredible perspective:

Germany’s public arts funding, for example, allows the country to have 23 times more full-time symphony orchestras per capita than the United States, and approximately 28 times more full-time opera houses.  In Europe, publicly funded cultural institutions are used to educate young people and this helps to maintain a high level of interest in the arts. In America, arts education faces constant cutbacks, which helps reduce interest.....

If America averaged the same ratios per capita as Germany, it would have 485 full-time, year-round orchestras instead of about 20. If New York City had the same number of orchestras per capita as Munich it would have about 45. If New York City had the same number of full-time operas as Berlin per capita it would have six. Areas such as Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx would be nationally and internationally important cultural centers. The reality is somewhat different.

I've spent a lot of time over in Denmark. The Danish pay from 40 percent to 70 percent of their income in tax. They don't mind, at least my Danish friends don't: medical care is free, all school is free, mothers get 2 YEARS paid maternity leave(fathers I think get a YEAR). Plus, they seem to be able to get funding for jazz concerts as easily as we buy lattes from Starbucks. Yes, it's easier for Danish people to put on jazz concerts than it is for Americans to put on concerts here. They get paid for playing jazz, we play for tips. Or we "pay to play."

Conservatives love to call Obama a "socialist". Well, I've been to all the so-called "socialist" countries. Why? Because that's where the jazz gigs are happening. I've barely toured the U.S. in 20 years of being a touring jazz musician. I've been everywhere else. Maybe it's because there is money for culture in all of these "socialist" countries. I think Obama recognizes the importance of music and art and education in our society. Does Mitt Romney? If there is no profit margin, then I doubt it.