Viewer Mail: Minimum Wage, etc...

Time for Viewer Mail! This recently came in and was regarding an earlier post about musicians working for less than minimum wage.....

Hi George, I'm surprised this post has no comments. I just had a couple thoughts to add. First, I find it odd that some people are willing to pay up to $85 to see a jazz concert, yet other times people will leave barely a few dollars in a tip jar. I think this disparity confuses people on what live music is worth. The big names that come to places like the SF Jazz Center (in San Francisco) are able to rake in the money, but local musicians can barely make minimum wage. 

Being a jazz fan and non-professional jazz musician in my mid-twenties, I can say that I am one of the youngest attendees at the majority of jazz shows I attend. Usually the crowd is a bunch of much older grey-haired couples. My guess it that they have good taste and lots of money to spend.

I don't know the answer, but I think the price for jazz needs to meet in the middle from $0 and $85. The majority of people don't understand or appreciate jazz. For me, it is so much about the live performance and seeing what happens in that specific concert. I've taken new friends to jazz shows who afterwards come to this realization. I think younger crowds might be latch on more if it were more affordable, and if jazz musicians and jazz fans did their part in introducing people to the music as a meaningful performance art, and not as just background music at a restaurant or bar.

Re: digital innovation -- I wish jazz artists would embrace bootleg recordings. Wouldn't it be amazing if after going to a jazz concert, you could purchase a digital download of that specific performance? I still wish I had brought my recorder to the Bill Frisell and Greg Osby duet I heard last year. Any thoughts on why this isn't common practice?

-R.C.

Thanks, R.C. I totally agree with your sentiment. Just like the rest of our society, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There used to be a solid middle class of musicians, in the not so distant past; musicians could do club dates, weddings, restaurant gigs, hotel gigs, studio work, jingles, and so forth. Jazz musicians could tour Europe and Japan and make a killing. Much of that has faded away, unfortunately. There was a time when jazz musicians had a minimum in terms of how much they would take to play a local gig; now, playing for the door or for tips is practically the norm. The very idea of a "professional musician" is becoming a lofty goal rather than a real career option. This is not to say it's impossible to make a living in music. People are still earning a living, it's just that you have to be open minded and much more versatile than ever before. Most musicians do some teaching, and have to do many different types of gigs to make it all work. At least, the mere mortal musicians have to have many irons in the fire; the superstars are mostly doing fine( although I hear rumblings about loss of record sales for some of the bigger jazz artists. Still, they aren't worried about being kicked out of their apartment).

I think much of the problem comes from the devaluation of music and culture in our society combined with the willingness of musicians and artists to work regardless of pay. Musicians like to play, so they will find a way, even if it means renting a hall themselves and losing money. In terms of jazz gigs, musician's unions have traditionally done very little to create a minimum standard of pay. (The musician's union in New York City, Local 802, of which I was never a member, is geared mostly towards orchestras and Broadway musicians. A friend of mine went to a 802 meeting and asked what he should do when a jazz club asked him to play for the door. "Don't play there!" was the response.)

You are right about the disparity in terms of pay, or the perceived value of the concert folks are attending. Recently, Wynton Marsalis, who is one of the most famous jazz musicians of our time, performed in Portland. Tickets were at least 100 dollars if not more! However, you might have trouble getting folks to pay 6 dollars at Camellia Lounge to hear Randy Porter or Steve Christofferson, two world class pianists -who truthfully aren't as famous as Wynton Marsalis, but who offer jazz piano as good as you would need to hear in any given evening. I mean, 6 dollars! It's kind of a travesty. I think a lot of people get caught up in the hype, and hype beats actually understanding the musical merit of local jazz masters.

It's interesting what people WILL spend money on; people will drop 100 bucks easily on a fancy meal, and then complain about a 6 dollar cover charge. People will buy expensive computers, ipods, and ipads, and then download music for free. People will buy weed, beer, and whatever else, and then say, " I can't afford to go hear music tonight." Everyone loves to make an excuse. Some of those people( music students) are planning on being working musicians in the future; some of them will be in for a rude awaking when they find that there are even fewer opportunities. "I wish there were more places to play...." Well, no one supported the venues which put on jazz, so they stopped having jazz(or any live music.)

This might be unrelated, but it's interesting to me that students will pay many thousands of dollars to attend a jazz program to have us teach them information that is available for free on the internet. You can find chord scale theory by looking for it on Google, not to mention the first page of almost every Aebersold book. You can find transcriptions online for free. Heck, you can hear all of the classic albums for free on youtube! The missing link is the scene. What students are missing is the connection with the masters. Pay your cover charge, go hear master musicians play, write down the tunes they play, go home and learn them, and do that for a few years. Then, when you feel like you know enough of the tunes that the masters know, you go down again and ask if you can sit in. This is basically what I did in Baltimore and D.C.; I went to The New Haven Lounge, The One Step Down, Blues Alley, Bertha's, Twins Lounge, and so forth, and listened to the local heavies like Bob Butta, Tim Murphy, Charles Covington, Reuben Brown, and countless others, and tried to figure out what they were playing and doing. Although I was extremely shy, I would eventually ask to sit in, and then I started to become part of the scene. This is where it is at for me in terms of jazz as a living art form. It's not just a class in school, or an abstract idea; jazz is meant to be PLAYED and LISTENED TO! Go down and hear some tonight! Maybe don't buy weed this week so you can hear some music that will keep you high for the whole week!

As far as recording gigs goes, I think the older guys are a bit protective about live taping because there is the fear of having bootlegs that are released without paying the musicians. In a way, this idea is outdated only because no recorded music is selling well, so releasing a bootleg for sale is sort of wasted effort! Some artists do have that technology together in terms of recording the gig and then having it be available right afterwards, but I guess it takes work to make that happen. It's not impossible, though. Maybe I'll try that at some point: record the gig, and then either burn CDs or make download codes available.

This brings up another point about live performance; when you hear greats on recordings, oftentimes, it's only about one tenth of what they can really do overall.  I remember hearing people like Gary Bartz and Charlie Young in Baltimore and Washington  D.C. ; they would really stretch out on their solos, in a way that you wouldn't hear on a 6 minute studio track. The real fans want to remember those gigs. I know there is an underground bootleg trading network, and if it helps to keep the music alive, I'm not against it.

Three Wishes

Dear Mr Colligan,
We are three students from a French high school called Pierre et Claude
Virlogeux. We are all 17. We are really pleased to write to you.
The 26th edition of the music festival called ‘Jazz en Tête’ will start on
Monday October 14th in our area. As part of the festival, we are currently
working on jazz music in our English class. Indeed, our English teacher is
preparing us for a meeting with two musicians who will take part in the
festival: a pianist (Laurent de Wilde) and a double bass player (Essiet
Okon Essiet). We will also attend their concert.
In the 50s, 60s and 70s, Pannonica de Koenigswarter, aka Nica or the Jazz
Baroness befriended such giants as Thelonious Monk, Charlie Parker, Bud
Powell and many more. Over the course of a decade, she asked 300 musicians
what their three wishes in life were, jotting them all down in a notebook.
Today our aim is to follow in her footsteps. That’s the reason why, just
like Pannonica with lots of great jazz men, we would like to ask you what
would be your three wishes  if you could make them come true.
We would be very grateful if you could spare a few moments to answer the
question.
Sincerely,

Hélène, Thomas and Jade


Dear Hélène, Thomas and Jade,


Bonjour. My three wishes? Hmmm.

These are in no particular order.

1. World Peace.
2. A great life for my son.
3. More gigs for my band.

Bonne chance!

-George Colligan

Viewer Mail: Multi Instrumentalism

I got some questions in the mailbag recently which almost made me feel like I was being interviewed. This came from bassist Vince Guarna( yes, brother of guitarist Tom Guarna). 

How did you decide on what your main instrument would be when you were younger? I heard that you weren't 100% decided on the piano as your main instrument until college.. is that accurate?
 (I am asking because I am kinda in a similar position
between piano and bass.) Was the piano the instrument that you felt most gifted on? Did that help make the decision for you?

In a way, the piano chose me! I was getting the calls on piano. People seemed to like my piano playing. I wasn't getting the calls on trumpet. I had a dinner theater gig on trumpet that paid 25 dollars. I had 2 nights a week on piano that paid 110 dollars. (this is around 1988, 89, btw. )I weighed the evidence and went with piano and I suppose I never looked back.

I think in some ways being a jazz musician is more than about just what instrument you play. We are all dealing with the same stuff: harmony, rhythm, melody, improvisation, etc...
Some people really need to feel as though the instrument they focus on is their calling. I think if that was the case for me, I would have been a drummer!
But for me it was more practical. I needed to make rent and piano was helping me do that. Unfortunately nowadays, no instrument might help that! So in that sense, maybe you should go with

whichever instrument you feel the most affinity.

I still feel like bass is the one in terms of getting work. Everyone needs a bassist. Maybe if I had known that years ago I might have switched. I've been messing around with bass and I think it's fun.

I did kind of have a natural feel for the piano. That came from listening and trial and error, and also learning on the job. My right hand was all my trumpet licks and my left hand was drum rhythms!

My advice is maybe do both bass and piano until you decide for sure. Then maybe the decision won't be yours. The universe will decide.

Jack DeJohnette was an established pianist but he started messing with the drums. Eddie Harris told him that he thought he could really have something special on the latter instrument.

I think multi instrumentalism gets a bad rap. The thinking is: "jack of all trades, master of none." I don't think that's true. But people tend to get reputations on only one instrument, especially in cities where there are so many choice on each instrument. And I believe that professional loyalty might foster an attitude of "Well, I know that so and so plays great drums, but I really should call this guy cause he plays drums full time and he needs the work. So and so already works as a bassist enough..." Something like that.


Nick Payton plays really well on all his instruments. He could be first call on trumpet, drums, piano, bass. I heard he plays saxophone. I like his singing, despite what others seem to think.
But I think the issue in jazz is more about THE MUSIC and not THE INSTRUMENT. If you can improvise, you know tunes, and you can get a vibe, you don't need to be THE BEST on your instrument.

Sometimes whomever is THE BEST on their instrument can be THE MOST ANNOYING because they are never going to leave their virtuosity at home and just come out and play some music.
shoot.

How do you define "Talent", and to what degree is "talent" a deciding factor in one's musical abilities? Do you believe talent is something people are born with?

I think there is such a thing as talent. But in music, and in life, it's vastly overrated. I do not consider myself talented at all. I'm kind of an idiot, truthfully. Well, maybe not an idiot, but at least average or just below. However, I have managed to somehow muster the strength and discipline and perseverance to eek out a little career for myself. You might be the best player on whatever instrument, but if you don't make the scene, if you don't present an image or a personality that people want to have in their band, or fronting a band, or what have you, then your talent is useless.

There are so many "talented" people who are scratching their heads as to why they aren't household names. Not only do you have to work hard, you have to work hard at being original! You have to stand out somehow. You need to give off energy-energy that folks want to be a part of.

I worked really hard and despite living in the city where young people go to retire and the homeless come for vacation, I still work pretty hard.

Did you take classical piano lessons? If so, how long?
You must have had serious legit piano training when you were younger.. right?

I had about a month's worth of piano lessons when I was 6 and I hated it and didn't practice and didn't care at all. I wasn't serious at all. I mean a month's worth of lessons- that's 4 lessons!

I started trumpet in 4th grade and didn't practice. In 6th grade, the band director was so awesome that it made me want to be a part of the concert band.

I never really had serious classical piano lessons, except from a grad student at Peabody named Fred Karpoff. He showed me the Taubman technique, which is the subject for another blog….I did
I mostly learned some classical pieces on my own. I did of course get my degree in Classical Trumpet and Music Education. But that's very different from the life of a piano student. Better parties. But quite a different lifestyle.

Do you regret at all not spending more time playing classical repertoire?

Yes. However, that's just a part of what makes me the player that I am. I'm somewhat unorthodox. There are plenty of jazz pianists who have lost of classical pieces under their fingers. I don't. But I have enough technique to do what I want to do.

Any piano books that you would recommend, both technically oriented and repertoire stuff?


The Mark Levine book-"The Jazz Piano Book." That's what you need for jazz. Essential. I never did Hanon. I did some Czerny, real easy stuff. I would recommend the Bach 2 part Inventions. I taught all of those to myself. I write out fingerings and played them very slowly. You could spend a long time perfecting those. I need to get back to them. I found it interesting that Billy Childs spent a lot of time with the Inventions also….

Viewer Mail: O Canada

Here's an email that came in a while ago. I'm just getting to it now, and for that, I apologize.


Hi George, I am graduating Eastman with a doctorate in spring of 2014 (assuming I pass the comps exams) and thinking about living in Canada. My wife has family in Toronto. What do you think of the job market there for someone like me, I mean for teaching music? Any comments or advice for me regarding Canada versus America etc.?

First of all, it depends on what kind of teaching you are looking to do. I suppose nowadays, the golden prize is considered to be a tenure-track university teaching position. These sort of things, especially in jazz, are few and far between. I still receive the College Music Society job listings, and lately, I have seen not one opening, not even at Shady Creek Bible College in Duluth, Minnesota. (I'll bet they have a great jazz program, though....)

Furthermore, when one of these jobs becomes available, it is highly super competitive. I competed and was in the finals for a job a few years ago which was not only tenure track, but actually CAME with tenure and a six figure salary. ( tenure, by the way, essentially means a job for life. If you have tenure at a university, the only way they can get rid of you is if you burn down the school, or are in jail , or if they eliminate your position or program. The latter has actually been happening recently, which is pretty scary. Also, keep in mind that the trend across the nation is to end the notion of tenure altogether. So you might be seeing even fewer tenure track jobs and more positions such as Lecturer or more adjunct positions.) The competition was fierce; I was in the running against Geri Allen, Louis Hayes, and Matt Wilson. Clearly, they wanted a name that would draw students. I don't even know why I would be even close in name recognition. However, for some strange reason, none of us won the job; they ended up going with the legendary Joe Chambers.

Yes, even jazz legends are looking for these kinds of jobs. I've recently written recommendations for legendary players who used to write recommendations for ME! This is the new hustle. Having a tenure track job at a university is what getting signed to a major label was 15 years ago. Except that you get health insurance with the university job. And you won't get dropped due to lack of sales!

So not only is it always highly competitive, it's also highly political. There might be someone in mind long before they even begin the process of looking. That doesn't mean it's hopeless; just because someone has the perceived inside track doesn't mean that you might not come in and change the committee's mind. I suppose anything is possible. However, you'd have to be pretty naive to think that there isn't more than "we want whomever is the most qualified" lying underneath the surface.

I was in the finals for another job, thinking I had a decent chance. I told a friend about it, and he shook his head; "No that job is slated for Jimmy Keys." I was surprised. " How do you know that? Isn't this an open search?" My friend explained. " No, Jimmy Keys has been at that university for 10 years as an adjunct. They want to create a full time position for him. Jimmy Keys wrote the job description HIMSELF!" I went through the process anyway, and tried my best during my audition. Alas, I didn't change anybody's mind.

The committee might be looking for things that aren't actually in the job description. They can't really tell you this, but it's true. They might be looking for somebody famous. They might be looking for someone of color. They might be looking for somebody they can go out drinking with! Of course, they can't list that in the ad. They might say, "someone with an international reputation." They can't say, "must be willing to spend Saturday nights drinking at Sal's Tavern with other faculty members..." (Of course, you might find that out when you arrive...)

They can insist on a Doctorate, or at the extreme least, a Master's degree. (There are rarely instances where you don't need a degree at all, or even just a Bachelor's.) I applied for a position in the Southwest early on in my search for a teaching job. I thought that, in this case, my professional experience would override my lack of a Master's. Turns out, I was wrong. If it's advertised as "Master's required" or "Doctorate required", then they can be sued if they don't maintain this as the minimum criteria. Of course, they could say, "Doctorate preferred," OR they could say "Doctorate or equivalent professional experience preferred." So it's good that you are nearly finished your Doctorate. (Good luck with that; I eventually went to Queen's College to get my Master's in Jazz Studies. I don't know if I have the energy, or the money, to complete a real Doctorate.)

Although yes, I did win a job at the University of Manitoba, I would have to say that it is even tougher to break into the Canadian system. I benefited from the the fact that the director of the jazz program at the U of Manitoba was an American named Steve Kirby, who was open towards getting American musicians into the program. This is not to say that they could advertise "must be American" or something. On the contrary, the trick seems to be that if a non-Canadian is in the running for any of these jobs, you must present special justification as to why the candidate is uniquely more qualified than the Canadians who applied. This was the case when I won the job, and I know it was the case in later searches( because I was on the committees). Canada is very protectionist in certain areas. Protectionism sucks if you are on the other end, however, when you consider how easy it is for Americans to do gigs in Canada, while any foreign musicians coming into the U.S. have to file months in advance, fill out lots of paperwork, and deal with huge hassles.

Canada is a beautiful country. Typically, folks think of Canadians as super cheerful and friendly. But you would be surprised; I applied for another job in Canada in 2008 and was, in my view, not treated well during the process. Many of their questions were not about music and they didn't seem to have any idea or interest in my accomplishments or the fact that I had played with many major names in jazz. I knew right away that even if I won the job I would be unhappy working with these sort of people. After having me fly across the continent (at my own expense), they didn't even want to hear me play the piano! So you never know.

 I was in the finals about 10 times in 8 years before landing a job. (By the way, I beat out 100 other applicants for my job here at Portland State University. I consider myself extremely lucky!) The moral of the story is it's not easy.I think you might want to at the very least look for adjunct work. You might actually be able to make some money without the pressure of being full time faculty. And if you can become a Canada resident, then health care is free, which is why many of us are looking for full time gigs anyway. Anyway, good luck with the Doctorate and good luck with the search!

Swingin' and Compin' Part 2

This cat is swingin!

I recently posted an answer to a letter from one of my former students regarding swing rhythm and rubato comping for singers/bass players. While I like to write in this forum with a certain fraction of confidence based on having a little bit of experience over the years, I also enjoy exploring other viewpoints. A few jazz celebrities posted some alternative ideas on my facebook page, and I am hoping that these folks and I are cool enough that they won't mind if I re-post their thoughts.

The original question was as follows:

Could you remind me of what you told me when we talked about where the 'swing' feel came from
when phrasing 8th-note lines? Am I correct in thinking it comes from phrasing relatively straight while playing slightly behind the beat? 

My response was as follows:
To answer your first question: yes, you are correct in a sense. The "swing" rhythm in the general "jazz in 2013" sense is straighter than the swing of 1935. My theory is that as tempos became faster in the 1940's, the somewhat "jerky" swing rhythm had no choice but to straighten out a bit. And so, when the players who would play these fast tempos played slower tempos, their rhythm became a little less jerky overall.When you compare the swing of Lester Young to the swing of , say, John Coltrane, or even Kenny Garrett, there's a noticeable difference.

I hesitate to use the phrase "behind the beat" because this kind of thing can lead to dragging. In the same way, "playing on top" can lead to rushing. It's very subtle. My advice is to play along with recordings. Even if you don't know the solo, if you at least know the tune, or even if you sort of know it, just try to tap into the rhythmic feel of whoever you like. I used to play trumpet along with Coltrane's "My Favorite Things", even though I had no idea what the chords or the melodic concept was supposed to be. 

Dave Stoler

Pianist Dave Stoler said:

My belief is that today's relative marginalization of swing as an integral part of jazz syntax was due to the growing popularity of rock in the mainstream, starting in the mid 50's... 

Mike LeDonne always has interesting things to say...

George - while I agree with what you say about swinging I always found it frustrating to "talk" about swing in terms of straight eights vs. swing 8 and where in the time to place your notes etc... That never got the message across.

Mike LeDonne

Swing is all about rhythm and I find that you have to involve your body in your playing and get more into touch. It's all about touch. In other words your arms and fingers and gravity. This is all very natural and involves dropping into the keys and never pushing. What I'll do, and I've had great success with it, is start out teaching a student to begin a phrase by dropping their hand into the first note ( a down wrist). This will create an accent. In a long line I tell them to use use "high fingers" which means keep the wrists down and lift each finger up and let it drop. At the end of the phrase pick your wrist back up and off the keyboard (an up wrist) so you release the muscles and get ready for the next phrase. We'll transcribe a solo of someone with a heavy groove in their notes like Red Garland or Sonny Clark. We go through it listening for all the tiny accents in the phrases. Sometimes they'll come every 2 notes even though it's a long line. So we mark the phrases and start using the touches very slowly and exaggeratedly. Red's 2 note phrases usually have the down wrist on the up beat and the up wrist on the downbeat. When you coordinate the touch so you can get through the whole line with these 2 note phrases you start to hear Red's swing happen. The student's able to get the same "swing" between the 8th's and the up wrists create the same spaces between the 2 note phrases which is an important part of the rhythm. The silences between the notes.

Do this on a medium blues solo. Listen for accents and place the beginning of a phrase mark there. The up wrist will come right before the next accent because the wrist has to be up before it can come down. I call it decoding touch. You can do it for any player just by listening to their accents and making adjustments to things like the length of notes. I've found that most solos are a combination of straight eighths and swinging eighths and there' s no rule as to where they come although a lot of times ascending lines will be more straight. For straight eights I usually teach my students to put a little bit of arm into each one to get more body weight in them. This would be for medium and slow tempo's. It sounds complicated but it all comes from the very natural process of dropping the weight of your arms and fingers loosely and letting gravity do it's thing. To do that you have to stay relaxed which is really the point. I find that after a few solos the student no longer has to think about all this stuff but starts to just hear it. Then they got it. I think everyone can swing, well almost. Some have more than others but more times than not - it's in there.   

Anyone who thinks this sounds interesting and would like to check it out further get in touch with me. I'd be glad to show it to you. For a nominal fee of course (shameless)

David Berkman

Of course, David Berkman then weighed in: 

The faster tempo argument doesn't really fly for me entirely. Especially when you check out how fast some of those tempos that bud played were. I mean half note = 170 is not uncommon.

I like what Jamey Haddad told me a long time ago. Every era has a certain groove. You look at old movies of cats and its in their walk and attitude. So while we can all learn by imitation as M.L.D. suggests, there may be a certain feel that varies over time, but still swings--like the difference between the way Wynton Kelly and Kenny Kirkland swing. I do think things have gotten straighter over time, and maybe that has something to do with straight 8th music influence.

But...I think the physicality is a good point--it's a kind of dance and as a player you have to spend time, in bands you can get it from others, but you have to spend time trying to make it dance yourself.

Sean Wayland

Another brilliant musician, Sean Wayland, posted something on his blog  which is also interesting:

This is in response to George Colligan's post about swinging from his blog "jazztruth". Perhaps my blog could be called " Jazz BS " or something.... 

A discussion ensued on George's facebook page involving other esteemed pianists Dave Berkman and Mike Ledonne. It's an interesting topic and to discuss "how to swing" within the confines of the internet is surely limited but it fascinates many very serious musicians so it's probably valid to try. George was mainly focused on the placement of the notes and transcribing which is surely very important. Ledonne is also keenly aware of controlling accents with your technique and he has spent a great time trying to analyze the technique of some of his favorite "swingin" pianists. Also a great idea well worth exploring. I have thought about this a lot too and experimented with both George's and Ledonne's approach. I spent a fair amount of time memorizing solos and playing them along with the recordings trying to emulate the "swing". Most of the solos where Herbie Hancock's but there where a few Wynton Kelly and Kenny Kirkland ones too. It all happened years ago but I still suggest to students that the memorize and perform Wynton Kelly's Freddie Freeloader along with the recording. 

My teacher Roger Frampton suggested that and it surely was a valuable lesson for me. I don't think you ever get to "swing" it is more of a garden of eden that you can approach. Moving to New York and playing with a lot of musicians with good time helped especially playing organ. That's probably one reason why George and Mike do such a great job rhythmically having had the experience of playing quarter notes on the bass with a great band and drummer. 

I have one thing to add which I often think about and that is that the shape/contour of your lines can make a huge difference. A piano is inherently "blurry" ( the instrument is still resonating even after you take your finger off the keys ) and at fast tempos it can be pretty hard to control articulation especially at the end of notes.  Even at very fast tempos you still have control over WHAT you play as opposed to how you play it. That's really the essence of the page of examples and questions above. Do some things inherently "swing" no matter where they are placed or accented / articulated ? I think so. I often think the mystery of the greatness in Charlie Parker is somewhere in the organisation of the contours and rhythms. His solos seem to swing even on paper. Ditto looking at John Coltrane's great Giant steps solo I often notes how he changes direction when the chords change at that generally the whole thing tends to move downwards through phrases. I suspect that some rhythms going upwards will never swing if continued for too long. 

I find all of these viewpoints fascinating. Even more fascinating is that this intellectual musing is all taking place in a public forum. It's like we are all working on our Doctoral thesis collectively out in the open. I think it's cool.

 

Swingin' and Compin'

 One of my former students in Winnipeg recently wrote to me with a few questions:

Hi there George,

Could you remind me of what you told me when we talked about where the 'swing' feel came from
when phrasing 8th-note lines? Am I correct in thinking it comes from phrasing relatively straight while playing slightly behind the beat?
 
Also, how did you practice comping, say rubato sections with a singer or for bass players? I am curious because this is something that comes up often; I find transcribing very helpful in this area (I have begun transcribing Herbie Hancock from the "Four and More" concerts like you had mentioned before) and was wondering if there is anything else you found helpful or useful.

To answer your first question: yes, you are correct in a sense. The "swing" rhythm in the general "jazz in 2013" sense is straighter than the swing of 1935. My theory is that as tempos became faster in the 1940's, the somewhat "jerky" swing rhythm had no choice but to straighten out a bit. And so, when the players who would play these fast tempos played slower tempos, their rhythm became a little less jerky overall.When you compare the swing of Lester Young to the swing of , say, John Coltrane, or even Kenny Garrett, there's a noticeable difference.

I hesitate to use the phrase "behind the beat" because this kind of thing can lead to dragging. In the same way, "playing on top" can lead to rushing. It's very subtle. My advice is to play along with recordings. Even if you don't know the solo, if you at least know the tune, or even if you sort of know it, just try to tap into the rhythmic feel of whoever you like. I used to play trumpet along with Coltrane's "My Favorite Things", even though I had no idea what the chords or the melodic concept was supposed to be.

In regards to rubato comping, I guess transcribing would be helpful for voicings and orchestration. However, the most important thing with rubato comping is your ability to follow the vocalist. And it might not just be following; you might have to lead at times. Whatever it is, it can be a give and take. It's hard because, although playing in time is a challenge, playing without time can even be more of a challenge.

My advice would be to find a vocalist with whom you can develop a rapport. Get together and work on some ballads, or any tune which can work in a rubato setting. Maybe you can discuss how it feels to either follow her phrasing, or how it feels to follow each other. The pianist/vocalist relationship, or really any duo setting, is more intimate than other settings. So it might take a little time to see what works and what doesn't. When I worked with vocalist Vanessa Rubin, it took years to truly refine our duo playing. We had been playing Michel LeGrand's "The Summer Knows" for quite awhile, and when we finally got around to recording it, our rendition was light years from when we first started trying to play it. I mostly followed Vanessa, but there were times when she was waiting for me, and all of that subtlety had to be negotiated.

I was looking for a good example of vocal and piano rubato. All I could find in this moment was "Poor Butterfly" with Sarah Vaughn. The verse of the tune is rubato, and regardless of whether or not it's the best example of what I'm talking about, it's an excuse to listen to the magnificent Sarah Vaughn. I'll look for some better youtube examples in the meantime.

I hope this answered your question. Keep them coming!

Move to New York?

I stumbled across this from a Huffington Post article from 2010:

Musician and author Patti Smith had some sound advice for fledgling artists thinking of moving to New York: don't.
According to Vanishing New York, in a discussion with writer Jonathan Lethem at Cooper Union on Saturday, Smith was asked if it was possible for young artists to come to the city and find the path to stardom that she did.
In response, Smith told the crowd, "New York has closed itself off to the young and the struggling. But there are other cities. Detroit. Poughkeepsie. New York City has been taken away from you. So my advice is: Find a new city."

This was the subway in New York in the 70's

I followed the link to Jeremiah's Vanishing New York, a blog regarding the "changes" which have been occurring in New York since perhaps the late 80's and early 90's. Yes, New York is safer and more pleasant in some ways. But in other ways, the gentrification and the influx of bankers and wall street hedge fund managers into New York has made the city into a playground for the ultra-rich. (Bloomberg is blamed heavily in some earlier posts.)This means that any struggling artist would have his work cut out for him if he wanted to "make it" in New York.

Many of my students ask me: " Should I move to New York? Do I have what it takes to make it in New York?" For most of my students, the answer is no, and that's mostly because they don't have their musical stuff together.  But for those of my students who I believe DO have the potential to work in New York, I still hesitate. It's not that they can't make it in New York as a jazz musician; the question is, can ANYBODY make it in New York anymore?

I moved to New York in 1995. I played a lot around town, even though it took a few years to really get established. I played at Bradley's, Sweet Basil's, Small's, and a bunch of restaurants and smaller clubs in different parts of New York. Plus, I still went back to D.C. and Baltimore to work just to fill in the gaps. I also was starting to travel more. In fact, I would say for most of my career in New York, the bulk of my income was from touring Europe. Sometimes, I would be on the road for 50 percent or more of the entire year.

That all seemed to change after 9-11. Whereas in the 90's, tours could be as long as 9 weeks straight, or even 11 weeks straight, the 2000's seemed to whittle that down. Many of the great venues in New York closed, and the ones that stayed open became more and more competitive. Many musicians, including yours truly, started to be on the lookout for teaching gigs. In 2007, I attended Queens College to get my Master's degree, in the hopes that this would make a full time teaching position more possible.

When I first moved to NYC, my rent was 150 dollars a month. I had 5 roommates. I literally lived in a closet. Then I moved into a place with 3 other roommates. Now I had a child's room for 300 bucks a month. After about a year, I moved into my own one bedroom for $650 a month. That was in Park Slope. Nowadays, the rents in Brooklyn, let alone Manhattan, are astronomical. I have a friend who lives pretty far out in Brooklyn, way farther than Park Slope, and pays $1000 a month for a tiny no- frills studio. I suppose deals can be had, but it all depends on how you want to live.

I think some of the reasons to move to New York to play jazz are still there: more jazz musicians than anywhere else, a great way to make connections and be inspired, some jazz industry things going on, more venues than other cities. But actually making a living playing jazz in New York seems almost impossible. The gigs don't pay, and you are competing with so many other superb players for the same gigs. Also, I think the venues are not thriving the way they used to because the demand for creative music, or any live music, is not what it was. Bankers and hedge fund managers are more interested in cigar bars and high end sushi-fusion restaurants than jazz clubs.

If you have a lot of money saved, or you want to live far out in the outer boroughs, or even in New Jersey, (ha!), and you can consider working a day job until you start to earn money from gigs, then by all means, move to New York. You can hear incredible musicians every night, and New York is still a wonderful city. Even though some say that the city has lost it's character, I believe New York still has a lot of personality(more than most other American cities. Sorry.). But if you think it's going to be easy, you are delusional.

I still have desires to spend time in New York. However, I believe it's actually a lot cheaper to fly to New York a handful of times a year, and get small fixes that way, then to live there full time-WITHOUT a teaching gig(you dig?). That's the next thing I would recommend to aspiring jazz students. Try to spend as much time as you can in New York without going broke. Fly there a few times a year, see as much music as you can, try to play sessions, and soak up the atmosphere. Maybe try to meet, fall in love with, and marry a hedge fund manager, while you are at it.

Wayne Shorter Part 2 Electric Boogaloo

 I think the Wayne Shorter controversy has run it's course. It has come to my attention that the young man who said terrible things about Mr. Shorter is actually a very troubled human being and probably needs someone to help him. I really hope he gets the help he needs. We don't need to bash him or shame him. That's already been done. I think this kid is hurting. Send some good thoughts his way. He might not be ready to get help, but I want peace in this world and one way to create peace is to love those who maybe don't love you.

In the meantime, I got this in the Facebook "mail":

Hey Mr. Colligan: With all this Wayne-ing noise going on, I'd like to ask you a question. To my ears, I still think "High Life" is one of the very best albums I've ever heard, at least in terms of effectively cross-breeding the idea and /or potential of a "studio recording" with the idea and/or potential of "jazz expression". Yet most of the critical comments I've seen have tended to be lukewarm at best. Care to comment? Thanks in advance.

Excellent question. My first reaction is that many critics have their heads up their you-know-what. Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" was panned. My second reaction is that I haven't listened to that recording in a long time, so this is a perfect time to pull it out and listen to it again.

I think one thing that's amazing about Shorter's career is that he is a great improviser, and played with such freedom with the Miles Davis Quintet. But he also has a flair for long form composition. "High Life" is a celebration of the latter. It's densely orchestrated, with REAL strings, REAL woodwinds, and some synthesizers and percussion. It's quite colorful, but it's more like symphonic music in that one, it's mostly written, and two, it's melodies and moods unfold slowly over time. It's not a head-solos-head affair at all; this is a Magnum Opus kind of session, which I imagine probably took a lot of time and energy to finish. 

I think we have a tendency to jump too quickly to conclusions about music. If we hear one recognizable element, we want to immediately throw it in the "style" box. " Oh, this is funk..." or whatever...."This is fusion." As I listen to "High Life" some more, I marvel at it's harmonic complexity, and the way that Shorter is able to solo melodically over these types of polychords, chords which make "Giant Steps" seem like a blues in comparison. One cool thing about Shorter's music throughout his career is that he uses common tones between chords, which functionally may have nothing to do with each other, and makes it seem like a natural progression, all the while creating a singable, simple melodic statement. In this way, "High Life" is just a long form, highly orchestrated version of his earlier work. 

I couldn't help but listen to this music and remember former New York Times jazz critic Peter Watrous' highly critical review of the album. Watrous used the following words to describe this music:

"...turns out to be a pastel failure and a waste of his enormous talent..."
".... it is as if Picasso had given up painting to design greeting cards...."
"...simply, it's an eager-to-please instrumental pop album..."
"....only a vestigial relationship to mainstream jazz and virtually no connection to Mr. Shorter's glory years...."
"Mr. Shorter's "High Life," with its reliance on the most obvious pop back beats and its sentimentalism, is quite likely a commercial mistake. The real money nowadays is in acoustic music with intellectual weight. Mr. [Joe]Henderson, Mr. Shorter's label mate, sold 74,000 copies of "Lush Life." Mr. Shorter's three albums, electric and ostensibly commercial, recorded for Columbia during the 1980's never sold more than 20,000 copies apiece. "



Much of the article refers to what Watrous calls "The Curse Of Miles Davis." My interpretation is that Watrous just never could get with "fusion" music, and seems to think that Davis, Shorter, and Herbie Hancock should have kept playing straight ahead acoustic music. My opinion is that Watrous, obviously biased, should not have even been allowed to review this album. This is not only because he is clearly biased against the music based on boxing it into a genre, but he's not even calling it fusion, he calls it "eager-to-please instrumental pop "! My question is: what the heck is Watrous hearing? Does he have any ears at all? Did he even listen carefully to the entire recording? If he doesn't have the chops to understand it, or if he doesn't have the time to listen to it, then he shouldn't be allowed to write in the newspaper of record about anything. My feeling is that this review is practically libel, and if Wayne Shorter cared(which I'm sure he didn't), he should have sued. 

This is why I believe music writers need to be held to a higher standard. First of all, words NEVER tell the proper story when it come to music. Here's an example; if  we are at a party where the folks know nothing about jazz, and Wayne Shorter and one of my PSU students are in attendance. Wayne Shorter says, "I'm a jazz musician," and  my PSU student says, "I'm a jazz musician, too," the folks at the party would think that Wayne Shorter and one of my students are equals. That's pretty insane if you think about it. 

In this way, Watrous flippantly reducing "High Life" to  "eager-to-please instrumental pop"
is in the same way false. In my view, he basically lumped Wayne Shorter in with Kenny G!

Folks, you decide:

Here's Shorter's brilliant reworking of "Children Of The Night":

 

And here is Kenny G's most popular tune:

  There is a big difference in what's happening with both of these songs: harmonically, improvisationally, thematically, and rhythmically. However, from what I read, Peter Watrous would put "High Life" in the exact same category. This is just wrong on a million levels.

In the way that our Facebook friend said terrible, disrespectful things about Wayne Shorter, shouldn't critics be held to an even higher standard? When you think about the fact that every moment of Shorter's musical life up to that point led up to the completion of "High Life." Every moment he spent practicing his horn, every lesson he took, every gig he played with Art Blakey, with Maynard Ferguson, with Miles Davis, with Weather Report, and so one. Every hour it took to record "High Life", to make sure all the parts were correct, to mix and master, and so on and so forth. For Mr. Watrous to so viciously, disrespectfully, and furthermore inaccurately hate on it is....well, it was outrageous. I believ Watrous took a lot of heat for that piece. (Much like the avalanche of anger heaped up our Facebook friend.)

I don't mean to open old wounds. And I don't really know Mr. Watrous. I could have met him at Bradley's in 1996 when I had my own group there; the club owner told me not to bother him. "Peter doesn't like to be bothered." As if I was dying to talk to him? Isn't this what is so jacked up about the jazz business? Everyone's important except the actual musicians. Shouldn't it have been the other way around? Shouldn't he have wanted to talk to me? I'm the one on the bandstand, for pete's sake......(If memory serves, I think he gave me a good review for that gig, but honestly I can't even recall....)

So in answering the question, I think that once again, the problem with jazz is that you actually have to listen to it. And sometimes people just want to figure it out in a hurry. I wonder if Mr. Watrous ever went back and tried to figure out what he was missing? There's no pleasing everyone, that's for sure. I think "High Life" is really a magnificent work of art. But what do I know? I'm merely a musician who has devoted his life to understanding and performing and composing music......

Sus Chords?

One of my advanced students asked me a question recently, via the electronic mail:

Dear Great and Magnanimous Professor and Exalted Wise Master, Seer of All Things Jazz Related, Knower of All Things Jazz Edumacational:

I was wondering - do you have alternative ways of approaching sus chords other than the obvious?
-your most humble saxophone student

Dear humble saxophonist,

Please! No need for such pomp and circumstance. "O Great One" is all that's necessary.....or simply, "My Lord"......

I don't know, approaching them sideways? Or just get right in their face.......

So we are talking about how to improvise jazz lines over sus chords. The thing about "sus" is that it implies a 4th in the chord(sus stands for suspended....). So that
would lead one to believe that you can never play the third. It
actually can make the third sound like an extension. If it's just a
Sus, Like

C7sus4
You can play E and it's cool.

But I would think that the "sus" implication would depend a lot on the
types of voicings played by the pianist or guitarist. If the pianist
is playing

C F Bb(straight fourths)

then you might lean towards 4ths or some pentatonics or some McCoy stuff.

If the pianist plays

C in the bass  Bb D F A(like Bbmaj7 over C)

Then maybe you might play Mixolydian or bebop(think Gminor 7, which is
probably what Herbie Hancock would do.....)

However, all of that being said, I think at this stage of the game for
you, you need to go past conventional thinking for this type of thing.
For example, Sus chords voiced in 4ths imply what I said above. Why
not find something more chromatic just to take it in another
direction? And if it's voiced in thirds, why not find a 4 note scale that
uses some unexpected notes?

(For example: C7sus4-which I would
probably write as C7sus11-but sometimes Sibelius gets weird when I do
that-Why not play C EF A Bb? something like that. I was surprised that
Steve Coleman actually used a lot of things like that. THAT combined
with stark chromaticism might yield some interesting results.)

(Hopefully, we(or you at home reading this) can look at some of Gary Thomas' stuff and you might
find that simply ONE of his licks will open up your mind in terms of
possibilities. You should look at his intro solo on Angel Eyes. I have
most of it on paper, and somebody else did a transcription. Maybe at
least listen to it.)

Did we talk about triad pairings? Sometimes I like to use three
triads. For example, over F7sus4(there it is again) McCoy will do F Eb
on and on. But what if you add a D triad to that? what if you added a
B triad to that? Or Ab minor triad? That could open up an entire world
of experimentation.

I think the problem with being in a program where most of the
students, and even some of the professionals, are thinking
"Here's some chord-scales that work. Ta Da!" Which is totally fine. But the MUSIC is beyond
that. At least I think so. If we are all playing the same chord scales
and so forth then at a certain point all of this stuff starts to sound
the same. This is why coming up with your own ideas is so important.

That's why you need to compose-so you can sit down and say: "A bunch
of stuff has been done. What HASN'T been done?" And you do that, and
even if it has been done, at least you are using your noggin- rather then letting
Jamey Aebersold tell you how to play. Or even let ME tell you how to
play!

Why don't you write a tune with sus chords and then make it somehow
unconventional?

Sincerely,

 Lord Colligan, Esq.

Viewer Mail Part II: Context

In my last post, I answered a question regarding jazz vocabulary. I related jazz vocabulary to spoken language; we have to learn one word or phrase at a time, and there is a process between the initial learning and the fluency with each word or phrase. Eventually, put a bunch of words, or in the case of jazz, "licks" together, and you are "speaking the language." Furthermore, there is another level: "Fluency" is one thing, being really creative is an even higher level. How many of us can write compelling fiction or poetry in a second or third language? In this way, we have to not only have a worthy number of ideas, we have to be able to be creative and spontaneous and relevant while we play. But initially, we have to be patient as we develop our vocabulary.

The previous post was sparked by Nanaimo based guitarist Alexis Deighton Harrison. Her question might imply that she is a beginner, but Harrison can already play quite well; she sat in with my trio at The Cellar in Vancouver earlier this year. In regards to my analogy, Harrison wanted further clarification:

Comparing it to languages makes a lot of sense. I guess what I am still wondering is, does it ever make sense to sit down and say, "today, I will learn a " third up" pattern, followed by a "third down" pattern, in G major up to 200 beats per minute "? Or will that always be comparable to trying to memorize vast vocabulary lists without any context?

This was my response:

The problem is the context IS lost when you just take patterns out of a book. The best place to get patterns from is RECORDINGS! This is the way the masters developed vocabulary-from recordings and being around the music 24-7. Also, many of the greats-Coleman Hawkins, Bud Powell, Clifford Brown-studied either classical music or traditional "classical" method books. The point is to take ideas from everywhere. And these guys knew lots of melodies. Melodies become melodic ideas, which can be used to improvise with.

Regardless, whether you are given patterns to work on by your teacher or you take from recordings or wherever- in the initial stages it's always going to be abstract and boring. Scales and all of this stuff is not music. Music is the total package. YOU are always the one that has to add the creativity. But we need stuff WITH WHICH TO CREATE.

Have you ever tried to conjugate verbs in another language? French? Spanish? It's really hard, boring, and ultimately abstract because if you aren't a native speaker, those sounds and words don't really MEAN anything to you. However, this is why immersion programs, or actually going to France or Spain really makes a difference, because then , being thrown in the thick of it and always HEARING the context, it happens more naturally.

My son , almost 3, has learned how to speak from hearing my wife and I talk, plus Caillou, Bob The Builder, and Wibbly Pig TV shows. He really can talk and uses past tense, imperative. It's funny because he hears patterns and tries to make up different rules. He invents verbs. "Let's TRAIN" to him means, "Let's play with trains." "Let's FOOD" means let's eat. It's wrong, but he's trying to see the pattern.

Harrison responded:

Yeah, I definitely see your point. I learned Dutch as a second language on an exchange trip by simply being as conversational as possible, watching their TV shows, and reading a lot. I see now that I have probably been too abstract with the jazz vocabulary"grammar" I have been learning lately and that's why it isn't working as I would like. Hopefully those patterns that I learned but am not finding in my solos will come in helpful later down the road...thanks so much!

I am constantly question my explanations and teaching philosophy for the simple reason that I want it to be useful. If it isn't working, then students and musicians heeding my advice aren't advancing. I am always looking for constructive feedback. And I got some on my facebook page.(I had to shut off comments on this page because of a certain someone who made some nasty comments about my family. Maybe I'll be able to turn it back on soon.) A bunch of knowledgeable musicians chimed in:

Jim Butler:
 
You know, that's a lot of truth in what you say. But I think there are significant reasons, many and varied, as to why so many folks don't bridge the gap between the pattern and language...it's really a small number that go on to develop their musical language.

Mike LeDonne: 


I have never practiced patterns and tried to fit them in. And I don't really see what you posted in your examples as patterns but simply tiny parts of lines. I think of patterns as more complicated sequences of notes that follow the same routine down or up in parallel motion. Or something like arpeggiated triads that go in a specific sequence up or down but follow the same intervallic leaps exactly. I think there are musicians that are wired to practice these harmonic systems and fit them in note for note over parts of tunes on command. I've never been wired like that though. That doesn't mean I don't play patterns but with me they just happen in the spur of the moment. If I tried to practice them they would probably screw up at some point and sound too deliberate. So I think this is a different strokes for different folks kind of question. 

George - I also wanted to say that I really liked the whole analogy to language you laid out. I always new that is had these comparisons but I never thought it out to that extent. But it really works.

Larry Ham:

Gotta agree with LeDonne....Different strokes.....There are so many different learning styles. whatever works is the way to go. and somehow we all learned to speak English (or whatever our mother tongue is) by hearing it and struggling to imitate the sounds of it-in tiny bits at first, one sound at a time, with direction and encouragement. eventually, with continuous exposure (immersion) and practice, we assimilated vocabulary, syntax, timing! context, nuance of expression, non-literal expressions. by learning "in sound" we are then able to express our selves "in sound" and interact with others in that world of sound.

David Berkman:

This whole topic of licks reminds me of an experience I had teaching. I was doing a week-long residency at a school and the level was pretty mixed--some good players but a lot of beginning students (and some who weren't very serious) missing some fundamental harmonic knowledge. It seemed to me that they were being drilled pretty well on Harmony so I decided to take a different tack and we did a lot of different sessions on improvising without chord changes. It was a fun week and the students were pretty energized by it, which was my goal. On the last day, they double-booked my clinic time with Dr. Billy Taylor (another guest teacher) so we were both teaching the same class. Billy turned to me and said, 'well, you've been working with them, what can they do?' I didn't really want to start with the free stuff, so I said, I thought they could handle a blues. They played and sounded pretty terrible. Billy was unimpressed and let them have it. He was a little rough on them, but he made a great point. He said (paraphrasing) that they were playing the blues but they didn't know the melodies that had been played on the blues in the past. They had no sense that there was a history of melodies that were attached to the blues and if you didn't know these melodies, you couldn't play the blues well. The words "Jazz Vocabulary" get used so often but I like this the way Dr. Taylor put it: an amassed history of the melodies that have been played on the blues, or over chord changes. Within that definition, "licks" with the negative associations that many people have with that word, are just phrases that we've heard over these tunes. 

I've never practiced licks much either. I do encourage students to play chord changes slowly alternating between singing and playing or playing up and down half-steps or to learn solos and analyze them so they can understand in harmonic terms (scale degrees, approach note patterns etc.) what great players do over changes.

Christopher Munch:

Before asking about patterns students should ask themselves: Can I make up (on the spot or somehow composed) a MELODY? A real, beautiful, meaningful melody? - When I read about such approaches like the one discussed here I always think: How can the things people like King Oliver, Lee Konitz, Hal Galper, Keith Jarrett or many others rightfully said be so forgotten again and again? I don't learn a language by collecting words in memory and hoping to be able to connect them eventually to something halfway meaningful; I learn a language by wanting to express something specific and looking for ways to bring it out! This dreaded pattern-based approach to improvising is mostly only used as a trick to make students sound AS IF they were able to handle the material fluently. (But in reality they have underdeveloped ears and harmonic sense and play mechanically.) The musicians I really like to listen to (whether famous or not-so-famous) all didn't learn via patterns or practicing modal scales the whole day! That's no coincidence! We as teachers mustn't fall into the trap of "methods" that seemingly make our students sound more advanced than they are - we have to teach them the real thing.