Jazz Workshops in the 21st Century, the New Mentorship Process

Posted by: Jim Tuerk on January 17, 2012 @ 6:34 am
Filed under: Banff Workshop, Dave Douglas (Artist Thoughts), Education, Perennials

Every time I see a teaching artist talk about music I learn something new. Every time I look at a contemporary book or blog post explaining creative music work I find something I’ve never seen before. Not that I always agree. Yes, agreement about practicing scales and chords and patterns and rhythms is easy. But it’s in the fundamental conception of the creative process and how to address it that things get interesting. That’s where new jazz workshops around the globe are taking the lead in passing on this tradition in a way that used to be covered by working mentorships and touring.

The conversation in these workshops is often about lineage and tradition, about learning vocabulary and repertoire, how to practice, what to practice. And talk usually returns to the most elusive and perennial theme in jazz and creative music: ‘finding your voice.’ You could say the central question here is: How do I teach you to be you?

Young musicians are coming up better educated and more informed, with more opportunities for exposure to music than ever before. More professional artists are involved in workshopping, and you could say meeting artists in that context is slowly replacing the old mentorship model of touring, recording, and graduating to being a bandleader. Like not or not, the industry no longer provides those kinds of jobs in music. Musicians are learning another way.

I recently ran into Dave Liebman on an airplane and he confirmed this. He’s one of the most engaged artist educators out there. Without hesitation he said that the young musicians he encounters are coming up exposed to all kinds of music and modes of playing. And they have the materials to practice. There are more jazz programs at the high school and university level than there ever were, and the programs I’ve seen have evolved into a cross between a conservatory approach, a creative seminar, and some serious training about getting gigs and doing them well enough to make a career path.

A lot this is provided by independent, non curricular workshops around the globe. I have been fortunate to be involved with the workshop at the Banff Centre for the Arts in Banff, Alberta, Canada for the past 10 years. It’s a three week workshop that takes place in May/June at an arts campus situated in the Canadian Rockies. I stepped into the directorship in the shoes of previous directors Kenny Werner, Hugh Fraser, Steve Coleman, Dave Holland, Oscar Peterson, and Phil Nimmons.

What’s so special about the jazz workshops and why are they so important to musicians in a time of entrenchment in the industry?

First of all, and maybe most important, the thought of getting up every day and looking forward to a full day of music. The idea that you are in an environment where everyone else is doing that, too. The music facilities are waiting for you with minimum preparation or fuss. Food will be prepared and served for you close to the approximate moments you will need it. When the weather cooperates it puts the whole experience over the top.

This describes many of the workshops I have been involved in for the past decade or so. At Banff it’s the snow covered peaks. In Sienna the old part of the town and the Duomo at dusk. In Merano the thermal baths and the river. At Stanford the hills. But it’s most of all the music, and the free time to just be involved in music. All day long: practicing, rehearsing, studying, playing, listening, thinking, not thinking.

It’s a gift. And more and more these days, people and organizations are involved in creating and sustaining these workshops. In some ways, it replaces the old apprentice and mentorship system of jazz in clubs and on the circuit. Where else can musicians share knowledge in such an unfettered atmosphere? Where else can they hang out with practitioners and absorb through osmosis? And where else can audiences be exposed to such fresh interactions and discoveries?

Aside from just guidance, young musicians need to be heard, listened to, and encouraged in their own pursuits. After ten years directing the program at Banff I have started to feel like the best thing I can do is listen and learn from the students, stepping in when my own experience has something of value to add. The level of the students improves every year–they come in better informed all the time, a result of the availability of recordings and teaching methods, more music and jazz in the schools, and the encouragement of interactions with professional musicians.

It feels different than it did even 10 years ago. I think workshopping has a lot to do with that. Localism in music is getting both more focused and more inclusive. That is, musicians bring a part of where they are from and express it proudly. At the same time, the local music they grow up with is more and more exposed to current practice worldwide. The Banff Workshop is particularly international in scope, and one of the wonders is seeing Koreans, Australians, North and South Americans, Europeans, Israelis, and more discovering and learning from each others’ tendencies.

In workshops, there tends to be an urgency. Urgency to play, network, perform, and learn. Maybe it’s because there is limited time and everyone will go their separate ways. Sometimes I wonder if it is because there is no degree coming at the end. It’s like, Man if I don’t work on music here, then what the heck am I doing? And teaching artists in this environment let the younger musicians know that they may never find an environment of inquiry like this again in their professional lives.

Maybe the most profound effect is the exposure to a multiplicity of ideas. Diversity in the creative arts is like a spark in a dry tinder pile. Jazz and creative music workshops I’ve been to tend to welcome different viewpoints and because of this the participants are forced to confront their own feelings about a broad spectrum of music. One of my favorite moments in the workshop last year was when Brandon Ross was describing Henry Threadgill’s compositional system and how it influenced his work. Every single student was rapt, following this fairly radical re-imagining of melody and harmony. Within five minutes everyone was shouting and arguing, personally involved in the meaning of the system and its implications. Bright moments!

Teachers and students have to be partners in the enterprise, something that’s more difficult in a curricular atmosphere. Interestingly, St. John’s College, with two campuses in Annapolis and Santa Fe, uses system that makes teachers teach subjects they have to learn as they go. From The Times:

As much of academia fractures into ever more specific disciplines, this tiny college still expects — in fact, requires — its professors to teach almost every subject, leveraging ignorance as much as expertise… as St. John’s president, Chris Nelson (class of 1970), put it with a smile only slightly sadistic: “Every member of the faculty who comes here gets thrown in the deep end. I think the faculty members, if they were cubbyholed into a specialization, they’d think that they know more than they do. That usually is an impediment to learning. Learning is born of ignorance.”

There are no majors; every student takes the same 16 yearlong courses, which generally feature about 15 students discussing Sophocles or Homer, and the professor acting more as catalyst than connoisseur.

To me that sounds a lot like the workshop approach. Inquisitive, open-minded, participatory.

Teaching, especially in jazz, has to be interactive. The communication only works if the relationship goes both ways. Jazz Workshops I have seen encourage that interaction, where both parties are exploring and learning. In a sense, I feel like that is why workshops have become somewhat of a replication of the mentorship process.

In jazz, you are supposed to be you. How am I going to teach you how to be you if you don’t tell me? And who am I to tell you who you are?

The prevalence of these workshops is a good thing for the music, for the community, and for the long range growth of our increasingly international culture.


1 Comment

Bill Evans, interview and performance

Posted by: Dave Douglas on November 23, 2011 @ 6:08 pm
Filed under: Dave Douglas (Artist Thoughts), Video

In the hunt for Paul Motian videos I came across this great interview and performance with Bill Evans from 1970. Keen insights.


2 Comments

Dave Douglas talks Kenny Wheeler

Posted by: Jim Tuerk on October 18, 2011 @ 5:41 pm
Filed under: Dave Douglas (Artist Thoughts), Listening

Dave recently gave an interview to Peter Hum at the Ottawa Citizen blog talking about trumpeter Kenny Wheeler. The full 4-question interview can be read here. Below is an excerpt detailing some of Dave’s favorite recordings of Kenny. Wheeler is one of our favorite players around the office. We highly recommend all of these recordings—and his whole catalog for that matter!

Windmill Tilter

I discovered it in reissue recently, and feel that the writing and playing confirms Kenny’s sound early in his career and demonstrates his long fascination with trumpeter Booker Little.
Buy at Amazon ›››

Anthony Braxton Quartet

Some of the knottiest melodies and most intricate interplay on record. Kenny demonstrated that Braxton’s music could actually be played on a brass instrument. At least by him. He set the bar high for all of us on those recordings.

Gnu High

In particular the tune Smatter, which I learned at music school, Berklee.
Buy at Amazon ›››

Music for Large and Small Ensembles

This is where all the elements come together on record — the lyrics, the composing and arranging, the magisterial trumpet solos. A masterpiece.
Buy at Amazon ›››

Rambler

The Bill Frisell album from the late 80s. If you could wear out the grooves on a CD, my copy would be shot.
Buy at Amazon ›››

Angel Song

Gorgeous quartet recording with Lee Konitz, Bill Frisell, and Dave Holland.
Buy at Amazon ›››

A Long Time Ago

All brass!
Buy at Amazon ›››


No Comments

Dave Douglas and Curtis Macdonald: Q&A & Q&A

Posted by: Jim Tuerk on August 1, 2011 @ 3:14 pm
Filed under: Curtis Macdonald (Artist Thoughts), Dave Douglas (Artist Thoughts), Education, Perennials

Dave asks Curtis.

DDQ: What do you consider the relationship, if any, between your music for saxophone and bands and your computer-created “from the box” music?

CMA: To me, composing “in the box” is not so different than composing “on the page”. Performance and improvisational considerations must still be taken into account. This proves the need to imagine form; how will it all take shape? In all cases, I trust my ears in the final say-so. If one were to rely on the ears of a computer, the music would sound more like white noise. I feel that “computer-created” music is a misnomer, as it always requires the knowledge and aesthetic of humans in order to generate any worthy output.

As a tangent to that idea, teaching a computer how to improvise is only in some ways possible, as it will always lack intuition. Its biggest strength is how it performs pragmatic routines. Even “interactive” computer-music is limited to if/then functionality. Computers need to be spoon-fed information very clearly with defined variables and parameters. They have a language, yet sometimes language needs to be put aside in order to let the creativity in…

When I’m composing for a band I treat the computer as a tool to model ideas. Metaphorically speaking, I throw a can of paint onto the screen and start brushing by hand, learning and discovering as I go. Once I’m happy with the design, I translate it into notation, bring it before a band and forget that it ever touched a computer – making adjustments as needed.

When I’m composing a piece for film, dance or other non-improvised music, I get very detail oriented in order to yield the most control and variance in the sound. I am also conscious of “default” settings, and have developed a practice of manually adjusting common parameters; i.e. I rarely use a rigid tempo map, and always play with articulation, transients and envelopes to program as much humanistic nuance as possible. This largely relates to the processes of arranging and orchestration at the micro-level.

Both analog & digital mindsets have something in common; the idea of squeezing as much information out of source material as possible.

DDQ: OK, poor choice of words on my part. By “computer-created” I didn’t mean that the computer actually creates the music. What I meant (and you’ve spoken to some of this) was the music that you make in solitude–you and the nonhuman computer–as opposed to music you write out to be played by human musicians. There must be a major divergence between the way you think about what goes on the page for a band and what goes on on the screen in your dance scores and film pieces. To me, the basic difference there is that there is no improvisation in the latter; once the piece is done it is simply performed by the computer or digital device. In the former the information you give to human beings can only be an approximation of the final result. Does this dichotomy affect process for you?

CMA: Yes, the dichotomy is a macro vs micro perspective shift. With performing musicians, I provide macro information (the form, an initial direction) and with performing computers I provide micro information (all the nuance and subtleties). The difference is feel. Composing on a computer with a sense of feel is where one’s musical and emotional experience comes into play.

Additionally, computers are a powerful tool in that you can manipulate and instantly hear back your concoctions. In “Composing Interactive Music” Tom Winkler says a few things along these lines:

“Composers have always used processes to generate large musical structures from simple musical material… Many types of musical processes can be easily represented in software by an algorithm, step-by-step instructions used to accomplish a specific task… This immediacy in generating and manipulating musical materials provides the composer with an interactive laboratory where musical ideas and time-varying compositional processes are quickly realized and refined. The benefit of getting immediate aural feedback from this kind of experimentation cannot be overemphasized. Within this laboratory environment composers can generate scores for acoustic works, create situations for improvisation with other musicians, or compose solo pieces to be played directly from the computer.”

I think it’s similar to how a modern architect creates their plans. A blueprint model is drawn up digitally, taking into account all organic things that exist in our world: environment, building materials, climate, load, etc. It’s then built underneath the direction of an engineer, (the performer in our case). During construction, the engineer may interpret or adjust the plans somewhat, and this may inform the architect of a required amendment or revision in the design.

DDQ: “squeezing as much information out of source material as possible,” I like that idea. But when you deal with live musicians isn’t the process more, well, complex?

CMA: Actually, I feel that the process when working with computers is more complex than working with real, live people. Telling a computer to perform in such a way is a technically complex process, whereas giving a skilled, experienced musician a set of guidelines or source material is rather straightforward. Of course, bringing a band to a level of ensemble where a collective synergy has been developed is a phenomenon of group dynamics, which is either a complex, or simple undertaking depending on how you perceive it. Generally speaking, I find that source material is expanded and developed naturally among musicians, whereas on a computer the development of a source material must be programmed, with added layers of complexity to create the desired results.

DDQ: To shift gears a little, then: Does your work with computers have any effect on the way your write tunes for your band? It’s interesting to hear that the music you create on the computer requires an additional layer of complexity in order to develop. Do you consider that added layer of complexity in thinking about how musicians will respond to your pieces for the band? And what about you as a saxophonist: How does this compositional process affect the way you practice and play?

CMA: I think one of the best things about working with a computer is that you can model ideas that are not yet technically available to you on a instrument. Programming helps me make imagined or theoretical material more concrete and easier to grasp. This way, the computer is a great practice tool – by changing just one variable there is more territory to explore. I first play with an idea digitally to understand the concept and then choose to adopt it in some way into my playing.

Dealing in complex terms on a computer often means working in simple terms for musicians. When I bring music to the band, I have imagined what roles the musicians can fulfill. But when it comes time to play, I forget that the music was ever on a computer and we make it our own. Musicians will always respond to the material in a complex way, it’s in their nature. It only requires grasping the overall arc of the piece, which is something that even as a composer I rediscover each time we play.

Curtis asks Dave.

CMQ: What routines do you put yourself in when you’re deep in composition mode? What tricks, if any do you try when you hit a road-block, or need more material, etc? What editing processes do you exercise?

DDA: First of all I throw out everything that I think I know and try to deal with the material as internally and honestly as I can. But I don’t want to pontificate here. It’s still really difficult.

I’ve always loved this quote from Anthony Braxton and used to keep it over my work table.

“Since coming into academia, I came to understand very early that I would have to build an alternative system to help me, because in academia you’re constantly talking about your music and that’s dangerous. You’re constantly talking about the science of the music in a two-dimensional way. So I started to move the ray of focus in my model into the poetic logics, as a way to not know what I’m doing. Because I’m not interested in a music that’s two-dimensional, that I can talk about as being the “it” of the music. By that I’m saying that I want the undefined component of my music to be on an equal par with the defined component.”

There are not really any tricks because any technique that gets you past a road block is composition.

Last year I asked a group of students in Holland what they do to overcome writer’s block and one of them said, “Drinking!”

He would certainly have a lot of company among composers.

Bottom line, it ain’t easy and it takes a painstaking examination of biases and limitations and a funneling and winnowing of what we want to say.

One of my favorite books about composition is Strunk and White’s Elements of Style. For example, they say:

“Clarity, clarity, clarity. When you become hopelessly mired in a sentence, it is best to start fresh; do not try to fight your way through against terrible odds of syntax. Usually what is wrong is that the construction has become too involved at some point; the sentence needs to be broken apart and replaced by two or more shorter sentences.”

“Muddiness is not merely a disturber of prose, it is also a destroyer of life, of hope: death on the highway caused by a misplaced phrase in a well-intentioned letter, anguish of a traveler expecting to be met at a railroad station and not being met because of a slipshod telegram. Think of the tragedies rooted in ambiguity, and be clear! When you say something, make sure you have said it. The chances of your having said it are only fair.”

Sometimes stepping away from a work to consider all the elements is the only way to make sure we are getting at what needs to be got at.

CMQ: In regards to Braxton’s quote, what do you leave “defined” in the bandstand? What do you leave “undefined”?

DDA: Well if I could answer that it would defeat the purpose, wouldn’t it?

To me, that quotation is powerful because it is a reminder that many of the forces in motion in music are beyond our rational control. Especially when we begin to talk about music, which I believe is important to do, it’s easy to lose sight of the mystery in creation. The unknown quotient is a major element in music whether we like it or not.

So, yes, work hard on your music and defining the contours as much as you can. But also respect the inevitable unknowns at work and leave them a place at the table.

Accept that some of the elements you think have defined may become undefined in the crucible of performance. Accept that some elements you think are mysterious and unknown may become obvious and repeatable after one reading.

CMQ: I love the quote from the Elements of Style. Clarity, space and perspective seem to be somehow inter-connected… Can you talk a little about what you do (or don’t do) to ensure clarity of perspective for composition? For performance? For practice?

DDA: As I’m writing I look at the piece from as many different perspectives as I can. I have used the analogy of a sculptor. Every few cuts you step back and make a three dimensional assessment of the work from various angles.

One perspective would be that of someone asked to perform the piece. One could be an imagined audience member. Another might be an old friend. Or an enemy. A character in a novel. Et cetera.

I love languages, and the analogy of writing something that could be understood regardless of a listener’s experience with languages is another idea. Not that a listener should be absolved of all responsibility to know the language of a work, rather, that as composer/performers we have available a variety of means in the form of traditions and lineages that we can use as languages. It gives us flexibility in reaching out to a listener.

The biggest perspective would be to look at how you are using all the basic musical elements. For me, revisions most often come from an examination on that level.

Clarity is the process by which we reveal our innermost thoughts and re-write our pre-written destiny.

CM: I’m reminded of Charles Mingus’ quote: “In my music, I’m trying to play the truth of what I am. The reason it’s difficult is because I’m changing all the time.”

I like the impermanence of it all, whether it’s on page or improvised, stage or studio, everything is a fleeting moment and the beauty of improvisation is that we can paint a scene from an immense variety of perspectives and experiences. Moments of clarity are truly universal, infectious to the audience and band members alike. That’s why I continue to explore technology – to gain further clarity on musical and ultimately universal concepts. It too works in a universal language, one that can help us grasp ideas and bring them into awareness, which is a key element of my musical practice.

 

 


No Comments

Rare Metals.

Posted by: Dave Douglas on July 21, 2011 @ 9:05 am
Filed under: Dave Douglas (Artist Thoughts), Greenleaf Portable Series (GPS)

Thanks to those of you who have picked up Rare Metals , Volume 1 from the Greenleaf Portable Series. Also thanks to all who have come out to the European shows going on right now and picking up the special flash drive containing both GPS Vols. 1 & 2.

A lot of Rare Metals was written during my residency at the Aaron Copland House. In particular Safeway, which was written as a response to the political violence in Tucson, Arizona which occurred the day I began my residency. Copland himself was constantly speaking to contemporary events and public engagement in his music, and I felt that influence, as well as some of his musical mannerisms, strongly as I composed.

During that month I also found myself engaged in a study of the music of Duke Ellington and as I rolled his music around in my mind this arrangement of Billy Strayhorn’s Lush Life emerged as something that could be potently voiced in brass. I thank the band also for deftly interpreting the re-arrangement.

Town Hall had been written the previous summer during the Tea Party uprisings of the same name. I went to a few of these meetings myself and saw the extremes of both patriotism and intolerance manifest. We live in interesting times.

Thread was written thinking of one of my musical idols, Henry Threadgill. His systems have always intrigued me and on the reissue of some of his great recordings last year I found myself thinking about his work its impact on current practice.

Night Growl was a chance to feature tubist Marcus Rojas, long the heroic purveyor of the vocalistic growl. Here he gets to work out on an unusual sort of blues. Those who have seen photos of my dog, Finley, should know that the initial inspiration lies therein.

And United Front, which I wrote during a tour with Brass Ecstasy, reflects the cohesive spirit and team play that has come define this band. We have a lot of fun playing this one, though this studio version is quite different than the one you’ll find on the album United Front: Live in Newport. Vive la difference.

Next up: GPS Vol. 2 with Ravi Coltrane, Vijay Iyer, Linda Oh, Marcus Gilmore, and myself.

Cheers.
Dave


No Comments

Workshop Week The Second.

Posted by: admin on June 6, 2011 @ 7:24 am
Filed under: Banff Workshop, Dave Douglas (Artist Thoughts)

This morning at the Banff Center.

This morning at the Banff Center

Last night’s concert was one of the most diverse we have had: various combinations of Eyvind Kang, viola; Brandon Ross, guitar; Myra Melford, piano; Steve Lehman, saxophone; Anthony Cox, bass; Jerry Granelli, drums; Clarence Penn, drums; myself, trumpet. We were spurred on by the Vancouver Canucks’ victory in game 2 of the Stanley Cup finals, closing with a piece by Don Cherry in their honor.

In the context of the FONT and Vision concerts in New York this week, the sonic explorations felt of a piece with this particularly interesting time to be making music.

Diversity is one of the great strengths of this workshop and the opportunities made available by the Banff Center. Last night’s post-concert jam session was opened by a burning quartet with members from Latvia, Australia, South Korea, and Rochester, New York. The program encompasses a wide swath of communities, instrumentations, lineages, and musical philosophies.

It was a profound week witnessing the visiting artists talk about lineage and practice. Sometimes challenging, even infuriating (Brandon had people shouting in about five minutes), and sometimes confusing, but all ultimately thought-provoking and demanding of concentration, focus and imagination.

Just curious

Brandon Ross talked about the intervallic system of melody and harmony developed by Henry Threadgill, and its impact on his own music. This is not information that is shared widely, and it gave a new insight into how Henry’s music works and what is going on in the performance. Hands-on playing of Brandon’s music shed further light on what can seem a mysterious process.

Brandon Ross' Score for Bullseye

Eyvind Kang gave two classes last week, the first focusing on the basic building blocks of sound, the second an explication of Ornette Coleman’s theory, entitled General Harmolodics. It was the most thorough examination of that concept I’ve ever seen. Really inspiring.

Myra Melford spoke about and demonstrated a number of strategies for large group improvisation pieces, including systems by Butch Morris, Fred Frith, John Zorn and group interactions of her own devising. Myra ended up giving multiple late night sessions with this material, as well as working with pianists and coaching ensembles in her small group work.

Steve Lehman talked about directionality in music from the standpoint of fully developing one’s materials. The talk encompassed his inspiration from Spectralism as well as some specific applications to rhythm in his work. Steve also played some of his pieces, and in the concert last he night played an incredible rhythmic re-arrangement of Benny Golson’s Stablemates in duo with Clarence Penn.

Anthony Cox gave a class on the current career environment, starting from Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail and leading into a free-wheeling discussion of new music strategies. Anthony also coached a remarkable ensemble that, in the course of four rehearsals, created an entire set of original through-composed music from scratch. Lyrics and everything. Their set in the club was one of the week’s highlights for me.

Jerry Granelli and Clarence Penn both worked intensively with drummers and rhythm players. In addition, Jerry gave morning meditation classes, speaking from his 40 year engagement with Buddhism. Mindfulness practice also inhabited his musical coaching in a powerful way. Despite the late hours musicians always seem to keep, Jerry’s early sessions were well-attended daily.

My own involvement, aside from just keeping the whole thing running, was with singing more Bach, playing more Monk, listening to more Ellington, and reading through new charts of the Quartet music I wrote in the 90s for Chris Potter, James Genus, Ben Perowsky and myself. The charts are almost complete, and Greenleaf will be publishing a set of 20 tunes in the coming months. Other ensembles have been playing music from Charms of the Night Sky, Witness, and Soul on Soul, and some of those charts will be ready for publishing later this year.

There are 65 participants here, and they are all helping me (they may not know it, but now it’s on my blog) prepare for the upcoming Clearwater Fest, Solid Sound, Berlin Sounds No Walls, JazzBaltica, and Tea for 3 performances. All of these musicians exhibit such openness and curiosity–it’s infectious. Likewise their ability to push past exhaustion into the next musical adventure is simply inspiring.

TD Fellows with Dave

It’s a gift to be here on this beautiful Sunday, and with one week to go (Kneebody arrives today) we’re enjoying the warm weather and clear skies here in Banff National Park.


1 Comment

The Skies Open — Banff 2011

Posted by: admin on May 29, 2011 @ 10:46 am
Filed under: Banff Workshop, Dave Douglas (Artist Thoughts)

My God, it’s beautiful up here today.

After a week of rain and snow, the skies opened this morning and the sunshine is dazzling on the snow covered peaks. It’s a good day for a run. A few of us plan to run up Sulfur Mountain (update: in Canada they spell it Sulphur. Go figure.), an elevation change of about 2200 feet (update: it was more like 3000 feet of climb).

Last night’s concert was also a high. The faculty this week, in addition to myself, was Donny McCaslin, Robin Eubanks, Anthony Wilson, Geoff Keezer, Matt Brewer, and Clarence Penn. Everyone brought tunes and the chemistry really clicked. The first half, with two participant groups, was also elevated: from Australia, The Vampires; from South Korea, the Ungwon Han Trio. Both groups played with joy, passion and drive.

Every year the focus of the Banff Jazz and Creative Music program changes, based on the particular interests of the new faculty, but also on subtle changes in way music is played and perceived. These changes develop over time. The curriculum here, if there is one, is to deal with the individual musicians in the moment, and what these young musicians play and how they hear is constantly evolving.

A lot of the learning here goes on in simply playing. New discoveries arise in both students and teachers in the wordless exchange. When Robin Eubanks talked about breaking through one door only to find seven more to be explored, it was a universal reminder that learning never ends. Geoff Keezer talked about looking to the music of the masters in order to find meaning in your own way. Even when you encounter ideas developed by McCoy Tyner, Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea, Keith Jarrett, or Ahmad Jamal, these ideas are new for you. The goal is to take the lessons of that music and apply them to your own circumstances. That goal changes from year to year based on all the new sounds we hear coming out of young musicians around the world.

Anthony Wilson talked about and practiced “accurately transcribing the music inside yourself that is already complete.” The Composers Workshop yielded almost sixty new pieces that we will continue to refine in the coming weeks.

Donny McCaslin spoke on and demonstrated using melodic and rhythmic motives to create your own material, and how to practice it. Matt Brewer examined the idea of using unusual rhythm and finding parallels in traditional music as well as looking for the danceable factor in any rhythms we encounter. Clarence Penn talked about how to apply all of this to the real world of rehearsals, rent, and trains, boats, and planes. We also hosted Steve Bellamy of Humber College, who was here with the Audio department. Steve started with the most basic components of acoustics and sound, and continued into the latest recording technology.

Participants also created four nights of music in the club, as well as constant jam sessions. As instrumentalists, we all agree that the level gets gradually better every year. Maybe it’s the growth of jazz education programs, maybe it’s that they are standing on the shoulders of giants. But they come armed with new inspirations, new desires and whims, new questions about how to make music better and richer.

If I obsess about Thelonious Monk it’s because I feel there is an enduring value in his music that is relevant to musicians today, no matter the shifting tides of technology and fashion. I likewise harp on part writing and voice leading because the power of Bach applies to the nuts and bolts in everyone’s music, now just as in the past.

In any case a new faculty crew arrives today: Eyvind Kang, Steve Lehman, Brandon Ross, Myra Melford, Anthony Cox, Jerry Granelli, and Clarence Penn who stays for another week of percussion intensive. We’ll see where the new trails lead.


No Comments

Interactions in the Time Space Continuum

Posted by: admin on April 30, 2011 @ 11:08 am
Filed under: Culture, Dave Douglas (Artist Thoughts)

In a meeting this week someone pointed out that the younger generation doesn’t wear wristwatches. Sure enough, we looked around the room and it generally held true. (FYI, I was one of the people wearing a watch…). The point being made was that in the digital age people are tethered to their devices and therefore don’t need a separate timekeeper on their wrist. Or a camera or walkman, either. Or, apparently, maps, address and appointment books, weather forecasts, televisions, and–coming soon–bar codes, passports and retinal scans. Maybe birth certificates?

Anyway. We all know this has revolutionized the music industry. But The Technium suspects there may be something deeper going on:

…Another friend had a barely-speaking toddler take over his iPad. She could paint and handle complicated tasks on apps with ease and grace almost before she could walk. It is now sort of her iPad. One day he printed out a high resolution image on photo paper and left it on the coffee table. He noticed his toddler come up to up and try to unpinch the photo to make it larger, like you do on an iPad. She tried it a few times, without success, and looked over to him and said “broken.”

Another acquaintance told me this story. He has a son about 8 years old. They were talking about the old days, and the fact that when my friend was growing up they did not have computers. This fact was perplexing news to his son. His son asks, “But how did you get onto the internet before computers?”

I take two lessons from the mouth of babes: if something is not interactive, with mouse or gestures, it is broken. And, the internet is not about computers or devices; it is something mythic, something much larger; it is about humanity.

Weekend update: from comments by friends and family, it seems this is a thing. I didn’t know it was a thing.


No Comments

Clyde Stubblefield Gets His Due.

Posted by: admin on March 30, 2011 @ 8:20 am
Filed under: Culture, Dave Douglas (Artist Thoughts)

The original funky drummer featured in the new film, Copyright Criminals.


6 Comments

About Those Jets' Fundamentals

Posted by: Dave Douglas on January 25, 2011 @ 12:19 pm
Filed under: Culture, Dave Douglas (Artist Thoughts)

Reader HL asks…

I wanted to ask you a question about composing. In sports, it is said that when two high levels opponents meet, the one with the strongest fundamentals is the one that wins. I was thinking about this watching the NFL playoffs this past weekend when all of the sudden teams were busting out their running game more than they ever had during the regular season. Sports metaphor aside, I was thinking about how great musicians also appear to have the strongest fundamentals.

In playing an instrument the fundamentals are rather obvious. How’s your sound, your intonation, your articulation, your air support, you hand position, etc…? And each instrument has exercises to address this concerns. But in the realm of composition they don’t seem as obvious to me. What do you consider to be the fundamentals of good composition and how do you go about continuing to develop them? How do you write better compositions as opposed to just more compositions?

My first reaction is to say that, well, music is obviously not sports. No one “wins” or “loses.” The basis for judgment is subjective and new music can only be valued on its own terms.

But putting that aside because there is something to this question and asking rather — What are the basic traits that make a composer whose music we like? What do you hear as the “fundamentals of good composition?” Accepting that the answer will be different for everybody (though probably with some healthy overlap) takes you away from the NY Times approach of last week’s Top Ten Composers Of All Time post. Anybody else surprised there were no Americans, women, or Dukes of Ellington?

Curious for all takes on the issue. Listeners and musicians.


8 Comments

Older Posts →
Premium Wordpress Plugin

Switch to our mobile site