Just for the fun of it

[timothystevens]

ironguts said:

3 years isn't enough for personal style, but the student should be instilled with the knowledge that with applied practice, in the years after Uni, they can develop a strong personal style.

So what's the best way to do this? Because this is the kind of question that might shape an entire program and I see two competing perspectives here: firstly, a training in jazz that will best equip students to move into the scene as it now exists, and secondly a more idealistic one in which students are encouraged towards a position in which they can think for themselves - to the point of actually changing the scene. No, they're not mutually exclusive. Yes, the second one is arguably 'vaguer' than the first. Furthermore, there is the problem of the personal voice itself: does it constitute putting an individual spin on the jazz tradition as constructed by Martin Williams or Wynton Marsalis (or someone else), or at the other extreme, as argued by some, does it mean reaching a point where jazz as such is almost entirely rejected?

For what it's worth, I would try to include in any degree course in improvised music that I were writing a subject entitled 'Jazz history, biography and historiography' because it seems to me that alongside the 'story of the jazz tradition' - as retold in whatever specific circumstances - should be set the manner in which this is constructed and the contingency of its very existence. Yes it would mean some reading, and some writing, and yes I guess this might take up some practice time. But I think it would be a step towards contextualising the music that students are playing now, and that which they are yet to play.

[gator]

ironguts said:

Lets face it, you think studying is hard? Wait for the years of practice after! (they never stop)

Actually Guts - whats your take on the maturing of one's music? -Your last CD seems to me to be a strong direction change- do you think where you end up is wholly dependent on where you've been? That sounds like a strange question and the answer seems obvious, but I remember Metheny saying that he thought that good musicians are going to find their voice regardless of the path they take.i.e whether or not they undertake formal study or simply decide to do music part -time.Its all a question of following your own instincts or desires ,as opposed to some notion of what one should or shouldn't do. In that light, a music education should perhaps take that into account.I hear students crying out for external structure to guide them -and yet the structure of musical evolution has to be within.Its just that we run into the perennial problem of making a choice between what we think we should do and what we really want to do.

I'm with you- -practicing just gets harder-for me anyway, although I enjoy it still(when I get the chance to do it). Organizing the dwindling time into whats essential is an ongoing problem. In fact Uni seems like a breeze in retrospect. But I sometimes think I actually played with more fire and conviction - definitely had more energy . Still have just as much fun - but the price is higher.Maybe part of maturity is coming to grips with the idea that its time to move onto something else or change direction.


I agree with you entirely on the jazz history question Tim - particularly from a listening perspective - Teaching it means really getting the student to engage with the music .. so that the story of the music captures their imagination.

[ironguts]

Tim, on an idealistic level I do think the second choice is the go. It makes much more sense to me to 'teach' students to be independent from style or genre. Sure an understanding of the lineage and structure of jazz is a good foundation for improvising in a musical context, but the result should not necessarily be creating a 'jazz' musician.
I actually had this argument with Branford Marsalis at a drunken dinner in NY. He insisted on calling me a Jazz musician and I insisted I was an Improvising musician playing jazz (semantics maybe, but it meant something to me). To me being a jazz musician is not my ideal, being a musician is, and yes I like to improvise. For him, jazz has a cultural value that means something, not so for me here.
I guess really that being an artist to me means constantly searching and re-assessing my direction. This can be through personal research, such as listening/reading, or it can be through the influence of peers. The 'maturing' ( strange word to use for me) of my music has been affected greatly through my relationship with the likes of Grabba/Rodgers/Dalgleish/Edie as mentioned before. You get exposed (better word for me) to such a wide world of possibilities that you wish to explore, and the more you delve, the more things happen. I could never have conceived doing a solo album 5 years ago, but it seems obvious to me now.
I like Mark Isaacs comments about being a student and keeping your mind open. I'm still a student, hopefully with my mind open to change and development whatever that may be. The thing is, at the same time I'm a practicing artist with very sure ideas about what I want to achieve.
Back to the course Tim. I think you're on the right track with the understanding of the history etc. Definitely move toward contextualizing the music now and future. Students need to get the vibe that they're on a journey that doesn't have an end, and it's the journey that is part of the fun too.
Gator, we should do more of what we like, we have to make choices when we play so we should when we write or practice/research. Lets follow our instincts and desires more, they lead us to wonderful places.

[captain]

It makes much more sense to me to 'teach' students to be independent from style or genre.

This is idealistic, and I think unrealistic, unless you're only teaching experienced musicians - ie postgradute or mature age.

You just can't expect 18 and 19 year olds to deal with this sort of shit without a really solid grounding in something. This grounding can be anything, and certainly doesn't need to be Jazz.

'...Glass Houses...' - Ali - wot are you inferring, that I have bad time, huh? HUH!?!? I challenge you to a metronome duel! Meet me behind the bike shed after school. Bassplayers are always right, its always the drummer's fault if the time is fucked.

[ironguts]

As an 18 yo I'd done classical studies, played big band, latin, jazz, rock, even some 'free' stuff, I was shit, but that's what I'm on about, understanding that the languages of rhythm and harmony are relevant for all styles. What I'm saying is the grounding should be the structure related to rhythm and harmony in music , not just in jazz. Be-bop harmony is pretty much Bach, and the rhythm ain't much different either, just 8 notes and some triplets. Nuts and bolts. Like instrumental technique, classical or jazz, you want to be able to get around the thing.
I think 12 tone music and structuralism etc should be looked at too early on, at least to have an introduction to the idea. Like Tim said, why do it in historical order, it's all just history now. ( did he say that?)

[timothystevens]

ironguts said:

Like Tim said, why do it in historical order, it's all just history now. ( did he say that?)

Not exactly, but I don't by any means disagree with it. The point I'm always trying to make is that 'history in chronological order' invariably leaves something out, and better than putting whatever it is back in is understanding that this is the way it works and figuring one's historical perspective from there. (It's also a handy way of understanding something of an inherent individuality within this music.)

[captain]

understanding that the languages of rhythm and harmony are relevant for all styles. What I'm saying is the grounding should be the structure related to rhythm and harmony in music , not just in jazz. Be-bop harmony is pretty much Bach, and the rhythm ain't much different either, just 8 notes and some triplets.

Sorry, miscommunication then... I'm in complete agreement with this. Harmony is harmony, rhythm is rhythm. Bebop is just bebop.

[bobbob]

I think it would also be interesting to consider much of the contemporary improvised music of the last few (10 or so) years, where the main considerations are neither harmonic, melodic nor rhythmic, but deal much more with timbre, density, and duration. Are there approaches to teach/codify these things and deal with them in an institutional and traditional environment? Do these ideas have any place in a normal jazz/classical kind of educational system? Any thoughts.?

[ironguts]

Fuck that hippy shit,,,,,

I thought that some of these aspects where already approached on some level at the VCA. They have Improv class that goes there. I've done a couple actually that were devoid of rhythm/harmony and were a lot of fun, Laurence Fulvig did a great piece in the class I remember so did To Morgan. There is definitely room for this, and in fact I believe necessary too. Even if you don't want to go there as your thing, it's a great way to think of space and texture in relation to rhythm and harmony, the same goes the other way, they should not be mutually exclusive at all.

[andrewh]

ironguts said:

As an 18 yo I'd done classical studies, played big band, latin, jazz, rock, even some 'free' stuff, I was shit, but that's what I'm on about, understanding that the languages of rhythm and harmony are relevant for all styles.

This raises another thing that interests me: I wonder what most people's experience is of music education in schools - being aware that this probably differs widely from state to state. I guess in the end this ties in with the seemingly vexed question of what people's earliest exposure to "jazz"-type music is, whether in a high school musical, or through a specific individual teacher, or whatever, and how that interest gets sparked and developed. Because to some extent (although I know a significant proportion of jazz/improv students come to tertiary study at a slightly more advanced age than typical undergrads) it's the way that people are formed at school - or during the school years - that fits them for tertiary study, in any discipline. And in any discipline the tertiary system is generally seen as developing skills and interests that have been sparked and kindled during the secondary years. You don't expect people to come to tertiary study by any means with a full range of techniques, but there is some requirement (surely) that they display some level of understanding before they make their way onto a course.

The trouble is, ultimately, the paradox in teaching a course in which the highest aim is that the student develops an individual voice. Because, obviously, you can't teach that, you have to concentrate on offering the tools (and the time and the space) that may allow that to develop. In a purely industrial sense, a tertiary course plays a vital role in introducing you to the people who might be your significant colleagues, or mentors, or whatever, and helps to build some kind of community in an often individualistic business. And also, of course, comparisons with other disciplines will always be dangerous, though it's what the money-men like to do. I would like to think that a course in jazz/improv is also about creating a performing elite - something that all would hopefully aspire to but in reality only a few achieve. Someone who gets 50% in commerce can be an accountant; someone who gets 50% in medicine can be a doctor (actually these examples may not be true, I have no idea, but you get my point). Does getting 50% in an improvisation paper make you an improviser? Probably only 50% of one. Or 50% of the time. Or something. Basically it raises the question of qualification. If you qualify from a course in improvisation, what are you actually qualified to do?

[timothystevens]

andrewh said:

If you qualify from a course in improvisation, what are you actually qualified to do?

It may be that the answer to this is not so clear at the moment, and that's why initially I asked 'what should we expect from the graduate?' Given the range of applicants' abilities on entry and their aims on completion, it's fairly obvious that a defined 'skill set' approach is questionable at best. Ideally I'd like to see graduates who can articulate what it is they're aiming to do, within a social and cultural, even historical, context, and who can think for themselves. Instrumental competence and the ability to play within an ensemble should be a given, of course. But I still believe that the thinking stuff can promote good playing in a manner that complements practice itself. Guts I think mentioned showing people how to practise as a broad objective of the undergraduate degree, and I'd agree with this. I'd also say that if students are engaging in clear and critical thinking when they leave they will have developed intellectual habits that can serve them in years to come. The two are surely not unrelated, either. You have to fight your way through all kinds of petty obstacles, political nonsense, self-doubt and -loathing, periods of inactivity and lack of inspiration, disappointment, directionlessness, the lot - and good thinking can help.