The Dark Side of The Beat 2: Update

I got a lot of reactions to my recent post("The Dark Side Of The Beat"). I think that the struggle of trying to book gigs at New York clubs really struck a chord, no pun intended. Here are a few comments that I received:

I feel you brother. You're fate at that club rests on the bartender not satisfied with the tip you left him. What a drag.  

I have had similar experiences in other NY clubs....I'll have a killing night packed with people....everybody wins.....can't get another there....why? God knows....club owners are strange dudes. 

I had sort of the same experience last week, it wasn't even my gig, but the A hole manager (not even the owner who loves having live music) started screaming about how they were losing money over paying us $250 for the band. I usually hold myself but I started going at him about how much of a loser he was and how we were playing there for the love of music, and if he couldn't make money out of a packed place with amazing location it wasn't because of the money he was paying us. 

George, what's amazing is that you play all over the world have top shelf CDs and you are & play with top shelf players. It amazes me that club owners who want to build a business with live music have not the first clue about who they are getting.

So what are these club owners looking for? Whether it is a local club or the top tier places, how do we adapt our pitch to them for opportunity to perform to their expectations? What do they want?


And this was a good one from Jonny King. If you don't know King, he is a wonderful pianist and composer who worked with Joshua Redman in the 90's. He's also a lawyer, and he wrote an excellent book on jazz appreciation. But his comment was interesting.


I thought your rant was great and right on. I grew up playing at places like Bradley's and Basil's and Visiones, etc., and playing at them regularly. Two things made those experiences so important. First, the audiences (especially at Bradley's) were always filled with musicians. One time, at Bradley's not long before it shut down (maybe after it reopened after the fire?), I think Kenny Barron, Cedar Walton, Tommy Flanagan and Joe Zawinul were sitting at the bar at one time! Can you imagine anything similar today? A hang, or collective with that kind of magnetic vibe? Second, as just a regular-joe piano player, I had the direct relationship with the club owner/booker, whether it was Wendy at Bradley's or James Browne at Sweet Basil's or whomever. So I could just call and say, "I'd like to play with these guys", etc. There was no interrogation about what label, how will it be advertised, etc. Now, having been absent for some time and just returning to the scene, I really feel this new distance between the clubs and the musicians. It's not just that the contacts have changed -- that's gonna happen over time -- but that the criteria have. Some clubs are still great and respectful, but the clubs reflect a more diffuse, split-apart scene generally, where there's no sense of cultivating a community, a hang, where the musicians and the clubs are basically creating the scene. And forget our generation, but think of the generation above us. All those great piano players I used to follow around, and everyone else -- can you imagine how they feel? I don't know what the answer is, but I appreciate so much that someone who is out there, and indeed makes a living at these places, is willing to ask why the relationship has so soured with these clubs. We all bitched about it in the late 80s/early 90s too,  but there's no question that it's many times worse now. And yet the music lives on. Respectfully, pissed-offedly, and cautiously optimistically -

Jonny King

I thought that was a great summary of what is happening these days. It's nice to know that I'm not alone in my thoughts. I wish I knew what the solution was. Maybe part of it is merely speaking out in some form, not going quietly. As I've said, there are exceptions, like Spike Wilner of Smalls, or Peter Mazza at the Bar Next Door, or Cory Weeds at the Cellar in Vancouver: it's because they are musicians themselves, and they understand what it's like to be on the other side.

I wanted to update this because I actually received an apology from the unnamed curator at the unnamed New York club. I'm not sure if he read the blog, or if somebody told him about it, or if he just at an internal change of heart. He said that he realized that he was a little harsh and he didn't mean any disrespect, and that I was welcome to play there again. I was surprised, because you rarely get apologies these days. Of course, I accepted, and said no hard feelings. 

Pianist Jonny King

But I think Jonny King was really on to something with the separation that exists in the scene: it seems like many of the people who book the clubs put up this wall between themselves and the musicians. As if they are the Wizard of Oz or something.( Nobody gets in to see the Wizard! Not Nobody, not no how!) But this could be partially caused by the fact that some of these places are so bombarded by the thousands of musicians in New York, that they have to put up a wall just for the sake of sanity. It's probably akin to if you had to answer every spam email you received every day: you'd go crazy after a few days.

I often wonder, if I curated a jazz club, how would I do it? How would I accommodate all the musicians who would ultimately be sending me emails and calling. I'll have to give it more thought, but one thing I do know is that I would try to avoid insulating myself from the musicians. I say this because I think that musicians can also be customers; even if you let the musicians in free, they will still drink and eat, and also they can recommend your venue to others, and the whole thing perpetuates itself. If you alienate "the cats", you are alienating the people who probably love the music more than the mere fans, definitely more than the tourists who populate these places. If there was more of a sense of "we're all in this together", then these clubs would never lack support. I think because of this current atmosphere of " I'm up here, and you are down there", I rarely see musicians hanging at the venues. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe the musicians don't support the clubs. I know I would be more inclined to drop a bunch of money at some of these places if I felt like I was "a part of things." I hate to say it in terms of "I only support the clubs that return my emails," but hey, if the shoe fits.....

The Dark Side Of The Beat

Buddy, can you spare a jazz gig?

I've been truly blessed to have an actual career in jazz. I mean, it's pretty astounding: I was a lousy classical trumpet player, ready to quit playing, when I discovered the piano. All of a sudden, I had a job! I was playing two nights a week at a hotel in Baltimore. My rent was $250 a month(this was 1989). I was making $220 a week, so I was richer than I had ever been in my life. I was making money IMPROVISING on jazz tunes. And not even very well! I was on top of the world.


And then the gig ended. Another band came in and told the manager they would play for less money. And so was my first lesson in the ugly side of playing music for a living. I was depressed, but I had made a lot of contacts, so the work picked up again. And  now, looking back on over twenty years of playing music for a living, and it always ebbs and flows: sometimes there is work, sometimes not. Still, I'm extremely lucky: most of my Peabody Conservatory classmates have quit playing music, at least professionally. Times are tough for even legendary musicians. The economy sucks. Debt ceiling.....yada yada......You know what I mean.


I've been in New York since 1995 (with a brief pit stop in Winnipeg for 2 years, see previous posts) and the jazz scene has changed a lot. A lot of great venues have closed(Bradley's, Visiones, Zinno's,Fat Tuesday's, Detour, Sweet Basil's/Rhythm, to name a few). Touring has slowed: I remember nine week tours, eleven week tours. Now, a three week stint seems eternal. Even 10 days is a rarity. Also, the jazz audience has changed in New York. The demographic has shifted from die- hard New Yorkers along with European and Japanese tourists supporting the clubs, into American tourists, who come to clubs with little real love of the music. (I played at the Blue Note with the Christian McBride Trio a few years ago, and McBride was telling an anecdote about trumpeter Roy Hargrove. McBride looked out at the packed house and assumed, "Y'all know Roy Hargrove, right?" You could hear a pin drop.) 9/11 didn't help things. The rise of Wall Street hasn't added any listeners: it doesn't seem like Hedge Fund Managers like jazz as much as cigar bars, or whatever. Sometimes I wonder if New York still deserves to be called the Jazz Capital of the World. (Although there are still more musicians here than ever....)


But beyond the economic realities of jazz music, I think what bothers me more than anything is the lack of community and respect shown by people who curate/book/own some of these venues. I would have to say that overall, I'm treated so much better in Europe and Japan, even in clubs. And not just by the audiences, but by the management/staff/bookers/etc...Even outside of New York, I tend to get more respect. Now, obviously, there are exceptions (Small's is great, because Spike Wilner is a working musician, and he really understands the music and what it means to be a musician.), but I am continually surprised by how little musicians are respected in New York, the so-called Jazz Capital of the World. Maybe it's always been this way; mind you, I've never been beaten by cops for standing outside of a club for being Black and talking to a White lady, a la Miles Davis ( I mean, let's have some perspective, please!). But I'm surprised by people who probably should know better, even managers/bookers/staff who are musicians themselves!


I heard a story about one of the most well known venues in the city, and why one very well known young (still young) trumpeter refuses to perform there. One night, after this trumpeter and his band had finished their set, the "proprietor" of the venue turned on the lights and yelled "You guys didn't play anything good all night!" And this is a renowned venue. If this is how we are treated there, how can we expect better anywhere else in New York?


I hate to complain, because like I initially said, I am extremely lucky; I have work, a roof over my head, food in my stomach, bank account, family, used car, etc... And it's not even a money thing; my pay scale is sliding like my tires on the Winnipeg highways in January. But I think what's missing is a bit of respect and decency.


Just as an example, I had an experience recently with the curator of the music at a cafe in Greenwich Village. I have been playing at this venue for many years; it's a small venue, and even with standing room only, it's hard to make any real money. I mean, it's essentially a door gig! Musicians play here because it has a decent atmosphere and it's a place to present their original music. Small establishments like this are bombarded with musicians looking for a place to play. Unfortunately, the people who book these venues sometimes develop an attitude of disrespect towards the musicians. I was a victim of this kind of attitude.

I have played at this particular venue for 15 years, dealing with a succession of bookers, most of whom were friendly and easy to deal with. Not so with a recent exchange. My wife and I played a double bill there this past spring, and we had a respectable, if not terrific, turnout. But when I contacted the booker to ask about another date, I was dismissed with comments to the effect of: "Feedback I got from the bartender and waiters about your show was not too good, to say the least. Your turnout was way below average, I was told that your sets did not start on time, the whole evening was poorly run, and you didn't even know what instrument you were going to be playing the second set."

I think what bugged me the most was that this booker was judging me by what the host and bartender said about the performance. (This to me is akin to getting a review of the New York Philharmonic from one of the ushers in the concert hall...no offense to ushers.) I wanted to ask him if they were musicians or not, but my wife stopped me. I really had to hold back some choice words. Anyway, It's not like I need to play there to make a living; on the contrary, I usually tried to hold back booking stuff there in fear of a conflict with a tour or better paying gig. So as I was saying, it's not about the money, it's about the respect. And this is from a fellow musician, who is probably struggling as much as we all are. Where's the sense of community?

....WE'RE LIVING IN A SOCIETY!.....

Odd Thoughts on Odd Meters

I was looking at Spike Wilner's Facebook page tonight; a discussion about various and controversial topics relating to jazz was brewing. Wilner's post had generated over 150 comments. I also commented, although I think I was kind of late to the party. I think the post has run it's course, but I wanted to share what I wrote, cause maybe it works better as a stand alone than a non sequitur . 

I was intrigued about the odd meters comment. For some of my students, 4/4 is an odd meter.....

I won't name who, but I heard a teacher lamenting about how his students were always "bringing in tunes in 19/8, 7/16, and what not" and so many "straight 8" tunes. (He was pretty negative about it.) "And nobody's dealing with the swing...." he pontificated further as he snapped his fingers on two and four (around quarter note= 120).

I say, why not be able to do it all? The more you can do, the more you will work. And furthermore, don't dog stuff cause YOU are unable to do it. For example, I really WISH I could play stride piano as well as Spike Wilner does;But I'm only going to admit admiration. It would be too easy to say "Aw, that's some BULLSHIT..." No. The beauty of our modern society is that we can enjoy it all.

Billy Hart

I think that's one thing I always liked about Billy Hart, is that he was curious about everything, even though at heart he is very traditional. Most of what he plays comes out of Max Roach, or even obscure D.C. drummers. Yet all the really progressive European bands call him and he fits right in. Somehow, Billy is STILL the youngest guy in the band.

But I also think we shouldn't do odd meters for their own sake. It's all rhythm. A lot of stuff that you could think of in four you could also think of in 7, and so on. I find myself writing odd meters less, only because I want to do it for the right reasons, not just to be impressive.

It's not that people are playing in 7/8, it's WHY are they playing in 7/8? What does 7/8 make them FEEL? There's so much great music in 4, or 3, or 6......some people might never NEED to get to 7! 

I don't want to count when I listen to Stravinsky or Steve Coleman. I just want to DANCE! But it's the same for anything I'm listening to, so ultimately it doesn't matter.   

Do The Airlines Hate Music?

The abbreviation of Northwest Airlines always makes me laugh.....

I think everyone would agree that the experience of traveling by airplane has gotten more stressful in recent years. I don't mean the actual act of "flying"; it's still a statistical fact that flying is safer, and there are fewer accidents and hijackings than in previous decades (I'm fairly certain, but I don't have good internet access in this hotel, so I don't have the exact statistics). I mean things like the hassle and delay of the security line, especially since 9-11. Fuel prices are driving up ticket costs; booking at the last minute will cost you an arm and a leg. Seats seem to be getting smaller by the minute. Cost cutting takes away on board meals, blankets, pillows, movies, not to mention flight attendants' salaries, which makes them increasingly unfriendly.

I guess I'm starting to sound like Andy Rooney on 60 minutes.

But ask a musician and I think you'll find that especially for musicians, it's gotten to the point where I believe the airline industry is killing the ability for jazz musicians to tour. First of all, jazz music has featured the upright bass for much of the music's history. Many years ago, you could afford another plane ticket for a double bass, and you would strap it into a seat belt and offer it a cocktail. Ha! But later, when the seats started shrinking, then you could get a flight case and pay wildly varying overweight charges, or oversize charges, or both, depending on the mood of whomever was working at the check-in counter.( I heard a story regarding Mulgrew Miller's trio, traveling in Germany; the lady at check-in claimed that the charge for a double bass would be 100 Deutsche Marks. "Can you please check with your supervisor? Because that sounds very expensive," insisted Miller. When the lady returned, she confessed,"Yes, I made a mistake. It will cost you 400 Deutsche Marks!" So much for a second opinion…) Now it's virtually impossible to bring a bass. Many airlines just refuse to allow them. So most bass players end up playing rented basses of wildly varying condition.

You would think that the alternative was to bring an electric bass. Not so fast! Airlines are becoming increasingly jerky about how much you can bring with you into the cabin. Many airlines are strict about the size and weight. So unless you have a flight case for your electric, you might have a problem, as in checking the bass in a soft case at the last minute and risk damaging the instrument. And if you check it, it could be lost! This brings up the problem with other instruments. Sure, saxophone players and trumpet players could check their horn in padded flight cases in the cargo hold, but then what if they don't come out at the next city? (Which is all too common.) Then you need to borrow a horn anyway for the gig. Are horn players going to have to start asking for their instruments as part of the rented backline? Can you imagine Sonny Rollins having to play a different tenor saxophone on every concert of a tour?

Again, it seems like the official rules are according to the whim of the attendants, or even the security people. I was on a tour with trumpeter Ingrid Jensen years ago when one of the security men insisted that she would not be allowed to bring her trumpet , in the soft case, on board. "It will be damaged if I check it!" she exclaimed. The guy was a real ass about (which was surprising, since after all, it was in Canada!) , so she had to go back to the counter. However, the lady at the counter gave her a bag tag that approved it for the cabin, which was a relief, but quite an emotional roller coaster. It just seemed as though she was being treated like a criminal for bringing her instrument.  It's struggle enough to book  road gigs in the first place; is the simple act of traveling with your instrument to a gig have to become a consent humiliation?

I remember a few years after 9-11, I was in the U.K., traveling with bassist Buster Williams. Alto and soprano saxophonist Steve Wilson was in the band. He was nervous about bringing his horns through London Heathrow Airport, because they had been saying "one carry-on item only". But he had a printout from the airport website saying that musical instruments were allowed. Sure enough, we get to the security and this wanker is saying " Only one carry on, sir!" Wilson was shaking with anger as he pulled out the printout. "This is what a printed from YOUR website, saying we are allowed musical instruments." The guy insisted that we had to go all the way back through the airport and check the alto AND soprano, in soft cases, assuredly damaging them ( I was carrying the soprano, so as to make it as if we each had one instrument.) After a tense 10 minutes of arguing and asking to see a supervisor, it ended up fine; the supervisor agreed that the printed policy was indeed correct.

My question is, why should a great musician like Steve Wilson have to go through that humiliation? Did that wanker at security hate music? Did he have the common sense to figure out that we aren't traveling in the same way as people who are going to see their Aunt Sue in Chicago, or heading off to Gran Canaria to party all weekend: this is our livelihood, and our instruments, which we need to make music, are fragile enough to neccessitate bringing on board. It's frustrating as well, because they will ask you to check your instrument; meanwhile, you'll see somebody wheeling a huge suitcase on board that probably has a bunch of sweaters and hair gel inside.

Finally, the cost of overseas tickets is making it increasingly harder for American jazz musicians to work. We've already established that there isn't a ton of touring in the U.S.A., due to the fact that Americans are too busy worshiping Lady Gaga and Toby Keith. Our bread and butter for years has been Europe. I hear this more and more now that "we would love to bring you over to play, but we just cannot afford the plane tickets." So now European festivals and clubs are more and more ignoring American players. I've disputed the idea in the past that Europe is the new home of jazz, which is author Stuart Nicholson's view (in his book, Is Jazz Dead Or has It Moved To A New Address?). However, if we can't work in the U.S., and we can't afford tickets to Europe, then I see a problem. It used to be that promoters didn't want American musicians to LIVE in Europe, because they would become local, and therefore, less exotic. Do we HAVE to live in Europe just to make ANY gig at all?

So there's my rant for the day. I'm sure you might have an airline torturing a musician horror story to share. (Many of you heard about trumpeter Valerie Ponamarov having his arm broken by security in Paris after they hassled him about his trumpet, for example.) And yes, I am a fan of comedian Louis C.K., who, on the other end of the spectrum, talks about how we whine about what are ultimately minor inconveniences associated with air travel. ( " I had to wait 40 minutes on the runway!" " Oh MY GOD, 40 minutes? You should SUE them!" )  Be that as it may, I think my points are valid. Does the airline industry have it in for musicians, especially jazz musicians? Think about that while you listen to the in flight radio program on your next flight…..

Why The Grammys Are More Irrelevant Than Ever

Two Grammys and millions of dollars! Good for you....

There was a big brew-ha-ha over the recent decision by NARAS(National Academy of Recording Arts And Sciences...wow, it sounds so scholarly....) to cut the Latin Jazz Category(as well as many other categories)from the Grammy Awards. As expected, there has been outrage from the Latin Jazz community. The great Latin Jazz pianist Eddie Palmieri spoke out against it. Many have made accusations of racism. Some have suggested that the move came as a way to punish small independent labels. Indeed, the "restructuring" of the awards, which actually eliminated 31 categories, was prompted by an open letter to the industry by, oh what a surprise... A Record Company Executive!

First of all, I think that there has been a huge rift between what goes on at the Grammys and actual MUSIC. The music INDUSTRY now, in terms of what's considered POPULAR, is mostly Theatre Of The Absurd. Unfortunately for us musician types, this Sideshow of Mediocre Insanity does better numbers than real music making. I heard that some of the so-called Hip Hop royalty have been critical of the recent choices for Album of the Year (Herbie Hancock) and Best New Artist (Esperanza Spalding) because they didn't sell anywhere near as many units as the Hip Hop Artists. The problem is, the Grammys are based on VOTES by members of NARAS. Why can't we have a truly great artist like Herbie Hancock acknowledged in a Music Awards ceremony, even though he doesn't sell as much as the seriously over-hyped Kanye West?(I don't like his music, but I did admire him for his remark on live TV about "George Bush doesn't care about Black people". I thought that took guts. But then he tearfully retracted the remarks. So I'm back to merely hating his music.)

Justin Bieber: Boy Band Of One...

My thought is this: if it's really coming down to a contest of sales vs. artistry, then why don't we just have two separate Grammys, so to speak? Why not have NARAS, celebrating the caterwauling of drug addicted strippers, middle school age Boy Bands of One, and the millionaire rappers who raps remind you of their riches, on one side, and then, something different-I don't know, let's call it The National Academy of Musical Achievement (NAMA), on the other side, which can deal with singers and musicians who actually care about singing and music! Let NARAS go it's own way, and let it become a virtual Olympic Games of Selling Audible Crap. If it's about numbers, USE the numbers to decide, in the same way the stopwatch and the finish line defines a 100 Meter Dash. Then give Gold, Silver, and Bronze. Whomever sells the most albums is WITHOUT QUESTION the ARTIST OF THE YEAR. (Even if it's the shittiest music you've ever heard, which wouldn't even matter to today's Music Executive.)

There's no reason that we, the people who have our own opinions, not ones that are forced upon us by advertising, couldn't demand an alternative. Maybe another way to do it would be to have jazz, classical, and other independent minded musicians boycott NARAS. Personally, I don't watch the Grammys, I don't buy any of that "music", and I've never been interested in joining NARAS. I don't know-maybe if I was a member, I could have more of a way to protest this trend. But obviously, this decision by NARAS shows that the higher ups could care less about their lowly dues paying members. It could turn out to be a mistake by NARAS in the long run. I believe that the trend should be, if the Grammys is truly a celebration of musical achievement,  to be MORE inclusive, not less. Most of the award presentations don't make the television broadcast anyway, so why does it even make a difference? Are the Grammy statuettes made of real gold, and NARAS can't afford so many to give away?

As much as I have bashed much of so called Contemporary Music in earlier paragraphs, I do believe it has a right to exist. But if this decision by NARAS to eliminate these categories is a move to punish the little guy (which takes the form of indie labels), then obviously, they don't believe in OUR right to exist. Unfortunately, much of the public doesn't care; they only listen to what's on the radio or TV. But the internet could actually change that, and that might be our saving grace. The grass roots nature of independent online marketing can make a difference. And I believe that is what scares the big companies; they don't want the playing field leveled. The reduction of categories by NARAS is similar to the Big Auto companies killing the electric car and lobbying against public transportation; they don't want a real alternative. This is capitalism at it's worst. It's no different than gangsters shooting their competition. Maybe we can find a way to shoot back.

Milli Vanilli: innovators in lip synching... and being terrible

The Human Ipod

For those of you who were asleep in the 90's, there was a very popular hip hop band called the Fugees. One of the members from this trio is Lauryn Hill, arguably, well, now that I think about it, definitely, the most talented and most compelling artist of the group. Lauryn Hill seemed to have a plethora of potential as a female rapper who could actually sing and sing well, not to mention being quite fetching. (See photo!)

In the late 90's, Lauryn Hill, riding on the success of her solo recording, seemed poised to rule the world. However, as it can happen in the topsy-turvy world of the music biz, she went insane and dropped off the face of the earth. Well, that's not exactly true, but she did have five children. As the father of merely one child, I can tell you that four more would probably put me in the clock tower wearing something in a semi-automatic.....

Rumors abound of a follow-up to The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. (Although she did release a live solo guitar album which  is actually not as bad as people say. It's not on the same level as Miseducation but some interesting material. I plan to investigate further....) Hill is currently on tour and there have been reports of concerts being delayed for 3 hours while fans wait angrily for Hill to show. Also, the fans have been reported to say things like:

 "Nobody could participate because NOBODY knew the music!" a concertgoer told entertainment blog Sandrose, via theboombox.com. "Everybody was looking around like 'WHAT SONG IS THIS?"

Now, tardiness is not something I like to condone. Who knows what the excuse could have been? Unless she was, ahem, indisposed due to some bad shellfish, there's no reason for being three hours late. And especially due to the fact that Hill has been for the most part out of the game since 1998, you would think she would try not to make her audiences angry at her. This apparently has been happening throughout the tour. So it wasn't like, "Oh, my flight was canceled and I had to connect through Denver to get here, I'm so sorry." It gives off a certain arrogance, and for someone who claims to be a humanitarian, it shows a lack of respect for your audience, most of whom would be instantly fired if they showed up to their jobs three hours late with no reasonable excuse.

But what fascinates me most about this Lauryn Hill comeback tour is the remarks about the music. There were comments about the music being unrecognizable and not being able to sing along with hits. This is where I would overwhelmingly defend Hill. As a jazz musician, I enjoy, and I believe I am expected, to play things in a new way every night. Even if I were lucky enough to have a so-called "hit song", which I'm not banking on ( at least not if it's a jazz song), then I believe it would still be understood that jazz musicians are improvisers, not classical musicians. Therefore, our whole being is about taking material and making it new, and having the freedom to find new things every time out. We are decidedly NOT playing the same thing every night.

I don't know how happy I would be playing in a pop band that just did a "show" every night. Although I've played in bands that had a certain repertoire, it was still possible to find something new to play even within certain confines. One thing I love about playing with Jack DeJohnette's band is that he encourages us, verbally and musically, to try different things all the time. And the audience response seems to be not only just to the quality of the music, but to the happy energy that we as musicians give off as we surprise ourselves!

I would think that if you were a so-called fan of an artist, then you would go to hear them do what they do, as opposed to expecting to hear things exactly like they are on a recording from 13 years ago. Why not just buy the CD? Then you can listen all day long to the same thing over and over. But in terms of a live show,why wouldn't you respect the artist to give you something of quality regardless of whether it's exactly like the recording? If you are so easily disappointed by your favorite artist, why did you become a fan in the first place?

the ipodification of life

I think it's only going to get worse in terms of how concert-goers will perceive the artist-audience relationship. When you can carry thousands of songs around with you in a tiny ipod, and you can press a button and listen to free music on youtube and whatever else, it's only natural that you would take your music for granted. And now that everyone and their mother can make their own music using Garage Band and loops and so on, then that takes away another layer of respect that professional musicians should get. When you have a culture that has so much music at their fingertips, and is increasingly miseducated  as to why Lauryn Hill sounds better than your cousin Jerry who made some beats on Garage Band, then I don't think that makes things better.

The Great Gary Bartz

If you go to see a band, or a movie, or a play, or poetry, or ballet- trust the people on stage to present good art. Don't put your own expectations on it. As Gary Bartz used to say, "Hey, we don't come down to y'alls job and tell YOU what to do!"

You Must Be This Tall To Play Jazz: The Superficiality Of It All

Some of you might be aware that my 41st Birthday happened yesterday.(FYI: unlike Elaine on Seinfeld, I would never scoff at a birthday gift of CASH....) Now that I am securely in my 40's, I started to think about the fact that I am no longer even close to being a musical young lion anymore. And yet, I'm playing as well as I ever have in my life. Yet the conventional wisdom (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be that once you pass a certain age, your usefulness in the music industry is arguably null and void. Why?

The great Lewis Black

I am constantly saying that music should always be judged by what it sounds like rather than what it looks like. (One of my favorite comedians, Lewis Black, has a brilliant routine along these lines regarding MTV, and how " music goes in your ear, and video goes in your eye! " He also astutely obseves," MTV is to music what KFC is to chicken!") While every other aspect of our culture has succumbed to the lure of making sure it celebrates the youthful and the sexual, I am more disappointed when this occurs in jazz music. And this is not just because jazz happens to be my life's pursuit.

Lady Gaga: I can see that she's  talented...

I think jazz music should be held to a higher standard. Why? Because it is no longer popular music in the way that Taylor Swift and Lada Gaga are the popular music. Therefore, it is already a niche market. And I believe that those in that market are more sophisticated already to make their musical listening choices in a mature way: by actually LISTENING to the music! Lady Gaga and Taylor Swift are marketed towards teenagers who are easily swayed by peer pressure and pubescent hormonal insanity. I believe that the majority of jazz listeners are adults and listeners, and wouldn't be swayed by external forces. Or shouldn't be.


Furthermore, there is also the trend of focusing on the super elderly in jazz. While this is in many ways quite noble, it's still not based on anything real. It's sort of like jumping on the bandwagon at the last minute.  For example, Joe Henderson was ignored for years, even when he was playing his butt off and making great music. Then, it seemed as though once he hit his 70's, all of a sudden the jazz business came out of the woodwork to give him some respect. (Let's not even talk about those who don't get noticed until they are, ahem, deceased....)

The Great Roy Haynes

Again, it seems like if your between 30 and 65, the jazz powers-that-be have very little interest. If you think I'm completely off base, ask a jazz musician you know and let me know what he says. In fact, ask Roy Haynes, who, as I was told by one of his former band members, was always mystified by the accolades he got as a senior citizen, while he had been playing his ass off for decades prior.

But whether it be age, looks, race, nationality, religious views, back story, shoe size, height, hairstyle, or number of parking tickets; none of these things interest me when it comes to music. Music is sound. Call me crazy, but I don't think it should be judged by anything else. Would you judge a Picasso by how it smells? Would you judge a novel by how it tastes?( On second thought, my one year old son is trying to EAT one of his books at the moment.....Liam, no......)

If you want to comment, do so respectfully and thoughtfully, please.
Happy New Year!

Stop The Presses! Corporate America Plays The Blues....

I realize that when I started this jazztruth blog that I said I wanted to stay positive. However, there are times when speaking the truth means really telling the truth, sunshine be damned! I believe in a positive outlook and all that stuff, but I also believe that if you can't honestly look at the negative, then change will never occur.

What sticks in my craw this fine morning is the headline for Downbeat Magazine, the online edition. Now, on the record, Downbeat Magazine is a fine publication, and historically important in jazz journalism. But let's face it, the world of publishing is tough these days (what with all the free content on the internet.....ahem!) and print publications are just trying to stay afloat. I guess I've long ago accepted (to a degree) that many of these magazines are essentially propaganda; whoever pays for the most advertising gets the features, and after that, whoever can afford the most aggressive publicists gets attention. Downbeat is not the worst offender: for example, a japanese promoter who produced some recordings was approached by Swing Journal (the biggest jazz magazine in Japan) and asked how much money he would pay to receive a 5 star review of the CD!

Anyway, The Downbeat online edition headline reads: JAZZERS DIG INTO DISNEY REPERTOIRE ON NEW CD SERIES.

Why does that bother me? Well, because it's the HEADLINE for one. Maybe not on the print edition, but this is basically equivalent of opening the New York Times and seeing as the HEADLINE this:

EXXON IS A REALLY TOP NOTCH COMPANY! HOORAY!

I feel myself going into rant mode. Easy, now......

 It would be different if somebody like Wayne Shorter decided on his own that he wanted to record some songs that happened to be associated with Disney movies. Maybe he would call it "Someday My Prince Will Come" or "Beauty and The Beast"(Oh wait, he has his own tune with that title. Never mind....). But this is so clearly a corporate takeover of Downbeat. It's so over -the -top commercial that it just makes me wonder if there is any integrity left anywhere.

This Jazz Disney CD, entitled, "Everybody Wants To Be A Cat, Volume 1." is being released on Walt Disney Records in December. Just in time for Christmas! Oh Goody! It features all the usual suspects, the people who are already sort of jazz household names or the people who are being pushed into being household names. Not surprising. I hope the date paid well. (That's probably the main reason for my rant... is that I wish somebody would call me for a recording date like that. Wait until Fox News stars a jazz label, I would happily play " Blues for Sean Hannity" for the proper sum.)

Am I wrong to think that jazz music and jazz journalism should steer clear of this kind of thing? I'm not against jazz musicians or magazines making a buck. But this is so blatantly, crassly commerical to me. In a time when rock and roll music is used for commercials to get kids to Join The Army and rap music is used to sell McDonald's, do we have to sell our souls to Disney to keep jazz alive?

In the United States last night, the electorate basically voted against the Obama administration, after only two years of trying to reverse 8 years of Bush and Company. The Bush administration basically made Corporate America the de facto government of the United States. It would seem that people want MORE of this by how they voted last night. I don't have time to explain why Corporate Control of everything is bad. I thought that it was obvious. So to hear that the chance for Obama to actually change things has possibly come to a screeching halt, and then to see that Disney has effectively bought out the front page of Downbeat, well, that was a little troubling for me this morning.

Next month: RUSH LIMBAUGH RELEASES A CD OF COLE PORTER TUNES. Stay tuned.....

Time To Call Jazz Something Else....Like Syncopep?

Wu Tang is comin thru, to a jazz festival near YOU!

I'm noticing more and more that, on many of the international so-called jazz festivals, there is an alarming lack of jazz being booked. Now, I'm not a purist, and I'm not here to get on a soapbox about "the tradition" and "swing" and so forth. However, I think it's just illogical to call something a Jazz Festival and then refuse to book anything even remotely related to jazz. I don't know, I guess Eric Clapton is related to jazz by the fact that he's a blues guitarist? But when you have Lionel Richie and the Wu Tang Clan as headliners for major JAZZ festivals, then I think it is at least worth questioning. Let's put it this way: If there was a hip-hop festival, you wouldn't see Bucky Pizzarelli as the headliner! You wouldn't see Junior Mance at a rock festival! So why is everything besides jazz squeezing out the music for which these festivals are named after?

Obviously, some of the problem stems from the fact that jazz has always been a hybrid sort of music. Much like the way tofu takes on the flavors of whatever seasoning is around it, jazz can easily absorb new styles and approaches and it can still be called jazz. This is probably why there are so many sub-genres of jazz. And more than other styles of music with their own sub-genres, jazz has almost as many sub-genres as their are individual jazz musicians . Since we are all trying to "develop our own sound", this makes for jazz which always has the possibility of some new addition or subtraction to the recipe. Unfortunately, this makes for many misconceptions about the music.

Kenny G. Get a haircut, you hippie......

Because it's so hard to define jazz in a "pure" sense, I think it's easier to lump other styles of music into the "jazz" bucket. For example, the whole Smooth Jazz phenomenon is confusing: the wonderful, talented, superbly-coiffed Kenny G is a great saxophonist in the category of Instrumental Pop (if there is such a category....how about Highly Sophisticated Elevator Music....). But judging from what I hear at the dentist office, his "music" is not very jazzy to me. But because of the " Smooth Jazz" label, it gets thrown into the public's consciousness as some form of "jazz". However, David Sanborn, who might also not be considered a jazz musician by many, to me sounds much more like jazz than much of the Smooth Jazz that accidentally permeates my ear canal while I wait for my prescription at Shoppers Mart.

Kirk Whalum

I think it's ironic that some of those supposedly smooth jazz musicians don't even consider themselves to be that. I was on a recording date recently where Kirk Whalum was a special guest. He was a super nice guy, and he confided that he considered himself a " R&B and Gospel saxophone player." He also talked a bit about the "powers-that-be" of Smooth Jazz Radio, consisting of a panel of judges who decided whether or not one's music was "smooth" enough to play on the radio. "I'm considered a smooth jazz player," Whalum testified," but now it's become so controlled, that even I'm considered too jazzy to be on the smooth jazz format!"

 Many discussions have endured regarding the name "jazz", by critics and fans and musicians alike, since the beginnings of the music. Originally spelled "jass" some say it comes from an African word, others speculate that it comes from the French jaser ( to chatter). Some say it refers to the sex act in various ways. Apparently the first evidence of the word comes from a newspaper article about baseball, in which the columnist used jazz as a synonym for "energy" or "pep". In fact, one early contest was held to "rename" jazz, the winner being "syncopep" which thankfully never caught on as a new word to replace jazz.

Often I am asked about my profession. " I am a musician, " I say. After the required "Are you in a band?" they inevitably ask, " what kind of music?" "Jazz" I say, waiting for that confused look on their face. " Oh, I love jazz. Spyro Gyra is my favorite band...." or  "Have you heard the new Sade CD?", or
"My grandfather likes jazz." or just blank stare...." Do you want me to trim your sideburns?"

As the interest in jazz seems to be slipping from our grasp, I think it's time once again to consider renaming our old friend jazz. Perhaps it will have the re-branding effect which Madison Avenue marketers look for when they try to do P.R. for some big mega-company,which needs to re-make their image after it comes to light that they gunned down some of their employees during a wage strike.

How about RHYTHM MUSIC? or Rhythmic Music? Many jazz schools in Europe are now calling themselves Rhythmic Music Schools (There's at least one in Denmark).

Or Contemporary Improvisational Music? Too long? Too pretentious?

What about American Classical Music? Too "Jazz -At -Lincoln -Center-esque"?

What about Instrumental Improvisation? But then people will call it I I for short, and then you'll feel like your in the Navy or something. " What kind of music shall we hear?" " Aye, Aye, Captain....."

What about naming it after one of the greats? What about Gillespie Music? or Coltrane Music? Obviously that would spark a debate.

How about Future Bop? or JamBop? Ugh.....

What about combine all the elements into one colorful word. jazzbopswingfunksoulbluesimprov.
It might come out as jaboswifunsblupov. And then jaboswulbov. And then jwapov. This is clearly not working!
Feel free to post your own ideas. And no profanity or euphemisms for sex. That's why we're in this predicament in the first place!

My Letter To The New York Times (Pending Approval)

I was forwarded an article from the New York Times website about jazz musicians who play ping-pong. It's actually an informative, skillfully written article by Aiden Levy. However, I could help thinking that it was an example of why I started this blog: because I'm tired of seeing articles which don't do justice to the musicians or the music. So I made a lengthy comment underneath the article on the Times website. Here's the link to the article, which again, is technically very good and lighthearted, engaging writing by Levy.


http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/swinging-the-paddle-with-a-jazz-beat/#comment-747315



I don't know if they will post what I wrote; It said it was pending approval. So here's what I wrote (below this paragraph). I'd love to get constructive feedback (CONSTRUCTIVE! Let's be civilized. Personal attacks will be deleted.) as to whether there is any point in my comment. I felt like I was sort of being mean to Levy, and that is not my desire at all. I think the problem might be with whomever is above Levy at the Times, in that they would rather print something fluffy than something real. Again, no disrespect to Mr. Levy. Maybe he'll agree and do something more music-oriented next time? Or maybe he'll be waiting for me in a dark alley with brass knuckles. Who knows? Anyway, here is what I posted. Bombs Away!

While this article by Aidan Levy is extremely well written and interesting, and in some ways informative, I can't help but feel like it's a mere distraction from the state of the jazz scene in New York. 

What was not mentioned was how world-class musicians have to play in a venue such as Fat Cat where there are huge groups of young people playing ping pong or shooting pool and COMPLETELY IGNORING the music. And being louder than the music most of the time, as in deafeningly louder. I feel like I'm playing at a fraternity party when I perform there. I'm not dissing the venue, I'm dissing the NEW New Yorkers that go there for dissing jazz by not having the slightest interest in it. 

The New York Jazz scene is so lacking in real venues that a gig at Fat Cat is highly coveted, whereas 10 or 15 years ago many of the highest level musicians would never consider playing at such a venue. I love to play music, so I will play there happily when I get the chance. But it is a struggle. It's a struggle to hear myself play over the "Animal House" type of atmosphere!

I think back fondly to places like Bradley's where they had a strict quiet policy. With the exception of the Village Vanguard, that kind of atmosphere is a rarity.  Now I'm not saying you have to be completely silent. I'm just saying if the "audience" is drowning out the music, then it is just pointless. Then it ceases to be a jazz club: It's a place that has background music, much like restaurants such as the Blue Water Grill and the Blue Fin where again great, great, world class musicians play, and are incredibly ignored and periodically shushed by the management. 

I guess my point is that New York used to be the Jazz capital of the world. Due to the influx of the super wealthy, who seem more interested in expensive restaurants than live music, the Jazz Capital is losing it's claim on the title. In my humble opinion, I don't think an article like this is helping the situation. Wouldn't it be more relevant to do a piece on Dan Tepfer, a brilliant up-and-coming pianist in his own right, and talk to him about his music and his career? 

I hate to be a party-pooper, and I'm not trying to be insensitive to the great work that Mr. Levy did writing this piece.(I truly admire the skill of his writing.) But can we put away the ping-pong for a sec and talk about some music? I have a lot of fun playing jazz, but it's not a game. It's serious art that people have invested their entire lives in, and I think it deserves better attention than to be background music for drunk NYU students while they play ping-pong and shoot pool. 

-George Colligan