Sing Out

H'mm! Home from the gig, and I see there is notable dissent on Twitter (and maybe Facebook, too) about my previous post. 

I'm willing to concede I'm wrong!  Perhaps jazz competitions are the way to go.

I will anthologize contrapuntal responses in a day or so. For now, I have opened up comments below. Hit me: I'm open to learn.  

Don't delay, especially if yr on Facebook, I don't see you there. 

The forum will close on Saturday night or Sunday.

08/24/2012

« previous | Main | next »

Comments

[Crocodile Chuck]

mate,

your thinking and values were spot-on. You were NOT wrong! agree with you about the completeness of the universe of thelonious monk.

[dan voss]

the merits and demerits of jazz competitions aside, i object to the monk institute's shameful decision this year to kowtow to genocide apologist and war criminal, madeleine albright. As you say, "The way to get [more audience for jazz] is to make essential new music," not genuflect before dubious state officials.

[James Hirschfeld]

Hi Ethan,

I am a huge admirer of yours and a regular reader here.

Slightly off topic, but it will connect. I remember a while back in an article and then on Twitter, there was a sentiment expressed by some notable jazz musicians that there should be fewer jazz records--that the glut of records was diluting the system and that perhaps if there were fewer, they would be better as a whole. The same article referred to "conservatory trained" jazz musicians like they were some sewer rat. While I sort of agreed with the sentiment about too many records, I felt it was not helpful to have an established jazz musician telling the next generation their records were crap and they should stop making them! I mean, I could think of some older people who should stop making records--most records by young people I really appreciate.

Anyway, the tie in is that if you tell young people to stop making records, they don't have much left. Young guys are just trying to make a dent--find a way. So I don't blame them for seeking out the few opportunities that are out there. The Monk competition is one of those opportunities I suppose.

However, as the 3rd place (last place!) finisher in the 2004 Frank Rosolino Jazz Trombone competition, I recognize that competition as one of the biggest wastes of time and effort of my life. It turned what could have been an opportunity to meet some great guys into a weird competitive thing that felt more like a track meet. But track meets are fun. This was more like being in the waiting room of a doctor's office, waiting for the test results (that's actually exactly what it felt like). In the end, I felt like I had sold my soul, only to find that the buyer didn't even want it. I'd played All The Things and felt okay about it, but when the judges told me I had to work on my doodle tonguing, I clenched my teeth. I should say the winner was Mike Dease, a fantastic jazz trombone player (and that I wasn't immune from criticism!) so no hard feelings there! But still, like a sore loser, I hopped the next bus put of town that I could and left the festival that day. One of the worst experiences ever. I got back to Rochester (my home) and it was Taco Night--friends, food, music--it was such a stark contrast and made that competition (and the effort I put into it) seem so trivial. So I wouldn't recommend these competitions, but people will likely have to figure it out for themselves. I'll say that so much depends on your attitude. I had the wrong kind--thinking it mattered to who I was, or mattered to my future. It didn't. It was an afternoon of silliness and I should have approached it as such.

[Callum P]

Hopefully this isn't too off-topic, but I'd like to know how you reconcile your call for making essential new music as being more important than "playing jazz correctly" with your recent posts about making sure that pianists approach Monk with a hardline level of detail and authenticity. I agree that one should pay attention to the finer points when using material such as Monk's but if, for example, his language and composition was given the same level of attention to detail as Bird's then we might be arguing in a similar way about the diminishing importance of learning to "play Monk correctly".

Monk was very specific about his own material (and I agree that that's worth respecting), but isn't the message to glean from that to take the same care with our own artistic voices, rather than poring over the music the past for the sake of authenticity? If we are to take the principle of Monk's music (i.e. unwavering and beautiful originality) as what made him great, then perhaps "the notes", as it were, aren't quite so important.

I hope I don't misunderstand you; it would be great to hear you clarify. Great work as always, a pleasure to read (and participate!).

[Hayri Ozkoray]

You have many valid arguments on jazz competitions per se. Although, amongst the semi-finalists that you ignore, you really should check out Justin Brown who is one of the baddest young drummers on the planet. I discovered him with the freeboppin' quintet of Ambrose Akinmusire where he has established himself as 21st century's Tony Williams in a way (by his creative and tasteful accompaniment, as well as with his astonishing extended solos).
I always appreciate your intelligent and insightful criticism and musicianship. Cheers from Istanbul.

[Dave Chisholm]

the idea of music competitions def. makes me uneasy, but i'm not really sure if the relationship between honing craft/versatility and pursuing a unique artistic voice is a mutually exclusive one.

i guess i DO see a lot of players/peers intensely pursue versatility with the hope that a unique voice will emerge...and (from my POV) a unique voice doesn't seem just HAPPEN unless it is cultivated, cared for, and practiced.

does one come at the cost of the other, though? does a personal voice make one less versatile?

with that question sitting out there and stinking up the room, should these jazz competitions reward unique artistic visions or supremely versatile players? should they even exist at all???

thanks, mr. iverson, for opening up this discussion.

-dc

[Tom]

Ethan, I absolutey agree with you: competitions are not the way to go. But the same is true for those damn Down Beat polls - they just show the herd instinct of the critics (Sonny Rollins almost always wins the tenor sax poll, but let's be frank: he is past his prime. What about cats like Tony Malaby or Bill McHenry???) Jazz is an art form, jazz does not need some kind of olympics, but real support from real people (people that go to concerts instead of waisting their time on Facebook ...) Monk rules!
tom.

[Ethan Iverson]

@Callum P: Great comment! However, I think I addressed this in previous post:

"On DTM, I keep adding to a collection of rather heavy-handed assertions about how important it is to know the inner workings of Thelonious Monk's music, to not treat it as jam-session style material. It's an easy claim for me to make partly because I'm personally convinced this is how the composer felt about it himself.

The irony is that approach is not particularly in the modern jazz tradition. Many of the greatest soloists, from Louis Armstrong until now, didn't worry about the composer's intent too much. George Cables told me last night that he thought it was important to change a person's songs to make them your own, and that he expected others to do the same with his own body of significant and detailed jazz compositions.

It was interesting to be reminded of this basic truth so directly one day after starting a minor twitter war about the "correct" bridge of "Well, You Needn't."

Not that I back down from saying that caring about the details has worked for me. Anything I've played in public in the last 15 years, from Kurt Cobain to Stravinsky to Motian: I know the details. It's part of how I make jazz. But I also admit that is not really the standard practice of many, if not most, of my jazz heroes.

It's also a different time. None of the pianists in my class -- or myself! -- will ever get a chance to hit with Joe Henderson and Woody Shaw for six hours a night for three solid weeks in front of no people. I think I can be a little stern with my students about knowing the "correct" Monk before making his work their own.

However, if anyone reading my Monk missives thinks, "Jeez, Ethan Iverson is a Nazi": I hear you. My approach needn't be for everyone.

Indeed, George Cables and every other significant pianist of his generation plays Monk with textual freedom.

I'll keep it mind."

---

The ironies keep unfolding for me:

Part of all my Monk stuff here is how is music is "incorrect" by "jazz harmony" standards, and how many jazz players ignore this. The bridge (actually the whole tune) of "Well You Needn't" doesn't (in my opinion) have a seventh, but many professionals think of it as having one.

"Do you need a seventh in every chord to win a Monk competition?" may be the relevant Zen koan...

[KJT]

If competitions are the next step, then I think the development of this music is effectively finished. I'm very curious to read arguments in support of them.

[Sean Gough]

It's hard to believe that except for the few with the money, good has ever come from explicitly reducing art to competition in this way. Why not use the allocated resources to broaden access, instead of legitimizing exclusivity? To engage in these elitist sports is a sad thing for music, from the implicit aesthetic conformity you point out, to the inevitable public perception that jazz is further going the way of classical music and closing the ranks for a few. Suggestions for those holding the competition pursestrings: 1) Open a Thelonious Monk-themed jazz club allied to a surefire business, like Jazz Standard/Blue Smoke. The impact of this will go far deeper than naming "winners." 2) Take out prominent TV, radio, or internet spots for jazz, whether advertising, supporting struggling stations, or convincing a few more national non-music publications to run articles. American capitalism has repeatedly proven that the populace will buy whatever it's told is "relevant." 3) Create substantive YouTube videos with high production value, with musicians humbly showing how improvisation happens (a lot of people think jazz is just noise), or even better, with musicians just talking honestly about life. Seeing Tootie Heath at the Vanguard on Tuesday, it's obvious that anyone would love to hang out with these musicians. They just don't know them, and they'll continue not to know them as long as the norms are classical competitions, constipated competence, and musical "geekery."

[Charles Martiin]

The overarching question is "How do we enlarge the jazz audience?" Classical music has had this problem for many years. The least effective solution, in my opinion, is to have a teacher play recordings and tell kids how great these artists are: what we call "music appreciation." I don't remember meeting anyone at a symphony concert who was there because a teacher played a scratchy LP of the Moonlight Sonata 30 years ago. Many people in the classical audience, however, had a few years of piano, or tooted a trumpet in the school orchestra. In short, an educational culture that supports instrumental music has the side effect of producing audiences: kids who grow up learning the challenges and rewards of playing music grow into adults who appreciate when others do it more brilliantly than they can. I'm not saying that non-players aren't enthusiastic about music, but many of them get that way because they were dragged to concerts by piccolo-playing boyfriends or girlfriends.
The same holds true for jazz: the proportion of people at a jazz club who spent a few years fumbling through the Real Book is higher than the general population.
The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is to get more instrumental music - not "music appreciation" - into the schools. The audiences will follow.
Competitions seem pretty limited to me. A pianist wins the contest, press releases come out, and a few articles make the mainstream press, prompting a few album purchases. They certainly help the winner's career, but I fail to see how they can enlarge the audience as a whole.

[Dan Schmidt]

I already said this briefly on Twitter, but to expand: after reading your thoughts on textual fidelity to classics, it was interesting to discover that two of the touches I enjoyed most in your rendition of "No Moe" from the streaming Village Vanguard set weren't in the original Rollins/MJQ recording: an added dominant seventh (of all things!) on the anticipated Bb9 chord going into measure 5, and having all players perform the anticipation. In the original, it's a bare C over a Bb bass that doesn't arrive until the following downbeat.

I happen to think both of these changes are improvements! But they do reverse interesting decisions that Rollins and the MJQ probably made consciously.

[paul]

I love the taco night story, james. That kind of shit is what's important.

I am also a boxer, and think there are a lot of very close parallels between the way boxers converse when sparring or fighting, and the way we converse playing jazz on a gig. Both require dealing with this moment, both require a kind of pushing and pulling of will. There are winners and losers in the ring, there are good and bad jazz gigs. Why do I find the concept of a jazz competition so disconcerting?

The nature of a competition seems such that the musician, and their music, needs to be quantified in some way. So they can be judged, and ranked. I think all great jazz music resists this kind of quantification, in the sense that despite having spent the better part of my life studying music, I still cannot explain exactly why elvin jones' drumming makes me feel the way it does. It would be unthinkable to try and rank Elvin's beat against Roy Haynes, or any number of other great drummers. And if I feel this way about my current favorite players, why shouldn't I about my (hopefully) future favorite musicians?

[Dory Bavarsky]

In 2010 I played in four international jazz competitions held in Romania, England, France, and Belgium. Two were for piano soloists, and two were open to ensembles and I played with my trio.

At each event, I had the pleasure of meeting and hearing many excellent musicians. I didn't always agree with the judges' decisions, but that did not detract from the experience. I got to travel (sometimes with a little support from the competition organizations), play in some wonderful venues in front of enthusiastic audiences (not only judges), hear a bunch of music, and connect with other people in the jazz/improvised music community. Even though I "lost" at four competitions, I remember each one as a joyous time.

Competition do have a dark side. There are inherent problems with judging and ranking artists. I feel that the problem of "correct" playing is not the major issue. I heard a great deal of variety in the approach to both required pieces and original pieces (though having required pieces may be a questionable component of these events). I do feel that Monk may have been selected as a semifinalist in many jazz competitions. He may not have won any, but he may have caught enough ears during his turn.

Competitions are worthwhile for the simple fact that they are music-promoting activities. They encourage the participants to present the best of their abilities, and offer their audience members an opportunity to hear some new musicians.

Shortly after the competition in England, a fellow competitor wrote a satisfying blog entry about the experience. He suggests that competitions can naturally develop into "a community, a gathering, a festival, a conference and a celebration." I think he is right, and the fundamental goal of each competition I've played in had much more to do with presenting the music and approach of each of the participants rather than just crowning the victor.

I recommend checking out my fellow competitor's blog entry at: www.chrisdonnellymusic.com/Blog/Blog.php/what-are-music-competitions-all-about

[lj]

Off-topic, you don't need to approve/post, I just wanted to follow up on something from the last Forumesque: my comment about you and JALC being sworn enemies was tongue-in-cheek (you seemed a bit worried). I've loved reading DTM for years now, in large part because of the additional context it gives to The Bad Plus' music. The quick gloss of TBP that shows up in the media tends to be of the "wacky new guys vs the establishment" variety that paints you and JALC, et al, as enemies, but reading even a little bit of DTM it's quite clear that the truth is much more nuanced and interesting.

Thanks again for all the info and music you've pointed me towards, in addition to your own music.

-lj (@nhojelttil)

PS: Love Mr Heath's bowtie.

[Jody Walker]

I enjoyed the last post (and I agreed with most of the sentiment), but I interpreted your observation that you didn't know any of the semi-finalists as some kind of slam towards them and/or the competition. As I understand it, the point of the competition is to give relatively unknown players more exposure. Thank you, however, for putting into words something that's always bothered me about the competition - the idea that Monk could be some kind of bland corporate brand for jazz. Whoever pitched that idea clearly didn't know that much about Monk.

Also, the idea of Ben Riley, Brian Blade, and Roy Haynes almost puts you to sleep? Was that comment made out of grouchiness? Even at his present level of playing (a few years shy of being 90 years old), I can't imagine anyone being lulled to sleep by the gentle, soothing sounds of Roy Haynes.

Thanks for maintaining such a great blog, and thanks for being brave enough to put your opinions out there. I always appreciate the thought you put into these pieces.

[Ethan Iverson]

@Jody: I'm not slamming the dozen! I look forward to hearing them! I wrote, "It is exciting to think about a dozen cats who might be really, really great. We need charismatic and idionsycratic drummers for the music to move forward. All the most innovative and most popular jazz is deeply connected to the drums. "

(Actually I have heard Justin Brown a bit, he's excellent.)

I respect the drumming of all the judges. Of course I do, who wouldn't! I'm devoted to Haynes, hired Riley, have a possessive love towards Erskine, stood in my seat and cheered Blade, told Allen his quarter notes on the snare for a chorus with Ron Carter made my week, just dug a video with Terri Lyne. But that committee doesn't seem likely to pick the wild-card over the straight solid. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope so.

[Mike McGinnis]

Hi Ethan,

I think one underlying aspect is that these competitions and the panels are representing only one slice of the "jazz" scene. It's also, not surprisingly, the same slice promoted by the polls. For example, I would be pleasingly surprised to see any of the AACM people on any of those panels. Or anyone who is, by today's standards, considered as "out" as Monk was in his day. Why not put Milford Graves on the panel? I dare say that the jazz industry, jazz education, jazz clubs are for the most part only interested in promoting a way of playing that is seen as "legitimate"...ie making the changes. There's that amorphous definition of what it means to be able to "play" and that seems to define everything.

[Jesse Frederik]

I think you're right. Competitions are boring. The whole ranking thing repels me.

What really excites me are drummers who sound unlike anyone else. I just don't think competitions are suited for picking guys who are really trying something new. Revolutionary science isn't approved of by the majority of living scientists (from Galileo down to Max Planck). It's the same with music. There's a great Max Planck quote: 'Science progresses one funeral at a time.' After coming up with quantum physics, Planck had to convince his colleagues he was right and just wasn't very successful. Only the younger generation seemed to 'get' it.

Would a drummer like Mark Guiliana (for reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly8KniNgkXo and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOg8U3OZg9s) get nominated for a Monk award? I guess not. It's the Guiliana's tough who are getting new audiences interested in wild improvisational music (call it 'jazz' if you will).

[Paul Wells]

I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that TBP just finished a tour with 1991 Monk competition winner Josh Redman. I was there that year; depending on your definition of correctness, if correctness wins then Eric Alexander, Chris Potter or Tim Warfield should have won, but Josh managed anyway.

In a lot of cases, including the 2010 Chopin competition (I was there too!), the choice of first-place winner is open to debate but there's a lot of interesting players in the top five or so. I've served in juries before (for writing, not music) and even if everybody is in good faith the group dynamics are Kafkaesque, just because people think in different ways one from another.

[Ethan Iverson]

@Paul Wells: After I posted, my wife joked that I should get my photo taken between Josh and Aaron Diehl with the caption: "Ethan Iverson is friends with competition winners even though he has never won any."

[Dave S]

While I agree with the general concept that any player needs to make a piece their own when they play it, and that especially in the jazz tradition the original composition matters less than what the interpreter does with it, I think Monk may be the exception. When you substitute a "correct" chord on a tune like "Well You Needn't", doesn't it kind of cease to be a Monk tune? There are plenty of great tunes with standard changes. If you want to have the cred that comes from playing Monk, I think you need to play Monk's changes.

[smith dobson]

Ya man. It's true about Monk and competitions. I've always maintained the firm beleif that competitions and art don't mix. As for the judges... well, they're all great players, but does that mean they're great judges of someone else's talent? Who knows? Also, I think it should be mentioned that Monk suffered for over a decade before finally achieving some success. Even back then, with the burgeoning club scene and plenty of opportunities for all players, he still suffered for the purity of his art, and his records never sold well.

[Larry Kart]

Backing up Smith Dobson's point about great players not necessarily being great judges of someone else's talent, in part that's because one tends to be deeply involved in one's own ways of solving artistic challenges/problems and thus often are not that interested in/curious about/inclined to grant value to pathways that diverge significantly from one's own. To pick one example from a hatful, I can recall any number of gifted but more or less "trained" jazz clarinetists turning up their noses at Pee Wee Russell. Likewise, as Ethan knows, there's Martial Solal's take on Monk.

[Jacques Ponzio]

Hi Ethan, as a Monk devotee for 40+ years, I fully agree with your sentence "...wouldn't be semifinalist in his own competition..." and in général, with all the opinions you write, neat and clear in your article. Thank you much for this and your music.
Best
Jacques (from Marseille, France)