The Game Continues: did Wynton Marsalis kill jazz?

Wynton Marsalis. Since you’re reading a blog about jazz, I imagine his name will mean something to you. To some, his name rolls off the tongue, dripping like honey with admiration as one of the leading jazz musicians of our day. To others, his name is to be spat out with angry bitterness for how he has tainted their beloved music with his very existence. Whichever of these groups you belong to, you cannot deny that Marsalis has been a driving influence in jazz today, be it for better or worse.

So why is it that Wynton Marsalis now finds himself on the list of suspects in the alleged murder of jazz? He first made a target of himself when he wrote this article in 1988. Marsalis’ greatest sin as an artist is not recognizing the legitimacy of other art and his obsession with a label. It seems what has earned him such disdain is his rigid definition of what jazz is. His faithful clinging to the ways and traditions of the swing era has kept alive the forms of jazz long thought dead, all while claiming his to be the one true jazz.

Now before we take up arms to slay the false prophet in some sort of jazz crusade, let’s do a little evaluating here. There is little question that what Wynton Marsalis plays IS jazz. He has also been extremely successful with it, earning 9 Grammy Awards and one Pulitzer Prize since 1983. This is the point that I think people are angered by the most. Marsalis has essentially ignored every jazz innovation since 1960 (before he was even born) and many still regard him as the single most influential jazz musician living today.

I believe we can put the case of this “jazz heretic” away. Put away your pitchforks and douse your torches, because Wynton Marsalis has been wrongly charged of killing jazz. Go ahead, I’ll wait for you to get back. There, have a seat and calm yourself. I think we get so worked up over this particular trumpet player because he seems to defy the rule. He refuses to let go of the old ways, the beginnings of our art form, and yet he still remains hugely successful in what we know to be a progressive world driven by innovation. If anything, I feel he has done the world of jazz a great service by keeping our roots alive in his music. Yes, perhaps his rigid stance on labels in music is less than infallible but, love him or hate him, history WILL remember him as a great influence in the world of jazz. Yes, music, like all things, will move forward. Sometimes though, we all must be reminded of where we’ve been.

(originally posted on Jazz Heresy)

"Hipsters, flipsters, and finger-poppin' daddies, knock me your lobes."

There exists a devision among our people. Classical musicians look down upon the jazz musicians for their hipster ways and blatant abuse of music theory (which for some has become music law). Jazz musicians look down on the classical musicians as being "classical snobs" who haven't evolved their craft since circa 1800. Pop musicians look down on them both for holding onto traditions older than a few years while they go to spend their millions on Auto-Tune and "Rehab." These are the ideas we seem to hold strongly onto at least.

I once was approached by a professor, who after finding out I was a classical musician, decided to inquire what kinds of music I like. I find this to be the most commonly asked question of me as a musician. I quickly responded with a well ingrained answer that spoke something of the love of composers like Mahler and Wagner, and the loathing pretty much everything else (Britney Spears and 50 Cent come to mind).

She shook her head and walked away. Perplexed, I followed and asked what was wrong with what I had said. "As a musician you really should be more supportive of others of your craft. Not caring for another's music is one thing, but hating it outright and having no appreciation whatsoever for the music or the artist is quite another." I was blown away by this comment. Never before had I ever thought of people like Jessica Simpson and Eminem as colleagues. Performers of pop music had no real talent and where just there to brainwash the masses and leech the money away from "real musicians."

I was rather humbled by this encounter. I found myself actually having an appreciation for music written post 19th century. I'm not claming to actually LIKE everything I hear today. I mean, I still don't see the draw of rap songs like "Fuck Dat Bitch", but I can concede that they have their place. Along the way I've actually found that some of today's music is actually quite good. This is an experience that I never would have enjoyed if I hadn't been able to admit to myself that yes, I was a "classical music snob". Music is not born with a label. The genre is just something we've applied later, but it all falls under the umbrella term of music. It should all, therefore, be given an equall chance. Who knows? You might actually find yourself to be pleasently surprised at what you find.

Who killed Jazz? The Game is Afoot.

Miles Davis killed jazz.

I'll let that simmer for a minute and wait for the hot glares to cool before I continue. Ready to go on? Alright, let me clarify. One person can't really be blamed entirely for the declining in popularity of an entire art form. To be fair, there are a lot of contributing factors over the last few decades. The shift in culture due to the popularity of television, the birth of rock and roll, the sexual revolution, etc... But no stronger argument has been made for the declining popularity of jazz music than the shift away from dance music in the 1940s and 50s which is primarily attributed to Miles Davis and his development of Bop.

Before Miles Davis the primary medium of performance for jazz was as a dance band. Music was relatively simple and had clear meter to make it easy for Johnny and Sally to get there Lindy Hop on between malted milkshakes. Miles Davis brought to the table a new era of complexity and virtuosity to the art form. Modal harmonies, asymmetric meter, bebop, hard bop, all these things come from Miles Davis. Before Davis you had Happy Days are Here Again, and with him you had Bitches Brew. Miles Davis took jazz into a much deeper and darker corner than it had ever been before, and it's there that it seems to have found a home, cramped though it may be. With the shifting away from dance music in the 40s and 50s, Johnny and Sally had to find something to groove to, so the sexual revolution drove them to Rock and Roll and artists that could only be filmed from the waist up because of how "extreme" they were. Jazz had passed the title of Devil's Music onto rock and roll, a crown it would never regain, despite titles like Bitches Brew. Miles Davis had formed jazz into music for musicians. Jazz would soon be studied in conservatories all across the country and eventually the globe. Professors of music would start to apply music theory to jazz and teach technique. Jazz became institutionalized and commonplace. Despite many valiant attempts at rebirth and innovation of the art form, Johnny and Sally already had found music to which they could simulate sex on the dance floor and rebel against their parents. Lucy and Ricky may have slept in separate beds at the time, but dammit, Johnny and Sally needed to express their darkest desires at the school sock hop. Thus jazz went the way of all things...and died.

Or did it? Yes, jazz DID lose its appeal with the masses as a form of dance music, but it also gained a new audience of serious musicians. The audience may be smaller, but the loyalty is much stronger than that of Johnny and Sally, who will always turn to the newer and "edgier" music of the day simply because it is popular. Jazz is now played and loved by people AROUND THE WORLD. Everyday jazz reaches new emotional depths and pulls at the soul. Just simply because the common man doesn't appreciate it, doesn't mean its time has passed or that the art form is no longer valid. Most people are stupid, after all.

(This blog was originally posted on Jazz Heresy @ http://jazzheresy.blogspot.com/)

What is the Awakening?

As an undergraduate research fellowship with Morehead State University this year, I annalyzed and arranged "The Awakening" by Joeseph Martin for trombone choir. The Awakening is originally an SATB choral piece with piano accompaniment. Below is the programmatic annalysis of the work.

The beginning of the piece describes a very dreary and lifeless landscape. While writing this section I envisioned a very cold and gloomy ghost town, silent, entirely void of life and it’s raining. Somewhere in the distance, however, we hear a music box playing, whose melody melds fluently with the rhythm of the rain. The music box represents childhood and innocence. With its simple melody it quietly echoes a time when things were better, when life could happily coexist with music. It’s a lone memory of hope in a vast desolate landscape.

Every child is born with some creativity. They color, they play house, they fearlessly sing without worry of the judgment of others. And then, somewhere along the line, they’re told that they need to grow up. Big kids don’t play. Adults must be serious. It is this thought that destroys our inner child and ultimately squelches our creativity as a society. This is the dream that Joseph Martin describes so vividly. A world completely void of music and creativity would certainly be a most meaningless existence. So therefore in this piece the composer poses the question to us as musicians, “why do you do what you do? What is the purpose of your music? Is this world any better for having you in it?”

The next section of the poem becomes much more insistent as the dreamer comes to realize the gravity of the situation that they have found themselves in. They cry out for the melodies that are absent from this world. “No halleluiah, not one hosanna, no song of love, no lullaby.” It is here that the composer is reflecting on the original purpose of music which seems to have been forgotten over the years. “The original purpose of music was worship, divine intelligence, and basic communication. Music intoxicated the soul. It was, according to legend, the song of angels that induced the unwilling soul to enter the body of Adam. In every way music is our bond between the material and eternal.”

“Our most natural tendency is to make music. It requires no more thought than breathing. ‘The infant begins his life on earth by moving its arms and legs, thus showing the rhythm of its nature, and illustrating the philosophy which teaches that rhythm is the sign of life.” Even as musicians we sometimes forget why we do what we do. Making music becomes just another job. Like a factory worker we crank out notes and melodies for the consumer, forgetting creativity in the process.

            And then the dawn begins to break. In the next section the composer begins to call us to awake. Each voice comes in at seemingly sporadic intervals proclaiming “Awake, awake!” until eventually all the voices meld into one great swirling entity and the top voices come soaring in with the answer. “Why do you do what you do? Why are you here?” The melody proclaims in response “Soli Deo Gloria.” Soli Deo Gloria, or “Glory to God Alone” is one of the founding principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was based. Our purpose is then to glorify creation. Instead of shunning our creative nature early on in order to “grow up and become a serious musician, or painter, or businessman, or factory worker, or what have you” we should instead embrace the gift that was given to us in all its many beautiful forms. George Carlin once said that every child should be given time each day to daydream and I agree. When we’re allowed to dream then our imagination truly is the limit, not just until we get old enough to experience the “real world.” The world is full of glorious opportunities until you allow someone to tell you that “you can’t.” 

There is no truth, there is only perception

Gustave Flaubert said it best when he said that "there is no truth, there is only perception." I recently had a discussion with a gentleman that promptly lead to a heated political debate. This man is a very far right wing conservative and I find myself to be a centrist, with liberal tendencies on some issues, and conservative on others. The way I classify myself as a centrist astounded this man as it is his belief that people are "black and white" in respects to being liberal or conservative, with little to no gray area between. Well after having my political standings described as misinformed drivel I promptly struck back.

WE ARE ALL GRAY AREA! This world is made up of people of all walks of life. Different races, colors, creeds, orientations. It is impossible to generalize the thoughts and beliefs of billions of people into two generalized categories. The spectrum of people on this world is vast, exceeding 6.5 billion now, and I find it rather ignorant to believe that you don't have in that 6.5 billion very different individuals.

This particular gentleman found it more disturbing that I could have anything in the way of liberal tendencies. In his mind, liberals are everything that is wrong with this country and will eventually be the downfall of our government, a sentiment which I grew up with. When questioned about specific liberal beliefs we settled on the topic of gay marriage. I happen to be for it. Though I am not myself a homosexual, my best friend happens to be. I've never seen him as any less of a person than I am, and therefore I believe he should have all the same rights that I enjoy. This idea was of course appalling, to say the least, to the gentleman. Though he claims to be accepting of all people, he gives away his own hypocrisy when he would deny them the same freedoms that he partakes of. The argument became very heated at this point with me feeling as though I was fighting for the honor of my friend and this man struggling to prove me wrong. He then said, "well if you're going to redefine marriage as being between same sex couples as well as 'normal couples' then were do you draw the line?" It was at this point that I replied "if you say what about between a man and a goat I will leave." He quickly replied with the scenario of a man and a sheep and I promptly stormed out, realizing that this was a one sided debate with a completely closed minded and ignorant individual.

I got in my car and left, furious at the ignorance and intolerance some people still possess, even in such a progressive age we live in. As I thought to myself of the argument I thought that this man is the personification of everything that is wrong with this world. Blind intolerance of people can be found at the heart of every war, every dispute. Our need to be right, true, and just tends to out way our ability to reason. What many people fail to realize is that most people are good, true, and just in their own right. The couple who adopts a child believes that they are doing the right thing in giving an unwanted person a good life just as the biological parents do when they are trying to be part of the child's life years later when they realize the mistake they might have made. The man fighting overseas in defense of those who cannot defend themselves believes he is just as just as the man who fights against him in the name of God who's will he believes is to crush the infidel. The man arguing for gay rights out of love for his comrade believes he is just as right as the man who would argue that a homosexual union would be an abomination to God...

It was at this point that I realized my own hypocrisy. All the while that I was arguing for my own beliefs I failed to realize that I was also saying that this man's beliefs weren't valid, just because I disagreed with them. As much as I might strongly disagree with this man, he is still part of the broad spectrum of people that I was arguing the tolerance of, and has just as much a right to them as myself. I was very humbled. There is no truth in life, there is only perception of what is right and just. This is not to say, of course, that we should not still act according to our own moral compass. If a man decides to gas thousands of his own people I can concede that it is reasonable to end his reign of terror for example. However, what I do urge is that we all be willing to educate ourselves about our fellows. Blind intolerance is the path of ignorance, and many conflicts could be resolved if people would be more willing to learn and reason than to blindly hate. Every man is just in their own mind, as I am in mine. It is only our perception that differentiates.

Performance Majors and Marching Band: Friends or Foes?

Marching band is and has always been a common fall ensemble that most music majors have performed in since they were in high school. This is true. It can be very beneficial to those who would someday aspire to be a band director. This is also true. But what would you say if I told you that the marching ensemble is the most detrimental ensemble to those who would aspire to be a professional performer? This is a truth that many would rather not recognize.

Marching band is not a required ensemble for the music performance degree. When the government decided on the minimum courses to satisfy the education of a performance major, they realized that performing in the ensemble no longer benefitted their musical education. The scholarships, however, do require the participation in the ensemble. According to Collegeboard.com Inc. the majority of students in America are dependant on a scholarship to go to school.

Marching Band and Hearing Loss:

According to a study done for the Duke University Marching Band by Joseph Keefe in 2003-2004, performing in marching bands will eventually lead to permanent hearing damage. Some studies have shown the decibel reading to reach as high as 130 dB in the large university bands. This is louder than a construction site (110 dB) and that of a jet aircraft taking off at 60 meters (120 dB). It is a fact that these ensembles can and do reach these high decibel ratings and sustained over time will cause irreparable damage to one's hearing. This is bad for a music educator, but far more catastrophic to a performer who relies entirely on the accuracy of his/her hearing.

Marching Band and Playing Life:

The style of playing in a marching band is generally "ver loud, fast, and exciting." This, over time, has become what football crowds expect. What if I told you that consistently playing in this fashion will drastically reduce your playing life? As Fred Shuster states in his article "When Your Chops Are Shot" which appeared in the October 1995 issue of Downbeat Magazine, "in sports and dance, performers often 'play through' injuries, attempting to put mind over matter in order to get through an important date." The article mainly tells the story of Freddie Hubbard, a great jazz trumpet player whose career "dates back to the gloery days of bebop, the growth of Blue Note records and the emergence of fusion and jazz-rock." According to the article, Freddie, now at the age of 57 (as of 1995) can no longer play for long stretches of time. This is due to a split lip that he got from overplaying on gigs regularly over a period of time which later became infected. As of the writing of this article, Freddie had been off the road for 18 months because it was truly too painful to play anymore.

Marching Band and the Practice Room:

It is a simple fact that the amount of time required to be a member of a marching band takes away extremely valuable time that needs to be utilized for practicing. Most music performance majors are required to practice a minimum of three hours per day. This is the bare minimum to continually make progress on the their instruments. Something that many people outside of the music programs are not aware of is that many music classes (namely ensembles) are only worth one credit hour a piece, marching band included. These classes still meet 3-4 times a week for a full class period, despite the minimal credit. Many music majors go from 8 or 9:10 in the morning to 5:40 for marching/concert/symphony band. When marching band season is in session there are also Friday rehearsals to 6 or 7, a rehearsal Saturday morning at 9 or 9:30, and a football game or marching band competition exhibition show. The old theory goes that each hour in class equals two to three hours outside of class for study. The simply fact is that there are not enough hours in the week for a music performance major to be in marching band, regular classes, study properly, and get the amount of practice time in necessary to be successful.

My Proposition:

I would propose to the university to put in place something in the way of a "Studio Scholarship" available to music performance majors that are upperclassmen (sophomore and above in credit hours). This is similar to a scholarship that has been available at the University of Kentucky for some years. I would suggest that it requires more playing opportunities for the individual; such as two juries, a midterm jury with a solo, and a final jury with a solo and scales. There could also be a performance major recital that the scholarship would require each semester. This would ensure that the students are putting in the same if not more hours than if they were in marching band, but it would be in an activity that would further their musical education beyond that of what performing in marching band can do.

In Conclusion:

The purpose of this has not been to in any way belittle the fine tradition of marching bands in this country of Morehead State University. Marching ensembles have a respected place in our society and our culture. It is simply my point that a music performance major need not be required to perform in an ensemble that may be detrimental to their musical growth, simply because they cannot afford to go to school on their own. It is my great hope that Morehead State University and any other university with a similar scholarship system in place will take this information under consideration in the coming years. The future of music in our world depends on those who will take the time to listen.

Who am I?

Nick Breiner is a Bass Trombone Performance major at Morehead State University in Morehead, KY. He's very involved at MSU as the bass trombone in Morehead's Symphony Band, Jazz I ensemble, MSU Orchestra, and co-principal bass of the Trombone Choir, and Trombone Quartet. He has had the opportunity to play with individuals such as Bill Watrous, Tony Baker, Mark Fisher, Greg Wing, Gordon Towell, Jeanie Lee as well as many others. He has performed in the pit orchestra of productions such as Hello Dolly and Beauty and the Beast . His teachers include Jeanie Lee and Dale Warren.

Nick is also an active freelance vocalist. He has performed at numerous church services and weddings. He is a graduate of the Governor's School for the Arts, class of 2004 in vocal music where he performed numerous works, including Purcell's Dido and Aeneas. He has had the oportunity to perform with artists such as Angelique Clay, Olivia Duval, Barry Lawrence, A.T. Simpson, Hope Kohler, Sonya Baker, and many others. He has performed in cast of productions such as How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying (Mr. Womper), Into the Woods (The Baker), and Les Miserables (Jean Valjean). Feel free to contact Nick in regards to lessons and/or performing opportunities.