Warm-up Routine and Exercises

 This is something that I've been working on for a long time (about a year) and have finally solidified into solid state.  I have gotten a lot of compliments on this warm-up routine and the exercises included, and from what people tell me, it's been showing in my sound and my playing.  So, feel free to check it out and contact me with any questions you have!

Free Jazz vs. Traditional Jazz

                A topic was recently brought to my attention about the disparities between free jazz (or collectively, freely improvised music in general) and the general listening public.  Mainly, why do I specifically enjoy listening to free jazz and free music?  This topic can be explained and analyzed from a multitude of different viewpoints and mediums, however rather than discuss purely why I like this genre of music, I deduced that it would be more beneficial to discuss the differences and similarities between free jazz and what can be considered traditional jazz or non-free jazz.

                I realize that traditional jazz can be applied to a specific time period in jazz history as well as a specific region, that being the 1920’s and artists like Louis Armstrong, Buddy Bolden, Jelly Roll Morton, and music coming out of New Orleans (and later Chicago and other northern cities).  However, for this essay traditional jazz will refer to anything in the jazz realm outside of free jazz. 

                One of the things that draws many people to free jazz (including myself) is the idea of almost foregoing any presence of harmonic, rhythmic, or melodic parameters.  This is a very refreshing and interesting topic for one who has listened exclusively to traditional jazz or tonal music in which these parameters are very much present and essential to the music.  However, these parameters are not limited to just traditional jazz as a listener with less experience with free jazz may observe.  In many cases they are much more important in free jazz than in traditional jazz.  Observe from this point of view; since one or all of these parameters (harmony, rhythm, melody) may not be present or may not be predetermined in free jazz, it is up to the group or soloist to create them.  These are what separate music from a car horn (not saying a car horn cannot be musical but often times these three parameters are not present in “found” musical items).  If Ornette Coleman didn’t play in a way that created, or gave the impression of creating these musical restrictions, his music would sound like noise.  The way that Ornette plays lends his music a sense of coherency that is present in all music outside of free jazz.  He creates his own form and harmony within his improvisations and addresses the melodicism of the greatest classical composers from a purely improvisational standpoint. 

                This is my advice to listeners and musicians who criticize free music because it sounds like noise.  If any amount of time is spent listening to free music, it would become increasingly apparent that these musical essentials are present in all free music.  Instead, I urge these listeners and musicians to listen without another peer’s impressions and judgments in mind, a listen with an open mind and a blank palette.    


There will definitely be more to come on this topic at a later date.  Let me know if you have any interesting thoughts about this topic!

Amy Winehouse

I’m writing this post following the death of Amy Winehouse.  I have something to say about this woman, and about music in general.  Every single musical genre is plagued with drug/substance abuse, there’s no way around it.  My problem with this is not one of famous musicians doing drugs and influencing younger fans to follow in their footsteps.  You cannot blame that on musicians, but rather on poor parenting and/or bad decision making.  I stand firmly behind the opinion that even a twelve-year-old has the decision making capability to choose according to what is right or wrong, not what is cool.

What really bothers me is something more from the aspect of a musician.  There are so many great, unknown musicians in the world that receive little to no recognition for their talent or hard work, yet are eclipsed by great musicians who choose substance abuse over life and making great music.  It is such a letdown to hear of musicians dying of drug overdoses and alcohol poisoning when there are so many great musicians that are staying clean that receive none of the monetary compensation or fame that they do. 

It seems like such an abuse of a great amount of talent and fame to simply squander it by dabbling in drugs.  It’s interesting to think of where music would be today if some of our musical heroes that passed on too early; Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobain, John Coltrane.  They not only took something away from themselves, they took something away from the rest of the world, their fans, and away from music in a general sense.  

The "New Bird" Paradox

I recently read something on Wikipedia about the alto saxophonist Phil Woods, who I recently went through a short listening phase with, stating that Woods was known as the “New Bird.”  This phrase struck me as interesting so after doing something thinking about the topic, I’ve been able to formulate some ideas regarding Phil Woods and the “New Bird” paradox.

Charlie Parker, or “Bird,” is among the top innovators in jazz music along with John Coltrane and Louis Armstrong to name a few.  He was at the head of the new jazz style of Bebop in the 1940’s with his friend and co-conspirator Dizzy Gillespie.  Bird was heavily influenced by the tenor saxophonist Lester Young who made his mark playing with Count Basie in the Kansas City blues-based style, and it was rumored that Bird would play Young’s solo on “Lady Be Good” before every gig he had.  Young can also be considered an innovator for his combination of jazz language, that was a direct precursor to bebop, and highly melodic improvisation.  Phil Woods made his mark on the bebop scene throughout the 50’s and has been playing and recording ever since.  Much of his language is derived directly from Bird, but he is in no way a copy and has his own unique sound and approach to improvisation.  The one thing that Phil Woods hasn’t done is contribute to the evolution and expansion of the jazz genre; he hasn’t innovated in the same fashion as Bird.

This brings us to the point of this short essay.  I would consider Bird one of the leading innovators in the entire history of recorded music.  Therefore, to be considered a “New Bird,” Phil Woods would have to have the same impact on jazz music that Bird did.  Woods has by no means found his niche sound like Bird did and hasn’t contributed to the evolution of jazz music and the progression of the genre as a whole.  What Woods did instead was continue a tradition that he made his mark on at the tail of its existence (that being the bebop tradition).  Coltrane began with his work in the Miles Davis Quintet in the late 50’s but continued to build upon what he knew and expanded what was considered part of the jazz genre.  Phil Woods merely took what was laid down before him and continued the sound of Bird and Gillespie.  Much of the same points can be made about Sonny Stitt who was one of Bird’s main disciples.

I believe that Joe Lovano can be considered a “New Bird” in many ways and it is evident in his playing that he has a superior knowledge of the jazz language that Bird and Gillespie laid down.  However, he alters it in many ways and his presentation and homage to Bird isn’t proven through bebop clichés and so-called “licks.”  In many ways Lovano has transcended the traditional application of bebop language and found ways to apply it in new and interesting ways, while adding on to the tradition in positive ways.  I believe what makes him an innovator is that he knows everything there is to know about the roots of jazz, but is able to find his own sound and unique approach while still being rooted in jazz.  Saxophonists who have no knowledge of bebop or of the past who attempt to go in their own direction before obtaining a solid understanding of their predecessors have no hope of progressing this music to the next level.  If you ask any modern players who they derive their inspiration from, 90% would most likely choose musicians from the 50’s and 60’s.  Chris Potter has repeatedly stated that he usually defaults to Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie when listening to music, and Chris Speed is heavily influenced by the Tristano School (which in turn was influenced by Parker).    

It would be quite an honor to be seen as the next up-and-coming Charlie Parker in many ways, but it would also be incredibly crippling in terms of putting a small label on a person with so much potential to push the boundaries of jazz music.  By labeling Phil Woods as the “New Bird,” it condemns him to play the music and style that Bird played.  It raises an expectation that Woods will simply continue where bird left off and continue to play music in the style of Charlie Parker.  I would see this as being incredibly detrimental to the personal growth of a musician with regard to the absence of individuality and personal progression.  However, it seems like Woods has embraced this label because he continues to play in the style of Bird and maintains a large fan base both nationally and internationally.

I guess the main point that I’m trying to make would be to learn from the masters, in whatever field you’re interested in, but also maintain the search for your own sound or niche.  Sound is such a subjective topic when speaking of jazz and of music in general and what sounds good, but that’s why there is so much good music out in the world.  Musicians have repeatedly had the audacity to stretch the boundaries of their genres in the attempt to create something interesting and new.  This becomes more and more difficult as time progresses and more music is created.  It almost seems like there are no new ideas to come up with.  We all have to obtain influence somewhere and it all leads back to the roots and those that came before you.  

Music and Authenticity

This is a recent post that I made for a History of Rock 'n Roll class that I'm currently taking about authenticity and commercialism in rock music.  I think I probably angered the teacher with this because she's very judgmental about music.  Forgive the typos I didn't proof read it.

   The first thing that I would like to point out is that use of labels.  A lot of artists are sometimes labeled improperly and often times labeling can put an artist in a sort of box by throwing them in with other artists that may sound similar or existed around the same time.  The only use for labels is so that historians and in some cases the general public can organize time periods of music in an easy-to-understand format.  Most artists prefer to not be labeled because in some cases it can set boundaries for where they are expected to go and can limit the direction of their music.

On the subject of rock being authentic and pop music being unauthentic, I think that this is a completely false assumption and honestly I think it's a little insulting.  Who are we to determine what is "authentic" or not?  First what needs to be considered is that pop music (referring to of course popular music) is exactly what the title says.  It's not actually a genre of music.  When jazz music was rising with big bands in the 30's it was considered popular music because the majority of the population was listening to it (and dancing to it).  When The Beatles were releasing albums in the 1960's they were considered a rock band but because that was what people were listening to during the 60's, it was considered popular music.  People look back on the Beatles, the Kinks, and the Rolling Stones as rock bands today, not pop bands.

With that out of the way, if somebody wants to argue that any of these bands aren't "authentic" because they were once considered pop bands, I will fight you to the very end.  The older generation of the parents that were raising their children through the British Invasion probably thought that the music their children were listening to was complete hogwash, because that's always what the older generation thinks.  I will probably think that music being released as pop music in the year 2040 was never as good as the music that I grew up listening to.

For those of you that want to try to argue that today's pop music isn't "authentic," I urge you to think about what I just wrote.  Lady Gaga is probably one of the most unique artists that is making music today, in both her extravagant lifestyle, and in the music she makes.  Her whole motivation behind making music is to test the boundaries of what society can handle.  I'm not saying that I enjoy her music, but rather I recognize that it is something new, but not all that different from the aesthetic that the Beatles exploited in the 60's.  They are both rock stars in their own rights, the only thing that differs is the sound of their music.  They were both heavily produced, heavily promoted, and had a huge following of loyal fans.  Authenticity is not the issue.  

I suppose I should actually address the topic of this discussion now that I've gotten all of that out the way.  I don't think that authenticity or the idea of being commercial is the issue at all.  Looking again at Lady Gaga, she has now released two studio albums, both of them to huge public acclaim (maybe not to critical acclaim, but one can't deny her popularity).  As it happens in most situations, an artist is given a relatively small budget and very little artistic breathing room for their first album, which if it does well, is increased.  So in a way, one could see commercialism as increasing artistry and "authenticity."  With more money and more artistic freedom, artists have the power to explore different musical possibilities and take their music in a different direction.  

After much research that I've done over the past few years and several interviews with top ranking officials, I think the real problem is the recording industry, rather than the artist.  My experience has been that the RIAA is screwing musicians out of fair royalty percentages and rights to  their music.  Most artists are so obsessed with the very idea of being able to record and get their music out to the general public, that they neglect to really think about the small print of their contracts.  This is such a broad topic that I don't feel I could do any adequate explaining in this discussion board post.  

I think when it comes down to it, all music is in some way aimed at a commercial audience with the intent of making money.  The Sex Pistols were a pivotal band in the punk scene in the 70's, but without commercialism, they wouldn't have been able to continue making music.  Yet, they still managed to balance the idea of commercialism and authenticity.  They managed to make some great music that people liked.  Frankie Avalon, even though he couldn't really sing and didn't write his own music, was widely successful as a teen idol.  He made a lot of money for Chancellor Records and made a lot of people happy with his music.  Lady Gaga is in no way similar in musicality and quality to Mstislav Rostropovich, but her music still makes people.  In the end isn't that all that matters?  People are happy listening to all of these musicians and widely separated styles of music, so shouldn't that be what authenticity means?  

As stated, authenticity and commercialism is not the differentiation between rock music and pop music, and in that case, any other genre of music.  We are not the ones to judge whether music is authentic or not.  There is not paradox within these genres of music, there is only this: money makes the world go 'round.   

Bill Frisell and the rest of the summer listening

Third post of the summer listening project!  I haven't really been listening to much jazz though, which makes it really refreshing to listen to when I get back to it.  I've kind of just been going down the list and checking things off as I go!  Here's just a portion of what I've been checking out:

Ghostface Killah - Ironman

Stefon Harris - Evolution

Atmosphere - God Loves Ugly

Joy Division - Closer

Captain Beefheart and his Magic Band - Trout Mask Replica

LCD Soundsystem - LCD Soundsystem

Cypress Hill - Pigs

Lee Konitz & Hal Galper - Windows

Dr. Dre - The Chronic

Gerry Mulligan & Lee Konitz - Revelation

Battle - Gloss Drop

Talib Kweli - Quality

Lee Konitz & Red Mitchell - I Concentrate On You

The Cranberries - No Need to Argue

Killer Mike - Pl3dge

Jerry Bergonzi - Convergence

Lush - Split

Marvin Gaye - What's Goin' On 

2Pac - All Eyez On Me

Donny Hathaway - Donny Hathaway

Peter Kowald & Vinny Golia - Mythology

Lee Konitz - Alone Together

Tyondai Braxton - Central Market

Bill Frisell - Have A Little Faith

As you can see I went through a pretty hard Lee Konitz phase, but what I didn't include was all of the Krautrock music that I was listening to (Kraftwerk, Can, Neu!, Amon Duul II, and Tangerine Dream) which I realized after listening to a lot of it, it sounds the same.  

I also just finished listening to Have A Little Faith by Bill Frisell today and it really blew my mind.  He fuses so many different styles of music together in a very easy to listen to format.  Anyways, that's what I've been up to.

Martial Solal - "Four Keys"

I just needed to share my most recent finding.  I was browsing around ebay.com the other day looking at what was available with Lee Konitz on vinyl when I stumbled across the album "Four Keys" which was recorded under the leadership of the French pianist Martial Solal.  I saw that it also featured the likes Lee Konitz, John Scofield, and Niels-Henning Orsted Pedersen.  Now, of course, how could not check it out after seeing that some of my favorite players were on it.  Unfortunately it has never been released in CD or electronic format so I had to do some finagling to find a vinyl rip of it.

After listening through it twice, I'm definitely hooked.  I had never really checked out NHOP before but am blown away by his playing.  This album is interesting because there isn't a drummer and it consists of a possible three chordal instruments (including bass) with saxophone.  But...it's...so...AWESOME!  I dig this instrumentation so much, and it's really nice to hear Scofield without some kind of distortion or effects.  The album starts out with some very straightforward playing over standard changes and gradually bends to more free improvisation that is very much in the style of Lennie Tristano's "Intuition."

So, if you haven't heard this album, I highly recommend checking it out (but it doesn't really matter what I say because nobody reads this blog anyways).