Branford Marsalis on the state of jazz education

Branford Marsalis will be performing at the Calgary jazz festival. Here are some excerpts from his interview in the Calgary Herald:

For the 48-year-old saxophonist, composer, teacher and leader of the Branford Marsalis Quartet, the importance of learning from those who have gone before--not only with regard to musical refinement but also the spirit of community that lies close to the heart of the jazz music-making experience --is largely lost on the average young, well-schooled jazz musician of today, for whom the rush instead to be considered a new and unique voice is paramount.

"They're not in it for the tradition," the famous musician says, pointing out that the current artistic climate in the United States, which he sees as being shaped by "40 years of cultural narcissism," is largely to blame.

By the time the 1970s rolled round, he says, "the idea of jazz being reflective of a community and jazz being a sound where a solo was an integral part of the music but not the main issue" had evolved (at least insofar as the average jazz student was concerned) into the notion of the solo as "the only part of jazz they were interested in."

"The idea of playing with other musicians and playing together--all of those things had been pushed aside for a more self-absorbed philosophy based on a mastery of patterns and scales that work on chord progressions, et cetera, et cetera."

"It really depends on how the teacher is teaching as to whether it's important, but what I often tell my students is if architecture or aviation or engineering was taught the way jazz was taught there would be planes and buildings falling out of the sky. They'd just be crumbling everywhere, because the jazz version of (teaching) architecture is, 'Sure the Greeks had something important, sure the Egyptians developed certain structural things but we don't need to study it because it's not current. We're going to start around 1970'--and I don't have to tell you the end conclusion to that."

"I was lousy when I started, which the records bear out," Marsalis says. "But when I had the privilege of meeting people like Art Blakey and he would say to me, 'You don't have enough sound' and Dizzie Gillespie would say 'You need to learn the blues,' I didn't just say, 'Oh, they're just jealous because they're old.'

"I didn't make up an excuse to dismiss the central theme of what they were saying--which is something that was popular among my generation, to ignore those guys.

"A lot of musicians were more interested in getting gigs than they were in becoming competent and really good at what they do."

I go back and forth on my thoughts About his views on education and contemporary jazz. I see a point in what he's saying (particularly on the over emphasis of the solo and the importance of ensemble playing), however, as Bill Harrison wrote, there are times when Branford bugs me.

Podcast: Gerard Schwarz

I recently listened to an interview with conductor Gerard Schwarz on a Naxos Podcast. The main thrust of the interview is Arthur Foote (additional information, scores at IMSLP) and why his music isn't played as much as it perhaps should be. However, Schwarz discusses the role of culture, music education, and the role of the arts in American history (or at least its pedagogy) Great interview (and great music).

Levitt in the Blogosphere

I follow, very loosely, several blogs regarding economics and economic research. Given my past run-in with Steve Levitt (editor of the Journal of Political Economy and co-author of Freakonomics) I found this article interesting (originally referenced here).

There is a common question about the abuse of editorial powers in the economics profession, with a lot of gossip and stories circulating right now. On my recent trip to Europe, I was taken aback by how many people had stories about editors at various journals abusing their power or holding grudges against certain groups of authors. These stories have always been out there, but on this trip I heard a lot of very recent (within the last year) stories of editors behaving badly. It seems like we might be hitting a critical mass. Maybe some checks and balances will finally get implemented.

Exceptional trivia

I've recently supervised my first graduate student in completing her Ph.D. Like most people who finish a doctoral degree, she went out on the academic market to find a job. In fact, in my opinion, she did quite well and got offers from some very good schools. In the end, she turned them all down.

I struggled with making sense of this. We always tell our graduate students to think hard about starting a Ph.D.: they have to be sure this is something they like and want to pursue because it requires an awful lot of work. And when we say "this is something they like it want to pursue" the "this" in that phrase is academia.

Before the job market got into full swing, my student mentioned that she wasn't sure if she wanted an academic job. I told her not to turn down the jobs she hadn’t been offered yet and encouraged her to go through the interviewing process. In the end, she wanted more to her life and what academia could give. This is not to say that academics have empty lives. I think of my life is quite full; I'm an academic, a father, a husband, a musician, and a lot of other things. In fact I think it's my job as an academic which permits me the freedom to pursue my other avocations.

That said, most academics are really, as a friend of mine once said, "purveyors of exceptional trivia." I don't see any of my colleagues making discoveries in their research the truly benefit the world. See, I'm in the "soft" sciences where a lot of what goes on as research is oftentimes clever model building in order to support an opinion. The research that does have an impact on people's daily lives is that research which, unfortunately, is looked down upon but most of us in the profession. These are the short policy briefs that point out in a straightforward way that, say, disability benefits have not kept up with inflation. These pieces are somewhat looked down upon because they don't involve a clever model or use sophisticated mathematics. Rather they use the simple tools of the trade to make a point.

These pieces make their point in such a clear way that they are actually read by policymakers who didn't realize that, say, disability benefits haven't kept up with inflation and therefore raise disability benefits. The end result of this research is that the well-being of people receiving disability benefits is improved. I have a hard time believing that the more "academic" research on the buffalo hunt, Canadian military history, or what were the reasons behind extending the franchise in the 19th century will have as important benefits. (And yes, I've researched one of those topics.)