Saturday, September 15, 2012

What is Genius?

What is genius?


Is genius merely an obsession for one thing that then displaces everything else, pushing all other things into the background?

Take arranger Gil Evans, who reportedly transcribed -note for note- live radio broadcasts as they aired. He taught himself how to transcribe records painstakingly, too, by notating each instrumental line on the score by hand (how many kids in music school today can do this?)  Evans learned directly from the masters.  He developed a deep understanding of how instrumental sounds could be sculpted and layered.  He became one of the best arrangers in history. Bar none.

Most people are aware of Evans because of his collaborations with Miles Davis (Porgy and Bess, Birth of the Cool, Sketches of Spain...)  However, Gil Evans was obsessed with bands, jazz, and arranging decades before he crossed paths with Miles.  According to author Larry Hicock, who wrote a wonderful and comprehensive book "Castles Made of Sound, The Story of Gil Evans," hearing Louis Armstrong recordings and Duke Ellington live in San Francisco in 1927 decided his fate to become an arranger and bandleader.

 I am sure that Gil Evans was a genius.  What's less certain is whether genius is something a person is born with or if it results from a love and obsession for one thing, translated into action.  The passion for something coupled with the unwavering devotion to doing it over and over and over without tiring. Gil Evans was obsessed with arranging. It consumed him.



Mozart was a prodigy.  Beethoven was exceptionally brilliant.  Johann Sebastian Bach, Wagner, Haydn, Brahms, Chopin, genius composers all.  But how?

Malcolm Gladwell in Blink, noted that those at the top of their chosen professions were "thin slicers" who studied and honed their craft endlessly. Obsession, discipline, and passion inspired athletes Wayne Gretzky and Michael Jordan, and cellist Yo-Yo Ma to dedicate themselves wholeheartedly to putting in "10,000 hours," (read Blink to see what I'm talking about.)

I know many excellent musicians extremely disciplined and dedicated to their craft.  Are any of them geniuses?

What makes someone a musical genius?

John Coltrane was not a "natural" player, I once heard a music historian say on a radio program.  But Trane became obsessed and his passion and drive made him dig ever deeper to become the genius we recognize him to be today. As a Coltrane fan, I never truly understood what that historian meant. I think about it a lot.

Charlie Parker was not always the genius we know him to be today. A cymbal thrown on the bandstand by drummer Papa Jo Jones when Bird wasn't playing the right stuff, shows us he wasn't born with the skills he later developed. But he became obsessed and dug deep, and now musicians refer to Bird as the father of modern jazz improvisational language (otherwise known as bebop), perhaps the most influential of all styles.  Music historians consider Bird a genius.

So, what is genius?

Is it God given talent/aptitude fueled by passion and drive?  

I honestly don't know.  But I find it hard to believe that passion and obsession alone make anyone a genius. It must be something more mystical and deep...

Perhaps gifts aren't bestowed by our creator.  Maybe genius is actually something deep within everyone, a kind of inner spirit lying dormant. Those we call geniuses have to have been brave enough to follow their soul voices inside, despite the world of naysayers, who always try to put a damper on others' dreams.   

One thing is for sure- without authentic passion, obsession, curiosity, and determination- even the most brilliant will never find out if the road ahead leads to a place of mastery and... Well... genius...

Whatever that is.


Monday, September 3, 2012

How Did Music Become So Cheap?


How did music become so cheap?


Producer Moses Avalon railed against the free [music] business model, and said this on his Web site: "You give music away for free (or charge next to nothing) and somehow make up the difference on volume, touring and merchandise. It's the [logic] that inspired Radiohead's famous 'pay what you want' release In Rainbows, an experiment that neither they, nor anyone else in the know, has repeated." (from Steve Guttenberg’s blog The Audiophiliac, Is The Record Business Headed for Oblivion? 6/23/12)

 

Is this good? 

On the one hand, unfettered access to music is great.  Curious about an artist?  Go on Youtube or Spotify.  On the other hand, if you’re an artist, are you happy that your blood, sweat, and vision only nets you about $0.00135 when someone decides to check you out?

In the context of jazz, the idea of selling “merch” is practically non-existent. While CDs are usually available, you hardly ever see t-shirts, mugs, stickers, hats, and the like for sale by the artist.  Some famous venues like Birdland sell merchandise, but none of the proceeds go to the artist playing that night, and compared to mainstream pop, rock, and country acts, most jazz artists don’t sell high volumes of CDs. Furthermore, the show is all about the music, not gimmicks, outrageous costumes, and circus-like feats onstage.

The thing that irks me most is that jazz musicians (and classical musicians) work harder on their craft than most other musicians.  It’s the music that matters.  The music must exemplify an artist’s unique sound, exude emotion, display a high level of improvisational skill, and everything a musician internalizes, drills, and absorbs through disciplined daily practice - to bring it convincingly and artfully on the bandstand. 

Does there need to be a laser light extravaganza, fire, and a naked girl on a pole too???

I’d prefer pyrotechnics in the form of burning solos, thank you very much.

I’m not saying that I’m opposed to costumes and lighting and visual interest.  Or sex appeal, either, which was at issue during the recent Facebook hoopla in the jazz community over Diana Krall’s new album “Glad Rag Doll.” The bottom line: Is there more than just the wrapping on the package?  Can the artist deliver musically?

Personally, I think it’s great that there is so much discussion over Diana’s new CD.  If you’ve got it, flaunt it.  Sex sells, even when that’s the only product. 

But Diana Krall is an anomaly in the jazz world.  She has achieved popularity and mainstream appeal beyond most artist’s wildest dreams.  Making a thousandth of one cent per Spotify download won’t affect her much.  She will still make bank touring and selling high volume.  It’s doubtful she’ll need to sell mugs, bumper stickers, and hats (or monogrammed garter belts!) to finance her recording career.  And she delivers, musically, where it counts.  So, how can we help to monetize our music? 

Ideas?

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Skeletons in The Closet

We all have skeletons in the closet. 

Some of us fear that someone who knew us long ago will try to blackmail us with our high school yearbook photos. For others, like me, it's being forced to reveal some of the cringe-worthy music I used to listen to. 

The cringe factor...

OK... I can look anyone straight in the eye and say, "Guess what? I found In Through The Out Door yesterday, while poking around my old bedroom. Isn't that cool?"

But I wouldn't add, "Yeah, it was sandwiched between Bad Company and Toto."

Why do I feel fine revealing that I used to listen to Led Zeppelin but ashamed to admit the same about Bad Company and Toto?  

I am in no hurry to come clean about the Judas Priest, Jethro Tull, Black Sabbath, or Lynyrd Skynyrd records I found.  But I'm happy to mention Grace Jones, The Replacements, Elvis Costello, and David Bowie. Why?

 I also found Decade by Neil Young, which I still love all these years later.  I am happy to hold up album covers by Lou Reed and the Velvet Underground, The Ramones, and The New York Dolls. But not ACDC, (yes, I am guilty of possessing Back in Black...)

Why value one set of records I owned in high school, while another causes me to hang my head in shame? 

Truth be told, I never really got "metal". It always seemed really loud and really stupid. I'm relieved to say that you'll never find Ratt, Twisted Sister, Quiet Riot, Bon Jovi, Guns 'n' Roses, nor any one hit wonder hair band in the wreckage and refuse of my adolescence.

And I admit that I once really liked the Grateful Dead, who for me represent: Road trips down Highway 101, fields of violet wildflowers, the Oregon Country Fair, a marigold colored sun, painted VW microbuses, and Indian beaded anklets tinkling whenever you walk.  

But they also represent: Bad hygiene, like grimy white people with stanky dreadlocks (that I would think twice about touching without hand sanitizer), muddy hot springs reeking of sulfur, chokable amounts of patchouli, and Soysage. (blechh!)

Even when I realized, years later, how majorly out of tune Bob Weir, Phil Lesh, and Jerry Garcia always were, The Dead were never sent into my closet. 

Owning the album Skeletons in the Closet wasn't a type of foreshadowing, although their long aimless noodling and anemic guitar jams didn't add to The Dead's cache, but I still freely admit to once being a fan. 


So... Acceptance of one band and rejection of another has little to do with musicianship.

In high school I really dug Give it to Me Baby by Rick James. Whenever it came on the radio, my group of friends would pull over- day or night- fling the car doors open, crank the volume skyward, and literally get down in the  street, totally ignoring oncoming traffic. We felt free and bad ass dancing there in the middle of the road.

It was the era of Duran Duran and Wham, neon tights, bad shag haircuts, and shoulder pads. Not cool.

 But the Police were cool, especially the album Regatta de BlancPrince was cool.  But the super group - Asia or REO Speedwagon?  Sent to the back of the closet with grandma's re-gifted sweaters.

Growing up suburban meant we spent a lot of time hanging out in cars listening to music.  I am pretty embarrassed about the muscle car I drove in high school (wincing now uncontrollably... yes... here it is...I actually had a bitchin' Camaro...white with a spoiler...)  It came with an 8-track tape converter so you could play cassette tapes. Frankly, I find that cooler than the Camaro.  Cringe worthy? You bet.

My recollections of high school are an amalgam of such cringe worthy flashbacks peppered by the occasional poignant one. Music is a way to involuntarily relive uncomfortable moments in one's life. Suffice to say, they were almost all uncomfortable moments.

But why is some music from adolescence still cool and others so very not?  What is the  key to looking back without shame?


Will kids 30 years from now watch youtube videos of Rapper Nelly, Katy Perry, Rihanna (et. al.) from a satellite on Mars and say, "look at that whack old school earth crap grandma used to like?" (hope for their sake the crap of 2042 is better than the crap of 2012).

I listen to a wide variety of music these days, though to be frank, I'm not that open minded.  Practically everything I listen to or perform falls under Jazz, Classical, or World, and occasionally Folk.  These aren't hard and fast rules, but I like what I like. It has nothing to do with cool and everything to do with what moves me. The deeper I began to explore the elements and rudiments of music, as a listener and a performer, my tastes have evolved. And continue their evolution.
 
Admitting you once listened to death metal for a New York minute - (I did own a Motorhead album and liked the song Ace of Spades) - can be cathartic.  

But what about the sensory memories we all have that are triggered by certain music?

Sometime in the late 70's, when I was a little kid, I recall sitting on the gold shag rug in our den (on which my little brother spilled calligraphy ink and I got in big trouble). I was huddled next to the air conditioner in a wet bathing suit, hoping my mom wouldn't notice. I can still see the Danish wood woven chairs and the folding black lacquer snack tables with Jackson Pollock-like swirls on the top. The Band was still popular (Levon Helm, Robbie Robertson, et al... My cousin Grace was married to Rick Danko, the bass player).  

Whenever I hear The Weight, I remember this time and this room.

Stay tuned for more on music and sensory memories.


What music from your high school years do you still consider cool?  

Do you have any skeletons in your musical closet? 

It may be time to let them out.


















Friday, August 17, 2012

Roberta Piket Solo - The Extreme Challenge


“I’m always looking for new challenges,” jazz pianist Roberta Piket says about her latest release, which she decided to record solo.  

Is there a greater challenge for a pianist? A classical pianist must execute the music flawlessly, no question, but the notes are written there in the score to interpret. A jazz pianist doesn't just interpret, but must conduct, arrange, orchestrate, and play every instrument in the symphony.


Playing solo is an Emersonian endeavor… Extreme self reliance. There is nobody to catch you if you fall, no anchoring bass groove or drums to interplay with.  You have no horns to double the melody, add voices, or provide call and response phrases.   

Freedom is the extreme challenge, and it's what makes Roberta Piket’s new solo recording so intriguing. Though she isn’t constrained by other musicians, she must satisfy the demands posed by the material itself.  How does a solo artist make the music fly?  How does she embody the orchestra with just two hands?

I asked Roberta about the challenges a solo recording posed.  Here is what she said:

“Solo piano isn’t something I had focused much on. So I had to work on it conceptually and maybe a little technically, too. I think I had the physical chops for it, but the mental chops are another story. I have always felt that one of the things I need[ed] to work hardest at as a player is my focus, or concentration. Playing solo really forced me to hone in on that."
  
Roberta Piket is the real deal.  It isn’t her impressive resume, which includes playing as a sideman with Dave Liebman, Rufus Reid, Lionel Hampton, and a veritable “who’s who” of other top jazz musicians too numerous to mention, nor the fact that she has been featured twice on Piano Jazz with Marian McPartland.  It isn't even that she studied with bop pianist Walter Bishop Jr., Fred Hersh, Richie Beirach, and briefly with Sophia Rosoff (founder of the Abby Whiteside Foundation, instructor of many fine pianists).  She proves her mettle where it counts - in her playing.

I asked Roberta about technique, because to me, the purpose of being technically skilled is to express yourself, unimpeded. You want technique to be the puppet master behind the scenes.  When the marionettes dance and come to life to enchant, the string wielder should be invisible. This is what separates artists from technicians. Chops get you up the steps to the door. But without heart, vision, and artistry, you won’t get through that door to the inside. Roberta said:

“Chops and skills are tools, although some musicians don’t seem to know that. But all the great ones did. You need to have tools to have control over the expression you are trying to create.  Solo presents another challenge in that, because you’re one player playing one instrument, it can all end up sounding the same. I wanted the program to be interesting and varied. So I was very conscious, when choosing the material, of programming a set that would have variety of tempo, feel, mood, etc.”
  
Different moods inhabit each track, beginning with I See Your Face Before Me, a romantic standard by Schwartz and Dietz. Roberta exercises restraint and control.  She doesn’t guild the melody with sentimentality. She harnesses the emotion through her phrasing and in her articulation of the melody, simply, but without over-playing. Her pedal work and use of space recall Satie’s Gymnopedie.

 
Another challenge Roberta faced was how to say something new with standard songs:

I have always played and loved standards, so it wasn’t a matter of getting comfortable with them. I just wasn’t sure I had anything new or interesting to say on these tunes, most of which have been played over and over again. So coming up with a creative and personal interpretation that was not gimmicky [like, hey, we’re going to add an accordion player to this version of Monk’ Dream!] was a challenge.“

Take Roberta’s interpretation of two Thelonious Monk pieces.  Her treatment couldn’t be more diverse. The first, Variations on a Dream, is abstract and interpretive, a zigzag of tonal and linear  meanderings that build into a free jazz soundscape, vaguely Scriabin-esque.

The second, Monk’s Dream, reverently showcases Monk’s playful and angular style. Monk is inimitable, but Roberta manages to capture his essence rhythmically without exaggerating his inflections or trying to capture his nuances.

Roberta navigates Thelonious Monk by using both solid straight-ahead bop language and deft modern and inventive linear and chordal explosions. Her free improvisational torrents, which sound borrowed from Stravinsky, Scriabin, and Ravel are thrilling to hear.

I asked Roberta how her exceptional piano skills helped serve this project:

“When I started practicing for this project, I wasn’t sure I had all of the tools I would need. I found out that I had the technical skills more than I’d thought, but the mental chops less than I would have liked. So I worked on that and continue to work on that every day.  Once a reviewer wrote that I had chops to spare, and I really like that. “

One of the highlights for me is Billy Strayhorn’s Something To Live For.  It’s a stunning choice, and Roberta plays it only one time through.  It leaves you wanting. Her darkly sophisticated harmonies make you feel there’s something lurking beneath the surface of the music. I envisioned a murky onyx-colored pond bordering an old mysterious forest just around sunset.

When I told Roberta that I loved the darkness and asked why she only played it just once:

“I don’t think of it as a “dark“ interpretation really. For me both the music and the lyrics have a very wistful and dreamy quality which led me to a dreamy interpretation.  I didn’t launch into a solo after playing the melody because I felt that I had said all I really had to say on it. It felt like a complete statement.”

I inquired as to what led her to "free jazz" exploration and how it helped to open her ears:

“I have been exploring free jazz for at least 20 years. In general I think the best free jazz players have some foundation in straight-ahead jazz, although there are certainly exceptions. And these days many straight-ahead players, especially younger players, grow up playing free as well. It’s just another genre that they learn. I think it makes you a better straight-ahead player because it opens up your ears and your conception.

When I was on Marian McPartland’s Piano Jazz, both times that Marian hosted the show we played a free piece together. So you can see that those genre boundaries are really breaking down, which is a good thing. I wish it would happen a little faster, because it’s frustrating when one magazine publisher stupidly decides out of hand that my previous CD, Sides, Colors,  is not worth his time  without even listening to it because there are two standards on it, and another writer won’t put it in his top ten because he happens to only like jazz that “swings”, and there are two free pieces out of twelve on the CD. I think the average listener is way more open minded than these “jazz professionals”. But unfortunately they are the gate keepers, although with the internet of course that’s changed a lot.”

I was reminded of a story the jazz singer Sheila Jordan tells about two reviewers in the audience at the same performance.  One said something to the effect that she was "a great singer but had no look”.  The other reviewer said that she “looked great but had no sound,” [or so the story went].  Jazz publications are barraged with music and to get someone to really listen can be hard, let alone someone without an agenda – but I have to have faith that great music somehow does get through.

There’s a striking version of Estate, on this album.  My quintessential version is by pianist/singer Shirley Horn. Roberta plays Estate in 7/4 and it really fits the song.  About three-quarters through the track, Roberta goes into an inspired vamp that doesn't end the tune.  Instead, the montunos and changes climb and build and turn-around... And climb, and build, and turn-around... Muy caliente! It’s a crescendo of musical energy that gets the crowd on its feet in a live performance – and it works the same way on CD.

Nefertiti, by Wayne Shorter, is an interesting choice for a solo piano project. The winding almost hypnotic drone of the melody over Shorter's complex harmonies sounds fluid when a saxophone plays it, but a pianist has to find ways to sculpt the lines over and through the harmonies to make them sound cohesive without losing them in the form. It’s daunting enough for a duo, but Roberta demonstrates how to use existing harmonic language- and create her own- to make the song full and complete, and new, without losing its essence.

Litha, by Chick Corea, is a supreme challenge for a soloist.  The melody line is busy and the harmony is never static, which would be hard for even a trio to master. It’s a serious orchestration challenge on one instrument. Not to mention that when a pianist takes on material by Chick Corea, it’s risky. Putting one's own stamp on another pianist's composition- in this case Chick Corea- while trying to keep its integrity and say something fresh, is definitely tightrope walking without a net. Roberta makes daring pay off.

I asked Roberta about her composition Claude’s Clawed, her inspiration and solo treatment of it.  I was curious about how she used a particular intervallic bass line against the right hand:

“When I had a trio with Ratso Harris on bass, I wanted to write something really challenging and different because he is such a virtuoso. The bass part is open fifths moving around in thirds and half steps, which are strong intervals that project a certain stability even while the harmony moves around. (It’s the same reason Giant Steps works so well harmonically. Not that I’m comparing!)  The musical DNA for Claude’s Clawed comes from Chick Corea’s The Brain, as well other things I was studying with Richie Beirach including some modern classical influences. 

I first recorded Claude’s Clawed on my 2006 trio CD, Love and Beauty.  It was challenging to play this particular tune solo. It’s such a burner. But I wanted variety on the CD and this tune is very different!”

In the Days of Our Love, a ballad composed by Marian McPartland, is a gorgeous tribute to McPartland. 

Beatrice, by the late saxophonist/composer Sam Rivers, is a song that was brought to my attention quite a few years ago by a baritone saxophonist friend, who was a real Rivers fan.  Sam Rivers, who passed on in 2011, was a brilliant musician with an extensive knowledge of music theory, composition, and orchestration. He exemplifies the fully realized musical soul, one who has the mastery to stay within and extend beyond the limitations of traditional musical boundaries, with intention. Roberta had an opportunity to meet Rivers during an artist residency, where they played Beatrice as a duo. 

The album closes with a piece composed by Roberta’s father Frederick, a well known classical and liturgical composer.   According to the liner notes, Roberta found the sheet music for Improvisation Blue among her father's original scores. Piket wrote and published a few popular tunes, which came to light when Roberta found the music. If she hadn't been a musician, one wonders what would have happened to this piece.

I asked Roberta to share how she found the process.  I wondered if it felt lonely to prepare and record a solo project, like a one-sided conversation:

“I don’t think it’s lonelier working on a solo project than any other recording. When you are preparing for a CD a lot of that preparation is solitary – practicing, writing tunes, choosing tunes…and then after the recording, choosing takes, post-production. People see you on the bandstand with a band and they may think jazz musicians have an amazing social life. And there is a great community of musicians if you find your niche. But being an artist is essentially a solitary pursuit, at least if you want to be any good at it.

When I was a student I attended a clinic given by Paul Bley and he said something to the effect that he liked playing solo because there was no one to mess you up. Of course I still love playing with other musicians, but the freedom of playing solo is really rewarding. And you really are out there alone, like one of those gymnasts on the balance beam. At one point I was actually thinking of calling the CD “No One Else to Blame.”  The more I do it the more I feel it can grow and develop. I really feel that as far as playing solo goes, I’ve just begun to explore the possibilities.”

I then asked if Roberta wanted people to get something particular out of her music:

“I don’t really think about it in these terms. I give the best I can, and different people will take different things away from it. If they are moved in some way then that is pleasing.”
  
Consider the following quote:  

“Simplicity is the final achievement.  After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art.”
 -Frederic Chopin

Through wide-ranging exploration, experimentation, traditional methodologies and approaches, problem solving, discovery, and invention – the artist’s true vision emerges.  Roberta plays a “vast quantity of notes and more notes,” but not just any notes.  In jazz, a lot of care, thought, and preparation goes into what sounds like spontaneous genius.  There is spontaneity, and genius, but unless it's grounded in a strong foundation, it won't last. It's too random. Simplicity can only happen after the exploration, when each piece stands on its own. If we look through Chopin's lens, Roberta Piket's Solo recording has reached this level of achievement. The question is- where does she go from here?


To find out more about Roberta Piket, check out her schedule and discography at:    


Saturday, August 11, 2012

The Foolish & Impossible Task: Defining "Art"



“The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated.”c. 2007- Thomas Adajian 



Defining art is like walking barefoot up a glacier in the rain... 
 
It's like drinking the ocean with a straw.  No matter how many academics argue, theorize, and postulate, they’ll never do it.  How can they?  

Just for fun, (OK, I'm a little hard up for fun) I consulted the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a definition of Art (they happened to be the first result when you Google "what is art?"), and even they cover their asses with a disclaimer before citing heavyweights, like Plato, Kant, and Wittgenstein...

That's just like the world of academia, where professors try to prove things that are really a waste of time to try to prove, throw around a lot of big names, and then publish their pretzel logic to impress other professors.  Then, they force university students to buy these dry deadweight books.  Even the campus bookstore won't buy them back.    

A scholar is the last person who should be trying to define art.  Academia is like a gerbil inside an eternally spinning wheel who only stops running to eat and take a poop.

Andres Serrano's Piss Christ is a prime example of why defining art will never work.  Senator Jesse Helms, (and other great thinkers and arbiters of art and culture in congress), called for an end to public funding of the arts when it was revealed that Serrano had received an NEA grant.  



I asked 100 people: "What are the BEST and the WORST songs you've ever heard?"  I thought perhaps a sample of responses would reveal one song as universally good or bad.  

But responses to this question varied tremendously.  One friend even sent me a link to a study and a poll created by composer Dave Soldier in 1996, surveying musical preferences (Komar, Melamid, and SoldierMost Wanted Song and Most Unwanted Song  project.)  The study looked at a variety of factors and concluded that there were identifiable musical preferences that could be measured.

For example, high female voices were found less desirable than low female voices.  

A narrower dynamic range was preferable to a wider one (this could be why audio engineers use so much compression in commercially produced music).  Rock was the most popular style of music and opera was the least desirable.  Jazz placed somewhere in between.

There were preferences for instrument sounds, too. Guitar and piano were the most popular by a wide margin.  Bagpipe and accordion, followed by banjo and tuba, topped the least preferred instruments list.  It would be interesting to see if it would hold true in other cultures, where instruments, tunings, and scales are different, like in Indian music, where quarter tones are used.  

Through my very unscientific method of casual inquiry, (sorry, academia), I found that people tended to favor songs that were... (drum roll please!)... 

Emotionally appealing yet not maudlin or overtly sentimental.  

I found there was a line between emotional expressiveness in songs and utter schmaltziness, that most people didn't like to cross... 

For example, Feelings, is a really yucky song that a lot of people dislike for the reason above.  Several people put it on their list of "worst" songs ever.  But other people (none that were in my half assed unscientific survey) must like the tune as it reached #2 on the Adult Contemporary charts.  There's even a Spanish version, Sentimientos, which perhaps came first: “Dime…Solamente dime. Como olvidar mis Sentimientos de amor…” Is it less cloying in Spanish?

As someone who loves Brazilian music, I am often amazed at how Portuguese lyrics, which are often impressionistic and poetic, have been translated into English.  The English rarely seems to fit- though some lyricists- like the late Gene Lees-managed to evoke beauty and imagery more consistent with the Brazilian sensibility.

Well written lyrics don't always mean a song is widely appreciated, either.  Jimmy Webb's MacArthur Park is a song that many people like and many people don't.  I am not sure if it's the lyrics (that line about the cake left out in the rain), or if it's the dramatic build-up as the song climaxes. Yet again, it could be that it reminds people of their yearbook photo, which is all it takes to hate a song.


Among the jazz musicians I heard from, Cole Porter, Ellington/Strayhorn, and Gershwin songs were generally favorites, but is that any secret?  As a singer, I admit a fondness for these songs, too (see my previous post about great songs).

The songs musicians find most intolerable are those they played too many times during certain periods of their lives. 

One musician told me, "I still have nightmares starring Perry Como!"  Curious, as I wasn't all that familiar with Perry Como, I found Papa Loves Mambo on Youtube. 

I imagined a couple, Angie and Vinnie, dancing at an Italian wedding.  Angie was 40-something, a bit zaftig.  She had an auburn bouffant and wore kohl eyeliner like a wide receiver's eye black.  Vinnie was 50-ish with slicked back silver hair and black leather wing tips with pointy toes. She had blood red fingernails that looked like they could really do some damage.  He lived with his mother.

Then the song was over.

There was a certain kitsch factor from another time that was rather appealing and those little horn licks.

But someone out there, LOVES that song, maybe thinks it's the best thing to hit Arthur Avenue since Clams Posillipo... 

Hooks, catchy phrases and motifs, even earworms determine whether or not we love or hate a tune, too, (most often the latter).  Last year, I couldn't get an animated singing pancake out of my head for days...  It sucked! 

Motifs aren’t sinister plots to destroy our well being or drive us mad, though they feel that way.  All the great composers used them.  Wagner was the uber konig of motifs. If he were alive today, the Ring Cycle would probably sell laundry detergent and soft drinks.

Motifs can actually be some of the coolest things in music.  They give our ears something recognizable and predictable to latch on to and remember.  They are logical and musically satisfying. 

In Musicophilia, Tales of Music and the Brain, by Oliver Sacks, the doctor famous for doing incredible things with dementia patients through music, there is a chapter called “Brainworms, Sticky Music, and Catchy Tunes.” Sacks believes motifs or catchy phrases actually enter and subvert a part of the brain.  He uses Beethoven’s Fifth and the theme from Mission Impossible as examples in his book.  Sacks has seen music completely transform people who have been stuck in catatonic states.  He believes the songs we internalize throughout our lifetime are vital to being human.  Music is vital?  What a concept!

I hope our human connection to songs, how music resonates within each of us, is unique and personal.  How can it be otherwise?    Good and bad are totally subjective.  Some things can't be determined using quantitative analysis, algorithms, studies, focus groups, and market research.  And as far as I am concerned, they never will.  I would not like to live in a world where everyone preferred the same modes of expression.  Yet it seems like things are going in that direction more and more.

Artists will always exist.  And no one will ever be able to define art or music in absolute terms.  Spin that in your gerbil wheels, academia...  Then wipe your bum!


(I welcome your comments and questions and random rants)


Monday, August 6, 2012

Call for the BEST and the WORST in MUSIC

Is there a song you think could possibly be the BEST of all time?

What about the WORST?

What makes one song so great you can hear it again and again and never get sick of it, while another song may have the opposite effect?  What makes for the best and the worst
 
Where does Stairway to Heaven fall on the spectrum?  Is it the greatest song in Rock and Roll or something you hope you never hear again?


Ruminate.  Pontificate. Discuss...

Then, write me with your BEST and WORST of ALL TIME song submission ideas.

I'll be waiting to see if there is any kind of a trend.

After I receive your ideas (oh, believe me, I have ideas of my own), I'll blog about it.

Cheers!

EP

Sunday, August 5, 2012


Songs Change Lives

“An idea means something entirely different to a songwriter than it might to a novelist, journalist, or screenwriter.  Songwriters work, for the most part, in a milieu that might be described as technological haiku… We must accomplish our aims and tell our entire story in a time frame of about three minutes… Every word, every note must count.”
                             Jimmy Webb/Tunesmith, 1998

You transfer your late night cocktail napkin scribbles onto the fresh blank page with conviction.  You have an incredible first verse.  Now what?

That first verse will taunt you. Can you write a second, or even a third, as good as the first? By the twenty-third draft- when the dust settles and the ink dries- do you have something that's even any good? 

A great song is that hard to write. You feverishly record every idea into a little notebook, hoping one will bear fruit, that one idea will ripen sweetly into a great song. In that respect, it’s not unlike playing the lottery.  In fact, you might get luckier playing Megamillions than writing a hit song.

If anyone knows the agony (and the ecstasy) of songwriting, it’s Jimmy Webb. His book Tunesmith is compelling from start to finish. It’s in the pantheon of “must read” songwriting process books, full of wisdom, humor, and wonderful anecdotes, if songwriting is your bag.

Songwriting is tangible, yet somehow mysterious.  It’s an enthralling mystical space where words meet melody – that space can transform, upend, and forever change you. It’s a space you rarely visit in current popular culture.

Great songs weather time and cultural demise. Audiences still resonate with the best music ever written.  Stardust by Hoagy Carmichael and Mitchell Parish, composed in 1927, still wows:  “And now the purple dusk of twilight time steals across the meadows of my heart. Up into the sky the little stars climb always reminding me that we’re apart…”

Is there a better example of that mystical space?  I get goosebumps!  Melodies and lyrics this good are soul affirming, and always relevant.  Stardust will remain an epic, despite contemporary tampering, sampling, and over the top- 21stcentury-melisma heavy-carnivalesque-sideshow-worthy - vocal renditions.  It will stand up to anything, even bad taste!  Great songs have this power to endure.  That said, I'm not certain I'd like to hear All The Things You Are arranged for bagpipe and theremin. Stranger things have happened to the Great American song book - mostly in elevators.  But however punishing the treatment, Kern’s chestnut will always emerge shining and victorious.  Like Gloria Gaynor, it too, will survive.

I recently gave a presentation on my “textual lineage” to a group of writers and teachers.  Textual lineage, a term coined by author Alfred Tatum, refers to how literacy, oral tradition, music, cultural values, family, passions, life experiences, etc. shape our lives. I can probably recall every song lyric, every melody, embroidered and woven throughout the multi-textured fabric that has become my life. 

This immense tapestry contains my musical lineage, my song dreams. All the songs I’ve ever heard, sung, or written are sewn into this diverse patchwork.  Let’s randomly examine this lyric by Tom Waits:

Broken Bicycles

“Broken bicycles, old busted chains
with rusted handle bars, out in the rain
Somebody must have an orphanage for
all these things that nobody wants any more
September’s reminding July
It’s time to be saying goodbye
Summer is gone,
our love will remain
like old broken bicycles out in the rain
*   *   *   *   *
Broken bicycles, don’t tell my folks
There’s all those playing cards
pinned to the spokes
Laid down like skeletons
out on the lawn
The wheels won’t turn
when the other has gone
The seasons can turn on a dime
Somehow I forget every time
For the things that you’ve given me
Will always stay
broken,
but I will never
Throw them away”

Words/Music by Tom Waits
Fifth Floor Music/1982

The first time I heard this slow-to-mid-tempo waltz. I was sitting in my car in front of Starbuck's. The imagery of broken bicycles tarnishing in the rain, a damaged relationship in permanent disrepair, in parts rusting all over the lawn, dysfunction… Wow!  Through the crags in Tom’s voice, like old tree bark you want to run your hands over to feel every ridge, every knot, you are transported to his song world. This song is a departure from chronicles of washed up alcoholics on a bender, hopelessly hunkering in the pre-dawn hours, clutching empty scotch bottles proudly like trophies, hookers, sad eyes, a blue dress, red shoes, sinister drugstore lighting, a seedy urban societal underbelly – familiar themes for Waits.  What a master!  Waits’ depictions are theatrical and riveting. His songs are contemporary film noir.  Broken Bicycles is still haunting, thirty years later.

On another corner of my tapestry I find Guess Who I Saw Today, a song I’ve associated with Carmen McRae, though the great Nancy Wilson also recorded it.  Here’s the chorus without the 16-bar verse (do people even know what “verses” are anymore?):

Guess Who I Saw Today

Guess who I saw today my dear
I went in town to shop around for
Something new
And thought I’d stop and have a bite
When I was through
I looked around for someplace near
And it had occurred to me where I
had parked the car
I’d seen a most attractive French café
and bar
Guess who I saw today my dear
The waiter showed me to a dark
secluded corner
and when my eyes became accustomed
to the gloom
I saw two people at the bar who were
so much in love
that even I could spot it clear across the room
Guess who I saw today my dear
I’ve never been so shocked before
I headed blindly for the door
They didn’t see me passing through
Guess who I saw today
I saw you

Words and Music: Grand/Boyd
1952 Warner Chappell

It’s another drama, unfolding completely in the span of three to four minutes. No rich imagery. No flowery poetics. No clever rhyme scheme. But a very sophisticated treatment of a husband caught cheating. The lyricist builds anticipation up so well, that by the time the other shoe drops, the wife has totally lost it.  I can see the unsuspecting husband walk into the house. The wife fixes him a drink, perhaps a dry martini.  Then she lays bare the painful truth. Utterly brilliant.

The empty page beckons. It dares you to find the right words, the evocative words, the ones with the power and poignancy to change lives.  For lyrics and melodies do change lives.  As a singer, as a writer, as a human being who loves, feels, and breathes, songs have forever changed me.  How have they changed you?


I welcome your comments.  What songs have shaped your musical lineage?
 

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Shades of Bill but Joe All the Way - An interview with pianist Joe McWilliams


 Shades of Bill, but Joe All The Way...

Bill Evans was playing as loudly as my neighbors could stand.  I'd climb inside all those rich beautiful harmonies, and live there, if it were possible.  Bill was at the piano, Scott LaFaro on bass, and Paul Motian on drums (the quintessential trio). Their tight telepathic anticipation transported me to a netherworld. The sheer romanticism of “I Loves You Porgy”, reminded me why I fell in love with jazz piano years ago (before I could spell a minor 9 chord). The lilting elegance of “Some Other Time” exemplifies the highest art form-where technique and artistry come together to make the uber-complex sound deceptively simple. There are shadings of Chopin and Satie and Debussy.  There is the solid locked-in groove.  There is stunning precision in the improvisation.  It’s sublime.  Every note feels perfectly placed, like flowers in a Japanese arrangement…

I had just finished interviewing friend and CT based jazz pianist, Joe McWilliams, and remembered how much I was reminded of Bill Evans the first time I ever heard Joe at the piano.  We talked about his influences. Modest and unassuming, like many good musicians, I never knew that Joe had opened for jazz legend Dave Brubeck, nor that both his mom and dad had been professional saxophone players.

Joe McWilliams = JM           
 Ellynne Plotnick = EP


EP: Tell me about your earliest memories as a musician. You mentioned that you had a musical family.

JM: “My parents were both fine sax players. That's why I feel closer to working with sax rather than trumpet (most of the time). My first gigs were in a trio led by my mother, where there was a drummer and I was playing a Rhodes and supplying a left-hand bass. I learned a lot of standards that way. I also played a lot with my father … mostly society gigs. My father played with Carmen Cavallero, José Melis and Hildegarde at one time. He loved Stan Getz. My mom had a sound between Johnny Hodges and Benny Carter. She rarely soloed, but did it tastefully when she did. She also had an all-woman big band in the 1950's.”

EP: Who were your biggest influences?  Whose music shaped your approach to the piano?

JM: “The seeds [that were] planted very early [were] people like Nelson Riddle, Jobim, Vince Guaraldi and Toots Thielemans.  Bill Evans was the guy from the moment I heard his sound. I had just started my first jazz piano lessons when I heard Bill playing Midnight Mood on WYBC. It knocked me out! I said, That's the sound I want! The sound impressed me because I had been playing everything from Bach to Rachmaninoff by that point, so I was already impressed with technique and nuance.  I was 17 at the time.

Bill opened the door to many others — backward and forward in the history of Jazz. Other huge influences were Bud Powell, Hampton Hawes, Oscar Peterson, Wynton Kelly, Herbie Hancock, Jan Hammer, Chick Corea, John McLaughlin, Joni Mitchell, Keith Jarrett … the list goes on and is rather eclectic.”

EP: How did each influence you? It’s no surprise to note many fine pianists (Bebop going forward), but you also place Joni Mitchell on that list.  Why?


JM: “The influence of Nelson Riddle might have been the first jazzy sound I can remember; I was probably about 3 or 4 when I heard the theme from the television show, Route 66. Then, I remember hearing The Girl from Ipanema and Bluesette on the radio. I have a pretty good memory that goes farther back than most people I've met. Music has ALWAYS made an impression on me. Many times, there's been a song that I may have heard once or twice, and I'm able to recall and put it together as many as 30 or more years later; I've always been able to do this. This is the key to how I have a large repertoire on call. So instead of picking apart what exactly appeals, I'll just say that music has always been a direct connection with my emotions, because I carry it with me... Classical and romantic composers [have influenced my] playing techniques, widened my scope of appreciation. I'm sure some place down the line, there are things (I'm not going to pick it apart) I've gleaned from ALL music. It's part of the whole. The same thing [about why I] mention Joni Mitchell with Jazz pianists … it DOESN'T MATTER where it comes from to me; I'm just happy it manifests at all. I could have easily have said "Bud Powell, The Beatles, Roy Orbison, etc.  I won't categorize what I took from each pianist. It's not a recipe.”

EP: I knew from the first time I heard you that Bill Evans was someone you drew a great deal of inspiration from. The few times I’ve had the pleasure to sing with you, Joe, it was our shared affinity for Bill that drew me to your playing.

JM:  “I can remember my cousin coming to the house (I had to be around 4) and playing Alice in Wonderland, performed by Bill at the Village Vanguard. My guess is that I had seen Alice in Wonderland at the movies prior to that, so the seed was already planted. That would be around 1962. Now shoot to 1976 where I hear Bill's sound again in Midnight Mood. THAT's the way it works for me!

Another thing is my attraction to harmonic texture, especially Impressionism and Romanticism… I found that in Bill's playing. I suppose I related to those harmonies from the little bit that I worked with Ravel, Debussy, Schumann and Chopin. I also liked the moodiness of many of those Classical pieces, so once again, Bill Evans.”

I thought back to the first time I heard Joe McWilliams.  It  was at a newly opened club in Southport, CT that featured tri-state area jazz and blues musicians.  I sat in and sang “Detour Ahead” with the band- which I had associated with Bill Evans more than Billie Holiday.  Thinking back was bittersweet. It was a reminder that jazz clubs (including the one mentioned above) are closing left and right.  Not long afterwards, the historic Silvermine Tavern- which had been a mainstay for straight-ahead jazz artists and fans for years- closed its doors for good.

EP: Was Connecticut ever a great place for jazz?  So many places have closed down since I’ve lived here.  I’ve heard Hartford still has a few places to play as well as New Haven.

JM:  “I remember there were more places to play, [in years past] and I've always heard that there were more than that when my folks were around.  It's nice that there are [still a few] places to play, yet I wish that the club owners and agents who treat musicians with disrespect by not paying them what they had promised- would all be held accountable and possibly jailed. There seems to be some unwritten code that you can short change a musician, or not pay them at all, and NO ONE does anything about it. I'm proud to be a member of the Union.”

EP: That, sadly, is not uncommon. Besides diminishing venues and club owners who don’t honor contracts with musicians, what other challenges have you faced as a professional jazz pianist?

JM: “The fact I haven't owned a piano in 14 years would qualify as a challenge when it comes to working things out. A few years ago, I was nailed with chronic Rheumatoid Arthritis. It's no picnic, but I'm much better off now.  I don't want to make the RA a focal point. It's not up for discussion. I now know about REAL physical pain. It's not a joke.  I'm happy that I'm playing and that's that. I'm thankful that things are better than a few years ago. That's all.

I haven't owned a piano in 14 years because I haven't bought one. I've been thinking about it recently, because I've been in a practice mode for certain shows and projects I've done and am preparing recently. I can get to a piano in the studios I teach and the Church where I'm the Director of Music. So it hasn't been a huge issue. I have an electric piano for club dates that goes to a storage unit when I don't use it. It doesn't travel to the 2nd floor as a rule.”

EP: What do you hope for now?

JM: “Public acceptance. I would hope that people can find merit [in] and enjoy what I do.  Music hits deep with people.  I hope the music I play, whatever the style, touches the hearts of the audience, and we can enjoy a connection.  That’s where I want to live; that’s what I mean by acceptance.”

EP:  Has anything stood out as a Twilight Zone moment?  What was the most memorable experience you’ve had on the bandstand?

JM: “No Twilight Zone moments, but plenty of strange twists … a lot of my musical compadres have their own style - (Joe, ever the gentleman, refused to be specific...)

I have a lot of nice great musical memories, just not great stories to tell. I will tell you that the first of two times I opened for Dave Brubeck, we talked, and I told him how much I enjoyed In Your Own Sweet Way and The Duke. We spoke a little more and he went on to perform. About three or four songs into the concert, he cleared the stage and played a solo version of The Duke. It was great! At the end of the concert, I told him how much I enjoyed his solo performance, to which he responded "I played that for you!" That made my night. It’s one of my fondest musical memories.”

EP: How fabulous! Dave Brubeck has a lot of class, [as do you, Joe!] By the way, how would you describe your style?

JM: “I guess you have to hear me and make your own decision. I think what stands out about me is that while influences are discernible, I believe I have my own style.  [Obsessing over it makes me uncomfortable]. I just hope that people like what they hear.  Unconsciously it comes together in my preferred style of expression — Jazz. I won't question it.”


EP: What are your artistic goals?

JM:  “To be the best player I can in any situation. If the music is stylistically unfamiliar, I want to play it properly and with feeling. I worked once in a traditional jazz situation where I had to learn a different repertoire. I had to learn how to play properly, without injecting post-bop sensibilities or "licks". It took awhile, but it paid off in the long run. I feel I'm a better player for that approach. It was the same when I used to play [old school] rock or R&B. I feel that if you care about what you do, you owe it to yourself to find the way to express it properly, and get away from the cookie cutter approach as quickly as you can. There are many great technicians. I hope that they find their own way to keep it fresh.”

EP: This interview has been a pleasure.  I look forward playing music with you in the future. Is there anything else you’d like people to know?

JM:  “Hire me. My number's in the book. If you're a jerk, don't bother … Life is too short.”

You can hear Joe McWilliams play on the Branford Green from 6:30-8:30pm on August 16th (part of the Branford Jazz Festival) www.branfordjazz.com/Schedule.html

To contact Joe McWilliams for gigs:  jamcpiano@sbcglobal.net