I received the following email the other day from Theodore Merrow, and because it seems to be a common question that probably does need clarification I hope to clearly answer it below. Thank you, Theodore, for your questions and concerns.



Dear Mr. Nalbandian,

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter, if you do. I have attended a handful of your concerts at the Fresno Museum and I also have the CD you released a few months ago which I enjoyed very much. I am a jazz lover. In fact my favorite type of jazz is the kind I thought you played, piano trio in style of Hank Jones or Bill Charlap. The indication I got from your cd was that you were similar to those musician’s styles but apparently you are not. Please don’t misunderstand me, I am not upset just confused. Who is the real Armen Nalbandian and do you consider yourself a jazz musician anymore? Will your new CD be a jazz trio cd?

Thank you for your time,

Theodore Merrow

Firstly, I am not sure I can really answer the question, “Who is the real Armen Nalbandian?,” but I will try to write a little about style in general and then to me specifically.

When I think about or concern myself with any artist whether musical, visual or otherwise, I always approach their work with one common disposition. I try to never examine a CD or concert as a finished product, but more like a snapshot of that particular moment in an artist’s life. Especially with improvised music, I think feel that the artist is constantly taking in many personal experiences and musical experiences which just get incorporated into their musical language. That synthesis really depends firstly on the musician about how personally they absorb the music they encounter as well as how much they allow their experiences to dictate their own music. Part of that is exposure. I feel that the more one exposes themselves to various arts and musical styles and concepts the more resources one has to draw from whether or not they choose to.

Now, specifically to my own music, I do consider myself a Jazz musician and heavily influenced by Jazz, however I do have a rather broad definition of what Jazz is. Furthermore, I am also very influenced by a great deal of the music I encounter and seek out. My primary love for Jazz is because it allows the musician to bring completely of themselves in an improvisational context. Whether or not the music traditionally “swings” or contains blues elements is consequential to me. I greatly feel that understanding one’s the music tradition is incredibly important, but while that includes early musicians like Jelly Roll Morton and Louis Armstrong, to me, that history also includes recent music by artists such as Ken Vandermark and Uri Caine for example.

As far as group sound is concerned, my CD Armen, was recorded as the very first documentation of my trio with Kevin Hill & Brian Hamada. At that point we had been playing infrequently as a unit, but were starting to develop a certain vibe that I felt needed to be documented. When we started to perform the music live, the sound of the group slowly started to change. My musical vision is only one-third of our group sound. I try to always employ a musical foundation that every musician playing is allowed to freely contribute their musical ideas. Over the past year, our group has changed rather dramatically. As a result, the compositions that I write for the group have also changed according the sound the group has developed.

Our next trio CD will simply be a documentation of our current group sound. In fact, it will sound the way we do on the day we record it. Who knows? If it was recorded a day before or after, the results may be completely different. Regardless, I hope you enjoy our latest efforts and please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or comments.

Labels: Artist Thoughts

I was doing a little browsing on the allaboutjazz.com website an came across a very well written article by one our music's most important contributors: Ken Vandermark. It was written in 2004, I hope that everyone that comes across this article, gives it the time it deserves. Many of Vadermark's points completely and accurately resemble my feelings as well. If you are not familiar with Vandermark's music, please send me an email so I can give you some recommendations.

DEFINING TERMS (part 1)

I’ve been asked by All About Jazz to participate in their music forum during August, 2004. For this month I would like to address what I feel are a number of problematic issues related to the contemporary improvised music scene. I hope that this will open a dialog about ideas and definitions concerning the music, and help move the current discussion towards a clearer distinction between what is, and isn’t, being dealt with in today’s music environment.

DEFINITIONS

If you are familiar with me and my music you already know that I am at odds with most of the criticism currently being written about improvised music. This is not because I have received some negative reviews, however. It is because I believe there are too many journalists whose writing is based on ignorance. A number of critics have stated that they feel my statements on this subject are biased, unfair and unconstructive, at best, and driven by self promotion, at worst. In an attempt to see things from the their point of view, to better understand how it might be possible to improve the jazz and improvised music media’s coverage of the scene (and to hopefully better the insight and understanding of the music by audiences, writers, and programmers), it has become quite clear that many of the basic problems found in the contemporary criticism of improvised music are due to the lack of clearly defined terminology used to discuss what is being heard. Several years ago the writer, Kevin Whitehead, tried to address this issue in an article for the Village Voice. Unfortunately, it is clear that few took up his challenge for finding new and better ways to define contemporary jazz/improvised music. Maybe now’s the time.

Here are a few simple examples of terms I see used all the time that no longer have a clear definition.

1. Free Jazz. Does this refer to a specific approach to American jazz developed during the late 1950’s and 1960’s that broke away from standard chord changes? Or is it an international style of jazz being played today that has it’s source and foundation based in that music? Or does it mean jazz played today by musicians that are free to take their inspiration from whatever sources they choose? Am I a Free Jazz musician? If the third statement is the way that term is defined, then yes. If it’s one of the previous two, then no.

2. Free Improvised Music. Is this a category of music developed in England during the late 1960’s? Or is it a style of improvisation that refuses to allow “American jazz conventions” within it’s parameters? If that’s the case, is it still actually free? Is this language a style defined completely by European innovations, or is it a method of improvisation that, simply put, doesn’t use predetermined materials?

3. Experimental Music. A reference to the composed music written after War Two? Music that just sounds “strange and different?” Music where the outcome, whether using written materials or improvisation, cannot be predetermined?

This list is just a starting point, but I think the gist is clear: many of the terms often being used in today’s music criticism aren’t truly defined. When employed they obfuscate the reader, they don’t help the illuminate the music or the listener. Part of the problem, too, is that we cannot continue to use terminology developed decades ago to describe the music of today, the language of the past cannot continue to explain the present. It is time for new and clear terms to be developed to help communicate the art with words.

CRISIS OF RECORDINGS

Due to a complex series of changes that have negatively affected the possibilities to perform live improvised music, recordings have gained a dangerous level of importance in the supposed understanding of jazz and improvised music. I am frequently on the road, both in North America and in Europe, and it is fair to say that the bands I work with will pretty much play anywhere they can. Many of the journalists who write about my music have never seen me and the ensembles I belong to perform live. In some cases this is because they live in places where I can’t get to a gig. In some cases they may have seen me play once or twice and don’t come to a concert because they might be busy, or perhaps they think that they already understand what our different groups are doing. In most circumstances the criticism written about the music I, and most other improvisers, play is based on what journalists hear on recordings. Maybe they get paid more to do this than to preview or review concerts, I’m not sure, and writers have to pay the rent like the rest of us. The end result, however, is that recordings have begun to define the music, not concerts, and this situation is very problematic.

Improvised music is a process art form, one recording or one concert does not define a musician or a band’s work. It has become harder and harder for groups to play more than one night in a city, frequently the only people who hear the developments in the music on a daily basis are the members of the ensemble. The real musicians who play improvised music search for something new to say during every performance, whether on stage or in the studio, but it seems that only a small percentage of the audience is willing to regularly participate in that evolving creative process.

Instead, many listeners and critics seek the “defining album” of an artist, or feel that they “know” an improviser’s work after hearing a few recordings. This approach to understanding an artist’s music is highly misleading, as an example take the work of Peter Brotzmann. How many people define his career with the album, Machine Gun? To do so, while ignoring the music of long term working bands (like his trio with Fred Van Hove and Han Bennink, the group Die Like A Dog, his solo music, the Chicago Tentet, never mind the countless other projects that he’s performed and recorded with), would be to miss the real range of his art. Another example, which record should be chosen as the ultimate album of Miles Davis’ career? Birth Of The Cool? Miles Ahead? Something by the quintet with John Coltrane? Or maybe when Cannonball Adderly made that group a sextet? Miles Smiles? Bitches Brew? Any real improvising musician cannot be defined by one day in the studio, or one night on stage. To truly understand the art form of jazz and improvised music, whether as a player or listener, you must participate in the process as often as possible because like life, it is always changing.

LACK OF FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE

One of the more highly respected journals covering improvised music in the English language is the magazine, Wire. In it’s most recent issue one of their writers described the drummer, Hamid Drake, as a “young lion.” I have always understood the term to mean a new, up and coming jazz musician. Hamid is in his late 40’s, and has been playing this music at the highest level for more than two and a half decades, working with musicians like Don Cherry, Peter Brotzmann, Fred Anderson, and David Murray on a regular basis. Maybe the critic who wrote that statement was unaware of this? Perhaps his or her editor was unaware of this? Yet Wire has been writing reviews of Hamid’s recordings for years...

There have been a number of occasions where a writer has asked me to list the solo order on my releases. It didn’t seem to be necessary to do so on many of the albums made in the 40‚s, 50‚s and 60‚s. Was it that writers during those years could tell the difference between the way one trumpet player and another sounded? It definitely seems that critics 40-50 years ago could tell the difference between a tenor and alto sax, and certainly between a Bb clarinet and a soprano. Today, even if the instrumental details are included on my recordings, certain writers will still get that information wrong.

If the critic, Ekkehard Jost, could analyze the compositional and improvisational elements in the work of Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, late John Coltrane, Archie Shepp, Albert Ayler, Don Cherry, the AACM, and Sun Ra in his book, Free Jazz, in 1974, not long after these musicians were first breaking new ground, why isn’t it possible for more critics to hear and define the difference between similar compositional and improvised elements 30 years later? I think it is fair to expect the critics of improvised music to do their jobs, to write informed and insightful texts, just as it is fair to expect the musicians to do their jobs, to work as improvisers and composers playing the best best music possible in the performance circumstances they are provided with. Countless writers have walked up to me after a performance to inform me that they’ve heard me sound better on another occasion, that they don’t like my new material, or that the band sounded terrific, that the concert was brilliant. The same holds true for written reviews. They rate my work either to my face, or on paper. It’s fair, it’s part of their job. By the same token, I think it is fair for me to question why the standard of improvised music criticism is frequently so low, to ask why some of them don’t cover journalistic basics (like checking facts), in other words, to indicate when they aren’t doing their job.

In my next installment of Defining Terms, I would like to point out what I believe has been the positive work done in the field of improvised music criticism, by giving a list of what I feel are some of the great books on the subject written since 1970- they do exist and they set a solid standard!


Ken Vandermark
Chicago, August 5, 2004.


Today: Ralph Alessi (I love the new record), Tom Waits, & Peter Brotzman.

Labels: Artist Thoughts

One of the great film directors and one of my personal favorites, Robert Altman passed today at the age of 81. I’m sure there are many traditional obituaries scattered all over the internet but I wanted to provide a personal anecdote.

I saw Altman’s film Nashville about 7 years ago for the first time. Other than being directed by a true maverick of film, I felt at the time that the movie had little appeal for me. I couldn’t have been more wrong. Nashville blew me away stylistically and emotionally and left me with a very distinct feeling that still hasn’t left me.

After watching the majority of Altman’s films, I can say that Altman has consistently delivered a high quality of art within the “mainstream” Hollywood framework. What we had in Altman was a true auteur that took chances in his art and even though it may sound corny…I feel made the world a better place.

Two more of my favorites:
McCabe & Mrs. Miller
The Long Goodbye

He mill be missed.

Labels: Rememberance

I have recently been spending increased time on the internet. One reason for that is the exceptional amount and quality of websites that are available. I regularly visit many of the same sites, and felt that we many of you would definitely benefit from checking them out as well.

http://www.greenleafmusic.com: Dave Douglas’ record label site. An excellent resource for both the Dave’s thoughts as well as an incredible (and the only) resource for unreleased music by Dave and Kneebody in their subscription series. I am a proud member of Greenleaf Music! Also check out www.musicstem.com for an incredible wealth of releases from Dave and other great artists.

http://destination-out.com: Every few days, mp3’s of rare and out of print recordings are posted on this site. Always great music and always presented perfectly as well. Don’t wait too long to download the tracks however, they are only up for a limited amount of time. Ethan Iverson also was a guest contributor a few weeks ago.

http://www.bill-dixon.com: The website of one of my favorite improvisers of all time. If you love music, I highly recommend that you invest as much time as you can with Dixon’s music.

http://thebadplus.typepad.com/dothemath: This is the frequently updated blog of The Bad Plus, and it is an incredibly diverse and insightful resource. From Ethan’s various articles to collections of Jazz records, recommendations, interviews. This is definitely a site worth checking out.

http://be-jazz.blogspot.com: Mwanji has set up a very thorough site with lots of commentary of creative music. Even with the few disagreements that I’ve read from statements that I’ve made, I still enjoy the diversity of opinions that are expressed on this site. Check out the writing on Ornette!

http://secretsociety.typepad.com/darcy_james_argues_secret: Darcy is an excellent composer from out of New York who has a very well written blog regarding many different topics with wide ranging musical outlooks. Check out the blog and also his music…its great!

That’s all for now…


Listen: I am absolutely infatuated with Ralph Alessi’s new recording, Look. Not only does it have great compositions but also some of the most creative and strong improvisation around. Please check out this recording regardless of your musical disposition.

Labels: Artist Thoughts

Since September, I have been working on producing a 20-hour audio special on improvised music from the 1970s. I obviously feel very passionately about this time period not only because I have personally gained great pleasure and inspiration from the music from that decade but also because my mentor John Hicks started his work as a leader during that time as well.

I have been compiling an enormous quantity of interviews from both musicians that were creating in that decade as well as current musicians whose output is inspired by that time period as well. As of this writing, my goal is to have the documentary finished and aired by mid 2007 and plan on doing so via the internet, pod-casts and radio.

This message is to specifically invite input via comments or suggestions during the formation of the documentary so I can hopefully include as wide of a scope in presenting the documentary.

A

Music: Conference of the Birds, Brian Blade Fellowship, Uri Caine, Ben Allison (Cowboy Justice), Hank Williams, & Keith Jarrett.


...I am also very happy that St. Pierre is the new WW champion.

Labels: Artist Thoughts, Artist Update

Labels: Artist Thoughts

Lots of great stuff being written and debated at Dave Douglas' Greenleaf Music website (www.greenleafmusic.com). The following is my response to Dave's 11/15/2006 entry.

My impression is that we live in an incredible time period
that is completely informed by the music of its past. The trouble lies in
that the way some improvising musicians approach music is limited to
development prior to the mid sixties and after, where as an increasing
many are interested in and the study the entire scope of the music. The
last thirty years of so of music (especially improvised music) has given
the modern musician an incredible abundance of material to draw from, be
inspired by, and use as a foundation for their own artistic pursuits. I
don’t think that prior to the sixties that was the case. While Jazz had
its variety of styles, for the most part they were not as far reaching.
Perhaps because of technology, the modern musician can be exposed to an
incredible wealth of music.


Obviously, its not that today’s musicians are trying to improve upon the
masters, but we are in the advantageous position to be able to look at
their contributions in retrospect and approach their music (or not) with
our own musical make-up.

To reply the following point by Zappa:

Adding a "harness" to a music, imposing a "sense of structure"--this is all well good, but it is the opposite of the lesson all that "crazy
experimental freedom" taught. Harnesses and structures are code for
"moderate" and "judicious." While these have broad appeal and as
mentioned earlier, fulfill a purpose, they are not from whence art,
let alone canonical art originate.

As far as influence is concerned the improviser/composer of today can
expand on the music of the past as he sees fit. Learning from the past
does not necessarily mean creating within the same framework (or lack
there of). Influence, in terms of harnessing or structuring music within
the scope of your vision came be done on endless levels ranging from
texture, content, approach, musical devices, instrumentation and so on.
To attack a musician for being inspired by previous musical events and
incorporating them is misguided.

To reference the Bloom quote, the improviser when listening is connecting
to the music they are hearing on many levels (intellectually,
emotionally, spiritually, etc.) There ability to funnel the information
they hear into their own musical language is strictly the artist’s
disposition. To improvise was described by one musician as playing the
music that’s closest to your heart at any given moment and being
vulnerable enough to do so. Being given so much information as a result
of listening is the act of harnessing those sounds and deciding whether
or not to be informed by them. I think by comparing and contrasting one’s
work with that of the music is just another way to grow and develop as an
artist.


On tap tonight: Bill Evans

Labels: Artist Thoughts

Below appears an excerpt from one of the many emails I have received regarding our continuing Jazz radio post along with a few more of my additional comments. I thank all of you for writing regarding this issue…perhaps we have all blown this matter out of proportion. Thank you to those of you that have commented and written about your local stations…just keep supporting what you believe. At least we have passion towards this subject…that’s all always good to see regardless whatever opinion you may have.

From Nick in Northern California:

The stations should respect the wishes of the jazz community and start playing good music. Just because the casual listener doesn't like bop we get screwed. Who's teaching who? Are we the musicians stupid for continuing this fight? Or should we listen to those we want to feel "light and fresh" in the morning? I feel that the stations think that the musicians don't matter since they are just musicians, and that we need to get the general lay person to listen. I think that this is just wrong.

Some people will state that this is another example of culture bias, but the point of public funding is to provide an outlet for the arts. This is a problem, when I talk to people about jazz, they think elevator music, the stuff you hear on the phone. It may seem silly all the talk about jazz dying, it depends on who you ask. There is a ton of good music out there, but who will hear it?

What do you think can be done?

Frankly, it is impossible for Jazz radio to play music to satisfy everyone…musicians & the casual fan. I do think its important for musicians to take an active role within their Jazz community and media however Jazz musicians come in all dispositions. On KFSR, I feel we are lucky to have pianist David Aus as one of the radio hosts. Along with Joe, David plays some of the most diverse music on the station with; I feel with both the casual fan and musician in mind. .

Another point I think gets beaten into the ground (even I will do it now), is that as far “Jazz” as a term goes, most people have been conditioned to feel its one of two different things. One is the pop instrumental music now labeled as “smooth jazz” and the other is “traditional” swinging music with a blues element in it. For the casual listener, I think if they were to play Miles Davis’ Big Fun recording, I assume most would not label the music as Jazz. A term I grown more comfortable using when being forced to label the music is “improvised music.” That being the case I think that the radio stations that play Jazz do so with the earlier definition in mind. As far the music I label as “improvised music,” such as Anthony Braxton (despite its obvious “Jazz” roots) would not get played on Jazz radio. I think as long we place narrow definitions on Jazz, the radio stations can help but play the music that is defined by that term.

My dream, (perhaps never to be realized), is for radio stations to air a more diverse cross section of improvised music. In doing so, I know that I am thinking selfishly, but exposure I think is the first key to education.

OK, with all this blogging, I haven’t had a chance to revise my music premiering on Nov. 30th…so I must be off.

Later

a

Today’s recordings: more Paul Motian, Stevie Wonder, Johnny Coles & Jason Moran.

Labels: Artist Thoughts

I thank Joe of course for his thoughtful comments on my previous post. In fact, I did have a feeling that I would have to clarify a few statements when I wrote the post.

(Once again: I want to stress that my post is not addressing any particular radio station or host.)



As far as the third tier vocalists are concerned. With music being so easy to produce and increasingly inexpensive to make it does seem that there has been a rise in mediocrity among musicians in all genres. A common concern I hear is that “musicians don’t produce the quality of music like they used to.” That, I don’t feel is the case, it is just that there is a lot of music generated that is mediocre or worse that seems to obscure the work of all the great music being produced.

With so much great music being produced, regardless of how nice the people promoting the music are or seem to be, I personally favor a system in which the music is judged on its merit. Yes, I understand that to be difficult to do…but let’s please start playing Betty Carter before we give the third tier a shot.

Its hard for me disagree with frequencies picking up the bass, sound because I don’t really have any foundation to stand on. But I really feel that the reason Jazz artists put certain music on their recordings is because they are to be listened to as a whole. Grenadier’s solo on Everything in it’s Right Place is an excellent intro to an equally excellent performance. Maybe with increased technology the bass players may finally get their radio due.

The term, mainstream, when it comes to defining music or any art in general I feel is more of an industry word. Music that’s placed in this mainstream area is usually placed their by critics, producers, radio hosts and the like. Many Jazz listeners would probably consider Ornette Coleman to be placed among their “mainstream” tastes where as some may not. With Jazz radio history being written as it’s played, I would personally like to see a wider spectrum to be considered mainstream. Even for the novice listeners that may not be as “educated” in terms of the vast collection of Jazz styles, perhaps with more exposure they would be intrigued to dig on more adventurous artists.

I am convinced that the reason why so much of this is being debated is that as an American culture we do not really listen to music anymore. Listening to music is usually a secondary activity to driving, cooking, cleaning, etc. That’s the reason why many Jazz musicians have greater followings in other countries. Because in those countries, listening to music is actually considered a primary activity. I challenge the reader of this article: when is the last time, you sat down and did nothing else but listen to music?


If we listened more, as a culture, the depths of music will slowly expose themselves to us. Its just as if one was to read a play by Shakespeare while they ironed their clothes…what do they expect to get out of the literature. By reading more Shakespeareand focusing on what is being read, one grows to appreciate Shakespeare. Just ask Harold Bloom. The difference is, that with most musicians listening to music is that they actually listen to the music and don’t go through the motions. In this culture, one buys recordings because they think they are buying the time to listen to the recordings. If the music is listened to as just background music, what does it matter anyway?

There will always be those that favor their “art” to be easy to access emotionally or mentally. The billboard charts, or New York Times Book Best Sellers will always reinforce that. But what I am asking for is for Jazz radio not to appeal to the lowest common denominator, we do that as a culture already. Make Jazz radio feature a wider spectrum…let’s hear Henry Threadgill, Jelly Roll, Hank Jones, John Zorn, Earl Hines, Bill Frisell.

To be continued…

Today’s listening: The Paul Motian Trio

Labels: Artist Thoughts

One of my favorite Jazz DJs Joe Moore from 90.7 KFSR in Fresno, CA has responded (very thoughtfully I may add) to a previous post of mine entitled Smooth. I have decided to post his entire email for you all to read from a REAL Jazz Radio host:


a few points:

1) there are plenty of "third tier" vocalists that make it on mainstream
jazz radio, and who can't sing in tune. I try not to play them, perhaps
I have on occasion, but I can show you the cds and the stations that
play them if you don't believe me. I get a dozen a month at least. All
with heavy promotion. Radio programmers want to make nice with the
promoters (not really because there's any "incentive" to do so, just
because they're nice people trying to make a living, and you figure
"heck, I'll give it a chance and get them an "add" this week").

2) A long bass solo on radio can prompt people to tune out. Why? Well,
one reason is that the radios a lot of people use don't replicate bass
frequencies very well. A 3+ minute drum solo can also make people tune
out. Not that it's good or bad, it just is. I'll try to come up with an
example. The first thing that comes to mind is not a normal bass solo,
but Larry Grenadier's solo bass into to one of the tunes on Brad's
"Anything Goes". I don't think I ever played that track because it
starts out with a long bass solo before they get to the head.

3) If your criticism is that mainstream jazz radio is not adventurous
enough, that might be because it's mainstream jazz radio. It's like
asking why an ice cream shop doesn't sell lasagna. It is what it is, and
mainstream jazz radio is (during most dayparts) not "curated" with
playlists based upon artistic importance, but programmed based upon how
to attract the desired listener/audience that will stay tuned regularly
and support the station. That may be crass, but it's reality. Also, on
many stations, DJs do not select their own sets, the computer or program
director does.

Diana Krall is more popular among listeners than Bud Powell. That's why
she is played more. The theory that "well if they played Bud Powell
more, he would be just as popular as Diana Krall" is simply flawed. It
doesn't work that way. That doesn't mean Diana Krall is better than Bud
Powell, just that she's more popular. Does jazz radio have an obligation
to play artistically important material? Yes (though some in the biz
would disagree) Does that mean I'm going to play side 1 of "Free Jazz"
while people are waking up to us on their alarm clocks at 7:00am? No.
Somewhere in between.

4) Who is listening and who are we programming to and why do they like
jazz? That's the real question. We aren't programming for musicians
alone. 99 percent of a mainstream jazz station's listeners are going to
be non-musicians, casual listeners. Don't look down on them. They are
human too, a mistake I see a lot of musicians make, because after all
they're more hip, so that makes their opinion more important, no? These
people aren't analyzing Chris Potter's use of the various chord
substitutions, superimposing a different meter, playing over the bar,
etc. They aren't sitting at attention listening to their radios with 100
percent of their mental power appreciating the music. Again that may be
a "bad' thing, but it is. When people are in their car, guess what,
music is background music. When they're at the gym on the iPod -
background music. At a party? Same thing. Is it terrible? Maybe, but
it's life and it's how people live their lives. If a 24 hour jazz
station were to exist simply for the people who do sit at attention in
front of their radios, even in a city like LA, you'll have no more than
a handful of listeners each hour. Virtually everyone who listens to
music on radio is "multitasking" while they are listening. And Cecil
Taylor or Peter Brotzmann - their music is quite challenging even when
people are not multitasking.

Now why do casual listeners (let's assume they have no musical training)
listen to jazz? Swing, blues inflection, recognizable/familiar melodies,
"finger poppin" performances and well sung/written lyrics. There are
others, but those are the big ones. Why would "I'll Be Seeing You" or
"Senor Blues" be more appealing to a non-musician listener than "The
Egg" from Emperyan Isles? (a rhetorical question)

5) Your quote:
"Jazz radio has recently been operating under similar guidelines as pop
radio in terms of content, What is heartbreaking is that individuals are
making these choices...not machines or corporate "music" insiders."

But you're wrong on that, and not in the way you think. Yeah, jazz radio
does operate with some similar guidelines as pop radio, and individuals
(sometimes, not always) make the decisions. (major market jazz stations
use focus groups and audience metrics in a similar way to pop radio) But
where you're wrong is, this is nothing new. Look at a mainstream jazz
radio playlist from 1966. Will you see a lot of avant garde material?
Maybe in some markets, but in most markets, you'll see Cannonball,
Horace, Jimmy Smith, Getz/Gilberto, Nancy Wilson, Les McCann, Dave
Brubeck, Wes Montgomery, The Three Sounds, etc. You didn't see a lot of
Alan Shorter, Frank Lowe, or Eric Dolphy. Jazz radio WAS pop radio. MUCH
more so than it is today in some ways. In fact you would hear jazz on
pop stations.

6) I don't want to be an apologist for jazz radio mainstream or
otherwise. I try to make sure our jazz programs are as well rounded as
possible and appeal to a broad audience. A lot of it (jazz radio in
general) is watered down and focus grouped into oblivion. Does that mean
we at KFSR are going to play Cecil Taylor at 7:12am? No. There is a
prominent major market NPR affiliated jazz station that has a policy not
to play anything pre 1950, due to "poor audio quality" Do I think that's
silly? Yes. But will I avoid playing recordings that are shall we say
"exceedingly primitive" in audio quality? Yes, on occasion. There are
stations that ban any and all drum or bass solos. Do I think that is
silly? Yes. But I will on occasion suggest a DJ avoid a track that has a
really long one. It's not an "either/or" thing. Each situation is
different.

Same for jazz as a whole. Jazz can be art music, it can be casual music
too. When it gets to be all of one or all of the other, a lot of people
on either side lose interest (entirely commercial & banal, or entirely
self indulgent & esoteric). My point is that I think you can program
jazz radio to reach a wide audience and still play Bud and Tatum.

Thanks for your post.

Joe


I will be posting up a follow-up post soon.

a

Labels: Artist Thoughts

I have been asked quite frequently as of late about my trio's upcoming CD. And while it has only been 8 months since the last one was released, we will be heading back into the studio in a few weeks to strat recording the new CD.

This CD, like the last will feature my trio with Brian Hamada on drums and Kevin Hill on bass. The recording will feature mostly originals along with a few new compositions by some of my favorite modern composers. I'm very excited however, that the CD will be co-produced by Ara Nalbandian & Nino Moschella, two musicians who I respect greatly. In addition, the CD will feature original cover art by artist Michael Aguilar as well as an accompanying DVD on the making of the CD.

I will be announcing more about the CD as we record it and we will soon have some audio samples prior to release of the CD.

Thanks for the support.

A


Listening to: Moto Grosso Feio, Kneebody, Nino's New EP, The Same Shape, The Bad Plus, the Roots Live CD, Sheila Chandra, Otis Redding, Antony & the Johnsons & Lionel Loueke.

Labels: Artist Update

I've been reading the new Jazztimes magazine, and an article caught my attention entitled, Confessions of a (Former) Smooth Jazz-DJ by Nick Morrison. It seemed like the standard fare including a few contradictary statements such as the author claiming to be indifferent to smooth jazz before he was recruited by a smooth-jazz station from a more mainstream station followed by statements of him standing up for the smooth jazz musicians and then comparing them to dogs and then equating their music to the "real" jazz being played on the radio.

Huh?

Here are a few excerpts reagrding "real" jazz radio according to the author:

"...real jazz radio with all those long, incredibly complex, totally self-indulgent passages of improvisation that keeps saying over and over 'Look at me, Ma, look at me.'

And those acoustic bass solos that pop up out of nowhere and totally destroy the momentum of a song.

And let's not forget all those second-and third-tier jazz vocalists who seem to have, at best, a shaky composition of pitch."


I have been biting my tounge in regards to jazz radio since I do have critisisms but a have few good friends that really do a good job with their radio programs and have been hesitant for that reason.

As far as "smooth jazz" and its radio format are concerned, all that really boils down to is just pop instrumental music (i.e. a Mariah Carey track with a soprano sax in place of Mariah). For the most part, smooth is just like pop radio; the music is pre-programmed and involves very little human decision making.

To compare it to "real" Jazz radio is insulting and inappropriate. The article mentioned earlier once again makes sweeping generalizations and doesn't involve and specific examples.

In rehards to the authors generalizations:

When have you ever heard of a third-tier vocalists who sings out of tune in any music style make it on the radio?

Bass solos killing the momentum of a tune? really? When? on what track?

Self-indulgent solos maybe...ok I'll give him that. It happens sometimes.

The problem is and has always been that "smooth-jazz: which is like audio wallpaper compared to that of Jazz which is Art. Its like comparing Thomas Kincaid to Matisse: they don't even exist in the same realm. So once and for all, let's stop comparing the two.


Now, about the current state of jazz radio...

(Disclaimer: the following are not directed towards any radio program in particular or any radio station...however, I hope they eventually read this)

Jazz radio has recently been operating under similar guidelines as pop radio in terms of content, What is heartbreaking is that individuals are making these choices...not machines or corporate "music" insiders.


A few observations:

-The preferable length of a song is about 4 minutes. Have you ever heard anything over 10 minutes make of Jazz radio?

-Vocalists are preferred. Somewhere around 40% of Jazz on the radio has vocals.

-"Free" or "Avant Garde" Jazz does not make it on the radio.

-10 legendary band I have never heard on Jazz radio
1. The Paul Motian Trio
2. Any Bill Dixon Band
3. Cecil Taylor
4. Masada
5. Booker Little
6. Art Tatum
7. Anthony Braxton
8. Herb Robertson
9. Jon Harriot
10. Peter Brotzman

I personally feel the above list includes major and pivotal figures in Jazz that should not be overlooked. While I can understand (kind of) that it may be difficult to play all of this music all the time, I feel passionately that this music should be included in Jazz programming.

With all that being said, Jazz radio still is and always will be valid where as smooth jazz can not really be. No matter what music is focused on as a Jazz DJ, you will invariably leave something out. However, playing Diana Krall on every show without ever playing Bud Powell should make some DJs reconsider their playlists. You can't please everyone, you can just hope everyone has access to CD players so they can fill in the gaps that is left by Jazz radio.

It is rather late as I leave this entry so i may be adding to it when I can re-read it, but thank you for checking it out regardless.

Later


Been Listening to: New Nels Cline, Mark Turner, New Frisell EP, Wendel, Robert Johnson, Cat Power Charles Tolliver, & Jimi.

Labels: Artist Thoughts

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Ed Bradley, the longtime "60 Minutes" correspondent whose probing questions and deceptively relaxed interviewing manner graced some of that show's most notable reports, has died. He was 65.

Bradley died Thursday at New York's Mount Sinai Hospital of leukemia, according to staff members at the CBS program.

Bradley was known for his thoughtful, mellifluous voice and often laid-back approach, a style that often prompted unexpected emotion in his subjects.

Bradley, a great music lover, also interviewed Miles Davis, Lena Horne and Paul Simon, among other performers. He once moonlighted as a disc jockey, earning $1.50 an hour spinning records while working as a teacher by day. In his later years, he hosted the radio show "Jazz at Lincoln Center."

"The idea that I could go to a station and open the cabinet doors of what we called the library and pull out music present and past and play what I liked to play, music I liked to hear, and that there were people out there listening to my taste in music -- man, it just didn't get better than that," he told the online publication All About Jazz in 2004.

Bradley was born June 22, 1941. He grew up in a tough section of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where he once recalled that his parents worked 20-hour days at two jobs apiece, according to The Associated Press. "I was told, 'You can be anything you want, kid,' " he once told an interviewer. "When you hear that often enough, you believe it."

Bradley began his career in radio at WDAS in his hometown in 1963. In 1967, he moved to New York and radio station WCBS, and then joined CBS News as a stringer in the Paris, France, bureau in 1971.

After a stint in Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City), Vietnam, he came to Washington in 1974. He covered Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign in 1976, then became CBS' first African-American White House correspondent.

CNN's David Fitzpatrick, a former CBS producer who worked with Bradley, said there were tears in the halls of CBS News after word came of his passing.

"He was gracious," Fitzpatrick said. "He would always have a smile."

Bradley is survived by his wife, Patricia Blanchet.

Labels: Rememberance

A few road observations for you all

*The Pacific Northwest in amazingly beautiful in November
*The most asked question over the past week has been, "What state are we in?"
*The night before we played at The Nectar Lounge, Steven Bernstein played there. I wish I could have caught that show!
*There is no difference between the orginal Starbucks in Seattle and Fresno. This is highly disputed but I am sticking to my guns on this one.
*Its great to see old frinds.
*Sleep (in any form) and a good meal are the two hottest commodities.


The road is great because you can catch up on so much listening Just a taste: Tailleferre, Carter Burwell, Stevie Wonder, Johnny Cash, Ethiopiques, Jimi, John Lindberg, Elliot Smith, Mark Hollis, Ligeti String Quartets,Roy Campbell, Paul Motian, Sammy Davis Jr., Serge Chaloff, Roots, Vandermark 5, Messiaen, & a little George Carlin for good measure.

See you all soon!

Labels: Artist Thoughts