7 ms·

Jazz in the 21st century: Playing outside the box

59 points by benbou09 10y ago

shams93 10y ago
Teaching Jazz is the way to go for most people who want to make a living from Jazz. I know several successful musicians who started as Jazz musicians but make a good living in rock and pop music. Getting to be known as the best of the best on your instrument via your Jazz chops can open doors in other genres to be invited to work with very successful, established artists. To make a living directly from Jazz you really want to go into education. If you have some hustle and you live in a medium to large sized city, no matter where you are there are likely enough kids interested in learning to play Jazz that you could develop a viable income as a private Jazz instructor on your instrument. From there you're taking part in building the scene of the future.
- analog31 10y ago
  Indeed, likewise for classical music too. I'm pretty involved in my local music scene. Everybody I know who makes a decent middle class income from music, teaches. For one thing, there's reasonable demand. For another, it's a way for a performer fill your schedule with work during the hours when they pretty much can't be performing.
  - Ericson2314 10y ago
    While, I'm incredibly grateful for the music education I've received [and still play at the age where many fellow amateurs increasingly don't [though time well tell whether I keep this up as I intend to]], the idea that the vast majority of artists primarily teach the next generation does carry the whiff of a Ponzi scheme.
    - zhemao 10y ago
      Most of their students won't choose music as a profession, though.
    - mark_edward 10y ago
      This depends on what you consider to be the purpose of music education. A good portion of musical training could be for personal enjoyment, expanding horizons, resume padding, etc. so it wouldn't be necessary or even desirable hat everyone get employment. Think of martial arts. The best way to make a living in it is to teach, but the vast majority of students aren't there to make a living of it in the future.
      - Ericson2314 10y ago
        Sure I'm fine with learning art not to be a full time professional, that's me after all. And if you going in wanting to teach, that's great too. I don't have a fully formed thought here, but more a gut reaction against a world where education and educators is always celebrated without any......sympathy that maybe these people rather be doing something else.
    - amagumori 10y ago
      if you're a classical musician you're going to either play in an orchestra, which pays OK, depending on the notoriety of the orchestra you get into...or you're going to teach, which pays better for the most part. keep in mind that if you're a classical musician of professional-level skill, that means you've devoted your entire life and a shit ton of money towards the pursuit of getting good at one of the hardest skills on earth. i've been programming for 3 years now, and i've written a 3d renderer, all sorts of websites, fluid simulations, a photon mapping renderer, etc, etc..i still don't feel like i'm that great at programming, but i feel pretty confident in my ability to write programs that work and aren't ugly. after 3 years. after 10 years of playing the violin you're pretty much a novice.
      - Ericson2314 10y ago
        I wonder whether instruments actually takes more time to learn, vs programming/computers being addictive AF and instrument practice (especially mechanical technique) being oh-so mind-numbingly boring when oh luck I could just noodle on that on 30 minutes later oops.
    - aczerepinski 10y ago
      I have mixed feelings on this. Students definitely shouldn't be taking on debt to study a profession that doesn't exist, and lower tier colleges that never ever produce professionals probably shouldn't be offering the major. But I do see a place for the top conservatories, especially if we can find more ways for the programs to be very selective, and free. The music is beautiful and continues to evolve, and as long as the pursuit doesn't hinder everyone financially, it's a good thing to have going on in society. I personally am not comfortable teaching music majors, but under the right circumstances I would be happy to teach electives to non-majors and kids. If you pay your dues and learn to really hear jazz, I truly believe it's one of the most intellectually and emotionally engaging experiences anywhere. I'd like to share that with people who aren't trying to make it their profession.
    - analog31 10y ago
      I should have been a bit more specific: The teaching that I'm talking about is private lessons for younger kids, K-12 schools, and even a handful of adults who take lessons as a leisure activity. I took music lessons as a kid, from around age 6 through high school. My parents had no expectation that I would become a professional musician. (In fact, my dad later expressed his relief when he knew that I wouldn't). And in reality I would never have made the cut. Jazz bass was easier for me to get into than classical cello, because there was at the time a shortage of bassists, and nothing like the insane auditions that classical players go through. I was happy to let music be a serious sideline while I pursued math and physics as my college majors. Today, my kids are themselves taking classical lessons, playing in the youth orchestra, etc. It's interesting, when the orchestra has its final concert every year, the program gives a little bio for each kid who is a high school senior, and many of them mention their future plans. A huge percentage of the kids in the orchestra are planning on studying science, math, computers, etc. A few will actually study those subjects in college, paid for by music scholarships. One of my band mates went through college that way, and is now employed in the software industry. So it's a good kind of Ponzi scheme. ;-)
coldtea 10y ago
Playing outside the box office, too...
- leothekim 10y ago
  This makes sense because only music that makes money matters.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    What I wrote is a factual observation, not a value judgement. So it makes sense whether one believes that "only music that makes money matters" or not. (And I don't believe that at all)
    - ap22213 10y ago
      I think you guys are missing my point, which is my fault. Making art for the money should never be a primary goal, unless one's goal is the emphasis and irony of that relationship (see: Koons). Otherwise, how can it really be art? It's been constrained and affected by the expected effect. However, there's a huge difference between self-labeling one's art in a way that obscures it from wide access (like labeling a music created today as 'Jazz') and actually re-producing previously successful art forms (e.g. 'Jazz') because of a fear of judgment or chasing of praise.
      - leothekim 10y ago
        You can make art for the sole purpose of money. Lots of writers and musicians churn out pulp and jingles to keep the pool heated. And some of that stuff is really good art. I think you're stuck with a particular definition of jazz, the one that's putting the proverbial pillow on it. If you define jazz as that stuff that had its moment in the past with Coltrane and Bird, etc, of course it's going to be boring and old hat. If you listen to Robert Glasper's Black Radio and understand it a contemporary expression of jazz as well as R&B, then it's easy to be amazed at how much jazz has evolved and enthralled with where it's going. Jazz has never been "pure" - it has always reached into different music genres in subtle and unexpected ways. It remains misunderstood for that reason.
leothekim 10y ago
“If you don’t want jazz to change, you are putting a pillow over its face, and it’s going to die." Truer words have never been said. Jazz wasn't meant to live in the shadows of Coltrane, Ellington, Monk, Bird, or even Miles Davis forever. Sure the history is important, and technique and the theoretical rigor will always be a necessary ingredient, but the moment Jazz stops innovating and expanding is the moment it dies.
ap22213 10y ago
I clearly know nothing about music, but why does it even have to be called 'Jazz'? Given those market numbers cited, it seems like it would be a very bad brand to be associated with your music. Having a son who's 12, and having recently had a bunch of pre-teens running around my house all going through the timeless ritual of identity crafting, I have gotten to listen to their music, watch their media, and hear their thoughts. When I talk with them about music, it doesn't surprise me that they view the music of my day (80s / 90s) with as much boredom as I had viewed big band music in my day. To them, rock and jazz are Baroque. Guitars and Drums? I might as well play them a harpsichord. On the other hand, I know several highly skilled, expert musical technicians in their 20s and 30s. They have spent the majority of their lives training to master the practice and theory of music. They know so much about their instruments and their technique, it frankly astounds me. In comparison to dedicated musicians of my day, they seem like masters. Yet, for some reason, they spend their time playing Jazz derivatives and covers or as studio musicians. Interestingly, they're all playing Jazz - which to me is so puzzling. It's akin to being a master visual artist and being absorbed in re-creating Pollack or Rothko or Kadinsky. Jazz had a moment, and it was a beautiful moment. It can be admired and relished as such, and the music can help transport one to that moment in time. But, does Jazz even make any sense in the modern world? I love listening to some of it - Coltrane and Davis, of course. But, if I went to a music venue today, and the band was playing Jazz, I'd be bored out of my mind.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  technique + theory != creativity There's nothing inherently creative about artistic technique. At best it gives you a way to express creativity. At worst it's a dead thing you keep repeating over and over because you can't think of anything interesting to say. Theories of art are a really good way to kill creativity. Music theory can become a huge set of if...thens... and unfortunately even talented people don't always get past that. The skills you need to be a brilliantly competent session musician or a successful teacher are only distantly related to the skills you need to be an interesting and original music creator.
  - Ericson2314 10y ago
erikschoster 10y ago
Many developments in jazz of the 60s and 70s are just starting to become normalized and institutionalized in the 21st century. Check out the history of the AACM and Art Ensemble of Chicago for one important example: http://www.npr.org/books/titles/138018824/a-power-stronger-than-itself-the-aacm-and-american-experimental-music http://www.npr.org/books/titles/138018824/a-power-stronger-t...

59 points by benbou09 10y ago

Teaching Jazz is the way to go for most people who want to make a living from Jazz. I know several successful musicians who started as Jazz musicians but make a good living in rock and pop music. Getting to be known as the best of the best on your instrument via your Jazz chops can open doors in other genres to be invited to work with very successful, established artists. To make a living directly from Jazz you really want to go into education. If you have some hustle and you live in a medium to large sized city, no matter where you are there are likely enough kids interested in learning to play Jazz that you could develop a viable income as a private Jazz instructor on your instrument. From there you're taking part in building the scene of the future.

analog31 10y ago
Indeed, likewise for classical music too. I'm pretty involved in my local music scene. Everybody I know who makes a decent middle class income from music, teaches. For one thing, there's reasonable demand. For another, it's a way for a performer fill your schedule with work during the hours when they pretty much can't be performing.
- Ericson2314 10y ago
  While, I'm incredibly grateful for the music education I've received [and still play at the age where many fellow amateurs increasingly don't [though time well tell whether I keep this up as I intend to]], the idea that the vast majority of artists primarily teach the next generation does carry the whiff of a Ponzi scheme.
  - zhemao 10y ago
    Most of their students won't choose music as a profession, though.
  - mark_edward 10y ago
    This depends on what you consider to be the purpose of music education. A good portion of musical training could be for personal enjoyment, expanding horizons, resume padding, etc. so it wouldn't be necessary or even desirable hat everyone get employment. Think of martial arts. The best way to make a living in it is to teach, but the vast majority of students aren't there to make a living of it in the future.
    - Ericson2314 10y ago
      Sure I'm fine with learning art not to be a full time professional, that's me after all. And if you going in wanting to teach, that's great too. I don't have a fully formed thought here, but more a gut reaction against a world where education and educators is always celebrated without any......sympathy that maybe these people rather be doing something else.
  - amagumori 10y ago
    if you're a classical musician you're going to either play in an orchestra, which pays OK, depending on the notoriety of the orchestra you get into...or you're going to teach, which pays better for the most part. keep in mind that if you're a classical musician of professional-level skill, that means you've devoted your entire life and a shit ton of money towards the pursuit of getting good at one of the hardest skills on earth. i've been programming for 3 years now, and i've written a 3d renderer, all sorts of websites, fluid simulations, a photon mapping renderer, etc, etc..i still don't feel like i'm that great at programming, but i feel pretty confident in my ability to write programs that work and aren't ugly. after 3 years. after 10 years of playing the violin you're pretty much a novice.
    - Ericson2314 10y ago
      I wonder whether instruments actually takes more time to learn, vs programming/computers being addictive AF and instrument practice (especially mechanical technique) being oh-so mind-numbingly boring when oh luck I could just noodle on that on 30 minutes later oops.
  - aczerepinski 10y ago
    I have mixed feelings on this. Students definitely shouldn't be taking on debt to study a profession that doesn't exist, and lower tier colleges that never ever produce professionals probably shouldn't be offering the major. But I do see a place for the top conservatories, especially if we can find more ways for the programs to be very selective, and free. The music is beautiful and continues to evolve, and as long as the pursuit doesn't hinder everyone financially, it's a good thing to have going on in society. I personally am not comfortable teaching music majors, but under the right circumstances I would be happy to teach electives to non-majors and kids. If you pay your dues and learn to really hear jazz, I truly believe it's one of the most intellectually and emotionally engaging experiences anywhere. I'd like to share that with people who aren't trying to make it their profession.
  - analog31 10y ago
    I should have been a bit more specific: The teaching that I'm talking about is private lessons for younger kids, K-12 schools, and even a handful of adults who take lessons as a leisure activity. I took music lessons as a kid, from around age 6 through high school. My parents had no expectation that I would become a professional musician. (In fact, my dad later expressed his relief when he knew that I wouldn't). And in reality I would never have made the cut. Jazz bass was easier for me to get into than classical cello, because there was at the time a shortage of bassists, and nothing like the insane auditions that classical players go through. I was happy to let music be a serious sideline while I pursued math and physics as my college majors. Today, my kids are themselves taking classical lessons, playing in the youth orchestra, etc. It's interesting, when the orchestra has its final concert every year, the program gives a little bio for each kid who is a high school senior, and many of them mention their future plans. A huge percentage of the kids in the orchestra are planning on studying science, math, computers, etc. A few will actually study those subjects in college, paid for by music scholarships. One of my band mates went through college that way, and is now employed in the software industry. So it's a good kind of Ponzi scheme. ;-)

coldtea 10y ago

Playing outside the box office, too...

leothekim 10y ago
This makes sense because only music that makes money matters.
- coldtea 10y ago
  What I wrote is a factual observation, not a value judgement. So it makes sense whether one believes that "only music that makes money matters" or not. (And I don't believe that at all)
  - ap22213 10y ago
    I think you guys are missing my point, which is my fault. Making art for the money should never be a primary goal, unless one's goal is the emphasis and irony of that relationship (see: Koons). Otherwise, how can it really be art? It's been constrained and affected by the expected effect. However, there's a huge difference between self-labeling one's art in a way that obscures it from wide access (like labeling a music created today as 'Jazz') and actually re-producing previously successful art forms (e.g. 'Jazz') because of a fear of judgment or chasing of praise.
    - leothekim 10y ago
      You can make art for the sole purpose of money. Lots of writers and musicians churn out pulp and jingles to keep the pool heated. And some of that stuff is really good art. I think you're stuck with a particular definition of jazz, the one that's putting the proverbial pillow on it. If you define jazz as that stuff that had its moment in the past with Coltrane and Bird, etc, of course it's going to be boring and old hat. If you listen to Robert Glasper's Black Radio and understand it a contemporary expression of jazz as well as R&B, then it's easy to be amazed at how much jazz has evolved and enthralled with where it's going. Jazz has never been "pure" - it has always reached into different music genres in subtle and unexpected ways. It remains misunderstood for that reason.

leothekim 10y ago

“If you don’t want jazz to change, you are putting a pillow over its face, and it’s going to die." Truer words have never been said. Jazz wasn't meant to live in the shadows of Coltrane, Ellington, Monk, Bird, or even Miles Davis forever. Sure the history is important, and technique and the theoretical rigor will always be a necessary ingredient, but the moment Jazz stops innovating and expanding is the moment it dies.

ap22213 10y ago

I clearly know nothing about music, but why does it even have to be called 'Jazz'? Given those market numbers cited, it seems like it would be a very bad brand to be associated with your music. Having a son who's 12, and having recently had a bunch of pre-teens running around my house all going through the timeless ritual of identity crafting, I have gotten to listen to their music, watch their media, and hear their thoughts. When I talk with them about music, it doesn't surprise me that they view the music of my day (80s / 90s) with as much boredom as I had viewed big band music in my day. To them, rock and jazz are Baroque. Guitars and Drums? I might as well play them a harpsichord. On the other hand, I know several highly skilled, expert musical technicians in their 20s and 30s. They have spent the majority of their lives training to master the practice and theory of music. They know so much about their instruments and their technique, it frankly astounds me. In comparison to dedicated musicians of my day, they seem like masters. Yet, for some reason, they spend their time playing Jazz derivatives and covers or as studio musicians. Interestingly, they're all playing Jazz - which to me is so puzzling. It's akin to being a master visual artist and being absorbed in re-creating Pollack or Rothko or Kadinsky. Jazz had a moment, and it was a beautiful moment. It can be admired and relished as such, and the music can help transport one to that moment in time. But, does Jazz even make any sense in the modern world? I love listening to some of it - Coltrane and Davis, of course. But, if I went to a music venue today, and the band was playing Jazz, I'd be bored out of my mind.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
technique + theory != creativity There's nothing inherently creative about artistic technique. At best it gives you a way to express creativity. At worst it's a dead thing you keep repeating over and over because you can't think of anything interesting to say. Theories of art are a really good way to kill creativity. Music theory can become a huge set of if...thens... and unfortunately even talented people don't always get past that. The skills you need to be a brilliantly competent session musician or a successful teacher are only distantly related to the skills you need to be an interesting and original music creator.
- Ericson2314 10y ago

erikschoster 10y ago

Many developments in jazz of the 60s and 70s are just starting to become normalized and institutionalized in the 21st century. Check out the history of the AACM and Art Ensemble of Chicago for one important example: http://www.npr.org/books/titles/138018824/a-power-stronger-than-itself-the-aacm-and-american-experimental-music http://www.npr.org/books/titles/138018824/a-power-stronger-t...