Good Enough for Jazz

When it comes to jazz, standards are generally lowered. There are many examples. In bars, cafes and other places that try to attract clientele by writing 'jazz' on the outside window, the piano inside is of bad quality. Most of the pianos on which jazz was recorded were inferior quality. However bad the piano, it is still good enough for jazz. The old fake books were full of mistakes and some of them still are. If classical music books contain mistakes, they would not sell. Music books with wrong chords are good enough for jazz. Except for the very top level, jazz musicians get underpaid. But bad payment is good enough for jazz musicians.
The acceptance of inferiority is fully accepted in the jazz world, both by the non-jazz people and the jazz people themselves. Part of the explanation for this abnormality is that inferiority in jazz is romanticized. Old jazz recordings must sound bad. Too much restoration on new CDs is suspect. The low quality of the sound is not only good enough for jazz but also a prerequisite.
But it goes further. Perfectionism in jazz is suspect. If something is extremely good, it is too good for jazz. A jazz instrument must be old, something must be wrong with it and it must be hard to play. And it goes even worse. Jazz musicians who earn a lot of money are suspect. Something must be wrong, especially if the jazz musician is a singer. But not only singers face this problem. Lately The Bad Plus, a new piano trio with a lot of attention in the press, had to face irrelevant critic because of the sheer fact that they were successful.
The acceptance of the inferiority as being normal in jazz is definitively present in the view of outsiders on jazz education. Most people still believe that anyone can play the drums. Swing gives you a happy and easy feeling so it must be easy to play. Many non-jazz people firmly believe that improvising is nothing else than fooling around with notes on the spur of the moment for which no talent is needed. It is hard to explain to people who are not involved in jazz education that it takes many years of hard work for a student in order to become a professional jazz musician. Too bad for these ignorant outsiders but what if they are the decision makers at the ministry of jazz education or the managers of the board of a school? Jazz education has to find an answer to the ethical problem of acceptance of inferiority in jazz. If jazz accepts that it is 'just' jazz then it deserves bad pianos, it deserves low fees and it deserves the lack of success. If jazz education accepts that jazz is 'just' jazz, then it does not deserve proper housing, a strong curriculum and decent salaries for the teachers. Jazz education must solve the ethical problem in order to guarantee a decent future for itself and for the students!
The mere fact that jazz has crowned itself as an art form a few decades ago did not solve the ethical problem. It is nice that the Congress of the USA has written on a piece of paper that jazz is a valuable art form but the right ethics standards and the high self esteem have to come from within. Jazz education should no longer accept mediocrity and badness as the standard. The IASJ can play a role in this by setting the standards and fight a constant battle against inferiority. Surely, a couple of colorful aspects of jazz and jazz education will disappear but their loss will be compensated and soon be forgotten.

Walter Turkenburg - editor

Response by Armen Donelian, November 2004

I am writing in response to your article, "Good Enough For Jazz!" which seeks "an answer to the ethical problem of the acceptance of inferiority in jazz." I would like to offer my comments.

It is good that the IASJ and other organizations are working to improve jazz teaching conditions. However, I have taught at schools where conditions are nearly perfect and yet students were unsatisfied with the learning experience, and I have also taught where conditions were appallingly bad while students were truly satisfied. Of course, I would prefer students and teachers to have both the best conditions and satisfaction, but in my experience the two are not causally related.

ROMANTICIZING
The article states that part of the reason for this "abnormal" acceptance of the inferiority of jazz in society and academia is that it is "romanticized."

The "inferior" conditions under which jazz has been and is still played have their roots in the black struggle for civil rights and cultural identity in a white world. Is there anything romantic about racial discrimination? I don't think so. Under such adverse conditions, blacks suffered a great deal while striving to improve their destiny. The color of our skin or the source of our genes may be different, but we, as inheritors of the jazz tradition, also inherit this struggle in a modified form - the struggle for artistic freedom. Consider the experiences of jazz musicians in other repressive societies, for example, in Germany during the Hitler years or in the Soviet Union under Stalin. Jazz was not allowed for a variety of official reasons, but probably because it encouraged people to think and to resist political oppression and thus it undermined the authority of the state and had to be suppressed. Jazz, those who played it, and those who loved it, suffered.

There is nothing romantic about suffering. In those times, it was unavoidable, and it was harsh. Today we may not be lynched, sent to concentration camps or exiled in stalags for playing jazz; however, we still suffer difficulties. It is important, therefore, to maintain some historical perspective on our situation in order to appreciate the artistic, technical, political and economic improvements achieved by jazz musicians in the last 100 years, and not take for granted what they suffered and achieved in order that we might have a better fate. This means not romanticizing that which is old, but acknowledging that past jazz musicians did the best they could in their day, and attempting to do the same or better in our lives.

PERFECTIONISM
The article goes on to say: "Perfectionism in jazz is suspect..." because in the minds of some "...it is too good for jazz." The controlling interests in music business and music education - both past and present - find jazz difficult to categorize and to exploit because of its individualism, and some may even find jazz threatening because of their considerable investment in other approaches to music and teaching. So, they suspect the credibility of jazz for a variety of reasons. This includes minimizing its artistic excellence. It is a commercial and cultural war that spills over into academia. Successful jazz musicians and educators are like guerillas that survive against the odds. The declaration of the US Congress of jazz as "America's national treasure" is significant and should not be minimized, as your article does, because it helps to promote a positive image of jazz.

Ultimately, however, for musicians and audiences, the integrity of jazz music itself is the true antidote to the suspicion of jazz as an art form equal to any other. The perfection of works of the great jazz masters like Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Miles Davis or Bill Evans cannot be denied even by those who are stupid or dishonest. On the contrary, jazz music is a strong and unique force for good even when played by lesser players. Bring jazz musicians and an audience together, and you will have a positive experience. If this isn't perfection, what is?

FEELING & METHODOLOGY
Then the article deplores the fact that most people believe that "Swing gives you a happy and easy feeling so it must be easy to play." Jazz educators must challenge this falsehood and attest to the truth.

"Feeling" is certainly a factor in the performance of jazz, but only one of many. The jazz improviser must have an exceptional instrumental technique, a composer's knowledge of theory and form, a deep understanding of the history and styles of jazz and other musics, an actor's instinct for drama and audience communication, an athlete's camaraderie and sense of teamwork, and be able to apply them all instantaneously and seamlessly in a variety of ensemble situations in order to create this marvelous and mysterious miracle known as a "solo." It takes years of hard work to make jazz sound easy.

Worse yet, if a music educator or administrator foolishly suggests that the "happy and easy feeling" of listening to jazz means "it must be easy to play," one must reply by saying that equating the subjective experience of any art form with its technical or pedagogical methodology is an ignorant and superficial lie.

THE ANSWER
For me, a clue to the "answer to the ethical problem of acceptance of inferiority in jazz" can be found in the inspiration I received from my first jazz mentor, Arthur Ryerson, Sr.

Ryerson, who had played with Louis Armstrong, Jack Teagarden, Paul Whiteman and others during his career as a guitarist, arranger and teacher, led a jazz band featuring his children (who were my age) along with several other musicians. At 14, I auditioned and was accepted into the band. I was fortunate, because I didn't know and couldn't do everything, but I was a capable reader and pianist (I had played classical music for 7 years), I was eager to learn jazz, and I was responsible. Most of all, I loved jazz, and so Mr. Ryerson allowed me to work as I learned.

I'll always be grateful because I was "inferior," but I was, in your words, "Good Enough For Jazz." As a studio musician for CBS, Ryerson's professional standards were very high. His decision to risk hiring a novice provided me with formative encouragement at a critical moment that shaped the course of my life. It was an act of grace on his part. Today I'm 53. I play, compose, teach and write about jazz. I love it as much as I did then, and it's because of him.

To me, the answer to coming to terms with jazz "inferiority" means acting with grace and accepting imperfection as a part of life. What, after all, is "perfection?" It is just a thing on the way to becoming something else even more "perfect." When all the outward conditions for learning or playing jazz are "perfect," does that mean we will be filled with self-esteem and satisfied with our music? I don't think so. Outward "perfection" doesn't guarantee fulfillment, nor does the acceptance of imperfection in our outward circumstances constitute unethical, mediocre or bad behavior.

Jazz is not content with imperfection in oneself or in surrounding conditions, but it is not averse to it either. In jazz, imperfection is part of the big picture of becoming. By "accepting" inferiority, I mean welcoming imperfection, befriending it, working with it, helping it find its next step in becoming what it aspires to be. It is truly being "Good Enough For Jazz." It is what I mean by grace. The quality of "acceptance" facilitates many things on many levels:

1) A student or young musician with some deficiencies and a burning desire to learn who is accepted into a school or a group and is encouraged to pursue his/her highest dream. Eventually, s/he develops into a successful artist and educator.

2) A jazz musician or educator who accepts his/her circumstances, transcends them and frees him/herself to play or teach music on a higher level. S/he doesn't condone the circumstances, nor struggle with them. S/he allows him/herself to play or teach under any and all conditions, from the most "perfect" to the most terrible, regardless of how s/he thinks they "should" be. As s/he enjoys his/her work more and more, so do his/her audiences and students, leading to more successful engagements and rewarding teaching opportunities.

3) A school administrator who invested university resources in an unproven proposal that eventually led to the establishment of a new, successful jazz department, but which could equally have failed. This "acceptance" on an institutional level risked loss, but actually led to a major advance in jazz education.

All of the above are true stories from my own life. I was the deficient student; I was the unhappy perfectionist; and the new jazz department founded on a tentative idea is where I have played a key role for the last 17 years.

My point is this: Perhaps more than any art form, jazz accepts imperfection while setting high artistic standards. The two are not mutually exclusive. Those who are ignorant or subversive may look at jazz and mock it as unserious music, pointing to apparent imperfections, and if they are protecting a position of power they may try to undermine or even obstruct its progress. In my opinion, they lack grace, and it is truly their problem. We as jazz musicians must be ready for such criticism, realize that it comes from their own suffering and dualistic thinking, defend ourselves against it through the strength of our music, and cultivate an awareness of the constantly changing nature of phenomena that are on their way to becoming something else.

Separating imperfection from the larger context of becoming is an easy and familiar technique for criticizing things as they are, a "cheap shot" as they say. Staying the course that leads to mastery is slow and often unglamorous, as imperfection ultimately transcends limitation and leads to the true fulfillment that only the artist knows, when his/her goal is realized. Then, grace leads to "perfection" without getting trapped in ideas about "inferiority" and "superiority."

Some people may consider the conditions under which jazz is played, taught or learned as "inferior." However, these conditions are constantly changing, and the inspiration to become the best one can be is constant. If a jazz educator can instill that understanding through both proven methods as well as the strength of personal convictions, then s/he is successful in helping the student advance to the next level, regardless of whether the piano is tuned, or the music has the correct chord changes, or the pay is up to the union rate, or the microphone is broken. If every educator does that for every student, every day of one's teaching career, the history of the world will be very different and conditions will surely improve.

If given a chance, the lotus will grow in the mud. That, in my view, is being "Good Enough For Jazz!"

Sincerely, ARMEN DONELIAN