9.30.2010
Drummers the unsung artists
I just finished watching what was admittedly a very boring clinic given by Lewis Nash. But, I couldn't help but appreciate the quality of the clinician not just as a player but in the way he presented his knowledge. Since I'm not a drummer I found the whole thing to be over my head and terribly dull. Still I found my self engaged listening to this man explain his craft both technically and conceptually. It made me feel like I picked the wrong instrument. I've never scene a drum clinic that didn't encompass all aspects of playing. Explaining the mental and physical mechanics of playing as well as the more spiritual or philosophical challenges of making drumming musical. It always impresses me how eloquently these players can discuss their instrument.
9.14.2010
The Berklee Aesthetic
The Berklee Aesthetic
I have a very general grasp on the English language, it's depth completely lost on me. So when I hear the word "aesthetic" I don't really give it much thought, I understand it to mean all things beautiful. I'm not even sure if that is an entirely correct understanding of the word but there it is. So when we recently had a discussion in my department about what we want the "aesthetic" of our halls to be, I was a little confused. As far as I know we have no control of what gets performed in our halls. And to be terribly clichéd, beauty is in the eye of the beholder: My aesthetic vision for the BPC is going to be entirely different from someone else's. Realizing that there might be some gaps in my knowledge I dusted off my handy, dandy (widget) dictionary and looked it up. Apparently my definition of aesthetic is the adjective. It can also be used as a noun, which, according to my widget dictionary is "A set of principles underlying and guiding the work of a particular artist or artistic movement." Aha! So we are not just talking about making pretty music, we are talking about a revolution, a movement. The actual question being posed to me is not what do I want to hear performed, but what music best represents the school's artistic principles. In order to answer that question I have to first determine what the school's artistic principles are, if we even have any.
Before I started my first semester I had the privilege to hear James Carter play at a jam session at Baker's, in Detroit. Taking pictures of my friends playing together for possibly the last time before we all went our separate ways, I sat next to him and mentioned that I was studying at Berklee in the fall. He made a face, which surprised me, and told me "Just don't lose who you are as a musician." I admittedly didn't really know what he was talking about. Wasn't I heading to the best Jazz music school in the world? How could I do anything but grow as a musician? Now that my school years are behind me I can see some wisdom in his advice as well as perhaps some bitter smugness. Fortunately my mediocrity as a singer ensured that my "artistic integrity" (for what it's worth) remained untainted. But I recall numerous conversations with co-workers and classmates of how much we despised the "Berklee sound". A sound characterized by self-gratifying noodling, boring free jazz, cookie cutter pop divas, all head and no heart; All parts of a machine that is churning out cogs of the industry while neglecting the art. Is this the Berklee aesthetic? Is it an accurate description of the quality of Berklee musicians? Not entirely, but that is certainly the perception. What defines a Berklee musician? Should there be something that unites us artistically? Do we judge a musician on the quality of his works, his success in the field or by the aesthetic of his creation? It's so difficult to quantify music as an artform that I can't say definitively if Berklee ensures growth as an artist, in the same way that it ensures preparedness for a career. Our motto, "To be, rather than to appear to be" implies actions but doesn't speak to the College’s intellectual aspirations for it’s students. With such a diverse student body, encompassing all of them with a single guiding principle is difficult. Especially with such sentiments as Mr. Carter's. How can we be a part of a collective while maintaining individuality?
I believe it’s possible to be both. If Berklee dedicates itself to nurturing innovative art, we can encourage individuality while presenting a singular artistic vision. We can set a standard that being a Berklee musician means you have a responsibility to push the envelope of musical creativity. To a certain extent we are already there. New music is constantly being made here, yet I rarely see it performed on campus. I find that odd. If anything the academic environment should encourage students to play music that may not be appreciated elsewhere. Instead, year after year I see and hear the same things over and over again. I see a lot of imitation and little innovation. For example, in the eighteen Singer's Showcases I've seen, I can maybe recall two or three stand out performances. It's disappointing to see that show sold out, while remarkable, interesting music goes unseen. Students approach their classes in the same way. Scoffing at music history class, or trad harm, not appreciating that all knowledge enriches who they are as artists. It always seemed to me that Berklee students were only interested in skills that were directly applicable to what they wanted to do professionally. I should know, because I was one of them. Now, I regret that I didn’t spend my college years immersed in the intellectual pursuits of music as opposed to thinking of the bottom line. I understand that it's hard not to focus on attaining financial security. After all you are going to have to earn a living after school. But in this nurturing environment you should feel free of those worries and trust that by exploring the possibilities of your craft at college, you will open doors professionally when you leave. So I partly blame the student body for taking knowledge from the school while giving nothing back, but I also know that often times the institution doesn't reward innovation. I can recall one instance where a production teacher criticized my project for not being "marketable." A valid concern, but should I not do the music I enjoy simply because no one else does? I say no, and so should the faculty. Even if the reality is that you have to be able to sell your art in order to live off it, that thought has no place in academia. Some people would argue that point with me. In fact many I've spoken to came to Berklee because of the success of their alumni. Figuring it was a practical choice for someone wanting to work in the music industry. Yet with all of it's talent, and diversity, the perception is that this isn't the place to do something daringly new. It's always a couple steps behind the cutting edge. Changing that would require more open mindedness from teachers and students, and a clear message of what type of an institution we are. Is it about the art? Or is it about the industry? We have the potential to be more than just a training ground for working musicians. And while the school can't force the quality of the art being produced, we can certainly change the aesthetic perception, and perhaps with time the perception will reflect the reality.
I have a very general grasp on the English language, it's depth completely lost on me. So when I hear the word "aesthetic" I don't really give it much thought, I understand it to mean all things beautiful. I'm not even sure if that is an entirely correct understanding of the word but there it is. So when we recently had a discussion in my department about what we want the "aesthetic" of our halls to be, I was a little confused. As far as I know we have no control of what gets performed in our halls. And to be terribly clichéd, beauty is in the eye of the beholder: My aesthetic vision for the BPC is going to be entirely different from someone else's. Realizing that there might be some gaps in my knowledge I dusted off my handy, dandy (widget) dictionary and looked it up. Apparently my definition of aesthetic is the adjective. It can also be used as a noun, which, according to my widget dictionary is "A set of principles underlying and guiding the work of a particular artist or artistic movement." Aha! So we are not just talking about making pretty music, we are talking about a revolution, a movement. The actual question being posed to me is not what do I want to hear performed, but what music best represents the school's artistic principles. In order to answer that question I have to first determine what the school's artistic principles are, if we even have any.
Before I started my first semester I had the privilege to hear James Carter play at a jam session at Baker's, in Detroit. Taking pictures of my friends playing together for possibly the last time before we all went our separate ways, I sat next to him and mentioned that I was studying at Berklee in the fall. He made a face, which surprised me, and told me "Just don't lose who you are as a musician." I admittedly didn't really know what he was talking about. Wasn't I heading to the best Jazz music school in the world? How could I do anything but grow as a musician? Now that my school years are behind me I can see some wisdom in his advice as well as perhaps some bitter smugness. Fortunately my mediocrity as a singer ensured that my "artistic integrity" (for what it's worth) remained untainted. But I recall numerous conversations with co-workers and classmates of how much we despised the "Berklee sound". A sound characterized by self-gratifying noodling, boring free jazz, cookie cutter pop divas, all head and no heart; All parts of a machine that is churning out cogs of the industry while neglecting the art. Is this the Berklee aesthetic? Is it an accurate description of the quality of Berklee musicians? Not entirely, but that is certainly the perception. What defines a Berklee musician? Should there be something that unites us artistically? Do we judge a musician on the quality of his works, his success in the field or by the aesthetic of his creation? It's so difficult to quantify music as an artform that I can't say definitively if Berklee ensures growth as an artist, in the same way that it ensures preparedness for a career. Our motto, "To be, rather than to appear to be" implies actions but doesn't speak to the College’s intellectual aspirations for it’s students. With such a diverse student body, encompassing all of them with a single guiding principle is difficult. Especially with such sentiments as Mr. Carter's. How can we be a part of a collective while maintaining individuality?
I believe it’s possible to be both. If Berklee dedicates itself to nurturing innovative art, we can encourage individuality while presenting a singular artistic vision. We can set a standard that being a Berklee musician means you have a responsibility to push the envelope of musical creativity. To a certain extent we are already there. New music is constantly being made here, yet I rarely see it performed on campus. I find that odd. If anything the academic environment should encourage students to play music that may not be appreciated elsewhere. Instead, year after year I see and hear the same things over and over again. I see a lot of imitation and little innovation. For example, in the eighteen Singer's Showcases I've seen, I can maybe recall two or three stand out performances. It's disappointing to see that show sold out, while remarkable, interesting music goes unseen. Students approach their classes in the same way. Scoffing at music history class, or trad harm, not appreciating that all knowledge enriches who they are as artists. It always seemed to me that Berklee students were only interested in skills that were directly applicable to what they wanted to do professionally. I should know, because I was one of them. Now, I regret that I didn’t spend my college years immersed in the intellectual pursuits of music as opposed to thinking of the bottom line. I understand that it's hard not to focus on attaining financial security. After all you are going to have to earn a living after school. But in this nurturing environment you should feel free of those worries and trust that by exploring the possibilities of your craft at college, you will open doors professionally when you leave. So I partly blame the student body for taking knowledge from the school while giving nothing back, but I also know that often times the institution doesn't reward innovation. I can recall one instance where a production teacher criticized my project for not being "marketable." A valid concern, but should I not do the music I enjoy simply because no one else does? I say no, and so should the faculty. Even if the reality is that you have to be able to sell your art in order to live off it, that thought has no place in academia. Some people would argue that point with me. In fact many I've spoken to came to Berklee because of the success of their alumni. Figuring it was a practical choice for someone wanting to work in the music industry. Yet with all of it's talent, and diversity, the perception is that this isn't the place to do something daringly new. It's always a couple steps behind the cutting edge. Changing that would require more open mindedness from teachers and students, and a clear message of what type of an institution we are. Is it about the art? Or is it about the industry? We have the potential to be more than just a training ground for working musicians. And while the school can't force the quality of the art being produced, we can certainly change the aesthetic perception, and perhaps with time the perception will reflect the reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
