[JPL] Mastery Redux

Jae Sinnett jaejazz at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 15 13:13:33 EDT 2006

Rick, this is a somewhat simplistic response to your involved fundamental question.......I remember Oscar Peterson talking about technique. Someone asked him about his technique and how much does he think the musician needs......his response was "you only need enough technique to do what YOU are trying to do." Interesting. I guess it's when you try to do what others are doing that you run into problems. 
  My point to this is that I look at someone like....lets say Herbie Hancock. I view him as a "master" because he clearly is identified with 'his sound." Granted he has extraordinary technique but it's the sound from my perspective that I think puts you in the master category. Look at Monk. His technique wasn't the greatest but you know you're listening to Monk when you hear him. No question. Could Monk play with Oscars technique? No but he didn't need to in order to create "his" sound. Think about it....every artists sound that we recognize we consider them masters. There are great technicians everywhere but many don't have "their" sound. 
  So from this perspective having mastery is significant because it reveals to us one that has achieved something that is of paramount importance.....the ability to create something that is solely connected to them. So is it important? Absolutely because without it there would be no valid points of departure because everyone would be emulating everyone else. Mastery breeds...or should....individualism. It's offers hope to those wanting to excel in their craft. Ironically, it also discourages because it also reveals the effort necessary in acheiving this level. One of the things that makes  a great programmer is the ability to recognize the "sound" of that programmer. I doubt if any programmer wants to sound like another.
  So lets embrace mastery. It offers hope and gives many of us something to reach beyond our own comfortable sphere of understanding. 
  Jae Sinnett

Rick McLaughlin <rick at rickmclaughlin.com> wrote:

This week's sponsor: Russ Kassoff - ''SOMEWHERE'' (2006) - RHK JAZZ 


The Jazz Programmers Mailing List is a free service provided by JazzWeek.
For more information visit us at http://www.jazzweek.com/jpl
To become a sponsor contact Ed Trefzger 
at ed.trefzger at jazzweek.com or 866-453-6401.

Cats, I'll totally let this drop if the same resounding silence as
yesterday's happens. Sorry to be a nudge, but if the shoe fits...

So the questions are these:

- What is mastery, in jazz, in music, from whatever vantage point you
- Does this thought process actually help us learn from up and coming
artists, or does it hinder the process by unfairly tainting our ears in some
- Further, is it fair to use benchmarks when listening to new artists,
benchmarks that often a) come from a purely canonized view of jazz, b) often
have little to do with the music a young-ish artist is creating, and c) is
even sometimes arbitrary?
- Finally, given the context of this group, how does this help build an
audience of jazz listeners, and what does it do to hinder?

The context, from my original post is:

Hey everyone,

This discussion re: Roberta, combined with our earlier talk about big bands
has piqued my interest, so thanks for that. There are a few questions that
I have liked asking prominent musicians, things like "do you think of
yourself as a jazz musician?", "does the label 'jazz' matter to you and to
your music?", "why do you play?", and then the very interesting question
"what does mastery have to do with your music?" Mastery, it turns out, is
not exactly the easiest subject to deal with, and I'm curious about how
y'all view it. So let me set the stage a little more.

One problem with mastery is that it implies a hierarchical relationship to
music, that somehow when someone has "mastered" their instrument or a genre
of music, that they have conquered it. When I was finishing my master of
music degree at New England Conservatory, I used to joke, you know, "that's
right, I'm about to be a master of music - music won't be pushing ME around

And just because a musician has mastered their instrument or a genre, that
does not mean that they always will. Everyone has off days, or, take late
Bud Powell recordings, tough eras. Those records are the kind that, when
you go to a record store, the expert sort of explains away like, "well, it
was pretty late in his life and he was really sick at the time, but they are
Bud Powell recordings, and just by virtue of that, you must own these." I
bought them.

Relative to this Roberta Gamberini discussion, who does it help to consider
whether or not she is a master, and then to compare her to Ella and Sarah
Vaughn and others? Does it help Roberta - is she aspiring to fill the shoes
of these artists? Maybe, I really don't know because I never asked her, but
I suspect that long-term, it does her a disservice. Does it help the legacy
of these "masters" by somehow keeping their work as the benchmark for all
singers who come after them? 

And is that really fair - the benchmark aspect? Is it fair to use Bud
Powell as a benchmark for all pianists who come later? Well, if one is
trying to specifically play the bebop language, then maybe. But I also
argue that Cecil Taylor is just as important in the context of this music,
and I know that this comment will bring some sparks my way. Why shouldn't he
be a benchmark, or Paul Bley, or someone else? Same with Anthony Braxton,
and I hate to bring this up again, but I argue that his recording of You
Stepped out of a Dream, duo with Dave Holland on Quartets 1974 is totally
unbelievable even though it has almost nothing to do with the canonized
language of jazz up to that point. Why shouldn't Braxton, or Ornette, or
Lee Konitz, or I don't know who else, pick someone, why shouldn't they be
the benchmark. Anyone that isn't Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Charlie Parker
or Dizzy - not that I don't totally love their music, I'm just asking why,
or maybe, why not?

So I put it to you, and I am very curious about how you view [the questions

Thanks again,

Rick McLaughlin
Bassist, composer, teacher, and frequent (hopefully not pompous) blowhard


This week's sponsor: Russ Kassoff - ''SOMEWHERE'' (2006) - RHK JAZZ 


''It goes without saying that FRANK SINATRA could have enlisted the services of any accompanist he wanted. The fact that he chose RUSS KASSOFF speaks volumes about Kassoff's unequivocal artistry, which is splendidly showcased on SOMEWHERE'' (Jack Bowers-AAJ). After almost 40 years as a professional musician, KASSOFF's first album as a leader features his serene beauty, intriguing style, and vivid concepts as an outstanding composer and gifted improviser. With MARTIN WIND (bass) and TIM HORNER (drums), ''SOMEWHERE is vibrant, compelling, and destined to become an essential component of collections that favor jazz trios'' (Paula Edelstein-AMG). ''Performed with class and a fine touch'' (Marion McPartland), ''SOMEWHERE is a masterpiece'' (Bucky Pizzarelli).



Available on-line: www.cdbaby.com/kassoff

FALL ITINERARY (including Knickerbocker in NYC with BUCKY PIZZARELLI Sept. 28-30), (Midtown Jazz at Midday - Saint Peter's @ Citicorp NYC - 1 PM Oct.11), UPDATED BIO, PRESS RELEASE, PHOTOS and more, please visit www.russkassoff.com/somewhere

For more information, interviews, etc. -- please contact: katesmith999 at yahoo.com and visit www.katesmithpromotions.com


Send jazzproglist mailing list submissions to
jazzproglist at jazzweek.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
jazzproglist-request at jazzweek.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
jazzproglist-owner at jazzweek.com

Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com.  Check it out. 

More information about the jazzproglist mailing list