The issues that were raised by the readings and last Wednesday's class were bouncing around my head for the remainder of last week into this past weekend. On Saturday, I spent 12 hours attending a soccer referee Associate Instructor course in which I was given a course on how to teach entry level soccer referees. I started playing soccer at around age 3 and became a referee at age 12 (around the time I started the saxophone). I've been a very active soccer official since age 17, attending national tournaments and climbing through the ranks. Therefore, I am as familiar with the soccer refereeing world as I am with the jazz world. And I believe that good referees and good jazz players share a lot in common: both jobs require an ability to improvise (be it musically, or within an unpredictable soccer game situation). Jazz musicians and referees both need to be able to react to the changes going on around them instantly. When playing jazz, there's a certain "form" to the tune, but how that band is playing it is unique in every situation. In soccer, the game flows similarly in every match, but the fouls that occur, the level of intensity, and the different personalities of the players change from game to game. If I show up to a soccer match and have poor assistant referees, I have to compensate for their weaknesses. Similarly (as I learned in Montana), if I'm playing with a drummer or bassist that's struggling, I need to be sure to make the time and form very obvious with my solo materials. You can see how there are certain elements about jazz playing and soccer refereeing which don't transfer well into the classroom setting: the real jazz playing happens on the bandstand, and the real officiating happens out on the field. However, both areas are taught in very rigid "courses."
As I sat in the referee instructor course where one is trained on how to teach entry-level referee clinics (akin to Improv or Theory I), I began to grow very irritated with the material, and I wasn't quite sure why. It wasn't until Sunday that I realized my gripe with the way in which soccer officiating and jazz playing are taught both have the same—in my opinion—fatal flaw: both areas place such an emphasis on the material that the actual experience of playing or reffing is overlooked.
When a student enrolls in a jazz studies program, is their goal to learn the jazz vocabulary, or is it to become a jazz player? One might think these two are the same thing, but I would like to contest that they are not. A great referee is not someone who knows the laws of the game inside-and-out. I can say confidently that there are people who know the law book incredibly well but are terrible referees. Conversely, there are other officials who "make their own rules," but they still have great success. This is because being a great referee isn't only about knowing the laws of the game.
In my estimation, the same is true of a great jazz player. A great jazz player is not one who simply knows the jazz vocabulary inside-and-out and can demonstrate it on their horn. Clearly, knowing the language is a significant component of playing jazz, but it's not the ONLY component. Being able to interact musically on a bandstand, to listen to the other members of the band while playing, to play with a sense of purpose/feeling, and to be aware of the audience: these are also essential parts of being the "complete package." However, there aren't many "ensemble interaction" courses being taught. Think of every ensemble you ever played in during college. Even if there were times that interacting with/listening to other band members was addressed, how muted was that by the overall obsession that everyone has with their own solos? One frequent knock that I hear given about young/university jazz musicians is the fact that they play too much and don't listen enough. However, is this sentiment ever addressed at the institutional level?
The material in a soccer referee course is nationally mandated. Therefore, the powerpoint presentation given in Kalamazoo is the same one given in Newark. Jazz education is not as clearly uniform, but I would argue that the dissemination of teaching methods and materials around the country (with the assistance of bodies such as the IAJE) is quite similar from one program to the next. I would argue that even though there are vastly different faculty members at MSM, NEC, Eastman, etc., the students at the various institutions share a lot of similar sentiments about their musical priorities in a way that would have NOT been as universal prior to the institutionalization of jazz. So even though, as Ken described in his response to John, there have always been examples of imitation in jazz playing, the idea of a more unified philosophy on how to approach the music (and lack of variety in perspectives) seems to be unique to jazz as it has been presented following its indoctrination into the world of academia.
Just my two cents.
*"It wasn't until Sunday that I realized my gripe with the way in which soccer officiating and jazz playing are taught IS THAT THEY both have the same—in my opinion—fatal flaw:
ReplyDelete