Doublebass Influences

      Recently, I've had a number of people asking me about my influences as a bassist, and I often find myself at a loss as to what to say. I consider myself a student of music, and I cite every musician, composer, and instrument I listen to as an influence, from Coltrane to Morton Feldman to Claudio Arrau. In fact, the majority of transcriptions and systematic examinations I have done have been primarily saxophonists, pianists, guitarists, and ethnic drummers, not to mention composers like Messiaen and Bach.  Still, as a jazz bassist, I owe debts to the history of my instrument, and it is proper to cite some of my heroes and influences on my own instrument aesthetically.

Oscar Pettiford- the grandfather of melodic bass playing

Charles Mingus- a man who pushed the boundaries of changes and melodic playing

Sam Jones-  fat, dark, rich sound and impeccable time with a poignant simplicity

George Duvivier- impeccable time!

Jimmy Garrison- master of the unaccompanied bass solo and rubato playing while always incorporating pulse, also extended the instrument in terms of functionality as well in traditional "walking" contexts

Dave Holland- virtuoso of rhythm, meters, and complexity

Charlie Haden- THE most poignant of bass players, sound is everything, and he just makes everything sound good with the simplest of ideas; perhaps my favorite bass player if I had to choose

Gary Peacock - a bassist who always takes creative risks, be it in free jazz or straight-ahead playing. I greatly admire his phrasing and lyricism, as well as his dialectic interaction in any playing situation.  Gary exemplifies stream of conciousness performance; especially check out his unaccompanied bass playing (December Poems) and duets with various instruments (Paul Bley, John Surman, etc.).

Michael Formanek- pushing creative ideas on the instrument; check out his unaccompanied solo album Am I Bothering You as well as his work with Tim Berne.

George Mraz- master of the lyrical melody and arco virtuoso

On Compositional and Aesthetic Philosophy

     My music and art is the result of a constant quest to grow and develop as a human being--philosophically, emotionally, and intellectually. Taking my varied interests and the variety of musical styles I have delved into, I seek to incorporate such knowledge into whatever playing experience I am part of. I have found that my literary, philosophical, and other artistic interests have all inestimably enriched my music, and that the key to finding one's personal voice is having a clear and open, yet focused, mind. More than anything else, my artistic goal is to always create something intensely personal and true to myself, and this demands a continual pushing of the boundaries of my mental experience.
      Compositionally, I write music for various specific genres, as well as sometimes juxtaposing those genres until stylistic boundaries are blurred. This aesthetic tendency towards synthesis is also apparent in my continued attempt to weave improvisation and composition into a seamless texture; the goal here is to give players the freedom to express themselves individually within the context of musically providing what the composition or moment needs. Implicit in this compositional aesthetic is the concept that a composition not only functions as a vehicle for the performer, but that the performer also functions as a conduit for the composition. For this reason, I prefer composing for specific people and their musical personalities rather than simply for an instrumentation; as a side note, for the sonic clarity of individual expression, I tend to prefer chamber music and "small group" jazz to orchestral music and big bands. I do, however, particularly admire the orchestral music of Takemitsu, Lou Harrison, Morton Feldman, and Messiaen, due in large part to the particular attention they pay to the singular instruments of the orchestra. In these contexts, the orchestra sometimes almost functions as an enormous "chamber ensemble" rather than a conglomeration of sections.
      Different aesthetic philosophies yield different compositional methods. Accordingly, I also write compositions specifically geared more towards "free playing" and spontaneous improvisation. Here, musical decisions regarding form and structure are left much more in the hands of the performing musicians, and the composition functions as a loose schematic, theme, or starting point.
      These are a few basic aesthetic compositional philosophies that can go a long way. They are certainly nothing new or groundbreaking; rather, what I am striving for is discernment, awareness of, and assimilation of such concepts into my compositional method. By being aware of simple parameters and how they can be altered and juxtaposed, one can achieve enormous differences in musical content.

On Truth, Structure, and Aesthetic Judgement:
an essay in four parts

Truth and Modes of Perceptual Apprehension

     Much of modern art often seems to present a world antithetical to reality, a world seemingly so far removed from life that the average audience member may be entirely unable to relate to it. In my mind, this situation sometimes points to the need for the listener to forego prejudicial judgements in light of the assimilation of new data; if there is to be any attempt at insight or communication, the perplexed listener requires an immersion in the sensory world the artist creates, a suspension of disbelief. The key element in such an experience would be to release one's mind of its habitual tendency to compartmentalize experience into preconceived categories tinged with moral judgement. Such a suspension of disbelief can yield insight, a profound experience, new philosophical realizations, or even the apprehension of a new aesthetic sense. Other times, the listener may find an inability to relate to the composer/performer at all due to lack of erudition or the lack of common emotional experience. Regardless, it seems to me that this suspension of disbelief is an endeavour made worthwhile by even one iota of aesthetic growth achieved in a lifetime. Having the patience to examine what one dislikes, and why, is an essential component of the process of aesthetic realization.
      When contemporary man speaks of truth, I think the most commonly accepted definition tends towards the "correspondence theory of truth", stemming from an unconscious scientific/mathematical-like outlook of the world. In this theory, truth is seen as a fact; a definite, verifiable entity; a one-to-one correspondence between two concepts, idea, or objects. Truth in this sense is a mathematical equation. Pi is 3.14..., John F Kennedy is dead, and parvus is an ancient Latin word meaning "small". Some facts are man made abstractions, others are pertinent to reality itself. Parvus must mean "small", for man has defined it that way; this fact is an abstraction. The fact that in 2003, John F Kennedy is dead, is a physically verifiable fact; his body and consciousness do not function in the present day. An interesting property of truth as correspondence, is that such statements expresses relationships of equality and such, but in so doing do not necessarily impart any compelling knowledge of the universe. The fact that Kennedy is dead leads us to the supposition that he was a man with a consciousness and that that consciousness no longer exists as a corporeal agent. Such a statement requires further human insight and understanding to glean any serious philosophical implication; the innate understanding of the annihilation of Kennedy's consciousness resonates on a deeper level than the simple fact that "Kennedy is dead." The difference is subtle, but a computer can make correspondence between such statements of fact, which is a "truth"; the truth a human gleans from such a statement is a truth in a deeper, more subjective sense of understanding, and this is where we should take our inquiry.
      The Greek word for truth is aletheia, and its meaning has profound philosophical implications as to our relationship with the world. Aletheia means not "fact", but unveiling or revealing. Such a definition of truth emphasizes not the state or quality of a concept or object, but rather a process that unfolds between the observer and the observed. Truth in this light can be seen as the process whereby an observer recognizes a relationship between two ideas or simply the bare existence of a thing. Seeing a tree without category, in the Buddhist sense of clear mind, is to see the tree with aletheia, without preconceived qualification. Non-truth would be to categorize the tree as a maple and then attach the qualities of the category "maple tree" at the expense of the individual attributes of the object before us. Such a "categorical inclination" overrides the individual experience of that maple and thus taints the truth of the actual sensory experience taking place.

Mind and Musical Structure

     One of the most important aspects of music and any artistic discipline is structure. The mind is responsible for organizing our sensory experience and perception, social relationships, language, and more; higher intelligences have a greater or broader grasp of the relationship of various components of this data. In other words, one aspect of intelligence is the ability to recognize, quantify, and internalize complex structures and their components. The human mind functions as an organ whose function in part is to make the world intelligible, at least intelligible enough for man to function adequately in his environment.
      Art presents a world in which structure reigns, mostly through the will of its creator, be that will unconscious or conscious; even so, some structures are inherent in reality itself (take for example, the harmonic implication of a single pitch producing overtones). I consider structure to be the most important artistic tool for categorization, composition, aesthetic perception and judgement, philosophical implication, and most basic of all, the experience of the sublime so essential to artistic experience. Whether composed, improvised, or random, even the simplest piece of music consists of numerous layers of structure, even if such structures can be qualified as "structureless".
      Liken this to the fact that music always possesses rhythm and harmony. Any two notes exist within a relationship to each other involving time placement, sequence, and duration; any rhythm involves an object which produces an audible sound, and any sound by definition must be the result of vibration. Any audible vibration corresponds to a pitch or set of pitches and their attendant overtones, and so there is a harmonic implication as well. As to whether an individual perceives that implication, or even whether the composer intended it is another matter. (As a sidenote, consider the fact that a specific piece written for a specific instrument may have a vastly different tonal field then the composer originally worked with. Take for example many works of Harry Partch utilizing "homemade" instruments later performed by different instruments. Also, Olivier Messiaen, composed many works for organ on his beloved Cavaille-Coll; different organs in different cathedrals produce vastly different harmonic overtones which radically affects how a piece sounds harmonically in the upper registers, particularly with music as clustered and varied in register as Messaien's.)

Hierarchical Aesthetic Judgement

     Structure exists as an integral quality of music and art; more variability reigns in the realm of the listener or composer as to one's aptitude for discerning and creating structures. Different individuals have different aptitudes for structural discernment and formulation, and quite often, either enterprise takes place in a non-conscious, intuitive realm. I contend that a recognition of structure serves to enrich our aesthetic appreciation of any work of art. In many great works of art, levels and metalevels of depth unfold endlessly to the beholder; in simpler terms, every time we listen to such a piece or look at such a painting, we find some new experience or insight we have not had before.
      Also, it must be noted that the recognition of structure as an intrinsic, integral quality of art does not imply that complexity of structure yields a "higher" or "better" work of art. Simplicity and complexity of structure are two degrees on a specific scale, but should not blindly be the means of a hierarchical moral judgement. Hierachical judgements regarding artistic structures are acceptable in certain contexts, but caution should be heeded that the judge understands the nature of the context and the artistic intent of the work.
      For example, to condemn an aleatoric piece out of lack of development is to employ an inadequate judgemental criterion. Some pieces are intended to have little or no structural coherency. An artistic/philosophical statement can be made through the employment of randomness and chance, and the discerning mind finds that there is indeed structure here, a non-classical structure: the structure of chaos.
      On the other hand, to condemn an aleatoric piece out of personal aesthetic dislike is an acceptable mode of hierachical moral judgement; but in this case, we must further recognize that though such a work has no value for us, it may still possess a value for a different audience or even an intrinsic aesthetic worth historically.
      Art is a discipline and the product of a continuing process of discovery, therefore it must involve aesthetic qualifications which hold some form of meaning to man. Even art intended to portray reality itself does not enter the realm of the banal, for by the very fact of its creation by man, it achieves a form of philosophical import (if only to say that reality itself exists through the eyes of man).
      From the condemnatory angle, the recognition of structurelessness or chaos as an acceptable method of structural coherency should not serve not to justify poor improvisation or poor composition. The artist must take responsibility for his creative process and output, and there is enough detritus in the world already without contributing more under the verbal guise of "self-expression". I do not subscribe to the democratic notion that all self-expression qualifies as art of value. The act of self expression is vital and necessary to our existence, and it should be encouraged at all levels, but one should nourish the creative process towards a higher level of expression, whatever that signifies for the artist. In my own development, I often find that higher level to involve clarity and simplicity of expression rather than further complexities of structure.

Rational Mind, Perception, and Aesthetic Formulation

     When approaching new artistic experiences, often a tabula rasa of sorts is essential to assimilating new sensory experiences, but the mind does and should seek structures and coherence within that listening process. Which is not to say that this must be a conscious effort. When the mind is relaxed and in a receptive state of perception, it should function in such a way that intellect is not thrown out the window. The mind perceives structures (harmonies, rhythms, forms, etc), but it should not impose rigid, preconceived structures that cloud future perceptions. Structures can be perceived and even classified during the listening process, but they must be allowed to breathe and morph to suit the reality of the piece. For example, if in listening to an atonal duet, one recognizes a major third interval, one should not necessarily assume that this interval implies tertiary harmony or even a key center. The fact is that it could do so, depending upon the stylistic context, musical context, and intent of composer, but one should not make that categorization and then rigidly view the rest of the piece through the lens of tonality and major key harmony. To do so would most likely superimpose a preconceived set of structures upon a piece that resides in a different tonal world and utilizes different aesthetic criteria.
      In examples from everyday life, we all have encountered those musicians immersed in a certain genre that hold a certain style to be of value and denigrate other modes of expression and thought (usually because they cannot understand or relate to it). High on this list in my own experience are the so called "bebop Nazis" (believe me, I also know plenty of bebop players open to other styles), free players that see structured music as "uncreative", classical musicians who eschew improvised and modern music as unstructured noise, and more. At the opposite end of the spectrum, there are the democratically oriented individuals who hold that all modes of self expression are valid, and that any artistic hierarchy of values reflects a conservative elitism. From this angle, all is equal, and artistic worth sinks into the quagmire of pure relativism. The rational mind is thus inestimably devalued.
      The former examples present a lack of open mind, of resistance to aletheia, and a superimposition of nearsighted values out of fear, posture, or some other reason. The latter democratic example exemplifies a dismissal of the rational mind as an acceptable means of categorizing reality. This mentality holds that if each mind holds a different perspective, then all rational thought is relative, and no one thought can be seen as having greater value than another. Forgive my conservatism, but I think that between the literature of Danielle Steele and Thomas Mann, a clear hierarchy can be established.
      Only by keeping an open mind can we attempt to perceive aletheia, the truth so vital to a sublime artistic experience. The artist has the unique responsibility of being the conduit of aletheia, portraying a vision of reality through the lens of his experience (can any author write of experiences he has not had with true psychological and emotional depth? I venture strongly into the negative here.) Artistic perception requires an open mind, and that open mind should remain active regardless of level of expertise. Nonetheless, rational thought should not be denigrated and seen as antithetical to artistic experience. Rational thought enriches artistic experience and reveals hidden levels of depth simple perception may not reveal. Structure is an inherent component of all art forms, even the works of an artist who denies conscious usage of it or even its existence. (In set theory, there exists even the empty set, that set which holds no numbers at all, not even zero.) Any artistic work must involve at least a blank canvas, and therefore there must be structure inherent in the work, again, even if that structure is structurelessness or chaos.
      The degree of structural integrity an individual desires varies widely, and this is a legitimate aesthetic choice; some musicians find Mozart too be too structured for their taste, while others find Japanese noise to be far too cacophonic and unstructured for their aesthetic enjoyment. Such choices are the prerogative of any individual. And every individual, particularly the artist, should and must choose the contents of their aesthetic world and then maintain the integrity of that vision. The elements that do not comprise a work are as philosophically vital as the elements that do comprise that work. Essentially, the artist should retain complete conscious control of artistic input and output, but such control should be an aesthetic choice made by an open and receptive mind, free from the cloud of prejudicial judgement.

THE NECESSITY OF SILENCE

THE AGE OF THE CONSUMER

"Early in the morning, when day breaks, when all is fresh, in the dawn of one's strength-to read a book at such a time is simply depraved!"
-Ecce Homo, Nietzsche

     We live in what many have called The Age of Information, a time in which technology has enabled us to access various forms of data from virtually any location in an instant. Provided the economic means, the individual has countless resources from which to draw, but there are obvious downsides as well regarding media usage and its presentation. The allure of poor scholarly endeavor comprises information sifting and gathering without the attendant reflection, introspection, and individual thought so essential to intelligent realization and epiphany. It is vital that the individual think for oneself and not be a victim of predigested ideation. The danger inherent in this situation is a manifestation of The Age of the Consumer, a time in which mass marketed goods and entertainment encroach upon our freedom of thought. Our intellectual goal should be one of using information to retain and cultivate our stance as independent thinkers rather than consumers of information. To properly evaluate information requires a high degree of focus, attention, and wisdom, and these in turn require a patient and cultivated mind. In today's world, due to the bombardment of the media at all levels of public and private life, the achievement of such a mind presents a most formidable, if not impossible at times, task. Here lies my issue with that corporate media parasite, that ear worm digging into your lobes; underlying its existence is an ideology that seeks to reduce or influence our intellectual faculties in favor of the consumption of material goods. Making this an even more formidable threat is the fact that this consumptive ideology is backed by enormous economic powers which threaten man's very intellectual freedom.
     The state of the media and corporate advertisement is such that an endless deluge of information in so many avenues of life has simply become the norm; in response, many people learn or are forced to tune themselves out of their environment, that is if they ever reached the point of being fully aware of it in the first place. What comes into play here is consciousness, the awareness of one's inner world and its relationship to the environment. Consciousness is defined here as not simply passive experience but more importantly the means whereby the individual exercises free will and takes action in both the internal (mental) and external (environmental) worlds. Let us examine the philological nature of these two words for greater insight into their broader meaning. Mental derives from mens -Latin for "mind"; environmental compounds environ - compass, circuit and mens - mind. The origins of these words point towards an implicit understanding of mind and external surroundings as being inseparable from each other. Environment is not simply that which is external to the mind, but rather that within which the mind resides. What is at stake here is the very relationship between the internal and the external and consequently the individual's means to self realization and higher consciousness.
      We have reached a point in time where information is fed to us visually and aurally through various forms of media without our consent. The individual's only retreat from such inundation is a cloistered private life; public life is such that one has no alternative but to be subjected to media of all types in the supermarket, bank, bookstores, restaurants, gyms, and anywhere material goods are sold. Take the music played overhead in supermarkets as an aural example. The goal of such "background music" is to make the shopping experience more palatable, thereby increasing consumer expenditure. On the contrary, however, such things drive me out of the supermarket clutching my ears, for the sounds without deaden the sounds within. To avoid being pigeonholed as a whining curmudgeon let me make myself perfectly clear: we can all choose to not watch television, not read magazines, not read newspapers, or not listen to the radio. To partake in such media requires an active consent on our part. And it is only reasonable that advertisement in these media is a necessary evil for the sake of making worthwhile information available to those of all financial backgrounds. The New York Times defers costs to the reader through advertisement, and I think this is a beneficial way of making in depth news more accessible financially to members of society. My issue with advertising media arises when we lack the means to choose and filter the very information we ingest, for what one ingests is also what one digests. Accordingly, I personally have much more of a grievance with aural advertisement; one may shift one's visual attention from a billboard, but one cannot block out the background music in a supermarket. There can be no denial that in the present day, participation in society itself necessitates immersion in consumer oriented media.
      This is not a question of high art and low art, this is a question of freedom of choice. Regardless of our present wishes, the corporate world has generally made a decision to bombard us with aural media that prevents us from experiencing silence. I can close my eyes or simply look away from a visual advertisement, but there is no way to escape an aural parasite; earplugs and hands do not suffice. Such extraneous information interferes with thought processes, inner music, and upsets my equilibrium. I am being asked to cater to the mood the local supermarket has chosen regardless of my own emotional state; if I wish to eat, I have no choice but to be subjected to aural media which I might not wish to partake of while shopping for groceries. Sartre has noted that man always retains the "freedom to say no" in the most dire of situations. True enough in some respects, but for a fuller existence, the mind requires the ability to also say "off" and to then be able to put that word into practice; if this cannot be achieved then one faces a loss of intellectual freedom.
      Put in a different light, the matter is simple. Media bombardment discourages the exercise of the individual's free will; it encourages passivity and conformity rather than individual choice and conscious activity. Granted, it does allow for collective choice and activity on some level, but I do not find this immersion of the individual in a larger whole to offer justification for the digestion of all individuals. Modern technology has enabled mass media to extend itself into the realm of the subconscious in a more systematic attempt to shape our desires towards that of specific consumption of a product or ideology, for consumerism is an ideology. How truly different is such a thing from political propaganda, when it is affecting the very way we live, our very wants...is not such a situation inherently political as well, does it not point to an encroachment of liberty? What is at issue is the individual's resistance to such manipulation, not to mention the indoctrination of the consumer ideology at an early age which threatens the very sanctity of humanity's future intellectual freedom.

ENTERTAINMENT AND LEISURE: PASSIVITY VS ACTIVITY

     "An idle mind is the devil's workshop", the old adage goes, and it is a fact that the discipline of work accompanied by its inherent rewards offers much to the formulation of character. But not to be overlooked is also the value of idle time in giving the individual the opportunity to experience boredom and then overcome that very boredom.
      Only a few centuries ago, aristocratic societies held what they termed to be "men of leisure", men of wealth and status who had time to put to use at their own discretion. Such an arrangement allows for a hierarchical and often unjust inequality, yes, but at the same time made possible the means whereby a man could become more educated and learned and thereby better serve society as a whole. Now contrast this anachronistic understanding of leisure with its replacement: modern day "entertainment". Leisure time entailed reading, education, instruction in the arts, and immersion in the bigger questions of life, all pursuits that necessitate time, hard work, and patience. Entertainment on the other hand involves replacing the boredom of idle time with fun and excitement of some sort. Undeniably, "leisure" points towards a life of higher aspiration as opposed to the mere time consumption and distraction of "entertainment". Leisure time implies an active pursuit of the mind, the taking on of an active relationship with various media; entertainment implies more of a passive immersion in media in which the mind may take refuge from the gravity of its existence with a minimum of effort. Granted, these are simplifications of the issue, but the philological examination of these two words provides an interesting insight into our cultural and intellectual history. Idle time is necessary for the cultivation of the higher mind; the vital question is whether the individual employs that idle time to cultivate an active relationship with media (leisure) or a passive relationship with media (entertainment).
      Another aspect of this issue of idle time presents itself to us in much of modern American child rearing. Immersing one's progeny in activities like music, karate, homework, chores, and such can serve as a valuable means of enriching a child's perspective and life, but it must not be forgotten that idle time is a vital component to the process of intellectual growth. A mind that is constantly involved in external activities lacks the repose of reflection that is so vital for developing character and integrating what one has learned into the fabric of one's being. Consequently, idle time should be an inextricable part of the educational process, but its significance extends even further.
      Idle time is also a place where an individual confronts creative decision. With no cards on the table of existence, how will the individual exercise his free will? Passivity versus activity becomes the vital issue here. Will one be fed information, will one gather and sift information, will one enter a dialogue with information, or will one choose to simply avoid input altogether and delve into the self? Will the individual faced with lack of external stimulation, create his own means of mental and intellectual stimulation?
      Introspection in large part is made more possible by the existence of idle time in which the individual is able to contemplate the self unimpeded by other distractions. Alas, if we choose to always be distracted, we may never find ourselves in the first place.

CONCLUSION

     Let me qualify my argument slightly. At its worst, media inundation profoundly influences our view of the world along with our projected desires. Along the way it even alters neural pathways affecting attention span, thought patterns, and more. Hypothetically speaking, a mind that incessantly watches television will be markedly different intellectually than one that incessantly reads, if only in terms of its level of exposure to advertising and consumerism. But media bombardment does not necessarily wrest away our individuality or free will; what it certainly does in all instances is offer an unavoidable mental distraction, whether we are conscious of it or not. If we are not aware of it, we can be more easily manipulated; if we are aware of it, it serves as white noise which detracts from the quality of our thought. Such bombardment can detract from our attention span and our ability to focus in depth on a single issue for an extended period of time; it hinders our ability to perceive truth through an open mind unimpeded by predisposed thought patterns. Modern media generally aspires to and offers instant and base gratification which accustoms the mind to this particular form of ingestion; without exercise, the mind's ability to delve deep into more insightful topics with their attendant long term gratifications may be lost or never gained, for such mental faculties require a great deal of effort, time, and patience, not to mention faith in the existence and value of the higher mind.
      And why not simply block out media input and leave it at that? To accept such a solution is to abdicate our awareness of environment, to lower our standard of striving for a more fully conscious existence. If we wish to be most fully alive, we must not let ourselves be distracted from our tasks and thoughts and the attendant necessity of repose. True external silence offers an increased opportunity to discover and maintain internal silence, and from this place of repose, intellectual and emotional powers can achieve greater heights. If each man is not offered the chance to experience his internal silence, the potential productivity of his thought shall be severely diminished, perhaps irreparably in the long term.