JAM: October/November 2001 Issue: Q&A with Dr. Ronald McCurdy

DR. RONALD McCURDY

JAM talks with the President of the International Association for Jazz Education* about the role of the IAJE, the state of jazz education today, and the work of a master teacher.

JAM: In a nutshell, what is the purpose of the IAJE?

RM: The IAJE was founded in 1968, and the overall purpose and mission has always been to aid in the furtherance of jazz through education and outreach. Today, to that end, we have a series of programs. For example, there's the Teacher Training Institute; and of course, the annual conference. We also have what is called the Artist Outreach Network Program, which is designed to connect artists with schools and teachers if an artist is traveling. Rather than have someone sit there in a hotel room all day waiting for the gig that night, we like to connect them with various schools and programs, and have them talk to and play for young music students.

JAM: What are your responsibilities as president?

RM: To provide vision. For instance, one of the things I'm doing right now is to try and expand our Teacher Training program. I'm also trying to put us in a fiscally sound position so that we're able to do more. As you well know, anytime you want to do certain programs, it costs money to build those programs out. So, another part of my responsibility is to be at the vanguard of trying to seek funding and find sponsors. But again, my main responsibility is primarily to provide vision for the association.

JAM: What is your assessment of the state of jazz education in 2001?

RM: (pause) ...Boy, that's a loaded question... (laughs)

JAM: In twenty-five words or less...

"Our biggest challenge is still where a person can go to college, receive a degree in music education, and not take one jazz course. Jazz pedagogy, jazz techniques, jazz improvisation... none of those courses are required. But once that person receives a job as an educator, they are asked to direct a jazz ensemble! This is still possible in 2001! "

RM: (laughs) I would say that, in some ways, it's never been better. I've been IAJE president for a year now, I've had the chance to visit lots of schools, and I'm seeing very positive things -- especially in places where so much is being done with so little.

On the other hand, there's a lot of work left to do. Our biggest challenge is still where a person can go to college, receive a degree in music education, and not take one jazz course. Jazz pedagogy, jazz techniques, jazz improvisation... none of those courses are required. But once that person receives a job as an educator, they are asked to direct a jazz ensemble! This is still possible in 2001! The IAJE is trying to be more of an advocate with NASM -- the National Association of Schools of Music -- to see if we can have it so that any music ed major is required to have at least some jazz education courses.

JAM: It seems as if there could be a possible lack of connection between jazz -- especially big band jazz -- and the normal tastes of today's typical teenage music student. Any thoughts on that?

RM: Our challenge -- and I mean those of us who work in the classroom, particularly with middle school and high school students who are still formulating their musical tastes -- is to combat the media, where very little jazz is heard. Chances are that, unless the student has parents who also embrace jazz, they aren't going to hear much of it. They don't hear it on television, they don't hear it on radio... They may hear snippets of it on TV commercials, but not enough to have a true understanding of the music. So, our challenge comes from the lack of exposure.

But again, the most important thing is to educate the teachers! I was fortunate enough to have a high school band director who knew about Clifford Brown and Miles. When I was in the seventh grade, this teacher was saying, "Listen to Maurice Andre and Leonard Smith and Bud Herseth, but also check out Clifford Brown and Miles!" My situation was somewhat unique, though; the majority of students in high school and middle school bands don't have the luxury of a teacher who offers such astute listening examples to their students.

JAM: There are those who say that the schools are turning out more and more capable jazz musicians who, in turn, have fewer and fewer places to perform. Do you think that's true?

RM: I think that's true for music in general. If you look at the number of universities and conservatories world wide, and then look at the issue of supply and demand, how many are graduating every year, and how many jobs are there... yes, that is a concern. But, you know, for the jazz students, they tend to find a way. Whether it's as a professional musician or not, there seem to be a lot of outlets for them to perform.

The same is somewhat true for the classically trained students; they do their version of society bands by playing at wedding receptions, church gigs and what have you. We (at the University of Southern California Music Department) just had our opening convocation where our dean, Larry Livingston, used the expression "musical agility." It was a term I'd never heard before. What he was referring to -- and it's something I've subscribed to for years -- is that a student nowadays, particularly a music major in college, needs to think about being versatile. If you are a jazz person, you should check out what's happening in the orchestra. If you are a strings player, and if all you've ever played is Brahms, Berlioz, Mozart and Haydn, then you should be checking out what's happening in the jazz area. Maybe even take an improvisation class! Because the landscape now demands that kind of versatility for everyone.

JAM: Has jazz education made the music too clinical and scientific? I'm sure you've heard different "old timers" talk about how "learning on the bandstand" is still the best way...

RM: There's no question about that. But I think we have to look at the current landscape again. How many bandstands are available? (pause) When I look at people like Roy Hargrove or Nicholas Payton or Terence Blanchard, these guys were all products of somebody's jazz program. And then they went on the road. In Terence Blanchard's case, he came from a great program in New Orleans; then he went to William Patterson. And from there he joined Art Blakey's band. He was already playing, and playing well, when he joined Blakey's band. Otherwise Art Blakey wouldn't have given him the chance.

Roy Hargrove is another example. He's a product of that great school in Dallas, Texas: Booker T. Washington High School, which has turned out a plethora of wonderful young musicians. So, a jazz education can be a start, even though it can't be the end-all be-all.

I also think that, in many cases for a lot of players, there has to be an opportunity for them to have somewhere to hone their skills. But, of course, there's no substitute for being on the bandstand night after night. I mean, no one can argue that one should only be in a laboratory situation, like in a classroom. That's not the place where you learn how to play. You learn how to play on the bandstand! But, you can also gather a lot of the skills and techniques you need in school.

I look at some of the great pedagogues -- people like David Baker, Dave Liebman, Rufus Reid and Jimmy Heath. They all now have university affiliations. And I'm also seeing other players who aren't necessarily listed as "educators" in the true academic sense finding their way to the college classroom. I think that's a tremendous plus for young jazz students today.

"...I think competitive jazz festivals have outlived their usefulness. Because now what you have are educators who "program to win." They pick three or four tunes in September and play the same tunes in April. In my humble estimation, that is not jazz education."

JAM: What kind of effect do you think the Ken Burns series had on jazz education?

RM: Looking at the big picture -- and a lot of my job with the IAJE is to look at that bigger picture -- Ken Burns probably didn't do a whole lot for jazz education in a direct sense; but he did a lot for jazz in general by bringing it more to the public. People who, otherwise, had never heard of Sidney Bechet or Jelly Roll Morton, or even Duke Ellington for that matter, found themselves having at least some kind of introductory gateway into the music. And hopefully that will serve as a launch pad for them to investigate the players who are alive today.

JAM: Any comments on the controversy it spawned?

RM: I can certainly understand the resentment about how some people got left out, as well as the argument that it seemed to be one-sided in favor of Wynton Marsalis and Stanley Crouch. But, for better or worse, Wynton Marsalis is probably the icon that most lay people think of as the prototype for what a jazz musician is about in the 21st century.

Also, this music is so subjective. And I think so many times we jazz musicians are more detrimental to ourselves than anybody else could ever be! I mean, there's so much in-fighting! "Who was a great player versus who was not a great player..." "Who should have been in the (Burns) film versus who shouldn't have been..." I think what the film is about is self-expression. And again, it represented an opportunity to introduce lay people -- people who had no notion -- to this music.

My brother is a prime example of that. He disconnected from music somewhere along the line (laughs), went the computer route, and worked for IBM for about twenty years. He really had no interest in jazz. But I'll tell you what: when the series was on, I'd call him from time to time, just to talk and see how he was doing. He'd say, "Ron, I'm sorry, I can't talk right now. The Ken Burns series is about to come on. Call me back in two hours." (laughs) I look at people like him and see that he's probably a microcosm of non-jazz musicians who really became entranced by the series. And maybe now they are interested in learning more... and going out and hearing some live jazz! That has to be a good thing. And, in a way, it's part of what the IAJE is about: the perpetuation of jazz through education and outreach.

JAM: Before we move on, what was your own personal assessment of the Burns series?

RM: I personally enjoyed it. As an educator who teaches a jazz history class, I'm always looking for footage. And from that standpoint, Ken Burns was really able to bring to the forefront some things that I'd never seen before. So yes, I enjoyed it. But I also realize it wasn't the alpha and the omega of jazz. And I think Ken Burns would be the first to tell you that. We had him speak this past year and the first thing he said was, "I did not produce this series for jazz musicians. I did it for people who knew nothing about jazz." So, I think if you look at it from that standpoint, you can't fault him for what he did. Anyone who's going to do something to bring more people to the fold, I'm in favor of.

JAM: Back to the realm of the IAJE. Is competition in the form of jazz contests and festivals a good thing? Or does it make music more like a sporting event?

"(Terence Blanchard) is one of those folks who can back up what he says with his horn. And to me, that makes the difference. It's one thing to teach it; it's another thing to teach it and then go out and do it."

RM: Well, let me give you some background on the whole "competitive jazz festival" thing. It started back in the '60s as an attempt to entice more schools to have jazz programs. In my personal opinion, I think competitive jazz festivals have outlived their usefulness. Because now what you have are educators who "program to win." They pick three or four tunes in September and play the same tunes in April. In my humble estimation, that is not jazz education.

When I was teaching at KU (in the mid '80s), we stopped going to (the) Wichita (Jazz Festival) to compete. We would go to play, but we stopped competing. Same with (the one in) Eau Claire (Wisconsin) and other festivals; we'd go to play, but not to compete. As a matter of fact, at this point I don't choose to even adjudicate any competitive festivals. I'll go and offer comments and give ratings, but when it comes to picking THE best band...

I always ask the question when I'm invited, "Is this a competitive festival?" If they say "Yes," then I'll tell them I will have to respectfully decline. That's how strongly I feel about it. I just don't think (such competition) serves any purpose. I mean, when you're at a school and you see a trophy case full of trophies -- "winner of this jazz festival," "winner of that jazz festival" -- I become a little suspicious.

JAM: For someone in your position, this seems like a pretty bold position to take. As the president of the IAJE, do you ever take any heat for this?

RM: I think this might be the first time it will be publicized. I've never made it public, or gone on record by saying "This is how I feel." But you're welcome to print it, if you'd like. I don't apologize for how I feel. And I think a lot of people share the same sentiment. And no, no one has given me any heat when I've declined an invitation.

JAM: Can you name a few of the more outstanding school jazz programs in the country right now?

RM: High school or college?

JAM: How about a few of each?

RM: You know what? As soon as I list two or three, I'll leave somebody out. And then I will get some heat. (laughs)

JAM: OK, then how about some of the up and coming young jazz musicians you're aware of. Are there any future "Wyntons" out there?

RM: There is a young man named Brandon Jamail Lee from the High School for the Performing Arts in Houston who was one our young talent winners this year. He was a member of our Clifford Brown/Stan Getz Ensemble, and I think he will be going to Julliard to be part of a new program they're starting at Lincoln Center. He's a trumpet player and has real promise.
And there's a young lady named Kim Washington who's a drummer at the Manhattan School of Music. She is really making some noise right now. She's already done a couple tours with Kenny Barron and she's only a sophomore in college!

JAM: No matter how much we cheerlead about jazz in America, it still seems to be an art form on the fringes of today's culture. For example, jazz now accounts for less than 5% of record company profits, when, during the swing era, that number was 70%. Do you have any theories on this decline?

RM: Well, I do and I don't. I think one thing you have are all the other genres probably doing a better job of marketing than we do in jazz. You hear them on MTV, on VH-1, on BET... And then you've got country-western. It's all popular music. And it's music people are dancing to... if you can call it dancing (laughs).

But with our music, perhaps the most popular time for it was during the '30s, when jazz was dance music. After World War II, it became more of a connoisseur's art... with the advent of bebop, and the whole notion of musicians playing for themselves and not necessarily connecting to the audience.

This (trend) doesn't alarm me, though, because I know that art music -- and jazz music in particular -- has never been driven by commerce. Duke Ellington put it best when he said that whenever art and commerce collide, art is usually compromised. There are some musicians who have done some things that have made them more... how should I say this... more... user-friendly. And that's not to say anything negative about anyone's style of playing. But they've done some things -- like add a little funk beat or something -- to make themselves more appealing to the masses. If you're not hearing that, though, and if you're not feeling it in your heart, then I don't think jazz musicians should ever do that... just to receive the approval of an audience.

JAM: Maybe comparisons with jazz and pop music just aren't realistic anymore...

RM: I was in Europe last July, and I can tell you that every festival I attended was sold out. And these were jazz festivals. Festivals with people like Chick Corea, Bobby McFerrin, Herbie Hancock, Diane Reeves and Cassandra Wilson. All the major artists. And all the festivals were sold out. Now, that can't compete with someone like Madonna, who will sell two million records. Or Michael Jackson, or Sting, or people like that. I think it's a whole different playing field. And I think we get into a little trouble if we begin to measure the quality of our music and the popularity of our music based on record sales alone. I mean, if that's the litmus test to determine how well our music is doing, then I think the statistic you mentioned is kind of a skewed.

JAM: Of the leading jazz artists on the scene today, which ones are in the best position to a) take the music forward into the new century, and b) inspire a new generation of jazz musicians?

RM: During my association with the Thelonious Monk Institute, I had the chance to work with some real jazz masters who are out there doing it, but who also are able to come in and work with the next generation of young people. Terence Blanchard, in my opinion, is a master teacher. He's young enough -- I think he's about 39 years old -- and he seems to have the best of all worlds. He's involved in film scores and film production, and he's also involved in leading his own band. I've seen him work with the Monk students and present challenges to them about how to approach composition, how to approach rehearsing a band, and what to think about when you're playing. I think his ability to cover all of that makes him a master teacher. There are others; but I've spent more time with Terence and I've had the chance to observe him in the classroom and on the bandstand. He is one of those folks who can back up what he says with his horn. And to me, that makes the difference. It's one thing to teach it; it's another thing to teach it and then go out and do it.

JAM: What will the IAJE's role be in the continuing evolution of jazz?

RM: That's another great question. (pause) Our function is to be more of a conduit. And to create an environment where things can flourish. I mean, it's not our job to identify or determine or censor "who is," "who isn't," "who shouldn't be," "who should be," "who's worthy," and "who's not worthy." Our job is to try to create an environment where the next "whatever" or "whomever" might emerge. And because this music is still so young -- only 100 years old! -- it may be a while before the next "whomever" comes along. We may be in this holding pattern for a while before that person -- who maybe hasn't even been born yet -- comes along.

But, in the meantime, I think we should all try to enjoy what's happening right now! I mean, I'm still trying to figure out how to blow over "Cherokee" myself! (laughs). And I know a lot of other folks are, too!

* This year the membership of the International Association of Jazz Educators voted to change the organization's name to the International Association for Jazz Education. -- Ed.

RETURN TO OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2001 MAIN INDEX

© Kansas City Jazz Ambassadors 1996-2001. All rights reserved.