We continue our series with a very candid interview with collective member Peter Lawless. Fair warning: Peter does not pull any punches.
How do you practice improvising?
These days, mostly through composing and listening. This, of course, hasn't always been the case. During my high school and college years, I did the standard Jamey Aebersold-style of learning chords, scales, and tunes. That stuff gave me a great foundation and set of tools, but it never grabbed me. Frankly, I never became really proficient at it. I've never done a lot of formal transcribing, though I do find it helpful, and I definitely steal a lot of stuff from records.
Oddly, it wasn't until I quit taking saxophone lessons that I felt like I could actually make music on the horn. Composition is really my passion, so learning to use the saxophone as a vehicle for my compositional voice really helped me embrace improvisation--allowed me to view it as "spontaneous composition."
Looking back, I think that actual improvisation was one thing left out of my early "improvisation lessons." I was so busy playing chords and scales, that I never tried to just make melodies or riff on a phrase or construct a solo or just go off totally free (actually, I did this some times, and it was always an exhilarating experience). In high school, I would often write solos as a way of learning a tune, but I never played them in front of people because I felt like it was somehow cheating. I thought that composition and improvisation were vastly different and conflicting things. Now, I believe that these processes are deeply intertwined, and, overall, it is impossible to cheat in music.
So, anyway, to sum up, I don't practice.
Where have you studied music?
UMKC and my bedroom.
Do you think that formal music education is a good way to produce a thriving music scene?
As a product of a public school music program, it would be hypocritical of me to say that formal music education is a wholly bad thing, but in terms of producing a "thriving music scene," I don't think it is effective. This a very broad question. Clearly, it creates a plethora of talented musicians, but it doesn't create an audience. If anything, we seem to be training kids that music is a highly specialized field that should be left up to experts. This, of course, is not unique. All fields have become ultra-specialized from individual medical fields to history to economics to politics to visual arts to car repair. It's almost impossible today to be a "Renaissance man" - highly skilled in all of the major academic and artistic fields. Luckily, technology has done a lot help bring general knowledge and artistic outlets to the general public - Garageband for music, Youtube for film, Wikipedia for general knowledge, WebMD for medicine, LibriVox and Project Gutenberg for books. Of course, academia shuns of these things. By looking down on the amateur musician/scholar, they are alienating their audience.
I certainly can't think of any time in history where education helped create a thriving scene. Whether it helps or hurts, I can't be sure, but it certainly isn't necessary. Training can make us appreciate an artwork, but it can't make us love it. People have to love it for their to be a scene. Only experiencing great work in an emotionally powerful way can make that happen. I think this is something that artists need to take upon themselves. No government or school will do it for us. We have to make some effort to engage the people.
Who is your favorite musician that plays your instrument and why?
John Zorn. I love his composing more than his sax playing, though I certainly like his approach to the instrument. Zorn's music has variety than probably any music ever. Not just inside of the pieces (like Naked City, the game pieces, or the string quartets), but across his entire catalog. Finding an old Zorn album that I've never heard is an exciting and scary thing for sure. I can never predict what the first sound will be or how that sound will relate to what happens three minutes later (or even three seconds later in some cases).
As a saxophone player, he certainly has a highly developed, unique sound. He is known mainly for his free playing - screams, honks, multi-phonics, shrill flutter tongues, and wild noise - yet he is always in control. After listening to and analyzing a great deal of his recordings, I can hear quite clearly that he never loses control.
Probably even more important than his playing or composing is the way in which he made a living off crazy weird music, and he has used that success to pave the way and create opportunities for other avant-garde artists. I think in the past few years, Zorn's main focus has turned away from both playing and composing and shifted to business. His record label Tzadik puts out avant-garde music of the highest quality, and his venue in New York, The Stone, puts on two shows a night of awesome weird music. He is one of the few avant-garde artists to make some serious profits from his work, and he has used that to support other creative artists. He is a great example of the American Dream: he started as an unknown guy in a New York loft who toiled and created for years and years and eventually became the leader of an empire, yet, even through all that, he never lost sight of his commitment to innovative sounds.
What do you hate to hear/see whenever you see live music?
It's hard to say. Bad sound at a concert is an immediate turn off. This mainly happens when all the instruments are amplified and the sound guy doesn't know what he's doing. Happens a lot at rock concerts - I hate it. At jazz shows: I hate the jam session format - everybody solos on every song (but sometimes we get really crazy and put the bass solo first - wow!). At avant-garde shows: I hate it when it gets too serious.
What do you love to hear/see whenever you see live music?
Energy, passion, something I haven't seen/heard, unique and integrated use of media, etc. Variety is great too - I get bored easily.
What living musician would you most like to play with?
ZORN
How do you feel about Wynton Marsalis?
This is a complex issue. To me it seems like Mr. Marsalis is two people: Wynton-playing and Wynton-speaking. Wynton-speaking makes me not want to listen to Wynton-playing, but every time I listen to Wynton-playing, I'm like, "Woah, this guy's freakin' good!" He is undeniably a technical master, and his playing is wonderfully musical and exciting. His composing and arranging are very nice, too. Elements of history are certainly present in everything he does, but I think he has some great modern sensibilities. Unfortunately, Wynton-speaking seems to deny any mid- to late-20th century influence.
The main reason I don't like Wynton-speaking is because he has made very disparaging remarks about my favorite types of music. He has a view that anything remotely avant-garde or that incorporates influences from outside what he considers to be the "jazz heritage. " What's sad is how this narrow-minded view has sort of become the standard as far as "jazz history" goes. His exception abilities have made him the spokes person for jazz today, and he probably has more influence over jazz's image than anyone alive today. I think one could say it's the Wynton Marsalis/Ken Burns style of jazz history that gave us the 18th & Vine "Jazz District," which is one of the most depressing places on earth. It reminds me of going to Epcot Center at Disney World--the place where they have little miniature versions of different countries all over the world. It's like I'm at the Disney World version of 1920's Kansas City, except there are no people and no one selling hot dogs.
I don't really care about the definition of the word "jazz," but Marsalis seems to be too strict for my taste. He doesn't seem to value creativity or an individual artistic vision. He has become the King of Jazz for a lot of people, and he wants to protect his throne. So of course he's gonna say that what he does is the only real kind of "jazz."
If you went back in time and could start all over, what instrument would you play?
Why start over? I love learning new instruments. Over the years I've learned to play many instruments to varying degrees of proficiency, including bassoon, clarinet, piano, guitar, bass, accordion, drum set, tuba, flute, harmonica, ukulele and melodica. I'm self-taught on most of them. I'm sort of a do-it-yourselfer, so if I want to hear a certain instrument, I like to be able to make the sound myself.
What aspect of your playing do you feel needs the most work?
Geez, everything. I'm constantly battling to gain control over this wicked thing.
Could you talk about your current project at the Fishtank?
Writing Music to Fill a Window is a new project that I'm doing with the Fishtank Performance Studio. The Fishtank is a small theater that is working to support young adventurous performing artists of all kinds - theater, comedy, clown, performance art, music, and more. My project involves me sitting in the store-front window of the Fishtank every day of the month of January 2010 and writing music. I am also taping this music up to the window so that people may inspect my progress. I am making daily blog posts about my thoughts, challenges, and processes that I experience during my time in the window. The culmination of the project will take place in a concert at the Fishtank during the first week of February. This concert will be the second in my new concert series: The Ad Hoc Music Series. These concerts will occur once a month and will feature original music by innovative musicians in Kansas City and from around the country. I hope to showcase the musicians in this city that can't find a place in traditional venues.
Great interview. Thoughtful and truthful ... as you have always been and we love you for it.
Posted by: Reuterbs | 05/13/2010 at 07:26 PM