Wishing you a happy, healthy and sweet New Year!
Itzhak Perlman, for instance, arrived at Juilliard, in 1959, at the age of thirteen, and studied there for eight years, working with both DeLay and Ivan Galamian, another revered instructor. Among the key things he learned were discipline, a broad repertoire, and the exigencies of technique. “All DeLay’s students, big or little, have to do their scales, their arpeggios, their études, their Bach, their concertos, and so on,” Sand writes. “By the time they reach their teens, they are expected to be practicing a minimum of five hours a day.” DeLay also taught them to try new and difficult things, to perform without fear. She expanded their sense of possibility. Perlman, disabled by polio, couldn’t play the violin standing, and DeLay was one of the few who were convinced that he could have a concert career. DeLay was, her biographer observed, “basically in the business of teaching her pupils how to think, and to trust their ability to do so effectively.” Musical expertise meant not needing to be coached.
Musical expertise means "not needing to be coached"? Think of our heroes and those we admire who continue to work and study, craving information, seeking out knowledge and those who have it.
Maybe the bandstand is the coach of the Jazz world? We educate ourselves - be it through university, records, etc. - in the language, repertoire, the mechanics. Then we put ourselves out there to perform in a variety of situations, hopefully with those better than us, or if we're lucky, the masters of the music. Our weaknesses quickly come to light, and it is then up to us to correct and grow.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Perlman still sees himself as a student of music and offers a bit of a correction:
I asked him why concert violinists didn’t have coaches, the way top athletes did. He said that he didn’t know, but that it had always seemed a mistake to him. He had enjoyed the services of a coach all along.
He had a coach? “I was very, very lucky,” Perlman said. His wife, Toby, whom he’d known at Juilliard, was a concert-level violinist, and he’d relied on her for the past forty years. “The great challenge in performing is listening to yourself,” he said. “Your physicality, the sensation that you have as you play the violin, interferes with your accuracy of listening.” What violinists perceive is often quite different from what audiences perceive.
“My wife always says that I don’t really know how I play,” he told me. “She is an extra ear.” She’d tell him if a passage was too fast or too tight or too mechanical—if there was something that needed fixing. Sometimes she has had to puzzle out what might be wrong, asking another expert to describe what she heard as he played.
Her ear provided external judgment. “She is very tough, and that’s what I like about it,” Perlman says. He doesn’t always trust his response when he listens to recordings of his performances. He might think something sounds awful, and then realize he was mistaken: “There is a variation in the ability to listen, as well, I’ve found.” He didn’t know if other instrumentalists relied on coaching, but he suspected that many find help like he did. Vocalists, he pointed out, employ voice coaches throughout their careers.
Renee Fleming also relies heavily on an informed, trusted vocal coach. She calls them her "outside ears", which I think is perfect:
The professional singers I spoke to describe their coaches in nearly identical terms. “We refer to them as our ‘outside ears,’ ” the great soprano Renée Fleming told me. “The voice is so mysterious and fragile. It’s mostly involuntary muscles that fuel the instrument. What we hear as we are singing is not what the audience hears.” When she’s preparing for a concert, she practices with her vocal coach for ninety minutes or so several times a week. “Our voices are very limited in the amount of time we can use them,” she explains. After they’ve put in the hours to attain professional status, she said, singers have about twenty or thirty years to achieve something near their best, and then to sustain that level. For Fleming, “outside ears” have been invaluable at every point.
This is the heart of it. The scientific formula for "success" is essentially awareness and acceptance. A coach/teacher helps you define your goals and identifty your weaknesses, heightening your chance for that "success":
Elite performers, researches say, must engage in "deliberate practice" -- sustained mindful efforts to develop the full range of abilities that success requires. You have to work at what you're not good at. In theory, people can do this themselves. But most people do not know where to start or how to proceed. Expertise, as the formula goes, requires going from unconscious incompetence to conscious incompetence to conscious competence and finally to unconscious competence. The coach provides the outside eyes and ears, and makes you aware of where you're falling short.
The sort of coaching that fosters effective innovation and judgment, not merely the replication of technique, may not be so easy to cultivate. Yet modern society increasingly depends on ordinary people taking responsibility for doing extraordinary things: operating inside people’s bodies, teaching eighth graders algebraic concepts that Euclid would have struggled with, building a highway through a mountain, constructing a wireless computer network across a state, running a factory, reducing a city’s crime rate. In the absence of guidance, how many people can do such complex tasks at the level we require? With a diploma, a few will achieve sustained mastery; with a good coach, many could. We treat guidance for professionals as a luxury—you can guess what gets cut first when school-district budgets are slashed. But coaching may prove essential to the success of modern society.
Update: Dr. Gawande lectured on this very subject at this year's New Yorker Festival:
As a bonus, here's a letter from Sonny to Coleman Hawkins:
10/13/62 My Dear Mr. Hawkins, Your recent performance at the 'Village Gate' was magnificent!! Quite aside from the fact that you have maintained a position of dominance and leadership in the highly competitive field of 'Jazz' for the time that you have, there remains the more significant fact that such tested and tried musical achievement denotes and is subsidiary to personal character and integrity of being. There have been many young men of high potential and demonstrated ability who have unfortunately not been 'MEN' in their personal and offstage practices and who soon found themselves devoid of the ability to create music. Perhaps these chaps were unable to understand why their musical powers left them so suddenly. Or perhaps they knew what actions were constructive as opposed to destructive but were too weak and not men enough to command the course of their lives. But certain it is that character, knowledge and virtue are superior to 'MUSIC' as such. And that 'success' is relative to the evolution of those qualities within us all. That it has been positive and lasting for you Coleman is to the high honor and credit of us, your colleagues, as well as to your own credit. For you have 'lit the flame' of aspiration within so many of us and you have epitomized the superiority of 'excellence of endeavor' and you stand today as a clear living picture and example for us to learn from. It has always been a task to explain in words these things which in nature are the most profound and meaningful. Now you have shown me why I thought so much of you for so long. Godspeed in your travels and may I be fortunate enough to hear you play the tenor saxophone again in person. Yours truly Sonny Rollins
Wayne Shorter on his friendship with John Coltrane:
John’s wife introduced us in 1958. I was working with Horace Silver in New York. When I first saw him play, it was at Birdland; he was with Miles. He was doing lots of short phrases, all over the place. I knew there was something to that, that he was going to develop it, and as time went on those short phrases got longer and longer. Eventually they weren’t the same anymore. But that night with Miles, he was playing against everything, and when we talked about it later he said he was tired of playing against “Billy Boy” and things like that. After a while he stuck out like a sore thumb. So he had to go with his own band, where it would all blend in.
When he was stretching out those notes with Miles, he knew he had to move on because it’s the only way his playing could crystalize. It would work better if he was the only one in the front line. He was actually orchestrating by instinct by not having another horn player up there with him. He would have to navigate that band alone. At that time I called the rhythm section the vessel. John was the leader. McCoy would join in with the navigation. He and McCoy were the front line.
After we met he invited me to his house. He said he wanted to get together because we were playing…not the same way, but in the same areas of the horn. He said, “You’re playing some funny stuff.” He wanted to sit down and talk about it. He’d play, I’d play, we’d talk about it. He was playing piano mostly, I think it was the beginnings of “Giant Steps,” those augmented thirds over and over again. Then he’d get his horn and play two notes over and over again. Then two others. Then two others. For a long time. We also talked about doing impossible things with your instrument. Not just thinking of your instrument for what it is, but trying to do things that couldn’t be done on it – going beyond the limitations. Like what Paganini did, and since then what other violinists have done. We also talked about starting a sentence in the middle, and then going to the beginning and the end at the same time. Musical sentences and conversation.
Other people came by, too. George Tucker the bassist. Cedar Walton, Freddie Hubbard. They’d all leave and he’d ask me to spend the night. We’d cook food. Then he came to my parents house on Thanksgiving. He talked with Albert Ayler; he liked him. He wanted to check out what was going on with the scene. Not just tenor, but flute and other things. I think that’s why he grabbed the bagpipes towards the end. Music is all encompassing. Charlie Parker realized that towards the end, too.
He would never crack jokes. Miles said Trane’s humor came out early. In the dressing room before the gig he’d start playing like “Lockjaw” Davis or Chu Berry, or someone real comical. Miles said Trane could do that really well, and that’s the sign of a good musician, when you can impersonate someone with your horn. Obviously you try to stay away from that when you’re working your own thing.
From about ’55 on he had a sense of urgency, like he couldn’t get everything out that he wanted. I think he knew something about his health, even if he couldn’t pin it down. Maybe he went to the doctor and and the doctor said, “Hey, it might be soon.” Maybe he knew more about that around ’65. But I imagine he got a hell of a physical. Being a serious person he might have taken that prognosis and used it as a yard stick to see how far he could go.
I played onstage with him twice. After he and Lee Morgan did Blue Trane together. I was just home from the army and the phone rang – it was Lee saying, “C’mon, man, come play with us!” I went and joined them on “Night in Tunisia.” It was a long night in “Tunisia;” Trane was dissecting the tune, and Lee was playing in a way that he didn’t with the Messengers, because he considered Trane a hometown guy. He called Trane his “Philadelphia homeboy,” even though he was from North Carolina. He said, “We’re just going straight head tonight.” So I jumped in there with him. The next time we played together was a couple weeks later. He called for a Birdland gig, and I said sure. I was still out of work. He was trying out some songs he’d gotten together for another album after Giant Steps. We didn’t record, we just played the gig. It was Freddie Hubbard, Cedar Walton shared the piano with Tommy Flanagan, George Tucker, Trane and myself. I didn’t know who the drummer was going to be, but when we were at Birdland, in walked Elvin Jones. We rehearsed these new kind of harmonies with three parts. He knew we were all kind of onto the new tonality ourselves. We didn’t play with vibrato or anything. About 16 years later I was talknig to people in California and they’d been at the club that night and they’d never forgotten it. They were right; it was a bad night, a real sharing thing.
I like the later stuff. It’s a process that has to be done. Meditations and Expressions, those are the kind of things you can listen to once. He didn’t want to repeat that over and over. He was going on to “Nature Boy” and the bagpipe stuff. I don’t actually listen to those things anymore because I can hear the essence of them right now as we’re talking. I was never the kind of person to play a record over and over.
Miles told me that as a unit working together, the second Quintet covered a lot more ground, was more innovative as a group. The first Quintet, with Trane and Paul Chambers, made more individual contributions.
One of John’s legacies is that any melody has a flexability beyond the one that initially shows itself. Nothing is as frozen as it seems. He said that everything can be opened up. It’s a lot of work. There are people who say you have to do “Nature Boy” just the way it is. Or the “Star Spangled Banner.” Hey, you can really take the “Star Spangled Banner” out!
From Down Beat, August 12 1965:
The al fresco environment of the museum´s statuary garden offers listeners the same informality and relazation of past summers but now without the former crowding and lack of seating space. The garden has been enlarged and there is a new location for the performers.
Shortly after Rollins´ sidemen positioned themselves and their instruments, a light drizzle began and the faint sounds of a tenor saxophone playing Will You Still Be Mine? could be heard in the distance.
Instead of running for shelter from the rain, the enthralled listeners turned toward the sound and saw Rollins in a green jacket and blue beret emerge from behind a tree in full musical flight. As the sidemen joined the playing, the strolling saxophonist improvised his unique phrases incisive and witty, apparenthly oblivoius to the rain. He bobbed his head and continued to wander as he played. His tripping steps, almost a dance, were synchronized to his improvisations. At one instance he was facing up into the rain and the next moment staring into the black pool that separates the performers from most of the audience.
This unusual opening set the tone for the entire hour and kept everyone´s mind off the drizzle (the only notice taken of it was by Rollins, who, in midconcert, looked up and remarked, "We´ll have to see if the management can´t do something about this," but the rain fell until the last note).
For this concert Rollins played mostly well-known ballads, interpreted in his style or meditative ideas and driving riffe. He frequently checked back to familiar melodic lines - and back to familiar melodic lines - and back as well to jazz roots; more than once the ghost of Lester Young was momentatily standing beside him.
When he wasn´t strolling the length of the playing area, Rollins took a stance midway betwen the two drummers. (Higgins, Roker, Cranshaw, and Flenagan gave sensitive support throughout the concert. Flanagan filled Rollins´ short rest periods with well-conceived solos.)
Among the tunes played were Three Little Words, a medley in which the Kashmirf Love Song seemed to turn into To A Wild Rose; and the effective closing, There Will Never Be Another You.
So says Mark Turner...
Jaleel: Another thing I've noticed about you is that you are a very centered, focused, and humble. On the gigs I've done with you, it sometimes seems like you are meditating before you play. Sometimes doing yoga too. How has this helped you today and do you think it has had an influence on your playing?
Mark: I just try to keep things in perspective and maintain mindfulness on the task at hand. Perspective (what is really important in the relative and absolute, what is one's role/intention in a given situation) helps keep the ego (belief/clinging to an inherently existent I/self. Which includes all things associated with self such as... my body, my mind, my hopes, my fears, my desires, my aversions, my friends, my enemies, my material possessions, me, me, me and on and on etc) in check. Besides, ego is the killer of imagination...drags you down. Have no time for it. Mindfulness/Meditation help to keep the mind clear, focused, pliable. Yoga and running help to keep body/mind reasonably healthy. I'm a slow learner so I need time. Don't want
this body to fail too soon.
In the fifth grade, I won a small prize for a story called “The Adventures of a Weighing Scale,” in which the eponymous narrator describes an assortment of people and other creatures who visit it. Eventually the weight of the world is too much, the scale breaks, and it is abandoned at the dump. I illustrated the story—all my stories were illustrated back then—and bound it together with bits of orange yarn. The book was displayed briefly in the school library, fitted with an actual card and pocket. No one took it out, but that didn’t matter. The validation of the card and pocket was enough. The prize also came with a gift certificate for a local bookstore. As much as I wanted to own books, I was beset by indecision. For hours, it seemed, I wandered the shelves of the store. In the end, I chose a book I’d never heard of, Carl Sandburg’s “Rootabaga Stories.” I wanted to love those stories, but their old-fashioned wit eluded me. And yet I kept the book as a talisman, perhaps, of that first recognition. Like the labels on the cakes and bottles that Alice discovers underground, the essential gift of my award was that it spoke to me in the imperative; for the first time, a voice in my head said, “Do this.”
As I grew into adolescence and beyond, however, my writing shrank in what seemed to be an inverse proportion to my years. Though the compulsion to invent stories remained, self-doubt began to undermine it, so that I spent the second half of my childhood being gradually stripped of the one comfort I’d known, that formerly instinctive activity turning thorny to the touch. I convinced myself that creative writers were other people, not me, so that what I loved at seven became, by seventeen, the form of self-expression that most intimidated me. I preferred practicing music and performing in plays, learning the notes of a composition or memorizing the lines of a script. I continued working with words, but channelled my energy into essays and articles, wanting to be a journalist. In college, where I studied literature, I decided that I would become an English professor. At twenty-one, the writer in me was like a fly in the room—alive but insignificant, aimless, something that unsettled me whenever I grew aware of it, and which, for the most part, left me alone. I was not at a stage where I needed to worry about rejection from others. My insecurity was systemic, and preëmptive, insuring that, before anyone else had the opportunity, I had already rejected myself.
This is a bit confusing to me:
It was not in my nature to be an assertive person. I was used to looking to others for guidance, for influence, sometimes for the most basic cues of life. And yet writing stories is one of the most assertive things a person can do. Fiction is an act of willfulness, a deliberate effort to reconceive, to rearrange, to reconstitute nothing short of reality itself. Even among the most reluctant and doubtful of writers, this willfulness must emerge. Being a writer means taking the leap from listening to saying, “Listen to me.”
This was where I faltered. I preferred to listen rather than speak, to see instead of be seen. I was afraid of listening to myself, and of looking at my life.
My father, who, at eighty, still works forty hours a week at the University of Rhode Island, has always sought security and stability in his job. His salary was never huge, but he supported a family that wanted for nothing. As a child, I did not know the exact meaning of “tenure,” but when my father obtained it I sensed what it meant to him. I set out to do as he had done, and to pursue a career that would provide me with a similar stability and security. But at the last minute I stepped away, because I wanted to be a writer instead. Stepping away was what was essential, and what was also fraught. Even after I received the Pulitzer Prize, my father reminded me that writing stories was not something to count on, and that I must always be prepared to earn my living in some other way. I listen to him, and at the same time I have learned not to listen, to wander to the edge of the precipice and to leap. And so, though a writer’s job is to look and listen, in order to become a writer I had to be deaf and blind.
I see now that my father, for all his practicality, gravitated toward a precipice of his own, leaving his country and his family, stripping himself of the reassurance of belonging. In reaction, for much of my life, I wanted to belong to a place, either the one my parents came from or to America, spread out before us. When I became a writer my desk became home; there was no need for another. Every story is a foreign territory, which, in the process of writing, is occupied and then abandoned. I belong to my work, to my characters, and in order to create new ones I leave the old ones behind. My parents’ refusal to let go or to belong fully to either place is at the heart of what I, in a less literal way, try to accomplish in writing. Born of my inability to belong, it is my refusal to let go.