Ceremonial

Heartfelt congratulations to saxophonist and composer Miguel Zenón on having been named a 2008 MacArthur Fellow. I am a big fan of Miguel's work both as a leader -- his recent disc Awake is an excellent place to start if you don't know his stuff -- and also as a member of Guillermo Klein's badass 12-piece band Los Gauchos. (Miguel is kind of famous in NYC jazz circles for playing long, complex stretches of Guillermo's dense, rhythmically contorted compositions with his eyes closed. It's been confessed to me that his apparently effortless total recall makes the other guys in the Gauchos sax section feel a bit nervous.)

Zenón was an inspired choice for the MacArthur, and fully deserves the honor. But beyond the satisfaction of seeing such a high-profile award go to an artist I admire, the symbolism of this choice is powerful and is worth considering for a moment. Miguel is the perfect example of the kind of new mainstream, post-Jazz Wars player I was talking about in my NewMusicBox piece -- someone to whom the old ideological battles between avant-gardists and traditionalists, fusioneers and purists, etc., seem completely retarded.

Previous MacArthurs given to jazz musicians have generally gone to critically respectable members of the avant-garde elite: Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman, Steve Lacy, George Lewis, Ken Vandermark, John Zorn, etc.^[1] No disrespect intended to these trailblazing masters, but I am heartened that this year the MacArthur brain trust had the cojones to give the award to a musician who is still in his early thirties. (Miguel is the youngest jazz musician to ever receive a MacArthur.)

Bluntly -- I am tired of awards that seem to be all about bolstering the reputation of the award itself (and by extension, the wealthy donors who support it) by throwing impressive piles of money at long-established, world-famous artists who, frankly, are not hurting for either cash or critical recognition. (A recent case in point.)  I am even more tired of the idea that jazz musicians in their twenties and thirties are unworthy inheritors -- that only the old masters (and those who hew slavishly to long-established styles) are worthy of serious consideration. And I am sick to death of people asking "Where is the new Charlie Parker?" or "Where is the new John Coltrane?" I suspect those doing the asking are the very same people who would have plugged their ears in horror at the unfamiliar sounds coming out of Bird's horn in 1945 (when he was 25 years old) or Trane's in 1955 (when he was 29).

Peter Hum, in his post on Miguel's "genius grant," observed that two of the greatest living geniuses in jazz, Herbie Hancock and Wayne Shorter, have yet to be singled out for MacArthur honors. This is true. And, in some sense, lamentable -- perhaps especially in Shorter's case, as he is having his most creatively fertile decade since the 1960's and his current working quartet (which includes comparative youngster Brian Blade) is arguably the best band in jazz right now. But as I wrote in the comments over at Peter's place, when you are handing out a half-million dollars with no strings attached, I think you ought to take more than just merit into account. I think you ought to think about the effect that kind of money and recognition will have on someone's career and future artistic output.

Does anyone believe that an extra $100,000 per year in disposable income over the next five years would make a significant difference to the kind of music Herbie Hancock or Wayne Shorter or [insert Established Jazz Genius here] is going to produce going forward? These guys are already in a position to do whatever the hell they want, and that is exactly what they have been doing. (If Herbie decides he wants to work with Christina Aguilera, it's not because he needs the gig to keep the wolf from the door.)

But -- if you will allow me to channel Captain Obvious for a moment -- half a mil over five years makes an enormous difference to a 31-year old musician who is still largely unknown even to most Down Beat subscribers -- let alone the musical community at large. All of a sudden, Zenón has the freedom to not devote every single waking moment to figuring out how to hustle up this month's rent. All of a sudden, he has options. He can pick and choose his projects. He can afford to turn down lucrative but artistically unrewarding gigs. He can afford to take more than three days in the studio to record his next album, and he can make that record as expansive and ambitious as he chooses. He can decide how much or how little teaching he wants to do. He can go anywhere in the world to research indigenous music and play with the locals. Or he could flee the NYC perma-hustle and spend a few months in remote isolation. Whatever his choices, the important thing is that now he actually has them. The MacArthur Fellowship is going to have a profound impact on the nature of the work Zenón is able to pursue over the next five years, and probably well beyond. It seems to me that this ought to be the whole point of handing out these kinds of big-money awards -- to reshape the artistic landscape by vastly expanding the opportunities available to artists who are still struggling, every day, just to be heard.

-----

1. (Regina Carter is the outlier.)

* * * * *

PS 1988 MacArthur Fellow and certifiable genius Ran Blake is playing a rare, free NYC show this Friday at the Third Street Music School Settlement. RSVP via email.

Comments

[isaac]

1.

Yo man,

I totally feel you on the awards-meant-to-shore-up-award-giver's-rep-not-improve-the-art. I felt that way about the Brook award at the time, and I feel that way about the Kushner award too. One thing that's interesting about the MacArthur awards is that I feel like in many categories, they've done a pretty good job of awarding early/early-mid career artists. John Sayles was pretty early on into his filmmaking career when he got a MacArthur. Sarah Ruhl hadn't had a NYC premiere yet when she got the award. I mean, she's produced everywhereallthetime now, but almost all of that is older pre-genius-award stuff.

[James Hirschfeld]

2.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Ken Vandermark 35 when he won the MacArthur grant?

[James Hirschfeld]

3.

Whoops! I accidentally hit post before I meant to.

To your point about who gets these awards, I couldn't agree more. Give them to young people who will use every last penny of it---not just on touring, and recording, but just general promotion of their careers and their music.

You might agree that it is the same situation with composers! Right? People with lots of money want John Adams to win their grant. He'll write a big piece and it brings publicity to the organization. There are so many talented young composers and the cost of recording (as you know) is basically prohibitive.

My only quibble would be that rather than enormous grants for 1 person, I'd be in favor of smaller grants. Not $1000, because that is kind of useless, but $10k to $20k. Enough for a record and a small tour. I think $500k divided amongst 20 people would produce more work and obviously a greater variety. It would stimulate the jazz economy, which could use a little stimulation.

[DJA]

4.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Ken Vandermark 35 when he won the MacArthur grant?

You are correct and I've corrected the post. For some reason I had it in my head that he'd gotten the nod more recently, but his MacArthur is from 1999. (Sweet lord, that is almost ten years ago. Tempus fucking fugit.)

My only quibble would be that rather than enormous grants for 1 person, I'd be in favor of smaller grants.

In general, I would absolutely agree with this -- arts funding dollars should go to supporting the community, not handing out a huge jackpot to select individuals. However, I am inclined to make an exception for the the MacArthur, which occupies a special place in American culture (partly because of the enormous size of the grant and the relatively small number of Fellowships awarded). There's a place for one award like that. The problem is when all arts funding tries to be like the MacArthur, except with less risk-taking.

[mclaren]

5.

People who hammer away at the outlandish size of the MacArthur grants have a point, but you gotta remember -- this is America, folks. Here in America, money isn't everything...it's the only thing. In America, nothing but cold hard cash matters. Genius? Unimportant. Talent? Irrelevant. Skill? Inconsequential. An awe-inspiring body of work? Worthless.

So if you want to get everyone's attention here in the United States of Amnesia, ya gotta bludgeon 'em with cash. Hard cash. And plenty of it. Then the general public pays attention.

The reason for the ridiculous size of the MacArthur awards is simple and obvious: so the award gets taken seriously. Here in America, the only way to be taken seriously is to heap up a great big Himalayan mountain 'o cash. The folks who run the MacArthur awards aren't stupid, so they know this. As a result, their awards get taken very seriously indeed. Much more seriously than, say, the Pulitzer prize for music, or the Grawemeyer prize. I mean...seriously. Can anyone in the general public name last year's Pulitzer or Graqemeyer winner for music? But those MacArthur fellows, they get the press. Why? HALF A MILLION SCUDI, BABY! GIMME THE MONEY! SHOW THE MONEY! SHOW ME THE MONEY!

That's what it's all about here in the United States of Amnesia. The MacArthur award committee knows this. The only way they could improve on the publicity and prestige of their award would be, like, you know, add some naked hookers. And some bling. You know, drive the MacArthur winners around in a big ole pink pimpmobile with gold chains around their necks reading YO, I'S THE MACARTHUR SHIZLITT. That would get some serious attention. The press would be over all that one, baby.

Now it's time to piss everyone off because, as usual, this year's MacArthur awards missed all the obvious geniuses. The musicians who have really made breakthroughs, the amazing people who blow the top out of the chart for creativity and imagination.

Musicians who should get a MacArthur, but never will, because they're just too far out there:

[1] Ben Johnston. Obvious choice. Can never win a MacArthur because, after all, he's an intonational nigger, and an uppity one at that.

[2] Kraig Grady. Builds his own microtonal instruments, uses Erv Wilson's scale horograms as rhythms as well as tunings, creates his own imaginary culture of the island of Anaphoria from scratch, he's released at least half a dozen CDs, but nooooooo, Kraig can never be considered for a MacArthur. Standard stuff. Give the awards only to the safe choices, never the imaginative people.

[3] Trimpin. Obviously, this guy can't be given the time of day. He blurs the distinction twixt sculpture and musical composition, he refuses to use scores, his musical work is just wayyyyyyyyy too transgressive. In the tradition of the Mozart bitch-slap "Too many notes," what we've got here is "Too much creativity." The MacArthur committee's collective brains short-circuited. They couldn't deal with this guy's work. It too inventive.

[4] Tom Nunn. Obviously untouchable. A guy who writes a 200-plus-page book on musical improvisation called The Wisdom of the Impulse, as well as building his own instruments, and creating his own ensemble to play said self-made instruments using said improviational techniques...nahhhh. Let's give this year's MacArthur to a violinist who pens her own Beethoven cadenzas. That's creativity. Earth to MacArthur committee... Earth to MacArthur committee... Come in, MacArthur committee...

[5] Mari Kimura. Aside from doing interactive real-time violin duets with MAX/MSP, she's extended Garbuzov's work from the 1920s by using subharmonics on her violin (don't worry, you've never heard of Garbuzov and neither have the MacArthur people. Just go back to sleep, folks.). Of course, she's another untouchable. Ya gotta conform to get those goodies. Play outside 12 equal? Tough tit, you're an untouchable. Get back to your ghetto, peon.

[6] Pamela Z. Of course she's out of the question. People who use synths aren't real musicians, as everyone knows.

[7] William Schottstaedt. Arguably the greatest living American composer. Naturally, you've never heard of him. Standard stuff. "Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia..."

[8] Bill Wesley. Obviously creating an orhcestra of your own instruments, as well as becoming a virtuoso in their performance, means nothing, Much better to give the MacArthur award to someone who scribbles reviews of Sibelius symphonies for the New Yorker. Yeah! That's the ticket! That's real creativity -- french-kissing Stockhausen's bunghole, that's true musical inventiveness.

[9] Johnny Reinhard. Gotta maintain a complete blackout on this guy's near-30-year concert series of microtonal music. Can't have any of that pesky creativity making inroads into the new music scene. Nope, shut this guy out of the MacArthurs hard, let's give the award to a music critic for praising Schoenberg. That's genius, all right.

[10] Let's just toss in a whole dumptruck full 'o names that are obvious candidates, but will never get the time of day from the MacArthur bozos: Rhys Chatham, Pauline Oliveros, Laetitia Sonami, Michael Gordon, John Luther Adams, Kyle Gann, Larry Polansky, Jon Appleton, the former members of The Hub, Erling Wold, Stephen James Taylor, Susan Rawcliff, Skip LaPlante... The list goes on and on. Everyone knows who these musicians are. Everyone knows they're struggling, scraping along to make ends meet. Everyone knows their 20-plus year track record of creativity and innovation.

So, yeah, next year let's give more MacArthurs to classical violinists who write out Beethoven cadenzas.

Depressing, isn't it?

[ben wolfson]

6.

Since the point of the MacArthur awards is in part to relieve the burdens of financial constraint that might otherwise prevent innovation or whatever (sez so right here), it's not just an abstract consideration that favors giving them out to younger, or if not younger, less well-known or more impoverished, people in preference to established lions; the award guidelines themselves make some of their selections a little odd.

Let's give this year's MacArthur to a violinist who pens her own Beethoven cadenzas. That's creativity

Actually, has Robert Levin won one? He actually improvises his cadenzas, something (shockingly enough) more or less unheard of.