Conexiones entre elementos Vínculos y relaciones

Creativity and simplicity in playing were positively evaluated in Drew’s teaching whereas technique, complexity, and technicality tended to be negatively evaluated. In Drew’s lessons, exemplary creativity was embodied by various famous jazz musicians to whom he often referred. Even though he devalorised technicality or complexity in jazz, his models were all virtuosic performers. Drew downplayed their technical skill, instead attributing their success to virtuosity as knowers and an unusual creativity and capacity for self-expression. This was consistent with his view of jazz as self-expression, in which the essence of the art lies in the emotions of individuals and not in a set of techniques. Given this understanding, the technical virtuosity of the greats might be viewed as symptomatic of their inner qualities, which could be seen as emotional or expressive virtuosity. For instance, in lesson 1, concluding the anecdote about the ‘talented girl’ during the blues activity, Drew explained to the class that great jazz musicians are ‘not thinking about what notes they’re playing, or how many notes they’re playing, or rhythm, they’re freely expressing themselves’. In other words, their technical skill is incidental to their self-expression and to focus on the technical aspects of their playing is to miss the point. Implicit in this is criticism or, at least, a dismissal of complexity in jazz. While Drew referred to 25 different notable jazz musicians in the lessons, they were valorised for their creativity as exemplary knowers and not as technicians.

Despite this abundance of virtuosic models, the practices of technicality and complexity in improvisation were criticised. Drew’s negative evaluation of complexity was often implicit. For

tendency towards excessive technicality. He said, ‘you’re going through this transition now … “I’ve got a lot of notes to play and I want to play them all”’. Implicit in this is the principle that complexity is bad. He added a reminder that ‘some of the greatest solos in jazz are played with one or two or three notes’. Sometimes Drew praised students explicitly for simplicity in their improvising. At the end of the blues activity in Lesson 1, as Drew summed up the students’ playing and praised them, he foregrounded: ‘very simple things. Good work everybody. And you know what? there’s as much room as you need there to express yourself and play whatever solo you like using very, very simple riffs’. Summing up this blues lesson, Drew addressed the problem of excessive technicality not as a matter of technique, but as a lack of discipline, explaining to the class that ‘You guys have all got lots of notes to play and now I’m disciplining you to play less notes … What I’ve done now is reigned you in’. Here, the negatively-viewed practice complexity was also equated with a dispositional failure and was thus doubly-

devalorised. 5.3.4 Summary

The analyses in this section reveal that Drew’s teaching practices reflected his espoused belief that playing jazz and teaching and learning jazz are dependent upon kinds of knowers and specialised ways of knowing. While the lessons downplayed things like techniques, theory, procedures, and skills—weaker epistemic relations, they emphasised who musicians are and their personal attributes—stronger social relations. In this, Drew’s pedagogy was also reflective of the public face of jazz and can be understood as enacting a knower code. More than simply

foregrounding knowers and knowing, the lessons also taught specific values and ways of knowing. Table 5.1 summarises Drew’s evaluation during the lessons of specific practices and ways of knowing. The implications of the knower code are like those arising from the public face of jazz: the basis of legitimacy lies in certain personal qualities of membership of certain social categories. Drew’s personal rhetoric argued that the potential to learn jazz is innate and may not be cultivated in students lacking the right predisposition or taught. The focus of the lessons on knowers, such as through activities designed to impart the feeling or experience of jazz, had the potential to afford the students insight into new ways of knowing. The lessons presented a curriculum rich in detail about the experiential aspects of engaging creatively with jazz. The question arising, however, is of the extent to which essential knowledge for playing jazz was

made available. It was implied that the knowledge aspects of jazz were less important and for the students to learn for themselves. For students without access to a teacher such as Drew in their lives beyond the jazz camp, that expectation could be problematic. The idea that learning requires both certain personal qualities and prolonged exposure to specific knowers implies a limit on the number of students who can feasibly learn to play jazz.

Table 5.1. Summary of Drew’s evaluation of jazz practices and values in the lessons Positively evaluated Negatively evaluated

know ing/ le ar ni ng j az

z • Talent and intuition; jazz as _knowing

• _{Learning by ear}

• Drew’s pedagogical approach • Self-teaching; learning

through direct experience; knowing

• Theory; jazz as knowledge • _{Learning by reading music} • Conventional jazz pedagogy • Direct instruction or being taught

pl ayi ng j az z • Creativity, self-expression • _Simplicity • Instinct

• Technique; reliance upon techniques

• _{Complexity, technicality} • Intellect

Having seen that Drew’s pedagogy was characterised by a knower code, and that the lessons focused more on certain experiences and values than on knowledge about how to play jazz, the question remains of how the lessons built knowledge and knowers. The next section analyses the forms of knowledge and ways of knowing in Drew’s teaching to gauge the potential for students to take away meaningful, useful learning from the lessons that might have helped them become more proficient, successful jazz players.