ALGORITHMISM: The New “Ism” of the Digital Age

There’s a new ism in town.

For generations, society has coined these terms to capture the ways we feel held back—sexism, racism, ageism. Each one names a real force that shapes our lives. But now, in this digital era, as more of us create online, a new one has emerged, whispered from timeline to timeline: algorithmism.

Algorithmism is the belief that the invisible gears of the algorithm are working against you—that your work isn’t reaching people not because of its content, but because some unseen machine has decided you don’t deserve the spotlight. It’s the feeling that your creativity is being lost in a rigged system, where the deck is stacked, and the numbers never fall your way.

I’ve seen this thinking everywhere lately—on Substack, on X, on Instagram, on Facebook. Folks convinced that the reason their posts don’t soar is because the algorithm clipped their wings. And I understand the frustration. I’ve been writing and posting online for over fifteen years. I know what it’s like to send something out into the world with excitement in your chest, expecting a spark, only to watch it fall flat without explanation.

But here’s what I’ve learned: sometimes it’s not the algorithm.

Sometimes the work simply didn’t resonate.

And that’s a truth many people don’t want to sit with.

Over the years, I’ve had posts that took off — not full-on viral, but certainly catching fire enough to travel far beyond my own circle. They sparked conversations, questions, even arguments. And I’ve had others that went nowhere, slipping quietly into the digital abyss. I couldn’t predict it. I couldn’t control it. And it never bothered me too deeply, because I never saw creation as something that owed me anything.

See, when I put something out into the world, I’m not doing it to be crowned or rewarded. If it brings opportunity, beautiful. But that’s not the engine behind my work. I write and post because there’s something in me stirring — a thought, a question, an excitement — and I want to share it. I’m extending my hand not to have it filled, but to offer what I have.

That’s a big distinction in this age of algorithmism.

Because we’ve reached a point where many creators extend their hand the other way — palm up, expecting something to be dropped into it. A like. A share. A subscription. A sign from the digital universe that what they’ve created is worthy. And when it doesn’t come, the algorithm becomes the villain.

But sometimes, the piece wasn’t meant for a stadium.

Sometimes it was only meant for a small room — a quiet corner where a handful of people whisper, “I get it.”

And that’s enough.

I think we need to learn how to live with that again.

Because if we’re honest, algorithmism becomes a kind of digital victimhood. A convenient shelter. A way to say, “It’s not me; it’s the machine.” It protects the ego, but it robs the artist. It cuts us off from the crucial question every creator needs to ask: What can I do better? What can I say clearer? What truth am I missing?

Algorithms are real, yes. But they are not gods.

They are not destiny.

And they are not responsible for shaping our voice.

Our job — the only job we truly control — is to create, to share, and to stay present. To keep offering. To keep showing up. To keep placing our work into the stream without demanding the river flow the way we want.

When you move like that, you step outside the reach of algorithmism entirely.

You return to the pure act of creation — the joy of it, the mystery of it, the freedom of releasing something into the world without needing to dictate how it should be received. Once I hit “publish,” my work is no longer mine. I’ve done my part. The rest belongs to the reader, the moment, and the unpredictable currents of human attention.

Sometimes you’ll catch the wind.

Sometimes you won’t.

But if the work is honest, if the offering is sincere, it will land where it needs to land.

And that, to me, is more meaningful than any algorithm could ever engineer.

We Have the Potential to Be All That We Are

At first glance, a phrase like we have the potential to be all that we are might sound limiting—maybe even pessimistic. It can read as if we’re being asked to settle, to see ourselves in a dimmer light. But in truth, what I’m reaching for is the opposite. This idea is rooted in empowerment, in clarity, in the freedom that comes from letting go of illusions about what we—or others—are “supposed” to become.

There’s a misconception many people carry, something I call the KISA factor—K-I-S-A: Knight In Shining Armor. This is the fantasy that someone will come riding in on a white horse to save us, transform our lives, or pull us into a better destiny. But I reject that idea fully. There is no hero galloping in from the horizon, no magical figure that arrives to rewrite your story.

And this piece isn’t just about dismantling the KISA myth—it’s about taking the next step. When I say we have the potential to be all that we are, I mean this:

We often imagine that somewhere out there is a pot of gold with our name on it—some special opportunity, some quick adjustment, some person who just needs to “fix” one thing. We project that same thinking onto others: “If they could just change this… If they would only do that…” We look at people through a me-centric lens. We imagine what we would do if we were in their shoes, and then judge them for not doing it.

But over the years, I’ve learned something humbling and liberating:

Trying to push people past not only their abilities, but even their aspirations, is a losing game. Everybody’s frame, everybody’s wiring, everybody’s hunger is different. Some people are not waiting for a breakthrough moment. They’re not secretly a diamond in the rough just waiting for the right pressure. Sometimes what you see in them is what they are—and that is not a failure. That’s simply their light.

And if that light shines at 60 watts, then let it shine at 60. Don’t try to force it to burn at 120. You might cause a fire, and you might destroy the very thing you were trying to help.

Empowerment is not about insisting on someone else’s “latent greatness” as we imagine it. It’s about accepting that each of us has a natural range, a natural rhythm, a natural glow. And within that authenticity, there is a quiet power. Not every beam has to blind the world. A softer light can still warm a room.

So when I say we have the potential to be all that we are, I’m not saying aim low. I’m saying aim true. Honor your actual gifts. Honor the way your light is built to shine. And extend that same grace to others. Not everyone wants to transform. Not everyone needs to be pushed. Sometimes the fullest version of a person is already standing in front of you.

And there is nothing pessimistic about that. In fact, that might be the most empowering truth of all.

.

The Cost of Playing: Investing in Music Without Losing Yourself

I’ve always been fascinated by the willingness of musicians to “pay to play,” so to speak. On one level, it’s understandable. We know there isn’t always a lot of money in jazz, and when we bring people on board — sidemen, engineers, designers — we want to respect their time and make sure they’re compensated. That part makes sense. But there’s a line somewhere, and I think it’s worth asking where that line is. Because while supporting the presentation of our own music is one thing, supporting the entire infrastructure of the industry just to keep it afloat is something else.

 How many institutions in the jazz world — magazines, grant organizations, publicists — would continue to function without the steady stream of money coming directly from artists? Take the musicians out of the equation, and many of these organizations would collapse. Yes, they review our records, they run features, they expand our reach. But we’re also the ones footing the bill.

Which leads to the deeper question: How much of what we pour into press campaigns, magazine ads, award submissions, and the rest actually builds something that lasts?

I don’t raise this to sound bitter. I’ve benefited from these systems myself. I’ve worked with first-rate publicists like Chris DiGirolamo and Lydia Liebman, and through that work I’ve been reviewed in DownBeat numerous times, received five-star reviews, been featured in the New York Times, and even heard my work reviewed on air by Kevin Whitehead on NPR. All of that has been gratifying. But after each milestone, I find myself asking, “Now what? Do I need another Times review? Another five stars? Is this really the kind of foundation that builds a future?”

Our financial worth should not only be determined by how much horn we’re playing. There was a time when bandleaders could reasonably expect touring and CD sales to provide a steady stream of income. Of course, a sideman might still come away in the black after a tour, but for the leader it’s often a different story — the expenses pile up, and breaking even is sometimes considered success. I’ve heard countless stories of leaders piling into vans, driving city to city, only to return with little or nothing to show for it financially.

And it wasn’t just the road. There was a time when selling CDs offered at least modest returns. You could count on distributors to get the music into stores, and if listeners wanted to hear it, they had to buy it. Add to that the royalties paid out when terrestrial radio was still the primary way music reached the public. Those performance rights checks weren’t enormous, but they represented a real income stream.

Contrast that with today, when most listeners expect to get music for free. And there aren’t many business models where the creator produces the product but doesn’t expect anyone to pay for it.

I guess if I had to come up with some justification, I would say that many musicians are most likely trying to figure out how to build a legacy more than they’re chasing financial independence. But at some point, we have to ask whether the traditional markers of success are enough.

And maybe part of the shift is understanding how the broader music industry has already adapted. These days, when major labels or top agencies sign artists, it’s often through what’s called a 360 deal—they’re not just signing the music. They’re taking a piece of everything: clothing lines, books, movie appearances, perfume, TV—whatever the artist touches that falls under the umbrella of entertainment. That model says a lot. It says the real value isn’t just in the album—it’s in the brand, the vision, the full creative identity of the artist. And maybe as jazz musicians, we should be thinking more along those lines, too.

To be clear, I don’t want to sound discouraging to younger musicians. One of my cardinal rules is never to dump on someone else’s hustle. My life motto has always been: get what you can get with what you’ve got. And I mean that. So by all means, pursue the reviews, the ads, the campaigns if they serve your goals. But also consider the bigger picture. The old paradigm — when record companies were the industry — is long gone. If we’re serious about building something sustainable, maybe it’s time we thought past it.

Plenty of musicians already are. I know artists who’ve built entire income streams from writing books, giving masterclasses, lecturing, and public speaking. Some have gotten entrepreneurial with instruments or gear. Others branch into clothing, branding, or other ventures that make sense with who they are. Personally, I’ve thought about pursuing writing — not just music-related but fiction as well — and even experimenting with selling some of my horn preparations. There are more avenues than ever to think broadly about what our art can generate.

Because at the end of the day, if everything comes down to a musician’s handshake at the end of the night, we’re not really setting ourselves up for long-term success.

So what can we do? For me, it comes down to a few steps:

    •    Be intentional. Ask yourself whether each dollar or hour you invest is actually building something lasting.

    •    Diversify. Don’t let your worth be measured only by the gigs you play. Explore writing, teaching, entrepreneurial ventures — anything that reflects your broader vision.

    •    Protect your legacy. Think beyond the short-term hustle. What will remain after the campaign ends, after the tour is over?

    •    Stay open. The industry is shifting every day. Don’t get stuck in an old model just because that’s how it was always done.

None of this is about abandoning the horn or the stage. It’s about making sure that the energy we pour into the music is matched by a strategy that allows the music, and the musician, to endure.

Between the Classroom and the Bandstand: Staying Relevant Even When Trends Aren't Built for You.

I’ve spent more than twenty years in academia. That might sound like a long time, but it didn’t feel like a career path. It felt like something I did alongside my real work—music.  Even though I don’t wear the facade of an academic—and no one who really knows me would call me one—the path I’ve walked through teaching, publishing, and shaping ideas carries that imprint.

In fact, I’ve been more productive—more visible—than many artists who live completely outside academia. That isn’t bragging. That’s reality. And part of the reason I’ve been able to do that is because the university gave me something the music industry wouldn’t: a long runway. Time.

They didn’t hire me because I was charting. They didn’t bring me in to generate buzz or profit. They wanted someone who could teach, serve the department, and help shape the direction of the program. In return, I had the space to do my work. No one asked me to be marketable. No one tried to fit me into a formula. That kind of freedom is rare.

In music, it’s different. People don’t support your work simply because it’s honest or original. Granting organizations may be an exception, but more often than not, support comes only if they believe it can sell. And if it doesn’t, they walk away. Record labels, booking agents, presenters—they’re all operating under the same basic logic: Will this make money? If the answer is no, then the meeting is over. That’s not cynical. That’s how they survive.

Years ago, a label head told me he regretted not recording more of my group. He’d only done one album with us. At the time, he didn’t think the sound would catch on. He was probably right. It didn’t check the usual boxes. So there was that familiar push: straighten it out, smooth the edges, give the people something they can digest easily. I didn’t take the bait, and he didn’t press the issue. He made his calculation and moved on.

That’s how this business works. It’s short-term by design. If you want something preserved for the long term, you’ll have to do it yourself.

Artists talk a lot about support. They wait around for someone to come along and believe in them. But the truth is, no one’s coming. If you want your work to last, if you think it matters, then you have to record it, release it, fund it, and stand by it. That’s not idealism. That’s basic responsibility. In music, there’s no tenure. The only thing that keeps you alive is the work.

Some years, people notice you. Other years, they forget you exist. That doesn’t matter. The important thing is to keep showing up. Keep putting the work out. Keep building. Because once you stop doing that, you disappear. Not figuratively. Literally.

I’ve said this before: look at the critics’ polls. Wynton Marsalis. Kenny Garrett. Cassandra Wilson. When I first hit the scene, these were names you couldn’t leave off the top five. Now? Their rankings barely make a dent. Not because they’re no longer good. Not because they stopped mattering. But because public attention moves on. Critics move on. Audiences move on. What remains is the body of work.

The rankings don’t mean much. Legacy is built through consistency, not applause.

The music business is full of moments that don’t add up. You do everything right, and nothing happens. You make your best work, and nobody hears it. Meanwhile, something younger—and sometimes safer— wins awards. That’s how it goes. But if you understand that from the start, you won’t be shocked when it happens. And you won’t let it stop you.

The goal isn’t to be popular. The goal is to be present. To stay in motion. To keep making music, keep telling your story, and keep adding to your archive—even if no one’s asking for it. Especially if no one’s asking for it.

And if you do that—if you stay in it long enough and remain honest about what you’re doing—it ends up being worth it. Maybe not financially. Maybe not in terms of praise. But in terms of purpose. In terms of clarity. In terms of building a life you don’t have to apologize for or explain away. Most people don’t get that far. They flame out early or drift into bitterness. But if you hold on, keep doing the work, and accept the trade-offs, you’ll look back and see it for what it is:

A life well lived.

The Music Continues: Life as a Jazz Artist Over 50

Life can be a scary time for many jazz musicians over 50—certainly for me. As Ralph Peterson Jr. once said, when you hit 50, you’re entering the third quarter of life. That idea has always stuck with me. It can feel daunting, especially in a field like jazz, where youth is often equated with innovation, relevance, and opportunity.

Most of us didn’t pursue this path expecting riches or fame. But I think we all hoped—modestly, realistically—that we’d at least be recognized for our work. And that’s the tricky part. Because as you’re doing your best to be seen and acknowledged, there’s a constant wave of younger musicians moving to New York, hungry and talented, stepping into the scene. You pay your dues, and then someone else comes along and steps in. And sure, that’s how it’s supposed to work—there should be room for the next generation. But the truth is, the industry doesn’t always make room for you. Sometimes you get overlooked. And when you hit that 50-year-old mark, you can’t help but wonder: maybe it’s never going to happen.

And you know what? You might be right.

At least, it might not happen in the way you envisioned.

But that doesn’t mean it can’t still happen in a different way—maybe even a better way. It might not come with the same spotlight or recognition you once imagined, but that doesn’t mean it’s any less meaningful. What it does require is a revision of your plan. A willingness to let go of one story so that you can write a better one.

Sometimes, happiness and fulfillment come not from achieving what you set out to do, but from discovering something you never knew you needed. Maybe your career won’t be defined by headlining at the Village Vanguard or winning a Grammy, but instead by deep artistic breakthroughs, meaningful collaborations, or having your music resonate with a small but dedicated circle of listeners. Maybe it’s mentoring the next generation. Or creating work on your own terms, without needing a gatekeeper to validate it. There are many forms of success, and many ways to still find joy in the music. The key is being open to rewriting the story.

And I say this not as someone bitter, but someone who has actually been quite fortunate. I’ve experienced more success and recognition than many. I won’t say most—but certainly many. That’s pretty remarkable, especially considering I’ve worked a full-time teaching job for years. I’m not in the trenches, booking gigs every week or hustling nonstop to advance my performance career. I’ve done what I can to stay active: I release recordings, even if not prolifically. I maintain a solid Instagram presence. I post regularly on my blog. And I stay engaged in the musical discourse. It may not be the kind of discourse that gets critics excited—or furious—but I believe it speaks to the broader jazz community in a meaningful way.

I consider myself to be in a unique position because I know people who are still in the trenches—low- paying to no-paying gigs, scraping by, working day jobs outside of music—and I know people who are soaring on top. Playing the major venues, headlining the major festivals. And I just want to say: being a jazz star is not all it’s cracked up to be. People make a lot of sacrifices. It’s not like you get there and suddenly your life is a bed of roses. There are real challenges at that level too. Some sacrifice the opportunity to start families. Others forgo the stability of homeownership or fall behind in preparing for their senior years financially. The costs can be high, and the rewards—while meaningful—aren’t always sustainable or secure.

So you have to ask yourself: What am I really missing out on?

Of course, who doesn’t want a three-week tour in Europe? Who doesn’t want to play the major festivals? I’ve done those things. I’ve even been on a major label. And yes, it was a lot of fun. I do miss aspects of it. But I certainly don’t miss the travel. These days, flying feels like riding a bus with wings. It’s uncomfortable, draining, and airport security only adds another layer of stress. That old saying—the grass is always greener—definitely applies here.

The truth is, this path we’re on as jazz musicians isn’t linear. As an aspiring writer of fiction, I’ve written many stories, and what I’ve learned is that the finished version is rarely the story I set out to write. Things shift. Characters evolve. Plot points change. And yet, more often than not, the story becomes more profound because of that transformation. We can approach our careers the same way. Sometimes the version of success that finds you later in life is deeper, more grounded, and more personally rewarding than the version you chased in your twenties.

So what can we do? Here are a few ideas that have worked for me, and that I believe can work for others:

• Redefine your audience.
  Your circle doesn’t have to be the entire world. Sometimes ten people who are deeply moved by your music matter more than a thousand casual listeners. If my core base is a handful of horn players curious about attaching tubes to their instruments, I’ll take it.

  Mentor and collaborate.
  Your wisdom is gold to the younger generation. Sharing it not only helps them, it keeps you connected to the vitality of the music. When knowledge is lived—not just book-learned—we often underestimate the depth of what we have to offer.

  Build your own platforms.
  Blogs, podcasts, self-released albums, house concerts—these tools free you from gatekeepers. You don’t need permission to share your voice. I moved to New York during the height of the scarcity era, when getting heard meant selling your soul to the devil. Those days are over.

  Prioritize depth over breadth.
  Maybe you don’t release ten albums a decade. Maybe you release one every few years—but it’s honest, layered, and meaningful. That’s still a legacy. A career isn’t defined by sheer productivity. Depth carries more gravity than volume.

  Take care of the whole person.
  Music is central, but so are health, family, financial planning, and joy outside of music. Stability doesn’t kill creativity—it sustains it. Looking back, a Grammy on the mantle and twenty bottles of medication in the bathroom is not the life well-lived we should aspire to.

The music continues. And so do we. Not in spite of being over 50, but because of it. We’ve lived, we’ve seen, and we have something to say. And that—if we keep at it—is where the true power of our artistry lies.

Don’t Leave the Hype: How Art is the Light, Not the Applause

A lot of times our perception of ourselves—and of others—is shaped less by the truth and more by a narrative that the industry builds. Magazines, radio, television, movies, even the educational system all work together to tell us: this is the person leading the path, this is the legend of their generation, this is the artist doing the “important work.”

That has its place. Narratives can inspire, elevate, and bring attention to deserving artists. But there’s also a danger. The hype can give us a false sense of our importance—and, even more tragically, a false sense of our unimportance.

We see someone on the cover of a magazine and think: they’re the one making an impact. And if we’re not on that cover, we start to think: maybe I’m not making an impact. Without realizing it, we internalize the idea that our work doesn’t matter.

But that is simply not true.

When I look at my own career, I don’t play the major festivals. I’m not headlining the so-called “important” stages. I’m not being called to guest on the albums of jazz stars. Most of my gigs are in small venues in Brooklyn, often for twenty people, sometimes fewer.

And still—I say this with humility—my work is just as important as anyone gracing magazine covers or headlining festivals. I’ll put my contributions bar for bar, spirit for spirit, against theirs any day. Because the value of the work isn’t measured by how brightly the spotlight shines on it. The value is in the light you create where you stand.

Some of my greatest influences are musicians most people have never heard of. Folks you won’t see on magazine covers or topping polls. But their impact on my playing, my vision, and my development has been profound.

I think about Bob Rainey, a soprano saxophonist I recently performed with. In my opinion, he has the most expansive vocabulary of multiphonics on the soprano saxophone to date. When I first heard him, he wasn’t using multiphonics as a gimmick or an occasional noise effect—he was using them as part of an expansive language, the same way others use single notes. That completely shifted my perspective on what was possible.

That’s influence. That’s light.

And none of it happened at the Newport Jazz Festival, JEN, or the Jazz Journalists Awards. It happened in a room, on a stage, through the sound of one musician taking their craft seriously.

I can only imagine that I’ve had a similar effect on others. Maybe someone sees me working on a certain experiment, and it sparks a thought: I never considered that before. That ripple is real. And it doesn’t require hype. It requires presence, honesty, and a willingness to create light where you are.

Because the important thing isn’t to stand under the spotlight. The important thing is to create light where you stand—whether that’s in a packed hall, a neighborhood club, or a subway platform.

The hype fades. The light remains.

And one final word to the artist: you may not always get the affirmations you think you need to keep going. But you have to create and put your work into the world with the belief that it is reaching people, making an impact, and doing what it was meant to do. More often than not, your work is shaping lives in ways you may never see or imagine.

The Art of Engagement: Why Connection Starts Long Before the Music Drops

As musicians, we’re always putting something out into the world. Maybe a new recording, a performance, a presentation, or some kind of debut. We’re constantly giving, presenting, sharing. And we need an audience for that.

But here’s what often happens. and I think it’s a big mistake. We put everything into the creation of the work, and then, maybe a week or two before the release or performance, we go into panic mode. Suddenly we’re flooding social media with posts, ads, and reminders: “Come to my gig!” “Listen to my new album!” “Check out this project!”

Sure, sometimes this last-minute push gets results. But in most cases, it doesn’t work the way we want it to.

Why? Because many of us are trying to activate an audience we haven’t really been connecting with. We show up out of nowhere and say, “Hey, I need you to come to this thing,” but people aren’t always ready to listen. It’s not personal. It’s just that if they haven’t seen or heard from you in a while—if you haven’t been present—they’ve already been engaged by others who have.

Social media isn’t just a billboard. It’s more like a conversation that never stops. And if you’re not in the conversation, you’re not top of mind. When you’re silent for too long, you fall behind those who are consistently engaging. So when it’s finally your turn to announce something, you’re starting from the bottom of the feed—literally and figuratively.

Here’s a common scenario many of us can relate to. You’ve got a new recording coming out. You hire a publicist, hand them the materials, and say, “Hey, get people excited about this.” You write a check for several thousand dollars and sit back, waiting for the buzz to build.

What usually happens? Sure, most publicists will get you something. A few reviews, maybe a feature or two. It’s rare that they come up completely empty. But more often than not, what they deliver falls short of what you were hoping for. And let’s be real—you didn’t spend $3,000, $4,000, or even $5,000 just for a couple blurbs. So you walk away saying, “This publicist was terrible,” or “This whole publicity thing just doesn’t work.”

But here’s the hard truth: most times, it’s not the publicist’s fault. It’s yours.

You put all the responsibility on them and did nothing to build interest yourself. You treated them like a magician rather than a megaphone. And that’s a mistake. If you really want to benefit from hiring a publicist, you can’t expect them to create the spotlight. You have to be the spotlight. Their job is to amplify what you’ve already built. They reflect attention; they don’t create it out of thin air.

If the only thing you’ve created is the music, that’s not enough. You need to cultivate a sense of presence, context, and narrative around your work. That’s what people connect to. And that’s what makes a publicist’s job actually work.

When I think about the books that I publish, it’s rarely the case that they just come out of nowhere. I’m usually writing on my blog, engaging people with ideas, sharing thoughts as they develop. I’m giving people a steady sense of who I am as a writer, how I think, what I care about.

So when a book finally drops, there’s already a relationship in place. People recognize the voice. They say, “Oh yeah, I know that guy. I like his ideas. Let me check this out.” That’s the result of groundwork—of staying present, being visible, and building trust over time.

And none of that is about scamming people or tricking them into buying something. It’s not a hustle. It’s just an honest continuation of a conversation that’s already happening. That’s the key. Engagement isn’t about selling; it’s about sharing. It’s about staying connected in a way that feels natural, not forced.

There are plenty of ways to engage. One approach that musicians used to use more often, though it’s fallen out of fashion a bit, is the full-on crowdfunding campaign. You’d raise money for your project and, in the process, get people excited about the recording. Fans weren’t just emotionally invested—they were financially invested. They had skin in the game. And so when the project finally came out, they felt a sense of ownership. It mattered more to them because they were part of it.

Now, I’m not saying everyone needs to go back to those days or that crowdfunding is the only way to build connection. But it’s a great example of how involvement creates engagement. There are other ways to do the same thing, just in smaller and more casual ways.

You can invite people into your process. For instance, say you’re trying to decide on an album cover—post a few options and ask, “Hey, which one do you like best?” Or you’re stuck between a few different title ideas. Put them out there and ask for input. Or maybe you just had a photo shoot and you’re torn between a couple images. Ask your audience which one speaks to them.

These may seem like little things, but they go a long way. They’re not gimmicks. They’re honest ways of saying: “Hey, I value your input. You’re part of this with me.”

It shifts the dynamic from “Here’s my finished product, come buy it” to “We’ve been building this together.” And when people feel like they’ve been part of the journey, they’re far more likely to care about the destination.

At the end of the day, you have to decide the best way to get your music out into the world. But my main point is this: engagement doesn’t start when the CD is finished—it starts much earlier. You’ve got to bring people into the vault, into the process, long before the final product is ready. That way, you stay in the driver’s seat.

Don’t just hand over all your power, and your money, to a publicist and hope for the best. Sometimes the most effective strategies are free. They just require time, honesty, and a willingness to connect.

Thanks for reading.

From Piracy to Obscurity: The Shift in the Artist’s Greatest Fear

Not long ago, the primary concern for working musicians, particularly those in jazz, was the unauthorized use of their work. Piracy, bootlegging, and exploitative recording contracts that demanded portions of an artist’s publishing were seen as the greatest threats to creative ownership. Artists operated with a defensive posture. Sharing ideas too freely meant risking the loss of control over one’s own music.

I recall a performance years ago; a trio gig. Midway through a tune, the bassist noticed someone in the audience filming. Without hesitation, he stopped playing and insisted I ask the man to put the camera away. Besides from being unprofessional, that moment captured the anxiety of the time. Even rehearsal tapes came with firm instructions: “Don’t let anyone hear this.” Ideas were treated as intellectual property in the strictest sense—something to be protected, even hoarded, until they could be officially released.

Today, that fear has largely disappeared. And it has been replaced by something far more corrosive: the fear of being ignored.

We have shifted from an era of scarcity to one of saturation. The central problem facing many artists is not theft but indifference. In the past, the idea that someone might steal your music was alarming. Now, for many, it would almost be a compliment—an indication that the work was at least valuable enough to copy.

Where artists once protected their ideas with near-paranoia, today they flood the internet with content—live-streaming rehearsals, posting snippets of unfinished compositions, uploading fragments of gigs in the hope that something will catch fire. What was once guarded with secrecy is now offered up for free, often in real time.

I frequently perform with younger musicians: primarily members of Gen Z. One striking difference I’ve observed is how naturally they document and share performances. After certain gigs, I’ll receive notifications linking to several video clips, all posted to Instagram within hours.

Far from being a nuisance, this has proven beneficial. It allows me to revisit moments from the performance, and in many ways, it functions as post-concert promotion. Because the music is improvised, I have no concern over copyright. What matters more is that someone attending the gig found the moment compelling enough to record and share. That sense of value, of something being worth capturing, is not insignificant.

The other side of this shift, however, is worth considering. Does constant visibility risk diminishing an artist’s impact? Oversaturation may not only lead to audience fatigue, but also erode the sense of mystique that once surrounded public figures.

There was a time when musicians existed at a distance. They appeared in limited, curated contexts—on stage, film, television, or a crafted magazine interviews. Outside of those formats, they were largely inaccessible. That distance itself created a kind of reverence. You rarely saw them, and when you did, you paid for the privilege.

In the age of social media, that separation has vanished. Musicians and artists alike, now present themselves daily—via tweets, livestreams, TikTok videos, and casual behind-the-scenes clips. What was once extraordinary becomes routine. The mystique that comes with scarcity has been replaced by the banality of constant exposure.

Of course, one could reject this trend and choose to remain offline. But in doing so, the risk is not mystery—it’s irrelevance. The platform economy moves quickly, and opting out often means being left behind. So the artist today must navigate an impossible contradiction: be visible, but not overly familiar; be present, but not predictable.

Still, the broader trend is clear. Musicians today feel compelled to remain visible at all times. There is an unspoken belief that if you are not constantly producing content, you will disappear from public consciousness. As Art Blakey once said, “In this business, you’re either appearing or disappearing.” That used to be a commentary on the need for artistic urgency. Today, it feels more like a sentence handed down by the culture of digital media.

The fear isn’t being copied.

It’s being forgotten.

Have we traded artistic integrity for attention?

Or have we just shifted the spotlight—from excellence to engagement, from soul to scroll?

In a world ruled by algorithms, perhaps the real art is learning how to be seen without disappearing.

The DownBeat Critics Poll: Recognition, Incentives, and the Reality of the Game

Each year, the DownBeat Critics Poll is released to much fanfare in the jazz world. Critics cast their votes on the musicians they believe have done exemplary work over the past year. For some, it brings joy—a tangible nod to years of effort. For others, it brings disappointment or even bitterness. But if we step back and examine the incentives and mechanics behind this recognition, it becomes clear: this isn’t a meritocracy in any meaningful sense. It’s a popularity contest filtered through a specific, narrow lens.

The question isn’t who’s best. The real question is whose name came up most often when a group of critics—who, like all of us, operate under constraints of time, taste, and visibility—filled out a ballot. It is not a rigorous process of comparison, nor is it grounded in some objective ranking of artistry. It’s about presence in the discourse, not necessarily excellence in the music.

This is not an indictment of the winners. Many of them are excellent musicians. But their recognition is the outcome of an ecosystem structured around attention—not necessarily innovation, depth, or longevity.

Unlike a grant process where work is reviewed, scored, and debated, the Critics Poll operates on something much simpler: memory and visibility. Critics submit names under predefined categories—Tenor Saxophonist, Pianist, Rising Star Trumpeter, and so on. The ballots are counted, and whoever gets the most votes wins. No debates. No deliberation. No quality control. Just numbers.

So when someone says, “How did they win?” the answer isn’t always found in the music—it’s in the mechanisms.

If your work didn’t receive a critical spotlight, you’re at a disadvantage. If your release didn’t appear on a major label, or wasn’t reviewed in the “right” places, or didn’t feature collaborators with high visibility, it likely never entered the critics’ field of vision. That’s not injustice. That’s just how the system is structured.

I play the soprano saxophone exclusively. I could release an album that breaks ground sonically and artistically, and yet if it doesn’t circulate among the critical class, it won’t matter. Meanwhile, a well-known tenor player who plays soprano on one track of a widely praised album will place higher in the soprano category. Perhaps even win it. Not because their soprano work is better—but because the album got attention. That’s not personal. That’s structural.

People often confuse desires with incentives. Many musicians desire recognition. But if they ignore the incentives of the system they’re in, they shouldn’t be surprised when recognition doesn’t come. The system rewards visibility, association, and presentation—not necessarily excellence in a vacuum.

And I get it. For the winners, it can feel like a long-awaited validation—especially in a field as isolating and underpaid as jazz often is. You start thinking maybe the sacrifices were worth it. For others, the absence stings. Not because they believe awards define their worth, but because they’ve invested decades, sometimes quietly, in a craft that rarely makes headlines. It’s not about ego—it’s about wanting to know your work reached someone. And when it doesn’t show up in these results, it can feel like you’re invisible.

And just as visibility shapes who gets noticed, format shapes how your work is interpreted. The same music can be perceived entirely differently depending on how it’s packaged.

Want to be known as a serious composer? A piano trio won’t cut it. Critics associate composition with large ensembles—seven, eight, or nine instruments. Whether the music is through-composed or freely improvised hardly matters. The ensemble size alone signals “serious writing” to many critics. That perception often carries more weight than the actual structure or process behind the music.

If you want to climb the polls, you have to operate within the system’s logic. That might mean collaborating with higher-profile musicians, performing in high-visibility settings, or tailoring your work to formats that critics recognize as legitimate. That’s not selling out. That’s understanding the rules of the game.

This isn’t a moral critique—it’s an economic one. Recognition is a scarce good, and critics allocate it with limited information. That leads to predictable outcomes.

So if your name didn’t make the list this year, don’t despair—and certainly don’t take it personally. Just be clear-eyed about what the system rewards. And then make a choice: either engage those incentives, or focus on building your own path outside of them.

Either is valid. But confusing the poll for a referendum on your value? That’s a category error.

As it’s often said in the world of economics: there are no solutions, only trade-offs. And understanding that is the first step toward sanity in this business.

The Double-Edged Sword of Technical Proficiency in Jazz: A Hard Look at Art in the Age of AI

In an era increasingly obsessed with measurable outcomes and flawless execution, it’s no surprise that the world of jazz—once a sanctuary for raw expression and individual voice—has not escaped this trend. Over the past decade, there has been a noticeable rise in the technical abilities of young jazz musicians. Social media clips and conservatory recitals overflow with lightning-fast runs, impossible intervallic leaps, and harmonic sophistication far beyond what was typical even twenty years ago.

At first glance, this appears to be an unequivocal victory for the art form. After all, what teacher wouldn’t want their students to play in tune, in time, and with a deep understanding of harmony? But progress, like everything else in life, comes with tradeoffs. And the tradeoff we now face is subtle but significant: as technique rises, meaning seems to diminish.

We are witnessing, in real time, a shift from the expressive to the mechanical.

I remember my own time at Berklee College of Music. It was a crucible of talent, competition, and relentless ambition. Among the many gifted players was Scottish saxophonist Tommy Smith—already a prodigy when he walked through the doors at sixteen, with only four years of playing under his belt. His command of the instrument was stunning, and his rapid ascent only confirmed the depth of his abilities. Being surrounded by such musicians was both inspiring and, at times, paralyzing. It made me question my own place in the music, and more deeply, what I hoped to contribute.

What I eventually discovered—and what so often gets lost in today’s race for technical mastery and jazz vocabulary display—is that fast fingers and encyclopedic regurgitation alone cannot carry the emotional freight of great art. Technique is a tool to create language. And like any language, it’s not what you say that matters most, but what you mean. The greatest players—those who endure—aren’t always the most technically advanced, but the ones who play with conviction, clarity of identity, and a willingness to be vulnerable.

In my own creative practice, especially through prepared saxophone and extended techniques, I’ve chosen a path that falls outside traditional measures of proficiency. It’s not always understood. And it’s certainly not for everyone. But that’s precisely the point. If your work resonates with everyone, chances are it doesn’t go deep enough to truly move anyone.

This brings us to a broader cultural moment: the growing presence of artificial intelligence–like values in art.

AI, by its very nature, thrives on patterns, probability, and imitation. It can write sonatas, generate paintings, and even mimic the cadence of a jazz solo with stunning fidelity. But fidelity is not the same as soul. AI does not long. It does not mourn. It does not celebrate. It merely aggregates the longings, losses, and triumphs of others—and rearranges them into a new format.

To the uncritical eye, this may seem like creativity. But it is creativity without cost. And art without cost is, at best, decoration.

Young musicians growing up in this climate face a dilemma that previous generations did not. They’re pulled between the seductive ease of digital-like precision and the messy, unpredictable terrain of authentic expression. It’s easier to quantify speed than sincerity. Easier to teach harmony than humility. Easier to program a performance than to cultivate a voice.

But jazz—at its best—was never about ease. It was born out of struggle, shaped by improvisation, and carried forward by those brave enough to sound like themselves, even when doing so went against prevailing norms. It wasn’t about being polished. It was about being personal.

If we’re not careful, we may end up with a generation of musicians who can dazzle but not move us. Who can impress but not inspire. Who, despite having everything—sound, speed, and skill—somehow still leave us cold.

The purpose of art is not to prove how much we know. It is to remind others—and ourselves—that we feel. When someone walks away from a performance not thinking, “I could never do that,” but instead, “That made me want to try,” then something profound has taken place. That’s the moment when technique bows to meaning—when the intellect yields to the heart.

And in that moment, we are no longer simply musicians. We are human beings in conversation with other human beings.

That’s something no machine can replicate.

And it’s something we should never stop defending.

Cannonball Adderley on the Soprano Sax

In his 1970 DownBeat interview, Cannonball Adderley reflected on his struggles with the soprano saxophone:

“It’s a total new experience for me because it is not like the alto sax or the tenor sax; it takes another kind of technique to play it well. I have much more admiration for Sidney Bechet now than I ever did, although I always loved him musically.

This realization hits home for anyone who has spent serious time with the soprano. I still cringe thinking of my first notes. I actually made the fatal mistake of accepting a recording session after having owned it for only a few weeks. Big mistake. I’d just graduated from Berklee and needed the money. However, the guilt of having sabotaged that poor guys session was not what I needed.

Like many saxophonists, I assumed that because it shares fingerings with the alto and tenor, transitioning to it should be straightforward. This could not be further from the truth. But Adderley was right—it demands an entirely different approach. The embouchure is less forgiving, air support must be more focused, and the instrument’s inherent instability means that control is everything.

For a musician as masterful as Adderley to acknowledge this speaks volumes. It suggests that even the most accomplished saxophonists cannot simply “pick up” the soprano and expect to sound great. The instrument demands commitment. And people aware of my journey, know that "commitment" is my middle name.

Adderley was an alto master—his tone, articulation, and phrasing were second to none. But even he quickly recognized that the soprano is its own beast. His words challenge a common assumption among saxophonists: that the soprano is just a smaller saxophone, a quick doubling instrument. In reality, it requires a complete recalibration of approach.

This is something I’ve seen over and over. Many players pick up the soprano for its range and expressiveness, only to struggle with pitch control and sound depth. They can play fast, but the notes often end up as some sonic mush. Adderley’s comment reminds us that the soprano doesn’t reward casual engagement. You either put in the work, or the instrument exposes you.

One of Adderley’s keenist observations was about the soprano’s notorious tuning difficulties:

“The technical aspects of being a good soprano saxophone player are frightening. You have to use what we call a tempered intonation concept because you can’t find an instrument that is really built in tune. Consequently, as you play, you have to make adjustments for the intonation in order to maintain a sound."

Frightening is the right word. Even today, despite decades of instrument design improvements, a perfectly in-tune soprano saxophone is hard to find--even though it's getting close. The player is responsible for making real-time pitch corrections, often on a subconscious level. It’s not just about knowing which notes are sharp or flat—it’s about developing the ability to bend pitch instinctively while maintaining a consistent sound. Oral cavity awareness is everything.

This is one of the main reasons so few saxophonists truly master the soprano. It requires a heightened sense of intonation compared to other saxophones. On an alto or tenor, you can get away with minor pitch inconsistencies—on a soprano, they stick out like a sore thumb. Adderley clearly grasped this reality early on, and it may explain why he never made the instrument a major part of his voice.

Adderley also touched on the soprano saxophone’s lineage, acknowledging two dominant figures:

“Of course, John Coltrane was the outstanding modern soprano sax player, so it is difficult to find some way to play an instrument which only has the major Sidney Bechet and John Coltrane influences ongoing."

This is a fascinating statement. In 1970, it was largely true—the soprano saxophone, at least in the jazz world, was still defined by these two giants. Bechet’s explosive, vibrato-heavy New Orleans style represented one lineage, while Coltrane’s modal explorations created a new modern framework. Lacy was around, and certainly had made several landmark recordings, but he was documenting a lot of his important work in Europe during this period.

But what about today? Have we moved beyond this binary? Absolutely! Steve Lacy pioneered a stark, angular approach, treating the soprano as a vehicle for avant-garde improvisation. Wayne Shorter developed a more fluid, compositional a voice. Jane Ira Bloom, Evan Parker, and Dave Liebman have each pushed the instrument into new sonic territories. And as quiet as it’s kept, Branford Marsalis created a new post-bop/Ornette Coleman sensibility that brought a new generation of saxophonists to the straight horn table.

Adderley's words still resonate today because they capture something every serious soprano player understands: this instrument doesn’t come easy. It requires precision, patience, and a willingness to engage with its challenges. Adderley’s brief encounter with the soprano may not have led to a lasting relationship, but his reflections on it remain as relevant as ever.

For those of us who have put in the time, there’s no greater reward than finding a true voice on the soprano sax. It may not be built in tune, but when played with mastery, there’s nothing else like it.

Here's an example of Cannonball doing his rare soprano thing on his 1968 release, Accent on Africa.

Click here to view the full article.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jq5Ot-ox6nXKlHjW00akn2s05PVSbU9A/view?usp=sharing

Shout out to all of my straight horn brothers and sisters, spreading the tonal message. These are in no particular order of importance. And I apologize to those whose names I may have overlooked.

Jane Bunnett

Harri Sjöström 

Jan Gabarek

Kayla Milmine

Jonathan Kay

Gianni Mimmo

Michael Veal

Michel Doneda

Michael Foster

Rodney Chapman

John Butcher

Vinny Golia

Catherine Sikora

And many others....

Embracing the Unscripted: Five Benefits from Playing Improvised Music

Live at Freddy's Backroom with Eric Mandat, Brittney Karlson, and Nick Neuburg. Photo by Peter Gannushkin.

In recent years, I’ve found myself increasingly drawn to the world of improvised music—a realm where traditional boundaries dissolve and spontaneity takes on new meaning. While my background is rooted in straight-ahead jazz, where rhythm and harmony serve as the foundation, the freedom afforded by improvised music offers an entirely different creative landscape. It’s a place where the absence of preset rhythmic, harmonic, or melodic structures challenges me to invent on the spot and engage with the music in fresh, unexpected ways. This openness is a privilege, and although I hesitate to label myself an “improviser” in the purest sense, I have immense respect for those who inhabit this space daily.

Improvised music can be intimidating to musicians accustomed to the well-defined forms of traditional genres. For many, the transition may seem daunting because, unlike hard bop or other structured styles, improvised music does not rely on stringent harmonic or rhythmic frameworks. Yet, beyond its inherent unpredictability lies a host of benefits that can enrich any musician’s approach to improvisation and ensemble playing. Here are five significant advantages that improvised music offers to players of all styles and calibers:

1. Learning to Play More Spontaneously

One of the most liberating aspects of improvised music is its demand for spontaneity. Without a predetermined blueprint, every performance becomes a journey into the unknown. Musicians are encouraged to trust their instincts and allow ideas to evolve naturally in the moment. This skill—of performing with no fixed agenda—transcends genre boundaries, cultivating a flexibility that enhances creativity in any musical context. Whether you’re engaging in a structured solo or a collective improvisation, embracing spontaneity can open new pathways to expression.

2. Heightened Listening and Communication

In conventional musical settings, each musician often occupies a well-defined role. This can sometimes lead to a situation where individual players perform their parts without fully engaging with one another. In improvised music, however, every sound and gesture matters. With no score or set roles to rely on, players must listen intently to capture the direction and emotion of the moment. This heightened awareness fosters a deeper connection between musicians, enabling a more responsive and interactive performance. The result is a dynamic conversation where every instrument contributes to a constantly evolving narrative.

3. A Focus on Texture and Dynamics

Traditional forms often emphasize melodic lines and rhythmic patterns, but improvised music shifts the focus to the creation of soundscapes. In this context, texture and dynamics become essential tools for shaping the musical narrative. The static nature of some improvised passages invites musicians to explore subtle changes in timbre and volume, thereby cultivating moods that go beyond the typical constructs of melody and rhythm. This approach allows players to experiment with silence, space, and the interplay between different sonic elements, enriching the overall palette of the performance.

4. A Platform for Extended Techniques

Improvised music is renowned for its embrace of extended techniques—those unconventional methods that expand an instrument’s expressive range. Whether it’s producing two-fisted chordal clusters, experimenting with multi-phonics, or even incorporating everyday objects as percussive elements (imagine hitting a drumset with a fork or spoon), improvised music provides a fertile ground for innovation. These techniques challenge the traditional limits of instrument performance, inviting musicians to think outside the box and express their individuality in truly unique ways. This experimental spirit not only broadens one’s technical abilities but also pushes the boundaries of what is considered musically possible.

5. Rethinking Solo Architecture and Pacing

In a conventional song form, solos often follow a predictable arc. In improvised music, however, the absence of a preset structure forces musicians to consider the architecture of their solos more deliberately. Without the safety net of a defined chord progression or rhythm section, players must carefully craft the beginning, development, and conclusion of their improvisation. This self-awareness leads to a more deliberate pacing and a heightened sensitivity to the overall flow of the performance. The challenge lies in balancing spontaneity with structure—finding the right moments to push forward or pull back, building tension, and ultimately creating a coherent musical statement from seemingly disparate ideas.

Conclusion

While improvised music may not be for every musician, its benefits are undeniable. By embracing spontaneity, listening more intently, focusing on texture and dynamics, exploring extended techniques, and rethinking solo architecture, players can cultivate a deeper, more intuitive approach to music-making. These skills not only enrich improvised performances but also bring a fresh perspective to more conventional styles. Whether you’re a seasoned improviser or someone looking to expand your sonic vocabulary, improvised music offers invaluable lessons in creativity, expression, and collaboration.

The Lizard Brain and the Fear of the Unknown: How Survival Instincts Kill Creativity

Deep in the core of our brain lies the amygdala, often called the “lizard brain.” One might say it’s a relic of our evolutionary past, designed to keep us alive. When faced with danger, it triggers the fight-or-flight response—an automatic reaction meant to protect us from threats. But in the modern world—filled with iPhones and social media, where survival is rarely about outrunning four-legged predators, this same mechanism sabotages creativity by making us fear the unknown.

Creativity demands risk. This is non-negotiable. It requires stepping into uncharted territory, making connections others don’t see, running towards the darkness, not the light, embracing the possibility of failure. Easier said than done, mind you. The lizard brain sees all of this as a threat. It whispers:

What if this idea doesn’t work? 

What if people laugh at you? 

What if you waste your time? 

These fears, rooted in our biology, can manifest as perfectionism, procrastination, self-doubt, or clinging to familiar formulas instead of pushing boundaries.

Great artists, musicians, and thinkers have all had to wrestle with this resistance. The difference between those who create and those who don’t isn’t talent alone—it’s the ability to push past the fear. The jazz musician who dares to improvise beyond the comfort of familiar licks, the writer who puts controversial ideas to paper, the composer who experiments with dissonance—each of them has learned to override the lizard brain’s instinct to retreat.

 David Bowie said it best: “If you feel safe in the area that you’re working in, you’re not working in the right area.”

Personally, I’m in constant battle with the lizard brain. But I have to remind myself that even though the lizard brain thinks it’s keeping me safe, the reality is that it’s keeping me stagnant.

One of the best ways to counteract this resistance is to recognize it for what it is: a biological reflex, not reality. Fear of failure isn’t an actual threat; it’s a signal that you’re on the edge of something new, something daring. By reframing fear as a necessary companion to creativity rather than an obstacle, we can learn to move forward in spite of it.

The lizard brain is never going away. And once you learn to use it to your advantage, you’ll see it as a signaling of new and exciting things to come. It will always try to pull you back into the blanket of the familiar. This is just the lizard brain being the lizard brain. But creativity lives in the unknown, and the only way to reach it is to override the part of your brain that tells you to stay safe. Or in the creative realm, to play safe. 

Wayne Shorter, one of jazz’s most forward-thinking musicians, famously said, “You’ve got to go into the unknown. The unknown is where all the music is.” 

I wouldn’t say that it’s where all of the music is. But it’s certainly the place where the most daring music lives.  

As someone who plays a lot improvised music, I have trained myself to embrace uncertainty by making it a habit—reacting in real time, trusting instincts, and accepting mistakes as part of the process. Over time, repeated exposure to this rewires the brain, making uncertainty less intimidating and more inviting. Whether in music or life, improvisation provides a framework for stepping beyond fear and into discovery, proving that mastery is not about control but about embracing the unpredictable.

The unknown isn’t the enemy. It’s where the real magic happens.