Can Jazz Be Taught? Oral Tradition vs. Academia

A Jazz Mini-Week 2026 Panel Recap

How much of jazz musicianship can be taught in a conservatory — and how much can only be learned by living inside the music? That was the central question of “Hot Topics in Jazz: Oral Tradition vs. Academia,” a Jazz Mini-Week panel held September 2nd at New York Jazz Workshop in Midtown Manhattan, featuring vocalist Michelle Walker, saxophonist and NYJW co-founder Marc Mommaas, and multi-reed player Patience Higgins.

Learning by Ear: Patience Higgins on the Shed

Higgins opened by describing what serious woodshedding really looks like — practice sessions running twelve to fourteen hours at a stretch — and used it to frame his view of academic training. Institutions hold real value, he argued, but the great improvisers of earlier generations had none of today’s tools: no way to slow down a recording, no written transcriptions, no play-along records where a student can practice alongside Ron Carter, Kenny Barron, and Al Foster. There was nothing like that for Charlie Parker or Louis Armstrong.

He recalled a conversation with T.S. Monk, who pointed out that Duke Ellington, Coleman Hawkins, and Sonny Rollins never went to school for music at all. Rollins learned by making himself a constant presence at Bud Powell’s house. Hawkins transferred what he already knew from guitar onto the saxophone. All of them built their vocabulary through trial and error, relying on their ears.

Higgins connected this to his own study with Barry Harris, who never let students write anything down and made them absorb everything by ear. He was careful to note that he is not against academic training — especially as a path for talented students without money — but insisted there is a category of knowledge that only comes from being in the room or on the gig, drawing on stories from his years touring with Quincy Jones.

Three Themes from the Panel

The financial barrier. Conservatories are increasingly out of reach. Only exceptional young players win full scholarships, while many musicians destined to be brilliant simply haven’t developed their sound yet at that age — and they are exactly the ones who would benefit most from access.

The risk of academic uniformity. The panelists cited a colleague who claimed he could tell, just from how a young player sounded, which conservatory they had come through — and debated whether formal training smooths out the individual voice that made jazz distinctive in the first place. They pointed to Duke Ellington, who deliberately recruited musicians from different parts of the country because different backgrounds produced different sounds. No two musicians can truly sound alike if they are honest to their own background, city, and education — and New York’s density of strong, distinct players makes it almost impossible to disappear into anyone else’s sound.

Exposure for young audiences. Most young people today aren’t familiar with jazz as an art form, let alone its pedagogy. Building resources and accessibility for youth benefits generations to come.

Announcing the New York Music Institute

The evening closed with news that speaks directly to the panel’s themes: New York Jazz Workshop co-founder and saxophonist Marco Chelo is launching the New York Music Institute, a nonprofit offering donation-based classes so cost is never a barrier to jazz education. Programming includes a monthly improvisation class open to vocalists and instrumentalists alike — normally held the first Monday of each month — and a new monthly jam session.

The panel only grazed the surface of a much larger conversation about the relationship between jazz scenes and academic institutions — one the panelists urged should be opened into a broader forum shaping how the music is taught.

Want to be part of that conversation? Explore our weekly workshops and ensembles, learn about donation-based classes at the New York Music Institute, and stay tuned for Jazz Mini-Week 2027.