Why Jazz isn't more popular

[rleitch]

To be fair - these are store charts. It'd be like asking Virgin Records to compile a list of the(ir) top ten classical albums...

I'm not sure what you mean. I see this as a slice or sample of what jazz music people actually bought last year from a very large online seller of music. Coltrane plays on 2 of the top ten and his influence is felt on 5; this supports not only the fact that he is a musical and cultural icon, but also that assertion that he is very popular, relatively speaking.

I would just add that the enduring popularity and pervasive influence of Coltrane is a direct consequence of his extaordinary technical achievements, his burning improvisational genius, and his uncomprimising artistic integrity. We could always use more of those!

Rory

ps. Hey Notes...try Prez/Getz

 

[tictactux]

I'm not sure what you mean. I see this as a slice or sample of what jazz music people actually bought last year from a very large online seller of music. Coltrane plays on 2 of the top ten and his influence is felt on 5; this supports not only the fact that he is a musical and cultural icon, but also that assertion that he is very popular, relatively speaking.

In theory I could say that Coltrane is just so popular in iTunes because they don't have no Ellington/Parker/Charles/Whosever music in their repertoire.
Of course that's not true, but a "sales rank" is just a skewed figure, statistically. (and I don't mean to say anything against any specific musician here)

I could name you some artists that are not in iTunes simply because they don't want to be, or because iTunes have no idea they exist in the first place.
So you can't say "Tictactux does not exist as a musician because iTunes does not know about him".

That's all I meant to say - a sales rank doesn't prove anything. It just says that Coltrane is popular among iTunes customers.

 

[rleitch]

In theory I could say that Coltrane is just so popular in iTunes because they don't have no Ellington/Parker/Charles/Whosever music in their repertoire.
Of course that's not true, but a "sales rank" is just a skewed figure, statistically. (and I don't mean to say anything against any specific musician here)

I could name you some artists that are not in iTunes simply because they don't want to be, or because iTunes have no idea they exist in the first place.
So you can't say "Tictactux does not exist as a musician because iTunes does not know about him".

That's all I meant to say - a sales rank doesn't prove anything. It just says that Coltrane is popular among iTunes customers.

Sorry Ben, I'm afraid I can't find the slightest bit of sense anywhere in here.

The fact that Coltrane is so prominent on these charts is not nothing: it is an index of real popularity. The interesting thing about A Love Supreme coming in at #6 is that this cannot be attributed to marketing (at least not in any way I can see). Folks went to Itunes looking for Coltrane's music and were willing to pay money for it. However "skewed" you think this data might be, what I think it shows is that the notion that Coltrane-esque modernism is somehow responsible for the "death" of jazz is a complete crock.

Again: it's like saying that Shakespeare ruined drama!

How many cents is that now?

 

[steen]

As an aside, but at least on topic, my teacher once pointed out that music notation is/was aimed at classical music, and, in his view, is ill-suited for most jazz. Taking bebop as an example, one would almost be better off by moving the notation by half a beat (my interpretation, nothing my teacher said).

Perhaps he just said it to be nice, since I am terrible at reading music. (It has always been all ear for me and I have simply accepted that I am an idiot when it comes to reading music, in addition too lazy when I was younger, and now too strapped for time.) However, from reading the posts in this great thread, it just came to mind that perhaps the retrofitting of classical music notation, for instance in transcribing jazz solos, is another factor why jazz may struggle with retaining popularity.

I know this will sound ignorant to the trained jazz musician, but for the lesser skilled it might factor in. Just a thought.

 

[tictactux]

However "skewed" you think this data might be, what I think it shows is that the notion that Coltrane-esque modernism is somehow responsible for the "death" of jazz is a complete crock.

I can't remember having said that Coltrane did any of this. (If I somehow managed to make that impression, sorry then, but this was completely unintentional).
Again - this is not about Coltrane or someone else in special. I just meant to say that an iTunes (or whoever's) top ten list is not an absolute, global value - it just reflects what customers have been buying from that specific vendor. And if someone does not show up on their list doesn't mean that this someone is of no significance - just that iTunes doesn't sell anything by that artist.

 

[rleitch]

I can't remember having said that Coltrane did any of this. (If I somehow managed to make that impression, sorry then, but this was completely unintentional).

No you didn't, but this has been the general thrust of moldy figgery since, well, the fig went moldy. As history shows, the music reactionary critics accuse of turning off listeners has, in fact, been very popular. Viz the long and successful career of Ornette Coleman. Eric Dolphy, sadly, didn't have a long career, in part because he was slain by the slings and arrows of outrageous jazz critics.

iTunes (or whoever's) top ten list is not an absolute, global value - it just reflects what customers have been buying from that specific vendor.

Exactly what I said.

And if someone does not show up on their list doesn't mean that this someone is of no significance - just that iTunes doesn't sell anything by that artist.

The relevence of this I'm sorry but I still don't get?

 

[tictactux]

The relevence of this I'm sorry but I still don't get?

Take a fictional music store, let's name it "mp3galore". They have some assortment of music in different genres, Jazz, Folk, Punk, Classic, what do I know. Now you check their top ten Jazz list. You'll see names like Robbie Williams, Sade, Céline Dion, and some others. No Charlie Parker, no John Coltrane. Heck, not even Satchmo (or Kenny G, of all people).
You could come to the conclusion that "mainstream poppy jazzy elevator music" is more popular than other, more "esoteric" styles (for lack of a better word).

Now, you and I know this is not true, yet mp3galore's Top Ten suggests that. What happened? Maybe the storeowner doesn't like "esoteric Jazz", maybe he hates instrumental music, maybe he could not get a contract with some record companies, maybe he simply didn't know better. Hundreds of possible reasons.

This is why I say that quoting mp3galore's or iTunes' Top Ten may be an indicator, but not more, and it might just as well be skewed, simply because of a limited choice or a weird customer base (mp3galore is strong in schools but not quite there yet in other markets).

That's all, no more, no less. No hidden meaning, no agenda. ;-)

 

[pete]

... Or say that my calendar's in the top 10 on Lulu.com in the art category. That means I've sold around 100 calendars ....

 

[rleitch]

Take a fictional music store, let's name it "mp3galore". They have some assortment of music in different genres, Jazz, Folk, Punk, Classic, what do I know. Now you check their top ten Jazz list. You'll see names like Robbie Williams, Sade, Céline Dion, and some others. No Charlie Parker, no John Coltrane. Heck, not even Satchmo (or Kenny G, of all people).
You could come to the conclusion that "mainstream poppy jazzy elevator music" is more popular than other, more "esoteric" styles (for lack of a better word).

Now, you and I know this is not true, yet mp3galore's Top Ten suggests that. What happened? Maybe the storeowner doesn't like "esoteric Jazz", maybe he hates instrumental music, maybe he could not get a contract with some record companies, maybe he simply didn't know better. Hundreds of possible reasons.

This is why I say that quoting mp3galore's or iTunes' Top Ten may be an indicator, but not more, and it might just as well be skewed, simply because of a limited choice or a weird customer base (mp3galore is strong in schools but not quite there yet in other markets).

That's all, no more, no less. No hidden meaning, no agenda. ;-)

Of course there are all sorts of wrong and foolish inferences you could draw about any evidence, but this hardly diminishes the correct and legitimate ones. In any case, I wasn't suggesting that the Itunes data proves Coltrane's massive influence and popularity--that is a well established cultural historical fact--just that it confirms it in an interesting way.

 

[pete]

Of course there are all sorts of wrong and foolish inferences you could draw about any evidence.

[Admin_Hat]

Be nice.

[/Admin_Hat]

 

[rleitch]

Hey Pete,
I'm not sure what you're refering to. Ben gave some hypothetical examples of wrong and foolish inferences, and I agreed with him.
I did not say his ideas were wrong or foolish.
Whatever.

R.

 

[steen]

As an aside, but at least on topic, my teacher once pointed out that music notation is/was aimed at classical music, and, in his view, is ill-suited for most jazz. Taking bebop as an example, one would almost be better off by moving the notation by half a beat (my interpretation, nothing my teacher said).

Perhaps he just said it to be nice, since I am terrible at reading music. (It has always been all ear for me and I have simply accepted that I am an idiot when it comes to reading music, in addition too lazy when I was younger, and now too strapped for time.) However, from reading the posts in this great thread, it just came to mind that perhaps the retrofitting of classical music notation, for instance in transcribing jazz solos, is another factor why jazz may struggle with retaining popularity.

I know this will sound ignorant to the trained jazz musician, but for the lesser skilled it might factor in. Just a thought.

Is this a stupid thought? No need to be nice

 

[Al Stevens]

As an aside, but at least on topic, my teacher once pointed out that music notation is/was aimed at classical music, and, in his view, is ill-suited for most jazz.

But it's all we have. Big band players know to put a swing feel on lines. In fact, the notation has to tell them not to do that when the arranger wants, for example, straight 8ths. Listen to the typical community concert band playing some pops arrangements. If the conductor doesn't know how to tell the players to swing, and the musicians don't know, it sounds wooden, stilted.

...it just came to mind that perhaps the retrofitting of classical music notation, for instance in transcribing jazz solos, is another factor why jazz may struggle with retaining popularity.

It is a given that to play a jazz transcription well you must have heard the original so you can get the time and rhythms right.

 

[rleitch]

Is this a stupid thought? No need to be nice

Not in any way I can see?

FWIW here's some more of my skewed evidence for you about what Jazz needs

I was thinking about this video. It's my favourite sax vs. sax youtube video, mostly because I think both saxes sound great, but also different (rara avis), and because the young man playing shreds really nicely.

http://www.youtube.com/user/babrielito#p/u/1/GJRt8I221ZM

IMO, as long as there are lots of young players like this around, Jazz will be just fine, thank you very much.

Now, check out his concert clips. Who do you hear? What really resonates?

Peace!
R.

 

[sideC]

As an aside, but at least on topic, my teacher once pointed out that music notation is/was aimed at classical music, and, in his view, is ill-suited for most jazz. Taking bebop as an example, one would almost be better off by moving the notation by half a beat (my interpretation, nothing my teacher said).

Perhaps he just said it to be nice, since I am terrible at reading music. (It has always been all ear for me and I have simply accepted that I am an idiot when it comes to reading music, in addition too lazy when I was younger, and now too strapped for time.) However, from reading the posts in this great thread, it just came to mind that perhaps the retrofitting of classical music notation, for instance in transcribing jazz solos, is another factor why jazz may struggle with retaining popularity.

I know this will sound ignorant to the trained jazz musician, but for the lesser skilled it might factor in. Just a thought.

I think that Al pretty much hit the nail on the head. When a jazz musician sees a melodic line written out that is very much in the spirit of bebop or swing, the musician will automaticly swing the line. I'm thinking a line like the melody to 'Donna Lee' or maybe 'Conformation.' But it is helpful to have heard the original in order to be able to give the line the proper inflection.

Steen, your statement about being a weak reader brings to mind something I once read about the great pianist who didn't read music, Errol Garner. He said that "no one ever heard anyone read music."

Julian

 

[Gandalfe]

When a jazz musician sees a melodic line written out that is very much in the spirit of bebop or swing, the musician will automaticly swing the line. I'm thinking a line like the melody to 'Donna Lee' or maybe 'Conformation.'

Every great once in a while you see a really old chart where the arranger wrote in the swing. For many of us hobbyists, that's a harder chart to read than one written straight which is played swing.

 

[steen]

But it's all we have. Big band players know to put a swing feel on lines. In fact, the notation has to tell them not to do that when the arranger wants, for example, straight 8ths. Listen to the typical community concert band playing some pops arrangements. If the conductor doesn't know how to tell the players to swing, and the musicians don't know, it sounds wooden, stilted.

I think that Al pretty much hit the nail on the head. When a jazz musician sees a melodic line written out that is very much in the spirit of bebop or swing, the musician will automaticly swing the line. I'm thinking a line like the melody to 'Donna Lee' or maybe 'Conformation.' But it is helpful to have heard the original in order to be able to give the line the proper inflection.

Understood, but perhaps when little Lucy comes in for her sax lesson between soccer and ballet (apparently a lot of parents display this sort of insanity these day), and all the rhythms in her bebop pieces are syncopated in seemingly alien ways, she would much rather play Für Elise instead. Must be a magnitude worse for music teacher in school.

I was merely reflecting upon Gandalfe's point about teaching jazz in school. It seems to me that without special emphasis on jazz, it is severely handicapped in comparison with most classical music and poppish stuff. Classical music will always do fine, because there is nothing mom and dad would like more than a little prodigy (if I ever am so lucky to have a daughter, she will be locked up in her room with a cello). Likewise with pop for obvious reasons. Jazz, however, is rather like the talented but troubled kid that requires special attention in order to flourish. Not having grown up in the US, it is really strange to experience how lowly America's main cultural contribution to civilization is being valued (OK, yes, I am a snob).

Personally, I got by for three years learning to play piano, by listening and copying what the teacher played for me and staggering through the sheet music to adding the few odd notes here or there that I could not remember. When my parents realized I was cheating they found a different more challenging teacher for me, and I bolted on the spot, because (a) she really was mean, (b) all the guys in my class played football (i.e. soccer), and (c) I figured I had no musical talent. No way could they have started me out playing jazz and let me pull off the same stunt, because I would not have been able to find the "missing notes" in most jazz tunes. I still "manage" by listening first and playing, but the difference is that I have listened loads. Probably not explaining this very well but I can improvise decently and copy licks that my teacher plays, but hardly read any jazz, unless I know what I am reading. This works if you are an amateur playing by yourself but it won't take you anywhere in music these days. Most kids will be less inept at reading sheet music, but I still think that there is an extra layer of difficulty when it comes to jazz.

 

[sideC]

Every great once in a while you see a really old chart where the arranger wrote in the swing. For many of us hobbyists, that's a harder chart to read than one written straight which is played swing.

Yeah, some of those old charts were pretty good. I'm racking my brain here trying to remember the names of some of those old time arrangers whose stuff I played when I was a kid. The only one who come to mind is Rusty Dedrick. I remember being like 13 years old and having to read the bari part to an arrangement of a tune titled 'Londonderry Aire,' or something like that. I was thinking, "man, I don't feel like playing no tune called 'Londonderry Aire." I had thoughts of a theme for Ebineezer Scrooge running through my head. So we start playing the chart and it turns out that 'Lonconderry Aire' is really the beautiful old ballad 'Danny Boy.' So I had fun after all.

Gandalfe, I think that the old time arrangers did provide more info on how to phrase and inflect. Brass players occassionally used to have a little o or + over certain notes in a phrase, meaning to choke the note with the o, and play out the one with the +. I think of this eveytime I hear the band intro to 'Hallelujah I love Her So' by Ray Charles. That style of playing might not be in vogue today, but it sure sounds good when done properly.

Julian

 

[hakukani]

I've been playing in a band that has some Bob Enevoldsen manuscripts. Now there's a guy that wrote out EXACTLY how he wanted the arrangement to be played--lots of > and ^ accents so that you can read it down right the FIRST time you play it.

 

[sideC]

I was merely reflecting upon Gandalfe's point about teaching jazz in school. It seems to me that without special emphasis on jazz, it is severely handicapped in comparison with most classical music and poppish stuff. Classical music will always do fine, because there is nothing mom and dad would like more than a little prodigy (if I ever am so lucky to have a daughter, she will be locked up in her room with a cello). Likewise with pop for obvious reasons. Jazz, however, is rather like the talented but troubled kid that requires special attention in order to flourish. Not having grown up in the US, it is really strange to experience how lowly America's main cultural contribution to civilization is being valued (OK, yes, I am a snob).

Personally, I got by for three years learning to play piano, by listening and copying what the teacher played for me and staggering through the sheet music to adding the few odd notes here or there that I could not remember. When my parents realized I was cheating they found a different more challenging teacher for me, and I bolted on the spot, because (a) she really was mean, (b) all the guys in my class played football (i.e. soccer), and (c) I figured I had no musical talent. No way could they have started me out playing jazz and let me pull off the same stunt, because I would not have been able to find the "missing notes" in most jazz tunes. I still "manage" by listening first and playing, but the difference is that I have listened loads. Probably not explaining this very well but I can improvise decently and copy licks that my teacher plays, but hardly read any jazz, unless I know what I am reading. This works if you are an amateur playing by yourself but it won't take you anywhere in music these days. Most kids will be less inept at reading sheet music, but I still think that there is an extra layer of difficulty when it comes to jazz.

Steen, have you tried practicing reading separately from the jazz playing? I would try reading for 20 minutes a day, everyday. Just read the notes and rhythms, don't worry about any jazz inflection. Take it slowly, but you have to do some everyday. Over a period of time, reading will come to you, if you practice everyday.

Julian