Why Jazz isn't more popular

[rim shot]

Excellent, ttt.

Consider the myriad of styles that jazz music has developed into since it´s inception... the eras of development that the music has gone through...

Why would it not be considered a natural development for some segments of Jazz to become, well, more like Classical Music- complex, refined, concertante... and, perhaps, ultimately incomprehensible to those who will not listen intensely.

Why should Jazz always be palatable to everyone?
No one listens to Berlioz or Stravinsky like they are listening to Top-40 radio. Why should they?

I object to the notion that there is some kind of "dumbing-down" of Jazz to make it all into some kind of amorphous mass of music that is all just the same... even to the point of being able to dissect solos out of one piece of a certain composer... and then simply graft them in toto into another composition- and... well...no one would notice...

In my opinion, such a statement really displays a deep lack of appreciation and understanding for what artists today are still out there creating. Artists that do have a deeper understanding of the music... and are out there making art against all odds.

 

[Notes_Norton]

I only have a couple of things to add.

1) There is no promotion in jazz because the record company can take a kid off the block, get him/her to do some simple music (rock/rap/pop/whatever), get the kid to sign over the publishing rights, and take the recording and promotion costs out of his/her royalties -- thus netting the record company approximately 99% of the profits while the musician(s) get only the money from their concerts (less the exaggerated expenses for the services the record company provides).

These used to be "one hit wonders" but are now "one CD wonders".

Of course, a few artists sell so wildly on their first outing that they become "automatics" and can actually get a deal with the record company that lets the artist split the profit - but these are the minority.

So the record company promotes the highly profitable music and does not promote the music where the older, more experienced musicians actually want to get paid for their work.

------

2) You can play for yourself, you can play for other musicians, or you can play for the general public, and in either case, if you are good enough, you will get the audience that you asked for.

I think Jazz died for the general public with bop. While Bird and the others were indeed geniuses, they were playing for other musicians and no longer playing for the general public.

I can go to a lecture from an astrophysicist and if he/she chooses his/her words and concepts so that an interested layman can understand the lecture, I'll get it. But if he/she starts talking like he/she is conversing with his/her peers, guaranteed it will be over my head and it will lose me.

The public is funny. I can play the most technically advanced run I can and it will more than likely go over their heads. On the other hand I can do a bit of "showboating", like holding one note for 24 bars, or playing the same 3 notes over and over and over, or adding a number of glisses, or some honks, and that will get their attention and applause.

Plus, they want to hear memories and melodies. That's it in a nutshell. Play something they are unfamiliar with and cannot relate to because of their experience, and you will lose them.

Sadly, the public isn't taught how to listen to music. This deprives them of the pleasures of hearing a theme developed well. So "classical" music is dying as well as jazz (and that's sad for me).

I play for the general public, and they haven't let me down yet.

I played jazz for a while but needed a day gig to pay the rent. Playing pop music allows me to do music and nothing but music for a living. I like that. To me a day gig is more of a sell out than playing pop music. At least I get to play music for a living by doing pop.

Insights and incites by Notes

 

[steen]

"It can (and indeed should) be said that if you find listening to jazz fun then you don't really understand it." Funny, the main attraction of jazz to me when I started listening to it was that I didn't understand it. What is the fun of a pursuit without challenges?

 

[Al Stevens]

I like to play jazz. Make that, I love to play jazz. As long as I can find two or three other guys who love it too, and who can get by, I don't give a big rat's ass whether it is popular. If I can't find those other guys, I'll play it solo. If there's no venue, I'll play it at home.

If you are playing music that you'd rather not play, if you are not playing music that you'd rather play, if you are doing that because you need to, that's the same thing as a day job. Except you're working the night shift.

It's best to love what you're doing.

 

[Steve]

...It's best to love what you're doing.

here ho .. what he said :-D

 

[pete]

I believe I understand what you are trying to say... but I perceive this statement as rather simplistic. It would sound really strange to cut a solo out of one rhythmic, harmonic (even energetic) context and simply stick it into another context.

The ability to "just play good solos" must be the understatement of, at least, the new year...

Seriously, a lot of the recent jazz I've heard sounds so similar, it's just that the rhythm is sped up or slowed down. If you prefer, try this: "Each piece is a framework for solos and the solos are minor variations of 'play as many notes as fast as possible'."

I also did make the statement, when reviewing Chris Potter's Lift!, that if I was listening to one of the solos played, I'd have an insanely hard time figuring out which piece it was from, even though I listened to the CD at least a dozen times.

When was the last time you heard a modern jazz ensemble try to blend? Use dynamic contrast? Be complementary, rather than just competing solo lines and "can you top this"?

It doesn´t surprise me at all that so-called smooth jazz is by far more popular than mainstream modern jazz.

In most cases, it is less complex- rhythmically, melodically and harmonically. I´m not putting it down, per se.

True, but "smooth jazz" really is it's own genre and, if I know Ed, he probably wasn't including that in his discussion of "jazz" -- primarily because it IS popular.

While I tend to think that "smooth jazz" does sound like jazz that has had its soul sucked out, there are some "smooth jazz" singers I find quite listenable.

But the subtleties of harmonic changes and melodic development may, indeed, be beyond the comprehension of most (untrained) listeners.

But, then again, isn´t a lot of classical music really beyond the comprehension of most of the general public?

I mean, who (even among musicians) really "truly understands" Beethoven´s Diabelli Variations when they hear them?

While I appreciate "musically complex", you can have "musically complex" that just sounds, well, bad: I give you 12-tone music as an example .

I mention elsewhere that one of my favorite composers is Peter Schickele (and not just his PDQ Bach stuff). This is complex music, tonally, rhythmically (his time signatures are generally quite odd) and have more than a dash of "20th century music" influence, but it's also lyric and has some beautiful harmonies and melodies -- heck, his entire series of works entitled "Monochromes" is about harmonizing like instruments and the interesting sound textures that that can produce.

Additionally, "musically complex" needs to succeed on the level of "listenable". Your audience shouldn't have to be "trained" to say, "That sounds pretty".

Modern jazz? It's about how well you can play solos, not how well you can play in a group. I think a lot of, if not most, modern jazz musicians would be blown away if they had to sit in, say, Benny Goodman's big band. They wouldn't be able to keep up. Heck, I dunno if they could even read the music.

That might beg the question: are modern jazz musicians virtuosos? How do you define that?

 

[acglass]

Then it further occurs to me as to why we all bemoan the lack of popularity of jazz. Jazz has become to a large degree "art music". Jazz fans have become jazz snobs. The experimental took over and now rules the roost.

To use a rock and roll analogy, imagine if in 2020 the only legitimate rock and roll was that which was derived from Frank Zappa, Captain Beefheart, and Robert Fripp. The "popularity" of that music would be limited with the general public.

I saw this thread and jumped right on it but then I saw that you had the same answer as me in the first post. It's really that simple in my book.

 

[clarnibass]

I play mostly more experimental jazz/music. I used to play only classical music and later more mainstream jazz until I realized what I really wanted to play. I think I'm doing exactly what Dave Brubeck was doing, play what I want. At least I assume that is what Dave Brubeck did. It's not as popular as some other music but some people like it, even non-musicians. I only started liking this type of music when I started understanding it, but I know some people who like it without understanding it. For them, it is not "art music" and it's just emotional the same as someone who is listening to a song they like.

I don't understand the "need" to dismiss music someone doesn't like, especially if they don't understand it. I think someone should accept that they might not understand it and simply avoid it if they don't like it. A better option as a human (even before a musician) is to have a more open mind.

This thread became mostly "let's laugh at music we don't like (and don't understand)". I can't understand this. I don't see how a person, especially a musician, would want to do something like this. :-(

 

[hakukani]

This is a strange thread. I, myself, don't care for trad at all. So, I'm probably the anti-mouldy fig.

The funny thing is, Trad isn't really popular, and neither is smooth jazz.

None of the kids at my school listen to anything remotely resembling any of the styles mentioned here. I think most every post in this thread is sort of snobbish in its own way (including mine, but I embrace my snobbery).

So, I suppose, the joke's on us all.

(just as an aside Pete, that TV thang of My Favorite Things is not representative of any of the instruments. The bass is barely audible, the piano is distinctively one dimensional, and there's absolutely no 'ping' on Elvin's cymbals, nor are any of the toms audible, except when Elvin really hits them hard. So, it's possible that Trane's sop is thinned out terribly. They all play fantastically, in spite of that.)

 

[saxplayer1004]

That Jazz Etiquette link could ONLY have been written by a Brit... So true


I'm with Hak. I'm not a huge fan of a lot of the traditional stuff. I respect it for what it is, and I will never refuse or complain about playing it, but given the choice, it's a new stuff for me. The big band I play in does one throwback concert each year in February. We do it to give us something to do in the middle of the year for a concert since the charts don't take a whole lot of shedding and it's important to remember where the rest of our music comes from. We do a lot of Alan Baylock, Gordon Goodwin etc type stuff and that big in-your-face big band is the stuff I prefer to play and listen to. We play a Mulligan chart on almost every concert for some reason, but I think that's because our director always seems to forget to play a ballad and that's as close as he likes to get.
He wants to entertain college kids. Very few students enjoy playing traditional jazz, and those students play in the combo's we have. We had over 400 students at our last concert and they all enjoyed what we were playing. It's not what they listen to on a regular basis, but it was big and exciting and that's what is popular now.
Listening to combo stuff is boring for me. I had a chat with my director the other day *he's a DMA, so this makes it even better*. He said that he gets bored in concerts. He remembers being extremely excited to go listen to the Chicago symphony, and he said he was bored halfway through the second song and couldn't wait to leave. I was thanking God he said this, because I usually feel the same way.
Concerts aren't entertaining. I would much rather listen to a phenominal recording on a nice set of speakers than sit through a concert. I think this is why a lot of jazz has turned into "background music at restaurants". It's meant to be heard, but not listened to. Jazz especially can make for a very very boring concert type atmosphere. Not many people want to listen to 2 minute long solos being tossed back and forth when that is their sole focus. Give them a cup of coffee and allow them to chat, and they'll look up every once in a while and listen for a bit, and go back to their conversation as they need. There isn't really a better style of music for this, and because of it, I don't think jazz will ever be allowed to die off. The lack of lyrics aids this because when you add words to music it draws attention much better than pure instrumental music can. To keep up with our fast paced culture, the music we listen to has to be upbeat, fast and loud. Traditional jazz can't do that.
I sing with an all male a cappella group through the university. We are on the same gig circuit if you will as the top jazz combo. We play at all of the university dinners and what not. My director said one night, "We can play Giant Steps at 280bpm in all 12 keys and we might get a small golf applause, and sure people will say we're good, but they won't remember. You knuckleheads go up there and sing Viva La Vida and Hotel California, and you get a standing ovation and called to sing at the Governor's Mansion." He has a great point... Neither of those songs are musically challenging by any stretch of imagination, but it's what the audience wants to hear that matters

 

[rleitch]

Modern jazz? It's about how well you can play solos, not how well you can play in a group. I think a lot of, if not most, modern jazz musicians would be blown away if they had to sit in, say, Benny Goodman's big band. They wouldn't be able to keep up. Heck, I dunno if they could even read the music.

That might beg the question: are modern jazz musicians virtuosos? How do you define that?

Blown away or bored to death?

 

[steen]

That Jazz Etiquette link could ONLY have been written by a Brit... So true

IMO, so wrong. Just stereotypical sarcasm that I could throw around liberally (granted I am Danish), except that my experience tells me that you get in trouble on the internet. Even innocent tongue-in cheek humor gets you in trouble.

I also did make the statement, when reviewing Chris Potter's Lift!, that if I was listening to one of the solos played, I'd have an insanely hard time figuring out which piece it was from, even though I listened to the CD at least a dozen times.

I am not sure I understand this thread or most of the posts. Likely the whole thing is just above my level of musical perception. I think Chris Potter rocks and whether I could place his solos in the right tunes if tested is completely indifferent to me. I get a kick out of listening to his albums and his live performances and would rather not have to justify it. This is how I have approached all music and determined that, for instance, life without Bach would barely be worth living, and life without most of the romantic era symphonies would be just fine.

I love hardbop or whatever the appropriate term is. I didn't start listening to it before I was well into my twenties and most of it was written before I was born or at least while I was very young. Now I have techs in their twenties coming to asking me to lend them CDs with the music I am listening to (yes, CDs since I don't like mp3s). Maybe these kids are snobs too but at least curious snobs.

 

[Jacques5646]

"Modern" Jazz

Modern jazz? It's about how well you can play solos, not how well you can play in a group. I think a lot of, if not most, modern jazz musicians would be blown away if they had to sit in, say, Benny Goodman's big band. They wouldn't be able to keep up. Heck, I dunno if they could even read the music.

That might beg the question: are modern jazz musicians virtuosos? How do you define that?

A bit astonished such a question can still be asked, 2010, on a discriminate forum like this one. Anyway, I refuse to enter the debate but, before disappearing, would quickly remark that most of modern professional musicians went through the numerous Jazz Schools that blossomed in the US and elsewhere during the last decades. Most of them read like mad and brilliantly master harmony; most of them have worked - at least at school - in big bands and played there charts the complexity of which is, at the least, at par with Goodman's or way more difficult to handle.

 

[Notes_Norton]

I like to play jazz. Make that, I love to play jazz.

And as you know, I've heard you play. For the rest of the forum, Al is quite good at it.

If you are playing music that you'd rather not play, if you are not playing music that you'd rather play, if you are doing that because you need to, that's the same thing as a day job. Except you're working the night shift.

It's best to love what you're doing.

I love playing music. I love playing pop music, blues, jazz, and just about anything else. Instead of saying "I have to go to work today", I say "I GET to go to work today."

If I hated playing pop music, I would be doing the night shift, but I do enjoy it.

To me different kinds of music are like different kinds of food that I like. I don't think I would want to play one kind of music exclusively any more than I would want to play one kind of music exclusively.

The nice thing about what I'm doing now is that we get to play a variety of music (depending on the gig). That includes Rock 'n Roll, Disco, Big Band Swing, Jazz (light jazz and some smooth jazz), Rhythm & Blues, Country & Western, Mambo, Merangue, Samba, Calypso, Soca, Reggae, Beach Music, Motown Music, Classic Oldies, Doo Wop, New Age, Hip Hop, and one opera song.

Each type of music requires a different kind of expression. For me it's fun to put on the different musical 'hats' and express a different side of myself.

Before picking up the guitar, I had no use for country music, but in spite of myself I find myself having a great time picking country leads - although I never listen to C&W for entertainment. But then, mostly what I listen to for entertainment these days is 'classical' from the Romantic era to the 21st century - especially the Russians and Eastern Europeans (I like it dark).

I do have respect for someone who works a day gig so he/she can play the music he/she loves best.

But on the other hand, I like making a living doing music and nothing but music. I like playing for appreciative audiences, and I like playing many different kinds of music.

What is right for me isn't necessarily right for anyone else.

But back to the subject.

Neither Jazz nor "Classical" music appeals to the masses. We live in an instant gratification society. If the public can't understand the music on the first or second listening, they don't want to work at it.

It's too bad because there are some pleasures that only come with a deeper understanding of the music, of themes and variation, of development of those themes, and so on.

I think the only thing that would make Jazz more popular would be to make it less jazzy and promote it. It would need simpler melodies, and lots of vocals because most people relate to the words first (I'm weird, I could care less about the lyrics until I've digested the rest of the song).

Just look what happened to 'smooth jazz'. It started out mostly instrumental (Muzak for boomers) but gradually vocalists like Sade, Luther Vandross, and even Enya and Whitney Houston were dominating the Smooth Jazz stations. I have nothing against any of this, and these people are fine performers in their own genre, but Enya, Sade, Whitney, and Luther are not jazz singers. But that's what the public obviously wanted.

Sadly, I don't think we can ever make jazz mainstream music again. At least in my lifetime. It's going to be like 'classical', art music for an ever diminishing audience.

Notes

 

[Gandalfe]

Neither Jazz nor "Classical" music appeals to the masses. We live in an instant gratification society. If the public can't understand the music on the first or second listening, they don't want to work at it.

It's too bad because there are some pleasures that only come with a deeper understanding of the music, of themes and variation, of development of those themes, and so on.

I think the only thing that would make Jazz more popular would be to make it less jazzy and promote it. It would need simpler melodies, and lots of vocals because most people relate to the words first (I'm weird, I could care less about the lyrics until I've digested the rest of the song).

Just look what happened to 'smooth jazz'. It started out mostly instrumental (Muzak for boomers) but gradually vocalists like Sade, Luther Vandross, and even Enya and Whitney Houston were dominating the Smooth Jazz stations. I have nothing against any of this, and these people are fine performers in their own genre, but Enya, Sade, Whitney, and Luther are not jazz singers. But that's what the public obviously wanted.

Sadly, I don't think we can ever make jazz mainstream music again. At least in my lifetime. It's going to be like 'classical', art music for an ever diminishing audience.

I just happy that I live in a big town that luvs jazz. The Big Bands I play in do so for free for the most part so there is no shortage of gigs for hobbyists, most with day jobs. But last week I heard of another local professional Big Band, Tuxedo Junction, was closing down. That just makes me sad. Those guys rocked; I hope it's not true.

 

[sideC]

I have to say that I'm not too comfortable with all the labels put on music. We seem to have more of them today than ever. In my mind, I try to see it all as just music, I either like it, or I don't. And I try to embrace music that I don't like, because I really don't believe that there is such a thing as bad music, just music that I don't like.
Why do I check out the stuff I don't like? Because I know that music is information, and I need all the information that I can get. I play music for a living, and I may soon need the info contained in this piece of music that I'm listening to and don't dig. So I'm going to listen to it and try to figure out the meaning of it. Somebody likes it, if not, they wouldn't be playing it, or wouldn't have recorded it. So I try to figure out what motivated them to write and perform the 'offending' work.

And I don't see (hear) too many wind (or acoustic) instruments in any form of modern music, so it's not just so called jazz that's suffering today, all music is suffering. The music I hear which has been produced for the masses all seems to be of a vocal nature, with a voice or voices in front (either talking or singing) with some type of computer generated musical backing, maybe drums playing live and everything else canned. Very little saxophone, trumpet, or trombone, let alone the french horn, flute and oboe/english horn that I heard on the music for the masses when I was coming up.
We here in the US have cut into the budgets for music in our schools, and instrumental music has suffered. Many of the great improvising musicians learned their instruments at the junior high and high school level, on instruments provided by the school system. This is not availible to many students today, especially in the inner city. So the band programs that would produce improvising musicians, the jazz players, are just a shadow of what they used to be. And students that would not turn out to be professional players aren't learning through exposure to band or music classes at the jr and sr high levels. I think that these people help comprise the jazz audience.

I seem to notice a dumbing down of entertainment in the last 20 years or so. Portrayal of violence seems to be way up compared to the days when "Take Five" was popular. If stuff isn't blowing up, and blood isn't being splattered everywhere, the modern audience won't seem to pay it any mind. Attention span is much shorter today than in 1959 when Dave, Paul, Gene, and Joe were making Take Five. People just don't want to sit there and find out how this complex story that you are spinning through the music is going to turn out.
So if you take artistic content away and replace it the mundane or with foolishness, people will become used to the mundane foolishness. They won't even recognize art when they see it. I'm easily bored, so I enjoy a challenge.

Just my 2c.......

Julian

 

[Al Stevens]

The phrase, "modern jazz," has been tossed around here some. Maybe we could define that.

When I was a kid anything from bebop on was called "modern jazz." (Also "progressive jazz.") Anything (of a jazz nature) that wasn't big band swing or small band dixieland was called "modern jazz."

Eddie Condon said of the modernists, "They flat their fifths. We drink ours."

So what variety of modern jazz are we discussing?

 

[pete]

OFF-TOPIC

(just as an aside Pete, that TV thang of My Favorite Things is not representative of any of the instruments. The bass is barely audible, the piano is distinctively one dimensional, and there's absolutely no 'ping' on Elvin's cymbals, nor are any of the toms audible, except when Elvin really hits them hard. So, it's possible that Trane's sop is thinned out terribly. They all play fantastically, in spite of that.)

FWIW, I love the Coltrane arrangement of "My Favorite Things", and I not only own the album, but I got the original onion-skin transcriptions of Coltrane's playing on it and transcribed it onto Finale many, many years ago.

However, I think that Coltrane's soprano tone sucks mightily. I know I'm not alone in that opinion.

And, when I Rick-Roll people into listening to that cut, I just use a random video of "My Favorite Things". There are an awful lot of 'em.

 

[pete]

Modern jazz? It's about how well you can play solos, not how well you can play in a group. I think a lot of, if not most, modern jazz musicians would be blown away if they had to sit in, say, Benny Goodman's big band. They wouldn't be able to keep up. Heck, I dunno if they could even read the music.

That might beg the question: are modern jazz musicians virtuosos? How do you define that?

Blown away or bored to death?

I somewhat doubt "bored to death", especially if they have to do some doubling .

I am not sure I understand this thread or most of the posts. Likely the whole thing is just above my level of musical perception. I think Chris Potter rocks and whether I could place his solos in the right tunes if tested is completely indifferent to me. I get a kick out of listening to his albums and his live performances and would rather not have to justify it. This is how I have approached all music and determined that, for instance, life without Bach would barely be worth living, and life without most of the romantic era symphonies would be just fine.

Of course, this is an opinion thread with only one major truth: jazz isn't that popular anymore. The question is why. My input on the topic is that folks like Chris Potter might be good players, but the music they compose really is a framework for solos and most folks just don't care for that. Sax players? Some of us eat that up.

A bit astonished such a question can still be asked, 2010, on a discriminate forum like this one. Anyway, I refuse to enter the debate but, before disappearing, would quickly remark that most of modern professional musicians went through the numerous Jazz Schools that blossomed in the US and elsewhere during the last decades. Most of them read like mad and brilliantly master harmony; most of them have worked - at least at school - in big bands and played there charts the complexity of which is, at the least, at par with Goodman's or way more difficult to handle.

Modern jazz? It's about how well you can play solos, not how well you can play in a group. I think a lot of, if not most, modern jazz musicians would be blown away if they had to sit in, say, Benny Goodman's big band. They wouldn't be able to keep up. Heck, I dunno if they could even read the music.

That might beg the question: are modern jazz musicians virtuosos? How do you define that?

A bit astonished such a question can still be asked, 2010, on a discriminate forum like this one. Anyway, I refuse to enter the debate but, before disappearing, would quickly remark that most of modern professional musicians went through the numerous Jazz Schools that blossomed in the US and elsewhere during the last decades. Most of them read like mad and brilliantly master harmony; most of them have worked - at least at school - in big bands and played there charts the complexity of which is, at the least, at par with Goodman's or way more difficult to handle.

First, I don't think that's always the case. I think that's more an exception to the rule rather than the rule. Secondly, the stuff I've heard is rather devoid of harmony: soloist(s), bass (usually just playing something that fits in the chord structure), piano (just a-compin' away), drums. I'm sure we both could come up with examples proving our points.

Neither Jazz nor "Classical" music appeals to the masses. We live in an instant gratification society. If the public can't understand the music on the first or second listening, they don't want to work at it.

I hope I didn't give the impression that classical is popular in my posts. It isn't. However, it may be more popular than jazz, based on how many radio stations carry it and various TV programs.

Again, I really think it's a bad thing if you have to be taught to "understand" whatever music: it needs to hold up under its own merit. Education about the styles, etc. might help you further appreciate it, but (mixing up Duke Ellington's/Peter Schickele's quote), "If it sounds bad, it is bad."

The thing is, I do like some popular music. The most current group I like is Cake. However, we can go back a few years and talk about The Beatles, some of whose songs only had all of one chord. And they are still considered possibly the best musical ensemble evar. "If it sounds good, it is good."

 

[rleitch]

I somewhat doubt "bored to death", especially if they have to do some doubling .

I'm pretty sure carrying six buckets is no more thrilling than carrying four--just more labour.

I think one of the hardest things that folks, perhaps some musicians and critics especially, have had to deal with in responding to modern jazz (which, as Coltrane argued, is American classical music) is the extent to which, often by a very young age, major players like Coltrane achieved a level of complete mastery over many aspects of the music which most of us will never attain, even after a lifetime of working at it.

I will probably never manage even one seriously decent chorus of improvised sax playing over I Got Rhythm changes. Nonetheless, I can recognize that, for a player like Coltrane, the very thing I will strive for all my life and likely will never achieve, would be utterly old hat, unchallenging, and uninspiring. This doesn't diminish anyone. The thing is to recognize that my own musical desiderata are not those of a major musician: had Coltrane wanted merely to sound "good" on the soprano, he could have done so, easily. He had other fish to fry.

my .02

peace,
R.