Why Americans Don't Like Jazz

[16251]

There are a few exceptions, thankfully.

 

Snarky Puppy are selling out their European tour at the moment, and when I saw them recently there was a huge queue (line) around the block when the doors opened, as everyone wanted to get a good standing position near the stage.

 

It's fairly challenging music (at least compared to standard smooth jazz radio), all instrumental, but it's loud, electric, and played by young guys. Great to hear an audience singing along to an instrumental melody line they all know off the recordings...

Why do Europeans, Asians and others appreciate culture more? (jazz, classical, art, etc.)

[BigJPatton]

I think it comes down to a few things that make for most not liking Jazz-

 

1- listeners generally do not enjoy dissonance anymore, the music must basically be all major, even minor keys are hard to come by, let alone any sort of extensions, and forget about introducing real tension, people want it light and fluffy all around.

 

2- the blues became very uncool years ago, and Jazz is the blues.

 

3- instrumental music is not interesting to modern listeners, music must be vocal.

 

That's it, not much more to look at beyond that, you can say that Jazz in old-timey and that certainly keeps people from listening, but I think the above are the real culprits.

[mate stubb]

Americans anyway, used to aspire to culture, even poor folks.

 

Now, many take pride in being ignorant.

[Song80s]

Americans anyway, used to aspire to culture, even poor folks.

 

Now, many take pride in being ignorant.

 

declining standards in education and diversity of learning

 

starts with parenting skills, lack of them.

 

Wife is a 4th grade teacher and there are numerous of examples of disinterested

parents.

 

 

[Joe P]

I listen to a lot of jazz (WBGO). Like other forms of music, not all jazz appeals to me, especially when it sounds like the players are just showing off chops.

 

Jazzers playing for other jazzers is bad for jazz.

[Jazz+]

The article is sadly true.

Shallowness, meaninglessness, materialism, vulgarity, self-indulgence. Immaturity. The dominate themes of pop culture. And pop culture is INESCAPABLE.

[bluzeyone]

I think your on to something there. Especially considering the mentality that birthed bebop.

[16251]

The article is sadly true.

Shallowness, meaninglessness, materialism, vulgarity, self-indulgence. Immaturity. The dominate themes of pop culture. And pop culture is INESCAPABLE.

Louie, Miles, Bud, etc. new this in the 50's.

[stillplaying]

Branford and Kenny G aside - are you not enjoying a bit of a vocal jazz revival in the USA?

 

One of our boyband stars, Robbie Williams had a hit album over here. The youngsters like a bit of Buble. I notice some Dean Martin and Sammy D Jr hits in the set lists of the function bands I've played with recently.

 

The few guys I know from over here who did the Berklee thing have complained about experiencing an obsession and undue reverence for Jazz on their course. Just because there's improv doesn't make it Jazz - was their complaint.

 

Is Jazz not doing ok in the US considering all the other genres fighting for attention.

 

Anyway - yes we appreciate those US jazzers who make their way over to this side of the pond. Not in huge numbers but they'll sell tickets.

 

If you don't want Kenny or Branford - we'll give them a home - just like our parents did for Jimi all those years ago.

[Michael W]

It's generational. To anybody under 45 or so, jazz simply sounds old. If forums like this existed 50 years ago you would have found the exact same laments about ragtime jazz and charleston dancing. In the 20's that stuff was huge until the WW2 big bands took over, then bebop took over from them and the fusion guys took over from them. Young hipsters of the 40's and 50's weren't about to play ragtime and Herbie, Chick and Miles weren't about to keep playing bebop either. It was old crap to them that their parents loved and they wanted to move on. Same thing now. Music is so fragmented now it's hard to make generalizations but I think some prog rock like Dream Theater has a lot of jazz in it.

 

A genre of music simply runs it's course until the younger generation takes over, simple as that. Believe me I hate to say it but our classic jazz is dead except for that hard core three percent. Just like classical music that small but loyal percentage will probably be there for the next hundred years.

 

Bob

 

I agree - well said.

[GovernorSilver]

Usually somebody quotes F. Zappa at some point in this type of thread. I'm surprised we made it to pg. 5.

[richforman]

Why do (we) Americans eat so much junk fast food and watch so many dumb reality shows and make the "biggest" dumbest safest most prefab movies the biggest hits? It's all related and not hard to see. Short attention spans, lack of intellectual and aesthetic curiosity, pride in ignorance, passivity, general ongoing dumbing down of culture.

[John Tweed]

Well if you think it's bad in the US, you should go to Australia where the live music scene is almost completely dead.

 

That's kinda strange. I've never been to Australia, but it seems like there are a ton of great bands and artists coming from there. I'm talking just in general, not specifically about jazz. Is it a case of Australian artists coming overseas to "get discovered" because the scene at home won't support them?

That's about right. Sooner or later you have to head overseas, Europe or US, if you want a proper career. There aren't that many big cities in Australia with its population of 21 million, and they are much more spread out than Europe or the US. I've had the privilege of playing with a couple of Australians who now live in Nashville to better access a much larger market.

[Reezekeys]

Usually somebody quotes F. Zappa at some point in this type of thread. I'm surprised we made it to pg. 5.

Here you go, though this may not be the quote you're thinking of!

[burningbusch]

During the first half of the 20th century jazz was king. Big bands ruled in the 30s and 40s. People flocked to ballrooms to listen and dance to them. And dancing is a BIG part of this. Singers like Sinatra, Bennett, etc. were rock stars. But with bebop, the tempos became too fast for dancing and the emphasis shifted to long soloing. Jazz more and more became a musician's music.

 

In the 1950s, rock & roll was the new dance music for a new generation. Rock peaked in the 1970s--it has been in clear decline in the 21st century. Rock is now ~25% of music sales but those selling out the largest venues are elderly. I've heard said that Kurt Cobain was the last rock star (he was 20 years ago). Once the boomers kick, rock music sales will drop into the teens and who knows where it will finally end up. Kids today listen to pop, hiphop, EDM and alternative. This is simply to point out that these dominant genres have their day and then, over time, become just another genre. To paraphrase Zappa; "Rock isn't dead, it just smells funny."

 

After the fusion and avant-garde sideshows, jazz did find itself as a music that is small combo, acoustic, largely instrumental and with a songbook based on 32-bar GAS+jazz tunes. I don't think the fact that jazz is often simply background music is all that bad. Some of the best music you'll find, classical, soundtracks is often used as background music. Jazz is ~5% of music sales in Japan so it's somewhat better. I suspect Europe falls somewhere between 3% - 5%.

 

Pop music has been marginal since forever. There were plenty of popular tin pan alley tunes back in the day that were complete garbage. So too in the 50s and 60s. It has always been that way and likely always will.

 

Busch.

[zephonic]

I recognize the fact that English-language music could well have been instrumental, given my lack of understanding as a kid. Still, I may not have understood what Michael Jackson sang, but I sure loved to sing along!

 

I do not concur with the assessment that Americans like Jazz less than overseas audiences. I think the main difference is that I can go to Cafe Cordiale and catch Jonathan Butler jamming free of charge. Folks overseas need to go to expensive festivals to see him. That may change the perceived value somewhat.

 

But here in LA, Jazz is thriving. At least, compared to where I have been.

 

[Throbert]

I like Jazz, from old to contemporary, either end of the spectrum can get really stupid though I can dig it or get really annoyed from it. A lot of jazz I hear on organ from the old I just want to mute all the time and I guess that's because I like the HX3 growling rock organ sound. I do like Jazz piano though to a point, it's when things start getting really clashed with what I consider to be really crappy chords and it starts sounding like a 2 year old banging around or some old man that fell asleep while playing shit.

[16251]

I started a thread awhile ago stating my dislike for the song "Happy." There's a song that the masses love and it even has some nice jazz chords, yet it's repetitive and becomes annoying. You could probably play it jazzy and as an instrumental and those same people wouldn't like it.

[KenElevenShadows]

I was trying to figure out who listens to jazz in other countries. This is not it, but it might be interesting for some of you.

 

Take it for whatever it's worth.

 

http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2011/08/do-black-people-still-listen-to-jazz-new-study-says-hardly/

 

Do Black People Still Listen To Jazz? New Study Says Hardly

by Leslie Pitterson Aug 18, 2011

 

While it was brought to life by the creativity of African-Americans, todays jazz audience has fewer blacks than ever before.

 

According to a new study from the Jazz Audience Initiative, no more than 20% of jazz audiences are people of color. The study found that the people buying tickets to jazz shows are more homogenous now than in years past. Here are just a few of the studys findings:

 

Demographically, jazz ticket buyers across the 19 communities are middle-aged, predominantly male, and very well educated. On average, only 17% are under age 45, and 80% are white.

The research reveals three underlying dimensions of musical preference: 1) Fusion a combination of youth‐leaning cross‐genre artists like John Zorn and Jamiroquai; 2) Standards and Masters artists that in many ways represent the canon of jazz masters (e.g., Charlie Parker, Stan Getz); and 3) Pop Crossover artists that have, over time, grown to appeal to a broad mainstream and pop‐based audience (e.g., B.B. King).

Respondents revealed strong associations with values around new artists and cultural diversity ‐ discovering new artists and new works of art; and learning about a broad range of cultures around the world. This was especially true for younger buyers.

[GovernorSilver]

Usually somebody quotes F. Zappa at some point in this type of thread. I'm surprised we made it to pg. 5.

Here you go, though this may not be the quote you're thinking of!

 

Good one!

[Theo Verelst]

NSJ is popular, but it's also drawing moderate Jazz interested crowd, which is cool, and then they also get too see more pop or blues or rock oriented artists, and that's ok in the bigger setting. In my birth town The Hague the NSJ was more cool and pretty, though.

 

I have a feeling most people like to put on a nice Jazz CD that talks a bit to them, even if they're not into Jazz much, and also as a background, for all I care as smooth-Jazz, which I sure don't hate.

 

But the sound quality of most CDs/DVDs is so impacted by lots of modern "production" sh*t, after a few seconds or 10s of seconds, the sound isn't nice enough to listen to another track of a nice sounding but incomprehensible Miles-solo. I mean I recall when I was small that records would sound good, and I know there were loads of tube radios with the obvious limitations, but at least the sound was nice. Lots of modern stuff can sound ok, and more tight and stuff, but Jazz has have good tones, breathe the proper rarified or thick air, and make the listener distinguish between the smell of warm rice with cinnamon or roast beef, and lots of other shades, and not be forced by some post producer to accept that all in life, including great Jazz, is some form of dog food from a cardboard package.

 

T.

 

 

[I-missRichardTee]

As an older American... I try to dispassionately observe the culture. I look at the way people dress and use tattoos. Not infrequently I see a woman with tattoos over much of her body.. and forget intellectual bias.. I feel a gag response. When most people see e.g. a hacked up body.. they need to vomit. Is that based on conditioning... or is it in born? Tattoos when they cover all of the arms or legs.. give me an involuntary gag reflex.

Take attire, of 1950 to 2014.. take hair styles of men. Men think it is fashionable to have bald heads and whatever type of hair on face.

In short.. there is no comparison in the manner of dress.. appearance of a person in 1950 and now. Sure the rich, dress well today... but the average American looks awful to me. They do not see this, but that is my perception, and I will stick with it.

My point is a comparison from the pov of average person of jazz in 1945 compared to jazz today.

if it is ugly to the average person... this is a mystery to musos who are TOO CLOSE TO THE SUBJECT ( dear to their hearts ) to be able to step back and see it through the average persons ears and eyes... just as I attempted to do above, with the way I perceive the modes of physical appearance of average Joe in America today. ( Exceptions, of course: Surfers, are the same now as then, as are the more affluent.)

 

Satchmo was a major event when he passed through a city.

His music was relatively consonant, friendly , very danceable.

Not so today.. is that clear enough?

Musically, I think people are inundated with way way too much music.. and are confused.

Jazz is too dissonant, too hard to dance too.. it is not for an average humanoid.

But jazz when Satchmo is reigning was wonderfully embracing.

To use the term JAZZ for Satchmo and what passes for jazz now, is highly inaccurate.

They are totally different kinds of music.. literally "no comparison" as we used to say.

Big band music, was barely jazz though - DOn't SIt Under the Apple Tree, or Boogie Woogie Bugle boy has a touch of jazz, but is not exactly jazz per se.

Oscar Peterson, Art Tatum, Brubeck, Getz, are main stream jazz, as is Duke, Benson.

Herbie is all over the map, so hard to generalize this genius.

Metheny is very accomplished, but lacks Blues and Swing for me to classify him as "main stream jazz" People like Metheny and Brad, and Keith J, have to, and do, have specialized audiences... that ignore threads like this

[Dave Ferris]

Musically, I think people are inundated with way way too much music.. and are confused.

People like Metheny and Brad, and Keith J, have to, and do, have specialized audiences... that ignore threads like this

 

I do think there is a huge sonic overload going on today. Not to mention over-hustle/promotion at every turn. Youtube, iTunes, etc etc. Things were simpler even 25 years ago.

 

Another factor is the swing beat doesn't resonate at all with my generation - the boomers - that grew up on the Beatles, Stones, Doors, Allman Brothers, Steely Dan, Stevie Wonder, Motown, . etc.

 

Many of my old friends back in STL, both former band-mates and music people (with discerning taste & ears) that hung around the scene when I played R&R, listen to my stuff now and I know they are trying to be nice - but it's like...huh yeah Dave, that's nice. I know it doesn't connect with them in the least.

 

Yes for the elite, A-listers guys like Chick, especially Keith, Wynton Marsalis, Herbie, Metheny, Jack Dejohnette, Christian McBride, Sonny Rollins (God bless him) Dave Holland, etc. - these kind of threads, while not being a total non-issue in their daily lives, are less effected then the average good player Joe like me trying to still keep things going - practice, play and move forward, muscially speaking.

[I-missRichardTee]

Mr Ferris formerly from StL you nailed it.

Jazz, true jazz as we generally conceive it, is cutting edge music, never for Joe average.

Neither was Be Bop.. nor Jeff Tain when he changed it up, or Elvin before him.

We are suffering artists, climbing like Sisyphus of old.

I will die loving real jazz... whether Art Tatum, or the latest Chick or Herbie, Or Keith etc. But it's now for the few. Even Coltrane wanted his music out of the drug infested clubs, onto a concert stage... or so I heard.

[Brettymike]

I really like this haircut on the chick here , best I've seen in years >

Various haircuts and tattoo's have no relation to what music that person might like at all. Some of the maddest looking people I've seen are Classical concert conductors , among other things.

 

We are going to see a live (rare as hens teeth) jazz/swing band in a couple of weeks, and it's going to be awesome , I know the caliber of the musicians in it.

But I would never buy this music.

And , I don't think people are confused and "spoiled for choice" with the ocean of music at all.

 

Brett

[Theo Verelst]

I think it is right Jazz is capable of fulfilling the role of "top of the hill", requiring inspiration and transpiration for all but the fully practiced top.

 

T

[Steve Nathan]

 

Sorry. I don't know who DYSKE SUEMATSU is, but IMHO his conclusions are laughable.

 

In most popular music, how lyrics sound matters more than what they mean. Country may be the only genre in which the literal meaning of the words is primary.

Does he think Blues fans are actually pondering whether "Tuesday is just as bad"? Or rock fans are hooked on the hidden meaning in "Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah"?

 

And,

"Great art demands much more from the audience than the popular art does".

Really?

Great art asks only that the viewer have an emotional reaction. Period. It does not demand "complexity" and require an educational commitment in order to be "properly understood".

Has he seen Picasso's Don Quixote? Are Bacon's Screaming Popes only revered because an ignorant public recognizes a Pope in there?

 

This old chestnut "why don't people like what I like" has been whined about by musicians since we crawled out of the swamp and some folks sang and others beat on logs.

 

Jazz has always been mostly music for musicians. At it's best, it is great beauty expressed. It's small non musician fan base either puts in some effort to understand why they like it, or they just pretend.

 

 

I have a few questions for Mr. SUEMATSU.

Why is Soccer more popular than Chess?

Why is a sunset more beautiful than a description of the formula for scattering of electromagnetic particles?

Why do so many Jazz musicians (not all, please) play "down" to their audience. Why do they expect a wider audience when there expression is based mostly on the math and the complexity they love, and most people just want to be entertained, or at least touched viscerally, emotionally, in a non-analytical, non-judgmental way.

 

I'll probably regret saying this out loud, but I'm tired and can't stop now.

[burningbusch]

 

Sorry. I don't know who DYSKE SUEMATSU is, but IMHO his conclusions are laughable.

 

In most popular music, how lyrics sound matters more than what they mean. Country may be the only genre in which the literal meaning of the words is primary.

Does he think Blues fans are actually pondering whether "Tuesday is just as bad"? Or rock fans are hooked on the hidden meaning in "Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah"?

 

And,

"Great art demands much more from the audience than the popular art does".

Really?

Great art asks only that the viewer have an emotional reaction. Period. It does not demand "complexity" and require an educational commitment in order to be "properly understood".

Has he seen Picasso's Don Quixote? Are Bacon's Screaming Popes only revered because an ignorant public recognizes a Pope in there?

 

This old chestnut "why don't people like what I like" has been whined about by musicians since we crawled out of the swamp and some folks sang and others beat on logs.

 

Jazz has always been mostly music for musicians. At it's best, it is great beauty expressed. It's small non musician fan base either puts in some effort to understand why they like it, or they just pretend.

 

 

I have a few questions for Mr. SUEMATSU.

Why is Soccer more popular than Chess?

Why is a sunset more beautiful than a description of the formula for scattering of electromagnetic particles?

Why do so many Jazz musicians (not all, please) play "down" to their audience. Why do they expect a wider audience when there expression is based mostly on the math and the complexity they love, and most people just want to be entertained, or at least touched viscerally, emotionally, in a non-analytical, non-judgmental way.

 

I'll probably regret saying this out loud, but I'm tired and can't stop now.

 

Beautiful!

 

Busch.

[Dave Weiser]

 

Sorry. I don't know who DYSKE SUEMATSU is, but IMHO his conclusions are laughable.

 

In most popular music, how lyrics sound matters more than what they mean. Country may be the only genre in which the literal meaning of the words is primary.

Does he think Blues fans are actually pondering whether "Tuesday is just as bad"? Or rock fans are hooked on the hidden meaning in "Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah"?

 

And,

"Great art demands much more from the audience than the popular art does".

Really?

Great art asks only that the viewer have an emotional reaction. Period. It does not demand "complexity" and require an educational commitment in order to be "properly understood".

Has he seen Picasso's Don Quixote? Are Bacon's Screaming Popes only revered because an ignorant public recognizes a Pope in there?

 

This old chestnut "why don't people like what I like" has been whined about by musicians since we crawled out of the swamp and some folks sang and others beat on logs.

 

Jazz has always been mostly music for musicians. At it's best, it is great beauty expressed. It's small non musician fan base either puts in some effort to understand why they like it, or they just pretend.

 

 

I have a few questions for Mr. SUEMATSU.

Why is Soccer more popular than Chess?

Why is a sunset more beautiful than a description of the formula for scattering of electromagnetic particles?

Why do so many Jazz musicians (not all, please) play "down" to their audience. Why do they expect a wider audience when there expression is based mostly on the math and the complexity they love, and most people just want to be entertained, or at least touched viscerally, emotionally, in a non-analytical, non-judgmental way.

 

I'll probably regret saying this out loud, but I'm tired and can't stop now.

 

Now that there is an appropriate response to insufferable wankiness.

 

We salute you sir.

 

[theGman]

Agree with Steve. I see it somewhat as a left vs. right brain thing, with a variable being the lack of class of the average person...everyone looks like they just finished mowing the lawn.

 

Jazz, as pointed out, is very, at the edge of the scale, left brain oriented, whereas, for example, danceable classic rock is right brain oriented.

 

Kids haven't developed their imaginations very well; every fantasy is available on a computer screen...just a touch away, no thinking involved, so they don't enjoy the sunsets, the flair of being well dressed. They are morphing into zombies, mouths hanging open, incapable of holding up their own end of a conversation. No culture; they seem to be incapable of extended deep thought, the desire to appreciate anything, taking much pride in anything, or any other brain exercise.

 

Jazz would be too much effort for their brains; heck, even good rock music is too much effort. No wonder why zombie flicks are so popular. Sorry for rambling.