Why Americans Don't Like Jazz

[David Loving]

Everything Steve Nathan said is right. People want to be entertained. They want a groove; want to dance. They don't want to learn about the music, or have to get some insider knowledge to have a good time. I love jazz, but unless you're already a megastar, it won't make money. In that vein, how does "Snarky Puppy" pay all those band members?

[Brettymike]

Why I can't stop coming back to this site , there is so much entertainment .

Gman , I don't know what the hell is going on where you live , but I'm finding the complete opposite with the majority of the younger people in my country.

 

And I'll tell you something , the kids these days know Heaps more about how the world really runs and ticks than we did at their age.

(That's why lot's of them "flip off the rails" when they find out the TRUTH).

 

Brett

[Jazzmammal]

Steve and Dave, love you both but you guys are too young to grok the true history of jazz. Actually you're probably too young to know what grok means too, right? Robert Heinlein.

 

In it's heyday jazz WAS popular and hip, it was NOT just for musicians playing for musicians. The crowds were large and they were really into it. Not as big as Elvis for sure but pretty decent nonetheless. Check this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kind_of_Blue

 

Quadruple platinum. Ranked #12 on the 500 most influential albums of all time list. This was big shit at the time and so were a lot of the legends of jazz like Brubeck for example. Time Out was another platinum album on Billboard, he had big sold out concerts all over the world and lots of radio play. Those guys were stars.

 

When I say you guys are too young, I mean you were not actually there, you didn't live it and you wern't hearing it on the radio every day. I listened to Jimmy Smith, Brubeck and Ramsay Lewis all the time on radio in the 60's.

 

The audiences then did understand it, it didn't go over their heads, they were truly into it. As has been mentioned already, many more people in those days had decent musical educations because it was taught in public schools. Now middle aged people in their forties or fifties know little about all that, it's just another musical history lesson to them like reading about ragtime I mentioned earlier. Jazz just sounds like grandpa's weird music to them and that's normal actually. Each generation is genetically programmed to not like what their parents did and certainly not what their grandparents liked. What is considered hip or cool is purely generational.

 

Bob

[I-missRichardTee]

Jazzmammal I will see your Brubeck of hearts, and raise you 2 decades of spades. Louis Armstrong was a Singer, to hell with Miles's Steppin fetch it take on Louis or the TV show Amos and Andy for that matter. Back on track.. Louis was not just any singer, he was an ambassador, he was the hail fellow well met, he was an event, as big as Elvis, and put to shame Jimmy Smith, Brubeck and Miles. THAT's the jazz I am talking about. I know of people much older than myself who told me these things. Before TV, which is a nasty ass curse on the world, When Louis and Teagarden were coming to town, forgetboutit. It was THE event of the peoples lifetimes.

He sung the universal language of music, and unity, long before The great Coltrane did. His music was way more danceable, way more singable, way more friendly, broke through all kinds of racial bullshit in this nasty ass world that he endured. Oh, and Freddie Hubbard used to think less of Louis's trumpet playing until he tried to play that shit.. then he changed his head on that too. Louis was the baddest cat, period.

[Brettymike]

Everyone knows about the GREAT Louis Armstrong surely? , he was the Kings King. I've never heard a bad word about him , or of anyone who didn't love his music.

I used to love watching him on TV decades ago , totally enthralled , and seeing his big cheeks balloon out when he played the trumpet , his singing and stage antics were the cats whiskers too >

 

Brett

[Dave Weiser]

Rich-T, no one is arguing that Louis Armstrong wasn't awesome, daddy-o. He's one of my heroes, along with Ella and Cab. I'd take Armstrong over Coltrane's shredding any day.

 

I've found that plenty of young people also like *that* kind of jazz as well. Hell, I'd say it's more present in pop culture (TV, movies, weddings, etc) today than it was back in 1986 when DX7s and mullets were carpet-bombing our aesthetic sensibilities with cheese.

 

The essay in the OP, lamenting about today's listeners in the US somehow being less sophisticated/thoughtful than those of days past (or those of different cultures) seems especially bogus and flies in the face of the evidence I've observed.

 

Do not despair fellow old guys - all is not lost!

Sure lots of current pop culture is nonsense. But plenty of pop culture in the 1950s and 60s was also brainlessly awful.

(Big Girls Don't Cry anyone?)

 

Genres and sub-genres of music come and go and they evolve. While US audiences haven't been flocking in droves to see heavy-duty-get-out-your-jazz-harmony-textbook jazz performers, they have shown a steady appreciation for jazz-influenced pop. In the '70s Joni packed arenas with her Shadows and Light lineup (Jaco, Metheny, Brecker), in the '80s Sting did the same with his Blue Turtles band, Nora Jones was topping the charts in the early 2000's and today we have guys like Michael Buble selling out large theaters plus bands like The Roots are bringing stellar musicianship (even if it's not jazz) to live network TV.

 

I would hate to see the good folks of this forum making the grave error of underestimating young people and the future of music. It's happened before - to jazz, to The Beatles, to rap, to heavy metal, to Arlo Guthrie and those "damned long-haired hippies". When we look back on those doomsday predictions from the cultural gate-keepers of days past with enough hindsight, we see them for what they are: the manifestation of terror and resentment that accompany age if one is not careful.

 

In saying this I mean no insult or slight to anyone. Even the best and brightest among us are susceptible to writing off entire genres of music.

 

For example, when it came to Jazz, "The Devil's Music".....

"Early detractors like Thomas Edison, inventor of the phonograph, ridiculed jazz, saying it sounded better played backwards."

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/beyond/jazz.html

[I-missRichardTee]

Dave Weiser

Jazzmammal had said this: In it's heyday jazz WAS popular and hip, it was NOT just for musicians playing for musicians. The crowds were large and they were really into it. Not as big as Elvis for sure but pretty decent nonetheless

 

I think Armstrong was as big as Elvis.

 

The movement AWAY from the pinnacle- Louis, Ella, Cab, Duke, was gradual.

What musical elements were involved? Recognizability of melodic, rhythmic harmonic material.

Vocals were gradually reduced

With regard to big bands ( Cab, Basie, Duke, etc ) , the high cost, was what eliminated that. In response to this Louis Prima moved from big band to sextet plus singer. Prima borrowed heavily from Armstrong.

Not a historian, but just that fact, Prima's success and his heavily borrowing the extroversion of Armstrong, this in itself.. is a powerful lesson for one wishing to understand why jazz has been so marginalized.

As long as jazz or most genres of music are

highly singable

easy to dance to

and there is a catalytic person communicating ( whether Sting, or Springsteen, or Prima, or the greatest Louis Armstrong) your music would float.

 

People are people... they are clueless about what I am aware of. Do you know what convinces me of the naiveté of joe public... musicians I have worked with. Musicians themselves, are not as aware of musical elements as they fancy themselves, so imagine a non musician?

Music must be kept highly singable

easy to dance to... and a "front man" is the final fail safe for success.

Back to the quote of Jazzmammal Louis WAS as big as Elvis.. beCAUSE he embodied these elements.

 

I look at even comedians then and now. Huge difference between the whole conception of what HUMOR IS.

One must have his head on straight in order to succeed in any undertaking. He must keep his pet ideas carefully in check, paying attention to what works with his public, and why.

Past comics, made fun of themselves, todays, attack our govt, and rich people.. basically are political, and leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. Esp funny men like Letterman.. witty guy doing a difficult job, yes, but his humor is never seldom about himself. Most of SNL is satire, mocking the other, not the comic.

An entertainer is THAT, he entertains, and makes a situation where people have forgotten their problems for a few hours.. he uplifts as well.

To do what a great and musical entertainer does is not easy, which is my guess why there are so few over the last 100 years.

[I-missRichardTee]

But dig this- little children are my favorite audience because they actually LIKE the music I play. Their minds are to me, more sophisticated than most of their parents' minds. Less prejudice involved with little ones.

[Brettymike]

We are going to see Michael Buble live next week!!! , one of my favorite singers in the world , can't wait.

Edit:Suddenly realizing I do LOVE lots of certain types of jazz and swing , and have bought the music - even though I would rather hear it live (for me).

 

Brett

[Dave Weiser]

Dave Weiser

 

 

I look at even comedians then and now.

 

I humbly submit for your musical and comedic consideration, Tim Minchin.

 

[video:youtube]

 

[video:youtube]

 

[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtiwfhPtaRk

[David Loving]

I-miss-RT is right on about Louis Armstrong. He invented the solo and no player on any instrument has matched him.

 

[Steve Nathan]

Steve and Dave, love you both but you guys are too young to grok the true history of jazz. Actually you're probably too young to know what grok means too, right? Robert Heinlein.

 

That may be the funniest thing I've read yet on the KC.

[Joe Muscara]

I'm glad you have a sense of humor about that, Steve.

[Steve Nathan]

If I'm that young, how did I get this at age 12?

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2940/14008582959_94c3dbc59a_z.jpg

[Steve Nathan]

Or this??

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7359/14191965571_ec5b797c85_z.jpg

[Steve Nathan]

Or how about this??

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7386/14215392493_2c245ff547_z.jpg

[Brettymike]

Wow! , what an awesome catch and collection Steve!.

To this day , no sings like Louis Armstrong for a start , such a unique voice and technique.

 

Brett

[Jazz+]

 

Berlin 1965:

 

[video:youtube]

[SK]

I wanted to post this as a new thread response called Why Creative American Musicians Dont Like Crap, but I'll just put it here. I bet if the article had been called Why Americans dont like creative music, most people would be on the same page in a show of collective outrage.

 

The hating of musical styles associated with jazz seems to be a theme here. Anyone should know its rude to diss an entire genre, particularly such a broad genre as jazz, when some musicians devote their lives to it. I think some people feel compelled to condemn jazz as an excuse to justify their own musical laziness. If you dont have the curiosity or the patience to listen to or study the most innovative musicians of our time, I guess it becomes a if we cant join em, then lets beat em attitude. Frustration makes it easier to condemn in an opinionated outburst than it is to understand something, which seems more boring and time consuming. Jazz haters blame jazz and academia, and jazz supporters blame the haters, the attitudes, and sometimes the audiences. Plenty of blame to go around, then were always back where we started.

 

Ive honestly been lucky to have played in every idiom out there, and one mark of musicianship is to not condemn the styles of others. I didnt start out in jazz, but having played with a lot of players, I get called a jazz player by default. To me, its just improvisation. Its all just music, whether we like it, understand it or not. Were all sort of on different paths, headed towards similar destinations. Its also a form of evolution, because whatever youre playing now leads you to what you will be playing in the future. Its called development.

 

At age 8, the first time I heard a bebop record (a Cannonball Adderley Riverside LP), I didnt like it at all or understand it but I knew there was something going on. I didnt dismiss it and say it sucked - I just didnt like it, but I kept the record because it sounded so weird a bunch of fast notes, nothing pretty or recognizable. Years later, I went back to the record and really enjoyed it, once I understood the language being played.

 

Often people dismiss things they dont like as crap, while theyre only cutting themselves off from an eventual deeper appreciation and love of music. Growth is a personal thing. As for it being a burden to research music, hey, no one is making you do it. But if youre a conscientious musician, its more likely you will want to look beyond the surface.

 

As to specifically why a lot of people dont like jazz, I think it comes down to exposure. Its not the listeners fault. The music industry has done their job making sure which music is sold to the lowest common denominator. Listeners are influenced by the music theyre fed, so they have no choice. Radio stations, recording companies, etc. do not want to expose people to creative music they want people to listen with their feet first (preferably 4/4 dance beats) and to pay attention mostly to the lyrics, and to visual presentation. And we know commercial music is mostly geared to the youngest crowd for the largest possible sales.

 

This has always been the case to an extent, but not as bad as it is today. The publics collective musical IQ was higher back when people were automatically exposed to more sophisticated harmonies (traditional songwriting and Western music composition rules which evolved over time and goes back to Bach.) Even a non-musician could feel or get the emotion of harmonic intricacies in an arrangement when listening to a Sinatra tune or a commercial standard on the radio. The public accepted musical form to an extent and their musical IQ was slightly raised just by osmosis. This (more complex) music was in the air, and it was everywhere in the states. Jazz was a big part of it, and influenced a lot of the music people heard.

 

So whats changed? In a conversation a couple years ago with Bruce Hornsby, his surprising take on it was were in a post-music world. I knew what he meant and in a way its true, but my take on it is a little less severe. Id just say history repeats itself - musical history, basic rules of theory, and musical evolution became irrelevant over the past 2 decades, so were back in the musical stone age trying to reinvent the wheel. Meanwhile, creative players and innovative thinkers will continue to do their thing as they always do. To the general public, most of them are lost in the sea of internet over saturation, but interested deep sea divers will still find pearls.

 

Personally, I couldnt care less if the music I like is popular or not, because it wont stop me from doing what I love. For me, its not about reaching as many people as possible its about the freedom of personal expression first - a personal quest. And the more honest that is, the more true it rings for anyone out there who may have a similar heart for music.

 

Pardon all these words, and I don't expect a response. (At least no genres were harmed in the making of this post.)

 

[Jazz+]

I like that, thank you SK.

[Dave Ferris]

Beautiful Steve. Words spoken by someone who could only have an obvious connection, along with both a deep understanding and love of the music.

[Brettymike]

Berlin 1965:

 

[video:youtube]

 

 

This is nowhere near as good as the Hello Dolly I posted earlier , here he is at his best (ain't no one like him) >

A real musician and real entertainer rolled into one.

 

I love the way he uses his own breathing as accents in his vocals here , a genius thinking outside the square > http://youtu.be/E2VCwBzGdPM

 

Brett

[I-missRichardTee]

Yes, both Steve's had nice intelligent comments -)

I have this "thing" in me about when you are actually face to face with someone who is reputed to be very very excellent at their art form..

You have to be near them and witness it face to face.. Whether in audience close by or on the bandstand.

I like to use boxing analogies... they have a realm of realness to them. So I mix the brutality of fighting with the subjective artist world of music, taste, entertainment, and relativity.

What I am leading up to, when you get on a band stand with a bad mother... it stamps you indelibly. Just as if you are walking down an alley all alone and you encounter a bad ass street fighter with an attitude. You can fantasize what the outcome would be, how you would react etc.. but up close and personal it's another ball game.

There is a ( for lack of a better word ) visceral quality to people like Louis and Buddy Rich, and Sinatra, and Stevie Wonder. Great artists have this power about them.

As you observe artists over time, you might even make comparisons.. though they are not usually profitable. But the way Louis played trumpet was so "strong" so visceral, so magnetic.. you really cannot apprehend this on a recording.

So you are not privy to it, in many cases.

Just know that Elvis and Caruso, Mahalia Jackson, Armstrong and Jolson, and others who are now gone, had great power. And those artists ( 1960's to present ) who followed them were impressed by them, but did not necessarily have as much power.

There is no substitute for being in the presence of a great players/singer/entertainer.

If you have the sense to listen to elders you might respect, you might then open yourself up to what would normally escape your attention.

I once asked possibly the most influential sax and clarinet teacher in the world

I asked him, how do you judge a good tone.. He said by having heard 5000 horn players, that's how.

 

[Joe Muscara]

Personally, I couldnt care less if the music I like is popular or not, because it wont stop me from doing what I love. For me, its not about reaching as many people as possible its about the freedom of personal expression first - a personal quest. And the more honest that is, the more true it rings for anyone out there who may have a similar heart for music.

Great post, SK. I particularly liked this part.

[jeffreyfranz]

Um, low mean IQ? Decimated public school system (thank you, conservative wing)? Could be any number of things.

[Jazzmammal]

That's very cool Steve. When you talked about jazzers being musicians playing for musicians, that's when I "assumed" you were younger than me. We all know what the first three letters of assume are...Sorry.

 

If you were there and lived through it like I described then I don't get it that comment. Jazz was pretty big in the 60's, take the Tonight Show first with Steve Allen and then Carson. Allen was a wannabe jazzer and Severinsen was all about jazz. Carson had everybody who was anybody in jazz on the show. Then there's the influence of Hefner. Probably 90% of music related articles in Playboy were all about jazz hence the Playboy Jazz Festival. Yes, I liked the centerfolds but I really did read the articles too. I watched whatever that early Playboy TV show was that featured big name jazzers with the Bunny's walking around with Hef in his pajamas.

 

I grew up in Lakewood, just another suburb of LA, and there were small restaurants and lounges all over the place that my parents took us kids to to both eat and see local piano bar guys and one I specifically remember was playing a huge chrome Hammond. That guy was great, he really had the one man band thing going and that was one influence on me playing organ. They were doing lots of jazz or at least jazzy type stuff. Jazz of one type or another was literally everywhere and it was not simply musicians playing for other musicians.

 

In the early 70's I spent some time in Chicago and jazz was all over Rush street along with the famous blues bars. It's true lots of musicians did go to see those guys but there were lots of regular fans there too.

 

Bob

[Jazz+]

And Lawrence Welk kept swing dance music on TV in the 60's and 70's , but it probably turned off the young people.

[Steve Nathan]

To be clear: For anyone who misread my post and concluded that I don't like Jazz....

Wrong

I like lots of Jazz.

What I don't like is Jazz musicians whining that Brittney Spears sells more records (makes more money) than them. And for the record, I've heard the same whine from Prog musicians, Metalheads, Folk singers, Spoken Word performers, the list goes on and on

[StartRun]

...we Americans are addicted to "stars".

 

No apologies for being an American, and-I think I'm right.

 

The last performer anywhere near close to being a "star" in Jazz was Diana Krall.

She had all the tickets; looks, personality, stage presence, etc.

 

Krall filled halls, sold records, and was on an upward trajectory from the mid-'90's until the mid-2000's.

 

Others-Buble, Yellowjackets, etc., will either be confined to masquerading as "the new Sinatra", or playing small gigs and/or working festivals.

 

I hate it for the devoted musicians who pay this uniquely American music...

[bluzeyone]

The general public likes things it understands. Simplicity sells. Most tunes that keep people dancing are between 3-5 chords. Tackling complex music will feel good to the player and only impress any other musicians in the house. I don't like it but then again there's alot of things I don't like about the music biz. Once again, thats why performing is my 9-5 but my love is composing at home.