In the mid-to-late 1970s a well respected professor at a large Midwestern university wanted to start a jazz studies program. He had been very successful with concert and marching band programs and felt it would be the next step. He brought in several jazz stars of the day, such as Bill Evans, Louie Bellson, and Dizzy Gillespie for concerts to publicize and gain support for the effort. The reason all of this was necessary was because of entrenched opposition from other members of the music faculty. The feeling was that jazz was not "serious" music and didn't deserve such study, not to mention the increased competition for resources(money) and attention. It took all of the influence and effort to finally get the program started that he could bring to it. The program became and is very successful but shows how jazz has had to earn its place in academia in this and many other cases. Whatever your opinion of jazz in school it must be agreed that it wasn't an easy path to get there.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Double Bass Did Academia Kill Jazz?
- Thread starter AndyMopley
- Start date
That’s a shameful episode, considering
that David Baker established the jazz
studies program at Indiana University,
in Bloomington, in 1966.
Very true. I don't know of a lot of other programs around this time and would be curious to hear other histories and what difficulties they may or may not have had. I have heard anecdotal accounts but real histories would be interesting. The one I mentioned is one I have direct knowledge of. I believe David Baker was quite influential and what his faculty experience was would be interesting to hear about if possible.
Rock and roll was invented by black people. Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, Ike Turner and Fats Domino all preceded Elvis. Yes, early rock and roll is related to jump blues, with the primary difference being the deep swing of jump is scaled back to a shuffle and then to straight 8ths.
Guy Lombardo was the biggest act of the swing era. Today, he’s mostly forgotten. When people today think of the big swing bands, they think of Benny Goodman, Duke, Count Basie, the Dorseys, Woody Herman….none of those bands had the popularity of G.L. back in the day, though.
From Wikipedia:
“Between 1927 and 1954, Lombardo & His Royal Canadians sold well above 100 million records on all labels, including Columbia, Brunswick, Decca, and RCA Victor and estimates place his total worldwide record sales between 100 and 300 million copies. This figure makes the band one of the highest selling recording groups of all time, so far exceeded only by the Beatles, Michael Jackson and Elvis, despite the much lower population base and family incomes of Lombardo's prime decades."
Last edited:
I don’t have the time and patience to
read thru all of this, but it’s available.
He was a truly remarkable person and
educator.
https://americanhistory.si.edu/site...er/David N. Baker SI-NEA oral history (2).pdf
Music programs at public schools in the USA today vary from great to nonexistent.
I started kindergarten in 1959. In first and second grade the classroom had an upright piano and once a week a music teacher would come and we learned to sing from standard notation. In third grade, students could join the glee club.
In fourth grade as long as my parents were willing to rent or buy an instrument I could get free instruction for a year, I can’t remember if it was more than once a week. It was in a group setting with at least a half dozen other clarinetists (long story, I only played it because it had been bought for my older brother and he quit playing).
In fifth grade I was eligible for the band, I was only good enough for third chair. I quit playing after one year in the band…that was when the Beatles reached the USA and playing the clarinet was not hip.
My younger sister inherited that clarinet six years after me. If nothing else, I learned how to sightread treble clef in public school although my skill atrophied over years of not playing.
I have a bandmate who works at a nonprofit that provides free instruments and instruction for towns in central Massachusetts that dropped music due to budget constraints. They support hundreds of kids. Boy, times have really changed.
Last edited:
Not saying that this doesn't exist, but I've never experienced it personally. Maybe because virtually nobody in my city can claim to be from where this music originated and developed
“This is the be-bop even if you think it doesn't sound like that”
View attachment 7421271
View attachment 7421272
I think the acid I took 54 years ago just kicked in! OMG. I had forgotten how weirdly amazing the Mothers could be.
Jazz may be a minority art form in popular culture these days, but it is far from dead. So many young musicians, most out of universities, are coming on the scene with great chops, improvising and composing skills. And they are making albums!
I came up during the early days of jazz education in the mid 60's, and was part of the trail blazing program at New Trier West HS https://downbeat.com/news/detail/fr...ys-of-jazz-education-at-new-trier-high-school and then went on to study with one of the founders of jazz education, David Baker, at IU, two incredible experiences that gave me the tools to become a working musician.
Academia gives musicians the training and time to develop their abilities. The experience isn't guaranteed to make great artists, but those with the talent and work ethic will come out in good shape.
So I would say, your premise is wrong!
I came up during the early days of jazz education in the mid 60's, and was part of the trail blazing program at New Trier West HS https://downbeat.com/news/detail/fr...ys-of-jazz-education-at-new-trier-high-school and then went on to study with one of the founders of jazz education, David Baker, at IU, two incredible experiences that gave me the tools to become a working musician.
Academia gives musicians the training and time to develop their abilities. The experience isn't guaranteed to make great artists, but those with the talent and work ethic will come out in good shape.
So I would say, your premise is wrong!
IMO:
Popular music is the music of the unskilled (in music) masses. They could be rich or poor, but they generally are not skilled in the art of music and form a majority of the population. The goal of popular music is to be popular and make money and bring fame to its creators. Listeners might use it as a tool to help create their own image and build influence among peers.
Art music is usually the music of the skilled few. They could be poor, or a few could be rich, but they are generally skilled in the art and are a small minority of the population, an elite. The goal of most art music is to influence the practice, the tradition, the state of the art, and to become part of the canon.
Sometimes, music can overlap and be both popular and elite. It’s a happy situation when that occurs.
However, the basic premise behind the question in this thread is bogus IMO, implying that being elite is inherently bad, while being the surface level known by the unskilled masses (popular) is inherently good.
The opposite of “elite” in many instances is “ordinary”.
Using “ordinary” instead of “popular”, changes the vibe of the thread question, doesn’t it?
Popular music is the music of the unskilled (in music) masses. They could be rich or poor, but they generally are not skilled in the art of music and form a majority of the population. The goal of popular music is to be popular and make money and bring fame to its creators. Listeners might use it as a tool to help create their own image and build influence among peers.
Art music is usually the music of the skilled few. They could be poor, or a few could be rich, but they are generally skilled in the art and are a small minority of the population, an elite. The goal of most art music is to influence the practice, the tradition, the state of the art, and to become part of the canon.
Sometimes, music can overlap and be both popular and elite. It’s a happy situation when that occurs.
However, the basic premise behind the question in this thread is bogus IMO, implying that being elite is inherently bad, while being the surface level known by the unskilled masses (popular) is inherently good.
The opposite of “elite” in many instances is “ordinary”.
Using “ordinary” instead of “popular”, changes the vibe of the thread question, doesn’t it?
Years ago I had a running argument going with a friend who was a very highly skilled professional guitarist. He played advanced modern jazz and wrote his own music. We argued about the band Genesis. My point was that their earlier music was much more advanced and creative than their later music, but they lost money on the early stuff, but got filthy rich with the later pop-oriented stuff. He said it did not matter that they had "sold out" because their music in later, simpler form reached more people.
Sort of like comparing a gourmet chef whose exquisite cuisine is served to his bistro seating 50, versus McDonalds serving "infinity?"
Well, now everything we consume is produced using the MickeyD formula, from healthcare, to music, to "infinity."
I think there was a huge shift in the public schools with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act under George Bush. The testing regimes started, and schools were judged on test scores, which led to emphasizing reading and math skills, often at the expense of other subjects and disciplines. I taught 8th grade social studies during this period for a few years, and I was shocked to find that almost none of my students could read an atlas or a map. They literally literally couldn't read the cardinal directions. As for reading standard music notation, that's not a requirement anywhere in our state AFAIK. Which is too bad, because it's basically reading a graph, isn't it? A useful skill to generalize to other contexts.
Fortunately, my experience is the opposite. My friends who study jazz often agree that we'd usually feel that we have something to improve after every performance or jam session, so there comes a point when we couldn't accept praises from people who say we played great.
Furthermore, outside of jazz, I have friends who are very technical guitar players in metal and rock, but they're also very modest and humble. I only know one who's a bit judgmental of others, and we'd usually quarrel about this attitude of his (I'd usually win the arguments haha.)
A little bit off-tangent, but do you think the United States is the best place to study jazz? The genre is certainly alive in countries outside of USA, but jazz is certainly root in American culture and history.
This reminds me of songs that I wrote. I used to write songs with complicated structures and melody, but couldn't find the melody for the vocal part. Then after some years, I decided to write songs for the masses while finding my personal style of singing. Most of my later songs sounded similar to popular music (except for the jazz ones), but then it became much easier for me to hear melodies that I want to write.
I think every musician has a reason why they write music, whether they write niche or pop, but IMO the important thing is to achieve whatever goal they have.
It is the nature and the beauty of popular music that newer styles inevitably supplant older styles, either because a given style becomes increasingly complex, alienating its listeners, or because it stays the same, boring its listeners.
As Miles Davis said when critic Stanley Crouch and his acolyte Wynton Marsalis condemned him for moving on from bebop to the music that came to be called his Elecltic Miles period, "What do they expect me to do? Keep playing Stella by Starlight in a zoot suit?"
Music is fashion. Live with it.
To quote the OP:
“A little bit off-tangent, but do you think the United States is the best place to study jazz?
The genre is certainly alive in countries outside of USA, but jazz is certainly root in American culture and history.”
I think it depends on what you hope
to accomplish by “studying jazz.”
Certainly, jazz music is an aural
phenomenon, and nearly the entire
history of it is available on recordings.
If you consider performing jazz music
as a craft, the tradition way to learn a
craft is with an accomplished teacher.
There are many outstanding collegiate
jazz programs in the US, and /or
a person can study privately.
If your goal is to eventually teach at
the college level, then you need advanced degrees.
Opportunities to perform what you
are learning are probably still found
in the US, predominantly in the larger
cities, ie, NYC (Brooklyn), LA, Nashville,
New Orleans, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, etc.,
with smaller pockets throughout the
country.
The ability to earn a living as a musician
involves performing, in as many genres
as possible, teaching, perhaps composing, recording, travel, and participating in as many associated
activities as possible.
For many, now as in the past, it is a ‘lifestyle’ and/ or an ‘identity’.
Hopefully, you have a choice in the
whole matter.
“A little bit off-tangent, but do you think the United States is the best place to study jazz?
The genre is certainly alive in countries outside of USA, but jazz is certainly root in American culture and history.”
I think it depends on what you hope
to accomplish by “studying jazz.”
Certainly, jazz music is an aural
phenomenon, and nearly the entire
history of it is available on recordings.
If you consider performing jazz music
as a craft, the tradition way to learn a
craft is with an accomplished teacher.
There are many outstanding collegiate
jazz programs in the US, and /or
a person can study privately.
If your goal is to eventually teach at
the college level, then you need advanced degrees.
Opportunities to perform what you
are learning are probably still found
in the US, predominantly in the larger
cities, ie, NYC (Brooklyn), LA, Nashville,
New Orleans, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, etc.,
with smaller pockets throughout the
country.
The ability to earn a living as a musician
involves performing, in as many genres
as possible, teaching, perhaps composing, recording, travel, and participating in as many associated
activities as possible.
For many, now as in the past, it is a ‘lifestyle’ and/ or an ‘identity’.
Hopefully, you have a choice in the
whole matter.
Last edited:
Does this seem to be happening to guitar-based rock and roll too? Not there yet. We can always point to examples of young people today keeping the trad alive, but the heyday seems passed.
The last line reminds me of a Pat Metheny remark that the styles of music aren't so clearly marked off, it's the dress codes that matter. Or something along those lines. I think the language you use matters, too. If you're at a jazz jam session, it helps to drop a few terms that show you know the lingo. The jazz scene where I live, such as it is, remains stuck with Great American standards and singers. The jazz material I love to play is not represented at all, and if a tune is not sung, it had better be some old warhorse that everyone knows. That's pretty widespread, I expect, unless you're in a large city (or a university with a large music school and a jazz program).
