Double Bass Why isn't Jazz that popular? (DB forum thread)

[beggar98]

When I was a kid, I liked a hot dog with yellow mustard much better than any hamburger or steak. As I grew older, I began to appreciate and prefer entrees like sirloin burgers with Gorgonzola and filets mignon with sauce Béarnaise.

But some grown ups still prefer hot dogs.

It's funny, I almost used a hot dog analogy earlier. I still love hot dogs, especially fried in butter with some sautéed onions and a good mustard. I also enjoy spending much more money on a Michelin starred restaurant. Enjoying something more sophisticated does not lessen my enjoyment of something simple. Likewise, I am not threatened by the fact that the hot dog is inferior in just about even way to the creations of a real, trained chef working with the best ingredients. Why do fans of pop music get so angry when anyone acknowledges that the music is simple, and that there are much more sophisticated forms of music out there that may offer some reward if given a chance? And why do they assume that by saying pop music is simple I must also be saying that pop fans are simple? It isn't necessarily the case, just as fans of more sophisticated music are not necessarily sophisticated themselves.

 

[HunterBrodt]

However, popularity is objective (something is popular or it isn't) and good is subjective (what's good to you may not be good to me). I didn't make statements about what is good. Just sayin' that jazz musicians can insult and put down the mainstream listeners and the music they listen to, but that isn't going to change a thing and isn't going to advance the plight of jazz.

By the way, I'm a jazz fan. I'm also a fan of other genres. I just think it's not nice for jazz musicians/fans to start making condescending remarks about more popular genres. It just adds to the idea tht jazz is for snobs (I'm just making general statements about what I've read on here, not directing them at anyone in particular).

Yeah, I don't think anyone planning on being a jazz musician is doing it for the popularity. At least that was never my motive

 

[Jack Clark]

I still love hot dogs, . . .

Yeah, I should have said that I still like 'em a lot, too. I just no longer prefer them to a good burger or a great steak. Actually, on reflection, I don't think the hot dog analogy works because, while it explains pretty well why I like Jazz, it does nothing to explain why so many people don't. No adult I know who still likes hot dogs rejects a great steak because he thinks it's old fashioned and aimless, which I think is part of the rejection of Jazz by a lot of folks.

I don't think that the fact that Jazz is more complex than other more popular forms of music makes it objectively better. It's just that Jazz's complexity is one of the reasons I like it better. I think, like food, it all comes down to taste for which there is no accounting.

 

[chuck3]

I've been mulling this over. John Scofield is to me an example of a jazz musician who is completely current in the sense that his cuts just rock out. But I know it's all subjective. Just sayin'.

 

[TheArchfiend]

dubstep happened and is pretty much replacing the drummer and bassist, guitarist to a extent.

 

[Ben Noblit]

Because pretty girls don't dance to modern jazz.

 

[fingerbun]

I think there's opinion and there's fact. It is a fact that it takes more practice and study to be a complete jazz musician than it does to be a complete pop musician. Anyone who would argue against this point is deluding themselves. Whether or not the fruits of that additional labor produce better music is a matter of opinion, but it is not snobbish or elitist to recognize that one is a more complex and demanding form than the other.

Well, possibly you can call me deluded.

I would agree that more technique is generally needed to be COMPETENT in jazz than pop. But COMPLETE? I'll put Eddy Van Halen, Paul McCartney, etc up as examples who will certainly hold their own, though frankly direct comparision kind of doesn't make sense. As you said, how McCartney ranks against Coltrane is a matter of opinion.

 

[fingerbun]

As for the ignorant self-important anti-jazz remarks made so many times in this thread, Isaac Asimov comes to mind:

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

With respect, your post could be construed as a self-important pro-jazz remark.

Pooing, farting and masturbating are all common and necessary human activities, but I don't want to watch you do them. If I don't enjoy the sound of jazz, the same way I don't like the smell of a fart, it's not anti-intellectual. It's personal taste.

To be honest, for me personally the wilder jazz improvisation suffers from too few ideas spread too thin, when I compare it to Beethoven, Wagner, or whatever.

Then when I think about the intellectual power of mathematics, it most excites me when it has the power to concisely and accurately express complex ideas about the world in simple and elegant form.

Jazz at its worst is like the mathematician who has to cover five foolscap pages with algebra when a better mathematician can cover the same ground in five lines.

If you enjoy playing it, great. If you enjoy listening to it, great. But dismissing those who don't like it as anti-intellectual is the sort of statement that gets jazz fans labelled as elitist snobs.

 

[fingerbun]

It's funny, I almost used a hot dog analogy earlier. I still love hot dogs, especially fried in butter with some sautéed onions and a good mustard. I also enjoy spending much more money on a Michelin starred restaurant. Enjoying something more sophisticated does not lessen my enjoyment of something simple. Likewise, I am not threatened by the fact that the hot dog is inferior in just about even way to the creations of a real, trained chef working with the best ingredients. Why do fans of pop music get so angry when anyone acknowledges that the music is simple, and that there are much more sophisticated forms of music out there that may offer some reward if given a chance? And why do they assume that by saying pop music is simple I must also be saying that pop fans are simple? It isn't necessarily the case, just as fans of more sophisticated music are not necessarily sophisticated themselves.

A hot dog is obviously junk food. When I dine in France, I am struck by how their chefs present simple meals with simple ingredients, just perfectly cooked. Dunno what it is but they do it better than anywhere else in the world that I have been.

Perfection in simplicity is as big an indicator of great skill as competence in complexity.

 

[iabssplyr]

You need to be able to play and listen to more than 3 chords in 2:30.

I'm out.

But I'll tell you this. I respect any kind of musician who can stir the soul of their listener. To me it all comes down to personal taste, with one genre not any better or worse than another. In fact, I love listening to the Modern Jazz Quartet's "Django" and then proceed to Judas Priest's "The Hellion/Electric Eye." Don't knock it until you've tried it!

 

[Jack Clark]

Just sayin'.

As an old guy, I just gotta ask. What does "Just sayin'" really mean?

 

[Duckwater]

What does "Just sayin'" really mean?

This term is used after you inject your statement/opinion into a conversation. Generally, this statement/opinion is non-factual, so by saying "just sayin'", you are clarifying that this statement/opinion is unprovable and it is just a thought off the top of your head.

 

[HunterBrodt]

To be honest, for me personally the wilder jazz improvisation suffers from too few ideas spread too thin.

This post really just shows your ignorance of jazz. I don't think players like lee Morgan or Bill Evans suffer from a lack of musical ideas. I'm not trying to push jazz as the worlds greatest art form (I personally think it is) but that's not to say you should think it is. I also think you should have more respect of any genre than to make generalizations like that. What I do know is that us jazzers will never win you over. On the other hand there might be people out there who are open to the art form.

Also I do think that jazz and classical are higher art forms than most pop, rock, rap, etc. j and c are genres where people (including myself) literally devote almost every aspect of their life to the mastery of an instrument and music, spending hours on end practicing. On the other hand tell me how genres where it's entire image is based doing drugs and having sex should be considered high art? maybe I am elitist, but technically speaking so is a doctor, a lawyer, or even a NASCAR driver. I don't think elitist means being a snob to people, I am more than happy to talk to anyone after a gig if it spreads what I personally believe to be the greatest music ever created.

I'm an extremely open minded person (I would not have started listening to jazz if I wasn't). There is a difference between agreeing with everyone's opinion. The difference is a open minded person gives everything a fair chance before making statements like "I find that jazz suffers from a lack of ideas".

Btw here's some non jazz groups I love,

Radiohead
Wilco
Fleet foxes
Nick drake
Lee perry
Fela kuti
Grizzly bear
Mos def
Q tip
Kanye
The roots
Donny Hathaway
Marvin Gaye
Steel pulse
The list goes on and on.

Oh and correct me if I'm wrong but in pretty sure hdiddy is a jazz musician so why would he not be pro jazz?

 

[fingerbun]

This post really just shows your ignorance of jazz. I don't think players like lee Morgan or Bill Evans suffer from a lack of musical ideas. I'm not trying to push jazz as the worlds greatest art form (I personally think it is) but that's not to say you should think it is. I also think you should have more respect of any genre than to make generalizations like that. What I do know is that us jazzers will never win you over. On the other hand there might be people out there who are open to the art form.

Also I do think that jazz and classical are higher art forms than most pop, rock, rap, etc. these are genres where people (including myself) literally devote almost every aspect of their life to the mastery of an instrument and music spending hours on end practicing. On the other hand tell me how genres where it's entire image is based doing drugs and having sex should be considered high art? maybe I am elitist, but technically speaking so is a doctor, a lawyer, or even a NASCAR driver. I don't think elitist means being a snob to people, I am more than happy to talk to anyone after a gig if it spreads what I personally believe to be the greatest music ever created.

I'm an extremely open minded person (I would not have started listening to jazz if I wasn't). There is a difference between agreeing with everyone's opinion. The difference is a open minded person gives everything a fair chance before making statements like "I find that jazz suffers from a lack of ideas".

Btw here's some non jazz groups I love,

Radiohead
Wilco
Fleet foxes
Nick drake
Lee perry
Fela kuti
Grizzly bear
Mos def
Q tip
Kanye
The roots
Donny Hathaway
Marvin Gaye
Steel pulse
The list goes on and on.

Oh and correct me if I'm wrong but in pretty sure hdiddy is a jazz musician so why would he not be pro jazz?

You need to read my post again, you are taking me to task for saying all jazz lacks ideas when I didn't say it.

You then talk about how wrong it is to generalise, but that all pop music is all about sex and drugs. Perhaps you could write a couple of paragraphs on the sexual proclivities, substance abuse history and lifestyle choices of Jaco Pastorius vs Cliff Richard, showing how it supports your argument? Perhaps you would consider the many rock stars who also devote their lives to their art. Sorry, but your assumption that this only happens in jazz and classical circles is wrong.

(Edit : I reread your post and note you said classical and jazz are higher art forms than MOST pop. I still disagree, for example there is a world of artistic difference to me between say Theolonious Monk who contributed new stuff and Eva Cassidy who is a pleasant but not especially original singer imo. Not all jazz is a higher art form. Likewise I love Gilbert and Sullivan but I don't think they pushed the artistic boundaries as much as Mahler. but it's a more reasonable statement than I gave it credit for in my original response.)

I don't hate all jazz. There is jazz I love and jazz I don't love. Just as there is rock I love and rock I don't love, and orchestral I love and orchestral I don't love.

You love jazz, that's great. I love some jazz, that's great too. Why is it so important to you that other people love what you love? Why is it you need to put down people for having different tastes? Why do you have to call me ignorant just because I have a different perspective to you, and does it surprise you that some people, when told they are ignorant and intellectually inferior, take umbrage?

 

[HunterBrodt]

Editing your post to make yourself seem right is awesome, just saying. Put wilder in there to make me seem wrong.

I also said in my post that you don't have to like jazz, I really don't care what you like or don't like to be honest. What care about is where you said jazz suffers from a lack of creativity. You're also right that I might be a hypocrite for saying that pop and rocks images are based of sex and drugs, I meant more pop and pop rock, there's obviously a lot of talented rock groups.

Also I know that there are dedicated rock musicians, but a dedicated rock musician needs to only spend like two hours a day on their craft (at least that's my personal experience, most high level jazz and classical musicians I know spend 4-7 hours a day. There's nothing wrong with this, it's just the music is harder.

Again I really don't care to win you over, and I still think your statement was ignorant of jazz. Not saying all of your opinions are ignorant, just this one.

This is also going to probably going to be my last post on this subject. This thread has really just turned into a huge argument and I would rather end my role in it before the mods were to close the thread.



Edit:
This argument also happened at my old school a lot. The contemporary musicians would call the jazz department entitled and snobs, but when it came down to how hard the jazz department worked compared to the contemporary it was obvious who had the better work ethic. The jazz students were practicing while the contemporary student were busy spreading gossip and chatting.

 

[Anonymatt]

This term is used after you inject your statement/opinion into a conversation. Generally, this statement/opinion is non-factual, so by saying "just sayin'", you are clarifying that this statement/opinion is unprovable and it is just a thought off the top of your head.

Thanks man, that's really pretty good.

 

[fingerbun]

Dude, you are upset and I don't want an unpleasant argument...just an exchange of ideas.

Editing your post to make yourself seem right is awesome, just saying. Put wilder in there to make me seem wrong.

Well, read your post again....you quoted me. The word "wilder" was in your quote of me. How could I change that?

I think there is some excellent jazz improv out there. Do we agree on that, even though I don't like it all?

I also said in my post that you don't have to like jazz, I really don't care what you like or don't like to be honest. What care about is where you said jazz suffers from a lack of creativity. You're also right that I might be a hypocrite for saying that pop and rocks images are based of sex and drugs, I meant more pop and pop rock, there's obviously a lot of talented rock groups.

I said some jazz suffers from a lack of ideas and that some jazz is musically verbose. I don't think I said jazz suffers from a lack of creativity, and if I did it's wrong and I apologise. But some jazz musicians suffer a lack of creativity...which is a comment on them, not the genre.

I like some jazz, but not all. I get the impression I don't like it as much as you do.

Also I know that there are dedicated rock musicians, but a dedicated rock musician needs to only spend like two hours a day on their craft (at least that's my personal experience, most high level jazz and classical musicians I know spend 4-7 hours a day. There's nothing wrong with this, it's just the music is harder.

I don't know anyone who succeeded in rock on 2 hours a day. Even 4-7 strikes me as on the low side for success in any genre. Why would you bother to be full-time player if you are only going to work part time?

Again I really don't care to win you over, and I still think your statement was ignorant of jazz. Not saying all of your opinions are ignorant, just this one.

This is also going to probably going to be my last post on this subject. This thread has really just turned into a huge argument and I would rather end my role in it before the mods were to close the thread.

Ke$ha - TiK ToK - YouTube

Again, peace. If my posts opens other jazz musicians to look at other styles as well, my time was well spent.

 

[HunterBrodt]

Sorry the time thing I meant time practicing, also 7 hours a day everyday is quite a bit especially for the double bass since its more physical of an instrument than most (except for trumpet, most trumpet players I know max out at about 4 before their lips can't take it).
Again lets just agree to disagree

 

[Boot Soul]

Jazz? Not popular because...

It doesn't have a crazy beat and you can't dance to it.
The chicks don't dig it.
Trading solos after one round is just a circle jerk.

 

[Teknoman]

Man,my dad used to play alto,tenor sax and flute around the house,copying Coltrane,and writing it out .Used to drive my teenage brain nuts!!!! I got even by buying Hendrix !!!!!And electric Miles Davis!!!! Now some 40+yrs later ,I am my dad,I think it has to do with ear maturity.If you are looking to be rich,don,t play jazz ,do it because you like it.Jazz is popular all over the world ,except here in the states.