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

[topo morto]

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?

How do you even measure the relative 'sophistication' of two pieces of music? You could do it from the point of view of some specific analysis or another, but there's no general way.

And even then, there's no reason to say 'sophisticated' is better than simple. Many artists take great pride in paring their art down to its barest essentials. And I'm sure a lot of jazz fans take pleasure in the zen-ness of a few talented musicians getting together and playing with basic, unsophisticated instruments, in comparison with the rooms full of sophisticated computers it takes to make a pop record...

 

[baskruit]

Why isn't Jazz that POPular?
If it was, we would call it POP music.

 

[Antoanto]

Jazz has been very popular. Big bands, for example. Times they are (just) a-changing.

 

[icecycle66]

Jazz is popular all over the world ,except here in the states.

Yeah, and Pabst Blue Ribbon sells for $40 a bottle in China.
That doesn't mean it's good.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Fundamentally, any cultural experience is an acquired taste. Jazz. Bob Dylan. Metal. JS Bach. Opera. Brad Paisley. Murder mysteries. Oil paintings. Shakespeare. Sit-coms. Adam Sandler. It does all sound the same until you become educated about the differences or embrace the familiarity.

It is not an insult to note that most people follow the crowd most of the time. As many have noted above the unpopularity of jazz is, to a large extent, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

On the other hand, many jazz performers neglect their role in reaching out to the audience. Does your band
-- Tell the "crowd" what tune they just heard?
-- Vary tempos, meters and keys through the set?
-- Arrange songs with introductions and interludes between solos?
-- Vary the solo order throughout the gig?
-- Avoid having everyone solo on every tune?

There is much wisdom here, and the questions asked at the end are good ones that every jazz musician should ask of him/herself at some point, and then decide whether to do something about it and if so, what to do.

For me, I'm of several minds on the issue. Some aspects I feel strongly about:

- as an educator, I have a conversation with all incoming recruits at the university who come to study jazz. Basically, I ask them to consider why they're devoting X years of their life and a large chunk of money to study this music. It comes down to this: if you are doing this because you love this art form, are fascinated by it and can't imagine *not* studying it, you're doing it for the right reason. If you're doing it because you don't want to look back 20-30 years from now and say "I wish I would taken the time to do this for me, to satisfy my genuine curiosity about the music and what the journey of discovery would have been like, and now it's too late", then that's still a good reason. If you don't really love the music and are enrolling in school to get a job and make a living at something you are mildly curious about, then that's a terrible reason and you should reconsider; you should reconsider because you'll be competing for those jobs with people who DO truly love the music and whose motivation to improve is a journey of self-discovery and a labor of love. And those people will always come out ahead artistically because their motivation is pure. Would you do this if the only reward that could possibly come of it is a deeper understanding of music and yourself through this art form? If so, you are doing it for the right reasons.

- As a player, I just want to make music. I don't give a rat's arse if the music is "popular" or not. It's always nice to have people appreciate what you do, but it's a slippery slope: I can think of a hundred or a thousand things that are "popular" that I personally think are abject crap and want no part of - this doesn't make them wrong, doesn't meant hat they should be eliminated or insulted or whatever, but simply means that I want nothing to do with them. I understand that whenever I play anything, some people will feel that way about what I'm doing, and that's fine; I just hope they do it respectfully. But as a player, once I'm playing, I'm trying to do what I'm doing as fully and deeply and completely as I can. I don't always succeed, but that's the aim, and the rest of the chips can fall where they may.

- as a gigging/working musician, I think it's important to know what situation you're in. If you're playing in a club or setting where there are no boundaries and the vibe of the place is for you to do your thing and not worry about what the audience thinks, then do that. If you're playing a function where the nature of the event has boundaries that involve a relationship with the audience, then understand those boundaries and play your butt off within them. Sam's questions above fall into this category. If you care what the audience thinks, if you care that they understand what's happening and want to feel included, then help make that happen. In short, put yourself in the position of the audience and ask yourself what you would want the band to be doing for the occasion at hand, and try to make that happen.

 

[Boot Soul]

Jeeeeezus Peeeeezus people. All this diatribe. All this lengthy postulating, and reasoning. YAWN!!!!!

Jazz is a bore because THE CHICKS DON'T DIG IT.

PS: Esperanza Spalding was clearly born on a different planet, where the chicks do, in fact, dig it.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone about our forum rules:

All registered users must address fellow members with the utmost respect at all times. If you do not agree with a fellow member, be courteous in your response. Thomas Jefferson said it best: "When I hear another express an opinion which is not mine, I say to myself, he has a right to his opinion, as I to mine".

Because of the limitations of text based communication, the expression of intent can be tricky. One of the most common triggers of rule violations is the misinterpretation of intent behind a post. Use smilies often, and remember, it never hurts to begin a response with "In my opinion"...

If you do not address everyone on the board with respect, be prepared to lose your membership.

Rule #2: Do not post profanity
Because this forum is viewed by bassists of all ages, all posts must be suitable for viewing by minors. All profanity must be completely covered with asterisks, completely substituted with "@%$#" symbols. Better yet, leave it out. Any use of creative lettering or partially masked profanity is not allowed. Obscene material is not permitted, nor are links to websites containing such material or anything deemed inappropriate for minors. If what you have to say wouldn't be suited for network TV, don't post it here.

This is supposed to be a discussion, not an argument. If it becomes an argument for the sake of arguing, I'll either have shut it down or start editing and calling people out for trolling for drama, and I'd prefer not to have to do that.

 

[Nev375]

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.

I'd just like to take a moment and say +1 to all of the above.

...except the masturbation part.

 

[Jack Clark]

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.

Well, okay, but then it doesn't seem to me that "Just sayin' " added anything here:

". . . his cuts just rock out. But I know it's all subjective. Just sayin'."

I recently asked a young bartender (the ultimate authority, after all) about "Just sayin' " and he suggested it means "Don't hit me."

 

[Marial]

I don't feel like you're trying to pick a fight at all, just having a good discussion.

When I talk about "culturally relevant", I'm thinking of how eras are defined. Look back at the music that was topping the charts 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. Almost always, pop music is embarrassing in hindsight. This is because it is very basic music dressed up in the fashion of the time. Once that fashion moves on, the music that is always and forever dressed in it sounds dated and un-hip. I think to define a culture by something disposable and transient is tragic and empty.

Fair enough. I think we definitely agree that there has been awful pop music for a very, very, long time.

Now, I'm curious as to what your take on pop music made by, say, the Beatles, or Michael Jackson, or Prince, might be? I think it can be argued that each were geniuses in their musical forms. Prince is also a rather gifted musician on multiple instruments. The Beatles redefined pop music. And Michael Jackson wrote some amazing, timeless songs and as a performer... well, he was the King of Pop, after all.

All of them also wrote some awful songs... My point, simply, is that there is a lot of subjectively awful music out there, and it crosses all genres. Likewise, there is absolutely transcendent, brilliant, music out there, and that also crosses all genres.

Taste is certainly, and utterly, subjective. I've read the rest of the thread and I think there is no real right answer to the original question. In my opinion, music is music. I think those who have said that it takes more dedication and practice to play jazz, and classical music, for that matter, are right, if for no other reason than the instruments required to play those forms of music are more difficult to master than the standard instruments in more popular forms of music. Further, and related to those instruments, the price of entry is far higher, meaning far fewer people even get a chance to try it out.

Oddly, the only genre I can think of off hand where a similar level of practice and proficiency is most often required is in technical metal and prog, though in any genre there are masters (Nels Cline with Wilco comes immediately to mind) or slide players in country, for example.

It's an interesting question because it creates so many different rabbit holes to disappear into. What is jazz to begin with? Is Trevor Dunn's Trio Convulsant jazz? What about Garage A Trois? What about Masada? Is Bill Frisell really making jazz anymore?

I'm sure there are people out there who have a jazz song that reminds of them of, say, the love of their life, or a period in their life that was really difficult, or really great, but I think they're probably pretty rare. One the great things about pop music is how it can distill a powerful emotion or experience into a widely understood and absorbed piece of music. That is not what jazz is about, in my opinion. That being the case, far fewer people are likely to listen to jazz because it speaks to the average listener, on many levels, far less directly, and requires more of the listener. This does not make it better, or worse, to my way of thinking, it simply makes it different.

 

[Marial]

I recently asked a young bartender (the ultimate authority, after all) about "Just sayin' " and he suggested it means "Don't hit me."

Truth.

 

[Huy Nguyen]

Granted this thread is wandering deeply into dick-waving territory, but I must respond because someone is wrong on the internets....

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.

This is a poorly constructed argument: A straw man fallacy. You are trying to justify your point of view that jazz is bad using bad or mediocre musicians. Bad musicians will play bad music, regardless of the style. Setting up bad musicians just so you can knock down an entire genre does nobody any favors. it's an ignorant argument.

The reality is that every style has great and amazing musicians. People get lauded for a reason (the Grammy's don't count). The only true test is the test of time. TBH, comparing Genres is not a really constructive exercise. They all have value, they all are good. Charlie Parker, Dizzy, Monk, Bach, Mozart, Beatles, Jimi, etc. etc. they all have their places in the pantheon of musical gods.

For those into jazz, well alot of us surround our world with it. We're enthralled and in love with it. Whether you like it or not is secondary and to some extent we don't care what you think. Jazz is alive and kicking - but it's no longer mainstream. That's fine - nothing wrong with that. For some of us, we listen and we play it cuz we "have" to. There's a calling there...

So if you're going to come up to someone who has devoted most of their waking life to a discipline - you better be ready to get some flak if you're going to talk smack. And if you don't understand why people do it, well that's just ignorance by definition. Nothing wrong with ignorance but that's a poor stance if you're going to make a value judgement.

Not trying to compare musicians here, but these are some of the reasons why I have an eternal stoke for jazz:
Dexter Gordon - Lady Bird - YouTube
Thelonious Monk - Round About Midnight - YouTube
Charlie Parker & Dizzy Gillespie - Hot House (1952) - YouTube
I'm Getting Sentimental Over You - YouTube
Green Chimneys - YouTube
Chris Potter All the Things You Are - YouTube
Kurt Rosenwinkel Group - Jacky's Place [2006] - YouTube

This is the stuff that gets me up in the morning. And obviously there's much much more.

Here's an example of an artist who "got it"
Jazz Dispute - YouTube

And if you don't get it? Sorry man, that's not my problem/fault. Want help understanding it? Sure. Ask questions.

Regardless, hating on genres is stupid.

 

[fingerbun]

Granted this thread is wandering deeply into dick-waving territory, but I must respond because someone is wrong on the internets....

This is a poorly constructed argument: A straw man fallacy. You are trying to justify your point of view that jazz is bad using bad or mediocre musicians. Bad musicians will play bad music, regardless of the style. Setting up bad musicians just so you can knock down an entire genre does nobody any favors. it's an ignorant argument.

The reality is that every style has great and amazing musicians. People get lauded for a reason (the Grammy's don't count). The only true test is the test of time. TBH, comparing Genres is not a really constructive exercise. They all have value, they all are good. Charlie Parker, Dizzy, Monk, Bach, Mozart, Beatles, Jimi, etc. etc. they all have their places in the pantheon of musical gods.

For those into jazz, well alot of us surround our world with it. We're enthralled and in love with it. Whether you like it or not is secondary and to some extent we don't care what you think. Jazz is alive and kicking - but it's no longer mainstream. That's fine - nothing wrong with that. For some of us, we listen and we play it cuz we "have" to. There's a calling there...

So if you're going to come up to someone who has devoted most of their waking life to a discipline - you better be ready to get some flak if you're going to talk smack. And if you don't understand why people do it, well that's just ignorance by definition. Nothing wrong with ignorance but that's a poor stance if you're going to make a value judgement.

Not trying to compare musicians here, but these are some of the reasons why I have an eternal stoke for jazz:
Dexter Gordon - Lady Bird - YouTube
Thelonious Monk - Round About Midnight - YouTube
Charlie Parker & Dizzy Gillespie - Hot House (1952) - YouTube
I'm Getting Sentimental Over You - YouTube
Green Chimneys - YouTube
Chris Potter All the Things You Are - YouTube
Kurt Rosenwinkel Group - Jacky's Place [2006] - YouTube

This is the stuff that gets me up in the morning. And obviously there's much much more.

Here's an example of an artist who "got it"
Jazz Dispute - YouTube

And if you don't get it? Sorry man, that's not my problem/fault. Want help understanding it? Sure. Ask questions.

Regardless, hating on genres is stupid.

Hi Hdiddy, I don't hate jazz.

I don't hate jazz.

I DON'T HATE JAZZ.

If you take out the parts of your argument that seek to explain my non-existant hatred of jazz I agree with everything you have just said.

I gave my answer to the question of why jazz is not popular. If the original question had been "Name your five favorite jazz tunes" I would have had to think hard about what to leave out. If you asked me to name the best record of all time there would be at least two jazz tracks on the short list.

 

[beggar98]

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.

If a hot dog is "obviously" junk food, why isn't Justin Bieber "obviously" junk music? If all that matters is whether or not people like it, then how can you say a hot dog is junk food? Unless, of course, you acknowledge that there is a subjective aspect to quality.

 

[HeadyVan Halen]

Jeeeeezus Peeeeezus people. All this diatribe. All this lengthy postulating, and reasoning. YAWN!!!!!

Jazz is a bore because THE CHICKS DON'T DIG IT.

PS: Esperanza Spalding was clearly born on a different planet, where the chicks do, in fact, dig it.

Bingo. Done.
Music theory is not sexy. Kinda of like the dudes who re-enact medevil battles with plastic swords and the whole get-up at the park. Not a good look if you actually are attempting to have intercourse..with a woman I mean.

 

[fingerbun]

If a hot dog is "obviously" junk food, why isn't Justin Bieber "obviously" junk music? If all that matters is whether or not people like it, then how can you say a hot dog is junk food? Unless, of course, you acknowledge that there is a subjective aspect to quality.

Fair point.

From a health point of view hot dogs are arguably a poor choice, for me at least, but that is separate from aesthetics.

Justin Bieber is possibly the greatest artist since Mozart and the single most significant musician alive today, but I have only heard brief snatches of his work and they have not motivated me to seek a deeper acquaintance.

 

[beggar98]

Fair enough. I think we definitely agree that there has been awful pop music for a very, very, long time.

Now, I'm curious as to what your take on pop music made by, say, the Beatles, or Michael Jackson, or Prince, might be? I think it can be argued that each were geniuses in their musical forms. Prince is also a rather gifted musician on multiple instruments. The Beatles redefined pop music. And Michael Jackson wrote some amazing, timeless songs and as a performer... well, he was the King of Pop, after all.

All of them also wrote some awful songs... My point, simply, is that there is a lot of subjectively awful music out there, and it crosses all genres. Likewise, there is absolutely transcendent, brilliant, music out there, and that also crosses all genres.

Taste is certainly, and utterly, subjective. I've read the rest of the thread and I think there is no real right answer to the original question. In my opinion, music is music. I think those who have said that it takes more dedication and practice to play jazz, and classical music, for that matter, are right, if for no other reason than the instruments required to play those forms of music are more difficult to master than the standard instruments in more popular forms of music. Further, and related to those instruments, the price of entry is far higher, meaning far fewer people even get a chance to try it out.

Oddly, the only genre I can think of off hand where a similar level of practice and proficiency is most often required is in technical metal and prog, though in any genre there are masters (Nels Cline with Wilco comes immediately to mind) or slide players in country, for example.

It's an interesting question because it creates so many different rabbit holes to disappear into. What is jazz to begin with? Is Trevor Dunn's Trio Convulsant jazz? What about Garage A Trois? What about Masada? Is Bill Frisell really making jazz anymore?

I'm sure there are people out there who have a jazz song that reminds of them of, say, the love of their life, or a period in their life that was really difficult, or really great, but I think they're probably pretty rare. One the great things about pop music is how it can distill a powerful emotion or experience into a widely understood and absorbed piece of music. That is not what jazz is about, in my opinion. That being the case, far fewer people are likely to listen to jazz because it speaks to the average listener, on many levels, far less directly, and requires more of the listener. This does not make it better, or worse, to my way of thinking, it simply makes it different.

Great points here. There has obviously been some great pop music made over the years. There has been plenty of crap jazz over the years as well.

What is frustrating is when crap pop music is celebrated like it is something great. The examples of Bieber and Gaga keep coming up, but maybe those are too fresh to be viewed in proper perspective. What about Milli Vanilli or New Kids On The Block? Milli Vanilli were Grammy winners, celebrated as the best new musicians of the year. Doesn't it say something about pop music that an "artist" can reach that height without ever having to be able to actually make any music? NKOTB were greeted like the second coming of Beatlemania. Why? Because they were good looking and marketed well. Did their music have anywhere near the substance of Meet the Beatles? Of course not, but pop doesn't care, and millions of pop fans don't care. Celebrating something empty and disposable is sad.

 

[beggar98]

Fair point.

From a health point of view hot dogs are arguably a poor choice, for me at least, but that is separate from aesthetics.

Justin Bieber is possibly the greatest artist since Mozart and the single most significant musician alive today, but I have only heard brief snatches of his work and they have not motivated me to seek a deeper acquaintance.

Yeah, doctor says I can't eat hot dogs anymore either.

I think that just like only eating candy can ruin your physical health, only listening to candy can ruin your mental health. It's important for any music fan to challenge themselves now and then. That doesn't necessarily mean jazz, but just something that requires a little thought.

 

[Marial]

Oi, if there is an irrelevancy in music it's the Grammies. The only times they have been remotely surprising was when Arcade Fire and Esperanza Spaulding won. Otherwise? Yish.

Further, what the majority of teenage girls listen to (NKOTB, Milli Vanilli, and Wham before them) and why is gawd's own private mystery...

The celebration of crap music is the greatest expression of commerce in art, it seems to me. There is a great Robert Fripp quote out there on that intersection but I can't find it at the moment.

 

[beggar98]

Oi, if there is an irrelevancy in music it's the Grammies. The only times they have been remotely surprising was when Arcade Fire and Esperanza Spaulding won. Otherwise? Yish.

Further, what the majority of teenage girls listen to (NKOTB, Milli Vanilli, and Wham before them) and why is gawd's own private mystery...

The celebration of crap music is the greatest expression of commerce in art, it seems to me. There is a great Robert Fripp quote out there on that intersection but I can't find it at the moment.

But isn't that the goal of pop music, to sell as many CDs/mp3s as possible? Maybe that pursuit is the problem I have with it. I'm more tolerant of bad jazz because the intention was to create something meaningful, bad pop is just a failed business proposal.