Here's a nice little Rorschach Test for the participants of this discussion:
On Why Jazz Isn’t Cool Anymore . . . . « Nicholas Payton
On Why Jazz Isn’t Cool Anymore . . . . « Nicholas Payton
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 Why isn't Jazz that popular? (DB forum thread)
- Thread starter gai113
- Start date
transition said:
That Payton "article" is BS. He says he doesn't play jazz, he play Postmodern New Orleans Music. Semantics.
topo morto said:
That's because it wasn't written as an article, he just re-printed his tweets from the last few days.
I didn't like this guy. To move foward you have to know what where you are and where you want to be. You want to create something new ? How can you do that if you don,t know what are the invention of the past ?
Music is the same thing, Classical music evolved continualy to become very complex and maybe too complex for many, same thing with jazz. At one point classical composer invented the serialism and at the same jazz invented free jazz. Two of the most complex and extrem style that ultimatly kill the audiance.
Jazz isn't a bad marketing thing, it is a style of music that only musician that want to explore the depth of music seems to care about in a society that seems to flavor simple stuff.
seriously that guy sound like he is p**s off by his ancestors for being slave and created that style of music.
in my opinion jazz is most liked by musicians. the average person likes simple music they can sing/hum too and not have to think about. ive seen this for other groups too like elvis costello nick cave and king diamond. these groups draw musicians as fans but never made it as big as they should have.
To be fair, I haven't read anything else by Mr. Payton, and only really have a vague "big picture" sense of who he is.
But I don't really think that matters. I know how I responded to what he wrote, and what I think he means, or at least what I would mean if I had written those things.
That's my point in calling it a "Rorschach Test" - I think our reactions to it reflect more about ourselves than anything else.
But I don't really think that matters. I know how I responded to what he wrote, and what I think he means, or at least what I would mean if I had written those things.
That's my point in calling it a "Rorschach Test" - I think our reactions to it reflect more about ourselves than anything else.
I think it's also an exercise in emotional projection for Mr. Payton. While guys like him are wrestling with his musical identity, somewhere else in the world someone is soldiering away, breaking barriers and bending rules, being completely unrestrained and still calling himself "Jazz" or performing a type of "good" music.
It's great being able to identify and pay homage to your roots, but navel gazing usually doesn't get you anywhere. Buddha is dead but his spirit is alive and well... maybe if Mr. Payton understood Buddhism better, he wouldn't get so wound up about his identity and what's "rignt" and what's "wrong". I spose the same goes for folks who care too much if Jazz is popular or not.
BTW: I used to think that Jazz is a musician's music. It's more true yeah, that most jazz afcionados were musicians at some point, but then again I have a number of friends who like hearing jazz. They dont' know what they're listening to but like they like what they hear. Kinda like not knowing anything about wine but still being able to savor it.
It's great being able to identify and pay homage to your roots, but navel gazing usually doesn't get you anywhere. Buddha is dead but his spirit is alive and well... maybe if Mr. Payton understood Buddhism better, he wouldn't get so wound up about his identity and what's "rignt" and what's "wrong". I spose the same goes for folks who care too much if Jazz is popular or not.
BTW: I used to think that Jazz is a musician's music. It's more true yeah, that most jazz afcionados were musicians at some point, but then again I have a number of friends who like hearing jazz. They dont' know what they're listening to but like they like what they hear. Kinda like not knowing anything about wine but still being able to savor it.
The only thing that bothers me is the semantics of the article. His whole re-classification (substituting "New Orleans Music" for "Jazz") is all about labels. It doesn't change the music at all. Call it what you want, that dude plays (what is commonly known as) jazz.
I listened to about 30 min of his interview here: Scratch My Brain » Sometimes you have to dance, or music with social meaning
It sounds like he's kinda miffed that jazz took a turn into becoming a high art and less as a music for the commons. I'm assuming they're playing his music as breaks in the interview. It's like I said, you can be an amazing musical technician and know what goes into groovy music, but it doesn't mean that it's exciting. It's kinda funny... jazz players will bend over backwards trying to reach the masses (like Herbie's new standards material)... some of it catches, but mostly gets ignored. He's wants jazz back into the mainstream. There's always all sorts of ways to describe this but...
the point is that pop & rock is entertaining. They put entertainment first. Jazz players don't say "I just wanna jazz and swing all night and party every day". That sentiment just doesn't work remotely like KISS does it. Bieber works because he entertains all those teenyboppers. And then you get someone like Amy Winehouse who steps outta nowhere and make everybody's head spin. I think Esperanza did it right - she has the chops, but her albums also show that she's focused on entertainment side. I think that's why jazz players have a hard time listening to her stuff. She makes it all work - lyrics, looks, etc etc.
Jazz puts the music first and entertainment second. Not sure why this is so hard for people to understand. If you're not putting entertainment first, you're always going to have a small following. Unfortunately for jazz players, the snob culture also says that if you're putting entertainment first, you're selling out.
It sounds like he's kinda miffed that jazz took a turn into becoming a high art and less as a music for the commons. I'm assuming they're playing his music as breaks in the interview. It's like I said, you can be an amazing musical technician and know what goes into groovy music, but it doesn't mean that it's exciting. It's kinda funny... jazz players will bend over backwards trying to reach the masses (like Herbie's new standards material)... some of it catches, but mostly gets ignored. He's wants jazz back into the mainstream. There's always all sorts of ways to describe this but...
the point is that pop & rock is entertaining. They put entertainment first. Jazz players don't say "I just wanna jazz and swing all night and party every day". That sentiment just doesn't work remotely like KISS does it. Bieber works because he entertains all those teenyboppers. And then you get someone like Amy Winehouse who steps outta nowhere and make everybody's head spin. I think Esperanza did it right - she has the chops, but her albums also show that she's focused on entertainment side. I think that's why jazz players have a hard time listening to her stuff. She makes it all work - lyrics, looks, etc etc.
Jazz puts the music first and entertainment second. Not sure why this is so hard for people to understand. If you're not putting entertainment first, you're always going to have a small following. Unfortunately for jazz players, the snob culture also says that if you're putting entertainment first, you're selling out.
The idea that jazz lost its way by being more highbrow and less entertainment oriented is fine, he certainly isn't the only one to think that way. But then he turns around and releases an esoteric album that is all over the genre map and when anyone questions his intentions he replies that he's an artist, and no one should question an artist's motivations. What's good for the goose...
This isn't a new idea, but I like his analysis. You see it all the time and why the latest pop speaks to people so much better than instrumental music. I think it's also why classical holds just a small audience's attention as well. Maybe people don't want to be forced to feel their emotions? To understand abstract art, I think you have to be open to what emotion the art provokes. If you're completely insensitive or closed off, it'll just look like garbage.
Actually, they/we do, and have, for generations. All those substance addictions didn't come out of nowhere (just an example).
Kiss at the beginning entertained the same age group Bieber does now. The difference is that the biggest Kiss fans are now older, but they still listen. I suppose Bieber's fans will do the same when they're in their 40s and 50s.
Ai yi yi... If 2011 Carol Kaye had Esperanza's voice and played double, same phrasing, same everything... no way/how/suh would she get the press Esperanza is getting. X% of Esperanza's "right" is because she's gorgeous. And that's a big part of being popular these days, may have been ever since people were able to see what their musical heroes look like.
Your answer reads as tho every jazz musician has the goal of being as popular as Kiss or even Esperanza. There's some middle ground, where you can reach out to those who are entertained by what you do well. It may be wrong of me, but I interpreted the OP's post as asking why even that isn't happeneing like it once did.
Jazz doesn't do anything.
People who play jazz may think they have a reasonable expectation that listeners, seeing that there isn't the same visual aspect present that they'd get from a Ringling Bros. or Kiss or David Copperfield show, will conclude that the music isn't a background for a skit or trick or gymnastic endeavor and use more of their aural sense.
Those musicians may be wrong to define "listener" in such a Webster-esque manner.
They may also think they have a reasonable grasp of a Webster-esque definition of "entertainment" and feel that it can occur without a skit or trick or gymnastic endeavor.
They may be wrong about that as well.
This might have been a better start to your post. It cuts through all the other rationalizing and attacks brain usage from jump. Honest and direct.
In terms of popularity is Spalding really all that significant? I've never heard of her outside TalkBass. I know from Wikipedia she won a Grammy.
This is in no way a comment on her music of course. Just I think there are better examples of jazz performers having mainstream success. Norah Jones, Diana Krall, Michael Bublee and Jamie Cullum for starters.
This is in no way a comment on her music of course. Just I think there are better examples of jazz performers having mainstream success. Norah Jones, Diana Krall, Michael Bublee and Jamie Cullum for starters.
Jazz IS, and always has been Cool! More and more people aren't cool, they're neurotic and emotional and frustrated. ( I should know I've dated most of them.) Thats why all this whiney & complain-loaded lyrical music is popular. Cause it plays right into their negative emotions and desires and not into positive and creative sounds and rhythms that get the mind and body groovin.
My prescription for a real good time: pop some MDMA and listen to Charlie Parker
My prescription for a real good time: pop some MDMA and listen to Charlie Parker
Eric Hochberg said:
Interesting. Would you consider Sinatra or Bing Crosby jazz performers?
I think jazz is a pretty broad church. I would agree that there are pop elements to Jones, Buble and Cullum but I would say the jazz influences are very clear.
