Buble's repertoire consists mainly of big band jazz performances. How is he not a jazz performer?
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
Buble's repertoire consists mainly of big band jazz performances. How is he not a jazz performer?
No, unless you think the occasional, short instrumental solos within the tunes make it jazz. I also don't think "jazz influences" makes one a jazz performer.
He doesn't sound like jazz to me, I don't care what the backing arrangements imply.
Eric Hochberg said:
So your definition of jazz includes extended instrumental breaks as a mandatory component?
Not going to address your choices, but why didn't you list any pure musicians? Two of these are singers only (on stage, at least) and the other two play, but AFAIK only as accompaniment to their singing. Nat King Cole was an excellent pianist, but it wasn't his playing that made him famous. Are we getting into "gotta have a frontman/woman who sings" territory?
3 play/sing and one sings, AFAIK. IMO, Diana Krall and Esperanza are pure musicians, maybe Jamie Cullum, too. I'm not persuaded by Buble, so far. Vocalists can be pure musicians and jazz artists, too.
The original question
Perhaps because mainstream popularity largely depends upon a charismatic front man speaking to you in a language you understand? Most instrumentalist in the pop/rock/R&B world ride the coattails of their singer. They are known in large part because they are a member of the band or they sing the lead line themselves.
I understand Diana Krall is suppose to be excellent on piano also, I never noticed.
Perhaps because mainstream popularity largely depends upon a charismatic front man speaking to you in a language you understand? Most instrumentalist in the pop/rock/R&B world ride the coattails of their singer. They are known in large part because they are a member of the band or they sing the lead line themselves.
I understand Diana Krall is suppose to be excellent on piano also, I never noticed.
By "pure", I meant "plays an extracorporal instrument". That's just me, and I'm sure we're both comfy with our take.
I'm interested in why he didn't list people who don't have to resort to singing to make whatever name they have, because singers can sometimes attract fans that musicians cannot, for whatever reason. Probably something about how some people are wired to connect more deeply with a human voice. That alone could make an already great ensemble more popular but create an unnecessary distraction for fans of instrument players.
EDIT: Jhengsman, you posted while I was typing. My last para here addresses some of what you said, tho.
Well, seeing as it's the end of the day at work and the thread was derailed a long time ago, I may as well get into an interesting discussion.
Surely an artist is defined by what they do most of the time? Michael Buble sings big band tunes and gained his fame doing so. Also, according to wiki, he grew up listening to jazz and loves the music. He even take pop songs and turns them into big bang covers (e.g. Crazy little thing called love). So in my books he's a jazz singer and we can agree to disagree about this point.
Surely an artist is defined by what they do most of the time? Michael Buble sings big band tunes and gained his fame doing so. Also, according to wiki, he grew up listening to jazz and loves the music. He even take pop songs and turns them into big bang covers (e.g. Crazy little thing called love). So in my books he's a jazz singer and we can agree to disagree about this point.
One last point here, just because an artist uses big band backing arrangements and mimics Sinatra, Dean Martin, etc from a bygone pop era, doesn't make it jazz. Listen to Ellington, Basie, etc. It's just not the same spirit or intent.
Perhaps because mainstream popularity largely depends upon a charismatic front man speaking to you in a language you understand? Most instrumentalist in the pop/rock/R&B world ride the coattails of their singer. They are known in large part because they are a member of the band or they sing the lead line themselves.
Actually, I don't hold out much hope that tons of people with no familiarity with a musical instrument will ever be attracted to jazz the way they are to Justin Bieber or Kiss. But I can't see how a player would turn his or her nose up at jazz (and then cover up whatever issues they have by playing the snob card). They're, y'know... supposed to understand the language of music, which includes jazz along with everything else.
Well, who's going to call up Ella and tell her she's not jazz because she's "resorting to singing".
You seem to define jazz as being those parts of jazz you like, and you seem to imply that any popular music, by definition, is not jazz. Gee I hope one of your favourite albums goes number one on the mainstream charts so you can't listen to it any more.
Not me- Ella's dead, bro. "Resorting to singing" does not equal "Not jazz" IMO. And I wouldn't dare include her in that "resorting" group anyhow, for reasons I really can't put my finger on except that she was earlier than the current singers. I won't try to insult you or anyone else here by tossing out a bunch of intangibles about any music as tho they qualify as real data. I just wouldn't say that about her, and I'll leave it at that.
I'll admit that I don't have a lot of her in my collection, and that I can live the rest of my life without hearing anyone scat and be fine.
I wanted to see some examples of instrumental jazz that you think is or can become popular. I mentioned it only because singers can often increase this whole popularity thing, making your examples a bit pointless to someone who isn't so into vocal jazz. That's all. You took the slightly snarky "resort to" bit and ran with it.
Huh? I haven't made any statement at all about what is and is not jazz. Are you certain you're not replying to someone else's post here?
People who tell you what is not jazz without following up in that same post with what IS jazz are trolling, or they're thinking you're trolling. I'm doing neither. It's rude in person and rude online.
Gee I hope one of your favourite albums goes number one on the mainstream charts so you can't listen to it any more.
Should anything like that ever happen, I'll hang my head in shame all the way to the bank
I have a lot more "mainstream" music in my collection than you might think. War, Wings, Police, U2, Seals & Crofts, Fleetwood Mac, Harry Nillson, Elton John, etc.
Seriously dude your reasoning aren't constructive rather argumentative and pathetic beginning to think that you only here on this forum to bait people. If you don't get jazz that is entirely your business and we don't care. This whole thread should be closed as it is offensive to hear and read three note experts bashing jazz and asking silly questions such as the importance of Spalding!!!!! Get back to Quatro I say. Spaldings eloquent music simply for people appreciate pure beauty on every level!
Not me- Ella's dead, bro. "Resorting to singing" does not equal "Not jazz" IMO. And I wouldn't dare include her in that "resorting" group anyhow, for reasons I really can't put my finger on except that she was earlier than the current singers. I won't try to insult you or anyone else here by tossing out a bunch of intangibles about any music as tho they qualify as real data. I just wouldn't say that about her, and I'll leave it at that.
I'll admit that I don't have a lot of her in my collection, and that I can live the rest of my life without hearing anyone scat and be fine.
I wanted to see some examples of instrumental jazz that you think is or can become popular. I mentioned it only because singers can often increase this whole popularity thing, making your examples a bit pointless to someone who isn't so into vocal jazz. That's all. You took the slightly snarky "resort to" bit and ran with it.
Huh? I haven't made any statement at all about what is and is not jazz. Are you certain you're not replying to someone else's post here?
People who tell you what is not jazz without following up in that same post with what IS jazz are trolling, or they're thinking you're trolling. I'm doing neither. It's rude in person and rude online.
Should anything like that ever happen, I'll hang my head in shame all the way to the bank
I have a lot more "mainstream" music in my collection than you might think. War, Wings, Police, U2, Seals & Crofts, Fleetwood Mac, Harry Nillson, Elton John, etc.
First, I apologise. You are right to call me....I took various comments, interpreted them (possibly wrongly) and replied quoting you when not all the ideas were yours.
As to what can become popular....well I don't think popularity matters. My personal opinion is that the longer a piece is, the more ideas it needs to sustain it. I'm not someone who enjoys solos for their own sake.
But then the jazz that I like really has its roots either in stuff that I heard as a kid (40's pop basically...Andrews Sisters, Gene Krupa, Bing, Miller, etc) or stuff that I have been exposed to by playing it in bands. I am not personally excited by displays of virtuousity per se, in any style (not just jazz).
I've found Christian McBrice excites me and makes me want to hear more. I've spent a fair bit of time trying to appreciate Mingus but he doesn't move me. Really my favourite jazz pieces are mostly 40's stuff
I can't explain the logic. I have spent far more time playing jazz than orchestral (if you count time spent on electric before I took up upright) yet I am far more likely to be moved by orchestral pieces. I think it's just personal taste.
Dunno if that helps. What is it that makes you prefer jazz? Is it a conscious decision or did something just click?
Edit : for the record I am not trolling. I started by seeking to answer a genuine question, and at the moment I feel I am learning something from the exchange.
Timobee, if you feel insulted by me, I am sorry. That is not my intention. On the other hand, I have tried to discuss facts with you, and felt that you have only thrown personal abuse.
Out of courtesy and a wish not to further offend you, I am going to attempt to ignore your posts from now. Sorry we couldn't have a more constructive exchange of ideas.
