• 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)

#446
The first question you have to ask yourself is WHAT is the meaning of the word JAZZ?
Is it even possible to define such an abstract art form phenomenon that jazz is!
Personally I dont like the homogenised view on music styles that many people have!
 
#447
my take on the issue is this:

people want easy. call it a societal disease, call it a result of classism, call it what you will. people by and large don't like effort. they don't like beauty. an entire generation is slowly growing who were raised by TV and incredibly low quality public education, indoctrinated with the consumer mentality. an entire generation who barely know who jimi hendrix is, much less benny goodman, miles davis, beethoven, etc. 4/4 with a generic rock band setup just seems to be the easiest music to identify with in a society where WHAT you are is far more important than WHO you are in terms of group sociology.

hey, who put this soap box here? :bassist:
 
#448
punkinfantry said:
my take on the issue is this:

people want easy. call it a societal disease, call it a result of classism, call it what you will. people by and large don't like effort. they don't like beauty. an entire generation is slowly growing who were raised by TV and incredibly low quality public education, indoctrinated with the consumer mentality. an entire generation who barely know who jimi hendrix is, much less benny goodman, miles davis, beethoven, etc. 4/4 with a generic rock band setup just seems to be the easiest music to identify with in a society where WHAT you are is far more important than WHO you are in terms of group sociology.

hey, who put this soap box here? :bassist:
Click to expand...

A comment on the easy thing.

I work at a bloody demanding job. I have raised four children, care for aging parents. Taken on extra postgraduate university study for work and now supporting wife in same. Maintained my house - painting, gardening, cutting firewood, etc,

You know what. If I do all that and then decide to spend the few precious hours on music that is simple but pleasant to me, vs studying something I don't like because someone else says it has virtue, I see nothing wrong with that.

That must be why I spend relaxation time studying Simandl :)
 
#449
fingerbun said:
I think you are nailing the point. I think there's a lot here who would agree with you, and probably many would add some criteria on technical proficiency.

My view is different. Improvisations occurs in many musical genres, and has for centuries. And to me something like big band jazz is very tightly scripted - but that's just the mechanics of the performance.
Click to expand...

I don't think your view is different-I did not state that improvisation happens only in jazz. Indeed improvisation is part of practically all musical cultures incl. classical music up until 1830.

Hey, that very first note of music ever played at the dawn of humankind-what else can that note have been but improvised? :cool:

And big band jazz, tightly scripted into sheet music indeed as it is often done these days- (Ellington and Basie in the 30ties certainly didnt play like that!), to me that is indeed as borderline jazz as, say, Norah Jones.

Derek Bailey in his book on improvising made some pointed remarks about how far jazz and improvisation have drifted apart since the eighties. Nowadays great improvised music is played by quite capable musicians who can wail over any standard if they'd want to, that is not deemed jazz by the jazz police. I guess I am just an idealist who likes to see the two get back together again :)
 
#450
punkinfantry said:
my take on the issue is this:

people want easy. call it a societal disease, call it a result of classism, call it what you will. people by and large don't like effort. they don't like beauty. an entire generation is slowly growing who were raised by TV and incredibly low quality public education, indoctrinated with the consumer mentality. an entire generation who barely know who jimi hendrix is, much less benny goodman, miles davis, beethoven, etc. 4/4 with a generic rock band setup just seems to be the easiest music to identify with in a society where WHAT you are is far more important than WHO you are in terms of group sociology.

hey, who put this soap box here? :bassist:
Click to expand...

I agree, but then again if you change TV to radio and change the names of the musicians this is what Gramps said to dad in 1957. Give it a few years, jazz will be back. Hopefully it will kill rap.
 
#451
fingerbun said:
A comment on the easy thing.

I work at a bloody demanding job. I have raised four children, care for aging parents. Taken on extra postgraduate university study for work and now supporting wife in same. Maintained my house - painting, gardening, cutting firewood, etc,

You know what. If I do all that and then decide to spend the few precious hours on music that is simple but pleasant to me, vs studying something I don't like because someone else says it has virtue, I see nothing wrong with that.

That must be why I spend relaxation time studying Simandl :)
Click to expand...

There are a bunch of people who don't do what you do, have time to try to study the genre either as players, listeners or both, choose not to- and instead of leaving it at that --which would be fine-- they heap scorn on jazz for not being "easy", and in a backhanded compliment kinda way, on people who play it and enjoy it.

I think most people have heard several jazz or jazz-esque tunes that they like without really thinking about it. The Henry Mancini Panther stuff, the Vince Guaraldi Peanuts stuff, the theme songs of Hanna-Barbera cartoons, the Warner Bros. cartoons, the 50s, 60s and 70s crime drama TV theme songs... removed from the context of "TV music", all of that would be considered jazz by the general public, regardless of whether TBers agree about how much of it is or isn't.

Truth is, the music is popular enough, in terms of recognized (by the public) classics. The problem is that when someone comes along and calls it jazz, these same people get nervous and think they're about to have to study something because jazz musicians have to.

Punkinfantry's right in the sense that people do now seem to listen to music that might not have required as much study as jazz for the people who play it. I don't know whether "hard" has any merit if "easy" accomplishes the goal, but if "hard" is required to reach the goal, well, it is what it is.
 
#460
Of modern Jazz, nothing like being a minority in a minority, clinging to one another for support. Played bass for 40 years, nothing in modern Jazz gets me dancing, on or off stage. If you enjoy your modern Jazz, great. Spare the rest of us, that for many modern jazz players, we appear not to understand, we do understand well, we do not care for modern jazz, just has no pleasure to the ear. Enjoy your jazz at home or rare venues, as opposed many modern venues have jazz as muzac backround, the punters could care less. Regards.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back