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
Jhengsman said:
Yeah but people will always want to see living breathing humans play music. Plus a dj is hardly taking jazz gigs away.
Hopefully more so these days, now that every recording ever is right there on youtube... music isn't really special unless it's live.
Damn, I deleted that post you quoted because othefool's stuff was so good and I didn't want to distract from it.
But since it lives on....I posed the question as an analogy. As a jazz player I've experienced this...classical musicians who have awesome technique but just can't make it sound right. Just like what I have heard with some (not all) jazz musicians who try to play rock or folk.
Don't know if this is relevant but... over the summer I went to a dance performance and classical music performance. Looking around at the audience I saw baby boomers and older folks. Maybe the last generation raised to appreciate live art performance in these venues. Same could be said for Jazz. It's not just "what happened to jazz" it's "what's happened to live music appreciation"
Jazz music is not as popular as other styles of music because it takes time and effort to fully appreciate it.
Time and effort are two things not too many people are willing to commit to unfortunately.
Time and effort are two things not too many people are willing to commit to unfortunately.
In America they mixed popularity with talent and so we're stuck with talentless people making music to access popularity. It isn't about the music anymore. Music is more of a background thing to go along the lyric and the show.
Doing so, you play less complexe music because few people really learn music, they take a guitar and a bass, figure out a chord or two and bingo they can sing a love song for girl to dance to.
Also, guitar/bass/pop sing/drum are easy to play, you can have a good sound after few hours. Before you don't sound like a cat being tortured when you play arco on a violin it takes many months to do so, classical music is a challenge to play and so is the instruments.
Last thing, classical musician and jazz musician aren't the best looking person. In this days it is a big minus. And on top of being not the best looking person they are extremly educated in music. Nowaday people seem to prefer a stupid person over someone who know a lot of stuff.
Careful now I got in trouble early in the thread for pointing out Pat Metheny's look. But in general I don't think its true. Sure most Jazz singers don't look as good as Diana Krall but most Pop/Rock singers don't either. Age may be more of a factor a young lion my erupt in jazz say Tal or Esmerlda today but many are sitting on their hands waiting for them to "mature" as an artist. while a Pop/Rock star has his hottest years as a late teen, young adult and while he may become an elder respected artist all of the ink goes to the new teen on the scene.
Ok, on a more optimistic note...there is a jazz jam every Tuesday night in a restaurant in my town, tiny spot for an audience, small bar. Man, is it happening though. People pack in, young players, old guys, pros, high school singers who want to strut their stuff, everyone appreciates the scene and the vibe. It's not a paying gig for anyone but it brings people together to appreciate jazz, musicianship while having a drink and catching up with friends. Jazz appreciation has to be cultivated by the musicians and the community.
Careful now I got in trouble early in the thread for pointing out Pat Metheny's look. But in general I don't think its true. Sure most Jazz singers don't look as good as Diana Krall but most Pop/Rock singers don't either. Age may be more of a factor a young lion my erupt in jazz say Tal or Esmerlda today but many are sitting on their hands waiting for them to "mature" as an artist. while a Pop/Rock star has his hottest years as a late teen, young adult and while he may become an elder respected artist all of the ink goes to the new teen on the scene.
Well I saw some photos or paint of many classical composer and they aren't going to be on any magazines. It was just to say, image is more important than anything else in pop/rock domaine
powerbass said:
When time permits I sit in at a similar session in a coffee house near me. They are out there.
That's funny. I think if you check out the European and Asian jazz scene it seems like the patrons ears are still connected to their brains and don't take a detour through their retina. It easy to generalise though. I still enjoy Joe Diorio and Hal Galper. Their boyish figures are really intimidating. And those ear lobes down to their jaws can't be replicated by the young trendy GQ studs.
Fingers - this is your chance to enumerate and introduce these guys to your Hal Galper assessment of his accoutrements and God given jazz plumbing.
And where are you Les? Talkbass' very own Neuroscientist.
Popularity is a relationship between the artist and the public. To make something popular, the artist and the public both have to cooperate. What is it about jazz? There is certainly a popular image that jazz isn't meant to be popular. But I think it may also be the case that jazz doesn't attract the musicians who are interested gaining mass popular recognition.
Judging from the BG forums, rock musicians are disappointed if young people don't show up and dance or drink. I know that I simply don't share that motivation. I am happy if there is one person in the room paying attention and appreciating the music, and am equally happy if that person is 20 or 80.
Judging from the BG forums, rock musicians are disappointed if young people don't show up and dance or drink. I know that I simply don't share that motivation. I am happy if there is one person in the room paying attention and appreciating the music, and am equally happy if that person is 20 or 80.
I think this happens to music in cycles, in 'revolutions'. Pop gets bad/uncreative, musicians get frustrated and bursting with creativity. I'm at a point now where I'd rather do a scene like this than any 'paying gig'(within reason; if Sting calls up with a busted hand, I'm there!
).I wasn't there; only 40 years young, but I imagine jazz started in some similar way. It's really up to us...
IMO they tend to be older (duh), gainfully employed outside of music (at least live music- play with a lot of uni music instructors and retired military jazz banders), married, maybe with kids, that sort of thing.
+100
And in a lot of cases, that situation suits. Wine-tasting parties, food-tasting parties, art exhibits, political fundraisers, indie film previews, private parties, building groundbreaking events- you're not the focus on any of those but you still get paid- maybe paid even more, because the people hosting have more money to spend on this one thing while a club owner has to spend every week or more. And you don't have to deal with tune requests as much- nothing like having someone come up and ask for Satin Doll midway thru a set of stuff that doesn't sound like Satin Doll.
What's the ratio of "main focus" gigs to "background" gigs, especially in small towns (pop. of less than 500K) that usually don't have a central jazz scene?
I think there is a marketing demographic at work. It is easier for me at 50 to get jazz, blues and classical work than indie rock. It happens I like all those styles, but I go where the work is. It's hard to project as an angry young man out to change the world messed up by your parents when you are 50.
I always take the money that's going and push for more, but one of the reasons I stopped being fulltime was so that I could select gigs on the basis of what I wanted to do rather than what made the most money. I suppose there must be some players so good they can make a comfortable living playing whatever they want, but I am not in that league.
I would play a jazz freebie over a $500 per night death metal gig any day - not that I have had to make that decision in the real world!
I actually find we get as many requests in jazz bands. I don't mind that we are background....someone tapping their foot or nodding to the music is as good to me as a full dance floor.
What's a "jazz freebie"? You have to get paid something. You're telling me you would work for free. Not a good thing at all IMHO! Once you do that, you don't get paid and others don't get paid. Things get real uncomfortable with no bread.I suppose there must be some players so good they can make a comfortable living playing whatever they want, but I am not in that league.
I would play a jazz freebie over a $500 per night death metal gig any day - not that I have had to make that decision in the real world!
I actually find we get as many requests in jazz bands. I don't mind that we are background....someone tapping their foot or nodding to the music is as good to me as a full dance floor.
What's a "jazz freebie"? You have to get paid something. You're telling me you would work for free. Not a good thing at all IMHO! Once you do that, you don't get paid and others don't get paid. Things get real uncomfortable with no bread.
I think he meant, "forced to choose". I didn't get from his post that he actually plays for free or anything, just that he'd do so before playing death metal for $500.
Frankly, if it was a one-time thing only and the freebie didn't feature anyone I'd always wanted to play alongside, I'd take the death metal gig and allow the $500 to make me feel better about it.
