• 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)

#665
Damon Rondeau said:
It's true: there was indeed a time when Take Five was a bona fide pop phenom. Speaking for myself and my late Boomer colleagues, it was largely part of our parents' music from the late 50's, early 60's, and *they* bought and played the record in large numbers. But a lot of 70's stoner record collections would have a few jazz albums, and chances were very, very good you'd see either "Kind of Blue" or "Take Five" in there. Interesting both those albums are from the same year: 1959.
Click to expand...

That's the thing isn't it - in 1959, Jazz was the popular music of the day in the way that rock and pop became it, in the 60s.

So - if you were into music and buying albums of the best modern music - then in 1959 it was Jazz that was "hip" and selling to young people interested in music.

It's funny - I heard a piece on the radio this week, where they were talking to a little kid and he was saying how he liked the Beatles and other 60s pop and it was basically - isn't this weird, young people liking this archaic form of music!!?? :eyebrow:

I also heard from parents I know, how their young children really enjoyed seeing the Who at the Olympics closing ceremony. For us - they are past their sell-by date rockers - but for a new generation - it's something they have never
heard and is exciting!

Maybe in a few years, they will go back slightly further and discover how amazing Jazz can be!!? :smug:
 
#666
Bruce Lindfield said:
I also heard from parents I know, how their young children really enjoyed seeing the Who at the Olympics closing ceremony. For us - they are past their sell-by date rockers - but for a new generation - it's something they have never
heard and is exciting!

Maybe in a few years, they will go back slightly further and discover how amazing Jazz can be!!? :smug:
Click to expand...
That's happened at least 3 times since 1983 when I graduated college. I remember going to Beach Boys concerts and Dead concerts back in the 70s and 80s and feeling the same. And when I caught up with Jimmy Rainey at Gullivers or Joe Pass solo at the Vanguard I thought this is truly new. Ha. LOL
 
#669
That's the thing isn't it - in 1959, Jazz was the popular music of the day in the way that rock and pop became it, in the 60s.

Bruce,
I don't know how it was across the pond, but jazz never was the popular music of the day over here. Unless you consider Sinatra, Como and Steve and Edie, Ella and all the other great pop singers and the bands that introduced them to be jazz. And even they were rapidly becoming less popular than rock and roll.
 
#670
cire113 said:
I'm just wondering why Jazz really isn't as popular as other music as far as mainstream is concerned..

Don't get me wrong i know a lot f people love jazz.. But i think you understand what I'm asking here...

Is it because a lot of jazz is too sophisticated for normal people to listen to? I often find people say jazz is boring and doesn't really do anything besides put them to sleep..

Again I know plenty of people love Jazz but I'm trying to understand why its appeal really is so low in mass audience...
Click to expand...

Cause to me at times , it has no form. Just goes along, basically saying nothing to me.
 
#672
Bassmunnky said:
AT one time..Jazz WAS the Pop music of the day...then those songs became 'covers'...

There is an entire Generation of people who are discovering music with a BILLION different choices...

Pop CRAP will always exist...but Mom and Dad's 'record collection' ain't what it used to be.
Click to expand...
I thought they became standards, it was only when the singers started penning their own songs with blues and rock stars did standards become covers and something to be avoided.
 
#674
Don Higdon said:
Patronize me, please. What do you mean by "standards became covers"?
Click to expand...
Covers have a different connotation thus the original band versus cover band threads which come up. Standards on the other hand are part of the book of songs a jazz act will be asked to play without the the prejudice attached because they did not write that song.

A pop band playing "covers" will be seen as an act which will never move beyond a certain local level of popularity. Meanwhile almost all jazz acts, except those on the very top are almost expected to have a collection of standards so that the audience recognizes the head.

it was with the rise of blues, rock and roll, R&B and pop that the band wrote their own songs and other bands hoping to reach their level also had to write their own songs, they could not play what would have been a steady supply of standards in the jazz world
 
#675
Jhengsman said:
Covers have a different connotation thus the original band versus cover band threads which come up. Standards on the other hand are part of the book of songs a jazz act will be asked to play without the the prejudice attached because they did not write that song.

A pop band playing "covers" will be seen as an act which will never move beyond a certain local level of popularity. Meanwhile almost all jazz acts, except those on the very top are almost expected to have a collection of standards so that the audience recognizes the head.

it was with the rise of blues, rock and roll, R&B and pop that the band wrote their own songs and other bands hoping to reach their level also had to write their own songs, they could not play what would have been a steady supply of standards in the jazz world
Click to expand...

Yikes!
 
#676
Bassmunnky said:
AT one time..Jazz WAS the Pop music of the day...then those songs became 'covers'...
Click to expand...

I believe thats backwords, jazz musicians would take pop tunes and show tunes and cover them. Fyi take a look at The Bad Plus as a modern day example of what went on back in the day. Best older example would be Stella by Starlight.
 
#677
gerry grable said:
Yikes!
Click to expand...
Yikes is right.:o There's something bothersome when consumers call jazz standards "Pop music." I here that often. Something about that assessment seems off. Or, "Bop was just the music that was popular." Do you really think jazz listeners give a **** about what's popular. The "what's popular" concept is a new thing. It's Enterainment Tonight when they give box office numbers for a movie. The concept that the consumer will take monetary success into account when deciding to purchase a product is what's being projected onto jazz music. We have a world full of CPAs......countin', figurin', projectin' and inspectin'. That's too bad. Very bad grooming I say. Always counting other peoples money. What does that have to do with music?
 
#679
ChuckCorbisiero said:
Yikes is right.:o There's something bothersome when consumers call jazz standards "Pop music." I here that often. Something about that assessment seems off. Or, "Bop was just the music that was popular." Do you really think jazz listeners give a **** about what's popular.
Click to expand...

I believe that what is really meant by the "popular" moniker is that many jazz standards were/are "covers/extrapolations-on" songs that were once popular. I would argue that this distinction is an incredibly important one in many ways, as it correlates directly to the audience's recognition of and relation to the vehicles that the musicians are using for their improvisations. If there is already a connection in the listener to the form, melody, and harmony of a song, they are more likely to be able to relate to a personalized deconstruction and reconstruction of it. If they don't recognize it in the first place, they are much less likely to take the trouble to understand it. As the "jazz audience" ages, the songs in the collective consciousness of the listening base changes as the younger audiences are not familiar with or not as familiar with the tin pan alley songs from musicals from the early part of the last century.

If a song was "popular" enough to be in the head of its generation of listener, then that generation will have a stronger intrinsic kinship with an improvisation based on it. If jazz musicians want a younger audience to relate to their music in the way that the audience of the greats in history did, this is one important aspect to consider. Of course it opens up the whole conservative naysayer mantra of "kids today.... they don't make 'em (songs) like they used to", but that's really a separate argument, and one that I often personally find to be a cop out of one sort or another. All IMO and YMWCB, of course. :)
 
#680
There is a recent study that I stumbled on a few weeks ago of music made during the past 30 years and how static and repetitive it is in melodies, chords, and even lyrics. If I can find it again, I'll post the link here, unless someone can beat me to it.

For me, I like many styles of music, and there are those I can stand at all. But jazz from the 50s and 60s has always been my favorite. I live in a town with a music-oriented high school that has a separate jazz department. Many of the kids that come out of it have caught the bug for that music and appreciate how intricate and challenging it can be, and they're working hard to get that stuff down. I'm sure they'll each put their own twists on it, of course—but that's great.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back