Double Bass Why isn't Jazz that popular? (DB forum thread)

[Nashrakh]

I don't quite like the 'cuz people are dumb' argument as I think it does not hold true. I mean, let's look at what the average listener - if there is such a person - listens to. You'll find it is mainly music that is played on radio and TV stations (duh!), and they'll for the most part take what they get. I'm also thinking of people highly influenced by such pop culture in general who embrace the things which are advertised as the next big thing.

So far so good. But instead of saying people are dumb to put up with what they are spoonfed, I'd look at the other end of the radio transmission. There are certain parties with specific interests who make the broadcasting program. I won't get too political here, but let's say their interest (and necessity of interest) lies in the generation of profit. They will produce and broadcast what has a high turnover. So what do they go with?

Most likely what is already tried and true with the latest flavor of hipness. So we should think of this as some kind of vicious circle. Considering the massive amount of sponsored radio airplay and advertisement, it's easy to see that a lot of money makes even more money. The thing is, because people accept what is given them, change is not to be expected because there is no conflict of interests to get things rolling.

But is it because people are 'dumb' that they accept as good what is propagated as good? This is a question that goes beyond taste in music and cinema (I think it's a core question of social sciences if the question was formulated differently). To me, that's simply how people behave without making a judgment about it.

Might as well ask, why isn't Dada popular. My answer would be, because it is not in the focus of the target market ('the mainstream'), make of that what you will. I take no offense by it and enjoy what I enjoy listening to... Not like this is a matter of grave concern to most of us.

 

[AtomicPunk]

Chicks can't dance to it.

 

[Huy Nguyen]

Actually I think that's kind of a valid point, as boorish as it may be.

Jazz is not conducive to macking out on women in a large scale, at least not as much as other music styles. Sex sells and it ain't the 60's anymore.

So does alcohol. People don't get drunk off their asses and request to hear Kind of Blue.

 

[bass12]

Most of the guys I know who play jazz got into it because they were either forced to (in school) or because they wanted to challenge themselves musically - it wasn't because they loved listening to the music. I appreciate the talent that goes into being a good jazz musician (and there is jazz that I very much enjoy) but, quite frankly, I get bored listening to a lot of the jazz I encounter. Too much of it is little more than musical masturbation. Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with masturbation, just don't be surprised if people aren't interested in watching as you do it.

 

[Clef_de_fa]

I have the feeling in our modern culture that everything that is complicated is automatically sh**. It is to go fast no one stop and really appreciate something.

also, for many people, the moment an artist is a tad better than what the mainstream music produce ... it is labelled as pretentious, elitist ... I understand that the moment some musician went into free jazz and serialism , they lost everyone and since then, music become more and more simpler moving away from art to only entertainment.

 

[Jack Clark]

I have the feeling in our modern culture that everything that is complicated is automatically sh**. It is to go fast no one stop and really appreciate something.

also, for many people, the moment an artist is a tad better than what the mainstream music produce ... it is labelled as pretentious, elitist ...

Yes, it seems to me that young people these days are celebrating mediocrity—maybe because that means that they have a chance at fame too, I dunno.

The concept of "mastery" seems to have gone out of art, too. My view is that if you're standing there taking in visual or musical art and you say to the person next to you, "How do you get to be that good?" And the person looks at you as if you just said something daft . . . then it's not art.

 

[Jack Clark]

Most of the guys I know who play jazz got into it because they were either forced to (in school) or because they wanted to challenge themselves musically - it wasn't because they loved listening to the music. I appreciate the talent that goes into being a good jazz musician (and there is jazz that I very much enjoy) but, quite frankly, I get bored listening to a lot of the jazz I encounter. Too much of it is little more than musical masturbation. Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with masturbation, just don't be surprised if people aren't interested in watching as you do it.

Well, I can understand your feelings, I think, although my similar feelings go in the opposite direction. Three-chord songs with crappy lyrics don't fascinate me. For me, that's musical masturbation, as you put it. You can't really be interested in "watching" (listening to?) that, can you?

 

[Huy Nguyen]

Most of the guys I know who play jazz got into it because they were either forced to (in school) or because they wanted to challenge themselves musically - it wasn't because they loved listening to the music. I appreciate the talent that goes into being a good jazz musician (and there is jazz that I very much enjoy) but, quite frankly, I get bored listening to a lot of the jazz I encounter. Too much of it is little more than musical masturbation. Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with masturbation, just don't be surprised if people aren't interested in watching as you do it.

The other part of it is half or most of those guys think that being able to play 16th note runs qualifies for virtuosity and musicality. That **** is boring as well. At lot of notes but not much being said. Same goes with musical complexity - that just because something is complex, it is musical. Not always true. It's fine people play for themselves first, but too much of it, you also lose the audience. Again, simple isn't easy.

These days, I'm attracted by anything that has a strong melody or provide some sort of strong emotional feel.

 

[N. Kentucky Bass]

Well, I can't understand your feelings, I think, although my similar feelings go in the opposite direction. Three-chord songs with crapy lyrics don't fascinate me. For me, that's musical masturbation, as you put it. You can't really be interested in "watching" (listening to?) that, can you?

I agree with you. However, when an audience is stoned or drunk, 3 chords is about all many can handle so they appreciate the simplistic familiarity of that music. Perhaps jazz makes them too dizzy.

 

[bass12]

The other part of it is half or most of those guys think that being able to play 16th note runs qualifies for virtuosity and musicality. That **** is boring as well. At lot of notes but not much being said. Same goes with musical complexity - that just because something is complex, it is musical. Not always true. It's fine people play for themselves first, but too much of it, you also lose the audience. Again, simple isn't easy.

These days, I'm attracted by anything that has a strong melody or provide some sort of strong emotional feel.

I think you're spot on. Someone above mentioned the loss of focus on "mastery" but, in a sense, I think there's often too much of a focus on technical mastery and not enough of a focus on actually making music. I don't necessarily care how "complex" a piece of music is - the most important thing is that it affect me a certain way. I can derive pleasure from listening to a techno track that focuses on texture more than chord changes just as I can derive pleasure from listening to McCoy Tyner blowing over a set of complex changes. But when it comes to a lot of the jazz I'm hearing nowadays it's virtuosity in the place of music making and that makes me lose interest very quickly.

 

[ERIC A]

The issue to me is that once the improvisation starts, the crowd becomes disinterested. I often think that at some point the soloists are only playing for themselves. From my own experience, I have found that once the soloists have played through the form more than two times, they are starting to lose me (and I am in the band). That is unless they are amazing improvisationalists. The whole point as I understand it is when you are soloing over changes that the goal is to create a new melody. Let's be honest, that doesn't happen to often. Just my opinion.

 

[Jack Clark]

The issue to me is that once the improvisation starts, the crowd becomes disinterested. I often think that at some point the soloists are only playing for themselves. From my own experience, I have found that once the soloists have played through the form more than two times, they are starting to lose me (and I am in the band). That is unless they are amazing improvisationalists. The whole point as I understand it is when you are soloing over changes that the goal is to create a new melody. Let's be honest, that doesn't happen to often. Just my opinion.

Well, I can agree with you to some extent. I personally like original improvisation that either stays within reach of the melody (and touches bases with it from time to time) or that clearly is playing off the changes harmonically. I do not enjoy totally chromatic stuff that seems as if the soloist would play it no matter what the changes were or even what tune was being played. But maybe that's just my own lack of sophistication in failing to recognize chord substitutions and harmonies that are more complex than my ears can appreciate. That is pretty much what it comes down to, isn't it? What each individual's ears can appreciate?

 

[dvh]

The other part of it is half or most of those guys think that being able to play 16th note runs qualifies for virtuosity and musicality. That **** is boring as well. At lot of notes but not much being said. Same goes with musical complexity - that just because something is complex, it is musical. Not always true. It's fine people play for themselves first, but too much of it, you also lose the audience. Again, simple isn't easy.

These days, I'm attracted by anything that has a strong melody or provide some sort of strong emotional feel.

I think you're spot on. Someone above mentioned the loss of focus on "mastery" but, in a sense, I think there's often too much of a focus on technical mastery and not enough of a focus on actually making music. I don't necessarily care how "complex" a piece of music is - the most important thing is that it affect me a certain way. I can derive pleasure from listening to a techno track that focuses on texture more than chord changes just as I can derive from pleasure listening to McCoy Tyner blowing over a set of complex changes. But when it comes to a lot of the jazz I'm hearing nowadays it's virtuosity in the place of music making and that makes me lose interest very quickly.

This is exactly where I am at these days. Even though I can respect the mastery and intellectually I "get it", a lot of contemporary jazz just does not have the melodic or emotional content to engage me....

 

[Huy Nguyen]

I think you're spot on. Someone above mentioned the loss of focus on "mastery" but, in a sense, I think there's often too much of a focus on technical mastery and not enough of a focus on actually making music. I don't necessarily care how "complex" a piece of music is - the most important thing is that it affect me a certain way.

To paraphrase Fred Hersch, playing jazz is a craft (I'm sure the idea preceeds way before him). To which I'll extend to say it's not a science. Sometimes my musical friends will get completely hung up on a particular fancy phrase or lick and not pay attention to the entire arc of a solo. To the point where their solos can come out like that: potshots of fancy licks but not a lot of cohesion overall.

I'm with you, I listen to myself playing, and usually the weak points are where my solo becomes vague and not saying much though noises are being made. The point is that we're learning a language and we're learning how to communicate. If what's coming out is a bunch of noise with no message, the problem is obvious. I'm not into noise for the sake of noise. And the problem is apparent, I would guess that 70% of the time, I'm pretty unclear about what I'm play. That 30% is not bad but I need to get that number way up.

Jack & Eric, IMO what you're describing is the act of someone talking way over your head. If I pay to hear to lecture where the speaker is spouting things that I don't understand and don't care to elaborate in a way I can, well I'd fall asleep too. Now who's fault is it? Mine or the speakers? Certainly, I'm the captive audience, so why can't the speaker come down to where I understand what he's saying? He can always build back up from there.

 

[OmNomNom]

I think a lot of people have an aversion to jazz because some people who "represent" it come off as exclusive, snobbish, or elitist. And a handful do. I would compare it to wine or cigars - somehow in the past 30 years these things have come to be associated with sophistication or taste. The fact is, there was a time when these things were the norm. Heck, wine may have even been the first alcoholic beverage and is actually way simpler in its composition than most microbrewery beers out there. So they go in to listen to something that they believe is being played with the belief that the players are "holier than thou", and because it doesn't have the immediate abrasive or pumping approach of other styles of music.. they don't give it a chance. A friend of mine once said he doesn't like jazz because it's "all exactly the same".. well, listen to any style of music you aren't in to and it all sounds the same. Reggae has the upbeat guitar chords, classic rock has all of these minor pentatonic licks, rap is usually behind the beat, etc. And the fact of the matter is, there is a LOT of regurgitated jazz out there.. the "safe" jazz that is the tried-and-true renditions of old standards. This is what a lot of uninformed people think jazz is as a whole. I showed the aforementioned friend some fusion of the 70s such as John McLaughlin and Chick Corea and he was blown away by it, being a huge prog rock fan. I told him "these are all very well respected jazz musicians". Maybe gateways are the key?

 

[Jack Clark]

I agree with you. However, when an audience is stoned or drunk, 3 chords is about all many can handle so they appreciate the simplistic familiarity of that music. Perhaps jazz makes them too dizzy.

Yes, you must be right about that, Ukiah Bass.

 

[Tom Lane]

Okay, so this is an issue that near and dear to my heart and I've given it a lot of thought.
My two cents is that jazz is beyond the typically uneducated ear to appreciate. If you'll accept this premise, and I'm sure many won't, but the general tone of the conversation indicates otherwise. The cure to jazz's unpopularity is to educate the general listener. That can happen via edu-tainment or through cross-over artists like Esperaza Spaulding or Herbie Hancock, who draw listeners into putting more effort into their listening.
That said, a lot of jazz solos are not very good, so in that sense, it's reasonable that the general public is bored with jazz. I hear it all of the time in my jazz quartet. Rarely, the other players know the tune and create a melody worthy of composition. Most of the time, they strive for that goal with, at best, mixed results.
Part of the issue, in my opinion, is education, because most listeners can't appreciate a masterfully improvised melody over a set of changes. The flip side is that too many solos are played by folks who are not very good at creating instantaneous melodies. They might not play any "wrong notes", but that's not the same as a melody worthy of note.
I think most of the general listening public respond to the emotion of a tune, rather than its chords and melody. It requires a more educated ear to hear a melody played over a chord progression. Sadly, a lot of live jazz, nor recorded jazz, is not very good, but for those folks to get good, they, unless they're geniuses, have to practice on the audience for many years before they achieve a level worthy of admiration.
Both viewpoints have merit, in my opinion, a lot of jazz, just like a lot of other types of music, is not very good. When jazz is good - Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Billy Holliday, Ella Fitzgerald - it's truly art. When it's bad, it's derivative noise trying to intimidate the audience into believing that it's good and that the player knows something that the audience doesn't.
There is a lot of jazz out there that's not very good and crowds the pathways for our attention. But listen to Masters of the art, and you'll recognize greatness on par with Beethoven or Bach. As with any other musical genre, they're far between, but they are there, and they take effort for the casual listener to appreciate. And that's the point of the unpopularity for jazz. Those who are very musical in a certain way, learn to appreciate jazz, and for those in which music is just a pasttime or a reason to be attractive to girls, don't.
Jazz typically requires an educated ear and pop doesn't. Jazz is art and pop is entertainment. There's nothing wrong with either, but it's kind of sad that more of the general public cannot appreciate a brilliant jazz solo or a Rembrandt painting. Most of Charlie Parker's recorded solos were not just 16th note noise, they were a genius playing over chord changes at blistering speeds in a musical way. If you can't appreciate it, in my opinion, you need to listen more carefully and then you probably will. If you were my student, I'd suggest sitting down at a piano and playing through the Omnibook. If you still don't marvel at Parker's genius, then go back to tunes with sophisticated lyrical stories - country music - or emotionally gripping, harmonically simple tunes, rock - because melody over changes ain't your thang, and, you're not that musical, sorry.
To put it into perspective, B.B, King can play the blues brilliantly, can he play over changes? I've never heard him do it. Does his music touch people? Clearly so, a lot of people. Should it? Of course. Is it as sophisticated musically as Beethoven or bebop? Don't think so.

 

[Noot]

I find jazz appealing, but I can't give up rock and roll yet ...
Like the previous post said, some jazz is art, but some jazz really is just people showing off. I went to a Chick Corea concert, where there was just him on piano and another guy on the xylophone. The first 5 minutes my jaw dropped and I was very impressed with their skills. But, after that, 90 minutes of running up and down and up and down and up and down the keyboard? I mean OK I understand you're fantastic, but how much piano and xylophone shredding can a person take? There is a thin line between virtuosity and showing off, between art and sport and as soon as that line is crossed my shield goes up and I hate what I'm hearing. I've heard a lot of gypsy music growing up, and somehow they never cross the show-off line, even when an instrument goes out for a solo. So to conclude, play a good song and I will love it, get into technical playing just to show me what you can do and I'll get bored and leave. Hope I don't offend anyone, my intention is to be honest about how I feel

 

[dvh]

Both viewpoints have merit, in my opinion, a lot of jazz, just like a lot of other types of music, is not very good. When jazz is good - Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Billy Holliday, Ella Fitzgerald - it's truly art. When it's bad, it's derivative noise trying to intimidate the audience into believing that it's good and that the player knows something that the audience doesn't.

To put it into perspective, B.B, King can play the blues brilliantly, can he play over changes? I've never heard him do it. Does his music touch people? Clearly so, a lot of people. Should it? Of course. Is it as sophisticated musically as Beethoven or bebop? Don't think so.

In both those sections you refer to jazz of the past. I would argue even most lay people can/would appreciate those jazz streams, even if they don't much like it.

Those artists, even bepop, do songs that are built on melody over chord changes. There is a thread one can follow.

Contemporary jazz (much of what I hear anyway) does not, it's far less accessible and even I have a short time span with it.

NOTE: difficult in a forum like this to have a common understanding of what "jazz" is....

 

[Anonymatt]

Pop is the Jungle Boat ride at Disney. The animals always show up, there's a tight narrative.

Jazz is like a safari. Maybe you don't see the animals you want to. Maybe the ride out to the plains is boring. You gotta put up with the natives.

What's better?

Sometimes I think pop is like a choreographed fight. It's spectacular. Maybe it creates a fantasy that is shared with you. Stuff happens when it's supposed to.

Jazz is like a real ass fight. Sometimes it's drunk guys rolling around on the ground. Sometimes you get to see some of the insane **** that never ends up on Youtube.

I do think of jazz as being kind of like superheroes. You know, people train in kung fu or whatever all their lives, but if they're really into it, if they've really mastered themselves, then they'll never get into a fight. A record like "Kind of Blue" is a fight like Wolverine versus Sabretooth, but in real life. Guys fully exploiting their mastery. Even the Navy Seals plan and train so where they never have to fight through the **** totally hitting the fan, but jazz is totally safe. Just like pinball.