What Eric says! Also, his time and feel are sick! I don't aspire to play like him but I sure admire his talent.
Bruce, that is a very cool story and says much about MM.
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
What Eric says! Also, his time and feel are sick! I don't aspire to play like him but I sure admire his talent.
Bruce, that is a very cool story and says much about MM.
I'm waiting to see if it takes more than 1,000 posts to explain why jazz isn't that popular. If we go to round two, I propose we ban all jazz lovers from responding to this question. The people who don't prefer jazz could care a less what jazz lovers say. They just know they'd rather steal some other form of music.
Why?
Because you have to develop a taste in music quite a bit to GET jazz.
Jazz is mostly non-vocal and complex music.
This is musically super creative, but no way it could ever become a mainstream hit because it just cannot have a mass appeal and that's pretty understandable:
Because you have to develop a taste in music quite a bit to GET jazz.
Jazz is mostly non-vocal and complex music.
This is musically super creative, but no way it could ever become a mainstream hit because it just cannot have a mass appeal and that's pretty understandable:
Last edited:
Funny you wrote that, @MidnightRunner. A lot of Mingus tunes from that period remind me of "detective movie jazz" that was all over TV and movies in the 1950s and early 60s, very familiar to the public's ears. The "Peter Gunn" theme as recorded by Ray Anthony and Plas Johnson went to #8 on the Billboard Hot 100 and crossed over to hit #12 on the R&B chart in 1959.
Mongo Santamira's version of "Watermelon Man" went to #10 on the Hot 100 in 1963.
"Take Five" by Dave Brubeck was released as a single in 1961 and went to #25 on the Hot 100 and #1 on the then new Easy Listening chart.
"Mercy Mercy" by Cannonball Adderley went to #11 on the Hot 100 and was on the chart for 11 weeks in 1967.
Trane's version of "My Favorite Things" made it to #31 on the Hot 100.
Mongo Santamira's version of "Watermelon Man" went to #10 on the Hot 100 in 1963.
"Take Five" by Dave Brubeck was released as a single in 1961 and went to #25 on the Hot 100 and #1 on the then new Easy Listening chart.
"Mercy Mercy" by Cannonball Adderley went to #11 on the Hot 100 and was on the chart for 11 weeks in 1967.
Trane's version of "My Favorite Things" made it to #31 on the Hot 100.
It's like the old joke:
Q: How do you know you're at a prog rock show?
A: There is no line to get into the ladies room.
Yep...just type in the name of an artists and song and the words "billboard charts" and you'll find the info quickly enough.
Jazz sucks. Kenny G is the only good thing to come from jazz. Would people in the 90’s even have weddings/receptions if it wasn’t for his music?
that ain't right! I'll take Milt Hinton, Charles Mingus, George Duvivier, Slam Stewart, Stanley Clarke and all those cats (Ray Brown, among others) before I'd ever listen to or play Kenny G. YMMV.You do realize that rock and roll, hip hop, western swing, and bluegrass all are either direct descendants of jazz or are deeply influenced by jazz? Or do you?
You know, the Beatles didn't just spring full-blown from the forehead of Zeus.
And Elvis.
Now: which Beatle sprung full-grown from which forehead? I'd say Ringo HAS to have sprung from the forehead of George Formby. Lennon? I'd say Elvis (I don't know why, I'm making this stuff up.) So between George Harrison and Paul McCartney, vs. Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly, who's who?
At one point jazz music was pop music. Different things become popular over time. There’s a lot of things you can blame for the downfall of jazz but I honestly think it just comes down to the fact that what people like changes. Jazz was popular, so was rock, and funk, and classical, but they aren’t anymore and that’s just how it goes.
Oddly enough I've noticed something over the past decade. When people hear that I play jazz, there will always be that one person in the conversation, who will lecture me with great authority on what's wrong with jazz and why it's unpopular.
What's wrong with jazz is that Bebop happened. Here's the description of Bebop from Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
To paraphrase what some of my friends have told me:
"I don't like music that sounds like the musicians are showing off their skills."
"The bass should never be noticed, and never play a solo."
But the question is: Can jazz be purged of the influence of Bebop, and would it still be worth playing? What has been seen cannot be unseen. Even when I play "standards" gigs with mostly tunes from the 1940s or earlier, or rhythms that were introduced after the Bebop era, the solos are definitely Bebop influenced.
On the other hand, I think there are things we can learn by looking for success stories. In my locale, the "best band in Madison" has been won by jazz bands several times. There are a handful of bands that fill small venues, though not every week. I've noticed some things about these bands:
* They are often playing original compositions and arrangements.
* The musicians are at the top of their game.
* They are certainly not dumbing it down for the audience.
The one thing I can think of about Bebop is that it gave us a formula for playing tunes, that is a blessing and a curse: Melody, solo, solo, solo, melody. And likewise fake books are a blessing and a curse. 40 years into the Real Book era, maybe that well has been pumped dry. I once wrote a Haiku about it:
What shall we play next?
Flip, flip, flip, flip, flip, flip, flip...
Let's play "Blue Bossa."
What's wrong with jazz is that Bebop happened. Here's the description of Bebop from Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
To paraphrase what some of my friends have told me:
"I don't like music that sounds like the musicians are showing off their skills."
"The bass should never be noticed, and never play a solo."
But the question is: Can jazz be purged of the influence of Bebop, and would it still be worth playing? What has been seen cannot be unseen. Even when I play "standards" gigs with mostly tunes from the 1940s or earlier, or rhythms that were introduced after the Bebop era, the solos are definitely Bebop influenced.
On the other hand, I think there are things we can learn by looking for success stories. In my locale, the "best band in Madison" has been won by jazz bands several times. There are a handful of bands that fill small venues, though not every week. I've noticed some things about these bands:
* They are often playing original compositions and arrangements.
* The musicians are at the top of their game.
* They are certainly not dumbing it down for the audience.
The one thing I can think of about Bebop is that it gave us a formula for playing tunes, that is a blessing and a curse: Melody, solo, solo, solo, melody. And likewise fake books are a blessing and a curse. 40 years into the Real Book era, maybe that well has been pumped dry. I once wrote a Haiku about it:
What shall we play next?
Flip, flip, flip, flip, flip, flip, flip...
Let's play "Blue Bossa."
