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

[Chris Fitzgerald]

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."

Hear, hear! I am currently so disgusted with the lazy attitude of jazz musicians regarding how the music is presented as a boring formula. The only way that can ever work is if the musicians are of the highest caliber, have the music in their heads instead of on paper, and understand the concept of “programming a set to include contrasting material”.

And beyond that, there are a number of local musicians who only want to play music that is based on ii V I progressions so they can insert their same licks in different orders. Blech. If I’m going to listen to jazz, I want to hear spontaneous melodies that tell a story over the span of each solo, and I’d prefer it if there was a contrast of story types and textures among consecutive solos.

Also, no one wants to hear 4 solos on a song just because there are 2 horns, a guitar or piano, and a bass player on the bandstand. Heck, I don’t even want to hear three most of the time. One or two is fine. And take more care with presenting the melody in an original way rather than just playing it perfunctorily so you can play licks over the changes.

I’ll show myself out…

 

[marchone]

I'm just wondering why Jazz really isn't as popular as other music as far as mainstream is concerned.

If it ain't got a back beat, I can't use it.

It sounds like a joke, but it isn't. No hook, no melody* to speak of, no many people likey. Apologies to anyone who already used the line as I haven't read all 50 pages.

*Automatron melodies mechanically repeated are boring.

 

[beatmachine pro]

jazz its like 120 years old,...it was the hip thing for real untill the 60s
there are so many idioms you could find something you like (i like acid jazz)
its got staying power at least
personally id rather listen to a song than a 20 mmin modal exercise

 

[turf3]

Hear, hear! I am currently so disgusted with the lazy attitude of jazz musicians regarding how the music is presented as a boring formula. The only way that can ever work is if the musicians are of the highest caliber, have the music in their heads instead of on paper, and understand the concept of “programming a set to include contrasting material”.

And beyond that, there are a number of local musicians who only want to play music that is based on ii V I progressions so they can insert their same licks in different orders. Blech. If I’m going to listen to jazz, I want to hear spontaneous melodies that tell a story over the span of each solo, and I’d prefer it if there was a contrast of story types and textures among consecutive solos.

Also, no one wants to hear 4 solos on a song just because there are 2 horns, a guitar or piano, and a bass player on the bandstand. Heck, I don’t even want to hear three most of the time. One or two is fine. And take more care with presenting the melody in an original way rather than just playing it perfunctorily so you can play licks over the changes.

I’ll show myself out…

I'll tell you something that kills a lot of performances for me (and I am a jazzer way back, it's my preferred and main style of playing music, and my favorite sub-style is small group jazz from about 1940 to 1970) - is interminable solos. Yes, if you are John Coltrane, Cannonball Adderley, etc., you MAY be able to improvise for 32 choruses and keep an audience's interest. For most of us mortals, you need to play one or two choruses and SHUT UP. Bass or drums? Half a chorus, unless you're NHOP or Max Roach.

In one of my other lives I'm a saxophonist and both jam sessions and performances tend to devolve into long strings of nearly-identical loud solos with a zillion notes. Now there's nothing wrong with that, occasionally - but in modern performance practice it gets to be like a diet made of nothing but coconut cream pie. Tasty as a small treat, but after a few meals of nothing but pie, you start to fantasize about just having a raw carrot or something to eat.

On a couple of occasions, playing sax in a session, I have created a minor stir by doing the following in the middle of a long string of verbose players playing verbose solos:

- Motion "shhhh" to rhythm section
- Play ONE CHORUS pianissimo, with careful attention to long flowing melodic lines that move mostly in quarter and half notes
- Finish up the solo with a clear cadence, take the horn out of my mouth, nod to the next guy "OK, you've got it".

Their eyes get as big as saucers when you do something like this, and (oh by the way) you get the most applause of any solo of the night.

 

[brianrost]

you get the most applause of any solo of the night.

One day at work, some guys who had gone to see Van Halen the night before were all raving about Mike Anthony's bass solo. Apparently he ended it by tossing the bass on the floor and playing it with his feet.

 

[bass_case]

Jazz was THE pop music, reaching a peak in the 40s. The Hit Parade was dominated by the swing bands of the era. As other types of music became fashionable with the masses, jazz evolved and became more sophisticated.

There was a swing revival ten or so years ago, and Sinatra-style balladeers will always have an audience, but jazz is considered “serious” music now.

 

[Johnny L]

I've replied to this thread before it seems and I doubtlessly had something incredible and insightful to say about it some years ago when I was just a yelping forum pup.

But now that I'm an all grown up snarker shaking his fist at the clouds I'll revise whatever I said earlier if it conflicts and offer that jazz is really for musicians including aspiring musicians alone to hear and appreciate. And if jazz ever becomes mainstream popular again it will be the beginnings of yet another boom in music due to the inspiration provided by so many jazz musicians in having created something for not just everyone or anyone but even no one at all. And tons upon tons of it all will be undeniably fantastic music that will be used even to define entire cultural movements.

E.g., John Coltrane et al recorded entire albums for God alone not for us mere mortals, and I can't tell you how many times I've read interviews of musicians I enjoy citing those very records as essential and inspiring despite that I myself might find most if not all of that stuff borderline unlistenable at best.

 

[ProbablyTooLoud]

For me, and my decidedly non-expert opinion, I love the earlier stuff - what someone described above as small combo 1940-1970 jazz - but with electric jazz, especially live, there's so much atmosphere and extra stuff going on I honestly can't even hear the chord changes. Or barely. Even with icons - the electric piano a lot of the time sounds like a big mushy wash. I think the older cats used to try to make a bridge to the audience, but once the 70s arrived, with some exceptions (like Herbie), it seems like the players expected the audience to come to them, figuratively speaking. I think that's backwards.

 

[Johnny L]

Good point. This thread could be served well by explicitly defining what music is first and then digging into jazz' declining popularity after.

Because I define music first as a self-indulgent endeavor not an act to example some social activity, my record spins on different grooves than for someone who claims music's roots are to maximize collective success (e.g., a military column). I could change my mind on that tomorrow but at least in modern Western culture it seems an expression of poor confidence to not openly display selfish motives for one's expressed thoughts and actions (e.g., George the quiet Beatle). And for performing musicians, strong confidence can be everything especially for jazz and improvisation.

And for jazz you can't have better reason for confidence than post-WWII US and the consequential rise in moral confidence culminating in the Vietnam War protests.

 

[ProbablyTooLoud]

Good point. This thread could be served well by explicitly defining what music is first and then digging into jazz' declining popularity after.

Because I define music first as a self-indulgent endeavor not an act to example some social activity, my record spins on different grooves than for someone who claims music's roots are to maximize collective success (e.g., a military column). I could change my mind on that tomorrow but at least in modern Western culture it seems an expression of poor confidence to not openly display selfish motives for one's expressed thoughts and actions (e.g., George the quiet Beatle). And for performing musicians, strong confidence can be everything especially for jazz and improvisation.

Interesting. I have a provisional attempt to define not what music is but what the function of music is for me: to express and share the sorrows and joys of existence.

 

[Johnny L]

Interesting. I have a provisional attempt to define not what music is but what the function of music is for me: to express and share the sorrows and joys of existence.

Yeah it's absolutely a challenge to articulate an assertion without implicating its anthithesis somewhere. I think composers such as Schoenberg tried to find intellectual solutions to this (i.e., collapse distinctions and exemplify that through music), but we're all so used to music being a distinguishing art not a single incessant song (e.g., the recent Paramount+ South Park episode "We're All Living in the Future" beep boop) that it's hard to avoid wondering if Schoenberg was just secretly making fun of his fans.

Or Coltrane secretly making fun of self-proclaimed devout Christians thinking they had an unvoidable ticket to Heaven.

 

[ProbablyTooLoud]

Yeah it's absolutely a challenge to articulate an assertion without implicating its anthithesis somewhere. I think composers such as Schoenberg tried to find intellectual solutions to this (i.e., collapse distinctions and exemplify that through music), but we're all so used to music being a distinguishing art not a single incessant song (e.g., the recent Paramount+ South Park episode "We're All Living in the Future" beep boop) that it's hard to avoid wondering if Schoenberg was just secretly making fun of his fans.

Or Coltrane secretly making fun of self-proclaimed devout Christians thinking they had an unvoidable ticket to Heaven.

I'm not as conversant in music history or theory as you, so the Shoenberg reference goes over my head. But your point about Coltrane is well taken, and funny. And I can certainly check out that South Park episode, because I love almost everthing they do.

 

[Johnny L]

Then you'll absolutely love the upcoming South Park in the works, where there's a musical Socrates who has a dialogue to teach music theory to a tone deaf kid who then "gets it" and then programs a bunch of music "from his soul" for all of us around the world to hear.

And in the real world it's hard to deny that this is a golden age for music for sure with Coltranes and Schoenbergs playing everywhere on social media.

 

[ProbablyTooLoud]

Then you'll absolutely love the upcoming South Park in the works, where there's a musical Socrates who has a dialogue to teach music theory to a tone deaf kid who then "gets it" and then programs a bunch of music "from his soul" for all of us around the world to hear.

And in the real world it's hard to deny that this is a golden age for music for sure with Coltranes and Schoenbergs playing everywhere on social media.

Man I'm laughing already.

 

[Johnny L]

Man I'm laughing already.

Well despite what I said was a lie, they'd probably cast jazz into Canadian limbo where they put everything else they confess to not understand and script something far more academically dense than what I could improvise here on a thread that's intent upon calling jazz something nobody does or doesn't do well anymore.

So don't forget to save some laughter for the good stuff.

 

[ProbablyTooLoud]

Well despite what I said was a lie, they'd probably cast jazz into Canadian limbo where they put everything else they confess to not understand and script something far more academically dense than what I could improvise here on a thread that's intent upon calling jazz something nobody does or doesn't do well anymore.

So don't forget to save some laughter for the good stuff.

I have actually done the Canadian limbo.

 

[WG Plum]

The direct expression of lust, love, loneliness, or rage in a form that most listeners find enjoyable or cathartic isn't something jazz is really suited for. Jazz can absolutely be beautiful, it can be brutal (see Hodges or Brötzmann), but for most people it doesn't have the immediacy of Meshuggah, Metallica, Prince, Taylor Swift, etc. The average listener get can bop, so to speak, down the street with Pharrell's 'Happy' in his or her head in a way they can't with Some of My Favorite Things.

 

[Treyzer]

• nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American: social critic H. L. Mencken (1880–1956)

 

[Snarf]

Jumping in on page 51 of thread without reading the rest because thread appeared on main page so . . . . . . . .

Jazz is unpopular because most of the people who play it have no respect for the audience. There is no industry in the world that will create a product, end up not selling enough of the product to be viable, and then continue to make that same product, but over the years make it harder and harder for their potential customers to use. Jazz does this.

The only people who want to hear 5 soloists play 18 choruses each are phd candidates in "I play saxophone really fast" university. You want to make jazz popular? Stop overplaying. Write singable melodies. Or . . . (gasp) . . . write lyrics and have a vocalist sing them. Limit your track length to 5 minutes. Tell your drummer to CALM THE FFFF DOWN. God, that's probably the biggest problem, drummers who treat every moment as an opportunity to shred. The spastic drumming with kick drums tuned like bongos has GOT TO STOP.

Genres can be revitalized and re-introduced. See: 80's pop. There's a lot of popular music being made today with 80's sensibilities. Jazz can do the same thing, but the genre seems to be locked in an arms race of players measuring their musicality by how fast and out they can shred.

 

[GrapeBass]

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...

marketing