• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

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

icecycle66 said:
Here is a list of bands/artists I enjoy. I chose one artist/band from each page of CD’s in the catalogue I keep in my truck. I do like them all, or I wouldn’t have bought their stuff.

Acid Bath
Amon Amarth
Clint Black
Blind Guardian
Bob Marley
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Daft Punk
Days of the new
Dethklok
Dream Theater
Electric Light Orchestra
Funkadelic
Peter Gabriel
Immortal
Blind lemon Jefferson
Jimi Hendrix
King Crimson
Led Zeppelin
A collection of Irish folk music
Curtis Mayfield
Megadeth
Metallica
Misfits
Nickleback
N.W.A.
Pantera
Pink
Pink Floyd
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Rush
Joe Satriani
Scale the Summit
Six Feet Under
George Straight
U2
Venom
Peetie Wheatstraw
Yes
Zebrahead

I see that John coltrane isn't on this list. Is there a reason for that? :)
 
Hey, Nickelback fans are bound to show up here and there, there are millions of them, after all. I'm not a fan of their music myself, but they sure sell a lot of records and ticket stubs.
 
Mostly because when someone says that what you spend your life on sucks most people get aggressive...

But as cire113 says, music is a personal thing. Whenever anyone says that an instrument/song/style sucks, there's always a hidden 'IMHO, YMMV, etc' in there.

All they're really saying is: you're one person, they're somone else...

OK, sure if someone calls your wife something, let it all out. But talking about a style of music... It's not like 'Jazz' is listening, and it's feelings are going to be hurt...
 
But as cire113 says, music is a personal thing. Whenever anyone says that an instrument/song/style sucks, there's always a hidden 'IMHO, YMMV, etc' in there.

All they're really saying is: you're one person, they're somone else...
.

Sure. But dismissing an entire genré? There is a huge spectrum of music that could be called "jazz". To say it's all no good makes little sense.... IMHO
 
Sure. But dismissing an entire genré? There is a huge spectrum of music that could be called "jazz". To say it's all no good makes little sense.... IMHO

Doesn't it depend if it's though prejudice or experience, though?

I think it's quite interesting to find out what people hate about something I like. (I especially like finding out what people hate about me... then I can fix it!)
 
Having played both jazz and other genres/styles of music, and having been as open minded, and appreciative of as much music as i possibly can, I believe jazz is just culturally irrelevant. Jazz today is not what jazz was back "then". It is reserved for the "real" musicians, and not the guy lookin to just play and experience the music. Yes, there are things you have to know in order to play jazz, but the common man has been erased from contemporary jazz, and frankly isn't wanted. Go ahead and play your heart out, but don't expect people to get it...in the end, i don't think "jazzers" want em to anyway...

There's a lot of truth to this. One of the inspirations for Be-Bop was to play faster and more intricately to "weed out" lesser musicians who couldn't keep up. It worked, and a lot of those lesser musicians went on to play pop and rock.

What I don't understand are musicians who don't put in the time and effort to master their instrument to a level required to play a certain type of music and then somehow see their inability to play that music as a negative aspect of the form, instead of what it really is- their own personal limitations.

If culture today is defined by what is popular and what sells, why would anyone want to be culturally relevant? If Lady GaGa and Justin Bieber define this culture, I would like to be as culturally irrelevant as possible.
 
There's a lot of truth to this. One of the inspirations for Be-Bop was to play faster and more intricately to "weed out" lesser musicians who couldn't keep up. It worked, and a lot of those lesser musicians went on to play pop and rock.

What I don't understand are musicians who don't put in the time and effort to master their instrument to a level required to play a certain type of music and then somehow see their inability to play that music as a negative aspect of the form, instead of what it really is- their own personal limitations.

If culture today is defined by what is popular and what sells, why would anyone want to be culturally relevant? If Lady GaGa and Justin Bieber define this culture, I would like to be as culturally irrelevant as possible.

I think you may be falling into snobbism, which jazzers are often fairly accused of. I'm not a fan of Nickleback, the Beib, or Lady Gaga, but I won't dismiss them or their fans. There are no right or wrong reasons, in my opinion, for liking or disliking a certain genre or form of music. One can see the same snobbism, or perhaps anti-sobbism, in punk rock, metal, country, and just about any other form of music.

I was listening to NPR on the way home from work yesterday and heard Yo Yo Ma and Edgar Meyer along with a couple of other guys playing tunes from their new record. Their spirit of openess and curiosity was incredibly inspiring. Will their new record sell millions? Probably not, but they've all moved outside their respective roots to create new, interesting music. My point is simply that being dismissive of certain genres isn't really conducive to real musical growth, whether it's the monolith of jazz as a whole or pop or your target of choice.
 
Marial said:
I think you may be falling into snobbism, which jazzers are often fairly accused of. I'm not a fan of Nickleback, the Beib, or Lady Gaga, but I won't dismiss them or their fans. There are no right or wrong reasons, in my opinion, for liking or disliking a certain genre or form of music. One can see the same snobbism, or perhaps anti-sobbism, in punk rock, metal, country, and just about any other form of music.

I was listening to NPR on the way home from work yesterday and heard Yo Yo Ma and Edgar Meyer along with a couple of other guys playing tunes from their new record. Their spirit of openess and curiosity was incredibly inspiring. Will their new record sell millions? Probably not, but they've all moved outside their respective roots to create new, interesting music. My point is simply that being dismissive of certain genres isn't really conducive to real musical growth, whether it's the monolith of jazz as a whole or pop or your target of choice.

In my experience jazz musicians are very open to sharing their musical knowledge... Maybe it's because I play jazz but nonetheless.
 
Subjectivity is subjective. I dislike modern Pop music because 99% of it uses the exact same repetitive rhythm with a completely unoriginal 1-3 chord structure accompanied by autotuned vocals and random soundbites. The production is quite impressive, but the music itself has no content. People can enjoy it if they want, that is the point of music. But saying it is equal to Classical or Jazz is ridiculous. I'm not a fan of Coltrane, but I still respect him and acknowledge that it is fantastic music.

Nickelback Doesn't Change - YouTube
 
I think most people don't like Jazz because they've never listened to it, which is because it isn't popular. My mom and dad both thought they disliked jazz until I started playing it and listening to CDs in the car. Now, they seem to have acquired a taste for it. BTW, the kind of jazz I listen to is Be Bop and Modal Jazz from the late '50s and
'60s. (Miles, Coltrane, Wynton Kelly)
 
The production is quite impressive, but the music itself has no content.

That's drawing an arbitrary line. You could equally say "the [rhythms | harmonies |melodies] are quite impressive, but the music has no content"

But saying it is equal to Classical or Jazz is ridiculous.

As would be saying it is inferior, or superior. There is no measure of how 'good' styles are.


I will agree that Nickelback should have quit after their first album!