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
I think there's opinion and there's fact. It is a fact that it takes more practice and study to be a complete jazz musician than it does to be a complete pop musician. Anyone who would argue against this point is deluding themselves. Whether or not the fruits of that additional labor produce better music is a matter of opinion, but it is not snobbish or elitist to recognize that one is a more complex and demanding form than the other.
Except that rhythm, harmony and melody are the only contents of music. Anything else is just garnish.
The rhythms, harmonies, and melodies ARE musical content, to me at least.
That is true, but there is a big different between music created for the sake of art and music created for a profit. Personally I prefer music that is unique and soulful with a lot of obvious effort put into it.
Is that even a meaningful comparison? Most pop records are the work of a great many people working their own specific magic.
I always consider I'm most interested in harmony and timbre. Other people might love sfx and lyrics and bass to the MAX.
My step-mom can't listen to any music with a rhythm any more complex than a nursery rhyme... but she loves a good tune. On the other hand, a lot of African styles are all about multiple rhythms...
Just saying that everyone has their own angle on it!
I don't feel like you're trying to pick a fight at all, just having a good discussion.
When I talk about "culturally relevant", I'm thinking of how eras are defined. Look back at the music that was topping the charts 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. Almost always, pop music is embarrassing in hindsight. This is because it is very basic music dressed up in the fashion of the time. Once that fashion moves on, the music that is always and forever dressed in it sounds dated and un-hip. I think to define a culture by something disposable and transient is tragic and empty.
beggar98 said:
No a lot of people have there hands in the pop game. They have writing camps to get hit songs... Jazz on the other hand the band + a few other people
That's been my experience too, for the most part, but....
"If Lady GaGa and Justin Bieber define this culture, I would like to be as culturally irrelevant as possible."
How does one take a statement like this?
Unless you, er... uhhh... well, unless you like Lady GaGa's or Bieber's music, there's no need to take offense.
Not to mention giving it to 5 producers to remix and choosing the best two for the single... and all the people who create the samples and synth voices... session players who come in and don't even have their parts used...
We need a palmface emoticon on TB. 
I think the primary fact here is that people generally listen to music as a soundtrack to their lives - something that is reflective of their state of mind. Not many people are always in the mood to be reflective, deep, emotional, etc all the time. Most people just "wanna have some fun" or w/e. Most folks don't care about high art unless they took the time to give it a chance and go past what they see on the surface.
As for the ignorant self-important anti-jazz remarks made so many times in this thread, Isaac Asimov comes to mind:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I think the primary fact here is that people generally listen to music as a soundtrack to their lives - something that is reflective of their state of mind. Not many people are always in the mood to be reflective, deep, emotional, etc all the time. Most people just "wanna have some fun" or w/e. Most folks don't care about high art unless they took the time to give it a chance and go past what they see on the surface.
As for the ignorant self-important anti-jazz remarks made so many times in this thread, Isaac Asimov comes to mind:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
We need a palmface emoticon on TB.
I think the primary fact here is that people generally listen to music as a soundtrack to their lives - something that is reflective of their state of mind. Not many people are always in the mood to be reflective, deep, emotional, etc all the time. Most people just "wanna have some fun" or w/e. Most folks don't care about high art unless they took the time to give it a chance and go past what they see on the surface.
Even if you believe this, you're playing right into the hands of people here who refuse to see jazz as music rather than "music for people who think".
No matter what certain groups of people tell us about the difference, jazz isn't fresh, steamed vegetables and rock isn't McDonald's. I have a great deal of fun playing jazz gigs (as much as I have playing rock, folk, salsa, or reggae gigs), and a great deal of fun listening to jazz. Chessplayers have as much fun playing chess as checker players have playing checkers.
This x 1000. The bashing of jazz has at least some roots in the mistaken idea that it's for intellectually advanced people only. Why everyone doesn't want to be smart is, I suppose, for another thread.
Could someone compose music that includes all you've listed here that you would like?
If you can acknowledge that it's great music, what keeps you from being a fan? Or are you defining "fan" like "fanatic"- an extreme form of appreciation? If it's the latter I understand the statement.
Yes, aside from the autotuned vocals. I listen to a lot of Funk, Blues, and Electronic music which commonly use simple rhythms and chord structures. The difference is how they use them, which is often in a unique way.
It is just unpleasing to my ears, I can't listen to much without getting a headache and I can't get a sense of the feeling put into it. Maybe I will develop a taste for it over time.
When I was a kid, I liked a hot dog with yellow mustard much better than any hamburger or steak. As I grew older, I began to appreciate and prefer entrees like sirloin burgers with Gorgonzola and filets mignon with sauce Béarnaise.
But some grown ups still prefer hot dogs.
One of my finance lecturers used to say "When the market is wrong, it's still right". Jazz peeps just need to deal with and accept the fact that the genre has been out of favour with the mainstream public for a long time. If you've devoted your life to being a jazz musician, and the mainstream public doesn't like the genre you love to play, you're either going to have to play what the mainstream public wants to hear or you're going to have to accept that you will never sell as many records as Justin Bieber.
So, please stop with the condescending remarks with regards to the sophistication or intelligence of mainstream listeners. They pay to listen to whatever genre they like. On average, they don't like jazz. So chances are you won't get paid much. Deal with it.
So, please stop with the condescending remarks with regards to the sophistication or intelligence of mainstream listeners. They pay to listen to whatever genre they like. On average, they don't like jazz. So chances are you won't get paid much. Deal with it.
Popularity and quality are two very different things. The idea that popular = good is not only ridiculous but harmful to independent thought.
However, popularity is objective (something is popular or it isn't) and good is subjective (what's good to you may not be good to me). I didn't make statements about what is good. Just sayin' that jazz musicians can insult and put down the mainstream listeners and the music they listen to, but that isn't going to change a thing and isn't going to advance the plight of jazz.
By the way, I'm a jazz fan. I'm also a fan of other genres. I just think it's not nice for jazz musicians/fans to start making condescending remarks about more popular genres. It just adds to the idea tht jazz is for snobs (I'm just making general statements about what I've read on here, not directing them at anyone in particular).
