Scott Yanow writes : Why isn't jazz more popular

Everything about the swinging music we love to DJ

Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy

Message
Author
User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

Scott Yanow writes : Why isn't jazz more popular

#1 Post by Eyeball » Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:10 am

http://www.scottyanow.com/

Some interesting thoughts here :


"I believe that there is no reason in the world that jazz cannot triple its audience and that jazz
musicians and singers cannot make a decent living.

If many more of us will just use our creativity, this will happen.

Jazz is not too "complicated" for the average person. It just needs to be heard as a regular
part of life, introduced in schools and marketed properly.

Jazz is not a forbidding "art form." It is for anyone who has ears and an open mind.

It is the most fun, creative and rewarding music in the world. Otherwise, why would we be
listening to and playing it?

Why isn't jazz more popular? Here are a few basic reasons:

1) Jazz clubs got rid of dance floors in the late 1940s. Even though 80% of jazz can be
danced to, when there is no dance floor and when dancing is looked down upon, lots of
potential fans go elsewhere. Why do you think that swing, dixieland, Latin jazz and
funky-oriented jazz are among the most popular styles? Because people are allowed to
dance to it. Why not have jazz dance clubs where although the playing is kept in 4/4, the
music is not watered down in the slightest?

2) Jazz is not taught in grammar schools except in rare cases. Every third and seventh grade
class should have a Jazz Appreciation course. If kids never get to hear jazz, how are they
supposed to grow up loving it? College is too late.

3) Jazz is not seen on the Grammy Awards telecast except in an embarrassing and token
way. The way it is treated is a disgrace. I cringe every time I hear "Grammy-award winning
artist." Artistically, that means nothing, unless you really believe that the best vocal album of
2007 was by Nancy Wilson. Boycott and picket the Grammies! And let's do something
about the "American Music Awards" which does not even acknowledge jazz.

4) Let's drop the elitist attitude that jazz is "too good for the average person." The average
person rarely gets to hear jazz because the jazz world does a lousy job of marketing itself.
Isn't it about time we reach out to the rest of the world, without compromising or watering
down the music?

Some other thoughts:

Jazz is not "America's only true art form." That mindless cliche needs to be buried. Blues,
ragtime, tap dancing and movies are American art forms. And jazz no longer belongs
exclusively to the United States, nor has it since Django Reinhardt made his first record.

When someone talks about the "good old days of jazz" or jazz's "golden age," retort by
saying that jazz entered its golden age in 1917 (when it started to be recorded) and it hasn't
ended since. Here is to the 92nd year of jazz's golden age!"

Scott Yanow
Last edited by Eyeball on Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
J-h:n
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:09 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

#2 Post by J-h:n » Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:52 pm

Very interesting, and mostly very easy to agree with. Where did you find it?

User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

#3 Post by Eyeball » Mon Jan 05, 2009 7:11 pm

Oddly enough, I found it on http://www.scottyanow.com!

I don't know who Scotty A. Now is, but nice of him to host the stuff. :wink:

Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

Re: Scott Yanow writes : Why isn't jazz more popular

#4 Post by Haydn » Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:43 pm

Eyeball wrote:"I believe that there is no reason in the world that jazz cannot triple its audience and that jazz musicians and singers cannot make a decent living.

If many more of us will just use our creativity, this will happen.

Scott Yanow
I wonder what he means by "use our creativity".

User avatar
Mr Awesomer
Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 10:21 pm
Location: Altadena, CA
Contact:

Re: Scott Yanow writes : Why isn't jazz more popular

#5 Post by Mr Awesomer » Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:58 pm

Scott Yanow wrote:Here is to the 92nd year of jazz's golden age!
Weird... he mentions the REAL reason Jazz isn't more popular, yet it's not even in his list. haha
Reuben Brown
Southern California

User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

Re: Scott Yanow writes : Why isn't jazz more popular

#6 Post by Eyeball » Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:58 am

Haydn wrote:
Eyeball wrote:"I believe that there is no reason in the world that jazz cannot triple its audience and that jazz musicians and singers cannot make a decent living.

If many more of us will just use our creativity, this will happen.

Scott Yanow
I wonder what he means by "use our creativity".
The list reads like a first draft. I am not sure what he meant by several things which is why I thought it would make good discussion material.

User avatar
remysun
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:39 pm
Location: Motown

#7 Post by remysun » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:25 am

http://www.rocketboom.com/rb_06_oct_06/

I think other things were lost. The first was that the communication and etiquette of ballroom dancing gave way to "individual expression", as the video shows.

Even bebop shows jazz growing away from its classical form into freeform expression. Atonal classical music is not readily accessible, and neither is the jazz counterpart.

Friendly radio and jukebox airplay are more song reliant than jam reliant. Vocals and lyrics identify a song much more readily than the instrumental. This coupled with the rise of writer-performers such as the Beatles made the original much more definitive. Before the Beatles, Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra were subject to the old system of covering songs.

Finally, big bands and orchestras were too expensive once the age of amplification arrived. This technical obsolescence translated into cultural obsolescence as the Baby Boomers pushed themselves away from their parents' music.

:| Nowadays, jazz means Smooth Jazz and I can't find the emoticon that pukes.

Toon Town Dave
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:52 pm
Location: Saskatoon, Canada

#8 Post by Toon Town Dave » Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:43 am

That's exactly it. We have a local Jazz DJ who I'm sure doesn't know that Jazz existed before WWII. She'll often incorrectly use the term "hot jazz" to mean cool jazz or perhaps "good" jazz.

Whenever I get in a discussion with a ballroom dancer or non-dancer about what kind of music we dance to, they seem confused when I say jazz and respond with something like "how can you dance to that?" Their thought is either the atonal individual centric bebop (I call it wanker jazz) or sleepy elevator music. The masses don't even connect the stereotypical Glenn Miller or Duke Ellington standards with jazz.

The majority of our local "jazz" musicians favor funk influenced music, furthering misconceptions about jazz.

I agree with some of the points in the original article but not necessarily for the same reasons. I don't think the role of the record labels played a bigger part, particularly in the 50's/60's when they shifted to a business model of music manufacturer with cubicle farms of composers trying to write the next hit for the sugar coated "talent". The big labels control what the casual music listener/buyer is exposed to on the radio and in music stores.

The only music someone is exposed to is pop/rock. Jazz is only available to the oddball dedicated collector who already knows about it, looking in obscure places. Jazz is only played on the radio when only the socially handicapped would be listening, it's no wonder it's generally unpopular with the masses. Because it's not new, it doesn't have that rebellious edge sometimes associated with new waves of "alternative" music that eventually become mainstream.

The best way to market jazz is to frame it as something mainstream but anti-establishment. Framing it as "better" than other music is not going to attract masses of listeners. In that respect, I agree with Yanow's 4th point.

I don't agree with his second point, at least in Canada, the opportunity to learn to play jazz is available in grade 7/8 through high school band although band is an elective. The 3rd point highlights the effect of record labels lack of desire to sell jazz, the real root cause.

As for the first point, I think there are two types of musicians: those who believe the audience should appreciate the music (the product) and those who believe the audience should appreciate the musician. The latter favor concerts where the audience sits quietly in the shadows and get huffy when there isn't vigorous applause after a solo. The former recognize that the audience may appreciate the music in different ways, dancing being one. Venues reflect the dominant point of view in the local jazz community.

User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

#9 Post by Eyeball » Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:51 pm

Yeah - when you say "I like Jazz", it can mean anything, even when you are speaking with like-minded "Jazz" fans.

It's a big umbrella term and the people who don't know anything about 'jazz' seem to have found the most extreme examples to hook the term to, like really corny 'dixieland' or 'endless solo' Jazz of the Bop and beyond Jazz styles.

Of course, very people are very unmusical and/or have no ear exposure to ny type of music except the pop crap they grew up with, so that they would have a hard time enjoying even the most straight ahead swinging Jazz combo that ever was.

When someone can't recognize the sound of a trumpet when they hear it, you know their musical education is lacking.

Toon Town Dave
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:52 pm
Location: Saskatoon, Canada

#10 Post by Toon Town Dave » Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:46 pm

That's a little extreme, but I know what you're saying.

I've found big band swing to be the most accessible form of jazz to the untrained ear. It just takes exposure to great stuff from orchestras like Basie or Lunceford. The rhythm is infectious and the wall of sound that a big band can create rivals that which made Phil Spector's girl group productions popular in the 60's. Unfortunately many non-jazz fans don't associate big band with jazz, it's in it's own "big band" silo and jazz is about 3 musicians with pretentious names in the corner of a smokey, small club.

User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

#11 Post by Eyeball » Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:03 pm

Toon Town Dave wrote:That's a little extreme, but I know what you're saying.
Which is the extreme part?

I just recently posted with a guy who didnt know what a trumpet sounded like.

I had a friend who listened to some big band stuff and couldn't follow the melody when it changed between brass and reed sections.

I only know Phil Spector's "Wall of Sound" works by reputation and likely heard some of the records b/c I listened to a lot of pop stuff on the radio in the early 60s.

btw - I knew Phil Spector b/c he used to come into my store. I took me about 10 visits before I realized it was him and only b/c he paid by credit card. I asked him if it was him and he said "I'm afraid so". When I didnt begin bugging him about pop/rock stuff, he seemed relieved. I did ask him if he had ever produced any Jazz LPs and he said he had done two of them and that he always tried to use Jazz guys on his sessions. He was always very quiet, seemingly incognito and he would come in with a pleasant middle aged woman and some little girl about 7 y/o or so. He lives one town over. I have not seen him since he was arrested. I saw the woman once since then.

Oh, well....

Toon Town Dave
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:52 pm
Location: Saskatoon, Canada

#12 Post by Toon Town Dave » Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:17 pm

That someone couldn't recognize a trumpet.

It took me some time before I could recognize the different saxes and trombone was tough. I can understand missing the difference between a cornet and a trumpet. Not recognizing the difference between brass and reeds is like not being able to tell the difference between a violin and a banjo.

Spector's wall of sound is basically what all big bands were doing. I think he was a great engineer of music but like any engineer, he didn't create anything new, just used earlier innovation in a different place. Unfortunately the myopic music critics of the day who credited that innovation were not very well versed in popular music from a couple decades earlier. The wikipedia page on "wall of sound" has a reasonable descroiption.

User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

#13 Post by Eyeball » Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:52 pm

Toon Town Dave wrote:That someone couldn't recognize a trumpet.
"Might get this instrument wrong.. but the trumpets.. at some point.. really really loud/screachy.. "
Since then he has changed his hipster hat avatar, so maybe he can tell the sound of a trumpet now.

It would likely help if people knew what the instrument looked like to help recognize the sounds it can make.

I dunno....I mean really....music is not important to a lot of people. They just accept it w/ needing or wanting to know anything much about it...like a breakfast cereal. 'I like it/I don't like it' - that's all I needs to know.

I'll read the WOS Wiki later. Thx!

User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

Got this just now

#14 Post by Eyeball » Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:23 pm

http://justmomm.livejournal.com/146345.html

Coffee House Jazz - why coffee house? Not to even mention that many of these tracks are not Jazz.

Looks like it is a free download, though.

If you knew nothing about Jazz and you saw this nice CD set proclaiming itself as 'Jazz", what would you think?

Toon Town Dave
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:52 pm
Location: Saskatoon, Canada

#15 Post by Toon Town Dave » Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:42 pm

With a sparse few exceptions, it fits the the erroneous premise the Bill Haley was around before Louis Armstrong.

I think there are some decent selections and it's a fairly broad survey of jazz but the randomness of the selections detracts from the appeal. Having some sort of theme to the order like chronological, artists, style, instrument, etc. would probably make the music more appealing. Perhaps playing it in a coffee shop on random shuffle would de-randomize it a bit.

Locked