Why Isn't Jazz Popular?

[mheton]

Why jazz is not more popular?

So, I dare to come out of the closet here and present my theses. I'm sure I'll be criticized harshly, but so be it.
(I'm writing this off the top of my head - maybe a little unstructured.)

A lot of jazz seems to me like tribute acts. They mimic as best they can a certain music from the (rather distant) past, sometimes even certain musicians. Hey, the Bebop language, man!

Fine by me. You can do it, but then stand by the fact that you're imitating music that's 80 to 90 years old. And what have you added to Bebop language worth mentioning?

Every Elvis imitator says: I imitate my idol! Wonderful, great. But he doesn't claim to be an original artist, he is an imitator. And he has the great advantage that there are still many fans of Elvis.

How many fans of Bird, Dizzy or Miles are still out there?

And BTW... tell a jazz band that they're imitators, better take cover quickly, they'll be pissed.

And then the avant-garde, incomprehensibility as a principle, the main thing is to be weird. The same thing happens here as in the so-called modern classical music. There is an incredible amount of crap, little good. Mainly incomprehensible. But the classics were so smart (at least in Europe) to help themselves from the still numerous pots of cultural funding. Without these funds most of these acts would not exist anymore.

By the way: Pink Floyd could use 10 time changes in a song, because it was great music, the time changes made sense and you didn't really notice it. When I look at the compositions of some modern or avant-garde jazz musicians, where each and every bar has a new meter, I just shake my head. The main thing is complicated and incomprehensible. Making "art" with the crowbar.

Fusion / Jazz Rock has unfortunately fallen victim to shredding. And the audience prefers to go straight to the real shredders. Say Hi to Satch!

So what could change the situation?

Going new ways, not being afraid crossing borders, learning from the good examples of popular music, ignoring the obvious crap that's the majority of course. Looking for new sounds, new grooves, incorporating today's technology, writing good melodies that people can understand and memorize - let alone sing!

Not using virtuosity as an end in itself. There have always been virtuosos in music history, but the good ones have always had a spark, a charisma. And without this spark, no one is interested in what you are doing, no matter how virtuosic you are. Just think of Dizzy, man, what a guy! But that was almost a century ago.

Two examples of successful creative projects come to mind spontaneously: Robert Glasper and the incredible "Dawn Of Midi" but there are many more.

So, now you're free to tear me apart.. :-)

Don Esteban

--------

PS. And this larmoyant self-pity: "We just make difficult music, and it is difficult to make and also to hear.... " Sorry, I can't stand that any more, make it less difficult for god's sake....

great post

[Bobby Timmons]

I heard something like that a long time back - the two kinds were just:

Classical music - permanent (historical), mostly Germanic composers
"Folk music" - transitory (everything else), jazz, pop, c&w, rock, blues

Yeah I think adding folk music would be more accurate. There is folk music, art music, and popular music. Art music is by definition not popular because the musicians are interested in playing music that's beautiful for the sake of the music. This is not appealing to the masses while some laypeople do like it. There can be overlap between the classifications like Kris said.

[fep]

Also the basic sense of musicality and groove is replaced with dry complexity in mediocre jazz performances which is something people rightfully care less about.

I love jazz both as a musician and a listener but I completely understand it's lack of broader appeal.

That's a good point. There is a big difference between hearing the average local jazz performer(s) at a restaurant gig versus going to a Pat Metheny concert. Many will never consider the Metheny concert because of their experience with mediocre jazz performances.

[fep]

Why jazz is not popular

So what could change the situation?

Going new ways, not being afraid crossing borders, learning from the good examples of popular music, ignoring the obvious crap that's the majority of course. Looking for new sounds, new grooves, incorporating today's technology, writing good melodies that people can understand and memorize - let alone sing!

Not using virtuosity as an end in itself. There have always been virtuosos in music history, but the good ones have always had a spark, a charisma. And without this spark, no one is interested in what you are doing, no matter how virtuosic you are. Just think of Dizzy, man, what a guy! But that was almost a century ago.

Don Esteban

..

Sounds like a description of Jacob Collier. (Who has received his share of hate from many of this forum's jazzers. That's a whole discussion in itself.).

[EarlBrother]

Pat Metheny? wonder how Side Eye is doing?

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

[itsmyname]

why is jazz not popular ?

maybe because musicians stop playing jazz to make people dance or because people stop to dance with jazz music , i don't know maybe it's one of the obvious reason maybe not ?
people used to go to the dance club and hear jazz music and dance like crazy, some play for the ears only and people come to ear jazz music with deep feelings.

Now it's another story and music industry is becoming so....strange nowadays, I heard Barry Harris in a video saying "we are in the dark age" about jazz music and I can't say he was wrong, I would like to desagree with him on this point and only this point of view but I can't.

Is jazz going to be a music for musician only ? maybe but it's a sure death, but as usual I can be wrong.

I like to think that jazz is like a phenix, never dying when someone is playing a jazzy thing around the world and make people comes to hear, another adventure is going on !

[Greywolf]

I'd agree with the perspective of the complexity of Jazz can be daunting as a neophyte listener or player.
That being said , I've started teaching my 11 year old grandson( who is a Black Sabbath fan) , he's learning trombone in school and guitar and bass from me. I put on some Miles ( Kind of Blue) and told him " This is Jazz" .. he loves it !

Introduction to anything is an important phase .. there are many delightful paths to the more intricate compositions down the road.

[Christian Miller]

why is jazz not popular ?

maybe because musicians stop playing jazz to make people dance or because people stop to dance with jazz music , i don't know maybe it's one of the obvious reason maybe not ?
people used to go to the dance club and hear jazz music and dance like crazy, some play for the ears only and people come to ear jazz music with deep feelings.

Now it's another story and music industry is becoming so....strange nowadays, I heard Barry Harris in a video saying "we are in the dark age" about jazz music and I can't say he was wrong, I would like to desagree with him on this point and only this point of view but I can't.

Is jazz going to be a music for musician only ? maybe but it's a sure death, but as usual I can be wrong.

I like to think that jazz is like a phenix, never dying when someone is playing a jazzy thing around the world and make people comes to hear, another adventure is going on !

lo and behold some kids in South East London start playing a modern variant of jazz based on strong grooves you can dance to, it catches on with young people and the old guard moans it isn’t jazz

cant win haha

[Marinero]

"But we (as in this forum) need to remember that we are the weird ones: we are musicians for starters, which makes us very different from the listening public. And for those of you who are jazz players, even more so." Ruger9


Hi, R,
You are officially awarded the JGF "QUOTE OF THE DAY."
Marinero

[Christian Miller]

Well don’t we all love to be special?

[Marinero]

Concomitant with the death of local clubs that played a variety of live music came the death of Jazz. Jazz was never a genre that began in concert halls or auditoriums but rather in small clubs, bars, and lounges that offered a variety of live music every weekend. Every neighborhood in the city had its own unique clubs that played the best the area had to offer and it was a stepping stone to wider appreciation and opportunities. From 1964-1974, my bands played exclusively in these venues and it wasn't until I started playing with a 10-piece Jazz/Rock band that I began to play in large auditoriums and halls. Sadly, these opportunities don't exist today since recorded music has been the soup du jour for most clubs since the Disco Revolution. If you want Jazz to experience a rebirth, it must start with these small clubs that are willing to PAY musicians to perform. Otherwise, I believe, we're a short step to total obscurity and the birth of the "Bedroom Guitarist" in Jazz.
Marinero

[voxo]

I believe, we're a short step to total obscurity and the birth of the "Bedroom Guitarist" in Jazz.

...hahaha

[ragman1]

Why Isn't Jazz Popular?


Well, for one thing it's taken 23-and-ongoing pages to answer the question :-)

[sm80808]

Jazz (harmony) has been reaching younger listeners through hip hop.

Producers from the 2000's like JDilla/Madlib/Nujabes have heavily influenced lots of current bedroom producers albeit not strictly guitarists.

90's hip hop was full of great jazz samples.

This is how I personally got interested in jazz.

[voxo]

worth a listen Charles Ives .. the Unanswered Question....Against a background of slow, quiet strings a solo trumpet poses "The Perennial Question of Existence", to which a woodwind quartet tries vainly to provide an answer, growing more frustrated and dissonant until they give up

[rpjazzguitar]

I've never heard the Grateful Dead on self-identified jazz radio. But, the Dead did long jams, creating on the fly within a structure, some in odd meter and with as many or more chord changes as lots of jazz tunes. Why isn't that jazz?

Same for something like, for example, the Marshall Tucker band's live track of 24 Hours At a Time, with guitar, saxophone and violin solos. Seems like it could be called jazz, but you'll never hear it on jazz radio.

Or some of Carlos Santana's work?

George Wein seems to have understood this (or maybe it was just financial) when he started booking rock acts for the Newport Jazz Festival. Similar argument for booking an electric band (Dylan) at the Folk Festival.

[Guy In Lyon]

Why Isn't Jazz Popular?

Because instead of doing jazz renditions of the same old stuff, jazz musicians should be working on songs like "God Save The Queen" (Sex Pistols), "Dynamite" (BTS) and "Morning Glory" (Oasis). Or anything by Prince.

[Marinero]

Music is very regional. I grew up in different places along the Great Lakes. Mostly Buffalo but a number of other places too. From 1979-86' I lived in National City, California. Then back to Buffalo. Then Milwaukee. Then Las Vegas.
The Sonoran Desert is probably the end of the road for me.

In 70's Buffalo I could walk and go hear any music I wanted to. It was great. I started going to clubs when I was 15. We were always on the lookout for blues bands from Chicago.
It was guitar 24/7. No TV, didn't care about school. It was watching live music or jam bands every night.
And drugs. Lots and lots of drugs. We really like drugs in Buffalo.
That's a different subject. We were notorious for substance abuse.

Japan was a real eye-opener about how money works in live music. I stopped taking gigs seriously in 1986.

Hi, S,
I went to visit my brother in Buffalo in '78 who was finishing his Doctorate in Literature at SUNY. We went to a Jazz club(?), shot pool in a downtown poolhall with large windows(?), and ate raw clams from a "clamstand" in one of his favorite places off a main highway downtown(?). He lived in a nice Italian(Old World) neighborhood with butchers, bakers, and I suppose candlestick makers within walking distance from his house. Prices were very cheap then compared to Chicago and the economy was definitely depressed.
Marinero

[AaronMColeman]

I've never heard the Grateful Dead on self-identified jazz radio. But, the Dead did long jams, creating on the fly within a structure, some in odd meter and with as many or more chord changes as lots of jazz tunes. Why isn't that jazz?

Same for something like, for example, the Marshall Tucker band's live track of 24 Hours At a Time, with guitar, saxophone and violin solos. Seems like it could be called jazz, but you'll never hear it on jazz radio.

Or some of Carlos Santana's work?

George Wein seems to have understood this (or maybe it was just financial) when he started booking rock acts for the Newport Jazz Festival. Similar argument for booking an electric band (Dylan) at the Folk Festival.

I'm a big Dead fan and several other Americana bands with a lot of improv and jazz elements. To me they are jazz. Do they tick all the boxes, no but enough to where I think they land in the genre.

It's like a crow vs a penguin. Both are birds, but crows have almost all of the features of a bird, while penguins lack several (feathers, flight etc.). But both are birds. Jazz (to me) has a lot to do with improv and the attitude of the performers. I see a lot of cross over.

[voxo]

ok lets get back to some serious stuff.The Trumpet asks the question..to which the woodwinds "answer" the first six times in an increasingly erratic way. Ives wrote that the woodwinds' answers represented "Fighting Answerers" who, after a time, "realize a futility and begin to mock 'The Question'" before finally disappearing, leaving "The Question" to be asked once more before "The Silences" are left to their "Undisturbed Solitude".

[voxo]

sitting in a room..Dark..listening to it..not recommended

[fep]

I'm a big Dead fan and several other Americana bands with a lot of improv and jazz elements. To me they are jazz. Do they tick all the boxes, no but enough to where I think they land in the genre.

It's like a crow vs a penguin. Both are birds, but crows have almost all of the features of a bird, while penguins lack several (feathers, flight etc.). But both are birds. Jazz (to me) has a lot to do with improv and the attitude of the performers. I see a lot of cross over.

There is a long-form element to the Dead. Being wrapped up in a song/music that is of a longer length can change your mental state, I believe studies have put it somewhere around 10 minutes and longer. This goes both for the performers and the audience. At a Dead concert, this can happen even without the drugs. Dead-heads know this, those that "don't get the Dead" don't.

Not sure this applies to most jazz.

The Dead and Dead and Company have been and continue to be tremendously successful in attracting audiences and making money.

[ChazFromCali]

I think Pop Music people have better hair. Could be that simple.

[whiskey02]

There are just so many correct answers to the OP question. In no particular order;
Jazz was never popular. A full capacity jazz club in the 50's 60's mean 125 people. Also, don't forget that any night club be it jazz, blues, rock, strippers or dancing is primarily in the alcohol business.
Attention spans in modern society are such that for the last 35 years, a 2 minutes pop song video flashes images that routinely last less than 2 seconds.
Many jazz musicians live in a self constructed bubble inhabited by other instrumentalists who somehow think that the whole world is waiting to hear them blow minds with their unique ability to shred (far outside) the changes on giant steps and attya.
The options available to and competing for consumer's entertainment dollars has never been close to the enormity of choices that currently exist.
We are DEVO.