-
OK. No, no and no. This is my rant. No. ART, jazz, music is a profession. This means that the artist has to get paid in order to make a living, in order to continue being an artist. I know that even the biggest conservative thinks that the artist should work without compensation, but it simply is not right. The hobbyist is fine to be lackadaisical about his or her muse. I mean he can work at a bank, computer programming, be a doctor and have the luxury of sitting back, pour a glass of wine, pick up a guitar, go to online forums and pontificate about what is right or wrong about jazz.
Originally Posted by snoskier63
But there are guys out there, some like me, who have to make a living at this. People seem to want their jazz musicians starving and living on the edge. I don't know. Maybe they think it gives their art some sense of legitimacy. But it's all so quaint.
"Concern about popularity is misplaced. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is if one is making music that moves oneself. If so one will be happy whether it makes them a lot of money or not."
Man. What the hell? Sorry to come down on you, but I'm really having a tough time with this one. And its not you, its an entire malaise of a world view. I ALWAYS make music that moves me. What we need is people to put their money where their mouth is. Support those jazz musicians who need your support. Buy CDs, go to concerts.
Musicians have to make money. Income from recordings has virtually gone out the window. Teaching is the last real avenue for making money in this art. Are you kidding me? Its a terrible state of affairs, especially when the supporters and professed lovers, or audience, thinks you should do it for the love of doing it. Yeah right. There are attorneys a free case once in a great while. Doctors without Borders. I know few professionals who would consider working for the love of it for very long. And the public more or less demanding it of you.
I'm sorry but I think its a travesty emblematic of our current society.
Rant over. Carry on.
-
02-04-2016 10:38 PM
-
Henry, I think you misinterpreted my main point. I would never imply that artists should work for nothing, only that not everyone is cut out to make it big as a jazz artist, as in any other profession. A true artist will likely follow their dreams and make the music that makes them happy. If that gets it done financially, great. If not they will keep working their ass off and hope it pays off one day. Others may choose to compromise and make another type of music that may not be their true love. The rare artist will be able to pull it off in a big way. Joe Jackson comes to mind as he was a mediocre jazz musician that realized his limitations and did something about it. Is he truly happy? Maybe. I would guess that he would rather make it big in jazz, but it wasn't meant to be, so he chose to stay with music in a different way. Most others could not do what he did, nor would they want to, so they need to figure out a way that works for them. Your point that artists must make money is slightly off-base. Nobody is owed huge success simply because they want it. Great success in anything usually demands very hard work for many years, a total commitment, and a great deal of good fortune. Even then nothing is guaranteed. As for the original question, just because someone thinks their style of jazz should be popular doesn't mean it will, but also doesn't mean it has no value. It may not make that artist rich, and people may even hate it, but it may trigger ideas in music that do become successful. Unfortunately, music is a tougher business than most. The lawyer, accountant, doctor, or computer programmer have huge opportunities to make a good living because their skills are in great demand. Realistically, how many musicians of any genre will ever have a hit single or CD? The artist that can strike the balance you previously spoke of will be successful and should make a very good living, even in jazz. Whether or not they do is a completely different issue. Sorry for a long rant of my own.
-
Any profession that isn't predicated on the survival of others is subject to the whims of the consumer. How do you make someone feel like they can't live without your music?
-
Snoskier63 - slightly off base? When did I say any artist was owed a huge success. Those are your words, not mine. No one is owed a living wage income. All I'm saying is those pontificating about what the artist should or do, if they love or respect the art, should not download free music and should support those who put their life on the line because they love this music. Sorry to sound so dramatic. But nobody needs to tell me how I need to just accept that I need to sacrifice my life for the love only of this music.
-
I see it this way. Jazz has always been popular but it's not as popular as it could be, or should be. It's not as popular as it should be b/c some improvisers play way too outside and go off into fusion land while playing to a jazz standard. When a non-jazz player hears that happen they simply turn off and all of a sudden they hate jazz b/c they don't understand it.
-
There's no passion in today's music. Not in the US. Thank got for Youtube where I can listen to older music.
And stay off my lawn!
-
Henry, with all due respect you are a great ambassador for the art, and deserve much success, but you are misinterpreting my comments once again and have taken them as a statement of what I think artists should do, which they are not. There are certain realities in this world, one of which is that it is very difficult to make a good living in music of any genre. Even back in the 50's and 60's there were great musicians that made a great living and those that did not. That is still the case. You say nobody needs to tell you how you need to sacrifice your life for the love of only this music. Nobody has told you that. It's a choice you made of your own free will because you love the music you play, you are very good at what you do, and you can't see yourself doing anything else. If you were dead broke my guess is that you would still find a way to keep doing what you truly love, and the music world is better off as a result. Rather than going back and forth here and not getting anywhere I would love to hear your realistic thoughts on how jazz can possibly regain some of its past glory. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
I would never have discovered 99% of the music I currently listen to if not for satellite radio and YouTube. I also love the jazz station at University of Central Florida, which I discovered while visiting my parents. Now with Sonos radios I can stream that station to my home in MA. Originally Posted by Stevebol
-
Yes those musicians provide intellectual interest - but that's not my initial or sole reason for listening to any of them. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
Right now I'm going through Ella's songbooks and to tell you the truth, I don't have a slightest clue why jazz isn't popular. This one comes from a man that grew on rock music, you know, the usual suspects, and then gradually, starting with the likes of Allan Holdsworth, Mike Stern, then John Abercrombie etc. etc. started to dive deeper and deeper into the jazz tradition. And today, here I am listening to Ella, and when she hits some notes my chest grows and I feel as I am almost starting to sweat. So why jazz isn't popular? I really don't know. Compared to this that goes into my headphones while I am typing, the music that today goes on the radio and other media is pure garbage, and that's an understatement.
-
Ella is popular, it's just that people don't think of it as jazz. My wife knows more standards than I do, but she didn't think she liked jazz until she met me. And now she loves Bill Frissell, Barry Harris, Kenny Wheeler....
But she knows All the Things You Are when I play it.
-
Which is funny really because quite a lot of it made by people who went to jazz college, if not outright jazz musicians. Session musicians, producers, arrangers and so on... Famous example would be Quincy Jones going back. I'm sure plenty of jazzers hated MJ at the time... Originally Posted by aleksandar
I know a hip-hop producer who plays George Van Eps style solo jazz guitar, for example. He used to be my teacher :-)
-
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
just my idea in a post a while back
its not like other music in being primarily designed to be consumed (listened to without participation)
it is essentially participatory
you have a tune in your head and so does someone else and you sing/play/beat it out together trying to make the combination of your efforts sound and feel good
its a social practice not a social product (or at least the thing produced in the practice is secondary to the practice itself)
the ramifications of this picture are wide ranging
i think it captures the spirit of the music quite strongly
-
It is not just about the music, Christian, it is about the style, and also about the feelings the old music portrays and how it portrays them. What we got today is, well, cheap. And I don't think of myself as some old fashioned puritan. The lyrics are lame, the arrangements are either some simple cliches or samples glued together. I listen to these arrangements, and some are really involved, you can tell they're done with passion about the music. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
the first really huge music star in the modern era is (bing notwithstanding) frank sinatra
just as much as elvis and the beatles he created modern youth culture - and because he came well before elvis you could make a very strong case for him being more important in the creation of this culture (a culture that now, lamentably, dominates the cultural world)
but it is inconceivable that he should have become such a unique star without the tunes - and they are the tunes that constitute the repertoire of classic jazz (the most modern type that no-one could ever deny was jazz)
so we either have to start writing tunes of this extra-ordinary musical quality again
or re-discover the songbook yet again
(if we want to avoid the gradual decline of the music)Last edited by Groyniad; 02-05-2016 at 07:38 AM.
-
"Why isn't jazz popular?" It isn't???
More seriously, I think jazz's peak popularity evolved from the era of dance bands that entertained young and old but focused on emotions rather than the cerebral for its own sake. People like dancing, sex, love....getting swept up in rhythm and feeling. When you get too far from that, they end up not as participants in a communal celebration of sorts but more like spectators or kids in class getting lectured to. That is not to denigrate or cheapen the intellectual side of jazz but to understand that successful musicians channel powerful emotional responses and make their listeners feel moved and swept away in the musical flow.
I think an artist like George Benson understands that and learned to entertain not lecture his audience. I often refer to a seminal night for me - February 27, 1973 - when I got to see George Benson perform at The Jazz Workshop in Boston. Wonderful night. Sitting literally five feet in front of George at a small table with my date. From the moment he stepped on stage he had this radiant smile as he played. The evening was recorded and one can find cuts on the 'net. He played stuff ranging from uptempo like Mambo Inn to ballads like What Are You Doing the Rest of Your Life which he sang as well if I recall. He swept the audience up in his artistry but also in his enjoyment of playing the music. There were those moments where you felt the chills up your spine. And his guest that evening, a young Earl Klugh, was not bad either.Last edited by targuit; 02-05-2016 at 07:42 AM.
-
Speaking of Sinatra, well, I said I grew up on rock music, and there was a period where I was a lot into The Doors. And if you listen to them, there is a lot jazz influence in their music, it's not just the usual I IV V in one tonality of that era, occasionally VI. Their drummer Densmore was clearly drumming as a jazzer. And Morrison singing was so hypnotic at times, and I was thinking, this guy surely has some interesting style. And then I heard Sinatra and I thought - now this sounds familiar Originally Posted by Groyniad
About the songs, I think that most of the jazzers today play the standards almost as if they don't care about the song, like is suppose to be just an opening statement for their long complicated solos, which often ends up sounding goofy.
Here is one exception:
I like how he is not soloing at all, that's just a mere transcription of Billie's song.
-
When I catch myself thinking this kind of thing I do end up thinking if I'd been around in the 30's. 40's, 50's and 60's, I would have looked down on the popular music of that time as cheap or empty, because I've always been an old fart. In fact I was was far more reactionary in my musical tastes when I was 18 than I am now. In the 90's most people of my generation were listening to (in the UK) Pulp and Blur or electronic dance music, drum and bass.. . I was listening to my dad's record collection. Originally Posted by aleksandar
Of course by the 50s and 60s jazz was effectively out of the mainstream, in any case...
There's alway something interesting going on. Which reminds me to finally get around to properly checking out Kendrick Lamar.
There was plenty of cheap, lame music made in the past. It gets forgotten, and everyone remembers Duke Ellington and Jimi Hendrix, but these guys were not mainstream at the time. They were underground or at least off mainstream.
And there's always a market for good mainstream entertainment, too. Mark Ronson, Bruno Mars etc...Last edited by christianm77; 02-05-2016 at 08:11 AM.
-
I think jazz is as popular as it needs to be. The music marketplace is very fragmented. Even pop music isn't as popular, in a way, as it used to be. Music is still a commodity, but it is more personalized now. Radio isn't as big a factor. Originally Posted by nick1994
One friend of mine, a producer up in Virginia, says that now "All music is nichè music." There's more musical diversity and more sources of music. That, plus the historical time factor has created branches in every genre. There's modern country music, traditional country music, roots country music, western swing, countrypolitan, bluegrass, Appalachian, and more. All the changes that every genre has gone through are sort of frozen in time at different points, even pop music you pick your decade, 70s, 80s, 90s. So not only can you pick your genre, you can pick your era.
Have you noticed that there is very little rock music in the pop charts and radio? Same thing. Rock is still as popular as it needs to be, but there are sub-genres of metal, sub-genres of punk, classic rock, rock n roll, rock a billy, rhythm n blues, country rock, guitar rock, glam rock, and so on, and so on.
No genre is as popular as it used to be, at least not in the form that it used to be.
Radio itself started this. When I was a kid you hear all the music on the same radio station. There were less divisions between the genres, more overlap in fan's taste for the different genres.Last edited by kenbennett; 02-05-2016 at 08:29 AM.
-
Oh well... Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Ellington and Hendrix were underground?
-
By rocking their world and making them feel deeper. Raise the chill on their spine. Whether you Andrea Bocelli or Joe Pass or Miles Davis or Chet Baker. And for my taste by creating something of beauty to charm them. Cast a bit of a spell. Originally Posted by lammie200
Of course if your art is being streamed at fractions of a penny to you while serving as the lifeblood creative content of some dandy Internet service, well you have a platform but the ticket is not too remunerative to the artist.
-
Speaking of Ellington, his career had declined sharply by 1956. Then an interesting thing happened. As the crowd was leaving him at Newport he went back to raw emotion with Diminuendo and Crescendo in Blue. A particularly attractive blonde was moved beyond control, and when the band was done swinging Ellington's career was officially revived. The audience needs raw emotion.
-
Maybe it doesn't matter. Not even in a club.
-
Later 60's might have been the time of the 'concept' album. Jimi was obviously blues and rock but avante-garde too. He seemed to be having fun doing steps in the older days. He was definitely R&B. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
He was really versatile. One of a kind. Underground? I'd say no.
Last edited by Stevebol; 02-05-2016 at 10:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
Has anyone tried the JHS Clover preamp pedal?
Today, 05:41 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos