Why Americans Don't Like Jazz

[Bill McCloskey]

On the bluegrass forums there is constant discussion about "WIBA" (what is bluegrass anyways).

That kind of question can get you killed on a jazz site, because no one will be able to agree with anyone else (which is why it so fun to discuss).

Here is my definition, which isn't perfect by any means:

A blues based American musical form fronted by brass (trumpet and trombone) and reed instruments (sax or clarinet) and a rhythm section of a comp instrument (guitar, banjo, and/or piano), drums, and bass (string or tuba). It's key feature is improvisation over a syncopated beat.

Of course this leaves a lot out, but as a whole it covers a big swatch of jazz.

[Mitch Drumm]

I like Ben Webster but not Archie Shepp. I like Charlie Christian but not Wes Montgomery. I like Erroll Garner but not Hampton Hawes. Do I like jazz? Is the author talking about me?

Mitch, please forgive me if my speculation is off-target, but I'm wondering if you've heard Wes Montgomery's earlier recordings, the ones prior to his (relative) commercial success? The Verve recordings ("Going Out Of My Head" etc.) do not represent the type or caliber of musician he was. It was an unfortunate sellout, to be sure, but in his defense he had a lot of kids to feed. Maybe you do know this and still don't like him, which of course would be a matter of personal taste, and de gustibus non est disputandum.

Post-war jazz has taken on a lot of airs that were not there in 1940. I don’t think you’d likely have heard anyone in the Savoy Ballroom in 1940 say that “jazz is America’s classical music”, or "jazz is an art form"

I think you're mistaken there. I'd bet good money that Duke Ellington would have said something of the sort, and did, even then. James P. Johnson composed pieces in the jazz idiom for orchestra (e.g. "Yamekraw") intended to be accepted as "serious" music.

Brint:

I haven't heard a lot of Montgomery, but I haven't heard anything I liked yet. I think what I've heard is from the Riverside label.

He may well have done some stuff that I would like--but I haven't heard it. I can't speculate about what I haven't heard.

Regarding selling out. I support selling out. Some of my favorite artists have sold out (B.B. King, Charlie Rich) and more power to them.

The disdain for and badmouthing of people who have "sold out" is part of my complaint about the current state of jazz. See my original comment about disdain for commercial success and the contempt a lot of jazz aficionados have for Wynton Marsalis. I don't care about Wynton one way or another as a musician and don't listen to his music, but you have to laugh about what is said about him.

Regarding possible comments made in the Savoy Ballroom, my point is that people in the Savoy Ballroom were dancers who were too busy Lindy Hoppin' the joint to be discussing whether or not "jazz is an art form". That kind of talk seems to be a post 1940s phenomenon and that is no accident.

[Chris LeDrew]

I'd say listening to hardcore Jazz (ie. Miles) these days is just about as popular as reading literature from the Romantic period. Without excessive punctuation and short passages, most people's attention spans cannot handle it. The fast food mentality holds the most sway now:

Hamburger = Chorus/plot
French Fries = Verses/sub-plots
Fountain Drink = Bridge/plot twist

It takes about five minutes to digest, you can consume it while you are sitting in your car, and even though it makes you feel hollow inside, you always go back for more. I know my analogy is a stretch, but I'm tired tonite.

A musical or literary passage must be very short and punctuated in today's world for people to retain interest. Did you see the people on the news today lined up to buy the first Ipads? They were holding them up over their heads in a triumphant dance. Is there any hope for a largely instrumental musical genre that implores you to connect with your own emotions during an extended sitting? After seeing the news tonight, I doubt it.

I believe that appreciating Jazz requires a certain sensibility, and also an ability to survey humanity on a level that reaches beyond getting the best deals in the Wal Mart flyer. Next time you go to Wal Mart, study the faces around you. This is the face of Western consumerism. It has made zombies out of the general public. Another thing you'll notice when you look around at the faces in Wal Mart is that no one is analyzing the landscape as you are. There is zero critical thought happening throughout the majority of the general public now. Everything is predigested. Jazz,of course, requires you to chew with your teeth. A Big Mac does not.

[Bill McCloskey]

People were talking about jazz as an art form long before 1940. Paul Whiteman commissioned Rhapsody in Blue for that very reason. Most of the serious composers of the 20's and 30's were influenced by jazz as an artform and it informed their compositions. Think of Darius Milhaud and his La Création du Monde.

But you are right. The dancers at the Savoy Ballroom were only interested in dancing.

[Alvin Blaine]

He originally wrote 430 million (see my paste of his quote) which I found unbelievable. Looks like Alvin edited it later.

It was a typo. I meant to write 43 million compared to the 11 million for jazz sales.

[Mitch Drumm]

Post-war jazz has taken on a lot of airs that were not there in 1940. I don’t think you’d likely have heard anyone in the Savoy Ballroom in 1940 say that “jazz is America’s classical music”, or "jazz is an art form", but that type of academic navel-gazing has become all too typical in the last 50 plus years.

Mitch, I don't agree with what you're saying at all. How you could insinuate that calling Jazz an art form is "academic navel gazing" is beyond me. Geez Louise....

Anyway, Savoy Ballroom 1940--Bebop hadn't arrived yet. It all changed after that.

Mike and Brint:

I certainly agree that it all changed after bebop. Apparently, most comments about jazz in this thread refer to bebop and beyond.

All the comments about the "language of jazz" in this thread confirm it. The implication is that if you don't understand the language, you may have problems appreciating the music.

I am not a musician and literally don't know a sharp from a flat. So I don't know the language and am not about to become a musician to learn it. I can laugh when someone quotes "At Sundown", but I can't tell you whether "Donna Lee" is based on "Back Home In Indiana" or "Happy Birthday".

Seems to me that anyone waiting around for the unwashed masses to learn the "language of jazz" is going to die disappointed.

Those who don't speak the language will always be too square for the room. Which of course is part of the appeal. It's very sophisticated stuff and not exactly for the hoi polloi, you see.

My sense is that jazz in 1940 was targeted at the public and that bebop and beyond is targeted at musicians. But that may be an illusion. Maybe Miles Davis' most fervent wish was that some couple would jitterbug during his solos.

Regarding the "art form" stuff: I don't care in the least whether or not jazz is an art form, but it is more than passing strange that the tweed suit types seem compelled to reassure me that it is. I'd like to have a dollar for every time I read the art form/classical music bit in print. Suppose we stipulate that jazz is not an art form. Who would possibly feel differently about it? Not me. But then, I'm don't speak the language and am an outsider.

[Mike Neer]

.... Next time you go to Wal Mart, study the faces around you. This is the face of Western consumerism. It has made zombies out of the general public. Another thing you'll notice when you look around at the faces in Wal Mart is that no one is analyzing the landscape as you are. ...

Ahh, the faces in Walmart. I just can't resist:

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

Enjoy!

[Brint Hannay]

The dancers at the Savoy Ballroom were only interested in dancing.

Like the dancers at any type of dance venue, then or now, I might add.

Mitch,

Regarding "selling out", a distinction should be made between "selling" and "selling out". Nothing wrong with commercial success per se, but for a performer who cares about music for its own sake to wind up performing or composing, for commercial reasons, music they themselves don't like or respect is what I mean by "selling out". I don't say it in disdain; most musicians who play professionally find themselves doing it at one point or another, for understandable reasons, but I feel it's unfortunate. For the musicians themselves, I mean. Wes Montgomery himself was unhappy with the direction his career took, and that's too bad. Wynton Marsalis sells, yes, but I am under the impression he believes in what he's doing for musical reasons as well.

The "language of jazz", I'd say, is really just the "language of music". The general public's lack of response to classical music is for the same reasons as their lack of response to jazz.

[Bill McCloskey]

Again, I don't buy the argument that you need some sort of code to understand jazz. I loved jazz from the moment I was introduced. I was a musician, yes, but not a jazz musician. And I think you need to respond viscerally to any art form at least long enough to start to be familiar with the previously unfamiliar.

But this is any art form.

But jazz deserves its aficionados, those who know the music and the language on a deep level. It is the complexity and the history, and the personalities in a strong continuum that appeals to a great many people, myself included. Among jazz fans it is sort of like: when you are learning the language, we'll talk baby talk to you, but don't expect us to talk baby talk to each other.

[Mitch Drumm]

for a performer who cares about music for its own sake to wind up performing or composing, for commercial reasons, music they themselves don't like or respect is what I mean by "selling out". I don't say it in disdain; most musicians who play professionally find themselves doing it at one point or another, for understandable reasons, but I feel it's unfortunate. For the musicians themselves, I mean. Wes Montgomery himself was unhappy with the direction his career took, and that's too bad. Wynton Marsalis sells, yes, but I am under the impression he believes in what he's doing for musical reasons as well.

I don't know whether B.B. King has commented negatively about his career after the mid 60s when he gained widespread fame, nor do I know what Montgomery said. I'm guessing neither was unhappy enough to renounce any financial gain, nor should they. But why the unhappiness?

Do musicians who have had commercial success (Armstrong, Gillespie, Basie) have a history of using the term "selling out" when speaking about other musicians?

Or is the term primarily used by musicians who have had little or no commercial success?

Or is it used primarily by non-musicians?

I don't know the answers to those questions, but when I see the term used by musicians, my first thought is that the speaker is resentful of others (the "sellouts") and is trying to tell me that he is to be more highly regarded than the "sellout" because he is "suffering for his art".

If a multi-million selling pop artist suddenly gave away his fortune and became the stereotypical impoverished and unappreciated jazz musician, is that a sellout? Or does it only work the other way?

Regarding Wynton: he is disdained by some not only for his commercial success, but for where he has applied his influence. I remember reading all kinds of negative comments in the wake of Ken Burns' jazz series on PBS. How dare Wynton talk up Armstrong and early jazz when he really should be more supporting of 1980s and 1990s jazz. It was one step removed (at most) from calling him an Uncle Tom.

If I recall correctly, Wynton admitted in that Burns program that he originally thought of Armstrong as a mere artifact of a bygone era before he (Wynton) saw the light. I guess Wynton at one time was too hip for the room himself.

[Jim Cohen]

Do musicians who have had commercial success (Armstrong, Gillespie, Basie) have a history of using the term "selling out" when speaking about other musicians?...Or is the term primarily used by musicians who have had little or no commercial success?...Or is it used primarily by non-musicians?

Well, one example doesn't make a case but there is the famous diatribe of Pat Metheny against Kenny G. "selling out". And certainly Metheny is a musician who has had quite a lot of success of his own.

[Tony Glassman]

The reason that jazz has lost its popularity is because of its own evolution. Basically there are two types of art. Folk art, which is intended to appeal to the masses, and fine art which is appreciated by more elite audiences. The average working stiff looks to art as a diversion or entertainment. A much smaller segment of people view art as a source of enlightenment. Neither view of art is wrong, both are a positive thing.

Ballet will always appeal to fewer people than ballroom, clog and square dancing. Similarly, more people currently read Louie L’Amour and John Grisham compared to those that enjoy James Joyce, e.e. cummings or Suetonius.

Jazz was a “party music” at its inception. People danced and socialized to jazz, which was a very visceral music. Dixieland and swing were revolutionary in that they introduced the general public to music, which required both technique and improvisational skills. Still, the chord structure, progressions and melodies were fairly easy to follow for most.

As jazz transitioned to be-bop it demanded closer listening attention. The melodies were less easily recognizable and thus jazz became more restricted in its appeal. Aside from the occasional, Wes Montgomery, Dave Brubeck or Miles album, jazz was aimed at the devotees rather than the masses. That trend increased with the deconstructionists like ‘Trane, Ornette Coleman, Sun Ra through Mahavishnu etc. The audience became more “elite”. Beatniks, college-students and the “jet set” now became the jazz core audience, while bluegrass, country, pop and rock’n’roll became the new “folk” musical art forms.

That said, I think be-bop was the pinnacle of American music creativity. Bird, Diz, Dex, Klook and Charlie Christian developed a music that has never been surpassed. Luckily for me, my folks were hard-core bop freaks and raised me to love jazz, but I realize it will never again be a music that appeals to the masses.

The American music audience didn’t necessarily dumb down, jazz just evolved into a “fine” art.

[Bill McCloskey]

The American music audience didn’t necessarily dumb down, jazz just evolved into a “fine” art.

Interesting point and well said. I'll have to think about that.

[Kevin Hatton]

I listen to jazz most of the day. Even thinking about taking up Vibes.

[Dave Mudgett]

Of course some of us jazz lovers find "most people" just plain old boring.

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

Yup, I love it too, Mike. For those of you out there who don't like jazz because it's too complex or wading through a whole 200 word post - trust me, you won't find anything to tax your brains there. Is that pithy enough for ya'?

IMO - jazz is not just a 'fine art', in the sense of a purely elitist form that follows a rigid orthodoxy, Ken Burns and Wynton Marsalis notwithstanding. It's a big-tent format with a lot of different approaches to which I think most anybody could find a way to relate if they wanted. But everyone should listen to what they like - and they'll not get an argument from me.

Fact: many (but not all) Americans don't seem to relate very well to anything requiring a lot of complex thinking. There are probably a lot of reasons things have turned this way, which are neither here nor there unless you're trying to promote thinking. FWIW, that's my job - I teach about thinking methodologies - logic, mathematics, and design & information management methodologies - at a university. If you don't like that, no offense taken - but understand I'm gonna state my views anyway.

Let me also say - one of the reasons I like playing jazz is that it gives me oh, so many more ideas about how to play other styles that I also love - blues, country, bluegrass, rockabilly, you name it. It's sorta' like swinging a real heavy bat before you go to the plate.

[Calvin Walley]

Dave said :

Fact: many (but not all) Americans don't seem to relate very well to anything requiring a lot of complex thinking

Dave
music is supposed to " touch" you in some way
it simply doesn't need to be complicated
3 chords and the right words can and should move anyone to tears

Jazz just doesn't do that

[Tony Glassman]

... jazz is not just a 'fine art', in the sense of a purely elitist form that follows a rigid orthodoxy......

The fact that it does not follow any orthodoxy is just why it is elitist (and I don't mean that in a bad way). On the contrary, rigid music appeals to the common folk (e.g. polka, disco, bluegrass etc.). IMO it takes a discerning or "elite" ear that is open to the complexities and nuances of jazz, to enjoy it.

Let me also say - one of the reasons I like playing jazz is that it gives me oh, so many more ideas about how to play other styles that I also love - blues, country, bluegrass, rockabilly, you name it. It's sorta' like swinging a real heavy bat before you go to the plate.

I couldn't agree more!

[Dave Mudgett]

Calvin - I love a lot of structurally 'simple' music like country music and blues. I totally agree that a song doesn't 'need' to be complex to be moving. 3 chords and the truth works for me.

But the other side of that is that, sometimes, complexity can also be very beautiful and moving. I'm not pushing anything on anybody - but if you open yourself up to the possibility, your mind might let you unlock that beauty. I really think it's as much about wanting to hear the beauty as anything. If one expects or wants something to be boring or ugly, it's frequently a self-fulfilling prophecy. But I would never argue that anybody should try to force themselves to like anything.

The fact that it does not follow any orthodoxy is just why it is elitist (and I don't mean that in a bad way). On the contrary, rigid music appeals to the common folk (e.g. polka, disco, bluegrass etc.). IMO it takes a discerning or "elite" ear that is open to the complexities and nuances of jazz, to enjoy it.

Coming from an early classical music background from Boston, I have a different perspective. It can be quite elitist to insist that there is one and only one 'correct' way to do things, and that anything else is 'incorrect' or 'inferior'. I've certainly heard that a lot in my life, and I don't think I'm imagining the elitist connotation that is frequently implied by that type of thinking.

Just another POV - strictly my opinions, which anyone is free to take or leave as they please.

[Mike Neer]

Dave
music is supposed to " touch" you in some way
it simply doesn't need to be complicated
3 chords and the right words can and should move anyone to tears

Jazz just doesn't do that

Calvin, art doesn't tell you what to feel. The way it affects each individual is different. Besides, if I wanted to cry, I could find plenty other reasons to do it.

[Olli Haavisto]

People often confuse being moved by music with being moved by stories they can relate to set to music in as sentimental a way as possible.

[John Ed Kelly]

Bill McCoskey writes ''although I refuse to give up the notion that one can like jazz immediately with no prior experience or exposure.''

I challenge this because, I as a teenager then, (14 or so) was struck suddenly by jazz new orleans/ dixieland/ trad or what ever you want to call it.

My brother had a copy of Kenny Ball's ''Midnight in Moscow'' and that's about it for our household. I wouldn't call that ''exposure'' really.

I liked what I heard and went out on my own and searched for it virtually unaided. A number of my friends did the same.

[Bill McCloskey]

Bill McCoskey writes ''although I refuse to give up the notion that one can like jazz immediately with no prior experience or exposure.''

I challenge this because, I as a teenager then, (14 or so) was struck suddenly by jazz new orleans/ dixieland/ trad or what ever you want to call it.

Just so there is no confusion, I am saying it IS possible to like jazz immediately with no prior experience. Nothing to challange: we agree.

[Bill McCloskey]

A lot has to do with what you are brought up with. I remember listening to Dave Brubeck at my grandparents' house when I was just a kid, and I love the song South Rampart Street Parade which was a dixieland style song that was on some Time/Life series my parents had. I played trumpet as a kid so Herb Alpert was big when I was young. Maybe that predisposed me to like jazz. But I really got into it when I worked in a record store in college and the manager of the store turned me on to Miles Davis and the rest is history. I was in love immediately.

One needn't be moved to tears to be moved. I've been moved hundreds of times by jazz or an incredible jazz solo. a few summers ago I went to the Louis Armstrong house in Queens to hear a concert and to tour the house. It was one of the most moving events of my life: walking through this modest home knowing the person who "invented" jazz as we know it, who was brought up in such poverty with so little chance of survival let alone becoming a world changing figure...I was moved to tears. It was a very incredible experience.

[Don Drummer]

when Jazz was "swing" audience involvment was primary to its' appeal to the not so musical public. Later recontextualazations of the same repetoire by the Be-Bop scene pushed this audience away. "You can't dance to it" they would say. An early history of Jazz by an author who's name was Panassi or something like that concluded that Jazz was losing its appeal when it became too cerebral. It lost the folk-art thing as was stated earlier. The book was published in the late 40's. Be-Bop cats referred to him as a "mouldy fig". The truth lies somewhere in between. Don D

[Mike Neer]

It's important to note that Bebop was created by black musicians for themselves, not for public consumption. They were bored with the predictability of Swing. The fact that white America didn't embrace it initially didn't stop it from thriving in the clubs and jam sessions, like the legendary sessions at Minton's in Harlem.

Really not all that different from the French artistic community of Montparnasse in the early 20th century, or any other great artistic movement led by the artists. If I appear to be "academically navel-gazing," then my apologies.