mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (11/17/84)
Why does jazz not sell millions of LPs? Barring that, why does this music not have a comittment from the music business establishment to keep it active and alive, a la classical music, which does not sell either??? Here is an American art form (the ONLY one!) that the crushing majority of Americans ignores often proudly so, dismissing it as abstruse, obscure and boring? The same people *often* know little if anything about classical music, but classical music is "cultured", while jazz is "obscure" Could it be that US society is not ready to accept (after 100 years) a music in which all major innovators have been black (after all these Negroes all got rhythm :-) Flames, agreement and other comments are welcome, that will mean someone is interested Marcel Simon mhuxr!mfs "Think of all the things you could be by now if Sigmund Freud's wife was your mother" Charles Mingus song title
Bob Soron <Mly.G.Pogo%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA> (11/18/84)
Marcel Simon writes: > Why does jazz not sell millions of LPs? Barring that, why does > this music not have a comittment from the music business establishment > to keep it active and alive, a la classical music, which does not > sell either??? But when a jazz album -does- sell millions of copies -- even hundreds of thousands -- jazz fans dismiss it as populist! > Here is an American art form (the ONLY one!) that the crushing majority > of Americans ignores often proudly so, dismissing it as abstruse, > obscure and boring? The same people *often* know little if > anything about classical music, but classical music is "cultured", > while jazz is "obscure" Lordy, I'm sick of hearing that "jazz is the ONLY American artform." Not only does it ignore the fact that country music dates back 300 years -- well before jazz was ever thought of -- but also it ignores the fact that the French jazz movement played an important part in the acceptance of the genre not only around the world but here in America as well. > Could it be that US society is not ready to accept (after 100 years) > a music in which all major innovators have been black > (after all these Negroes all got rhythm :-) I wouldn't be surprised if that were one reason French jazz gave the genre such a boost. But I'm not so sure that Django Reinhardt, Stephane Grappelli et al. were not major innovators. ...Bob -------
Michael Fehling <fehling@aids-unix.ARPA> (11/19/84)
Perhaps Marcel Simon's remarks (about jazz in the U.S) were not perfectly phrased so as to preclude debate, but Bob Soron's replies to Simon are at best the standard kind of diatribe that one always hears about jazz, and in fact they really beg the important questions that (I hope) Simon is asking. I've never flamed on one of these mailing lists before, but Soron's replies to Simon's questions about jazz appreciation in the U.S. have irked me, so here goes: First, Soron challenged Simon's claim that jazz is the one established American art form by pointing out that "country music dates back 300 years". This is a definitional. It is really a waste of time arguing about historical precedence (or uniqueness) of jazz or country music as soron does. For one thing, by going that far back in history the "roots" of country music are in general thoroughly intertwined with those of jazz (e.g., blues, swing forms, importation of eastern european forms, etc). More importantly, I doubt that Soron or anyone else can provide a completely acceptable account of when a musical style becomes a unique identifiable art form. Speaking as a practicioner (I spent a few years making my living playing jazz, rock, classical, and other styles of music), I couldn't care less whether country music is described as art. What matters to me is to understand and appreciate the artistic *aspects* of *any* type of music. It does seem obvious, however, that the artistic facets of country music are currently buried in heavy layers of commercialism. (E.g., If someone can't tell the difference in *intent* between the music of Dolly Parton and that of Thelonius Monk then no amount of historicism or definition will help!) Second, consider Soron's remarks about the "French jazz movement" exemplifying the non-American roots of jazz. Au contraire!! Rather than refuting Simon's points it really provides a concrete example of them. Of course the French jazz "movement" (sic) was important! It was (and is, e.g., Jon Luc Ponty) providing benefits that always accrue to an art form when expanded by artists with diverse backgrounds and perspectives. But please remember the facts. (A), the music and artistic style adopted in this movement was built entirely upon the american jazz tradition; (B), this French activity was at least as much the result of work by expatriot Americans as it was French artists; and (C), an important factor in the very existence of a French jazz movement was the relative amount of support that could be garnered by going artists to France to play compared to the support they could obtain while playing in the U.S. For example, in France guys like Stephane Grapelli (and the *American* sidemen he frequently depended upon) could play "downtown for the white folks" while at the same time their American counterparts were still limited to playing "uptown" in Harlem clubs in front of black audiences. Third, Soron seems to imply that the jazz community has brought the lack of support for jazz on itself when he claims that if a jazz work sells wells the jazz community "dismiss(es) it as populist". This claim is factually incorrect and reveals a simple minded understanding of the real concerns pop art. Soron's claim is factually incorrect because of the many examples in which the jazz community strongly supported popularized and expanded versions of their art. In the seventies the growth of so-called jazz-rock fusion was supported by jazz audiences well before this music was successfully brought to non-jazz audiences by the likes of Chick Corea. For example, recall the early experiments by Miles Davis with jazz fusion. Also, the jazz community has been extremely supportive of the experiments of Claude Bolling, whose work has fused classical and jazz forms and has been quite popular (though not on the order of "millions of albums"). Certainly there was debate about such new directions, but please remember that it was the efforts of these jazz artists, along with support from the jazz community, that provided sufficient support for these new forms to establish themselves so that they could be "packaged" and brought to the general music audience. There will always be members of any art community who blindly resist changes in the genre, but it is silly to indict the entire community for that resistance. Expecially when we have just come through a period of such intense expansion. Soron's indictment of the jazz community as anti-populist portrays a far too simple minded undertstanding of the type of concern that artists have with popularization. Practioners and followers jazz (or any other music style for that matter) don't oppose popularity, they oppose selling out on an important element of the art form they cherish. In particular, many jazz fans (and most jazz players) do indeed tend to oppose popularizations of the music, but mainly when such popularizations are obtained at the expense of the jazz musician's ability to *express herself*. The real problem in pop forms of jazz (e.g., the stuff of a few years ago on the CTI label by the likes of Grover Washington Jr., etc.) is that the artist's means of self expression are greatly restricted in favor of established *formulas* that those involved with music as a business believe will guarantee popular acceptance. (Again, rock and other musicians have long been subjected to these same pressures.) In other words the problem with pop art is that there is an inevitable tradeoff to evaluate between artistic freedom and accessibility. Most jazz fans and artists that I know want to make sure that this tradeoff is minimized; they are *NOT* trying to oppose the popularization of jazz absolutely. (By the way, I have had concrete experience as a performer with the severe trade-offs one must often make in doing popular versions of jazz. I did studio sessions to record some pop(disco)-jazz stuff of a few years ago. I have also done a number of straight-ahead jazz sessions. In the disco-jazz sessions the main "guidance" of what to play and how to play it came largely from the "people in the recording booth", i.e., the producer and the recording directors/engineers. The primary concern in these pop sessions seemed to be producing a *marketable* version of the music. In doing jazz sessions the specific direction of the music came almost always from the musicians themselves. The primary focus in these sessions was whether we were using managing to fully *express* the emotion and ideas that we, the musicians, felt were important.) It seems to me that Simon's main points must still stand. If jazz is not the only American art form, then it is at least the clearest example of a well developed art form originated within the U.S. culture that has spread its influence around the world. And it is simply a fact that this art form is not well supported in the U.S. It is instead the case that jazz artists often must flee the U.S. to Europe or Japan to find a situation where they may practice their art with few compromises, with some degree of respect from the surrounding community, and where they can at least earn enough money to survive. It is nonsense to offer arguments like Soron's which imply that the jazz community has somehow brought this situation on itself.
lincoln@eosp1.UUCP (Dick Lincoln) (11/19/84)
> Why does jazz not sell millions of LPs? Barring that, why does > this music not have a comittment from the music business establishment > to keep it active and alive, a la classical music, which does not > sell either??? > Here is an American art form (the ONLY one!) that the crushing > majority of Americans ignores often proudly so, dismissing it as > abstruse, obscure and boring? The same people *often* know little if > anything about classical music, but classical music is "cultured", > while jazz is "obscure" > Could it be that US society is not ready to accept (after 100 years) a > music in which all major innovators have been black (after all these > Negroes all got rhythm :-) > Marcel Simon You're wrong about the "selling" of classical and "fringe-classical" music (such things as "Boston Pops", etc). This stuff sells very well into its relatively concentrated market, much better than jazz. And that brings up another point - there is NO "committment from the music business establishment" to keep ANY form of music alive. What committment there is to keeping music alive comes from the ARTS establishment, not from the BUSINESS establishment. "Classical" music has significant financial backing because: (1) Often the Arts and Business establishments encompass the very same "captains of industry" and wealthy "beautiful people". (2) "Classical" music is generally accepted by the Arts Establishment as being art - the same is NOT true for jazz or any other form of "pop/cabaret" music. (3) "Classical" music sells very well in the right places, thank you very much, especially the old "war horses". Standard "cabaret" music is supported by many of the same people as a lark, not serious art, which explains the continued popularity of Broadway musical even at today's outrageous ticket prices. This argument implies that the true understanding of the music by "classical" audiences is not significantly greater than their understanding of jazz, which I believe to be true of the relation of any significant art to its "audience". Lasting art is only for the few because of the depth of study and concentration required to understand and truly appreciate it. There have been times when jazz was very successful and popular, again without any real understanding of, or committment to, it by the relative "masses" supporting it. The '30s and 50's are good examples. The rich white folk traipsed up to Harlem in the 20's and early 30's in mass hordes to hear any number of excellent black jazz bands at places like the Cotton Club. Swing became immensely popular in the late 30's, although it soon was watered down into the "Glenn Miller sound" and the like. Dave Brubeck, certainly recognized as a jazz artist (though white), had the largest selling LP at the top of the charts in the late 50's: "Jazz Goes to College." His "Time Out" album also landed in the top 20 about a decade later. The jazz audience in the 50's suddenly switched by and large to Folk Music. Can you imagine a "true jazz lover" suddenly trading in his Charlie Parker and Clifford Brown/Max Roach albums for the Kingston Trio? Yet apparently that's exactly what literally hundreds of thousands of people did. It's interesting to note that jazz "progress" has been inversely related to its commercial success: the last two periods of success cited above coincided with innovative stagnation while jazz changed radically outside of and in between those periods (Be-Bop and "Modal - No Harmonic Progression" (John Coltraine, McCoy Tynor, Carl and Paula Bley, Cecil Taylor, etc.) waves). Economic forces cause this: during "good times" the money is in making the same sound over and over again and the newly arrived promoters drive the whole jazz scene; during "hard times" only the artistically driven stay with it and essentially starve. I find that popularity and acceptance of any "art form" has more to do with its promotion and trappings than its content: anything unfamiliar played at Lincoln Center will be a hit if: (1) It has the right promo buildup (2) Whoever introduces the act to the audience (it's a required ritual at jazz concerts) gives the distinct impression that the musicians are great or near-great. (3) The performance gets a couple of good reviews from "major" art critics. What actually goes on on the stage will probably be essentially irrelevant. I also quibble with your statement that, "all major innovators [in jazz music] have been black..." Certainly most have been, but not all. REAL jazz folks know that Miles Davis is a creation of Bill Evans.
scott@opus.UUCP (Scott Wiesner) (11/19/84)
> > Why does jazz not sell millions of LPs? My guess is that jazz isn't popular because you often need to *listen* to it to enjoy it. It doesn't always come with a nice thump-thump-thump you can dance to, and often doesn't include words to keep the mind occupied. -- Scott Wiesner {allegra, ucbvax, cornell}!nbires!scott
cuccia@ucbvax.ARPA (Nick Cuccia) (11/22/84)
Hear hear!! Once upon a time (say, up to the late '30s) this
wasn't the case, but then came Bop, the War, the GI Bill,
Conservatory and University-trained performers/composers such
as Dave Brubeck (student of Darius Milhaud at Mills College) and
others, Gunther Schuller and Third Stream, and we have music that
has grown increasingly more difficult to listen to--especially if
you only want music to {study, dance, play Pac-Man} to.
From the frazzled fingers of...
--Nick Cuccia
--ucbvax!cucciamfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (11/27/84)
Lot of articles and mail. Great, some people listen and care.
Was set to respond at length to Soron, but Fehling did most
of that work for me, so I will only address some specific points
made by Soron and Lincoln:
Miles Davis as a creature of Bill Evans:
See any of the following:
- Birth of the Cool (1949) admittedly music that GIL Evans
had a lot to do with
- Walkin' (1954) which to quote Ralph Gleason "called all
the children home" (from cool excursions)
- Kind of Blue (1959) That's where your argument comes from,
but I remember reading an interview with Bill Evans (ca 1977) where
he acknowledged Miles as the inspiration for his playing. I am somehow
inclined to believe Evans over Lincoln
- Filles of Kilimanjaro (1968) a brilliant LP of elliptical,
understated music that owes as much to Wayne Shorter as to anyone
- Bitches Brew (1970) Bill Evans was NEVER so funky
I think I'll stop here. I could go on but what's the use.
French Jazz:
Take the specific (Rheinhardt/Grappelli). Do you think that
Django is a more important or influential guitarist than Charlie Christian?
Take the general: French and European audiences have been a lifesaver
to many generations of american jazz musicians that could not make aliving
at home. However, this passion has not extended to homegrown players.
To wit: the great drummer Andre Humair, (to a lesser extent) the pianist
Martial Solal, all were ignored. An exception:
Niels Henning Orsted Pedersen, the excellent bassist.
Jazzmen not covering country:
Please see Sonny Rollins' "Way Out West" (Contemporary 1957),
and Miles' version of "Billy Boy" (on "Milestones", Columbia 1958),
just to think of two examples off the top of my head. There is also a
Duke Ellington suite, although I can't think of it now, and an Oliver
Nelson version of "Hoedown", although Copland was a "classical" composer.
Jazz as "culture" or lack thereof:
You are in effect agreeing with me (Lincoln).
People (captains of industry especially) who support a genre without
carefully weighing it are passing judgement on the cover without
reading the book.
Considering the fuss made over Benny Goodman and Dave Brubeck,
two good but not great musicians (compared to, say, Duke Ellingon and
Thelonious Monk),I have to think that is because the cover is a bit too dark
for what is considered acceptable as proper culture.
(strangely, nobody commented on this factor in jazz's non popularity)
Worthy white musicians:
never said there are no good white jazzmen, but that the major
innovators have been black. Who are the white players that
rank with Joplin, Armstrong, Ellington, Bechet, Basie, Parker,
Monk, Gillespie, Davis, Coleman, Taylor, Hawkins, Young, or
closer to today, Murray, Threadgill, Rivers, Shorter, etc?
Can't boogie to Jazz after Bebop:
Not even counting the master of funk, Miles (he should be obvious)
or his various disciples, please check out David Murray ("Ming",
"Home", "Murray's steps", "Morning Song", etc), Henry
Threadgill ("Just the facts and pass the bucket", others with Air)
or anything by Jimmy Smith, Lee Morgan, James "Blood" Ulmer,
Jack DeJohnnette, Arthur Blythe, etc.
"It don't mean a thing, if it ani't got that swing"
Marcel Simon
mhuxr!mfs