Why Americans Don't Like Jazz
lukej...@gmail.com
I occasionally lurk here but haven't contributed. I came across this
essay today and thought some of you may enjoy it, though it is not
about guitar specifically.
http://www.dyske.com/index.php?view_id=778
Luke
ott...@hotmail.com
I like this part:
"If you have written your own music, you have probably experienced
this before: You play it for your friends to get their opinions. For
about 10 seconds, everyone is silent. After 20 seconds, their eyes
start to wander around. After 30 seconds, someone says something,
which triggers everyone else to speak up. After 40 seconds, no one is
actually listening to your music. "
I've noticed that on those few occassions where somebody insists on
playing something when they hear I'm a guitar player, and I do a short
classical piece or standard tune they're too young to know, even a
Beatle tune, exacatly the same reaction.
If Jimmy Bruno played it it would be OK tho.
One thing he ignored though, is that some people only care about the
"Beat" or whatever that makes a tune danceable.
Bg
tomb...@jhu.edu
wrote:
For even more insight, I recommend renting the movie "Idiocracy"
Paul
On 2/26/07 3:12 PM, in article
1172520744.1...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com, "lukej...@gmail.com"
<lukej...@gmail.com> wrote:
The idea that non-english speaking listeners may be more attuned to
instrumental music than english speakers, given the (assumed) dominance of
english in pop music, is interesting, and never occurred to me before. I
wonder if any research backs that up. I also wonder if English (and a few
others, maybe portugese) sound more musical than other languages when you
don't undertand what is being said.
Paul K.
Gerry
> I like this part:
> "If you have written your own music, you have probably experienced
> this before: You play it for your friends to get their opinions. For
> about 10 seconds, everyone is silent. After 20 seconds, their eyes
> start to wander around. After 30 seconds, someone says something,
> which triggers everyone else to speak up. After 40 seconds, no one is
> actually listening to your music. "
>
> I've noticed that on those few occassions where somebody insists on
> playing something when they hear I'm a guitar player, and I do a short
> classical piece or standard tune they're too young to know, even a
> Beatle tune, exacatly the same reaction.
Yeah, that's why I stop playing at the 40 second mark with the
rejoinder, "It continue along like that till nirvana which you clearly
don't have an interest in."
I've never known Europeans or Asians to be any more polite.
--
///---
cl...@claymoore.com
> I've noticed that on those few occassions where somebody insists on
> playing something when they hear I'm a guitar player, and I do a short
> classical piece or standard tune they're too young to know, even a
> Beatle tune, exacatly the same reaction.
When I was in high school in El Paso, TX I had a group class taught by
Curt Warren, a great jazz guitar player. One day he brought in the
classical guitar teacher from UTEP and one of his former students,
another classical guy. The classical prof was a complete dick anyway,
(I was signed up for lessons with him but he only showed up for one
out of four) and this day was no different. After the two of them
played and made some snide remarks about pop music Curt began doing a
solo rendition of a Beatles tune. When he was midway through classical
prof starts talking again, and Curt had to actually stop and tell the
guy to be quiet and let him play his tune.
I have a young friend who shows some promise as a musician, and he's
been gigging out for a while. But every time he comes over and I play
him a recording he starts talking over it immediately. I remember kids
in my high school doing the same thing 30 years ago. I think it's
normal everywhere with almost everyone. Please don't tell me that it's
just North Americans. I've had the same experiences in Europe and
Latin America.
Clay Moore
Joe Montgomery
> But every time he comes over and I play
> him a recording he starts talking over it immediately.
At my last solo gig I was checking the guitar volume with the owner of
this wine bar. I strummed a few chords and asked her if the volume was
good. She referred me to the table in front of me (about 6 feet away)
and said I should ask them.
I looked right at the table (about 5 people) and asked them if they
thought I was playing at a volume acceptable enough for them to ignore
me.
They laughed, but in reality I was only 1/2 joking.
JM
Jerome
I'm half french, half american. I've been going to the us almost every
summer of my life vistiting family or working at a french camp in
minnesota. I've seen kids from all over the us. What I saw is that
they had a pretty varied musical culture. That's because America has a
pretty varied musical culture. Not a lot of kids in France know who
Bob Dylan is. They'll know who "claude francois" is and that IS sad :
what I mean to say is that America has a a quality musical culture.
You don't hear and see as much live music in france. I'v hear that in
Germany, half of the families have a musical instrument at home!!
What about jazz
Now, if that is so, why are Johnny Griffin, Archie Shepp, David Murray
moving to Fance and others to European countries? (and that's just for
the sax players).
Itis not easy to be a jazzmen in America. I f you play jazz, you don't
interest a lot (unless you're diana krall or norah jones, the latter
being the 1.5 percent of the 3). So imagine if you're a contemporary
jazz player !!!!
In France the jazz public is not as big in size, but might be the same
in percentage (compared to the us jazz public), and definately more
open minded! Here in Tours (180 000 p) we have two private music
schools : one rock, one jazz (where I work), a public music school, a
musical faculty and a classical conservatoire. We also have a
exclusive Jazz concert hall (that programms a lot of contemporory
stuff, not just 50's kind of music jazz). That brings to jazzers an
eclectic public who knows what jazz is really about.
That's contradictory with what I said before! Well, not really : I
still think that an average 15 year old american is more musically
cultured than a french, because it's part of his culture. I France
there are the ignorants and the educated. Guess who's the biggest?
Didier Verna
> What about jazz Now, if that is so, why are Johnny Griffin, Archie Shepp,
> David Murray moving to Fance and others to European countries? (and that's
> just for the sax players). Itis not easy to be a jazzmen in America.
On the other hand, I know more and more French Jazz musicians moving
to the US because they get more credit or attention there than here (in
France).
For instance, a friend of mine has just been offered to be enroled in Allan
Holdsworth and Gary Husband's record label at NAMM. I don't think he ever got
any proposition in France. A personnal experience: my album "@-quartet" is
currently being aired on more US radios than French ones (and that's not
because I sent it to more US radios than French ones; that's not the case).
In France, you have to know the right people at the right time. Otherwise, you
face typical pseudo-intellectual french elitism. In the US (that's my
impression anyway), people are naturally more enthusiastic about anything new.
--
The @-quartet now on iTunes ! http://records.didierverna.com
Didier Verna <did...@didierverna.com> http://www.didierverna.com
Tone
>
> <lukejaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello All -
>
> > I occasionally lurk here but haven't contributed. I came across this
> > essay today and thought some of you may enjoy it, though it is not
> > about guitar specifically.
>
> >http://www.dyske.com/index.php?view_id=778
>
> > Luke
>
> The idea that non-english speaking listeners may be more attuned to
> instrumental music than english speakers, given the (assumed) dominance of
> english in pop music, is interesting, and never occurred to me before. I
> wonder if any research backs that up. I also wonder if English (and a few
> others, maybe portugese) sound more musical than other languages when you
> don't undertand what is being said.
I'm not big on female vocalists but I'd take Eliane Elias or Astrid
Gilberto singing Portugese any day. I've had some African records
with vocals I like a lot too. And Spanish for that matter. Kind of
hard to say where the vocal qualities end and the particular sylables
begin.
I grew up in the US and an awful lot of the lyrics to popular songs
were incomprehensible. Maybe that's why I've never paid much attention
to lyrics. The idea that people all over the world listen to english
pop lyrics as musical sounds is mildly surprising but so is the idea
that most english speakers do the work needed to understand the lyrics
to pop tunes :-)
Gerry
> I have a young friend who shows some promise as a musician, and he's
> been gigging out for a while. But every time he comes over and I play
> him a recording he starts talking over it immediately. I remember kids
> in my high school doing the same thing 30 years ago.
I think there is a very large and understandable difference between a
kid not being able to concentrate full-bore on a piece of music, than
there is an adult. But in either case I think there is something about
what they perceive that either gives them focus or does not.
I was speaking to an 28 year-old woman in a car while we were driving
somewhere and there was classical music playing. I pointed out that I
loved the way the cellos came in and stole away the theme. I pointed it
out very specifically, "Hear that little group of triplets going down?
Now the cellos slowly amble in doing their own thing, now the cellos
begin the triplets, they swell, and then the brass wanders away." When
I finished this little 20 second thing at a red light she was slack-jaw
amazed. "I had no idea that sort of stuff was going on in this music."
I was slack-jaw amazed that she didn't have an inkling.
She grabbed my arm and asked what was going on now. I told her until
we got where we were going. She was jumping around like crazy
completely excited. This was not a stupid lady or someone who didn't
buy and own her share of records. She had just been perceiving this
opaque aural glot, this whole, and didn't really conceive it as a
pastiche of elements.
I think those who can only hear big-BLOCK audio and don't really
understand it, even thought they may "like the beat" or "like the
lyrics", have less patience in listeing, and maybe are fearful they'll
be asked to comment on the music when concluded and will embarrass
themselves by their lack of ability to converse on it.
That may be part of it.
> I think it's normal everywhere with almost everyone. Please don't tell
> me that it's
> just North Americans. I've had the same experiences in Europe and
> Latin America.
--
///---
Gerry
> That's contradictory with what I said before! Well, not really : I
> still think that an average 15 year old american is more musically
> cultured than a french, because it's part of his culture. I France
> there are the ignorants and the educated. Guess who's the biggest?
There is a big difference between being musically cultured and being
exposed to diversity in musical culture. I think more US kinds hear
more kinds of everything because you can't go anywhere without being
bombarded by all kinds of music. I also think they consider music a
chit of exchange, if you will, to know artists and styles and
recordings that are "hip" "cool" "new", etc. These may or may not have
any value.
But this doesn't mean they know about the candy in the wrapper so much
as they know the wrapper. The French that I have known have all been
vastly more musically cultured in the respect that they know more about
music proper; not simple the packages. Though they may not know which
song to listen to with this pair of pants or which artist goes best
with those earrings. And that is VERY MUCH musical "culture" too.
Caveat: all the French that I have known have been those who either
spoke English and lived in the States or were those that frequent
iVisit/internet and have fair enough chops to chat about music in
English or Franglish. Admittedly, a dramatically non-representitive
sample size.
--
///---
Gerry
>> The idea that non-english speaking listeners may be more attuned to
>> instrumental music than english speakers, given the (assumed) dominance of
>> english in pop music, is interesting, and never occurred to me before. I
>> wonder if any research backs that up. I also wonder if English (and a few
>> others, maybe portugese) sound more musical than other languages when you
>> don't undertand what is being said.
>
> I'm not big on female vocalists but I'd take Eliane Elias or Astrid
> Gilberto singing Portugese any day.
I never heard any recording in which Eliane sings. Does she? Are you
thinking of Tania Maria? Though Brazilian it seems she sings more in
Portuguese anyway.
> I've had some African records
> with vocals I like a lot too. And Spanish for that matter. Kind of
> hard to say where the vocal qualities end and the particular sylables
> begin.
I undoubtedly listen more to Spanish- and Portuguese-language vocals
than English. And though I know speak crippled versions of both
languages I don't really hear the lyrics as a semiotic stream, I hear
the lines as musical. Maybe 5% of words make themselves known without
analysis, but are not considered as part of a real textual line. Amor,
mulher, madre, feliz, etc. I can't hear these and not know what they
mean, but most of the time the lines are going to quickly.
For me it is *purely* musical, more pure than Diana Krall, Sting, Nat
Cole, or Norah Jones.
> I grew up in the US and an awful lot of the lyrics to popular songs
> were incomprehensible. Maybe that's why I've never paid much attention
> to lyrics. The idea that people all over the world listen to english
> pop lyrics as musical sounds is mildly surprising but so is the idea
> that most english speakers do the work needed to understand the lyrics
> to pop tunes :-)
Maybe we both like English pop because it's so easy to disregard the
lyrical content!
--
///---
steve
formulated
the following incoherence:
> The idea that non-english speaking listeners may be more attuned to
> instrumental music than english speakers, given the (assumed) dominance of
> english in pop music, is interesting, and never occurred to me before. I
> wonder if any research backs that up. I also wonder if English (and a few
> others, maybe portugese) sound more musical than other languages when you
> don't undertand what is being said.
I dont buy it myself. IMO there is a natural appeal in the human
voice..part of our instinctive desire to communicate, not unlike a dog who
pricks up his ears when a neighborhood dog is howling or barking in the
distance. When I was in high school, my friends and I were fans of an
italian prog rock band ("PFM"), and we would sing the italian (or something
phoenetically like it) along with the vocal tunes even though it
was...er...greek to us, but we never sang an instrumental melody (other than
to demonstrate the tune). In human terms I dont think they are the same,
so...I dont buy it.
Plus Im skeptical about this wife who hears the words but not the music.
How can that be? If I sang her favorite lyrics to the "gilligans island"
theme, would she realy be so clueless? Ive never met such a person. Have
any of you guys?
My friends and I have discussed the general tendency of europeans to be more
open to art (music, movies, paintings, etc) than americans (and it does seem
to be a real phenomenon). We theorize a major component is the selection
process in moving from europe to the US. Historically, who came to the US
(voluntarily)? People who wanted to escape oppression, those who wanted to
enjoy the freedoms, those who wanted economic opportunity...whatever the
specific reason, to make such a choice (in the old days especially, when it
wasnt just a few hours on a plane) required one to be an ambitious risk
taker. That type of person is not generally prone to artistic reflection,
but more interested in reaching goals and bringing about results. In short,
the migration to america may have had a tendency to select out the artistic
temperment in favor of the tin eared go getter.
steve
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce
Tone
> On 2007-02-27 07:29:16 -0800, "Tone" <a.kola...@computer.org> said:
>
> >> The idea that non-english speaking listeners may be more attuned to
> >> instrumental music than english speakers, given the (assumed) dominance of
> >> english in pop music, is interesting, and never occurred to me before. I
> >> wonder if any research backs that up. I also wonder if English (and a few
> >> others, maybe portugese) sound more musical than other languages when you
> >> don't undertand what is being said.
>
> > I'm not big on female vocalists but I'd take Eliane Elias or Astrid
> > Gilberto singing Portugese any day.
>
> I never heard any recording in which Eliane sings. Does she? Are you
> thinking of Tania Maria? Though Brazilian it seems she sings more in
> Portuguese anyway.
http://tinyurl.com/356f92
I assume its Portugese, but with her voice I don't really care! :)
j_ns...@msn.com
> In France, you have to know the right people at the right time. Otherwise, you
> face typical pseudo-intellectual french elitism.
Berlioz met that kind of resistance for sounding too new, and French
-- let alone sounding American!
Joseph Scott
gant...@comcast.net
music. It was the beginning of radio and the beginning of the
recording business. There was magic and excitement in the
innovations
that were taking place in American music. Musicians in places like
New Orleans were throwing out the rules of European classical music,
combining rhythms from all over the world and creating an exciting,
spontaneous, largely improvised style of music that made people want
to dance. From the early New Orleans jazz to the more sophisticated
music of Ellington, Basie and the other great big bands, jazz was the
"Pop" music of the day. Now the Pop music of the day is... well,
most anything but jazz. The problem for jazz is exacerbated by the
fact that recorded music is generally so processed, homogenized and
sterile that few people under the age of 45 can even remember the
magic that happens during a great live performance. The old
rock'n'roll and R&B tunes of the '50's and '60's still have that
magic. The records they made in Muscle Shoals and Memphis and even
in
L.A. and New York from that era were basically live recordings. Kids
nowadays just don't get that. Live music means very little to
today's
kids. I think they even prefer hearing a DJ play the records nice
and
loud to a band trying to re-create the sound of the CD. Bad news for
musicians in all styles.
I had friend who used to get drunk and rage about the stupidity of
the
average club-going music fan. It pissed him off no end that he
couldn't make a living playing his kind of music on his trumpet.
He'd
talk about how Dizzy and Bird didn't have to do what he had to do to
scrape by. I'd point out (gently, I hope) that A) he was neither
Bird
nor Dizzy, and B) that Bird died broke and C) that Dizzy succeeded
because he was an entertainer (an 11 letter four letter word to most
jazzers).
Gantt
On Feb 26, 3:12 pm, "lukejaz...@gmail.com" <lukejaz...@gmail.com>
wrote:
dunlop212
I could really care less what language it is sung in, except that I
find it disconcerting if the language is "wrong" for the song. I
don't, for example, enjoy the Bergman film of the Magic Flute as much
as I should, because it is sung in Swedish. If a singer really
struggles with the language, I can hear that; not crazy about Domingo
singing Wagner; would rather hear russians sing Eugene Onegin, etc.
Jazz is more popular in abroad because "high culture" is more popular
abroad. It is subsidized by the government, taught in the schools, the
populations are less diverse, a million reasons. The more pertinent
question is why jazz got to be "high culture." I think if you watched
one minute of a jazz video from the 1940s, and one minute of a jazz
video from today, you would get a pretty good clue. They used to play
to the audience.
j_ns...@msn.com
wrote:
> I think we have to remember that in the beginning, jazz was "popular"
> music. It was the beginning of radio and the beginning of the
> recording business.
Pretty much. Recording caught on about 30 years before radio did.
[...]
> I had friend who used to get drunk and rage about the stupidity of
> the
> average club-going music fan. It pissed him off no end that he
> couldn't make a living playing his kind of music on his trumpet.
> He'd
> talk about how Dizzy and Bird didn't have to do what he had to do to
> scrape by. I'd point out (gently, I hope) that A) he was neither
> Bird
> nor Dizzy, and B) that Bird died broke and C) that Dizzy succeeded
> because he was an entertainer (an 11 letter four letter word to most
> jazzers).
Dizzy always worked _hard_, and he would back a tap dancer, play a
rock and roll song at Birdland, or accept subsidy from the U.S.
government if he thought that's what it would take...
Big Joe Turner had seventeen Top Tens on the "black" charts, Muddy
Waters had fourteen, Arthur Crudup had six, Buddy Holly had three,
Dizzy had zero, Coltrane had zero, Miles had zero.
Joseph Scott
Gerry
<gant...@comcast.net> said:
> I think we have to remember that in the beginning, jazz was "popular"
> music. It was the beginning of radio and the beginning of the
> recording business. There was magic and excitement in the
> innovations that were taking place in American music.
It depends on what you mean by popular. I find as I peruse the
Whitburn books that a lot of what I think of as bona fide jazz does not
appear in the these titles. They are, instead, songs by vocalists that
frequently do not have any improvisation in them.
When you are referring to the popular jazz music of the time, which
names should I look at to find where they appeared in the top 40 or top
100 of that year?
--
///---
Gerry
> Big Joe Turner had seventeen Top Tens on the "black" charts, Muddy
> Waters had fourteen, Arthur Crudup had six, Buddy Holly had three,
Buddy Holly had three top ten hits on the black charts? Did you change
charts in there?
> Dizzy had zero, Coltrane had zero, Miles had zero.
--
///---
Keith Freeman
> Whitburn books that a lot of what I think of as bona fide jazz does not
> appear in the these titles. They are, instead, songs by vocalists that
> frequently do not have any improvisation in them.
And I would guess that some early bebop records sold far more for the vocal
crooning they contained than the jazz solos.
-Keith
Portable Changes, tips etc. at http://home.wanadoo.nl/keith.freeman/
e-mail only to keith DOT freeman AT orange DOT nl
Tone
> On 2007-02-28 08:53:26 -0800, j_nsc...@msn.com said:
>
> > Big Joe Turner had seventeen Top Tens on the "black" charts, Muddy
> > Waters had fourteen, Arthur Crudup had six, Buddy Holly had three,
>
> Buddy Holly had three top ten hits on the black charts? Did you change
> charts in there?
Buddy Holly seems plausible, I seem to remember hearing AWB and Hall &
Oates on "black stations" in the disco era.
j_ns...@msn.com
> On 2007-02-28 08:53:26 -0800, j_nsc...@msn.com said:
>
> > Big Joe Turner had seventeen Top Tens on the "black" charts, Muddy
> > Waters had fourteen, Arthur Crudup had six, Buddy Holly had three,
>
> Buddy Holly had three top ten hits on the black charts?
Yes, "That'll Be The Day," "Peggy Sue," and "Maybe Baby."
Did you change
> charts in there?
No. It all just illustrates that bebop wasn't ever that popular among
anybody, nationwide, especially compared to the likes of the Ink
Spots, but also even compared to deep blues (e.g. John Lee Hooker had
five "black" Top Ten singles).
Joseph Scott
j_ns...@msn.com
> On Feb 28, 4:42 pm, Gerry <somewh...@sunny.calif> wrote:
>
> > On 2007-02-28 08:53:26 -0800, j_nsc...@msn.com said:
>
> > > Big Joe Turner had seventeen Top Tens on the "black" charts, Muddy
> > > Waters had fourteen, Arthur Crudup had six, Buddy Holly had three,
>
> > Buddy Holly had three top ten hits on the black charts? Did you change
> > charts in there?
>
> Buddy Holly seems plausible, I seem to remember hearing AWB and Hall &
> Oates on "black stations" in the disco era.
Yeah, AWB had two "black" Top Tens, Hall & Oates had two, Bee Gees had
four, Queen had one ("Another One Bites The Dust"), etc.
Joseph Scott
Gerry
>> It depends on what you mean by popular. I find as I peruse the
>> Whitburn books that a lot of what I think of as bona fide jazz does not
>> appear in the these titles. They are, instead, songs by vocalists that
>> frequently do not have any improvisation in them.
>
> And I would guess that some early bebop records sold far more for the vocal
> crooning they contained than the jazz solos.
I don't understand that.
--
///---
Keith Freeman
Tim McNamara
Gerry <some...@sunny.calif> wrote:
What's not to understand? The general audience likes singers. I just
noticed that the Wikipedia page about the song "Moonlight in Vermont"
lists many performances... but overlooks Johnny Smith's 1952
instrumental recording of the song despite it having been quite popular.
People like rhythm. When jazz developed swing, it was very popular
because of the danceable rhythm. As jazz got less physical and sexual
and instead got more intellectual and sophisticated, it lost much of the
audience. Extended harmonies and abstract solos don't grab most
people's ears.
Rock 'n' roll took over. And then more recently country, in its sexy
modern guise (no western shirts and high lace collars no more) and rap
took over from rock.
Gerry
> In article <2007022816272016807-somewhere@sunnycalif>,
> Gerry <some...@sunny.calif> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-02-28 13:45:07 -0800, Keith Freeman <smtp.cablewanadoo.nl>
>> said:
>>
>>>> It depends on what you mean by popular. I find as I peruse the
>>>> Whitburn books that a lot of what I think of as bona fide jazz
>>>> does not appear in the these titles. They are, instead, songs by
>>>> vocalists that frequently do not have any improvisation in them.
>>>
>>> And I would guess that some early bebop records sold far more for
>>> the vocal crooning they contained than the jazz solos.
>>
>> I don't understand that.
>
> What's not to understand?
The sentence. I don't know taht bebop records sold more or less than
others that had vocals or didn't. "Crooning" seems to be the code-word
for sappy vocals I don't like. In any case classic tenor crooners (Rudy
Vallee for instance) didn't seem to make many appearances on bebop
records that I know of. In any case they weren't top 100 hits.
> The general audience likes singers. I just noticed that the Wikipedia
> page about the song "Moonlight in Vermont" lists many performances...
> but overlooks Johnny Smith's 1952 instrumental recording of the song
> despite it having been quite popular.
Sure. Obvious.
> People like rhythm. When jazz developed swing, it was very popular
> because of the danceable rhythm.
I'm not sure jazz itself was ever very "popular", in the way we
normally gauge it: hit songs. it generated very few popular hits. I
think it was "swing music" with vocals performed as popular songs that
was popular. Not jazz per se.
> As jazz got less physical and sexual and instead got more intellectual
> and sophisticated, it lost much of the audience.
You mean when there weren't any singers or dance rhythms?
> Extended harmonies and abstract solos don't grab most people's ears.
I'm not sure that's relevant--as long as there is a good melody being
sung and a dance rhythm.
> Rock 'n' roll took over. And then more recently country, in its sexy
> modern guise (no western shirts and high lace collars no more) and rap
> took over from rock.
--
///---
gant...@comcast.net
in the sense of it being free-wheeling, spontaneous and improvised,
has ever been terribly popular. As has been pointed out many times in
this thread, most people like to hear a singer. Did Duke Ellington
call his music "jazz". I don't know enough of his history to answer
that question. His music was not "jazz" in the sense of being free,
spontaneous and improvised. He was a composer who wrote in an idiom
in which it was expected that players got to take solos, which may or
may not have been improvised. Basie's band was probably more true to
the improvised aspect of "jazz". History tells us that both bands
were well known and very popular. I'm not sure how many "hits" they
had. Does anyone know? I'm curious...
Anyway, the topic here is "Why Americans don't like Jazz". Which begs
the question: What is "Jazz"? I suspect we'll hear as many opinions
as we have contributors here. Bear in mind that there are plenty of
people in America who think that Kenny G is a "jazz" musician. And
that George Benson is a singer who happens to play the guitar!
Gantt
Sean
>
> http://tinyurl.com/356f92
> I assume its Portugese, but with her voice I don't really care! :)
>
Very easy on the eyes too.
tom walls
j_ns...@msn.com says...
>
>
> No. It all just illustrates that bebop wasn't ever that popular among
> anybody, nationwide,
>
be said.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
tom walls
some...@sunny.calif says...
> > People like rhythm. When jazz developed swing, it was very popular
> > because of the danceable rhythm.
>
> I'm not sure jazz itself was ever very "popular", in the way we
> normally gauge it: hit songs. it generated very few popular hits. I
> think it was "swing music" with vocals performed as popular songs that
> was popular. Not jazz per se.
>
I think there may have been a brief period during the 20s "The Jazz
Age" when contemporary jazz had a popular presence. I'm guessing Joseph
Scott would know.
dunlop212
> was popular. Not jazz per se.
Well, I was not there, but I am pretty sure that instrumental jazz
*was* popular in the 30s and 40s, (and 50s for that matter). Jazz
musicians were the rock stars of the day. What do Artie Shaw, Harry
James, Phil Harris, and Gerry Mulligan all have in common? They all
married hot movie stars.
Certainly, instrumental swing music was jazz, by any definition. Not
sure how reading fiendishly complex charts and backing up singers when
you are not soloing makes you less of a jazz artist.
tom walls
ed_h...@bellsouth.net says...
> > think it was "swing music" with vocals performed as popular songs that
> > was popular. Not jazz per se.
>
> Well, I was not there, but I am pretty sure that instrumental jazz
> *was* popular in the 30s and 40s, (and 50s for that matter). Jazz
> musicians were the rock stars of the day. What do Artie Shaw, Harry
> James, Phil Harris, and Gerry Mulligan all have in common? They all
> married hot movie stars.
Excepting Gerry Mulligan, they were big stars, but their music was
popularly considered "swing". This is my impression from reading that
I've done, but it's also the result of many conversations that I had
with my mother who played piano in an amateur big band during the 30s
and was a big fan of the music.
>
> Certainly, instrumental swing music was jazz, by any definition. Not
> sure how reading fiendishly complex charts and backing up singers when
> you are not soloing makes you less of a jazz artist.
My take is that the musicians of the time distinguished quite clearly
between the big band music aimed at the pop audience, and the more
creative stuff. I agree with your overall point, but if the audience and
the musician's made the distinction then that's pretty persuasive.
Gerry
Nevertheless, Eliane was not a singer for the first long part of her
career. This is news to me.
--
///---
Gerry
That was exactly where I was hoping to find it in the Whitburn
collections, but can't seem to really locate anything. A few by Jean
Goldkette maybe. One with frigging Billy Murray singing, though. Talk
about a non-jazz vocalist.
--
///---
Gerry
>> think it was "swing music" with vocals performed as popular songs that
>> was popular. Not jazz per se.
>
> Well, I was not there, but I am pretty sure that instrumental jazz
> *was* popular in the 30s and 40s, (and 50s for that matter).
Well everything's popular to somebody. I'm just looking a top 40/top
100 charts and find very little in this regard. Popular swing, yes.
Jazz, as we generally know it, no.
> Jazz musicians were the rock stars of the day. What do Artie Shaw, Harry
> James, Phil Harris, and Gerry Mulligan all have in common? They all
> married hot movie stars.
Who did Mulligan marry?
> Certainly, instrumental swing music was jazz, by any definition.
I see. Then yes there was lots of jazz.
> Not sure how reading fiendishly complex charts and backing up singers when
> you are not soloing makes you less of a jazz artist.
I see.
--
///---
j_ns...@msn.com
> In article <2007022817554850073-somewhere@sunnycalif>,
> somewh...@sunny.calif says...
>
> > > People like rhythm. When jazz developed swing, it was very popular
> > > because of the danceable rhythm.
>
> > I'm not sure jazz itself was ever very "popular", in the way we
> > normally gauge it: hit songs. it generated very few popular hits. I
> > think it was "swing music" with vocals performed as popular songs that
> > was popular. Not jazz per se.
>
> I think there may have been a brief period during the 20s "The Jazz
I think jazz was probably about as popular, relative to music as a
whole, in the late '20s as it was in the early '40s. The fact that Cab
Calloway could start his recording career just after the stock market
crash and build an empire, for example, supports the notion that there
was a good continuous interest in jazz straight from the late '10s to
the late '40s. Less interest than in pop, though, of course. In the
late '20s "hillbilly" records could sell 100,000 or 200,000 copies,
which was a lot then, given how many record players there "only" were
out there. And "hillbilly" artists of the '20s who introduced jazzy
sounds to their music are generally considered ones who were pretty
much going commercial when they did that -- so again, that suggests
that jazz was quite popular then.
Joseph Scott
j_ns...@msn.com
> On 2007-02-28 17:42:32 -0800, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <2007022816272016807-somewhere@sunnycalif>,
>
> >> On 2007-02-28 13:45:07 -0800, Keith Freeman <smtp.cablewanadoo.nl>
> >> said:
>
> >>>> It depends on what you mean by popular. I find as I peruse the
> >>>> Whitburn books that a lot of what I think of as bona fide jazz
> >>>> does not appear in the these titles. They are, instead, songs by
> >>>> vocalists that frequently do not have any improvisation in them.
>
> >>> And I would guess that some early bebop records sold far more for
> >>> the vocal crooning they contained than the jazz solos.
>
> >> I don't understand that.
>
> > What's not to understand?
>
> The sentence. I don't know taht bebop records sold more or less than
> others that had vocals or didn't. "Crooning" seems to be the code-word
> for sappy vocals I don't like. In any case classic tenor crooners (Rudy
> Vallee for instance) didn't seem to make many appearances on bebop
Billy Eckstine comes to mind; his records apparently sold far more
because Billy had a warm mainstream singing style and was good-looking
than because his friends Dizzy, Dexter, Wardell, etc. were on them.
Joseph Scott
j_ns...@msn.com
> In article <1172701685.016304.317...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> j_nsc...@msn.com says...
>
> > No. It all just illustrates that bebop wasn't ever that popular among
> > anybody, nationwide,
>
> It was popular among musicians. I know I'm splitting hairs, but it must
> be said.
Among a fraction of them. Many older musicians disliked it or didn't
pay attention to it, and countless musicians about Charlie Parker's
age never got very interested in it. E.g., if you picture the
continuum from Lionel Hampton's saxophonists of the mid-'40s (that
music sold) to Little Richard's saxophonists of the mid-'50s (that did
too), stylistically, that's a whole lot of jazzish soloing by a whole
lot of saxophonists with little bebop influence coming in along the
way. Meanwhile, God bless the Wardell Grays but there were only so
many.
Joseph Scott
gant...@comcast.net
to be great fans of jazz. My dad (who played violin and piano) loved
New Orleans jazz, ragtime piano and Dave Brubeck, and my mom (who
played alto sax in an all girl band during WWII) loved Coleman
Hawkins, Billy Holiday (who she met and got to know during her years
in Baltimore) and later Stan Getz. In the sixties they listened to a
lot of Charlie Byrd's Bossa Nova stuff. In addition, they also loved
a lot of Broadway shows, classical and international folk music. I
never heard any "modern" jazz - no Parker, no Gillespe, no Coltrane.
My parents might not have even known who those guys were! Yet they
considered themselves to be jazz fans. When I was 18 years old I began
playing professionally. I also began studying w/ a guy named Frank
Mullins, who taught a lot of good players around the DC area. Frank
had me learning all these weird tunes out of the Real Book. A couple
of years later, when I discovered Charlie Parker, Art Blakey and
Horace Silver I realized - Frank was trying to teach me to play bebop!
Duh!
But anyway, my point is this - Many people who considered themselves
to be lovers and fans of jazz didn't listen to bebop. I believe that
bebop (which, by the way, was NOT what Parker, Monk and Dizzy called
their music - they just called it "jazz") was the beginning of the
idea of "straight ahead" jazz. I define "straight ahead" jazz as the
stuff some jazz musicians play that is almost certain to go over the
heads of all but other jazz musicians and a small but discriminating
group of "lay" listeners. One of my musical crosses to bear is that I
love and play many other kinds of music. I grew up listening to all-
the-above, started out playing rock (progressed thru Beatles, Stones,
Hendrix, Clapton, Beck, Led Zeppelin, etc.), fell in love with Country
Western when the Byrds put out "Sweethearts of the Rodeo" (saw them w/
Clarence White in about 1969), and then began playing professionally
back when the average club band did a little bit of everything.
Growing up in the Maryland suburbs, I couldn't help but be influenced
heavily be Roy Buchanan and Danny Gatton, both of whom I knew and
loved. During the dreaded Disco Era I began playing in honky tonk
Country Western bands, which I did pretty exclusively for about 12 or
13 years. So, in spite of my love of jazz, my playing reflects a lot
of other influences. The "straight ahead" players I've played with
don't seem to like those influences, so I don't get called much for
jazz gigs.
Sorry for blathering. I'm always fascinated by discussions about why
jazz musicians can't make a living playing what they want to play. My
experience of it is that all musicians who play professionally do
whatever they have to do to keep working. A very small percentage get
to rise to the top of the heap and play the music of their hearts to
big audiences, sell lots of CDs and make lots of money. The rest of
us just keep doing it because we love to play.
Gantt
gant...@comcast.net
Reinhardt and Stephane Grappelli. She was in Europe after the war and
went to Paris to hear them play.
Thanks, Mom!
Gantt
On Mar 2, 8:55 am, "ganttm...@comcast.net" <ganttm...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Tim McNamara
"gant...@comcast.net" <gant...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I'm always fascinated by discussions about why jazz musicians can't
> make a living playing what they want to play.
Because the audience seems to be relatively tiny, and musicians are
pretty much dependent on gigs to earn money. Record sales are not
likely to be a major revenue source for the vast majority of jazz
musicians. And, critically, the major labels focus on the music that
will make them tens of millions of dollars: pop, rock, and hip hop. If
they record and put out jazz musicians, there is no marketing push
behind the records.
Although... this past summer was the first (theoretically annual)
Djangofest in Minneapolis. There were a couple thousand people there to
listen to the music, who were clearly knowledgeable. I was frankly
surprised.
> My experience of it is that all musicians who play professionally do
> whatever they have to do to keep working. A very small percentage
> get to rise to the top of the heap and play the music of their hearts
> to big audiences, sell lots of CDs and make lots of money.
A *very* small percentage. Pat Metheny, Michael Brecker and who else?
gant...@comcast.net
else? Miles had a bit of commercial success.
But as you say - a very, very small percentage...
Gantt
j_ns...@msn.com
wrote:
> I grew up with parents who, if you had asked them, would have claimed
> to be great fans of jazz. My dad (who played violin and piano) loved
> New Orleans jazz, ragtime piano and Dave Brubeck, and my mom (who
> played alto sax in an all girl band during WWII) loved Coleman
> Hawkins, Billy Holiday (who she met and got to know during her years
> in Baltimore) and later Stan Getz. In the sixties they listened to a
> lot of Charlie Byrd's Bossa Nova stuff. In addition, they also loved
> a lot of Broadway shows, classical and international folk music. I
> never heard any "modern" jazz - no Parker, no Gillespe, no Coltrane.
> My parents might not have even known who those guys were! Yet they
> considered themselves to be jazz fans.
Yes, again if we look at the "black" singles charts, Charlie Parker
had no Top Ten hits, Bud Powell had none, Thelonious Monk had none,
Sonny Stitt had none, Ahmad Jamal had none, Erroll Garner had one ("I
Cover The Waterfront"), Les Paul and Mary Ford had one ("How High The
Moon"), Illinois Jacquet had two, Smokey Hogg had two, Tab Smith had
two, Howlin' Wolf had four, Bill Doggett had five, Little Walter had
fourteen, Ivory Joe Hunter had seventeen, The Clovers had nineteen,
B.B. King had twenty-four, Dinah Washington had thirty-four, Fats
Domino had thirty-nine. Bebop was never what anyone except bebop
musicians and bebop fans were largely concerned about. (Not that
there's anything wrong with that: similarly could be said of great
styles such as modern classical, zydeco, bluegrass....)
When I was 18 years old I began
> playing professionally. I also began studying w/ a guy named Frank
> Mullins, who taught a lot of good players around the DC area. Frank
> had me learning all these weird tunes out of the Real Book. A couple
> of years later, when I discovered Charlie Parker, Art Blakey and
> Horace Silver I realized - Frank was trying to teach me to play bebop!
> Duh!
>
> But anyway, my point is this - Many people who considered themselves
> to be lovers and fans of jazz didn't listen to bebop. I believe that
> bebop (which, by the way, was NOT what Parker, Monk and Dizzy called
> their music - they just called it "jazz")
No, Dizzy popularized the term "bebop," e.g. with tune titles such as
"Be-Bop" (1945) and "Cubana Be, Cubana Bop" (1947).
was the beginning of the
> idea of "straight ahead" jazz. I define "straight ahead" jazz as the
> stuff some jazz musicians play that is almost certain to go over the
> heads of all but other jazz musicians and a small but discriminating
> group of "lay" listeners. One of my musical crosses to bear is that I
> love and play many other kinds of music. I grew up listening to all-
> the-above, started out playing rock (progressed thru Beatles, Stones,
> Hendrix, Clapton, Beck, Led Zeppelin, etc.), fell in love with Country
> Western when the Byrds put out "Sweethearts of the Rodeo" (saw them w/
> Clarence White in about 1969), and then began playing professionally
> back when the average club band did a little bit of everything.
> Growing up in the Maryland suburbs, I couldn't help but be influenced
> heavily be Roy Buchanan and Danny Gatton, both of whom I knew and
> loved. During the dreaded Disco Era I began playing in honky tonk
> Country Western bands, which I did pretty exclusively for about 12 or
> 13 years. So, in spite of my love of jazz, my playing reflects a lot
> of other influences. The "straight ahead" players I've played with
> don't seem to like those influences, so I don't get called much for
> jazz gigs.
>
> Sorry for blathering.[...]
No need, it's interesting reading.
Joseph Scott
Gerry
<gant...@comcast.net> said:
>> A very small percentage get to rise to the top of the heap and play the
>> music of their hearts to big audiences, sell lots of CDs and make lots
>> of money.
> Going back in time - John McLaughlin, Chick Corea I don't know... Who
> else? Miles had a bit of commercial success. But as you say - a very,
> very small percentage...
Seems there are an amazing array of measurement systems all vaguely
used to define something as "successful", "popular", "jazz" and all the
rest. Joe Pass sold a boat-load of recordings beginning (and dominated
by) "Virtuoso". Then did a string of road dates that made him no small
amount of coin in many of the larger rooms with significant gates. He
wasn't smoking c-notes but he was "successful" and "popular" in every
view but the one that compares him to Elvis, Beatles, Rock-God Du Jour
(Frampton, Kiss, et al) and other mega-cultural celebrities. And he
didn't have top 40 hits. But by god he was damned successful, he was
popular--though not *universally* popular. Neither was Kiss, by the
way.
In the 80's a couple of times a year I use to go to large halls and see
such as Herb Ellis, Mundell Lowe, George Shearing or Mel Torme (every
chance I got!). These guys were successful by any measurement system
except, again, the mega-celebrity and top 40 popular music sales.
But then the jazz guys are popular for a lot LONGER than, say, the
Ventures, Patti Smith, Jefferson Airplane and the other short-term
true-pot wonders.
The odd thing about treating jazz as "pop" music per se (which it
undoubtedly is at the one level) is that it has so much more long-term
glue that almost categorizes as high art--the kind that is written
about and studied and discussed for many years to come. In a way that
Bobby Goldsboro, Tommy Roe or Frankie Avalon. These guys were pop
wonders, for a few minutes, and then evaporated.
It becomes difficult to categorize jazz as folk exclusively or high art
exclusively. It remains firmly in both camps. Long may it be so. As
such, it makes sense that it makes itself less interesting to both
kinds of fans in that way.
--
///---
j_ns...@msn.com
[...]
> Seems there are an amazing array of measurement systems all vaguely
> used to define something as "successful", "popular", "jazz" and all the
> rest. Joe Pass sold a boat-load of recordings beginning (and dominated
> by) "Virtuoso". Then did a string of road dates that made him no small
> amount of coin in many of the larger rooms with significant gates. He
> wasn't smoking c-notes but he was "successful" and "popular" in every
> view but the one that compares him to Elvis, Beatles, Rock-God Du Jour
> (Frampton, Kiss, et al) and other mega-cultural celebrities. And he
> didn't have top 40 hits. But by god he was damned successful, he was
The U.S. is a big country. Jimmie Rodgers the singing brakeman had a
massive following. And not as massive as, say, Gene Austin ("My Blue
Heaven"). And massive.
[...]
> The odd thing about treating jazz as "pop" music per se (which it
> undoubtedly is at the one level) is that it has so much more long-term
> glue that almost categorizes as high art--the kind that is written
> about and studied and discussed for many years to come.[...]
More people study and discuss Elvis Presley today than Stan Getz. The
concept of "high art" is, by definition, for artists who only some
people (of "superior" tastes) talk about.
In a way that
> Bobby Goldsboro, Tommy Roe or Frankie Avalon. These guys were pop
> wonders, for a few minutes, and then evaporated.
>
> It becomes difficult to categorize jazz as folk exclusively or high art
> exclusively.[...]
Imo jazz in general doesn't have much to do with folk. Was one urban,
often relatively commercial style. One that fans of urban commercial
music weren't very interested in as of the early '10s, and then
weren't all that interested in again as of the early '50s, but it had
a good run in between.
Joseph Scott
cl...@claymoore.com
> The odd thing about treating jazz as "pop" music per se (which it
> undoubtedly is at the one level) is that it has so much more long-term
> glue that almost categorizes as high art--the kind that is written
> about and studied and discussed for many years to come. In a way that
> Bobby Goldsboro, Tommy Roe or Frankie Avalon. These guys were pop
> wonders, for a few minutes, and then evaporated.
Hi Gerry,
The bands/artists you mentioned don't necessarily "evaporate," they
simply move over to a different level of popularity. I've done gigs in
the last couple of years with the Shangri-Las, Gene Pitney, and the
Platters (just a week ago). The gigs are usually at casinos, but this
last one was at a retirement RV park, which are legion in South Texas.
They usually seat several hundred to maybe two thousand people. BTW,
the Shangri-Las gig was opening for Frankie Avalon, who I thought
rocked pretty hard!
Clay
Gerry
> On Mar 2, 9:42 am, Gerry <somewh...@sunny.calif> wrote:
> [...]
>> Seems there are an amazing array of measurement systems all vaguely
>> used to define something as "successful", "popular", "jazz" and all the
>> rest. Joe Pass sold a boat-load of recordings beginning (and dominated
>> by) "Virtuoso". Then did a string of road dates that made him no small
>> amount of coin in many of the larger rooms with significant gates. He
>> wasn't smoking c-notes but he was "successful" and "popular" in every
>> view but the one that compares him to Elvis, Beatles, Rock-God Du Jour
>> (Frampton, Kiss, et al) and other mega-cultural celebrities. And he
>> didn't have top 40 hits. But by god he was damned successful, he was
>> popular--though not *universally* popular.[...]
>
> The U.S. is a big country. Jimmie Rodgers the singing brakeman had a
> massive following. And not as massive as, say, Gene Austin ("My Blue
> Heaven"). And massive.
>
> [...]
>> The odd thing about treating jazz as "pop" music per se (which it
>> undoubtedly is at the one level) is that it has so much more long-term
>> glue that almost categorizes as high art--the kind that is written
>> about and studied and discussed for many years to come.[...]
>
> More people study and discuss Elvis Presley today than Stan Getz. The
> concept of "high art" is, by definition, for artists who only some
> people (of "superior" tastes) talk about.
I don't think Elvis's *music* is studied or discussed by much of
anyone. His cult of personality? Sure.
>> In a way that Bobby Goldsboro, Tommy Roe or Frankie Avalon [are not].
>> These guys were pop wonders, for a few minutes, and then evaporated.
>>
>> It becomes difficult to categorize jazz as folk exclusively or high art
>> exclusively.[...]
>
> Imo jazz in general doesn't have much to do with folk.
The academic definition: that the music is learned from other players
in the "aural tradition" as opposed to in a university. That's the
fashion in which I meant "folk"; learned and swapped among folks in
household and bars. Whereas high-art is generally though of as being a
product of intellectual and academic labor.
In the past 50 years though the entire process of such categories has
come under fire in the respect that learning from records is not truly
the "folk tradition" of learning music. I still think it's fair to
consider pre-70's musicians in the "folk" tradition (including
recordings as resource), rather than the produce of universitites.
> Was one urban, often relatively commercial style. One that fans of
> urban commercial music weren't very interested in as of the early '10s,
> and then weren't all that interested in again as of the early '50s, but
> it had a good run in between.
--
///---
Gerry
> On Mar 2, 10:42 am, Gerry <somewh...@sunny.calif> wrote:
>
>> The odd thing about treating jazz as "pop" music per se (which it
>> undoubtedly is at the one level) is that it has so much more long-term
>> glue that almost categorizes as high art--the kind that is written
>> about and studied and discussed for many years to come. In a way that
>> Bobby Goldsboro, Tommy Roe or Frankie Avalon. These guys were pop
>> wonders, for a few minutes, and then evaporated.
>
> The bands/artists you mentioned don't necessarily "evaporate," they
> simply move over to a different level of popularity.
Okay then: by "evaporate" I mean move to a "different level of
popularity". I worked with some of these kinds of folks in the 70's
myself. Many of them got day jobs for a few decades. Now they are
back, or still around, in an oldies fashion. I don't think such as Joe
Pass, Freddie Hubbard or Mel Torme gigging over the years is quite the
same as one-shot wonders (or three-shot wonders) in a niche of pop
music. It's not like it represents the style as alive and vital.
But I damn sure don't want to get into a debate over whether 50's
oldies is a living "style" or not. Or 60's either for that matter.
This is pop-music, disposable art, just like newspapers are disposable.
Certainly some tunes and performers have amazing tenacity, but it's
not a hallmark of culture. I think jazz differs in this respect
though. Many approach it as high-art, nobody approaches Pitney
(mentioned below) as high art. I'm not saying either of them is or
isn't. This is all about our perceptions of the public's perceptions,
after all.
> I've done gigs in the last couple of years with the Shangri-Las, Gene
> Pitney, and the
> Platters (just a week ago). The gigs are usually at casinos, but this
> last one was at a retirement RV park, which are legion in South Texas.
> They usually seat several hundred to maybe two thousand people. BTW,
> the Shangri-Las gig was opening for Frankie Avalon, who I thought
> rocked pretty hard!
We can probably say the same comparitive thing about Rudy Vallee,
Teresa Brewer or Frankie Laine. They didn't just drop dead when
records-as-marketing did. One the other hand I'm not sure what they do
when the hits stop coming is quite the same as what jazz musicians do
when the bona-fide hits never came.
Certainly there are points of similarity between all performers. I was
trying to point out that jazz musicians without "hit songs" doesn't
mean that what they did wasn't popular.
Say: Your posts sound like you're always happy these days. Is it the
change-of-environment, the kids, or what?
--
///---
pmfan57
Sinatra, Tony Bennett and others were of high lasting quality, even
though they were "pop" at one time. Sorry if you already addressed
them, but I didn't feel like ready all these posts.
Gerry
> Sinatra, Tony Bennett and others were of high lasting quality, even
> though they were "pop" at one time.
Adding Ella Fitzgerald and Mel Torme will help knock down about 85% of
what have become considered "jazz singers". Yes they stradled both
worlds. Way upstream I mentioned the entire idea of vocalists/lyrics
and melodies as the primary movers of popular tastes as opposed to
musical styles.
But I never meant nor implied that being popular means they can NOT be
of high lasting quality. If you consider the bulk of these vocalists
popular "peers" in the pop charts of the time, though you'll find there
were for more vocalists, never embraced by the jazz world, whose names
are unknown now.
--
///---
cl...@claymoore.com
> Say: Your posts sound like you're always happy these days. Is it the
> change-of-environment, the kids, or what?
Hi Gerry,
What are you saying, I was a grumpy mo' fo' before? Haven't I always
exuded sunshine and the milk of human kindness?
I dunno; I expected living down here to be slower and less stressful,
but I'm pretty darned busy and sleep deprived, as I was in the Twin
Cities. I have to say, though, that so far at least I've proven the
naysayers wrong about not being able to find work. I've been averaging
three to five gigs per week since September, and most of them are jazz-
type gigs. I'm bringing in a great pianist/vocalist friend of mine
named Rich Harney tonight and tomorrow to play with my quartet at a
place called España over in McAllen.
But yeah, the weather's great here right now - sunny with highs in the
low 80's. I can't complain about that.
Clay
Jon G
where you living?
san diego treats me pretty well too.
tom walls
wrote:
> Hello All -
>
> I occasionally lurk here but haven't contributed. I came across this
> essay today and thought some of you may enjoy it, though it is not
> about guitar specifically.
>
> http://www.dyske.com/index.php?view_id=778
>
> Luke
I'd like to put an end to this nonsense once and for all. Americans
love jazz! We just don't want to pay for it.
Jon G
interesting
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
> On Feb 26, 3:12 pm, "lukejaz...@gmail.com" <lukejaz...@gmail.com>
> I'd like to put an end to this nonsense once and for all. Americans
> love jazz! We just don't want to pay for it.
I'm an American who loves jazz -- and pays for it. Of course it has
to be jazz by Frankie Laine, Teresa Brewer or Kay Starr (I'm aware
that they're not officially considered as jazz artists, but their jazz
records *kick*!) Sinatra & Bennett were better (IMO) at pop; and Mel
& Ella have always left me flat.
cl...@claymoore.com
> where you living?
> san diego treats me pretty well too.
Hi Jon,
I thought I'd replied to this but I don't see it, so.....
I'm living in the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, Brownsville to be
exact. It's the southernmost point in the mainland US; only the
Florida Keys are lower. I was in San Diego about a year ago, and at
least at that time the house prices were about 10 times what they are
here in S. Texas (no, I'm not exaggerating), except for Padre Island,
which is probably a lot closer to CA prices. There aren't a lot of us
jazz players down here but we make up for it by playing all the
gigs. :-)
Clay
Jon G
yeah, i have no illusions about ever buying a house here in San Diego.
j_ns...@msn.com
> > More people study and discuss Elvis Presley today than Stan Getz. The
> > concept of "high art" is, by definition, for artists who only some
> > people (of "superior" tastes) talk about.
>
> I don't think Elvis's *music* is studied or discussed by much of
> anyone.
"Elvis Presley" "singing style"
gets 16,200 hits on google.
"Stan Getz" "playing style"
gets 4,730.
His cult of personality? Sure.
>
> >> In a way that Bobby Goldsboro, Tommy Roe or Frankie Avalon [are not].
> >> These guys were pop wonders, for a few minutes, and then evaporated.
>
> >> It becomes difficult to categorize jazz as folk exclusively or high art
> >> exclusively.[...]
>
> > Imo jazz in general doesn't have much to do with folk.
>
> The academic definition: that the music is learned from other players
> in the "aural tradition" as opposed to in a university.
There's more to academic definitions of "folk music" than that. For
instance, folk has long been solidly associated in the writings of
academics with "the common people," and Furry Lewis really _was_ more
a representative of "the common people" than Coleman Hawkins was. I
understand your point that jazz sometimes behaves like folk music in
the broad sense of "folk music," when jazz musicians are influenced by
each other aurally (and the same could be said of disco music, for
instance), but most jazz musicians routinely learn tunes through their
ability to read notation, and that's about as antithetical to the
academic notion of folk music as you can get. There have been
occasional deliberate attempts by jazz musicians to inject U.S. folk
music into U.S. jazz, but the typical situation in jazz over the
decades (post-1920) is that what's going on with Lennie Tristano (or
whoever) and his peers has almost nothing to do with what people like
Doc Watson (or whoever) and his peers are doing.
That's the
> fashion in which I meant "folk"; learned and swapped among folks in
> household and bars. Whereas high-art is generally though of as being a
> product of intellectual and academic labor.[...]
I think jazz _is_ generally the product of intellectual and academic
labor, relative to more folky popular styles. Compare Art Tatum,
Thelonious Monk, and Mel Powell to Montana Taylor, Cecil Gant, and
Jerry Lee Lewis, for example.
Joseph Scott
Claus
> and rap took over from rock.
Imho, that was the beginning if a very unfortunate
development. We've had rap now for over twenty
something years. Isn't it time for something new?
I have the feeling that many people tend to take the
(again imho) stagnation which is taking place right
now for granted.
And--regarding jazz as popular music: During the mid-
eighties, there was a wave of jazz-influenced pop
groups especially from the UK (Working Week, Joe Jackson,
and others). Ok, this wasn't 'strict' jazz, but nonetheless ...
Claus
Gerry
> And--regarding jazz as popular music: During the mid-
> eighties, there was a wave of jazz-influenced pop
> groups especially from the UK (Working Week, Joe Jackson,
> and others). Ok, this wasn't 'strict' jazz, but nonetheless ..
A confusing sentence: regarding jazz as popular music, Joe Jackson and
Working Week weren't. True indeed.
--
///---
Claus
> In article <1172701685.0...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> j_ns...@msn.com says...
>>
>> No. It all just illustrates that bebop wasn't ever that popular among
>> anybody, nationwide,
>>
> It was popular among musicians.
And it was popular among the Beatniks.
Claus
Claus
Tim McNamara wrote:
> Although... this past summer was the first (theoretically annual)
> Djangofest in Minneapolis. There were a couple thousand people there to
> listen to the music, who were clearly knowledgeable. I was frankly
> surprised.
Over here in Europe, there's a number of annual festivals, the most famous
probably being the one at Samois-sur-Seine, where Django died in 1953
(http://django.samois.free.fr/). My general impression is that particularly
gypsy jazz is becoming increasingly popular all over the world. There are
'Hot Clubs' or festivals even in Iceland, Japan, etc.
Claus
Max Leggett
It's accessible, i.e. there's a minimum of outside playing, it's
melodic, and it swings like crazy. No wonder it's popular. It's not
pushing the boundaries of jazz, but so what? I don't play Django
style, although I love him, but I can sure understand why people are
into it.
-------------------------------------------------------
Is it not strange that sheep's guts should hale
souls out of men's bodies?
Willie 'The Lion' Shakespeare
-------------------------------------------------------
Tim McNamara
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > and rap took over from rock.
>
> Imho, that was the beginning if a very unfortunate development. We've
> had rap now for over twenty something years. Isn't it time for
> something new? I have the feeling that many people tend to take the
> (again imho) stagnation which is taking place right now for granted.
It is time for something new, and there really hasn't been for a very
long time. Popular music has been very stagnant. I blame that largely
on the major record labels who keep trying to find the next
million-seller with a limited strategy of recycling what already has
been successful. But the end result has been declining sales! The
labels blame file sharing and piracy, but I think the real reason that
music sales have dropped is that the music sucks and most of the
audience has noticed. I mean, really- Paris Hilton? Puh-leeze!
New groups really have little need for record labels with their control
over distribution channels, exploitive contracts, obsequious A&R people,
and the like.
> And--regarding jazz as popular music: During the mid- eighties, there
> was a wave of jazz-influenced pop groups especially from the UK
> (Working Week, Joe Jackson, and others). Ok, this wasn't 'strict'
> jazz, but nonetheless ...
At least it showed some improvement in harmonic sophistication and
rhythm.
Hell, the last "new" music I really got a kick out of was "Once More
With Feeling!"
tom walls
> > j_nsc...@msn.com says...
>
> >> No. It all just illustrates that bebop wasn't ever that popular among
> >> anybody, nationwide,
>
> > It was popular among musicians.
>
> And it was popular among the Beatniks.
>
> Claus
There you are!
Mike C.
"Gerry" <some...@sunny.calif> wrote in message
news:2007030108413043658-somewhere@sunnycalif...
> On 2007-03-01 06:09:52 -0800, "dunlop212" <ed_h...@bellsouth.net> said:
>
(snip)
>
> Well everything's popular to somebody. I'm just looking a top 40/top 100
> charts and find very little in this regard. Popular swing, yes. Jazz, as
> we generally know it, no.
Certainly not jaz as we generally know it, but jazz as we generally know it
wasn't necessarily born yet. Louis Armstrong's music was certainly popular,
even before he started singing.
--
Mike C.
http://mikecrutcher.com
"A great percentage of people don't want a challenge. They want
something done to them, they don't want to participate. But there'll
always be maybe 15% that desire something more, and they'll search it
out. And maybe that's where art is."
- Bill Evans
Gerry
>> Well everything's popular to somebody. I'm just looking a top 40/top 100
>> charts and find very little in this regard. Popular swing, yes. Jazz, as
>> we generally know it, no.
>
> Certainly not jaz as we generally know it, but jazz as we generally know it
> wasn't necessarily born yet.
It wasn't? What time period was I discussing?
> Louis Armstrong's music was certainly popular, even before he started singing.
Armstrong actually sold a lot of records and has one of the longest
chronological careers in pop record sales stretching from 1926 to 1966
(1924 if you include his work with King Oliver). Tahts 42 years. And
he began singing pretty much at the beginning.
There was other jazz going on during those 40 years, and not much of it
charted.
--
///---
Mike C.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were making an argument for the view that
jazz was never popular music. In that context, the time period that you were
discussing would be the entire history of jazz, which spans most of the 20th
century. My point was that jazz music was certainly the pop music of the
day. NPR's Jazz Profiles points out:
"Even though Armstrong probably began singing well before he ever picked up
a horn, he wasn't recognized as a singer until long after establishing
himself as an instrumentalist. Even then, as a singer, he certainly had his
detractors. As early as 1924, Armstrong was summarily dismissed by
bandleader Fletcher Henderson when he asked to sing on a record."
I don't necessarily dismiss vocal music as "not jazz", but even if one was
to do so, it still stands to reason that jazz was popular in it's own time.
If one wants to disqualify that early jazz as "not jazz as we generally know
it", that reeks of Ken Burns-ism, in the reverse.
Gerry
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were making an argument for the view that
> jazz was never popular music. In that context, the time period that you were
> discussing would be the entire history of jazz, which spans most of the 20th
> century.
That's about right. You made a reference to early Armstrong and I
certainly wasn't limiting the discussion (IIRC) to that period. I was
actually listening to hundreds of tunes from the hit parades from 1900
to the late 40's. Particularly concentrating on 1925 to about 1935.
That's where I was suprised there weren't more jazz names in the lists,
nor jazz performances. I expected the drift to be more dramatic.
> My point was that jazz music was certainly the pop music of the
> day.
I think I said just that. But "popular" doesn't mean top 40/100 in
sales or broadcast. It doesn't have to correlate. Country music, no
matter how you define it, was vastly popular from 1900 to 1935, say.
But it doesn't correlate to so large a percentage of pop record sales
and broadcast.
We so very frequently speak of popular and "commercially successful" as
if they were the same thing.
> NPR's Jazz Profiles points out:
>
> "Even though Armstrong probably began singing well before he ever picked up
> a horn, he wasn't recognized as a singer until long after establishing
> himself as an instrumentalist. Even then, as a singer, he certainly had his
> detractors. As early as 1924, Armstrong was summarily dismissed by
> bandleader Fletcher Henderson when he asked to sing on a record."
At that point Armstrong had not begun to record under his own name.
That began in 1925. I'm not sure the first time he began recording his
own voice, but it was present from 26 (e.g. Heebie Jeebies) on. This
was long before he had national name-recognition.
> I don't necessarily dismiss vocal music as "not jazz", but even if one was
> to do so, it still stands to reason that jazz was popular in it's own time.
It was indeed, even if it wasn't as well represented among the biggest
selling records as I had imagined it was. I don't dismiss vocal music
as "not jazz" either.
> If one wants to disqualify that early jazz as "not jazz as we generally know
> it", that reeks of Ken Burns-ism, in the reverse.
I'm not sure what "Ken Burns-ism" is, but since I don't disqualify
anything as anything it doesn't apply to me. Least of all that "early
jazz doesn't qualify as jazz".
What is "Kens Burns-ism"?
Do you have a significant interest in early jazz, or is this just idle
discussion for you? I ask only because I was planning on starting a
thread involving early pre-electric guitarists in an attempt to find
truly great examples of such as Van Eps and others from the late
j20's/early j30's that appear buried in the middle of arrangements
under other band-leaders. It's kind of tough to hunt Dick McDonough,
for instance, unless you know all the records he was a sideman on
(purportedly quite a few), and then, among those, which ones he played
a significant part on.
--
///---
Claus
Sorry, English is not my first language, and maybe the grammar wasn't
correct. :-( What I was trying to say is, that there was *some* degree
of jazz-influenced, more than usual 'sophisticated' pop music in the
mid-eighties. I don't know, if Working Week or Joe Jackson made the
charts, though.
Claus
--
http://djangolog.twoday.net/ [in Geman]
Mike C.
My home-made "ism" word, referencing Ken Burns, is the view that certain
eras of jazz are not considered jazz. With Burns, it seems to be anything
after the '60's. "Ken Burns-ism, in the reverse" would mean those who feel
that early jazz, with it's arrangements and big bands, isn't really jazz, as
the improv isn't the same as the jazz we listen to today. I guess the
qualifier would be a more tangible definition of "jazz as we generally know
it".
I'm interested in early jazz, but I'm not that well-versed in it. I guess I
fall somewhere between "significant interest" and "idle discussion"...
Gerry
> My home-made "ism" word, referencing Ken Burns, is the view that certain
> eras of jazz are not considered jazz. With Burns, it seems to be anything
> after the '60's. "Ken Burns-ism, in the reverse" would mean those who feel
> that early jazz, with it's arrangements and big bands, isn't really jazz, as
> the improv isn't the same as the jazz we listen to today.
But "today" is currently "anything after the '60's"! We're screwed
either way! :-)
Jazz is so broad and so diverse that I am quite sure I listen to the
myriad categories in very different ways, with a different brain. I'm
developing a real affection for early jazz, pre-swing, from '25 to
'35-ish. But I make no attempt to subject it to the aesthetics I
developed listening to music from the periods of '45 to '60.
> I guess the qualifier would be a more tangible definition of "jazz as
> we generally know it".
I truly don't know what "as we know it" would mean if including anyone
other than me.
Relative to Burns and the emblem that he has become, I don't remember
his (editorial) viewpoint disregarding post-'60's jazz "as jazz". It
seemed that his area of investigation simply excluded it. He only had
so many DAYS of footage he was going to produce. He wanted to do an
exhaustive oral history, but couldn't cover more than he did. And, as
many feel, he slighted plenty even with that focus.
In another thread regarding a history of jazz it's noted that the book
gets vauge and discursive starting in the 60's and the reviewer
concludes that the period doesn't have enough distance for decent
analysis. Jeez, it's been 46 years since 1961. I'm not sure when the
"distance" shows up. But the periods since then have been pretty
diverse and difficult to categorize and stratify, in a way that
preceding periods were not.
--
///---
j_ns...@msn.com
> > j_nsc...@msn.com says...
>
> >> No. It all just illustrates that bebop wasn't ever that popular among
> >> anybody, nationwide,
>
> > It was popular among musicians.
>
> And it was popular among the Beatniks.
>
> Claus
True, although many of them were into musicians who weren't really
very bop-oriented such as Lester Young and Slim Gaillard. Bop was a
fad involving dress etc., and was also a musical-style fad, and the
beat poets tended to be good at getting interested in the dress etc.
aspects.
Thank you for bringing this up because, in an indirect way, it made me
think for the first time in a long time of Bob Denver being hit on the
head with a coconut. Which is funny. Well, it is. BOP.
Joseph Scott
j_ns...@msn.com
> even before he started singing.[...]
To the best of my understanding, that's basically false. He was little-
known except to other jazz musicians before he began singing on
record, his record sales were pretty good in the '20s when he was
singing on some of his records, and then much better in the '30s when
he was singing on almost all of them.
Joseph Scott
j_ns...@msn.com
[...]My point was that jazz music was certainly the pop music of the
> day. NPR's Jazz Profiles points out:
>
> himself as an instrumentalist.
Louis was recognized by his jazz-making peers as a singer roughly 1930
and as a player roughly 1925 (depending on how much recognition we're
talking about). He was recognized by the general public as a singer
roughly 1930 and as a player roughly 1930 (ditto).
Joseph Scott
j_ns...@msn.com
> eras of jazz are not considered jazz. With Burns, it seems to be anything
> after the '60's. "Ken Burns-ism, in the reverse" would mean those who feel
> that early jazz, with it's arrangements and big bands, isn't really jazz, as
> the improv isn't the same as the jazz we listen to today.
The earliest jazz, a la the Louisiana Five's, Kid Ory's, and Louis
Armstrong's earliest recordings, wasn't known for written arrangements
or big bands. Arranging anything, such as ragtime, for big band --
which was generally thought of as making it more high-class, because
of the association with orchestras that played classical -- was an
approach that was already around before jazz became known in the
North. As jazz rose to popularity, various people took a stab at
arranging jazz for big band too, and that approach existed before
1920, caught on pretty big during the '20s, but only peaked in
popularity around 1937-1946 or so.
Joseph Scott