Good jazz vs. "commercial" jazz
David Brosseau
First, I agree with most of the posts there. She's a very talented musician,
has great voice, performs a great selection jazz standards with great
arrangements and done very well. I love Russel Malone on her stuff although
I know he's not with her anymore.
Second, I don't think anyone would argue that there is a "brand" of jazz or
music in general that seems to be "commercialized" or "managed" so that it
will supposedly appeal to a larger uneducated audience, my wife, for one,
whom I have the highest respect for and love dearly. But she has no interest
in understanding music. She just want's to turn on the radio and hear
something "nice" while she folds the laundry. (Yes, I fold my share laundry
:-) But I cringe at most of the stuff she listens too, because it's syrupy,
over done, repetitive, bland,... too nice. But she's "comfortable" with it.
Now, she love's Diana Krall also. But she can't appreciate Monk.
So, there's definitely a continuum from the dissonant and disconnected free
jazz to the most consonant "managed" jazz and the questions such as the one
regarding Diana Krall always seem to come up with regards to those in the
middle. Many hard-core jazz listeners put the artists in the middle into the
"nice, managed" camp while the more liberal minded of us do not. I wouldn't
try to change anyone's opinion, however I would encourage them to be a bit
more open minded and not write off artists in the middle simply on hearsay.
Listen for yourself. If you don't enjoy it, don't listen to it. If you do,
do. Be an individualist.
Joe Finn
news:9QQw9.214481$qM2.69644@sccrnsc02...
> The post regarding Diana Krall prompted this.
>
> First, I agree with most of the posts there. She's a very talented
musician,
> has great voice, performs a great selection jazz standards with great
> arrangements and done very well. I love Russel Malone on her stuff
although
> I know he's not with her anymore.
>
> Second, I don't think anyone would argue that there is a "brand" of jazz
or
> music in general that seems to be "commercialized" or "managed" so that it
> will supposedly appeal to a larger uneducated audience, my wife, for one,
> whom I have the highest respect for and love dearly. But she has no
interest
> in understanding music. She just want's to turn on the radio and hear
> something "nice" while she folds the laundry. (Yes, I fold my share
laundry
> :-) But I cringe at most of the stuff she listens too, because it's
syrupy,
> over done, repetitive, bland,... too nice. But she's "comfortable" with
it.
> Now, she love's Diana Krall also. But she can't appreciate Monk.
>
Monk had to eat too. He had record deals and other music related business
interests and I'll bet he was happy to sell tickets when he played a
concert. He made the cover of Time magazine too.
Since music is a performing art the implication is that it must somehow come
to grips with the marketplace. Music needs it's audience to "complete the
circle" if you know what I mean.
> So, there's definitely a continuum from the dissonant and disconnected
free
> jazz to the most consonant "managed" jazz and the questions such as the
one
> regarding Diana Krall always seem to come up with regards to those in the
> middle. Many hard-core jazz listeners put the artists in the middle into
the
> "nice, managed" camp while the more liberal minded of us do not.
I'm not sure I follow your point here.
> I wouldn't
> try to change anyone's opinion, however I would encourage them to be a bit
> more open minded and not write off artists in the middle simply on
hearsay.
I like Dianna Krall. Her renditions of the popular standards are some of the
most satisfying I've ever heard. Her work with Johnny Mandel is especially
good. As a guitarist I'm also appreciative of the fact that she has chosen
to include so many fine six stringers in her performances and recordings
over the years.
I also love Monk. Ornette, Cecil, Sun Ra and Braxton too. Minasi knocks me
out.
> Listen for yourself. If you don't enjoy it, don't listen to it. If you do,
> do. Be an individualist.
No one is more individualistic than I am. In fact I make my wife fold *all*
the laundry!
.....joe
--
Visit me on the web. www.JoeFinn.net
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Gerry Scott-Moore
<bros...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> So, there's definitely a continuum from the dissonant and
> disconnected free jazz to the most consonant "managed" jazz and the
> questions such as the one regarding Diana Krall always seem to come
> up with regards to those in the middle.
I guess that's true. But everybody invents their own continuum and
then places artists where they like on it. At one end is musical noise,
whatever that means to you. Perhaps Cecil Taylor, Albert Ayler, late
Trane. Or perhaps it's what you call "managed jazz", in that it is
offensive to your musical aesthetics. I'd rather listen to Taylor than
Kenny G. Because Kenny's pop jazz is cloying and annoying where
Taylor is provocative and annoying. I prefer the later, but I put
both of them on the same end of my continuum.
> Many hard-core jazz listeners put the artists in the middle into the
> "nice, managed" camp while the more liberal minded of us do not. I
> wouldn't try to change anyone's opinion, however I would encourage
> them to be a bit more open minded and not write off artists in the
> middle simply on hearsay. Listen for yourself. If you don't enjoy it,
> don't listen to it. If you do, do. Be an individualist.
I don't write Kraal off. I really like her. Though casually and without
too much passion. I'd never buy her records only because there is so
much other stuff I'm really focused on.
At some level I don't
really think of her as a "jazz experience" for myself, though I
consider her music jazz. One of the reasons why, really, is that vocal
music, in my highly personal view, simply is set into it's own camp.
With
almost no exceptions, Mark Murphy, Leon Thomas, Johnny Hartman. These
people are jazz singers. I think Kraal belongs there. I just lump all
of them together and enjoy them in a separate way. I sing by the way,
so this is not a bad-rap.
But I consider them all bona fide jazz.
Incidentally, as I frequently do without the specific intent to
challenge or annoy, I don't know what "managed jazz" means. You say
"...I don't think anyone would argue that there is a "brand" of jazz or
music in general that seems to be "commercialized" or "managed" so that
it will supposedly appeal to a larger uneducated audience...".
I'm not sure if this is arguing or not. But this "brand" of managed
jazz is always a bit vague for me.
It's true I think some forms of music are managed in the respect that a
manager/agent/company will encourage an artist to change their format
("not so many slow tunes"), or will select what they consider the most
commercially viable 7 tunes out of 12 which were recorded. In this way
the outcome is produced by specifically rejecting those that don't meet
their perspective of financial feasibility. Thus, managed. That
doesn't change the artists approach, it only culls from it. Trane
wasn't solely a ballads player, but a very successful album of his
ballads was culled and released.
I think the jazz artist that constructs tunes at the drawing board with
the specific intent of appeal to a target market is a rarity. I'm not
saying it doesn't exist but I think it's rare indeed. Why, for heaven's
sake would they pick jazz if they wanted to make money?
I think people do what they can, and are encouraged or disinclined
along the way by peers and teachers and audiences to play less "far
out" and play more "conversational" solos and not to play too many
choruses and all the rest. So their aesthetic is arrived at
holistically through growth and experience, not by conference with
corporate suits at a capitalist ouija board.
These types do pursue those artists that already fit their outline.
Kraal certainly qualifies. I was unsure if they were selling her face
or her legs. It turns out she plays jazz too...
--
///--- Nazodesu no more.
NJD
222...@adelphia.net.invalid says...
> It's true I think some forms of music are managed in the respect that a
> manager/agent/company will encourage an artist to change their format
> ("not so many slow tunes"), or will select what they consider the most
> commercially viable 7 tunes out of 12 which were recorded. In this way
> the outcome is produced by specifically rejecting those that don't meet
> their perspective of financial feasibility. Thus, managed. That
> doesn't change the artists approach, it only culls from it. Trane
> wasn't solely a ballads player, but a very successful album of his
> ballads was culled and released.
>
> I think the jazz artist that constructs tunes at the drawing board with
> the specific intent of appeal to a target market is a rarity. I'm not
> saying it doesn't exist but I think it's rare indeed. Why, for heaven's
> sake would they pick jazz if they wanted to make money?
Well said.
I'd take it one step further. Why would a person become a musician of
any kind if they wanted to make money? Even the percentage of pop
musicians who make good money is so tiny that going into the field
hoping to cash is crazy.
> I think people do what they can, and are encouraged or disinclined
> along the way by peers and teachers and audiences to play less "far
> out" and play more "conversational" solos and not to play too many
> choruses and all the rest. So their aesthetic is arrived at
> holistically through growth and experience, not by conference with
> corporate suits at a capitalist ouija board.
>
> These types do pursue those artists that already fit their outline.
> Kraal certainly qualifies. I was unsure if they were selling her face
> or her legs. It turns out she plays jazz too...
Well said again. I agree completely.
--
Nick
"I give up on ever finding a bass player. My hand is numb anyway."
thom_j.
To All, I guess?
I am a bit confused & I certianly dont want to open a can of worms
within the thread but what makes a famous commerically successful
jazz or borderline person *not* acceptable via Rmmgj at times?
Please do not mis'understand my query as I have always wondered
why many more 'obscure jazz muscians' are praised here but every
so often, one becomes famous and they are poo-poo'ed..
I know nothing of Dianna Krall's music (yea I know shame on me)
but there are other so called famous-commerically successful jazz
musicians the seem to me are "bashed" un'fairly at time here..
Can someone or anyone *please* explain, why? Tia.. thom_j.
Don Mitchell
I recently watched a documentary on the career of Ella Fitzgerald. Her
most successful recordings were her "songbook" series, which she did
because of the advice and guidance of Norman Granz (sp?). In those
recordings, each one showcasing the tunes of the great American
songwriters--Gershwin, Porter, Arlen, etc.--she dropped her scatting,
and the extended soloing sections of her accompaniment, and sang the
songs "straight". The success of those albums followed her career even
through it's declining years, made her perhaps the most honored black
American female vocalist of her generation, and certainly the most
successful and honored jazz vocalist of her time, and established her
broad audience, a portion of whom would listen to her more adventurous
purely jazz oriented recordings that would follow.
I think if there is any common denominator in this discussion it's not
money, as has already been pointed out, but audience. Anyone who
chooses music as a career, or even performs as a hobby, wants an
audience. Depending on a particular musician's preferences and goals,
the demographic and size of that audience is going to vary enormously.
The avante guard artist who has contempt for the "average" listener,
seeks the approval of the intelligencia elite, usually comprised of a
small group of critics and other artists of a similar mindset and taste.
If he wins the approval of that goup--his target audience--he will
feel he has been successful, whether he makes any money or not. He will
have the satisfaction that he is creating true art, cutting-edge,
original, though beyond the understanding of the dullard masses,
appreciated only by his cherished inner circle of the enlightened. At
the other end of the spectrum is the pop artist who, from the get-go,
wishes to use their talent to reach the largest possible audience and is
willing, with cold calculation and the advice of their "handlers", to
tailor their performance, song choice, image (read: weight, hair color,
eye color, clothing, and every word spoken to the media) to maximize
that possibility. Somewhere in the middle are musicians of a particular
genre--Latin, Country, Jazz--who wish to reach a larger audience than
they have been able to do from within the strict constraints of that
genre. Compromises will have to be made. For Latin artists this
usually means, at the very least, recording in English. For jazz
artists it has typically meant toning down the intensity and length of
solos, altering tune choice to include standards and pop tunes rather
than jazz originals, orchestration and image alteration, most notably in
cover art. Look at the difference in the album covers between Wes
Montgomery's Riverside records and his very successful CIT albums.
For many within any musical genre (but most notably, critics and
hobbyists) any compromise an artist within that genre makes to reach a
larger audience is a type of moral defect, a betrayal of artistic
integrity, and a betrayal of the music itself making it "bad" music, or
at least inferior music. To me, much of the music in question is
different, but not necessarily bad. In the former thread that led to
this one, an acquaintance of the writer said that Diana Krall's album
was "commercial garbage". One of the problems I have with that attitude
is it implies the same degree of pejorative value to "commercial" as to
"garbage".
--
Don
visit Don's web site at: http://members.dsl-only.net/~jazzman
Max Leggett
<jaz...@dsl-only.net> wrote:
>I recently watched a documentary on the career of Ella Fitzgerald. Her
>most successful recordings were her "songbook" series,
I hated all that Vegas shit, and still do. I love Ella, I think she's
The Goddess reincarnate, but those songbooks stank it up big time for
me. On the other hand, they made her a lot of money, something I do
not begrudge someone of her talent. She wasn't getting rich scatting
for yrs truly. :) He first hit was A Tiskit A Tasket, which was
hardly a deathless work of art. But Ella was an artist, and the fact
that she could make more money pandering to Peoria than she could
singing ..... well, singing the kind of stuff I like her sing. So
what I'm saying is, my opinion is worth more than the people in Peoria
who bought all that Songbook crap. :) Maybe I should shut up before
I dig too deep a grave for myself. But Ella can do the Songbook,
stuff, Nat King Cole can do Those Lazy Hazy Crazy Days of Summer, and
Diana Krall can do smoochie stuff for the folks back home, Miles can
record Walt Disney themes, Trane can do My Favourite things. Nothing
wrong with making money amd putting your kids through college. Beats
starving.
>because of the advice and guidance of Norman Granz (sp?).
Granz really put Ella over the top as far as earnings go. He was hip
enough to realise she wouldn't get rich playing for jazz purists like
me, so he pitched her to the public. Good for both of them.
>The avante guard artist who has contempt for the "average" listener,
.... is usually broke and spends more time whining about the
philistine culture than he does practicing.
>appreciated only by his cherished inner circle of the enlightened. At
>the other end of the spectrum is the pop artist who, from the get-go,
>wishes to use their talent to reach the largest possible audience and is
>willing, with cold calculation and the advice of their "handlers",
That's entertainment. Show biz. Blech. But lots of people think it's
great - the marketing of celebrity. And what does the average person
know about value or art? About celebrity they know a lot.
>For many within any musical genre (but most notably, critics and
>hobbyists) any compromise an artist within that genre makes to reach a
:) It's easy to be a purist when you have a full time job. It's
different when your kids need clothes.
Q. What do you call someone who only knows two chords?
A. A music critic.
NJD
> For many within any musical genre (but most notably, critics and
> hobbyists) any compromise an artist within that genre makes to reach a
> larger audience is a type of moral defect, a betrayal of artistic
> integrity, and a betrayal of the music itself making it "bad" music, or
> at least inferior music. To me, much of the music in question is
> different, but not necessarily bad. In the former thread that led to
> this one, an acquaintance of the writer said that Diana Krall's album
> was "commercial garbage". One of the problems I have with that attitude
> is it implies the same degree of pejorative value to "commercial" as to
> "garbage".
Every genre has hard core fans that have contempt for other styles of
music. Most typically it's hatred of pop, but sometimes it can cover a
lot more ground than that.
I've encountered "intellectuals" who dismiss good jazz as mere
"wanking." I've got a real pet peeve with that kind of talk and tend to
react pretty strongly. And jazz snobs can be just as bad.
Ironically, I one time was defending jazz and improvisation in a metal
group and was accused of being a jazz snob myself. Pretty funny.
The fact is that there's nothing immoral about reaching out to a wider
audience per se. It's easy enough not to listen to music you don't like
so "reaching out to the masses" causes no harm. I don't think any good
comes out of attacking musicians just because you don't like the way
they use their talent. In fact, I've adopted my own personal policy of
never publicly criticizing another musician's work. I just don't think
any good ever comes of it. (Of course, if someone asks me for a
critique, I'll oblige. I appreciate honest feedback myself.)
About the only time a musician's artistic choices make him immoral,
IMHO, is when he uses his talent to promote some terrible philosophy,
movement, or activity -- such as beating up women, murdering people,
etc. It's hard to believe, but there is plenty of such music out there
(e.g. among white-supremacist groups and the like).
I spent some time lurking in some pretty scary newsgroups for a while
just to see what they were all about. It was educational but
disturbing.
There are individuals out there that just want to kill people. It's
amazing. And they talk about it openly. What's more amazing is that
there are musicians who cater to that audience! (Sort of puts a jazz
player's "selling out" into some perspective, eh?)
Strange world.
BTW, I love Ella. What a voice! I've got an old record of her singing
with Louis Armstrong. I'll have to throw that thing on. Haven't
listened to it in a while.
Gerry Scott-Moore
<jaz...@dsl-only.net> wrote:
> If [the avant-garde artist] wins the approval of that goup--his
> target audience--he will feel he has been successful, whether he
> makes any money or not. He will have the satisfaction that he is
> creating true art, cutting-edge, original, though beyond the
> understanding of the dullard masses, appreciated only by his
> cherished inner circle of the enlightened. At the other end of the
> spectrum is the pop artist who, from the get-go, wishes to use their
> talent to reach the largest possible audience and is willing, with
> cold calculation and the advice of their "handlers", to tailor their
> performance, song choice, image (read: weight, hair color, eye color,
> clothing, and every word spoken to the media) to maximize that
> possibility.
I disagree that the pop artist goes about his/her task with something
different from the avant-garde artist. He too may well think that in
the pop medium his art is true, cutting-edge, original, et al. I also
think "is willing, with cold calculation" describes none of the pop
artists, successful or otherwise, I've met and been over the years.
Though I do think these handlers attempt to bind the feet of any artist
they control in order to make them "beautiful" by whatever current
grotesque definition exists. I don't think that says anything about
the pop artist though. Frequently they are depressed and addled by the
control these weasels have over them, frequently turning what might
have been an earnest and enjoyable artist in to a tutti-frutti hack.
> Somewhere in the middle are musicians of a particular genre--Latin,
> Country, Jazz--who wish to reach a larger audience than they have
> been able to do from within the strict constraints of that genre.
> Compromises will have to be made. For Latin artists this usually
> means, at the very least, recording in English.
How about they enjoy a Spanish speaking audience and just what a large
piece of *that* pie? :-) Audience expansion doesn't always mean
groping for another style in order to fetch that audience. Jimi
Hendrix, Little Richard, and Miles invented their audiences. "What the
hell was that?" is frequently a precursor to a shift in tastes, not
always a precursor to being shown the door.
> For jazz artists it has typically meant toning down the intensity and
> length of solos, altering tune choice to include standards and pop
> tunes rather than jazz originals, orchestration and image alteration,
> most notably in cover art. Look at the difference in the album
> covers between Wes Montgomery's Riverside records and his very
> successful CIT albums.
Jeez, Don, I don't get this. It's like you're saying that everybody's
interest in "growth" as an artist or performer has to do with how much
they can modify their art to appeal to people who currently don't like
them. I think a lot of artists believe (however misguided) that it's a
matter of being able to be *more* like themselves to appeal to others.
Or to just have an opportunity for people to hear them in a good
setting. Not a matter of "toning down" or changing intensity or
length. And remember also that in the past for many musicians the
records, however important they were as artificacts, weren't who they
were as artists. Performance was where they believed themselves to be
most themselves.
Wes Montgomery's album covers aren't his playing. And I know that his
musical settings changed dramatically during the last section of his
career. Did his live performances, did his style of playing? Were the
changes from Bumpin' to A Day in the Life changes he specifically
didn't want to make, artistically? Were these exemplary of all jazz
artists or just the few who made truly dissappointing shifts (Wes,
Benson, some might add Ella from your example or even Trane as he
headed into orbit).
> For many within any musical genre (but most notably, critics and
> hobbyists) any compromise an artist within that genre makes to reach
> a larger audience is a type of moral defect, a betrayal of artistic
> integrity, and a betrayal of the music itself making it "bad" music,
> or at least inferior music. To me, much of the music in question is
> different, but not necessarily bad. In the former thread that led to
> this one, an acquaintance of the writer said that Diana Krall's album
> was "commercial garbage". One of the problems I have with that
> attitude is it implies the same degree of pejorative value to
> "commercial" as to "garbage".
This closely follows my viewpoints. It's seems you've shifted views
here, or maybe I misunderstood the categories you cite above to be the
classifications you, yourself, believe in.
JuJu Voodoo
> Jimi Hendrix, Little Richard, and Miles invented their audiences.
Ah, yes. I once read a writer wax on something similar with Bill Haley
and Elvis. He offered that Bill was sharp enough to see a wave and
ride it. Elvis made them, for years continually staying ahead of the
pack.
I have been experimenting in seeing just how broad a base, with varied
presentations, a specific portion of my, "talent," can reach. I didn't
water it down for this sector, or tweak it for that. And it has been
interesting.
> ///--- Nazodesu no more.
JuJu Voodoo sometimes.
Gerry Scott-Moore
Voodoo <jujuvo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have been experimenting in seeing just how broad a base, with varied
> presentations, a specific portion of my, "talent," can reach. I didn't
> water it down for this sector, or tweak it for that. And it has been
> interesting.
If you do, how can you ever know who you might have been...?
JuJu Voodoo
Just an actor going on stage, to read his lines, at a particular point
in space/time. Puts things in perspective for me.
Kevin Van Sant
wrote in message <3dc4575e...@News.CIS.DFN.DE> :
> I love Ella, I think she's
>The Goddess reincarnate, but those songbooks stank it up big time for
>me. On the other hand, they made her a lot of money, something I do
>not begrudge someone of her talent. She wasn't getting rich scatting
>for yrs truly. :) He first hit was A Tiskit A Tasket, which was
>hardly a deathless work of art. But Ella was an artist, and the fact
>that she could make more money pandering to Peoria than she could
>singing ..... well, singing the kind of stuff I like her sing. So
>what I'm saying is, my opinion is worth more than the people in Peoria
>who bought all that Songbook crap. :)
Hey I love most of the Songbook sessions, and I don't live in Peoria!.
Especially the Ellington book (with Duke's orchestra, and small group
with OP, Kessel, Webster, etc.. ) and Jerome Kern and the Harold
Arlen books are nice too. Her voice is SO pure on all of these
sessions. For the most part the arranging is top shelf and in some
cases highly ambitious. Always musical. The whole catalogue of
American Song which Granz produced with her is a national treasure as
far as I'm concerned.
_________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
jazz guitar
http://www.onestopjazz.com/kvansant
to buy my CDs, listen to sound clips, and get more info.
Alternate site for recent soundclips
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/kevinvansant_music.htm
Don Mitchell
Well, my first 2 examples were more of an attempt to point at the
extreme ends of the spectrum. I certainly didn't mean to indict all
pop artists as musical marketing mercenaries. I freely admit that I
can't speak from empirical knowledge about successful pop artists--I
haven't known any or been close to anyone in the business; but my
perception is that people like Mariah Carrie (sp?) or the "boy bands"
like 'Nsync and, in my mind the most extreme example, Madonna, have
ruthlessly manipulated their performance persona not necessarily from
any sort of personal musical vision, but to maximize their market share.
But I have no proof of that. Maybe Madonna truly did envision a giant
ice-cream cone bra and simulated masturbation on stage as a valid
expression of her growth as an artist.
>
>
>>Somewhere in the middle are musicians of a particular genre--Latin,
>>Country, Jazz--who wish to reach a larger audience than they have
>>been able to do from within the strict constraints of that genre.
>>Compromises will have to be made. For Latin artists this usually
>>means, at the very least, recording in English.
>
>
> How about they enjoy a Spanish speaking audience and just what a large
> piece of *that* pie? :-) Audience expansion doesn't always mean
> groping for another style in order to fetch that audience. Jimi
> Hendrix, Little Richard, and Miles invented their audiences. "What the
> hell was that?" is frequently a precursor to a shift in tastes, not
> always a precursor to being shown the door.
I don't contend with that. But on the other hand, what I've described
has happened quite a bit, wouldn't you agree? There's even a word for
it I've heard bandied about over the years--crossover. Miami Sound
Machine was huge in the Spanish speaking world, especially Latin
America, but they wanted to "crossover" into the main stream North
American market. They recorded in English. More examples?
Julio Englesias
Marc Anthony
Ricky (sp?) Martin
>
>
>>For jazz artists it has typically meant toning down the intensity and
>>length of solos, altering tune choice to include standards and pop
>>tunes rather than jazz originals, orchestration and image alteration,
>>most notably in cover art. Look at the difference in the album
>>covers between Wes Montgomery's Riverside records and his very
>>successful CIT albums.
>
>
> Jeez, Don, I don't get this. It's like you're saying that everybody's
> interest in "growth" as an artist or performer has to do with how much
> they can modify their art to appeal to people who currently don't like
> them. I think a lot of artists believe (however misguided) that it's a
> matter of being able to be *more* like themselves to appeal to others.
> Or to just have an opportunity for people to hear them in a good
> setting. Not a matter of "toning down" or changing intensity or
> length. And remember also that in the past for many musicians the
> records, however important they were as artificacts, weren't who they
> were as artists. Performance was where they believed themselves to be
> most themselves.
My point was not their growth as an artist; my point was their desire to
expand their audience. And I think the history of recorded jazz
supports my argument: the albums by jazz greats that sold the most--that
reached the largest audience--were typically those that made the sort of
compromises I described.
Charlie Parker -- Charlie Parker with Strings
Miles Davis -- Sketches of Spain
George Benson -- Breezin'
Diana Krall -- The Look of Love (the least amount of improvisation and
the heaviest amount of orchestration; and it's been the number one
selling jazz recording for how many months now?)
>
> Wes Montgomery's album covers aren't his playing. And I know that his
> musical settings changed dramatically during the last section of his
> career. Did his live performances, did his style of playing? Were the
> changes from Bumpin' to A Day in the Life changes he specifically
> didn't want to make, artistically? Were these exemplary of all jazz
> artists or just the few who made truly dissappointing shifts (Wes,
> Benson, some might add Ella from your example or even Trane as he
> headed into orbit).
My point about Wes's covers was meant in response to the way I've heard
Diana Krall lambasted over her last two CD covers. To one degree or
another, these things--these sorts of compromises--have been done over
and over again and they've worked. They have, for that artist, at least
for that time, reached a larger audience. For some at least a portion
of that larger audience stayed with them when they returned to more
artistically adventurous--or uncompromising, if you like--recording or
performances. Some artists try to compromise for that larger audience
and fail miserably. Probably the majority of artists in any genre,
never end up compromising, but keep plugging away within the constraints
of their genre and endeavoring to realize their personal musical vision;
as you said to be a better version of themselves and get a bigger piece
of "that" pie. Great. More power to them. I just get tired of hearing
the voices of reproach over those, like Krall, who have made some
compromises in their approach to reach that larger audience. It seems a
bit of the tall poppy syndrome to me. You know: one poppy grows taller
than the rest, everybody wants to cut it down.
>
>
>>For many within any musical genre (but most notably, critics and
>>hobbyists) any compromise an artist within that genre makes to reach
>>a larger audience is a type of moral defect, a betrayal of artistic
>>integrity, and a betrayal of the music itself making it "bad" music,
>>or at least inferior music. To me, much of the music in question is
>>different, but not necessarily bad. In the former thread that led to
>>this one, an acquaintance of the writer said that Diana Krall's album
>>was "commercial garbage". One of the problems I have with that
>>attitude is it implies the same degree of pejorative value to
>>"commercial" as to "garbage".
>
>
> This closely follows my viewpoints. It's seems you've shifted views
> here, or maybe I misunderstood the categories you cite above to be the
> classifications you, yourself, believe in.
>
--
Tom Lippincott
>To All, I guess?
>
>I am a bit confused & I certianly dont want to open a can of worms
>within the thread but what makes a famous commerically successful
>jazz or borderline person *not* acceptable via Rmmgj at times?
>
>Please do not mis'understand my query as I have always wondered
>why many more 'obscure jazz muscians' are praised here but every
>so often, one becomes famous and they are poo-poo'ed..
>
>I know nothing of Dianna Krall's music (yea I know shame on me)
>but there are other so called famous-commerically successful jazz
>musicians the seem to me are "bashed" un'fairly at time here..
>
>Can someone or anyone *please* explain, why? Tia.. thom_j.
I don't think there is any one blanket answer; everyone has their owns tastes,
and reasons for liking or disliking a certain artist. Off the top of my head I
do know I have seen a lot of discussions about George Benson for one. It seems
the general concensus is "he's a great jazz guitar players, one of the best out
there, but it's a shame he makes so many pop records that are light on the
guitar playing."
I hardly think that qualifies as him being branded "unacceptable." Can you
give some other specific examples?
I myself tend to have a pretty broad taste in music. When it comes to jazz, I
do tend to be attracted to the more "abstract/cutting edge/modern" stuff, but
not to the complete exclusion of other more "in the pocket" things. I
generally am not into badmouthing other musicians in a public forum, although I
have indeed made comments here about "smooth jazz." It's always a tricky thing
to generalize, but I tend to see at least a lot of "smooth jazz" as coming from
a corporate marketing point of view rather than as honest human expression.
I'm not sure, but I don't think that's what you're referring to anyway, though.
I'm assuming you're talking about artists like Diana Krall and John
Pizzarelli, who play acoustic straight ahead jazz with vocals that is
relatively commercial in nature. Is that the case? Also, is your question why
do people dislike this stuff or is it why do people feel compelled to badmouth
these musicians in a public forum?
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
JuJu Voodoo
> My point about Wes's covers was meant in response to the way I've heard
> Diana Krall lambasted over her last two CD covers. To one degree or
> another, these things--these sorts of compromises--have been done over
> and over again and they've worked. They have, for that artist, at least
> for that time, reached a larger audience. For some at least a portion
> of that larger audience stayed with them when they returned to more
> artistically adventurous--or uncompromising, if you like--recording or
> performances.
I hope to do something akin to this, through a side door. There are at
least two, "Me's." One likes a louder, nastier rootsy rock and roll
thing, to wink at the girls, act a character, and cut up. Then there
is the solo singer/guitarist who likes to sit on a stool and stretch
out into some dynamics unavailable in the former situation. I'm
thinking it will take 3 cds to get from rockin' daddie to jazzy singer
instrumentalist. I get a kick out of it all.
Very interesting thread.
thom_j.
"Tom Lippincott" <tomli...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20021103160246...@mb-ce.aol.com...
> >
> >To All, I guess?
> >
> >I am a bit confused & I certianly dont want to open a can of worms
> >within the thread but what makes a famous commerically successful
> >jazz or borderline person *not* acceptable via Rmmgj at times?
> >
> >Please do not mis'understand my query as I have always wondered
> >why many more 'obscure jazz muscians' are praised here but every
> >so often, one becomes famous and they are poo-poo'ed..
> >
> >I know nothing of Dianna Krall's music (yea I know shame on me)
> >but there are other so called famous-commerically successful jazz
> >musicians the seem to me are "bashed" un'fairly at time here..
> >
> >Can someone or anyone *please* explain, why? Tia.. thom_j.
>
> I don't think there is any one blanket answer; everyone has their owns
tastes,
> and reasons for liking or disliking a certain artist. Off the top of my
head I
> do know I have seen a lot of discussions about George Benson for one. It
seems
> the general concensus is "he's a great jazz guitar players, one of the
best out
> there, but it's a shame he makes so many pop records that are light on the
> guitar playing."
Yes, Tom L. I guess this was kind of a broad blanketed query..
> I hardly think that qualifies as him being branded "unacceptable." Can
you
> give some other specific examples?
George Benson is basically revered here afaik.. But at times I read
such 'i.e. Klugh, Stern, Sco, DiMeola, Martino, Metheny, Carlton,
Ritenour, W. Marsilis really was a biggie here for awhile and even
Miles sometimes, via his rock/fusion stuff. This is just off the top
of my cabaza' :) Of course I do know many of the players above
are *not* considered so called "straight ahead" jazz musicians..
> I myself tend to have a pretty broad taste in music. When it comes to
jazz, I
> do tend to be attracted to the more "abstract/cutting edge/modern" stuff,
but
> not to the complete exclusion of other more "in the pocket" things. I
Ditto on my end too..
> generally am not into badmouthing other musicians in a public forum,
although I
> have indeed made comments here about "smooth jazz."
I didnt want to go as far as "badmouthing" Tom but I guess its just
as viable a word as any.. :)
It's always a tricky thing
> to generalize, but I tend to see at least a lot of "smooth jazz" as coming
from
> a corporate marketing point of view rather than as honest human
expression.
I understand completely about the "smooth jazz" ear dischord here
& this makes sense.
> I'm not sure, but I don't think that's what you're referring to anyway,
though.
> I'm assuming you're talking about artists like Diana Krall and John
Yes Diana is what spurred my query as I started thinking about the
others I listed above and more.. Nothing is "written is stone" and I
am well aware of this..
> Pizzarelli, who play acoustic straight ahead jazz with vocals that is
> relatively commercial in nature. Is that the case? Also, is your
question why
> do people dislike this stuff or is it why do people feel compelled to
badmouth
> these musicians in a public forum?
I am not real familiar with Pizzarelli's works either.. On why? I guess I
better clarify.. [a] Dianna Krall started me thinking [b] many that I feel
are really good, as I stated above, sometimes are "bashed" if you will.
[c] I just find it odd in a group that is always looking to improve, and
improvise the music for jazz and then once one is famous it seems as
they "sold out"{I hate the phrase..btw} for lack of better terminology.
Please remember I am only "in the question" and I'm not making any
contrived statements toward anyone on Rmmgj... Meaning: I am just
curious.. cheer thom_j.
Scott McLoughlin
a brother who is 11 years younger than me. Among others, he has this strange
distinction in our family.
He actually likes pop Diva's and smooth jazz music. I took him to see Mark
Whitfield a few years back, and he became a fan. MW really let loose live,
but my brother likes the laid back smooth recordings (Soul Conversation? I
can't remember). No kidding.
I'm not too fond of this sort of thing, so I quickly forget that a whole
mess of people actually *LIKE* this kind of music. I can't fathom it, so I
kind of forget the basic fact that this stuff is relatively popular. My
brother reminds me that this is the case, I guess. Living proof ;-)
So here is a question. If alot of people like to listen to this kind of pop
jazz music, couldn't we assume that a good number of musicians actually like
to compose and play this kind of music? Again, it's hard for me to imagine
for some strange reason, but why not? It doesn't jibe with my listening
tastes at all, but again, why not?
I can remember freaking out as a kid when my dad informed me that Carole
King wrote tons of early 60's girl band hits, Monkees tunes and what not. I
grew up with "Tapestries" as a kid and just couldn't handle the cognitive
dissonance ;-)
Anyway, some really great musicians/composers just might create some really
great music that I personally think totally sucks. Why not?
I don't think it's a "commercial" thing. I think it's a genre or style
thing. Alot of old jazz stuff I listen to and like was popular and
commercially successful in its day. And there's plenty of "non-commercial"
music that I think really sucks as well (man, I sat through hours or wierd
avant garde classical stuff up at Harvard. Cambridge, MA is just crawling
with that stuff ;-). Why not?
So why do we harp on this whole "commercial" thing? Some music we like and
some we think sucks. What does commercial success have to do with it?
--
Scott McLoughlin, Chairman
The Adrenaline Group, Inc.
"Tom Lippincott" <tomli...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20021103160246...@mb-ce.aol.com...
> >
Bob Agnew
Mind" and did it great justice IMNSHO, so she's a jazz singer in my book.
"David Brosseau" <bros...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:9QQw9.214481$qM2.69644@sccrnsc02...
Gerry Scott-Moore
<jaz...@dsl-only.net> wrote:
> Well, my first 2 examples were more of an attempt to point at the
> extreme ends of the spectrum. I certainly didn't mean to indict all
> pop artists as musical marketing mercenaries. I freely admit that I
> can't speak from empirical knowledge about successful pop artists--I
> haven't known any or been close to anyone in the business; but my
> perception is that people like Mariah Carrie (sp?) or the "boy bands"
> like 'Nsync and, in my mind the most extreme example, Madonna, have
> ruthlessly manipulated their performance persona not necessarily from
> any sort of personal musical vision, but to maximize their market
> share. But I have no proof of that. Maybe Madonna truly did envision
> a giant ice-cream cone bra and simulated masturbation on stage as a
> valid expression of her growth as an artist.
Well I agree about Madonna, but I thought we were talking about
musicians, and I consider Madonna a media celebrity, despite the fact
that's she's had hit records. Sgt. Barry Sadler did too. With Carey
and NSync, despite the marketing machine that houses them, I think they
are folks that are trying to produce good popular music, not people who
are trying to figure out how to make more money with the next tune than
the previous one. It make work out that way. I don't think the writers
at the NYTimes are trying to write stories to sell more newspapers,
just write good stories.
> >>Somewhere in the middle are musicians of a particular genre--Latin,
> >>Country, Jazz--who wish to reach a larger audience than they have
> >>been able to do from within the strict constraints of that genre.
> >>Compromises will have to be made. For Latin artists this usually
> >>means, at the very least, recording in English.
> >
> > How about they enjoy a Spanish speaking audience and just what a
> > large piece of *that* pie? :-) Audience expansion doesn't always
> > mean groping for another style in order to fetch that audience.
> > Jimi Hendrix, Little Richard, and Miles invented their audiences.
> > "What the hell was that?" is frequently a precursor to a shift in
> > tastes, not always a precursor to being shown the door.
>
> I don't contend with that. But on the other hand, what I've
> described has happened quite a bit, wouldn't you agree? There's even
> a word for it I've heard bandied about over the years--crossover.
> Miami Sound Machine was huge in the Spanish speaking world,
> especially Latin America, but they wanted to "crossover" into the
> main stream North American market. They recorded in English. More
> examples? Julio Englesias Marc Anthony Ricky (sp?) Martin
Absolutely. Reuben Blades had a movie by the same name that revolves
around this difficult issue. But I believe most Latin artists are
firsta and foremost singers and musicians that have a complete picture
of themselves as artists. Do they want to be successful? Undoubtedly.
And some are willing to make some painfully diffucult compromises in an
attempt to make their low-dollar hobbies into successful careers.
> > Jeez, Don, I don't get this. It's like you're saying that
> > everybody's interest in "growth" as an artist or performer has to
> > do with how much they can modify their art to appeal to people who
> > currently don't like them. I think a lot of artists believe
> > (however misguided) that it's a matter of being able to be *more*
> > like themselves to appeal to others. Or to just have an opportunity
> > for people to hear them in a good setting. Not a matter of "toning
> > down" or changing intensity or length. And remember also that in
> > the past for many musicians the records, however important they
> > were as artificacts, weren't who they were as artists. Performance
> > was where they believed themselves to be most themselves.
>
> My point was not their growth as an artist; my point was their desire
> to expand their audience. And I think the history of recorded jazz
> supports my argument: the albums by jazz greats that sold the
> most--that reached the largest audience--were typically those that
> made the sort of compromises I described. Charlie Parker -- Charlie
> Parker with Strings Miles Davis -- Sketches of Spain George Benson
> -- Breezin' Diana Krall -- The Look of Love (the least amount of
> improvisation and the heaviest amount of orchestration; and it's been
> the number one selling jazz recording for how many months now?)
My question is did these artists do something they didn't want to do,
try something the didn't want to try, "sell out" or "corrupt" their art
to produce these efforts. Was their sole rationale in using a string
section, an attempt to make more money and otherwise wholly useless to
them? I don't think it was. Particularly for string use in the 50's
and think it was a appetizing way to work in an quazi-legit environment
that gave their music more credibility--not just culturally but
musically as well.
I could be wrong, but that's the guess I prefer. Davis and Parker both
loved their sides with strings. And Benson was delighted to work with
Ogerman, though I don't know what he really thinks about Breezin' as a
piece of his approach. I know that he always enjoyed singing, and
essentially made a career change.
> My point about Wes's covers was meant in response to the way I've
> heard Diana Krall lambasted over her last two CD covers. To one
> degree or another, these things--these sorts of compromises--have
> been done over and over again and they've worked. They have, for
> that artist, at least for that time, reached a larger audience. For
> some at least a portion of that larger audience stayed with them when
> they returned to more artistically adventurous--or uncompromising, if
> you like--recording or performances.
I agree completely. Let's face it, Julie London's cleavage sold her
records. Her music was nice. It didn't encourage a lot of non-jazz
people to grow more "sophisticated" tastes as a result. It's possible
that if London hadn't prepped it, that Brubeck wouldn't have sold so
well. Or maybe that's reversed, but the point is still valid.
> Some artists try to compromise
> for that larger audience and fail miserably.
That's true, but also some artists try to change their groove, or
expand their styles into what they see as newer and more expansive
approaches, and simply can't pull it off. My point being that it's not
always a commercial compromise so much as it is a sincere attempt to do
what they consider to be "growing". And that in a nutshell is my view
on the entire topic.
> Probably the majority
> of artists in any genre, never end up compromising, but keep plugging
> away within the constraints of their genre and endeavoring to realize
> their personal musical vision; as you said to be a better version of
> themselves and get a bigger piece of "that" pie. Great. More power
> to them. I just get tired of hearing the voices of reproach over
> those, like Krall, who have made some compromises in their approach
> to reach that larger audience.
As do I. And my weariness is frequently expressed in the view that I
do not think they have compromised at all. But even if they did change
their music to increase their audience I don't think it's the way of
the devil or anything.
Gerry Scott-Moore
Voodoo <jujuvo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I hope to do something akin to this, through a side door. There are at
> least two, "Me's." One likes a louder, nastier rootsy rock and roll
> thing, to wink at the girls, act a character, and cut up. Then there
> is the solo singer/guitarist who likes to sit on a stool and stretch
> out into some dynamics unavailable in the former situation. I'm
> thinking it will take 3 cds to get from rockin' daddie to jazzy singer
> instrumentalist. I get a kick out of it all.
There are at least 8 "me's". I bet you've got a few others you forgot
to mention...
JuJu Voodoo
Yes, they are unmentionable.
> --
> ///--- Nazodesu no more.
JuJu "uh-oh, I feel another mutation coming on" Voodoo
Joe Finn
> So why do we harp on this whole "commercial" thing? Some music we like
and
> some we think sucks. What does commercial success have to do with it?
>
Everything.
The music business has it's gatekeepers. Don't kid yourself. ...joe
thom_j.
"Joe Finn" <J...@joefinn.net> wrote in message
news:3dc5ff1f$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> "Scott McLoughlin" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote >
> > So why do we harp on this whole "commercial" thing? Some music we like
> and
> > some we think sucks. What does commercial success have to do with it?
> >
>
> Everything.
>
> The music business has it's gatekeepers. Don't kid yourself. ...joe
True, and their thieves also.. cheers thom_j.
JuJu Voodoo
> "Scott McLoughlin" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote >
> > So why do we harp on this whole "commercial" thing? Some music we like
> and
> > some we think sucks. What does commercial success have to do with it?
> >
> Everything.
Something about Gold and Rules.
> The music business has it's gatekeepers.
I hope to catch one on a good day.
> Don't kid yourself.
It would be a disservice.
>...joe
Scott McLoughlin
>
> The music business has it's gatekeepers. Don't kid yourself. ...joe
>
Every organization has its gatekeepers. So what? Who's kidding who.
Still doesn't address that there's plenty of crappy music/musicians (crappy
to me) that's not commercially popular/distributed/whatever.
I just don't see how the commercial music houses have any sort of monopoly
on crap music.
So I'm just saying "commercial" isn't by itself a good synonym for "crappy".
I'm neither defending nor criticizing the music biz folks by saying this.
JuJu Voodoo
> "Joe Finn" <J...@joefinn.net> wrote in message
> > Everything.
> >
> > The music business has it's gatekeepers. Don't kid yourself. ...joe
> >
>
> Every organization has its gatekeepers. So what? Who's kidding who.
>
> Still doesn't address that there's plenty of crappy music/musicians (crappy
> to me) that's not commercially popular/distributed/whatever.
> I just don't see how the commercial music houses have any sort of monopoly
> on crap music.
Does this mean there is no board meeting, the CEO smoking a cigar,
telling his crew to get on the ball, and get out there and sign every
last drop of the, "worst," music they can find?
> So I'm just saying "commercial" isn't by itself a good synonym for "crappy".
> I'm neither defending nor criticizing the music biz folks by saying this.
> Scott McLoughlin, Chairman
> The Adrenaline Group, Inc.
This subject is sure getting some mileage, in a number of threads.
For me, I'm sure not, "bummed," about the, "way things are."
On the contrary.
I'm getting some kicks drawing up map within Map.
Charlie Robinson
"I give up on ever finding a bass player. My hand is numb anyway."
>>
How much is it paying?
Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer
You can hear me online at: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/robinsonchazz
or: <A HREF="http://rmmgj.iuma.com">http://rmmgj.iuma.com</A>
Tom Walls
I have only two personalities: one has a sinus headache, and the other doesn't.
NJD
scot...@worldnet.att.net says...
> Every organization has its gatekeepers. So what? Who's kidding who.
The barriers to entry for non-mainstream artists are lower now than ever
before. A LOT lower.
> So I'm just saying "commercial" isn't by itself a good synonym for "crappy".
> I'm neither defending nor criticizing the music biz folks by saying this.
A small percentage of "commercial" music is very, very good.
--
NJD
robins...@aol.com says...
> How much is it paying?
Well, we'd have to get the gigs first. I'd be happy to forfeit my share
to the other players until things got rolling.
It doesn't really matter at this point. I've got to recover first and I
also really need to find a new day job lest we lose everything. That's
no small feat in this horrible job market.
I may even have to move having recently expanded my job search to
include five other states. That'd be a shame. I'm sure I'll never find
another drummer like Jim. What a friggin' monster.
OTOH, if I were to move and did manage to find a good bassist, I just
might be able to talk Jim into moving too. He's single and really into
the wilder stuff we've written. I someday ought to finish some of that
so you guys can hear it. I'll just use MIDI bass I guess.
Not the same, but it will have to do.
--
Scott McLoughlin
news:MPG.1830436d6...@news.optonline.net...
>
> The barriers to entry for non-mainstream artists are lower now than ever
> before. A LOT lower.
>
That's a very interesting comment. Why do you think this is the case? (not a
rhetorical question) Demographics? Business model? Recording or distribution
technology?
Don Mitchell
> In article <3DC6D827...@dsl-only.net>, Don Mitchell
> <jaz...@dsl-only.net> wrote:
*snip*
> My question is did these artists do something they didn't want to do,
> try something the didn't want to try, "sell out" or "corrupt" their art
> to produce these efforts. Was their sole rationale in using a string
> section, an attempt to make more money and otherwise wholly useless to
> them? I don't think it was. Particularly for string use in the 50's
> and think it was a appetizing way to work in an quazi-legit environment
> that gave their music more credibility--not just culturally but
> musically as well.
What I've been trying to say--clumsily, I guess--was in defense of these
types of recordings, and as an argument against the whole, tired "sell
out" accusation leveled at so many of them. The "sell out" argument
always seems to go hand in hand with the accusation that they "only did
it for the money", whereas I have argued that they did it to broaden
their audience. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, since that expanded
audience is largely measured in increased revenues, but I see it as an
important distinction, and a motive that should resonate with any
musician, whether he or she would choose to make those compromises or
not. And I agree completely that the jazz artists we've discussed were
perfectly sanguine about those choices. I read an interview with Diana
Krall not too long ago where she said in response to some of the
criticism she's been given over the sexy covers of her last two CDs,
that it was *her* choice to wear those dresses and pose for those
pictures, not that of her manager or producer, and that she was very
excited about the prospect of working with such a legendary arranger as
Claus Ogerman.
Well, I guess that's the other part of what I've been getting at: that
compromise is not necessarily a bad thing. Many in the arts seem to
regard it morally equivalent to pedophilia. I contend that exercised
well, it can be viewed as any other form of self editing for the sake of
taste and the benefit of the listener, like only taking a solo for one
or two choruses instead of six.
But I suspect that you and I agree on the major substance of this issue.
It seems to be a couple of word usages that we're actually debating.
Cheers.
Gerry Scott-Moore
<jaz...@dsl-only.net> wrote:
"Compromise" it gets used ethical/moral bludgeon. It's used to
indicated "corruption", it's supposed to be negative.
On the other hand the more it is a group-produced art the more
compromise has to take place to get to a communal vision.
> But I suspect that you and I agree on the major substance of this
> issue. It seems to be a couple of word usages that we're actually
> debating.
I'm sure you're right.
I think both of us are responding to the generic bashing that many
artists get whenever they embrace a trend, even briefly, that the
critic doesn't care for. For instance, anything with strings. And/or
anything highly arranged. The addition of singers. And myriad other
things; the use of an electric bass or electric instruments can get the
traditionalists right up on the hobby horse with all these same
arguments.
NJD
scot...@worldnet.att.net says...
> That's a very interesting comment. Why do you think this is the case? (not a
> rhetorical question) Demographics? Business model? Recording or distribution
> technology?
Geometric advances in digital technologies have radically altered the
costs (lowered them) and means of recording, production, and
distribution.
Hell, a major-label record contract might even hurt more than help a
good band's long term profit potential these days. I really believe
that by the time you've got enough local buzz happening to attract a
major label, you really don't need them. Furthermore, the risk vs.
reward might well not be worth it in many if not most cases.
That buzz should be enough to carry you through steady income growth via
intelligent regional expansion. This assumes that you really are good
and have someone in the outfit with some small degree of marketing sense
and some technical savvy.