6 ms·
I'm a musician myself who used to play jazz. The problem with jazz is that is considered by the people who listen to it like "pure art" when it is just a style
by dan_sim 17y ago
I'm a musician myself who used to play jazz. The problem with jazz is that is considered by the people who listen to it like "pure art" when it is just a style of music. Jazz (and classical) is elevated higher than other form of music and music teachers will expect a good musician to play jazz.
If jazz lovers would stop thinking at themselves as "higher educated" and jazz would go back to the people who want enjoy a good swinging song (Ella Fitzgerald, Satchmo, ...) maybe then, jazz would be loved again.
- sp332 17y agoWynton Marsalis says "When the music stopped being about dancing, people stopped listening." I never completely bought it, but I like the sentiment anyway :-)
- stcredzero 17y agoIt's very true. A lot of the visceral oomph of music like Jazz comes from its early association with dance. "It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing." The sensuality of a certain kind of step, a certain kind of movement is transmitted in the beat and the music. Understanding this brings many people flat-out joy. In my opiniion, understanding this makes one more human. That last part, you just have to experience to truly understand. But believe me, if you are doing it right, it really is something close to transcendent. It really is magic.
- Glide 17y agoOk I've done Lindy Hop for like 5 years now and I think I sort of understand the meaning behind that statement. When you dance to music you really, really need to listen to the music and where it goes. I notice that good dancers listen to the music and change what they're doing accordingly. If the music is high energy, they dance with high energy. If there is a break in the music, they hit it a break in the dancing (or they try). One of the most amazing jack & jill competitions that I watched seemed like the couple was interpreting the music. Try asking a person you know who dances what some of their favorite songs to dance to are and why.
- pguerin 17y agoTrue! I tried salsa and hated the music! After I tried lindy hop and loved it! I also like classical music but what I hate at the radio is the tone of the radio guy (boring and try to say stuff I don't understand)... less talk more music! People do like classical music in movies, right?
- thangalin 17y agoFrankie & Johnny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqscpuCogRE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqscpuCogRE) for the lyrics -- dancers have an opportunity to re-enact the affair and its deadly conclusion. The strong bass line provides a great rhythm for pulsing. Splanky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUSijeq4xGU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUSijeq4xGU) because there are so many instruments that you can choose "to be". Cow Cow Boogie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9AfqVIxEzg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9AfqVIxEzg) because of the way it undulates. The solos that break up the song, but unite it at the same time. The song cries out for changes in height, rhythm, and speed.
- jpwagner 17y agoThat's a great way to put it. It's not dancing per se, it's the idea of writing with the listener in mind. When you write only for audiophiles, you write for a small audience.
- talktalk 17y agoDance music is alive and well, it just doesn't sound like jazz anymore. Being a type of music that emphasizes the here and now (that is, the dance floor), why should the music producers use production techniques and instruments of a bygone era? Also, if we're looking at the big picture of "the story of american music", disco very much comes from the same lineage as jazz.
- sp332 17y agoRead it again: he said music, not jazz. Anyway, (e.g.) square dancing is still fun :-) And I know a few drummers would like to have a word with you about "instruments of a bygone era."
- talktalk 17y agoI should clarify that by "instruments of a bygone era", I really mean "acoustic instruments speaking the language of bebop, swing, etc." While I agree that square dancing and other folk dance traditions can be fun, they can not by any means be considered "contemporary". Their appeal these days is that of nostalgia and fondness for these bygone eras.
- necubi 17y agoAs a 19-year-old who plays for contradances (a folk dance tradition from New England) and scottish country dances, it's hard to believe that the diverse crowds of teenagers, kids and adults of all ages are there because of nostalgia. The same is true of swing, lindy and blues dances I've been to: many people do genuinely enjoy these dance forms for themselves. All that's old is not irrelevant. Not everybody wants to flail there arms around in a sweaty club to electronic noise. There is a real appeal to this music and these dance forms. Perhaps the biggest problem they face is that they're less accessible. Anybody can go to a dance party and dance, but you have to learn to swing dance.
- wollw 17y agoNot only is it still relevant, people still add to the tradition. Brian Finnegan's tunes are some quite good recent ones. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt3A_pIknY0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt3A_pIknY0 As the comments say the first tune is an older traditional song. The other two are written by him (who is playing the whistle).
- mtalantikite 17y agoI went out to see Roy Haynes/Roy Hargrove the other night, and he basically said the same thing on stage. Looking out into an audience of mainly dead silent white people, he said something to the extent of: 'I remember when I was playing in Spain some years back with Joe Henderson and Chick Corea, and man the audience gave us no love back. But at the end of the concert a couple thousand of them all put up their lighters or candles in the air, and that was how they showed their appreciation. I don't care for that, put those lighters away. Back in the day people would get up and shout when they felt the music. You guys need to give it to us on stage so we can give it back to you, it goes two ways." I think one of the main reasons "jazz" has fallen off is the price of it and the audience it therefore attracts. $35 for 45 minutes of music and a drink minimum at some crammed club like the Village Vanguard or Blue Note only attracts tourists and people with disposable income. I remember going to see Jack Dejohnette with Danilo Perez at the Blue Note, and most people I heard talking had no idea who they were -- they were all NYC tourists. The Blue Note is like the Disney Land of Jazz, complete with a gift shop upstairs so you can buy keychains. It is nice, though, to see young guys like Chris Dave, Marcus Strickland, or Robert Glasper going out on tour with Mos Def or Erykah Badu, and then in turn drawing young people that normally would be listening to only hip-hop back out to their gigs. There is still some hope yet that people won't be priced out of the music and young people will start being introduced to it again.
- dan_sim 17y agoBack in the day people would get up and shout when they felt the music. You guys need to give it to us on stage so we can give it back to you, it goes two ways That's the main problem. Jazzmen are expecting their audience to make the show and only then, they will give them a show back. That should be the other way. Musician are there to make the show, then the audience connect with them and the show becomes a whole.
- mtalantikite 17y agoI don't know, I don't think it is. He and his band were killing it. Tons of energy, you couldn't help but want to get up. They were going to have a good time whether the audience wanted to or not. But still, the demographic at a place like that is 50+, white, tourists, with disposable income paying a $35 cover ($65 on the weekend). It's $60 for a cheap bottle of wine. Young people just can't afford to be invested in it, so they go drink PBR on the LES and dance to Dam-Funk DJing.
- zach 17y agoBasically, jazz musicians were replaced by DJs. At some point, house parties didn't invite a piano player. At some point you could just have someone "putting on some records" for people to dance to at a wedding reception or big event. At some point musically-inclined kids started getting turntables instead of a trumpet. Good times and jazz used to be in the same places, but by now they only see each other on special occasions. Too bad, because jazz was made for good times and it's not the same otherwise.
- rue 17y agoI think sort of a corollary point to this is that many people associate jazz with the often cacophonous "free/abstract jazz" (or whatever the term du jour is.) The image is often of mentarbatory discord. I do not like at least modern "free jazz", but fortunately I still have tons of good, slightly groovier stuff available from 1920's onwards, and I think much more people would likewise find enjoyment in the classics. With the various "internet radio" and customised stream software, searching for these usually brings an excellent selection of music: Miles Davis, Ornette Coleman, Sun Ra, Thelonious Monk, Billie Holiday, John Coltrane.
- swannodette 17y agoI'm a fan of jazz and I'm against any definition that doesn't put: Cecil Taylor, Sun Ra, Billie Holiday, Eric Dolphy, John Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, Nina Simone, Fats Waller, Thelonius Monk, Charlie Christian, and countless others on pretty much the same plane of musical transcendence. "swinging" and "thinking" aren't so different after all.
- crux_ 17y agoSo, to summarize in an only very slightly trollish way: - The problem with jazz is the people who listen to it. - Music isn't art, or at least it's wrong to appreciate it as such. - Jazz ought to be revivalist, not innovative. Suffice to say, I don't think I can agree...
- dan_sim 17y ago- The problem with jazz is the people who listen to it. Yes - Music isn't art, or at least it's wrong to appreciate it as such. Music is entertainment and emotions. - Jazz ought to be revivalist, not innovative. Things like free-jazz is not innovative. It is shitty musicians thinking that if they play "out" enough, they might get to the point that people feel they are geniuses. Music is meant to be good to the ears.
- crux_ 17y ago> Music is entertainment and emotions. If that's the case, then I'd say that in WWF vs music, WWF wins every time! I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you think all post-renaissance painting is shit, too.
- pguerin 17y agoWWF? World Wrestling Federation? haha
- habitue 17y agoVisual art is distinctly different from music. It's possible to be entertained and feel emotion for visual art that is not a photorealistic depiction. Music, meanwhile, has certain rules that need to be obeyed in order for people to want to experience it. I'm sorry, John Cage might have some interesting concepts, but it's completely unlistenable. There are just some things that you cannot develop a real taste for. Think about the culinary arts. It too is an art, but with even more restrictions on what can be done than music. "Experimental Chefs" can't just start dabbling in putting sawdust and latex paint in their dishes and still expect it to be eaten. That being said, experimental musicians have the right to push the envelope and discover what the boundaries of taste are. Sometimes they'll fail, and sometimes they'll discover something interesting, but experimentation alone doesn't cause it to be good or bad.
- abeppu 17y agoThere's an equilibrium process here. People don't like jazz because it violates their expectations. It violates their expectations because jazz musicians aren't pandering to the tastes of the listening public. Jazz musicians don't pander to the listening public because, since everyone knows that people don't like jazz, no one becomes a jazz musician because they want to become ridiculously rich or famous -- the people who are willing to change their musical style in order to become popular (as versus to satisfy some purely internal intellectual or aesthetic desire) all go to rock, hip-hop or pop. The flip side of this is that people who listen to especially unpopular subgenres of jazz (particular -bop) seem to enjoy thinking of themselves as "higher educated" or having more sophisticated tastes than others, or just listening to music that isn't* like everything else and isn't driven by short term fads. And jazz musicians seem largely happy to facilitate this, and in turn get to indulge in a creative process that's solely centered around their own creative interests. Bottom line, jazz won't "go back to the people", because the people don't want it, because the musicians don't want it ... except the ones that do. I think in recent years a whole lot of people have listened to Michael Buble, or Nouvelle Vague.
- mtalantikite 17y agoI don't know, the fusion with hip hop has brought out huge crowds of young people over the past couple years to jazz gigs here in NYC. Chris Dave has an unmistakable J Dilla influence in his music -- this show was packed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6C6higMMMM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6C6higMMMM You don't necessarily need to go back to swing like Wynton does to get people interested in the music again. We forget that jazz standards were pop tunes back in the day, so it's nice to hear young guys now playing Bjork arrangements or KRS-One tracks.
- baddox 17y agoI'm a musician, and I completely relate to the author regarding not listening to lyrics, etc. The thing is, I strongly dislike jazz. I can recognize creativity and virtuosity in jazz musicians, but the songwriting and soloing actually seems lazy to me (the opposite of what jazz proponents would probably say).
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]