What is the best way to boost jazz CD sales?

[xricci]

Any thoughts?

[Pharaohrock]

At gunpoint. lol. Seriously, I think the government should impose an order on all citizens to buy jazz records or be subject to capital punishment....I think this would work. :D

[Coypu]

Good music will never sell well and we should all be thankfull for it rather than complaining. Once something starts to make money the driving force behind it also becomes money driven (very often atleast) and if music is motivated by selling much it will loose sincerity and ultimately lead to something bad. We have seen example of this in almost any genre that exist.

[GA Russell]

1) Get the record clubs to carry them.

2) Make the price too good a bargain to pass up - like four old albums on two CDs for the price of one, but for a limited time.

3) Put out lots of $1.99 samplers to get people familiar with the artists.

As you can see, my suggestions are about value pricing.

[Pharaohrock]

I've often wished that in black music variety shows like Soul Train or some of the stage shows on BET, you had a more integrated approach where traditional Jazz was given its appropriate time in the spotlight. BET does a disservice to the continuity of black music by relegating Jazz onto another, *specialized, cable channel. If you ask the decision-makers in black entertainment, nearly all of them are going to tell you how much they respect jazz and what an important part of African-American cultural heritage it is, but then when it comes time to put their money where their mouth is.....rather than push the agenda of jazz being on an equal footing with other black music, they push it off into a corner, a box.

I know some folks who are heavily into all kinds of stereotypically *black music. Why not have programming that indulges this eclecticism instead of forces you to go to a different place (or channel) for everything? You could have Steve Coleman followed by Buddy Guy then Chaka Khan followed by Lauryn Hill and then Tribe followed by Josh Redman.....there's so much continuity in black music, this would seem very rational and it could be very enlightening on top of it.

Segregating jazz off by its lonesome certainly doesn't help it in trying to reach new listeners, I know that much...

[estonian]

I belive that jazz is just too dificult music to be heard in a wider audiance so the only chance to sell a lot of CDs
with good jazz in it is to educate people more in music by promoting jazz and classical music contserts

[John Delaney]

Writing as a now retired jazz retailer (in the UK), there is one big drawback to increasing jazz CD sales figures.
And that is overpricing.
It is much easier to sell a mid-priced CD than a full-priced one. I used to sell at about a ratio of 2 or 3 mid to each full priced one.
There is a marked reluctance to purchase reissues at full-price.
Another encouragement to sales is the duration of the disc; one of 70 minutes will sell better than one of 30 minutes and bonus tracks do help.
But jazz will never sell at pop rates. The general public likes music that is easily digestible and jazz requires, at least, a bit of involvement from the listener.

[jazzypaul]

If you want jazz to sell, let people know it's out there. Blue Note is marketing Norah Jones' album like it was an acoustic Brittany Spears album, and WHAM!! double platinum sales and a video on MTV and in VH-1's top ten. Same with Verve and Diana Krall. Play rock venues (i.e. Medeski, Martin & Wood or Soulive) make posters and cut-outs. Of course, people will say, "the money isn't there, the budget won't allow for it!!" Well, in order to make money, you must spend money. In the cases where money has been spent, the result is undeniable. Ask Joe Henderson, Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck, etc, etc, etc.

[gregk]

but norah jones and diana krall arent really jazz. i think there's a fundamental problem with people in the US in that most young people dont know how to recognize what is music and what is "product". every young person i know (late teens to mid-20's) follows the latest sound alike crap they see (there's another problem-"seeing" music instead of hearing it) on mtv, or hear on the big commercial radio stations, like sheep. it is all very basic and sounds like its all been done before. these folks, through no fault of their own, wouldnt know a real piece of music made by talented musicians if they ever heard it. of course, i have no idea how to fix that

[jazzypaul]

but norah jones and diana krall arent really jazz

Just like Charlie Parker wasn't jazz in the 40's, Ornette wasn't jazz in the 60's and Miles wasn't jazz in the 70's. There was a great commercial done for the Chicago Jazz Festival in the early nineties that said that EVERYTHING was jazz, that even Homer Simpson was jazz. And that's true. If you can't hear jazz in James Brown, Stevie Wonder, Steely Dan or even the Dave Matthews Band, then you're just not listening. And although I've heard the argument that Norah Jones is nothing but a Joni Mitchell for the new millenium, (don't agree with it, I think she's on the same page as The Brian Blade Fellowship or Bill Frisell's efforts as of late) if you think Diana's not jazz, you need to check out her first four albums, as well as the new one, which are all excellent and ALL jazz. And I think that's part of the problem too, too many people being EX-clusive instead of IN-clusive. So, I stand by my original post.

[kpg]

if the artist is local bypass the traditional release party. you end up giving away more than you sale, go to every record store bypassing them majors (bestbuy, coconuts and such) send to every college radio station, for the most part that is where the airplay will come from. be prepared to hit the local scene selling cd's at every show.

[Pharaohrock]

The argument on who is and isn't Jazz is lame and gets us nowhere. My sister calls me on the phone proud to tell me that she just bought a new "jazz" record....Diana Krall. Rather than sit there and argue with her, I say "oh that's great, I'll have to RECOMMEND some more stuff for you."....... Point of the anecdote is, we need to think more opportunistically and stop being so damned philosophical about what "true jazz" is. If we're concered about selling records rather than just being content with our own superior sensibilities about what real jazz is, we'll get over ourselves and start accepting the Norah Joneses, the Gerald Albrights, and Kenny Garrett's more pop efforts as entryways into Jazz.
On that note, I would personally have no problem with radio stations that played a mix of both "smooth jazz" and the acoustic traditional stuff we all love, but I know to many, this would still be a bastardized expression of "JAZZ."

[gregk]

I'm not sure I get your argument. If we don't decide what is and what isn't jazz, then why even bother discussing it? By your argument, someone could say "I got the a new jazz CD, it's by Celine Dion", or "Kenny G", etc etc. If it ain't jazz, it ain't jazz. Simple as that

[Pharaohrock]

Gerald Albright isn't jazz in the purist sense, but one can surely conceive of if someone was into him, they might be open to hearing Kenny Garrett. The problem is, a lot of folks who are into Gerald Albright, because of corporate, rigidly-formatted radio, aren't even aware of Kenny Garrett. Pharaoh Sanders "Creator Has a Master Plan" would have never sold as well as it did without the eclectic radio programming of the 60s.

[gregk]

yeah, I understand what you're saying. My point is this: I've just recently found myself trying to convince many people over the last year or so that Diana Krall is not jazz like Kind of Blue is, or Coltrane at the Vanguard, or Ornette Coleman is jazz. None of these people believe me, they say "well the disc I bought was in the jazz section, so it must be!" Frustrating, that's all.

[Pharaohrock]

Oh right- it's in the "Jazz" section.....most people don't understand the idea of music having greater or lesser integrity to a form. It's just entertainment to them, and there are no critical standards to be upheld..

[jazzcritic]

I don't think most of us are concerned about increasing sales of jazz reissues (except for the labels!) as they seem to be doing okay, but for new artists' new releases to sell, I feel that some of the following areas need consideration:

1. As mentioned earlier in this thread, prices need to come down.
Who is going to take a chance on an unknown new artist at $15.98+ when there's plenty of back catalog product available by
jazz legends which the buyer doesn't already own?

2. Publicists are going to have to work smarter and weed out
the writers and media who never cover jazz, and make sure to get stations who play jazz locally serviced, even if they do it only
a few hours a week. I, for one, will be glad to dissuade a publicist from sending a CD that I clearly won't be interested in.

3. Artists making their initial recordings need to think twice before
loading up their CDs with all original material. With unknown musicians, unfamiliar compositions and a vanity label, your leverage to interest the potential critic or jazz radio host drops considerably compared to the deluge of CDs he or she is already receiving. Include at least one or two standards, classic jazz compositions and/or obscure tunes by well known composers to
stimulate interest.

I speak only for myself and not jazz radio/jazz critics as a whole.

[Herb]

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
Oh right- it's in the "Jazz" section.....most people don't understand the idea of music having greater or lesser integrity to a form. It's just entertainment to them, and there are no critical standards to be upheld..

ah so, what's the difference between art and entertainment, then? critical standards. hmm, that sounds very subjective.

too many people are hung up on the idea of jazz as art music. the people who wanna hear britney will go buy britney, fine. but if they open their ears to some new sounds, jazz offers plenty of entertainment value. dance, right? cleverness? vocals? people find all that stuff entertaining. does that mean the music somehow lacks integrity.

the idea of critical standards is total anathema to the theme of this thread. think about it.

[champjams]

Umm..well YES there are differences between Art and entertainment. But I think maybe that belongs on another thread.

I hate to nitpick.. (and be totally off the original topic of this thread...)..but did I catch Jazzypaul compare Norah Jones and Diana Krall to BIRD? Norah Jones has a pleasant voice...she doesn't swing and I personally don't think she is Jazz; Diana Krall swings a little more....at least I think she tries to play Jazz. But...how on any level are these 2 comparable to Bird, Ornette, or Miles? I mean Bird revolutionized the music. Did Diana do that on her last album? I guess I must have missed that part....

[jazzypaul]

I did not compare Norah Jones to Bird. What I WAS trying to get at is that there is always somebody playing the music to which many people will exclaim "THAT'S NOT JAZZ!!" And all I was saying is that, well, you're wrong, it's all jazz. It may not all be jazz on the level of Ornette or Trane or Miles (hell, what is?) but to say "Diana Krall isn't jazz and you should listen to XXX instead" is artistic suicide. What if they're not ready for Kind of Blue yet? Then you've alienated someone, and you might even sour them to that one out that you had...that Diana Krall album. Life is a PR game. No need to be a hawk all the time. Make subtle suggestions, hints, a mix tape. But to tell people that think they're becoming hip and sophisticated that all of the sudden they aren't is a sure fire way to make sure that they never touch another jazz CD again. You may think that's fine. I, however, want them to buy MY CD's when it comes time to make one. So, if you don't mind, I'd rather take a bit more of a populist's tact here, and go ahead and say, sure, it's jazz.

[champjams]

So no matter whatever people say is "Jazz" then we're just supposed to accept it? We're supposed to allow people to dillute and pervert our music at every turn? Do you think that Jazz has no musical integrity? Diana Krall is nice music, she doesn't really swing - but I would listen to her over some other stuff around. She sings Jazz tunes but, does that make her Jazz? Do you realize what the term Jazz applies to? Bird was Jazz, Monk, Dizzy, etc. Do you have such little respect for the beautiful Art these people created that you would allow them to categorized next to some jive like Kenny G or Norah Jones?

One time I was at a jamsession with a friend of mine (who's a legendary jazz pianist, of the old school) and some singer got up and started doing a Jazz tune in a rock way, rock / pop whatever - it wasn't Jazz. And he looked at me with this totally pained look in his face and said, "The music I've strived for and played my whole life, the music I would die for - that's what they've turned it in to?"

Jazz is an artform - not a category in a CD section. Jazz is not all inclusive, some things are Jazz and some aren't. Before you allow them to include Madonna with our music, maybe you should think about the beautiful history you are ignoring - and the horrible future you are permitting.

[Pharaohrock]

The highbrow mentality gets us absolutely nowhere. Face up to the fact that "Jazz" will never have the same cultural pedigree in the public's eyes that classical music does.

Again, the real problem here is the public is not aware of the diversity within "Jazz." It's art, it's entertainment, it's serious, it's silly, and it's also many different sounds stylistically.

How to make aware??? I'll say it again- the only way Jazz is going to get out to more people is when, somehow, GOD WILLING, we get beyond the commodication of music into strict genres on radio and in the way music is marketed. I firmly believe the best thing that could happen to this music is for some really hip radio stations to sprout up that were willing to treat all commercial genres as equally possible.....a "black" radio station that played old Al Green, Erykah Badu, and Russell Gunn's latest joint in the same program. I am SOOOOO confident hip-hop heads would dig what Russell was doing if it could just reach their ears.....

Likewise, have a vocal station that isn't just about singer-songwriter stuff but embraces jazz vocals too. Anyone who appreciates the power of lyric SHOULD be able to deal with Jazz vocals too.

Now how is all of this going to happen?? Simple= some very hip people in commercial music like Quincy Jones or Elton John, who have billions of duckets to waste, get the stations up and running, realizing that if they really appreciate music in a pure sense, they'll put their money where their mouth is.

[clifton]

In America, the music business is dominated by greedy corporate suits who are interested in short term profits and market share. In an environment where jazz is absent from tv and nearly absent from radio, the question becomes: How do we increase the market share for jazz? Or, how do we build the jazz audience? This issue is further complicated by the abundance of excellent jazz product. Reissues are plentiful. There are also more excellent musicians than ever, and they're all recording. We could target certain artists. What if every visitor to this thread decided to buy, say, a David S. Ware CD, an Andrew Hill CD, and Branford Marsalis' "Footsteps Of Our Fathers" in November? And each of you agreed to tell everyone you know to do the same thing? And each of them made the same commitment? You could boost sales for deserving artists, and boost the jazz audience, too. Also, I've found that the word "jazz" has become stigmatized, and many people consider jazz an effete, elitist music and they've never even heard any jazz. Play CD's for people but don't tell them it's jazz. Let them make up their own minds. If you have children, play jazz for them, but don't tell them it's jazz unless they like it. I have two sons and they both like jazz and play CD's for their friends. My oldest (he's 19) digs Miles and Dave Douglas and my youngest (he's 11) loves Bird, Stitt, Armstrong, Ornette, and Dave Douglas. Also join BMG Music or Jazz Heritage and take advantage of their lower prices. These are just some of my thoughts. Ultimately, we need to stop arguing about what jazz is or what jazz isn't. Diana Krall is a major talent and her success is a blessing. Let's unite to build the jazz audience and create a market where jazz will no longer be threatened with extinction. Jazz probably won't ever have a mass audience, but we can make it grow.

[jazzypaul]

Champjams -- Jazz uber Alles?

MUSIC is an artform. Jazz is a certain catagorization of MUSIC which is defined by certain things. Jazz is the music that I love, deeply, and, if I was independantly wealthy, and I knew that all of my fellow jazz musicians were as well, then yes, I would hang on the Champjams attitude that anyone that does not swing exactly to her specifications is not jazz and is an abberation.

However, life is not like that. My group does Hendrix, Metallica, REM, Pink Floyd, Jefferson Airplane and other pop tunes, but we do them as jazz. And we take them about as outside as you can get. But we pull in an audience, we have fun playing tunes that we know an audience can connect with, and you know what? We've got an audience that usually would not consider themselves jazz fans listening to some very swinging music. And by the end of the night, we always usually get at least one person coming up to someone in the group saying "I didn't know that jazz was this stuff! Wow!" And then we tell them to go check out Trane or Miles or Ornette or whatever it is that we're listening to that week.

What I'm getting at is that there are many ways to skin a cat. Diana Krall's way is one very good way. If you're not so fascist as to ban her from the jazz community, Norah Jones is another way. Mahavishnu or Return to Forever would again be another way. But whatever your way is, if you can make these people understand that jazz is a vital and thriving form of music, then you've done your job. If I feel as if I've just talked to a snob who feels like they know everything, I'm going to be left with a bad taste in my mouth, and might not feel so compelled to go listen to some more jazz.

As for you and your buddy, you forget a very important thing: singers at jam sessions usually suck. It goes with the ball game. It is a basic tenet of the jazz player's life. But Russell Gunn has done largely the same thing to Caravan and Epistrophy, with great results. Complaining that what he has done to a few standards is destroying our music would simply be showing your ignorance.

Hope this wasn't too harsh.

[champjams]

You know, as a Jazz musician I never really worrried about how I was planning (or the industry was planning) to boost record sales. I'm sorry, I think I was off track - I was thinking about learning the music.

Well Paul - Jazz is an artform...and yes "music" is an artform - but that does not mean that ALL "music" is an artform. Yes I am elitist, Yes I am a "jazz snob" (at least I have been called that) and Yes I am a Jazz Purist. I am not interested in getting more people to buy Jazz. People will always buy Jazz - and Jazz will never sell like Madonna. Accept it.

No one seemed to want to comment on my statement about Jazz having artistic integrity - however that does not mean it is not true. It is not worth having to "sell out", as Paul seems to brag about, to make some money. Dizzy slept on a Central Park bench and Monk lived in an apartment the size of my closet, because they were worried about the perpetuation of THEIR artform. Yes, it belonged to them - and it still does. When you play Jazz you are playing the music THEY created. You are either doing honor to those great genius's of music - or you are spitting on them to make a few extra dollars.

We, as a Jazz community, should not record rock songs to sell records or get gigs, we should not beg the Pop stars for alms, and we should not allow our music to be destroyed.

Your music, if you claim it to be Jazz, will forever be judged against those who created it. When you play your music you must take it to your idols and ask them, "Was that right? Was that acceptable?" And they are your judges. The MUSICIANS WHO STARTED IT, not the critics, or the magazine editors, or the audience. Sadly enough, so many of the greats who started this beautiful tradition are no longer alive - but a few are, and Paul I suggest you seek a few out and ask them about your Metallica tunes that really "Swing."

Finally, Jazz is an art - and you as a supposed Jazz artist should not allow your art to be affected by your desire for money, popularity, etc.

I strongly suggest that when you make a decision to become a serious Jazz musician (I am speaking in general to everyone here) that you consider the beautiul tradition and fraternity of Jazz which you are attempting to join.

[jazzypaul]

"Your music, if you claim it to be Jazz, will forever be judged against those who created it. When you play your music you must take it to your idols and ask them, "Was that right? Was that acceptable?" And they are your judges. The MUSICIANS WHO STARTED IT, not the critics, or the magazine editors, or the audience. Sadly enough, so many of the greats who started this beautiful tradition are no longer alive - but a few are, and Paul I suggest you seek a few out and ask them about your Metallica tunes that really "Swing." "

Wow, I love this part of the argument because it proves just how many people want to make jazz repetory music to stick into a museum. Remember way back when, back when Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie Parker were recording tunes like Star Eyes? Funny, as I recall, that was a pop tune. That was also the case when Miles Davis did On Green Dolphin Street, All of You and Bye Bye Blackbird, or conversely, when he used the changes of The Wind Cries Mary by Hendrix to make up the tune Mademoiselle Mabry. If you must, I will allow you to disregard Miles' takes on Time After Time and Human Nature, although the latter was a killer feature for Kenny Garrett. And while we're at it, let's not forget Gil Evans' tribute to the work of Jimi Hendrix, Charles Earland's recasting of Eleanor Rigby as Black Talk or even more recently Brad Mehldau's take on Exit Music and Paranoid Android -- both Radiohead tunes. All of this, and I haven't even gotten to Herbie Hancock's The New Standard or Alex Skolnick's Goodbye to Romance -- an entire album of very swingin' metal tunes. (seriously. If you're going to be a fascist, you musn't say another word till you've heard his take on War Pigs)

So, all of this said, let it be known throughout the jazz world that Champjams knows better than Miles, Bob Belden, Gil Evans, Bill Evans (oh yeah, almost forgot about his gorgeous version of I Do It For Your Love, yet another pop tune) Charles Earland, Brad Mehldau, Cassandra Wilson and Herbie Hancock! Champjams' yearning to keep jazz pure (or something) shows more insight than even Satch!

Now, as for taking my "sellout" jazz to the masters, yes, they will comment on how I really need to stop playing Elvin Jones and Billy Higgins licks over everything, and that, yes I can play at least one solo not based completely on triplets. Fair enough. I would like to think though, that, beyond my hackiness as a drummer, they would see us for what we are truly trying to accomplish: (a) playing the music of OUR generation, because I've heard the lyrics to There is no Greater Love, and to tell the truth, I can't relate. However, you can bet I can relate to the bitterness and rage of Disposable Heroes, the cynicism of Dogs or the desperation of Losing My Religion. The best playing will come not from playing the expected, but rather from playing what you feel and what you can relate to. This isn't acting, where you have to fit your part, and jazz isn't a role to be fit into. Which brings me to (b), using those tunes as hooks to bring those people which recognized Spanish Castle Magic or White Rabbit to the next tune, whether it be Witch Hunt, A Day in the Life of a Fool (talk about a tune I can relate to!) or Giant Steps.

Jazz is a fusion. It's a fusion of field hollers, marches, the blues, gospel, church music, and so much more. But by stopping that fusion by not allowing certain elements in because they are "lesser" musics is artistic suicide. Regardless of genre, In My Life, by the Beatles, is a beautiful tune. In Marian McPartland's hands, it is a MORE beautiful tune. Frank Zappa wrote quite a few tunes which fit VERY nicely in a jazz framework. As did Steely Dan, (oh yeah, that reminds me, Woody Herman would have to answer to the masters as well.) Carlos Santana made entire albums of killin' something akin to jazz.

I will tolerate being told that I am many things. Most I will agree with. Being told however that I am selling out or playing something that does not swing or is not part of the tradition however, is not one of them. To that tirade, I respond with this: If jazz is ever changing, who is more in the tradition, the person who respects the tradition and tries to add his two cents to it, or the person who sees tradition and nothing else?

[clifton]

The argument over what is jazz or what isn't jazz is self-destructive. It does nothing to increase the jazz audience. I'll only add this: In "The Infinite", the great Dave Douglas gives an object lesson in how to turn a decent pop tune into great jazz.

[champjams]

Charlie Parker playing "Star Eyes" is not comparable to whoever you mentioned playing Metallica or Steely Dan, etc.

"Star Eyes" is a tune that came from the same sources that created the body of work which most Jazz musicians worked with; the evolution of the Tin Pan Alley songwriters. These songwriters made up the "American Popular Song"-form, etc. The pop tunes of today, be them from Metallica or whoever else out there, have very or no comparison. I mean, if you can't tell the difference between Hoagy Carmichael and Steely Dan - then there is no use in trying to explain it. The "songwriters" of today are extremely juvenile, rapping over a 1 6 2 5 is not exactly up to Jerome Kern's standards.

Some pop songs from the 60's or 70's, or whatever, are beautiful tunes. Of course. However, I do not think there is much of a "tune" to anything I have ever heard by Metallica.

In order to conintue the tradition, you must first understand it and respect it. That means you have to imitate it, assimilate it, and then perhaps (as I have said before) innovate upon it.

[jazzypaul]

I want to remind you of something before we get started. If you truly think that you're holding up some sort of standard for kids to look up to or other musicians to get behind, you're absolutely wrong. Remember the following...Dizzy may have slept on a bench in Central Park, but he also recorded an album with Stevie Wonder. Miles called Prince the next Ellington, played with Santana stole Stevie Wonder's bass player and used Michael Jackson's drummer. Roy Hargrove went on tour with D'Angelo. Sonny Rollins recorded with the Stones, and Stan Getz recorded with Huey Lewis and the News. Don Grolnick played with James Taylor, and let's not forget Branford playing with both Sting and the Grateful Dead. And speaking of the Grateful Dead, Ornette Coleman saw enough brilliance in Jerry Garcia to record an album with him. So do Dizzy and Branford need to chided by the masters, or are all of these pop cats suddenly cool? I'd like to know.

So, anyway, champ, you gave me the stock argument that I hear from people all of the time. But you haven't said anything that I could say is genuinely you. Not to mention, you neglected to respond to most of my post, giving me the stock Stanley Crouch rhetoric throughout most of your tirade. So let's take a look at your argument piece by piece...

"Charlie Parker playing "Star Eyes" is not comparable to whoever you mentioned playing Metallica or Steely Dan, etc."

So it WAS okay at some point to play pop music, but now it's selling out. Interesting argument. Either it is selling out or it's not. Make up your mind, because jazz players playing pop music of the day is a black and white argument. Either it's acceptable or it's not.

"The "songwriters" of today are extremely juvenile, rapping over a 1 6 2 5 is not exactly up to Jerome Kern's standards."

who said anything about rap? Although, since we're on the subject, I'd be impressed if half of the players out there could do the rhythmic things that Jay-Z and Eminem are pulling off on a regular basis. You said in another thread that you could play a ton. Can you play 32nd note polyrhythms? Because those two pull that stuff off with ease. I might not agree with the subject matter, but from a technical aspect, they've got some amazing rhythmic things going on.

Not to mention, comparing rap to Jerome Kern in the songwriting book is like comparing Stravinsky to Reuben Wilson. The purpose behind it is completely different. Coltrane wrote Giant Steps with the idea of playing through a minefield of changes. Dr. Dre wrote Gin and Juice withe the idea of dancing at a party. Apples and Oranges, my friend.

"I mean, if you can't tell the difference between Hoagy Carmichael and Steely Dan..."

Yeah, and most jazz players that have heard Steely Dan will drool over the chord progressions contained within their songs. If one group was responsible for bring jazz to a pop audience, it was Steely Dan. Hell, find me one other pop group that covered Duke Ellington and Horace Silver and hired Phil Woods and Wayne Shorter to play on their records. I won't say this about too many other pop groups (because admittedly, it wouldn't hold water), but lack of respect for Steely Dan on a musical level or a technical level is nothing short of pure ignorance.

"Some pop songs from the 60's or 70's, or whatever, are beautiful tunes."

Almost the entire catalog of the Beatles, the Bacharach/David songbook, the Dozier/Holland/Dozier songbook, the Coffin/King songbook, the list goes on and on. That these tunes are not accepted on equal footing with their counterparts from the 20's-40's is a disgrace, and nothing short of it.

"...However, I do not think there is much of a "tune" to anything I have ever heard by Metallica."

And there isn't much of a tune to Acknowledgement either. Outside of a brief 2 bar phrase that is never come back to again, the whole tune is based on a 4 note phrase. And yet, that's the most recognizable part of the entire "A Love Supreme" suite. But, that aside, the changes to Orion (by Metallica) are a bear to get through. Anasthesia, in it's first 2 minutes, quotes from 9 different classical overtures. For Whom the Bell Tolls, (one of the tunes that we do) with a few very logical subs and some additions of chords, is a damn fun tune to play. Admittedly, it's more a rhythmic stomping ground than a melodic one, but it's still a challenge.


"In order to conintue the tradition, you must first understand it and respect it. That means you have to imitate it, assimilate it..."

I have. Herbie did. Alex Skolnick did. Paul Bollenback did, Geoff Keezer did, Brad Mehldau did. Even Stevie Wonder did. (A friend of mine was at a benefit where he heard Stevie blow on Giant Steps and said that Stevie burned the place down. Not bad for a mere pop musician.) You learn. You imitate. You assimilate. You then find what's you and what's not. What makes you think that I, or anyone else that I have mentioned did not go through that classic learning process?

"...and then perhaps (as I have said before) innovate upon it."

So how does one innovate on playing 60 year old pop tunes that can't relate to a modern audience? No matter what, if you're keeping yourself only within the realm of the "Great American Songbook" you're still playing 60 year old pop tunes that can't relate to a modern audience. So what do you do? You do like Geoff Keezer and you play a My Bloody Valentine tune that speaks to you. You do like Jason Moran does and you play a Bjork tune that speaks to you. You do like Brad Mehldau does, and you play a Radiohead tune that speaks to you, with Beck's drummer, nonetheless. But, even if that tune in question does speak to you (as something like All of You or No Moon at All does for me...) what are you going to say on it that hasn't been said before? At this point, I get offended by hearing people doing Bye Bye Blackbird, because no matter where you're coming from, I can dig through my multiple renditions of it, whether it be Sonny Stitt, Trane, Miles, Hank Jones, Jacky Terrasson, and find what you're doing having been done. There's no way you'll cover new ground on that tune. So what's the point in doing it, outside of playing it just to know the tune? There is none. So, at that point, new standards have to be brought to the table. From a jazz standpoint, there are some great tunes to be had, like Kenny Garrett's Sing a Song of Song, Christian McBride's Youthful Bliss, John McLean's Easy Go, etc, etc, etc. And from a pop standpoint, there are some great tunes coming out too. But you have to look for them. If you want to keep this music fresh, you will. If you want to banish this music to a museum, you won't. Personally, I want to bring jazz to as many people as possible. I want to make music that will wreak with integrity and still be relevant to my generation. I want to play the music that I grew up with, and that I hear today. But I want to play it on my terms. That means that I am not just playing stock covers of these aforementoined tunes, but rather, I am filtering them through Mingus, Shorter, Miles, Jarrett, Burton, Hill and Adderley. Which, in my mind, is just continuing the tradition started by Satch, and continued to this day by Dave Douglas. (clifton was right, the The Infinite is a GREAT record. but it's got a Mary J. Blige tune on it, so you might have to avoid that record. Wouldn't want to upset the masters after all...)

Just because you feel that jazz should be nothing but Bird clones playing rhythm changes does not mean that anyone else feels the same way. I am sure that even your friend who saw a bad chick singer at a jam session (and if there's shock there, then there's no hope for you...) would agree that this music needs to be relatable to its audience in order to stay alive. Note that I never said diluted or watered down. But rather, relatable. This music, at it's most vibrant, is the sound of freedom. It is a cathartic music which brings people so much joy, lifts their pain from them and brings them to a better place. And yet you want to chain it to a time or an ideal or a technical level of superiority. Shame on you. Remember that this is music which embraced so many cultures and rubbed up against other aesthetics. Why stop it now? The masters might not like me doing Metallica tunes. But if you ever read what Miles wrote about this very subject, he's spinning in his grave so fast that he's creating torque over the thought that only certain types of music are valid musical expressions.

[Pharaohrock]

Long post.....lots of considered thought there, and some dogma too........but, let me just relate I always find the argument that today's songwriters are nothing compared to Jerome Kern, Hoagy Carmichael, or Gershwin to be inane. Why? Because, whatever their particular slant on it, they all wrote in a very stylistic kind of "popular song" which is simply no longer contemporary. Now with the modern era for popular song you can probably draw a stylistic paradigm out of Sting's writing or Annie Lennox and just like before....the individuals sound different in their approach, but not remarkably so. It's a generalized approach to songwriting- because of all the influences that are in the air and are SHARED.

I think it's funny when people bemoan the lack of composers like these also, because there are in fact guys and gals writing tunes in this popular song, lyrical style to this day (e.g. Dave McKenna, Monty Alexander, Janis Siegel).....so- to those disgruntled that there ain't no good writers like Rodgers and Hart, seek and ye shall find. You might not find tunes quite as memorable as "Lover Man" or "It Ain't Necessarily So", but certainly not I would say for a lack of effort. It's hard to advance on songs that are so seminal like those that they virtually embody the melody you would WANT to play over a certain chord progression. And in that there was a certain inevitability in them, but nobody wants to hear that because it robs the originality of people like Carmichael, Strayhorn, the greats...

[Pharaohrock]

Just for the record, I don't have a problem with someone playing Metallica tunes in some kind of "jazz" approach. The problem I do have is when it no longer exists just as music, but they are trying to make the claim that their music is the logical extension of the jazz tradition.....


"taking new influences from other music genres and adapting them to the jazz tradition" can be open-ended to the point of "Jazz" meaning nothing in any stylistic sense, only in some generic approach to making improvised music through combining different forms. I contend that "jazz" does mean something stylistically, soundwise- and while I don't subscribe to Crouch's hard and fast guidelines of what Jazz should sound like, I do tend to agree with the primacy of the blues.....this is, only to say, that improvised ensemble music which uses the blues as a clear element is more akin to "jazz" than that which doesn't. This is why, while I can listen to Gunther Schuller's latest suite or Paul Bley solo piano, I can hear great music but I don't really hear jazz, at least not in the way I hear it in Ahmad Jamal's solo piano or a suite written by Charles Mingus.

[clifton]

champjams and jazzypaul: You both make valid points. But I think you cripple your arguments by refusing to take a broad, inclusive view of jazz. Jazz is a continuum. It runs from Armstrong and Ellington through Bird and Miles through Ornette and Trane and it embraces the multiple idioms of today. So yes, Diana Krall is jazz. So is Charlie Hunter. And if Alex Skolnik isn't jazz, nothing is. I've heard his "Detroit Rock City" and it swings like mad. Today's musicians must be willing and able to honestly embrace every jazz style. In truth, panstylistic artists like Dave Douglas, James Carter, David Murray, and others are the present and the future of the music. These musicians play bebop, free, fusion, and everything else with absolute conviction. Plus their use of ethnic song forms and folk rhythms is the thread of innovation today. (ex: Douglas' Tiny Bell Trio, Murray's Fo Deuk Revue). And bebop is hardly museum music. Truth is, today's musicians are finding fresh things to say by improvising on changes and swinging in 4/4, although we're swinging in 7/4 these days, too. You can't put jazz in a box. When you do, you strangle it.

[Pharaohrock]

All that is fine and well, but I can't resist believing that there are an awful lot of folks who have a vested interest in Jazz not being perceived as a primarily African-American art form, e.g. the predominantly white jazz media......and if you think about it, getting away from a Crouch-type definition of Jazz lets an awful lot of people in the door who wouldn't get in otherwise.

Then again, this "jazz" is just a damn genre category for consumers. I have my own idea of what "jazz" is, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying music that may or may not fit that idea.

But I see more than a few attempts to diffuse jazz from it's essence. And it's a truism I think that the point at which people don't stress swing and the blues as dominant elements, it's not going to be viewed as a black cultural entity anymore.

[jazzypaul]

I agree, there is a tradition to jazz which cannot be messed with. Largely, a feeling of blues and swing to the proceedings. Keeping those elements in there is key to keeping jazz around as an artform. It's there with Dave Douglas, it's there with Charlie Hunter, hell, it's there with Masada, and they don't even call what they do jazz! That said, if Stanley Crouch has a problem with my take on jazz, and won't let me in the front door, I don't mind, I'll gladly sneak in through the window. Jazz doesn't need a hall monitor. It needs players who respect the tradition and are willing to take that tradition with them wherever they are moved to go.

[Pharaohrock]

Key to any of this- we have to ask 1) why folks want their music understood as "jazz", especially when powers that be within "jazz", e.g. Crouch, Marsalis seem hostile to their music AND 2) Is "jazz" really meaningful as some kind of catch-all genre that takes all forms of improvised music under the umbrella, or is there perhaps a need for other genre terms besides jazz.

You can't answer 1 without answering 2 of course, because it would seem that there is a credibility of having one's music looked at as "jazz" and people don't want to give that up.

[clifton]

I believe the factor that makes jazz unique among all musics is the one that comes from African-Americans: swing. I define swing as rhythmic forward momentum based on the tension of three against four; not a great definition, but swing isn't easy to define. I know this sounds Crouchian thus far, but I also take a broad view of swing. Swing can be express, as with Basie or Bird, implied, as with Cecil Taylor, or inflected, as with fusion or other ethnic rhythms. For example, a straight-eighth-note rock beat becomes something very different in the hands of a good fusion band. The rigidity of the beat collapses, the pocket moves around, the beat takes on a swing inflection, the swing impulse transmitted makes for a different feel entirely. It seems to be the nature of jazz innovation today to transmit the swing impulse to other music forms and other time signatures. Going back to Crouch, he's correct when he points out the African-American heart of jazz, and it bothers me that there are those unwilling to deal with that rather obvious historical fact. The Crouch/Wynton crew takes a narrow, doctrinaire view of jazz, of course, one that has the effect of decreasing the jazz audience, I think. A broader, but not indiscriminate, view of swing gives a proper perspective on the scope of jazz.

[jazzypaul]

Pharoahrock --

to answer your two part question, I can only answer for myself. But, answering for myself, here goes...

1) I want my music understood as jazz because it IS jazz. It swings, has a feeling for the blues, and it totally takes into account the work of our forefathers. But we play jazz on our terms. And if Stanley and Wynton don't like it, they don't have to buy it.

2) No, it isn't. No one is referring to Phish as jazz. No one is referring to Robert Randolph as jazz, and no one is referring to Bluegrass as jazz. However, what all of the aforementioned are doing is improvising. Hell, Humble Pie and Led Zeppelin both improvised heavily, and no one is jumping up and down calling either one of those bands jazz groups. Jazz plays by a certain set of rules. The best have bent them, stretched them, and some might have even broken them, but they're still aware of the rules and how they operate.

To get back on the track of this thread, though, the best way to boost jazz CD sales is to not let the non-jazz world know that we have these arguments...

[clifton]

One of the things that makes jazz very different from pop is the huge amount of available quality product. Unlike pop product, jazz lasts. The Spice Girls are long gone, but people buy Charlie Parker CD's 55 years later, Louis Armstrong, 75 years later. I propose we target our CD buying to increase sales of certain artists. The hope, perhaps utopian, is that if enough people buy a certain CD, somebody in the corporate media might notice. This could result in a few worthy artists getting a major label contract and a marketing push. At worst, we might create some buzz for a musician, and earn him or her a little extra bread. I propose everyone who reads this post commit to buying at least one of these: Branford Marsalis "Footsteps Of Our Fathers", Von Freeman, "The Improviser", or something on the Palmetto label. I realize this will only work if you do this and tell everyone you know to do this, and ask them to tell everyone they know to jump in. I also realize we can't target every worthy artist. But I think there are enough jazz fans out there that if we stop arguing with eachother, and develop some focus and some unity, then maybe, just maybe, we can build a movement.

[jazzypaul]

The only problem with that idea (and this is quibbling, I admit) is that it doesn't boost the number of people out there buying jazz in the first place. Those of us who post on this board are already jazz fans, and those of us who have heard the Von and the Branford have surely gone out and bought those albums. So, Clifton, if you don't mind, I would like to make an addendum to that suggestion. Christmas time is just around the corner. Make it a point to buy a jazz CD for everyone on your Christmas list. If they just go and return it, then that's their problem and there's no accounting for bad taste and lack of an inquisitive mind. On the other hand, if they listen to it, and they dig it, then you have gotten another jazz fan out in the world, who will hopefully help to boost jazz CD sales.

[clifton]

jazzypaul: Thank you for your response. Your idea for Christmas giving is beautiful. As for my idea, the underlying premise is that there are more jazz fans out there than we realize, and by building some unity and focusing our buying, we can affect sales figures. Jazz fans can be very passive, and that's got to change. When I say there's no reason why "The Infinite" or "Footprints Live" can't sell 100,000 copies, I mean it. I'm also aware that jazz fans can be very argumentative, which I believe is counterproductive. If jazz is to have any market viability in America at all, we have a lot of work to do. By the way, for some odd reason, I find that a number of people I know who don't listen to jazz respond positively to "The Infinite". I think those few acquaintances of mine who haven"t heard it yet will find Dave Douglas under their trees.

[jazzypaul]

I really wanted to bring this thread back so that everyone could see just how slight of a conception of jazz Champjams is dealing with. How anyone could be proud to post such thoughts is beyond me...

[champjams]

I have the final answer to this thread on how to make Jazz a more popular music. Everyone ready?

We take up a big donation, and we get Dave Douglas and Kenny G to do a record with Wayne Shorter, Barbara Streisand, and Cher.

I'm sure it'll work.

Then you can all say Jazz became popular.

[jazzypaul]

Tell me you weren't dim enough to make a shot on Wayne Shorter. PLEASE tell me you weren't dim enough to knock Wayne...

[wjd]

I think that there is no way to boost jazz CD sales. I used to think that if the music was mixed with challenging pop music of the day that this would do it. However, I now feel that the younger music buyers who purchase the majority of CDs are so disconnected from jazz that there is no hope. Perhaps in about 15-20 years rap and hip hop will recede in favor of a new type of pop music and the listeners to this new music will be more receptive to jazz.

[D.D.]

I read somewhere that Universal Jazz is the only division of Universal music with growing sales over tha last couple of years (IIRC, the growth rate mentioned was 29% per year). No wonder Verve is so active reissuing jazz now.
Of course, in absolute values, Jazz is still way behind pop.

[Tenorman]

Jazz lost the battle for the popular mind when it lost the battle for the feet.
0ut of Lionel Hampton's Flying Home in 1942 came R&B then Rock & Roll then 60s, 70s 80s etc pop. Some of the early diversions taking a little from Blues. Meanwhile Jazz had decided that it wanted out of the Dance Halls so that it could become an "art form".

While Jazz remains as a cerebral art form it will never be popular (as in mass appeal music). When an artist makes it to the popular big time, hats off to them. With one or two exceptions they have probably served their apprenticeship. Instead of denigrating these people, we should applaud them and try and feed acquaintances who like them with similar styles. I remember an article about Nat Cole a few years back which said that he had been roundly criticised for his decision to concentrate on the vocals instead of his piano playing with the trio. In the UK the Chicago Jazz and Trad Jazz fans booed be-bop. Sound familiar?

I find that the tag "Jazz" is its own worst enemy in the minds of the population at large. It has a seemingly permanent link with Avant Garde and Free Music to the exclusion of all else. I ran live Jazz sessions at my local pub for about 3 years. I made up tapes for the pre and post session and interval breaks - all Jazz but all melodic. Wish I had a quid for every time I heard "But that's not really Jazz is it? - there are no out of tune bits."

Jazz has lost it's dancefloor niche. In the UK it is the music of choice for live pub sessions. More people listen to live jazz than listen to live pop according to a survey at the beginning of the year in the UK. So why is the music not being bought. Almost none of the artists I put on, had a CD for sale. I could have sold a dozen at every session judging by the enquiries I got. After the event? Too late. Most people are inherently lazy and want things served up on a plate. They are not going to search a Chain or specialist Jazz shop for a particular artist. A Jazz shop or department is hell for someone who does not know the music, the musicians or its sub categories. Pity the poor amateur who has a copy of Kind of Blue, and then picks up Bitches Brew because it is by the same artist

Also, some jazz fans want the music to be elitist and formed in their own idealist image. If you put down an artist that an acquaintance likes, you will not persuade them that you are correct. You will only convince them that Jazz is not for them. If they like Diana Krall and some self-opinionated Jazz "fan" puts her down. All you will have done is to prove that Jazz fans are bigoted and narrow minded and listen to a music that is far removed from the melodies that they happen to like - another possible convert lost.

Up to you. I will continue to work away quietly suggesting musical works to people to expand their interest in the music that I like. I also listen to their's without criticism. If I don't like it, I say "not my personal taste" I win some, I lose some. But people have bought some of my recommendations and that is a few sales for Jazz which otherwise would not have been made

That's my rant over for the evening

[closer250]

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
I've often wished that in black music variety shows like Soul Train or some of the stage shows on BET, you had a more integrated approach where traditional Jazz was given its appropriate time in the spotlight. BET does a disservice to the continuity of black music by relegating Jazz onto another, *specialized, cable channel. If you ask the decision-makers in black entertainment, nearly all of them are going to tell you how much they respect jazz and what an important part of African-American cultural heritage it is, but then when it comes time to put their money where their mouth is.....rather than push the agenda of jazz being on an equal footing with other black music, they push it off into a corner, a box.

I know some folks who are heavily into all kinds of stereotypically *black music. Why not have programming that indulges this eclecticism instead of forces you to go to a different place (or channel) for everything? You could have Steve Coleman followed by Buddy Guy then Chaka Khan followed by Lauryn Hill and then Tribe followed by Josh Redman.....there's so much continuity in black music, this would seem very rational and it could be very enlightening on top of it.

Segregating jazz off by its lonesome certainly doesn't help it in trying to reach new listeners, I know that much...
Hear, Hear... I totally agree with this comment! However, I look at BET as originally the black teenagers' version of how MTV seemed to initially be geared toward the mentality of and interests of white teenagers at first, then they integrated their Video playlists. Now most of what it seems that I see anywhere on these types of programs is "hip-hop" music. That's all cool, but the type jazz most people think of when the name "jazz" is used is not going to attract the people who watch the most TV.

I think that the Internet is the best thing that could have happened where making jazz more marketable. The more jazz artists with websites and downloads for people to listen to the better. Online music distribution is one of the best things that could have happened for the music, since most jazz artists are basically independents. The cool thing is that I have actually seen a lot of this dynamic happening over the last 5 years or so, and I think that it will continue to be a viable aspect toward an answer to your original topic, Mike.

However, I think that nothing substitutes for playing live and actually bringing the music to people in audiences. This will sell the music better than anything else, IMO...

[idancetojazz]

Originally posted by Tenorman
Jazz lost the battle for the popular mind when it lost the battle for the feet.
0ut of Lionel Hampton's Flying Home in 1942 came R&B then Rock & Roll then 60s, 70s 80s etc pop. Some of the early diversions taking a little from Blues. Meanwhile Jazz had decided that it wanted out of the Dance Halls so that it could become an "art form".

What Tenorman said.

I own over 600 jazz CDs & LPs. And in general none of the musicians on them are still alive, and among those who are alive, only a few are currently active.

If you want to know why the audience for jazz is so small today, look back to when jazz was THE popular music.

So what do I see as the differences?

1. Loss of the rhythm section. Lifeless low energy kaching-ching drumming is NOT the same as the driving rhythms of yore! Time keep with some energy, please! Give me Cozy Cole, Sid Cattlet, or any one of the drummers out of the 30s and early 40s over nearly ANY of todays drummers. Moreover, unsupported solos where the rhythm section drops out enitirely are death! Worst offenders are bass or drum solos with no other rhythm section support. The old guys seemed to solo just fine over the rhythm section. You can't dance to white space.

And please DON'T think that what I'm looking for is that 2/4 rock drumming. Give me four-four rhythm. I think that it was Cozy Cole who started a drum school in the 50's and complained that many aspiring drummers didn't have the endurance to time keep on the bass drum.

2. 10 minute tunes where every musician solos. Come on. Do you really have something worthwhile to say in every tune?? Or are you just practicing? In fact, it seems only a tiny minority of musicians can keep a 10 minute tune even remotely interesting. I think that the limited 3 min. format of early records was a godsend for the music. How long are rock tunes today???

3. Loss of coherent riff or melodic basis. So we are philistines! Get used to it if you want broader appeal. I dont need to be able to "sing the song", but melodic content is vital for those who don't live the music.

4. Discordancy. Bop-tinged is OK for us ignorant masses. But full on squwaking?? Give me Kenny G. (gag-choke) any day.


Meanwhile, I will continue to buy reissues and the rare new release that has got a real rhythm section and melodic or riff based tunes that are not too hard on my ears.

[micheldevos]

Idancetojazz, I rather agree with you and tenorman, but check these :
1. Loss of the rhythm section.What about Art Blakey, Joe Morello.These drummers have propelled jazz groups who earned fantastic audiences worldwide

2. 10 minute tunes where every musician solos. Check Charles Lloyd Live at the Monterey Jazz Festival (Forest Flower)about 22 minutes of continuing exciting, inventive, exciting music...I've listened to this for YEARS without wearing it out...

3. Loss of coherent riff or melodic basis.Yeah, probably dead right here...However, Monk's Round Midnight IS modern jazz, isn'it?
Anyway, I agree the lack of real top notch melodic material is the weak point of modern jazz, at least in the last ????years

4.Well....:embarass:

[Bev Stapleton]

I agree 110% with Tenorman's comments re:elitism. Jazz fans are really their own worst enemy in that respect. Jazz becomes a sort of private club to which the outsider has to learn all manner of secret handshakes to enter (many of these being all about knowing who not to like).

I also agree that jazz is never going to return to any mass popularity without a stronger melodic/dance feel.

Having said that I'd hate to see jazz musicians all flocking to make danceable, melodic tunes in the hope of reaching a wider audience. Jazz has evolved into a rich, intricate, diverse form of entertainment that would lose so much if it decided it wanted to court mass appeal.

I think the bulk of the jazz world has to accept its position on the margins and market accordingly. The world we are moving into where private releases sold via the internet would seem to be ideal for a music like that.

However, just because jazz is doing things outside the mass-market does not mean it has to go all arty and superior in presentation. I hope jazz musicians will retain some sort of financial security to be able to follow their own noses; and at the same time jazz fans will do all they can to make the curious outsider feel as welcomed and encouraged to explore that world.

As for those musicians who do successfully straddle the mass market and more specialised jazz world...the Kralls and Jones' and Kents...well, more power to your elbow (or larynx) is my view. You won't cost a single sale to the jazz heartland; you might just add a few.

[Tenorman]

Bev, totally agree on the point that we don't want everyone to go all standards just to get sales. I also don't like the Courtney Pine approach of adding scratchers rappers and all of the club parphenalia into the music, but that is just my opinion, and I am not going to condemn anyone for trying.

There just seems to be such a gulf between the hardened jazz fan and the real world. I had some friends staying with me a couple of weeks ago, and one said that they liked Diana Krall. Now admitedly this was a fairly boozy session at about 3am on a Sunday morning, but I put on the Jazz on a Summers Day DVD. Anita O'Day came on, and this guy was jumping up and down demanding CDs he could buy. He thought she was fabulous. He has bought 2 already and asked me for more suggestions. Oh and he doesn't like jazz!! He has heard my friend Sandra Lawrence sing and was totally captivated (happens to most males who meet her). Now I am getting a bit bored with Diana Krall, but I wasn't going to tell him that. So what am I going to suggest to him next - certainly not 70s Miles and Coltrane - 50s maybe.

It is not just Jazz this relates to, but there is an increasing tendency for people to say "that is crap" instead of "I don't like that" The former is saying that the speakers opinion is the only one that counts - How to make enemies and alienate people. It also brings a level of aggression into a discussion that is really unwarranted

So perhaps I should class myself as a music fan, not a Jazz fan

[Bev Stapleton]

Originally posted by Tenorman
So perhaps I should class myself as a music fan, not a Jazz fan

That's very much how I like to think of myself. Jazz might make up half of my collection but I love the other half equally. And I'm with you all the way on being able to draw that distinction between 'I don't like' and 'It's crap'. I just think some listeners feel unsettled if they can't be sure that what they like is somehow objectively great. They require some sort of external verification for their taste.

There's an article by Stuart Nicholson in this month's Jazzwise about the way that record companies are finding that they can shift jazz singers by the bucketload but find it much harder to gain an interest in instrumental jazz. I think a major reason for this is that rock music contains so little instrumental music these days (outside, perhaps, metal). Thirty years ago rock listeners were used to star soloists and so had an entry point to jazz. Where are the star soloists in rock today? [Please feel free to tell me someone; the rock scene is off my radar and I'm speculating from what little I've heard].

[JPW]

Originally posted by Tenorman
In the UK it is the music of choice for live pub sessions. More people listen to live jazz than listen to live pop according to a survey at the beginning of the year in the UK.
Amazing. I wouldn't be too surprised if the situation was too different in Japan! There are lots of hole in the wall jazz clubs (and many larger establishments, too) all over the place - though obviously concentrated in the major urban areas. Lots of people listen to live jazz here.
And we're not only talking about gents "d'un certain age" and sensibility. Live jazz is surprisingly popular with young, single professional females.

[Tenorman]

Just a thought - and I put my head over the parapet here. Is "Rock" as a genre having as much trouble as Jazz. In the UK all I ever hear is manufractured (mis-spelling intended) barber-shop quartets, pop "divas" such as Kylie Minogue, club music, and something that is claimed to be R&B but bears little resemblance to the 40s and 50s and 60s R&B that I like. I hear very little "Rock", except for re-issues. Could the reason that you are not hearing about great new rock soloists is that there is no great new rock coming on to the mainstream radio and TV?

[Bev Stapleton]

The rock 'soloist' was largely eliminated in the Year 0 punk revolution (apart from in the metal world). Even though much rock reverted to sound like alot of pre-1976 rock (thank you U2, REM etc) the improvising soloist has never returned. It's been considered to be showing off, self-indulgence etc.

I have no particular views on the quality or otherwise of pop/rock today...just like my parents couldn't hear the quality of the rock music I loved in the late 60s or early 70s so I lack the 'ear' for contemporary pop-rock.

But what I can clearly see is that there is simply no place for the improvising soloist.

So, to anyone raised on rock/pop since the early 80s jazz is going to sound very weird indeed. I'm constantly amazed that anyone makes the leap! They've had to take an awful lot more on trust, show far more patience than I had to when the walk from Mahavishnu or Soft Machine to Coltrane or Miles was relatively short.