|
"Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Saw this this morning and found it interesting, most especially the statistical comparison of jazz with other forms of "high art" such as classical and theater. I have never personally been a jazz fan so I am outside looking in on this one.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...103850572.html Can Jazz Be Saved? The audience for America’s great art form is withering away In 1987, Congress passed a joint resolution declaring jazz to be “a rare and valuable national treasure.” Nowadays the music of Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker and Miles Davis is taught in public schools, heard on TV commercials and performed at prestigious venues such as New York’s Lincoln Center, which even runs its own nightclub, Dizzy’s Club Coca-Cola. Here’s the catch: Nobody’s listening. No, it’s not quite that bad—but it’s no longer possible for head-in-the-sand types to pretend that the great American art form is economically healthy or that its future looks anything other than bleak. The bad news came from the National Endowment for the Arts’ latest Survey of *Public Participation in the Arts, the fourth to be conducted by the NEA (in participation with the U.S. Census Bureau) since 1982. These are the findings that made jazz musicians sit up and take notice: • In 2002, the year of the last survey, 10.8% of adult Americans attended at least one jazz performance. In 2008, that figure fell to 7.8%. • Not only is the audience for jazz shrinking, but it’s growing older—fast. The median age of adults in America who attended a live jazz performance in 2008 was 46. In 1982 it was 29. • Older people are also much less likely to attend jazz performances today than they were a few years ago. The percentage of Americans between the ages of 45 and 54 who attended a live jazz performance in 2008 was 9.8%. In 2002, it was 13.9%. That’s a 30% drop in attendance. • Even among college-educated adults, the audience for live jazz has shrunk significantly, to 14.9% in 2008 from 19.4% in 1982. These numbers indicate that the audience for jazz in America is both aging and shrinking at an alarming rate. What I find no less revealing, though, is that the median age of the jazz audience is now comparable to the ages for attendees of live performances of classical music (49 in 2008 vs. 40 in 1982), opera (48 in 2008 vs. 43 in 1982), nonmusical plays (47 in 2008 vs. 39 in 1982) and ballet (46 in 2008 vs. 37 in 1982). In 1982, by contrast, jazz fans were much younger than their high-culture counterparts. What does this tell us? I suspect it means, among other things, that the average American now sees jazz as a form of high art. Nor should this come as a surprise to anyone, since most of the jazz musicians that I know feel pretty much the same way. They regard themselves as artists, not entertainers, masters of a musical language that is comparable in seriousness to classical music—and just as off-putting to pop-loving listeners who have no more use for Wynton Marsalis than they do for Felix Mendelssohn. (click link for rest of article) |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Fast forward 30 years or so and well see the same article for hard rock
|
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Music comes and goes in popularity. I don't think one form of music needs "saving" over any other. It will always be out there somehow. Where was the "save ragtime" campaign..?
From Wikipedia: "Ragtime fell out of favor as Jazz claimed the public's imagination after 1917..." ;) |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Yeah, I'm not really sure what could be done to "save" jazz. If people enjoy it, they will go. Live jazz can be absolutely amazing, but it's definitely more sophisticated than rock, and a lot of people don't like to go outside their comfort zone.
|
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Blame rap music.
|
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
I wish more people would join my campaign to bring back Rockabilly. :(
|
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by Groucho
(Post 9632855)
I wish more people would join my campaign to bring back Rockabilly. :(
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uR_ZWckQlU...stray_cats.jpg |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
AKA, "Are general audiences too stupid to enjoy jazz?"
I love jazz, but I'll be the first to admit that the genre marginalized itself out of mainstream popularity with the advent of bebop. Jazz simply became too esoteric and complicated for casual listeners. Musicians started playing for each other rather than a general audience. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Interesting stats, since I was into jazz in my late 20's, but am no longer now that I'm in my 40's.
It's great bar music to have a martini to (depending on your mood), but it isn't very rewarding to me as something to listen to. Then again, I consider myself a big melody fan, so that probably explains it. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by wendersfan
(Post 9632961)
AKA, "Are general audiences too stupid to enjoy jazz?"
I love jazz, but I'll be the first to admit that the genre marginalized itself out of mainstream popularity with the advent of bebop. Jazz simply became too esoteric and complicated for casual listeners. Musicians started playing for each other rather than a general audience. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by Numanoid
(Post 9633033)
It's great bar music to have a martini to (depending on your mood)...
|
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
I enjoy jazz quite a bit, but it's not something I'll plunk down money to see live. I'll occasionally hit up some local bars that have live jazz in the corner, but it's rarely something I make plans to do. As far as buying jazz on cd, I wouldn't know where to start.
|
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by al_bundy
(Post 9632383)
Fast forward 30 years or so and well see the same article for hard rock
|
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by wendersfan
(Post 9632961)
AKA, "Are general audiences too stupid to enjoy jazz?"
I love jazz, but I'll be the first to admit that the genre marginalized itself out of mainstream popularity with the advent of bebop. Jazz simply became too esoteric and complicated for casual listeners. Musicians started playing for each other rather than a general audience. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by Hank Ringworm
(Post 9633822)
Yep. It's like what happened to poetry when the imagists took over. Sad things, both.
|
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
I've been a Jazz fan all my life, but I haven't seen a Jazz concert in a long long time - not because I haven't wanted to, but just because I don't follow the Jazz scene like I do the Rock stuff.
I do own probably 30 Jazz CD's, though, and I'm thinking about catching the Woody Herman Thundering Herd show in January. (Woody's been dead for over 20 years, but his band carried on - with Woody's blessing just before his death. They're a great band.) Watching a Jazz band live is pretty cool. From the mid 70's to the mid 80's I probably saw 20 or 25 Jazz shows. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by wendersfan
(Post 9632961)
AKA, "Are general audiences too stupid to enjoy jazz?"
I love jazz, but I'll be the first to admit that the genre marginalized itself out of mainstream popularity with the advent of bebop. Jazz simply became too esoteric and complicated for casual listeners. Musicians started playing for each other rather than a general audience. However, there will always be a place for jazz (and other more complicated music), it will simply be listened to by hardcore fans. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by macnorton
(Post 9633987)
That is right on the money. There is a reason why today's mainstream music dominates every single form of media...because it is beyond stupid, approach moron level.
However, there will always be a place for jazz (and other more complicated music), it will simply be listened to by hardcore fans. at one time jazz was the stupid music because all it was good for was for 20 year old kids to dance to and get drunk during prohibition. did anything change? |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by Groucho
(Post 9632855)
I wish more people would join my campaign to bring back Rockabilly. :(
It's funny, I do like jazz, and I consider "Time Further Out" by Brubeck one of my top four albums.. but I've never been to a concert and really don't have a ton of interest in going. It's also like someone else said.. it's hard to figure out where to start from a beginner's stand point. I've wanted to get into some classical stuff, but it's the same thing.. where the heck does one start? |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by al_bundy
(Post 9634011)
The Music Genome Project makes it sound complicated
at one time jazz was the stupid music because all it was good for was for 20 year old kids to dance to and get drunk during prohibition. did anything change? |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by macnorton
(Post 9634628)
And, you actually have to have some ability to play jazz, not be a pretty face with a lot of Pro Tools work in the studio to make it.
|
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
I've listened to Bill Evans and Chet Baker a couple of hours today already.
Jazz is just fine. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by wendersfan
(Post 9634670)
There are about a million guys out there who can play mixolydian or pentatonic scales over the changes to "I Got Rhythm" or "Body and Soul". It's not that difficult. So, yeah, you have to have some ability, but comparatively, not a lot.
|
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse
(Post 9634675)
Compared to?
The biggest problem with jazz as a consumable art form is that the ability required to play jazz badly is not that much (compared to playing it well). Like I said, lots of guys can aimlessly play the mixolydian mode, throw in a few flatted fifths, and get a gig in some wedding/bar mitzvah band. But there's nothing very artistically compelling to what they're doing. To play jazz and actually contribute something useful requires a level of talent and originality that few people on the planet have. Compare that with rock or country. The "marginal utility" of increased instrumental prowess is much lower. Once you reach a certain level of competence you're good to go, provided you are able to write songs with something original in them (i.e., playing in a cover band is a different proposition), or you happen to get lucky and end up playing in a band with someone with an original voice. The really talented rock or country musicians are inevitably the studio players, since they can parlay that talent into a steady, predictable income with good hours and working conditions. They have to be good, because they need to come up with parts quickly, in a variety of styles, and perform the correctly in one or two takes. Also, as I pointed out before, the better you get as a jazz musician, the less commercially viable you are, because you end up playing music more complicated than most listeners can appreciate. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by macnorton
(Post 9634628)
There is some validity to that statement. But at the same time, keep in mind there were no teenage hit factories around when jazz was coming into it's own. And, you actually have to have some ability to play jazz, not be a pretty face with a lot of Pro Tools work in the studio to make it.
either way every new genre that has come up in the last 100 years has done it by catering to the younger generation and pissing off the older generation who thought it was trash or devil's music or whatever. when the younger generation becomes old and has too much money, the music they listen to suddenly becomes considered art. I haven't seen anything new pop up lately so I think my son's generation will be the first one in over 100 years to listen to the same music as their parents and maybe grandparents. maybe by the time i get old PBS will have snobby rock/metal shows? |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse
(Post 9634671)
I've listened to Bill Evans and Chet Baker a couple of hours today already.
Jazz is just fine. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by wendersfan
(Post 9632961)
AKA, "Are general audiences too stupid to enjoy jazz?"
I love jazz, but I'll be the first to admit that the genre marginalized itself out of mainstream popularity with the advent of bebop. Bebop didn't kill jazz. If it did, jazz would've marginalized itself in the 40s. Getz/Gilberto came out in 1964. No way was jazz dead at that point. (Or think of Time Out five years earlier). I can't recognize when music is complex or hard to play, and I'll be damned if, say, Art Blakey wasn't playing for the other musicians as well as his audience. But I know when music is boring; Interstellar Space is, to me, peppered with moments of pure wankery. I know what does blow... "lite jazz" which unfortunately infests a very large part of today's market, directly or indirectly. If anything, the most popular (for better or worse) form of jazz today is acid jazz, at least if any of the restaurants or bars I sometimes go to pay ASCAP fees. If I had $1 for each time I heard Thievery Corporation, I wouldn't have a mortgage. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by The Bus
(Post 9635223)
I know what does blow... "lite jazz" which unfortunately infests a very large part of today's market, directly or indirectly.
Jazz usually isn't an easy listen for new people to get into. It can be quite rewarding once someone guides you in to the music. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Can someone help me out here...
Ive been looking for music in the vein of STP's 'Press Play'. I assume its a type of lounge act jazz. Here is a link to a clip of the song via Deep Discount: http://www.deepdiscount.com/viewprod...ductId=5798462 Anyone know any groups that play music like this? |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
See post directly above yours.
|
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by wendersfan
(Post 9634709)
Actually playing something worthwhile.
The biggest problem with jazz as a consumable art form is that the ability required to play jazz badly is not that much (compared to playing it well). Like I said, lots of guys can aimlessly play the mixolydian mode, throw in a few flatted fifths, and get a gig in some wedding/bar mitzvah band. But there's nothing very artistically compelling to what they're doing. To play jazz and actually contribute something useful requires a level of talent and originality that few people on the planet have. Compare that with rock or country. The "marginal utility" of increased instrumental prowess is much lower. Once you reach a certain level of competence you're good to go, provided you are able to write songs with something original in them (i.e., playing in a cover band is a different proposition), or you happen to get lucky and end up playing in a band with someone with an original voice. The really talented rock or country musicians are inevitably the studio players, since they can parlay that talent into a steady, predictable income with good hours and working conditions. They have to be good, because they need to come up with parts quickly, in a variety of styles, and perform the correctly in one or two takes. Also, as I pointed out before, the better you get as a jazz musician, the less commercially viable you are, because you end up playing music more complicated than most listeners can appreciate. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by mndtrp
(Post 9635590)
Unfortunately, this is what a lot of people associate jazz with. I know I certainly did for a long time. Even when I found other forms of jazz, I didn't fully enjoy it until I became more interested in how music in general was created, and the skill behind it all. At that point, jazz became fascinating.
Jazz usually isn't an easy listen for new people to get into. It can be quite rewarding once someone guides you in to the music. Over the years, I've expanded my palate to embrace different jazz forms, but my favorite is Hard Bop, probably because of my Horace Silver exposure. I just picked up a Milt Jackson album from 1964 that I thoroughly enjoy and now I will expand my catalog of his music. I agree that true music appreciation can occur by listening and becoming a student of sorts of jazz. This by no means is meant to detract from other types of music - jazz is simply a different expression of art, and I am very passionate about many different types of music. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
The article says that no one's listening to jazz, but then presents evidence that people aren't attending live jazz performances. Those aren't the same thing. Maybe the problem isn't a lack of listeners but the quality of the modern performers?
|
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by RockyMtnBri
(Post 9636420)
I lucked out in this respect - I grew up listening to Horace Silver, Cal Tjader, and others courtesy of my father. My expansion into jazz full-steam happened after a Branford Marsalis concert in 1986, where he played "Deluge" by Wayne Shorter, which prompted me to pick up the original album, Juju. This is a fantastic album if you've never heard it. After that I started to take CDs out of the library to listen to Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Art Blakey, and many others who have now become staples in my music collection.
Over the years, I've expanded my palate to embrace different jazz forms, but my favorite is Hard Bop |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara
(Post 9636424)
The article says that no one's listening to jazz, but then presents evidence that people aren't attending live jazz performances. Those aren't the same thing. Maybe the problem isn't a lack of listeners but the quality of the modern performers?
|
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by The Bus
(Post 9636279)
See post directly above yours.
So I ask again, anyone know any? Oh and I like Thievery Corporation. I NEVER considered them jazz though. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Originally Posted by The Bus
(Post 9635223)
I don't consider myself a "jazz connoisseur" although I know more about it than any of my non-musician peers (which, admittedly, is very, very easy to do).
Bebop didn't kill jazz. If it did, jazz would've marginalized itself in the 40s. Getz/Gilberto came out in 1964. No way was jazz dead at that point. (Or think of Time Out five years earlier). I can't recognize when music is complex or hard to play, and I'll be damned if, say, Art Blakey wasn't playing for the other musicians as well as his audience. But I know when music is boring; Interstellar Space is, to me, peppered with moments of pure wankery. I know what does blow... "lite jazz" which unfortunately infests a very large part of today's market, directly or indirectly. If anything, the most popular (for better or worse) form of jazz today is acid jazz, at least if any of the restaurants or bars I sometimes go to pay ASCAP fees. If I had $1 for each time I heard Thievery Corporation, I wouldn't have a mortgage. I stick with older dead jazz artists and humorously enough really enjoy the experimental Coltrane things like Stellar Regions and Meditations. I need to dig up Interstellar Space to give it another listen before i could comment on the wankery. :lol: I probably have 75 or 80 jazz CDs and records at them moment. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Here are some "newer" artists. The YouTube videos aren't necessarily representative, since I just picked one of the first that came up. Also, they are not all "jazz" in the traditional sense.
Soulive Medeski Martin & Wood (I'm not a big fan of them) Breakestra Charlie Hunter Greyboy All-Stars Jazzanova Keith Jarrett (who's been around a while but AFAIK is still performing) Again, these artists are not all jazz — a lot of them just have a big jazz influence, which is apparent to me on the songs I have of them. The YT videos are just examples. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
Good list of modern jazz. Soulive is fantastic - saw them live at a small venue a few months ago. Very good show. Keith Jarret is another favorite of mine. His solo improv concerts are so amazing and beautiful.
Charlie Hunter can be good - but his music kind of bores me. I'd also add The Bad Plus there. They have a really unique, cerebral sound and do a great job building unique covers of popular music, jazz standards, and original material. Pat Metheny is another great. He's been around for a while, but he's still releasing new albums and the group is still touring - better than ever. Antonio Sanchez is stunning in his role as the new drummer. Good solo in this video. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CmZjHh1sWfQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CmZjHh1sWfQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Also check out Kenny Garrett, one of the best young horn players out there today. Beyond the Wall is an amazing album - as are his more traditional outings. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/chlXZsO9_uI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/chlXZsO9_uI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Marc Carey on piano is putting out some really fresh sounds still firmly rooted in tradition. Check out the albums Focus or The Tonic. And last but certainly not least. My favorite, Chris Potter on sax. He's truly truly one of the best ever. Check out the live album Chris Potter Underground Follow the Red Line - one of my top 5. Great cover of Radiohead's Morning Bell. <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yvT7hrmGSJg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yvT7hrmGSJg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> I think there's still a great deal of quality jazz being performed and produced these days - although there isn't a ton of young talent. It's clearly not as culturally relevent as it was five decades ago, but who cares? I still know a lot of people who are into jazz or jazz fusion music. And it continues to have a heavy influence in newer styles of music like eletronica and hip-hop. In terms of local talent, if you live in or near an urban area, I think there's ample opportunity to see quality live shows. I've never felt like there's a dearth of jazz music to see in Chicago. |
Re: "Can Jazz Be Saved?"
I dont know what the fuck is wrong with my java. I just updated it and installed everything, but I cant see a thing! :mad:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.