Norah Jones - lol she is fucking cool isn't she

Oh, so you just don't like me? I thought I was under friendly fire. Ok, then, I don't like you either. Nyah.

I'm not saying she shouldn't exist, but the point of talking about music is not to carefully accomodate everyone's point of view.

And Matos, I don't understand your violent objection to what I said. I find her bland, boring, generic, and soulless. She's what Vonda Shepard would sound like, If Vonda Shepard was Rickie Lee Jones.

Kenan's joke was just lame, which is why I made fun of it

You didn't make fun of it though. You attacked me. Nothing fun about it.

There wasn't anything violent about it! Sarcastic yes, violent no. And for the last time, I attacked what you said, NOT YOU.

As for Ms.Jones herself, I find her music perfectly inoffensive. I'd never in a million years rush out to buy her album, but I wouldn't scramble for the remote to turn it off either. She's certainly a more accomplished musician/vocalist than, say, Avril Lavigne, but y'know....whatever. Chances are that people who are excited by Norah Jones don't really care that she doesn't push the envelope. She makes nice coffee table background Sunday morning music, and nothing's wrong with that at the end of the day.

Don't know if I'd necessarily call her "fucking cool" though.

I'm guessing someone else's said this already, though. Or maybe I win the ILM prize for lack of couth.

Neither nor. I've thought that myself. And my answer is always, "Because you have a dead rat up your ass, you talentless, frigid hack!"

But that's just me. I skew towards the vulgar.

I don't think she sounds anything like either Vonda Shepard or Rickie Lee Jones. She sounds like Hope Sandoval -- which is fine.

Yeah, but does it really need to exist? And if it does, does it really need to be so mindlessly venerated? A lot of people put that record on their list of the best albums of the year, which baffles me.

(On the other hand, I dearly love the new Beck album, which I'm sure baffles just as many people. But nevermind that.)

Who cares?

But Norah Jones isn't a jazz singer!

Who cares?

Me. I'm not saying that I'm all that important, mind you, but I do care.

oh you're right i must've got her confused with bette midler and liza minelli.

I've always thought of it in that context, and initially thought of it as amusing, too, but if you listen to the entire song with that idea in mind, it actually makes it a much more powerful tune!

As for "she'll get kids into Jazz"- don't really matter what label she's on, only thing that her fans might take notice of is whom she namedrops, I think, which seems to be mostly Willie Nelson (and hey, that's good too!)

Plus, she's got a goth streak hiding beneath the pretty exterior.

And double plus, she's hot as fucking hell.

But but but I like Hope Sandoval. Maybe I just need the guitars as well. ;-)

It's not a rumour.

No one listening to her is going to go out and buy Carmen McCrae, Betty Carter or Sarah Vaughan, or the Boswell Sisters or Bessie Smith for that matter. This stuff is like hippie pizza, or a custom sandwich with BBQ-flavored tofu and jack cheese, the "Norah Jones."

...and then they will see that Norah Jones isn't such a "jazz" artist after all.

V

I've always thought of it in that context, and initially thought of it as amusing, too, but if you listen to the entire song with that idea in mind, it actually makes it a much more powerful tune!

i thought it was 'don't know why i didn't call'! am i wrong or are you both wilfully mishearing?

I may be rationalizing or something here, but I think the key to getting Cassandra Wilson is to *ignore* the songs. A pomo-type thing. Focus on the arrangements.

I think it's awesome that some jazz finally made it to the crap-filled pop airwaves, maybe it will open some people's minds.

Naga Pampa, is "crap-filled pop airwaves" just an attitude on your part? Do you really not derive pleasure from anything there? Or are you worried about seeming stupid or uncool if yu admit doing so?

If Norah were "jazz" and not "pop" she wouldn't be on those airwaves, don'tcha think? "Jazz" (which derives in part from, but is not, pop music) can describe a tinge giving a certain tonal character (sophistication? airyness? gentility?) to pop music like Norah or (just to pick a random example, haha) the Dave Matthews Band.

Does any music?

But Norah Jones isn't a jazz singer!

But it does have elements of jazz in it. Deal with it. Norah Jones garners those type of reviews which I really despise, in which the critic thinks they have to educate the public on "real jazz singers." Because there's no way in hell we could know who Billie Holiday is and still like Norah Jones.

Of course anything before bebop DOESN'T COUNT bcz that's like YR DADS MUSIC BLEAH.

Norah Jones made a great stocking-stuffer for the 'rents and I'm happy for that. Boo hoo, it's not four saxophones wailing in semitonal counterpoint to one another - get the fuck over it. Jazz, much like Punk, is larger than you, despite yr attempts to define it as something much more limited. One might suspect that your influence on Jazz is infinitesimal - in which case I might also conclude that your massive concern for what is and is not defined as Jazz is rather absurd.

I'm wholly uninterested in what's cool or not. And I'm well-, if only generally-, aware of pre- and post-bebop jazz musics. My parents would consider Norah Jones to be "rock" music and unpleasant, most likely. My Dad's music is maybe Louis Armstrong, yes, but much moreso Rodgers & Hart or G&S or Benjamin Britten or Wagner.

I also don't have much need for strict genre-cutting and like to define genres writ large. But I think that if we're going to get into the business of genre at all, my response is that jazz has formal characteristics (which I understand largely on an instinctual level) demanding bright lines that Norah seems to fall on the wrong side of.

And Miles has made both pop and rock music in addition to jazz.

But it does have elements of jazz in it. Deal with it.

I'll deal with it if you can make clear what they are.

I respectfully submit that you might just be rationalizing or something. She just does 'em, those songs you want us to ignore, faster or slower or something; also, she's from Jackson, Miss., and attempts to do "Waters of March," which is a lot like someone from São Paulo or Rio trying to do Marvin Sease. Although it might be fun to hear Tom Zé tackle "Candy Licker," are you familiar with the sexual politics of Mr. Sease's ouvre? Is this what you mean by "pomo"?

is that a rhetorical question?

I respectfully submit that you might just be rationalizing or something. She just does 'em, those songs you want us to ignore, faster or slower or something; also, she's from Jackson, Miss., and attempts to do "Waters of March," which is a lot like someone from São Paulo or Rio trying to do Marvin Sease. Although it might be fun to hear Tom Zé tackle "Candy Licker," are you familiar with the sexual politics of Mr. Sease's ouvre? Is this what you mean by "pomo"?

Perhaps. Why do songs, or ouevres, or politics, necessarily demand respect from those who cover them?

I admit that I don't like her nearly as much since I started listening to her with more critical ears (or, at least, ears attuned to particular criticisms). But I'm not sure that the criticisms entirely deny what I appreciated about her before I read them. One point of interest and perhaps a listening guide - I heard some of her covers (like Love is Blindness) before I ever heard the originals. Where I've heard the original before the cover (like Waters of March), it's much harder for me to hear what I used to like about her.

Incidentally, she does do some songs of her own, so if she's to be dismissed wholesale, these need to be addressed.

OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE USE OTHER THOUGHTS PLEASE

(See how stupid that sounds?)

Or... "'Axel F' isn't a real pop song. There are no WORDS! Don't you see??!! Harold Faltermeyer is a CHARLATAN!"

I'm not saying that Norah Jones or Faith Hill are bad *because* they're "not jazz" or "not country". And I have no idea what Axel F is, really, except great. But if we're going to have genres, shouldn't they mean something? Or if we're going to stretch them, shouldn't we say why?

And it *is* stupid to say that Norah Jones will prevent people from listening to Billie Holiday, or Faith Hill will prevent people from listening to Hank Williams. But theoretically I might find it unjust that people listen to Norah Jones or Faith Hill instead of, say, Jane Monheit or Trisha Yearwood. I don't know if that's because of splitting hairs in re genre or because I just think those artists (or their voices or material) are better.

Gabbned: Just because Jane Monheit > Norah Jones in your opinion, does not mean Norah Jones is bad or that her success is undeserved. Which you may not be saying, but the ire upthread suggests that some people feel this way.

They don't at all. Like I say, it would be a gas if more singers had a sense of humor, you know?

Norah Jones is a very serious young person adrift in a genre she only dimly apprehends. You don't have to be a jazz expert, Jody Beth, to realize that, do you? And how is being a jazz "expert" different from being an "expert" on indie rock and the Axel F. theme, exactly? I agree with gabbneb that genres do mean something, only not in the reverential way that most folks take mean something to mean. You don't have to be a jazz expert to know that jazz is about taking some chances, and that Norah Jones does no such thing. Norah Jones is all about the jazz "tradition" and it's just willfully dense to approach it any other way, Jody Beth, come on. What jazz music is supposed to be is no great mystery, you just try to swing a note like you halfway mean it, and Norah Jones may not be trying to do that but the whole framework she's working in is all about that, so I hardly think it's condescending to regard people who have trouble with that very basic concept and who can't get with what jazz music does, but who love Norah Jones, to be lacking in appreciation for it. Being an optimist, I think that a lot of people have kind of gotten it through coffee osmosis, even in Seattle!

Yeah, the Axel F. theme is a real song.

and can we please not have these starbucks/cofee table analogies please. you sound like a bunch of NME readers.

haven't heard a note from her.

Or something.

Complaint: Axel F prevents people from appreciating the theme music to 'Nova'

Chemical Brothers, Fatboy Slim and Prodigy had bigger "techno" hits before him. "Run On," his best song, is a retread of "Lucas With The Lid Off." His first genuine big hit was a straight up rock song with Gwen Stefani. At least Norah actually sounds dissimilar to other stuff on the radio.

Actually, I just wanted an excuse to say Moby blows. Ignore!

I respectfully disagree with you about the "taking chances" bit. Jazz is a soloist's medium, first off. Second, there are more rules in jazz...rock and roll, indie rock and all that, sure, someone is taking chances, but there simply is not as much to navigate, MUSICALLY. Sure, lyrically, "conceptually," and all that, but the whole thing you do in jazz is to make negotiating those twists and turns seem natural. You're talking about taking chances in the sense that someone is singing about something that's supposedly forbidden, I think, or that someone is fucking around with form. Fair enough. But in jazz you respect the form, you don't violate it, but you expand it. And please, don't give me any shit about free jazz and all that, I am quite well-versed in it and I certainly respect the efforts of those who work without the "changes" and so forth...

Also, I'm talking about, when I say take chances, about bringing some experience to the table, some humor, some of what you're talking about when you say jazz isn't about taking chances more than any other genre. Norah Jones doesn't do this, it's fucking dull, she's not egotistical enough.

Jesse is right to say that there have been great popularizers. But James Brown didn't popularize anything...r&b was already popular. He didn't popularize hard bop, ditto. He did something else, he TOOK CHANCES with something that was already popular and a bit staid, although vital, and, though what I consider to be sublime ego and ignorance, created something else entirely. I frankly don't see how that kind of ego and ignorance has much to do with these ridiculous notions of "elitism." Either something has vitality, is unconcerned with "taste" because it realizes that concern about taste is a retreat (cf. Raymond Chandler, Kael, Bangs, etc., all perhaps a little sloppy but right about the essentials), or it's Norah Jones. Sure there's a middle ground, competent stuff that has moments of surprise but is essentially a genre exercise, and every genre has tons of examples, don't they?

I don't watch PBS, for chrissakes, that's not where I go to learn about jazz. How about listening to the records/performers themselves? I sense a real, perhaps generationally-fueled, confusion about this whole issue here, as if "post-modernism" and all that bullshit--yeah, yeah, I've read Fred Jameson-- has anything to do with the humanist project of jazz music. I'm 30 years old.

You never need an excuse for that post-1995. *fless Matos's wrath*

1. There is almost zero crossover between buyers of NJ and buyers of Joe Henderson albs. PPl who like NJ may dabble in a little Diana Krall, Jane Monheit, Stacey Kent etc one the side, but I see no evidence for this Blue Note/'trickle down' theory. MOST PEOPLE who buy recs of any description don't like straight-ahead post-bop blowing sessions. Personally I think this is their loss, but I'm not surprised/upset by this - not everything can be popular.

2. As other ppl have pointed out, 'Jazz' can mean pretty much whatever you want it to, and on that basis, yeah of course NJ is 'jazz', tho' sound/production-wise she seems to have most in common w/ Joni Mitchell, the main stylistic influence on modern mainstream jazz-pop singing (Krall covers 'A Case of You' on her recent rec.) As w/ Joni, Norah's label have also sprung for a few star jazzbos (Bill Frisell! Naked City suddenly seems a long way off)to help keep it 'real'. I was also surprised to find that NJ hardly wrote any of the songs on her rec, but maybe that is 'rockist' thinking.

3. Modern mainstream jazz is dying in part because of its obsession w/ the past/the blues/heritage/'authenticity' (haha Ben Watson will be on my ass) and I'm afraid that NJ is part of the problem rather than the solution - she doesn't represent any kind of advance or break w/ tradition, but preserves in aspic ALL the most cliched signifiers of jazziness - the semi-sighed vocals, the tasteful arrangements, the semi-samba beat, etc. Its really no diff from 'The Girl From Ipanema' (which I adore)

4. It goes w/out saying that there are plenty of other acts who do the same kind of thing as well as, or better than, NJ. I don't care if Cassandra Wilson is technically a 'better' singer or not (well ok, I do), 'Traveling Miles' has more interesting arrangements/song choices/content and is far less bland/chewy than the Norah Jones rec, which is, frankly, inspid crap.

I'm not at all sure they do. They're looking for comfort, as far as I can tell, and they get the same pleasure out of food as they do from music. Sweeping generalization, yeah, sorry.

(actually I remember people complaining about Fiona Apple's first album for similar reasons - people, these genres have surely passed into public domain by now???)

V

I figure that a lot of the hate probably comes from social elements that I haven't been exposed to - in her case, at least, because I just heard a copy of the album at a friend's house and don't know anything about how it's being marketed. I didn't realize she was so young, either - it's funny, because usually I get clobbered with marketing before I ever hear someone's music - this time I heard something and thought "I hope her record doesn't sink without a trace for being so understated - it sounds kind of brave to me" and it turns out she's on the verge of receiving a pile of trophies and people hate her for it already. I guessed that she'd been performing for years and only now got something of a break, but now I feel sort of stupid for not knowing she'd have to be only 22 or 23 or whatever she is, that this would HAVE to be her first album, with massive promotion and heaps of pointless awards, and that she's going to have a much harder time (industrially, anyway) after this. I wish her the best, whatever that is.

Same thing will happen to Alicia Keys (or is happening already, more accurately...)

I loved Jody's analysis of "Don't Know Why", BTW - was it on Southside Callbox? I can't remember.

Well yeah, but that quality itself is slippery and undefinable, as is anyone's.

Anticipated counterargument: I'm a hopeless "keep 'em on the margins" person, etc. I'll have to think about that.

i would even argue that many "fans" of music dont really give a shit about music at all (that is if music can be temporarily abstracted from the social context in which it is listened to). there would probably be less (indie rockers/jazzbos/ravers/classical connoisseurs) if the music involved didn't reinforce some social identity that the listener was trying to create. (NB: I am not, at least on this thread, trying to assert that it is bad to use music to create a social identity, although i was always frustrated by the guys who were listening to the Smiths and getting laid while I was not ;-)

That's not a comment on whether she's any good or not -- (though I'll admit to finding "Don't Know Why" pleasantly soporific) -- but Connick's fame arose similarly. He popularized jazz standards for young crowds who simply thought he was sexy (and who wouldn't?) He sold CDs to older crowds who found his respect for that old-fashioned style endearing. And the media/record biz loved the preternaturally-gifted actor-musician angle. (Also helped that he was white -- today it's a bonus that Norah is multiethnic.)

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0311/christgau.php

Good stuff. I felt like I learned something from it.

We totally need to through a Polyanna Party now!

http://www.ilxor.com/faq.php?board=2#41

Selfish revival. (Without listening, it occurred to me,) it's house, isn't it? Dressed up as pop music? Or as film music, really. So, some might say that it's not a real pop song not because it doesn't have words, but because it needs visuals?

(BTW, your CDs are going out in Monday's mail. I'm truly sorry for the delay.)

xpost: like i said somewhere up above, i don't understand the loathing. i understand dismissiveness, disregard, disinterest, ok those are reasonable reactions. but loathing i don't get.