Jazz has never been popular

I think a lot of people would say popular Big Band music was not exactly jazz.

But I suppose that's sort of defining the terms such that they prove the argument.

Yeah, he's only talking about post-WWII it seems. Before that jazz was pretty pop, right?

xpost

I'm thinking about big band, traditional jazz before that...

What was most popular in the pre-rock days ranged from swingy pop that was definitely not jazz to Benny Goodman, which I think pretty obviously qualifies as jazz.

I assume Branford is really talking about heady, small-group instrumental jazz, be-bop and on.

It might be worth pointing out that albums like My Favorite Things and Kind of Blue have been big sellers.

Why is it important to him that jazz has never been popular, I wonder? (It may just be the editing of the interview that makes it seem so vehement, I grant you.)

Tax bill?

I also think it's a bit unfair to distinguish the music from the lifestyle - clearly rock owes much of its popularity to the lifestyle associated with it.

I have to leave work now but I find this really, really interesting.

As well as its principal practitioners being "fit" (xpost).

(so do I - I wish someone had started this thread earlier)

Why is it important to him that jazz has never been popular, I wonder?

The need to justify to himself what he's doing, probably. And because I'm sure interviewers are always asking him why jazz isn't more popular, or what can be done to make it more popular. And his answer is basically "small-group instrumental art music just doesn't top the charts."

The mid/late '20's were not called "The Jazz Age" for nothing. Linked to on this page:

http://vitaphone.blogspot.com/2007/01/snows-of-yesteryear.html

(scroll down) is an mp3 from a 1929 Colleen Moore movie called "Why Be Good?" Colleen Moore at the time was the biggest movie star in the world, many of her films featured Jazz parties in the storylines. The ones with semi-sychronised soundtracks like this one featured Jazz a lot. This kind of suggests that at that time Jazz was indeed very popular! (the track is great as well)

Why is it important to him that jazz has never been popular, I wonder?

He has a point that modern jazz (ie bebop and most everything after) is pretty much non-pop by intention, so why keep wringing hands over the fact that jazz doesn't sell and is unappreciated by the masses, etc.

xpost

And his answer is basically "small-group instrumental art music just doesn't top the charts."

"Green Onions"

Not the same as jazz at all of course, I'm just being contrary.

Bebop was all about separating the wheat from the chaff anyway, so it has a built-in rarefied quality, and most small group jazz has continued from that tradition. Even if you were just going to the Vanguard for the atmosphere, it meant you saw yourself as some kind of sophisticate out of a Playboy magazine, right?

Which is I guess what Jordan just said too.

I can't think of anything ever said by a Marsalis that I agreed with, really. Those guys prefer wringing their hands to ringing the changes.

I'm willing to give him a pass and assume by "jazz" he means "the kind of jazz I play," which in context makes perfect sense.

("kind of jazz" in the broadest sense, i.e. small group instrumental jazz)

The party scene w/Branford in Mo' Better Blues to thread

why does anyone listen to branford marsalis talk

it's interesting how he equates "not popular" with "people talking over the music." i would like to pursue this further but i have showering to do.

Dolphy live at the Five Spot just would not be the same without the incessant clinking of cutlery on plates.

Even if everyone at the Vanguard were listening intently, that wouldn't exactly have made Bill Evans the biggest name in American music at the time.

Jon OTM - Monk at the Blackhawk has great cash register rings.

Branford is a cool dude, I had a good conversation with him once. My only issue with him is his conflicted relationship to New Orleans music, I think.

Why is it important to him that jazz has never been popular, I wonder?

I suspect it's to put an end to arguments about how to reclaim a state that he think never existed. (Or to avoid having people put pressure on him and other jazz musicians to do something to reclaim a popularity that he's saying never existed.)

I tend to be defensive of the Marsalli even though I disagree with them on a lot of things.

My only issue with him is his conflicted relationship to New Orleans music, I think.

Well, with a brother like Wynton, it's not hard to understand. (Actually, I don't know the specifics of this, but it's hard to believe it wouldn't have something to do with reacting to Wynton's mythologizing.)

as of 2001, Kind of Blue was triple platinum

My guess is that it's more to do with reacting to where he grew up, with everyone playing the same tunes and him wanting to do something more sophisticated? All of Wynton's retro stuff came way later -- when Wynton & Branford played together that music was pretty fucking crazy.

But on the other hand I've got mad respect for the Honors series that his label is doing.

Jordan-- please recommend me one or two records of Branford & Wynton being pretty fucking crazy together.

Black Codes (From the Underground)

Live at Blues Alley (no Branford on this though)

It might be worth pointing out that albums like My Favorite Things and Kind of Blue have been big sellers.

As pointed out above, Kind Of Blue has sold three million copies or so. And all the label had to do to get it there was keep it continuously in print for 58 years and counting, remaster it several times with publicity campaigns for each new version or new format, etc., etc.

But aren't these hits (My Favorite Things, Kind of Blue, Time Out, Headhunters) kind of the exception that proves the rule?

we're saying that they aren't exactly huge 'hits'

Yeah, I suppose using the KOB example is a bit like using Olatunji: Drums of Passion to suggest that African drumming is popular.

What about fusion?

Maybe it wasn't "popular" in the same way that swing was ubiquitous in the 1940's, but I think it broke through to the mainstream enough to make a mark on the rock crowd.

But then, Wynton says fusion isn't jazz, so I guess that's right out.

I don't think fusion is jazz, and I love fusion.

KOB's had fifty years of renown as the greatest jazz album ever. To have only gone triple platinum in that time when, I dunno, Journey's greatest hits is diamond, puts it into perspective a little.

Obviously jazz has occasioanlly thrown up the odd hit single (Cannonball Adderly's Mercy Mercy Mercy was top ten, wasn't it?), but it's a minority concern and has been since at least Elvis. Ragtime, swing, big band... they're all genres and styles unto themselves, often related to jazz, often heavily, but then so are rock and hip hop sometimes, too. Jazz itself has always (where always is... postwar, the era of popular, recorded, mass-produced music) been a minority concern.

Any artist is ultimately a minority concern, since I don't think there are too many albums that are owned by a majority of people.

Yeah but we're not talking about artists, we're talking about a whole genre. I'd wager that most households with music in them have some rock and pop, but that only a small percentage have some jazz.

Yeah, I think you're right. But I'll bet in 1956 most households with record players had at least some jazz.

Well, nah, actually I'm not sure about that. Maybe in 1937? But at that point I wonder if most people even had record players.

Exactly. It was (relatively) popular when recorded music was a specialist concern. I'd wager that... most households with a proper hi-fi have some jazz.

I don't know, I'll bet that a majority of people have at least a couple token jazz cds/records, whether it's Billy Holliday, KoB, or Getz/Gilberto or something.

xpost

If not specialist, at very least bourgeois.

All this stuff is relative, but Jordan I'd guess you're wrong about that. Maybe a majority of people who own a large number of albums, but there are a lot of people out there who just own 10 CDs or so.

Whitey McCerebral, OTOH, didn't sell too many.

Do you mean George Russell or Lennie Tristano?

It's a little unfair to read too much into an off the cuff interview comment anyway - he's even saying things that somewhat contradict each other. I think what he's getting at is ultimately clear and reasonable and he's just using language that makes his statement sound a bit too strong.

Ha, I meant Bill Evans, b/c that's who Branford mentioned

ok dudes it was fun to argue about jazz music today, thx

Actually, this talk of Whitey McCerebral is now reminding me that I always want to check out some Jimmy Giuffre. What's the go-to with him?

Yeah, he's only talking about post-WWII it seems. Before that jazz was pretty pop, right?

Even after WW2. I mean, you'd struggle to claim stuff such as Frank Sinatra's "Songs For Swingin' Lovers" album isn't jazz.

I didn't think that Time article he's talking about was all bad:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,873856,00.html "> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,873856,00.html
So a mainstream news magazine ran a cover story on Monk that was focused more on personality than critically dissecting his musical style. Isn't that true of most such feature articles? Anyway, this mid-60's Time we're talking about - not exactly the touchstone of hipness. (See Don't Look Back lately?) His broader point is true - that Americans treat music as entertainment, not art - but griping about it feels petty. Most people don't have the same reverence for music that professional musicians do. You could say the same for most professions.

What's more interesting to me is how jazz has gotten less popular (the Time article talks about Monk having a three-albums-a-year deal at Columbia - I'm pretty sure that's hard to come by nowadays) even as it's been placed on a pedestal by those who enjoy it (there's not going to be much during-song chatter going on when a big-name jazz band is playing a club nowadays, is there?) What led to this rarefied status?

Hi, I don't know how to use hyperlinks.

What led to this rarefied status?

Time. Changes in technology.

Jon, Jimmy Giuffre 3 is a GREAT album. It's so tonal and easy to listen to that you probably won't think of it as "cerebral." I do believe it was pretty forward-thinking in its use of drumless trio (one of the first maybe?). Giuffre also has his more avant garde stuff which I'm not all that partial to, but Free Fall is an oft-praised record.

Do Jaga Jazzist really sell that much less than John Coltrane did in the 50s?

Time. Changes in technology.

Not something about the music itself? I always thought the 60's avant-garde takeover turned off mainstream fans.

I always thought the 60's avant-garde takeover turned off mainstream fans.

Obviously it did, but 70s and 80s fusion did enjoy quite a bit of mainstream popularity. Herbie Hancock's "Rockit" was even a Top 10 hit.

there wasn't really a "takeover" though - it's not like there weren't still people making records of swingy, beboppy tunes.

What's more interesting to me is how jazz has gotten less popular (the Time article talks about Monk having a three-albums-a-year deal at Columbia - I'm pretty sure that's hard to come by nowadays) even as it's been placed on a pedestal by those who enjoy it

The moment something's put on a pedestal is often the moment it jumps the shark, in terms of broad popularity. The Ken Burns baseball documentary, for instance, seemed to confirm that baseball was a glory of the past. It's a curious thing, I don't know if one causes the other, or what.

there wasn't really a "takeover" though - it's not like there weren't still people making records of swingy, beboppy tunes.

That is true. But then, I guess jazz not dominating like it used to in the 40s or before is probably more due to rock arriving on the scene in the mid 50s than due to bop and avant garde jazz. Pop music until the mid 50s was still very much about big band jazz, no matter what Charlie Parker, Dizzie Gillespie or even Miles Davis were doing in the jazz underground.

I don't know if one causes the other, or what.

A decline in popularity definitely inspires the pedestal effect among the devoted. When mainstream appeal is remote, the pedestal is really all that's left, both for the musicians and the audience. When everyone else stops paying attention, the common response seems to be, we'd better be sure to pay very careful attention or (1) it may just disappear and (2) treating it as other than IMPORTANT would imply that everyone else is right. This works in the other direction too though - once something's clearly on the pedestal most people steer clear.

It's the steer clear response that's interesting.

I've only gotten this far in the thread:

The age of coast-to-coast radio networks is only pretty recent with all the Clearchannel engulf-and-devouring, right?

I guess the steer clear response is something like, who wants to work at being entertained? People already have to work at their jobs.

Whitey McCerebral, OTOH, didn't sell too many.

Do you mean George Russell or Lennie Tristano?

george russell is black.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/amg/pop_albums/6/7/l/d67074meulb.jpg

The title track of which has a vocal by Bing Crosby.

Whoa, I never knew George Russell was black. In fact I thought I had heard him denigrated as one of those white musicians who intellectualized jazz too much or something.

Hey I never knew that either. And I never he knew wrote "Cubano Be, Cubano Bop" until a few seconds ago. But we probably shouldn't admit to this because Shakey Mo will somehow wave this in our face as well.

Now that he's done namechecking the Wynton/Stanley/Ken Holy Trinity of Guys Who Are Singlehandedly Stifling Jazz And I Am Against Them Therefore I Am In Fact In Favor Of Jazz Creativity.

Considering he doesn't know Wynton from Branford, probably not.

Maybe Stanley Crouch is the reason jazz isn't more popular. Because if he wasn't out there pulling the wool over people's eyes, teenagers would be lining up at the record store to buy Peter Brotzman records.

Maybe Stanley Crouch is the reason jazz isn't more popular.

crouch's whole approach to exposing the music to new listeners is usually along the lines of, "what YOU listen to SUCKS! listen to jazz, you stupid jerk!"

i am at a loss as to why that approach doesn't get the desired results.

i blame jay leno

was this popular, brainfjord?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0h2ZIoE7dA

I don't get it - does the fact that Branford plays sax on a Sting song make it jazz?

it didn't prevent it from sucking

And I don't really get the ire directed at Branford for a tossed off remark. It's not like he published a position paper called "The Myth of Jazz Popularity," he's just saying let's stop putting all this pressure on a somewhat esoteric style of music - a certain specific kind of jazz to be exact - to find its way into the forefront of public consciousness since it never really was.

No one can stop Sting from sucking.

jazz is popular enough.

japan alone...

not to mention sweden...

how many jazz festivals are there in the u.s. every year? a thousand? probably too many.

A thousand sounds high.

there are a lot though.

Wisconsin's finest music festival, the Ziegler Kettle Moraine Jazz Festival features international jazz musicians and vocalists in an outdoor setting under a spacious tent surrounded by rolling hills and rustling trees.

Previous festival headliners have included the Jeff Kashiwa, Jonathan Butler, Yellowjackets, Michael Lington, Steve Oliver, Marion Meadows, Keiko Matsui, Kim Waters, Mindi Abair, Kevin Eubanks, Rick Braun, Fourplay, Down to the Bone, Richard Elliot, Acoustic Alchemy, Joyce Cooling, Marc Antoine, Jesse Cook, Dave Koz, Craig Chaquico, David Benoit, Boney James, Peter White, and Brian Culbertson.

Those are almost all smooth jazz artists. I guess that's a whole other argument.

Wait a second, should I be able to tell Wynton from Bradford? I mean, I've seen 'em both play a couple of times, and they seemed OK, but nothing to write home about, and nothing that I felt like I should investigate further.

Brotzman, on the other hand, put on a hell of a show when I saw him, even if about a third of his set was the jazz equivalent of speed metal wank solos.

Part of the popularity problem, at least to my ear, is that jazz has such a goddamned overstuffed set of cultural baggage. While you can analyze a Girls Aloud song, I'd argue that the mythical average listener rarely does, even as they enjoy it. I don't think that happens with jazz, or classical, really.

I have never heard of that festival.

the hugh jass festival?

Although I did see Kevin Eubanks at a festival in Milwaukee once and everyone was all "we love you Kevin, show us your muscles" and he hit them with some crazy M-Base shit, it was great.

I would rather listen to Branford's band than Brotzmann.

Why does it always have to be either/or?

Jordan, tell that to your new leader, scott!