Value of Jazz in the 21st Century

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='clauster' post='481647' date='May 7 2009, 09:39 AM']As a commerially profitable venture, Jazz may not be top-of-the-heap at the mo, but here in Tunbridge Wells we have more venues where you can regularly go to a jazz gig than you can for rock.[/quote]


I think they just do it to annoy me.

[mcgraham]

I have to be honest, I love jazz. But it took me a while to find the right stuff. There's a lot of crap jazz out there, and the way the term 'jazz' is so liberally used by so many, to describe both good jazz, bad jazz, and non-jazz music alike makes it frustratingly difficult to find jazz that does it for me.

Then there's the performers themselves. This is not meant as an elitist comment (hear me out), but there's a lot of musicians that just don't seem to understand jazz, but simply 'pretend' to do so. In my mind, jazz affords you (and encourages you to use) the freedom to play whatever you wish to, but it should not be at the expense of making cohesive, interesting and ultimately listenable music. I know that people's tastes vary and I accept that, but I'm talking about those that are arguably just w***ing away on their instruments and calling it jazz.
[i]"I'm free to play whatever I want, so that's what I'm doing!" [/i]

These musicians who feel a need to exercise their freedom in this way end up destroying the very thing granting their so-called 'musical freedom'. However, those who choose to exercise their freedom in a more constructive, focused manner can bring fruition to this 'musical freedom'. That's what I look for in good music, not just jazz.

Anyway, in answer to the question, I think any good music is valuable, and as good music in a certain genre becomes scarcer for one reason or another, the more valuable I consider that music becomes.

Mark

Edited May 7, 2009 by mcgraham

[BigBeefChief]

Regardless on my personal tastes, I don't think Jazz does itself any favours from an image perspective. I know music shouldn't be about image, but it mostly is! To an outsider looking in, not only is the music pretty inpenetratable, but the image of the elitist jazz musician/listener puts people off.
You read it on here all the time. Jazz fans say "I find Popular music doesn't satisfy me anymore". Maybe it doesn't, and there's nothing wrong with that view, but on a web forum it does sound slightly pompous!

I think that part of the appeal of Jazz to some is the feeling that its an exclusive club. If it were to start charting, these fans would move on to another genre. However, this can probably be said for any non-mainstream genre of music.

Personally, my views on the music are well documented. As a rule, I tend to stay away from music that is mostly popular with other musos. It does nothing for me.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481768' date='May 7 2009, 11:34 AM']I think that part of the appeal of Jazz to some is the feeling that its an exclusive club. If it were to start charting, these fans would move on to another genre. However, this can probably be said for any non-mainstream genre of music.[/quote]

Country and Blues - I've been there and got the scars to prove it. You know a genre's in trouble when experts (who usually can't play a note) start inventing rules on how it should be performed.

I don't think Jazz is inherently worse or better than any other genre. But it's a sub-sector of 'popular' music that's less popular than it used to be. You either ring-fence it with government grants or leave it out in the sun and see what happens...

[rslaing]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481768' date='May 7 2009, 11:34 AM']I know music shouldn't be about image, but it mostly is![/quote]

Really? I thought it was about sound............

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='rslaing' post='481787' date='May 7 2009, 11:48 AM']Really? I thought it was about sound............[/quote]


I mean in terms of popularity, exposure, accessability etc. You won't reach large audiences if you don't have an accessable image. The majority won't persevere with music created by the "un-cool". If Gary Glitter were to release his best album yet, no one is gonna buy it, great music or not.

[rslaing]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481795' date='May 7 2009, 11:52 AM']I mean in terms of popularity, exposure, accessability etc. You won't reach large audiences if you don't have an accessable image. The majority won't persevere with music created by the "un-cool". If Gary Glitter were to release his best album yet, no one is gonna buy it, great music or not.[/quote]

You mean the commercial money making side of the business is about image. Like the sh*te that Simon Cowell manufactures and was started by Pete Waterman and his cronies. Who will remember any of the chart acts and their primitive crap in 50 years time? Who would want to?

Good quality "proper" music will always survive, like classical and jazz for example, (or anything that is innovative) and the rest of it will just fade away never to heard again.

The main reason being that it has no substance and the ears get tired of it very quickly. Just my opinion of course, as usual.

[risingson]

[quote]unlike the pap that passes for rock these days, which is of course, saving the world.[/quote]

With the greatest of respect, there is a lot of good music out there nowadays if you were to look hard enough. It's fine sticking to the argument that 'music isn't what it was back in the day' but it just simply isn't true. You need to let music evolve sometime, otherwise we're stuck in a cyclical situation where views such as that simply serves to inhibit new music to come.

What I meant was that jazz (which as someone pointed out is far too much of an umbrella term anyway) doesn't serve as much of a huge sector of musical revenue nowadays because it seems to be viewed by most as an institution or an era, like classical. It may not be the most musically endearing news that practicing jazz musicians want to hear, but it's true.

Edited May 7, 2009 by liamcapleton

[BigBeefChief]

You remember what I said about pompous attitudes.....

[quote name='rslaing' post='481804' date='May 7 2009, 12:02 PM']You mean the commercial money making side of the business is about image. Like the sh*te that Simon Cowell manufactures and was started by Pete Waterman and his cronies. Who will remember any of the chart acts and their primitive crap in 50 years time? Who would want to?

Good quality "proper" music will always survive, like classical and jazz for example, (or anything that is innovative) and the rest of it will just fade away never to heard again.

The main reason being that it has no substance and the ears get tired of it very quickly. Just my opinion of course, as usual.[/quote]


Image is important in all genres. Don't kid yourself. You think Elvis wasn't partly about image? The Beatles? Motorhead? Hendrix? The Who? No doubt all these artists will "fade away never to heard again (sic)."

[Paul Cooke]

[quote name='spinynorman' post='481714' date='May 7 2009, 10:37 AM']And a large number of Hendrix's contemporaries in rock were ex-jazz players anyway. Dick Heckstall-Smith's autobiography [url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blowing-Blues-Personal-History-British/dp/1904555047/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241689011&sr=8-1"]"Blowing the British Blues"[/url] is interesting on the 60s migration of young musicians from jazz to R&B, and the problems that caused for jazz.[/quote]

Hendrix was moving the other way into Jazz when he died... sadly, he was sick and tired of going through the motions on stage to satisfy the promoters and punters who just wanted to see him do the tired old play behind his back and set light to the guitar pyrotechnics...

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='rslaing' post='481804' date='May 7 2009, 12:02 PM']You mean the commercial money making side of the business is about image. Like the sh*te that Simon Cowell manufactures and was started by Pete Waterman and his cronies. Who will remember any of the chart acts and their primitive crap in 50 years time? Who would want to?

Good quality "proper" music will always survive, like classical and jazz for example, (or anything that is innovative) and the rest of it will just fade away never to heard again.

The main reason being that it has no substance and the ears get tired of it very quickly. Just my opinion of course, as usual.[/quote]

Francis Albert Sinatra held (IMO) a similarly trenchant view and none the worse for that:

[quote]Rock & Roll is the most brutal, ugly, desperate, vicious form of expression it has been my misfortune to hear. Rock & Roll is sung, played, and written for the most part by cretinous goons. It manages to be the martial music of every sideburned delinquent on the face of the earth[/quote]

[risingson]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481768' date='May 7 2009, 11:34 AM']Regardless on my personal tastes, I don't think Jazz does itself any favours from an image perspective. I know music shouldn't be about image, but it mostly is! To an outsider looking in, not only is the music pretty inpenetratable, but the image of the elitist jazz musician/listener puts people off.
You read it on here all the time. Jazz fans say "I find Popular music doesn't satisfy me anymore". Maybe it doesn't, and there's nothing wrong with that view, but on a web forum it does sound slightly pompous!

I think that part of the appeal of Jazz to some is the feeling that its an exclusive club. If it were to start charting, these fans would move on to another genre. However, this can probably be said for any non-mainstream genre of music.

Personally, my views on the music are well documented. As a rule, I tend to stay away from music that is mostly popular with other musos. It does nothing for me.[/quote]

Disagree with the image and accessibility thing, jazz is only as accessible as you wish it to be. You get the musos, sure, but you'll often find that their credibility is somewhat undermined by their arrogant and misinformed viewpoints. You just need to know how to stand up to them

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='481818' date='May 7 2009, 12:13 PM']Disagree with the image and accessibility thing[/quote]


Really? Why is Jazz not as popular as "pop" acts that focus on image over musically?

[maxrossell]

[quote name='rslaing' post='481804' date='May 7 2009, 12:02 PM'][b]The music I think is[/b] good quality "proper" music will always survive, like classical and jazz for example, (or anything that is innovative) and [b]I hope[/b] that [b]everything I don't like [/b]will just fade away never to heard again.

The main reason being that [b]I am unable to relate [/b]to its substance and [b]my [/b]ears get tired of it very quickly. Just my opinion of course, as usual.[/quote]

I've rephrased it for you. It's much clearer now.

[rslaing]

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='481810' date='May 7 2009, 12:06 PM']With the greatest of respect, there is a lot of good music out there nowadays if you were to look hard enough. It's fine sticking to the argument that 'music isn't what it was back in the day' but it just simply isn't true. You need to let music evolve sometime, otherwise we're stuck in a cyclical situation where views such as that simply serves to inhibit new music to come.

What I meant was that jazz (which as someone pointed out is far too much of an umbrella term anyway) doesn't serve as much of a huge sector of musical revenue nowadays because it seems to be viewed by most as an institution or an era, like classical. It may not be the most musically endearing news that practicing jazz musicians want to hear, but it's true.[/quote]

Can someone please define "good music" for me?

IMO, music has not evolved, is has deteriorated to probably the most primitive form since medieval times - although even then they used at least 3 chords in cadences and the monks sang in tune.

Musical revenue has nothing to do with good music I'm afraid. Musical revenue has to do with with a hugely complicated process of the business world.

Write a catchy tune with no substance, make sure the tune repeats itself endlessly so that it is easily remembered by Lambrini addled hoodies that can put it on their phones and walk up and down the street annoying everyone.

Ensure the words appeal to young people with disposable income that are easily influenced by the sh*t they see on tv.

Ensure that peer pressure plays it's part by marketing it on the most watched programmes or the ads in between the programme.

Give a contract to someone who can't sing unless they use autotune but they look pretty.

Hire some "proper" musicians that need to do these type of gigs for the dosh and pay them next to f*** all for the privilege.

Bingo - big money for Simon Cowell, Pete Waterman and his pals (initially who started the (S) hit factory with the sole intent of doing the above.

The type of music that survives the course has never been commercially successful, at least not to the degree of Girls Aloud and the like. But it has and will survive.

Edited May 7, 2009 by rslaing

[rslaing]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481820' date='May 7 2009, 12:15 PM']Really? Why is Jazz not as popular as "pop" acts that focus on image over musically?[/quote]

See my post at 12.20p.m.

[skankdelvar]

Accessible? There is nothing to stop anyone walking into a Jazz club. But Jazz's image won't appeal to 'today's pop kids' anymore than Blues, Folk, Country or Rockabilly.

Some Jazz fans appear not to help by saying "You have to work at appreciating it". Trouble is, they're right. And in a culture that's evermore 'quick fix and bin it', Jazz has a battle on its hands.

One of the things I do for a living is analyse musical and media brands. And frankly, I wouldn't take 'Jazz' on as a client - too long a haul for too little return.

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='rslaing' post='481827' date='May 7 2009, 12:20 PM']The type of music that survives the course has never been commercially successful, at least not to the degree of Girls Aloud and the like. But it has and will survive.[/quote]


You're right. Check these guys out:

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_beatles"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_beatles[/url]

Apparently a popular "beat group" back in the 60's. I've never heard of them!



I find you posts entertaining rslaing, but it concerns me that you actually used to teach people!

[risingson]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481820' date='May 7 2009, 12:15 PM']Really? Why is Jazz not as popular as "pop" acts that focus on image over musically?[/quote]

But it WAS once that big. Just not anymore. Music has moved on.

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='481837' date='May 7 2009, 12:26 PM']One of the things I do for a living is analyse musical and media brands. And frankly, I wouldn't take 'Jazz' on as a client - too long a haul for too little return.[/quote]

Surely it depends if your talking about the music or the magazines?

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='481840' date='May 7 2009, 12:28 PM']But it WAS once that big. Just not anymore. Music has moved on...[/quote]

....to be more focussed on image!

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481843' date='May 7 2009, 12:28 PM']Surely it depends if your talking about the music or the magazines?[/quote]

Either. Niche market, not enough money to be made. Too many amateurs focussed on the musical form rather than the business opportunities.

Edited May 7, 2009 by skankdelvar

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='481849' date='May 7 2009, 12:34 PM']Either. Niche market, not enough money to be made. Too many amateurs focussed on the musical form rather than the business opportunities.[/quote]


My penchant for grot mags alone surely elevates it above a niche market?

[maxrossell]

[quote name='rslaing' post='481827' date='May 7 2009, 12:20 PM']Can someone please define "good music" for me?[/quote]

Oh, me! Please sir! Me me me!

The notion of quality is derived from an entirely subjective standpoint. You'd hate my record collection. Does that mean the records in it are not "good"? Of course not. They're good because I like them. The people who made them like them (in most cases), and a whole lot of other people like them.

When I say "like them", I mean that I find something in them that speaks to me emotionally. Whether it's the need to get up and boogie, the need to go and protest against stuff, the need to give my lady some good lovin', or the need to cry, these are some of the things that the records in my record collection variously touch upon.

Furthermore, the quality of the music is such that it enables people such as myself to dismiss the curmudgeonly accusations by people such as yourself that it isn't "real" music with a sigh and a genuine regret that at your age you're still at a point in your life where you can't accept that something can have value if it doesn't adhere to your painfully narrow standards.

I'm not saying you [i]have[/i] to like it. I'm saying it's a shame that you hate it. It's a shame that you wouldn't be able to listen to Nirvana's [i]Nevermind[/i] without feigning nausea. It's a shame that if I played you Soundgarden's [i]Superunknown[/i] you'd pull a face like a six year old with a mouthful of asparagus.

Because all this music that you hold in such high regard, I'm open to it. Indeed, I know a lot of it and I love some of it. But you hate everything I stand for musically, you despise it quite passionately, and because of that you're missing out on some real gems that if you opened your mind even slightly, might just brighten up your life.

A piece of music is not inherently good because it fulfils this or that criteria. A piece of music is good if someone loves it.

[rslaing]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='481823' date='May 7 2009, 12:16 PM']I've rephrased it for you. It's much clearer now.

The music I think is good quality "proper" music will always survive, like classical and jazz for example, (or anything that is innovative) and I hope that everything I don't like will just fade away never to heard again.

The main reason being that I am unable to relate to its substance and my ears get tired of it very quickly. Just my opinion of course, as usual.[/quote]


Please retract your post, you are out of order. Make as many opinions as you like about my opinions, but don't get personal (again) or amend my posts in a cheap attemp to denigrate my views.

Are you stalking my posts or something?

Baiting does not work with me I'm afraid.

Thank you

Edited May 7, 2009 by rslaing