Verve's CEO

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Who could sell so many records that a major label like Verve should sign them, do you think?

Stan Getz, Wes Montgomery, Jimmy Smiff.

MG

[David Ayers]

Who could sell so many records that a major label like Verve should sign them, do you think?

Stan Getz, Wes Montgomery, Jimmy Smiff.

MG

So you agree with Chuck - Verve should stick to the reissues?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Who could sell so many records that a major label like Verve should sign them, do you think?

Stan Getz, Wes Montgomery, Jimmy Smiff.

MG

So you agree with Chuck - Verve should stick to the reissues?

No - I'd like it if the company found exciting musicians (even ones who've been around for a while - there are plenty who don't record much). But I don't know what kind of jazz (real jazz, not Smooooth Jazz) could ever sell again in the way those musicians sold.

There was a period when jazz was what popular music was - the thirties. Then it tailed off in the forties as the big band business failed, for a number of resaons. In the fifties, jazz, mainly Swing or the former big band singers, represented "quality" in the mind of the public and a lot of that kind of albums were selling big; they represented 42% of the albums getting onto Billboard's LP charts in the late fifties. After another hiatus, Soul Jazz became a big seller, then Fusion. What seems to be needed for big sales is a MOVEMENT and that isn't what there is in jazz at present, or in the foreseeable future.

So, in the end, since catalogue sales make up nearly half of all sales at present, the sensible thing to do is hit the reissues business.

MG

Edit - You need a movement in order to market music (of any kind) to a wide non-specialist audience. But a movement has to have roots in at least a significant element of US society.

Edited April 22, 2006 by The Magnificent Goldberg

[JSngry]

You need a movement in order to market music (of any kind) to a wide non-specialist audience. But a movement has to have roots in at least a significant element of US society.

And that would be where some sort of hip-hop/jazz that was rooted in music rather than hype would be something that should have happened a loooooong time ago, except that "jazz musicians" were too busy putting on suits, moving into Lincoln Center, and in general becoming snoots rather than remaining connected to the hereandnow of their communities. M-Base was an early attempt, and although the results were mixed, Steve Coleman does have it going on today. The kinks have all been worked out and that shit is together.

Hell, Threadgill always plays something with a danceable pulse, and so do a lot of the "free" players who represent the last pure wave of non-reactionary evolution. But they're those "not really jazz" guys who've adopted the pretensions of European concert music, remember? And in the meantime, those who refute the pretensions of European concert music play repertory concerts in massive concert halls as part of subscription series and go after government and corporate patronage. Boring? Oh HELL yeah.

The irony is rich, to put it mildly...

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

And that would be where some sort of hip-hop/jazz that was rooted in music rather than hype... M-Base was an early attempt, and although the results were mixed, Steve Coleman does have it going on today. The kinks have all been worked out and that shit is together.

I'd have liked that to have happened. I should get some of that stuff. Any recommendations?

MG

[JSngry]

Yeah - the later live stuff on RCA and the live stuff on Label Bleu. It's got some hip freestylin', it's got some badass horn playing, it's got killer grooves that go in a bunch of different directions at the same time, it's all good, it's got at least a modicum of street cred, and don't none of it sound old.

In other words, it's "exciting". But your average "jazz" person has been so brainwashed, wish-fullfilled, and fantasy-seduced that they would probably say that it wasn't jazz.

Oh well. Can't help that. After all, the price of making a deal with the devil is the loss of your soul to eternal damnation.

Edited April 22, 2006 by JSngry

[David Ayers]

I suppose I am asking because I'm not really sure what very recent jazz has a consensus on this board, let alone in terms of even broader popularity. Henry Threadgill and Steve Coleman have been going for decades and have had their big label chances. I don't think either was very successful, either in terms of the music or in terms of developing an audience: I wonder if they will get a second chance? Coleman turns 50 this year. Threadgill is in his 60s. So I don't think this is the answer. All I mean is, are we sure that the Verve CEO hasn't got a point?

Edited to add that Threadgill's last Columbia release was ten years ago, since when he has released two CDs on Pi (both 2001) and an audiophile LP. Coleman's last release with RCA was 1999 - seven years ago.

Edited April 22, 2006 by David Ayers

[JSngry]

Yes, he does have a point, and a good one, at least about the type of jazz that he thinks he should be thinking of as jazz.

I just don't think he realizes why he has a good point, or how things got to the point where his point is a good one. In fact, I know he doesn't.

Well, I kinda know. Like I said, I've heard stories, and if they're even half-true, the guy would be better suited running a brokerage firm than a jazz label. Totally concerned with "foregone conclusions" in terms of sales, not at all concerned with "artist developement". I know you gotta have both, but this guy only has one, and only one concern. That ain't gonna get it done.

As for Threadgill & Coleman, Threadgill actually was "on the verge" in the late 70s. Then the world, including the jazz biz, took a hard right. Coleman was caught in the aftermath. No sense rehashing all that.

But I still say that "exciting" new jazz could and still can capture its own market, which might never be as large as that for the old stuff, but is probably bigger than the corporate heads think it is. You just gotta get behind the shit the way you do anything else. Get people curious, give them a fair chance to hear/buy it, and then let the chips will fall where they may. If 2 out of 3 people don't like it, that's still one new fan you din't have before. What I think is the problem is that A) the suits just flat-out don't like that kind of music; & B) the size of an audience that could eventually be developed is smaller than they've been trained to think of as "acceptable".

And maybe for a mega-corp, the numbers aren't worth fucking with. Probably not. But that's not the music's fault. And maybe these are not the people to be handling the business end of future of the music. Probably not. But if that's the case, Mr. Goldman should just shut the fuck up and move his product as best he can.

Edited April 22, 2006 by JSngry

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Yeah - the later live stuff on RCA and the live stuff on Label Bleu. It's got some hip freestylin', it's got some badass horn playing, it's got killer grooves that go in a bunch of different directions at the same time, it's all good, it's got at least a modicum of street cred, and don't none of it sound old.

In other words, it's "exciting". But your average "jazz" person has been so brainwashed, wish-fullfilled, and fantasy-seduced that they would probably say that it wasn't jazz.

Oh well. Can't help that. After all, the price of making a deal with the devil is the loss of your soul to eternal damnation.

Thanks - I'll put "Resistance is futile" on my list.

MG

[JSngry]

EX-cellent choice.

[montg]

What I think is the problem is that A) the suits just flat-out don't like that kind of music; & B) the size of an audience that could eventually be developed is smaller than they've been trained to think of as "acceptable".

I concur with this 100%. If you're conditioned to look for a quick profit, no jazz artist is going to produce 'acceptable' sales. With that mentality, the suit would be better suited for the bubble gum division of the muzak industry. Jazz requires long term vision. If it's 1950 and your only concern is the bottom line for 1951, then signing Phil Harris over Dizzy Gillespie is the right move. Jazz CEOs looking for Phil Harris are in the wrong line of bidness. And they're going to end up saying something insulting to jazz artists, like 'jazz isn't exciting' and 'it will never sell'

Edited April 22, 2006 by montg

[skeith]

If you want exciting new jazz listen to the Paul Motian Trio.

As for the the reissue issue, I don't feel bad buying them because a lot of "new" Jazz sounds like it could have been made years ago to me. That would include Marsalis, Redman, Hargrove, and countless others -all that supposedly new stuff.

[alocispepraluger102]

You need a movement in order to market music (of any kind) to a wide non-specialist audience. But a movement has to have roots in at least a significant element of US society.

And that would be where some sort of hip-hop/jazz that was rooted in music rather than hype would be something that should have happened a loooooong time ago, except that "jazz musicians" were too busy putting on suits, moving into Lincoln Center, and in general becoming snoots rather than remaining connected to the hereandnow of their communities. M-Base was an early attempt, and although the results were mixed, Steve Coleman does have it going on today. The kinks have all been worked out and that shit is together.

Hell, Threadgill always plays something with a danceable pulse, and so do a lot of the "free" players who represent the last pure wave of non-reactionary evolution. But they're those "not really jazz" guys who've adopted the pretensions of European concert music, remember? And in the meantime, those who refute the pretensions of European concert music play repertory concerts in massive concert halls as part of subscription series and go after government and corporate patronage. Boring? Oh HELL yeah.

The irony is rich, to put it mildly...

beautiful comment

[Simon Weil]

In my opinion culture has been flat for the past several years. The non-existence of interesting new Jazz musicians has been part of that.

But Jazz has got a remarkably committed core audience. The music has been, and remains, relatively a deep cultural experience. In a society that doesn't want to look too deep (aka flattens culture), that's not an advantage. But things do change. Whether they change enough and in our direction remains to be seen.

But, in the meantime, I think Jazz ought to do something about women. That has the potential for both increasing the core audience and tapping on a relatively unused resource of creative energy.

And it would make us feel oh so moral.

Simon Weil

[Jim Alfredson]

Those who say there's no interesting new jazz musicians are either not looking hard enough, or have a very narrow view of what jazz is, in my opinion. (I'm not directing this at anyone personally).

There is a slew of really interesting things going on, but none of it is on Verve.

[Simon Weil]

You can have things happening which, while they may have value and be valid in a general sense, don't really address the spiritual/emotional issues that press in on you.

That's where I've been.

Simon Weil

[Guest]

But I still say that "exciting" new jazz could and still can capture its own market, which might never be as large as that for the old stuff, but is probably bigger than the corporate heads think it is. You just gotta get behind the shit the way you do anything else. Get people curious, give them a fair chance to hear/buy it, and then let the chips will fall where they may. If 2 out of 3 people don't like it, that's still one new fan you din't have before. What I think is the problem is that A) the suits just flat-out don't like that kind of music; & B) the size of an audience that could eventually be developed is smaller than they've been trained to think of as "acceptable".

And maybe for a mega-corp, the numbers aren't worth fucking with. Probably not. But that's not the music's fault. And maybe these are not the people to be handling the business end of future of the music. Probably not. But if that's the case, Mr. Goldman should just shut the fuck up and move his product as best he can.

maybe you're looking to the wrong people, maybe top-down can't happen anymore anywhere for anything real. perhaps in the future, real will only exist within peer-to-peer. agents of power of the mass media will focus only on short-term utlimately meaningless trends in listening habits easily identified and exploited.

even a well-meaning power player will have relatively little ability to compete with self-spawned bit-torrent driven waves of mass identification invented by those who reconstruct jazz with other musics specifically as a radical political statement.

for jazz musicians to grip the modern social consciousness perhaps they need to stop experimenting with form and texture locked within a mindset of tradition, and instead attack the modern zeitgeist in whatever manner produces results with those adaptable minds and souls from whom could be contructed new audiences. concentrate on social evolution above musical evolution.

when was the last great jazz musician who made an overtly political statement with his music ? who are the political radicals of today's jazz music ? who is using the music as a tool to a wide-scale social end ?

nothing stunning comes to mind. but, possibilities for the future, people thinking another way ...

Bobby Previte's Coalition Of The Willing ? http://www.bobbyprevite.com

balto

[tjobbe]

I guess we should properly devide between the "industrie's" interest in earing money based on selling "Units" compared to the fact that there are young musicians out either supported by small focused labels only or completely on their own.

For the industrie even "tradional" war horses like Van Morrison are no longer of commercial interest not saying anything about their "music".

The trend in music bizz seems to be a McMusic approach that should serve the taste of everyone to be commercially succussful and Jazz don't fit into that as being a very individual creation and listening experience by nature.

Being asked on how much "new" versus remaster I'm buying, it is about 30% post 2000 stuff versus 70% older material, but for the new productions by mainly smaller labels only I'm normally paying more per Unit compared to those "mid-price" BlueNotes/Fantasy stuff, so all in all when it comes to money its a 50/50 rate.

Cheers, Tjobbe

[Guest]

forget about individual experience. forget about jazz first and foremost as a music of personal expression. that's all over with. there already exists nearly 100 years of accumulated genius providing enough sustenance, inspiration, and catalysis for any aware mind.

those days are over with for jazz ... or jazz is over with.

those who continue to center jazz in the context of either reconstruction or derivatives of past musics , or explorations into increasingly esoteric territory will accomplish little outside of their own relatively limited spheres. they will not catalyze large followings. flotsam and jetsam of considerable curiosity to lost travellers and wanderers ... but invisible to all others.

the predominant period of innovation in jazz was the 60s and early 70s. jazz was an integral component of social protest, radical political philosophy, loosely-coupled organization and action ... action that did effect and change the world for the better.

only those who challenge their audiences to react to and act on their world , to venture outside the limited and safe confines of the listening venue , their home , their ipodic tunnels ... only those who evolve the music into a component of the radical leadership , who become more than mere blips on the global materialist-capitalist defense radar , only those who re-position jazz as a tool of radical political proselytization , will be capable of gaining followings on a scale sufficient to survive outside the mass media conglomerates' positioning of music only within the context of tethered and guided lives.

this is asking a lot of the young musicians. such is the raw fabric of fear. the internal community will become fractured and disharmonious , as in all revolutions. but living in the past is rather close to death , and , once reality becomes apparent , life is always preferable to death.

balto

Edited April 24, 2006 by baltostar

[Shawn]

I spent most of my teenage years living in a rural area, I don't think I knew a single person that listened to jazz (or even had an idea of what it was). Were these people clueless to jazz because they were country bumpkins? Well, I'm sure that was part of it...but where in the hell would they hear the music anyway?

There were no jazz radio stations. No jazz on TV (unless they had an obit to announce on ET). Nothing marketable (t-shirts, hats, jean jacket patches--lol). And no music education to speak of anywhere. It's hard to sell something when either a)nobody knows it exists or b)they have the standard misconception that jazz is "difficult music" for an elite audience of snobby, politically questionable, pot-smoking poetry readers.

If someone mentioned jazz to me at the time, my first thoughts were usually of something so old that it was irrelevant...or something so experimentally noisy that it was unlistenable. Of course I find all this laughable now (with jazz CDs stacked all over the place), but in all honesty I had to move to Seattle for college before I met some actual jazz fans that started me on my journey. If I had remained in the area...who knows.

Before you can sell something, you have to educate the masses on what the product is...and why they need to buy it. But jazz musicians themselves LOVE to argue over what jazz is and isn't, there is no good single catch-phrase you could use to "sell jazz". MTV has shortened everyone's attention span to the point where I don't think people would take the time to even listen if there was a good commercial outlet for the music.

Lastly, people tend to like vocals...alot. Not a whole bunch of instrumentalists making a killing out there (outside of new age/smooth jazz). So there's another stumbling block.

Jazz would require a real "breakout artist" (ala Norah Jones) to capture attention at this point. But I don't see it happening.

[CJ Shearn]

good point Shawn. I've always thought for accessible artists like Pat Metheny that, radio stations could play his stuff because so much of it is melodically hooky, and thats what many like, right? Guess not, no vocals. People would be like, wait, there are, but their all in something I can't understand. Ron Goldstein's comment about jazz not being exciting, he has Kurt Rosenwinkel on his label, and "Heartcore" was a project that he was allowed to completely have creative control over I believe, I dunno how it sold, but he then cut "Deep Song" so its not like Verve dropped him after the uniqueness of "Heartcore", and besides, wouldn't the music fit in well with Verve's remixed projects or whatever? Goldstein's statement about Christian McBride is funny too, the man has a triple album coming, and his band is at the top of their game........ oh wait, to the guys in suits, McBride isn't relevant because he has funk, and a whole lot of other "not jazz" in his music. Well, that's artistic growth people. Could he have stayed a Ray Brown disciple and continued to be interesting, not broadening his palette? I don't think so.

[Guest]

they have the standard misconception that jazz is "difficult music" for an elite audience of snobby, politically questionable, pot-smoking poetry readers.

unfortunately there is some truth underlying this general misconception. but in today's scene many of the principal fools are not in the audience but are the musicians themselves (and of course the critics continue to be the fools they've always been). these artists detach themselves from the audience (and the world) and present the music as a non-participatory experience. like a painting in a museum. i'm talking about artists like brad mehldau.

cats like steve bernstein who put it out there " get in the picture man ! you're part of it too ! " are relatively rare.

Edited April 24, 2006 by baltostar

[bertrand]

I don't quite agree with one of the statements above.

Wayne Shorter is with Verve, and I think he is making interesting and challenging music.

Granted, they have issued only a fraction of what he is doing (still nothing from the 2004 tour with Hancock/Holland/Blade ???), but I don't know whose decision that is, Wayne's or Verve's. He has a fantastic new piece he's been doing at concerts (both in NYC in 2004 and last January in LA) called 'Prometheus Unbound' which has yet to make it to an album.

Bertrand.

Edited April 24, 2006 by bertrand

[Shawn]

Let's not leave out the club-owners either. The whole "jazz club=supper club" thing just baffles me. The general "rules" are wear something nice, eat quietly, talk in whispers with your date, applaud after solos (they don't know why, they're just doing it because everyone else is)...and the entire time you're detached from the music almost entirely.

For some artists this is appropriate...but if you're watching Lonnie Smith tear down...your ass better be outta the seat jumpin' around...or you just aren't gettin' it.

Looking at the standard jazz club out there...it's no wonder people claim the music is boring.

LET YER FUCKIN' HAIR DOWN WILL YA!!!!

[Guest]

Let's not leave out the club-owners either. The whole "jazz club=supper club" thing just baffles me. The general "rules" are wear something nice, eat quietly, talk in whispers with your date, applaud after solos (they don't know why, they're just doing it because everyone else is)...and the entire time you're detached from the music almost entirely.

unfortunately this is mostly true.

some of these places are actually almost corporate in their approach. the efficiency with which they process your evening and extract maximum dollars from you is equaled only by the effectiveness of their enforcement of the unspoken rules of jazz audience etiquete.

and most bothersome to me is that more and more often you find cold hipper-than-thou people working these places. hip doesn't necessarily equate to a decent warm person. i can go to a techno dance club if i want that kind of hip.