Verve's CEO

[Lazaro Vega]

"the predominant period of innovation in jazz was the 60s and early 70s."

The predominant period of innovation in jazz was the 1920's.

The political action you're talking about is much needed but not a commercial panacea: look at rap and hip hop, once politically charged now all about bling and booty.

The kinds of changes would be societal, not just musical. Look at the world of expression in all means -- film, painting, literature, science, music, education, politics, even clothing styles and archetecture (sp) -- in the 1920's and 1960's and look at today.

[Lazaro Vega]

The other thing is that records are firstly a document of activity, secondly a calling card. That a record label can be the arbiter of culture is only true if it disseminates something that's already taken hold on a smaller level. Unless Verve dediced to get into the game full time by opening up a modern day Theater Owner's Booking Association or chitlin circut or other chain of venues for bands on their labels to play at, develop and audience with and THEN sell records to, you know, nothing will be solved.

[Guy Berger]

only those 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.

Why?

Guy

[Guest]

only those 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.

Why?

Guy

i don't see anywhere else for jazz to go.

for the most part modern entertainment delivered to the home only succeeds if it can be segmented and delivered hyperthreaded in hyperspeed. live events need only prove that the swift virtual segments that attached the audience actually exist in reality. the purpose of attending the live event is not the event. the purpose is to validate a lifestyle element already adopted within the home or social circles

the core proposition (whether it be intellectual, emotional, spiritual, political, etc.) of jazz is to challenge the listener to experience and think along new avenues, avenues they may not have previously known about, or avenues they may have been afraid to walk alone.

the absorbing nature of jazz does not lend itself to miniature segmentation and interspersion into rapid-fire delivery of rapidly-shifting multi-content media.

for jazz to attact larger audiences it must alter course and become an accessible philosophical foundation appealing to the larger-scale underground.

i suspect there are already large numbers of those that (a) reject the new mass media as described above as meaningless to their lives and the world (b) have need/want for a musical expression of personal or societal philosophy © have need/want for solidarity in this quest only attainable via live events

i suspect their numbers will relatively grow at a rapid rate.

independent musician websites , forums like these , peer-to-peer file-sharing, email , attachment of jazz to political/societal action , and a resurgence of live events (perhaps possible only in smaller venues) with real audience participation are the enablers of a larger audience.

it is an absense of alternative paths that leads me to my conclusions on jazz. i don't see any other direction that will grow the music.

jazz' modern enemies are cloned musicianship (Berklee, etc.) , excessive complexity , obsession with the past , lack of rebel spirit , and most of all , insularity.

[JSngry]

I say that if you can get people dancing in their feet (figuratively or literally), you'd be surprised how easy it is to get them dancing in their head.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

It needs to be the right kind of dancing. No matter how gorgeous the Foxtrot might look and feel accompanied by Houston Person's band, that ain't gonna do it.

MG

[Guy Berger]

only those 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.

Why?

Guy

i don't see anywhere else for jazz to go.

for the most part modern entertainment delivered to the home only succeeds if it can be segmented and delivered hyperthreaded in hyperspeed. live events need only prove that the swift virtual segments that attached the audience actually exist in reality. the purpose of attending the live event is not the event. the purpose is to validate a lifestyle element already adopted within the home or social circle

the core proposition (whether it be intellectual, emotional, spiritual, political, etc.) of jazz is to challenge the listener to experience and think along new avenues, avenues they may not have previously known about, or avenues they may have been afraid to walk alone.

This seems arbitrary to me. I don't see jazz having any "core proposition".

Guy

[Guy Berger]

It needs to be the right kind of dancing. No matter how gorgeous the Foxtrot might look and feel accompanied by Houston Person's band, that ain't gonna do it.

MG

Besides, Nursery Cryme is better than Foxtrot.

Guy

[JSngry]

It needs to be the right kind of dancing. No matter how gorgeous the Foxtrot might look and feel accompanied by Houston Person's band, that ain't gonna do it.

MG

Well, for a certain age group it might.

[Guest]

This seems arbitrary to me. I don't see jazz having any "core proposition".

then what makes jazz different from other musics ?

Edited April 24, 2006 by baltostar

[Joe M]

Will someone explain to me why I (or anyone) should be concerned about this? I mean, who cares if Verve isn't interested in jazz anymore? Does it matter? They are entitled to run the company any way they want, and if the goal is to get a return on investment for the stockholders, jazz isn't going to be the first thing on their list, and probably shouldn't be. They aren't a charity, let them do what they want.

Why all the prestige about being on a "major label"? And then when a "major" does sign an artist, we whine and complain about how they aren't being treated right, etc. Well, that's the price you pay when you want to get signed to a "major" label! In today's era Verve and co are irrelevant for the most part. Check out what small labels like HighNote, Sunnyside, Greenleaf, and countless others are doing. That's where the music is at. And except for a few brief instances, jazz has never been a "major label" thing, and when it has been, it most often gets watered down. If anything jazz fans should be HAPPY that Verve doesn't want to play the jazz game. There's NO WAY they would have released McBride's new session (which is really good by the way).

[Guest]

you wanna go on Leno you sign with Verve

[Joe M]

you wanna go on Leno you sign with Verve

If you wanna go on Leno, and are a jazz musician, better pick a new line of work.

[Guest]

you wanna go on Leno you sign with Verve

If you wanna go on Leno, and are a jazz musician, better pick a new line of work.

seems likely that Kevin has some influence. Doc definitely did. Carson said so in an interview.

[.:.impossible]

Jazz or no jazz, the working musicians I know have a hard time finding a "listening audience" anywhere. Either its dinner music in the background, or everyone is getting wasted and the music is in the background. Either way, the pay is the same. Ain't shit.

Of course there are exceptions, but I've had multiple conversations about this with different people over the past six months.

What do some of you performing musicians feel? How has this changed over the past 35 years?

Now when it comes to buying music... the mainstream has begun to listen to personal choice tunes on their freaking cell phones. I don't care if you ARE Christian McBride, people are not playing your song on their cell phone. They are playing T.I. and Rascal Flatts. Chances are, its not even the actual song, just a ring tone. A ring tone. A ring tone.

Marketing is the problem. It has become the machine that runs the people anymore. Like the bank in The Grapes of Wrath. It has plowed right over and buried constantly developing expression like jazz and creativity, the real thing. An imitation, or a cheap replica is more than enough anymore. Who really wants a trout mask anyway? Back it up with marketing dollars and push it hard, it won't be long before they're all wearing the trout mask replica, that is until the profit margins flatten out. The replica is now yesterday's news and VH-1 is doing a series on it. "I LOVE THE REPLICA"

[Guy Berger]

This seems arbitrary to me. I don't see jazz having any "core proposition".

then what makes jazz different from other musics ?

Two z's.

Guy

[Simon Weil]

This seems arbitrary to me. I don't see jazz having any "core proposition".

then what makes jazz different from other musics ?

I like a lot of the things you're saying but, well...You're being too rigid. You have to leave a space for:

"I don't know". Look down.

Simon Weil

Edited April 25, 2006 by Simon Weil

[JSngry]

Jazz or no jazz, the working musicians I know have a hard time finding a "listening audience" anywhere. Either its dinner music in the background, or everyone is getting wasted and the music is in the background. Either way, the pay is the same. Ain't shit.

Of course there are exceptions, but I've had multiple conversations about this with different people over the past six months.

What do some of you performing musicians feel? How has this changed over the past 35 years?

This is a very broad generalization, but I feel that "society" today has lost most, if not all, of its sensitivity to music as a distinct medium that is best enjoyed with a distinct set of engagement skills. It's just become another "lifestyle accessory", and with things like access to "product" and portability at an all-time high, there's really no need for the average Joe to even be aware that he might want to be curious about something "different", or that he might actually "get something out of" what is traditionally refered to as "serious listening'. Such has always been the case to one degree or another, but I have noticed a marked increase in these tendencies among otherwise intellegent people over the last 5 years or so. How are things in your town?

Ours has become a society of total portability and having everything "on demand". The technology itself is beautiful, but if you leave a 50 lb. bag of dog food open and available to a dog, it'll try to eat it as quickly as possible instead of rationing it out. I see lots of people doing the same thing with technology, and they're being relentlessly encouraged to do so. Myself, I think that it's a diversionary tactic to keep people from sitting still in one place for too long, because when you do that, you might actually slow down, sit still, and take stock. That's breeding grounds for upsetting the apple cart right there and we can't have that now, can we.

I guess what I'm saying is that music (of all kinds) doesn't "matter" to as many people as it used to. The "functionality" of music in general is changing. Jazz, once, always, and forever being a type of music that has personal communication as/at its core, can't help but suffer as a result. The challenge is rapidly becoming not how to get people interested in listening to this music, it's becoming how to convince people that listening, really listening, to any kind of music as anything other than a soundtrack to their lifestyle might be worth their while.

I'm not optimistic about the chances for success right now, not on a scale large enough to really matter to society as a whole, but the one potential outlet for subversiveness might be in the electronica/ambient (and related) field, where you can at least create the illusion of passivity and non-confrontationality. And we all know that the key to successful subversion is the creation of a successful illusion, a "front". Thing is, I'm at an age and of a background where playing music that way is kinda counter-intuitive. So that makes me sorta useless. Oh well. At least I can watch and cheer from the sidelines, and come out of my cave whenever asked.

Things could be worse. Yeah, sure.

Edited April 25, 2006 by JSngry

[ghost of miles]

The big bands are never coming back. Know what I mean?

The best jazz today, as Joe M points out, is on the margins, and that's not an entirely bad thing. We should buy it, go see it, and do word-of-mouth via the Internet (Jsngry way ahead of us as usual). I think even people who are mostly into historical jazz may eventually veer into the modern, sheerly from having mined most of the past, if nothing else. Or maybe not. But jazz won't stay alive by emulating the past that we're so in love with (me included) and may sound very different from what we now think of as "jazz." I think there's a place, sure, for repertory--just that it shouldn't be the only place at the table (in which case you'll get slim pickings indeed).

[ghost of miles]

At least I can watch and cheer from the sidelines, and come out of my cave whenever asked.

Things could be worse. Yeah, sure.

Upwithcavemen

[Chuck Nessa]

Just to provide a little "context" for Mr. Goldstein's comments I wish to mention he was "Executive Director" at Antilles (about 25 years ago) when they recorded Ornette, Braxton and Air.

[JSngry]

Wow. Did not know that. That was a great series. Yet another sign that "free jazz" was slowly but surely expanding its profile before the big chill hit full blast.

To what extent was he involved in A&R? Was he simply working with what was given him (just doing the gig as a "career move" to get some profile with somebody) , or was he actively supportive of the music?

Again, i hear stories that today he's all about "foregone conclusions".

[.:.impossible]

At least I can watch and cheer from the sidelines, and come out of my cave whenever asked.

Things could be worse. Yeah, sure.

Upwithcavemen

It's Time.

[JSngry]

Those Geico caveman commercials are cool, if on the verge of overexposure. Some new ones would be welcome.

Anybody know who the actors are? the one who "doesn't have much of an appetite" just nails that line!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Jazz or no jazz, the working musicians I know have a hard time finding a "listening audience" anywhere. Either its dinner music in the background, or everyone is getting wasted and the music is in the background. Either way, the pay is the same. Ain't shit.

Of course there are exceptions, but I've had multiple conversations about this with different people over the past six months.

What do some of you performing musicians feel? How has this changed over the past 35 years?

This is a very broad generalization, but I feel that "society" today has lost most, if not all, of its sensitivity to music as a distinct medium that is best enjoyed with a distinct set of engagement skills. It's just become another "lifestyle accessory", and with things like access to "product" and portability at an all-time high, there's really no need for the average Joe to even be aware that he might want to be curious about something "different", or that he might actually "get something out of" what is traditionally refered to as "serious listening'. Such has always been the case to one degree or another, but I have noticed a marked increase in these tendencies among otherwise intellegent people over the last 5 years or so. How are things in your town?

Ours has become a society of total portability and having everything "on demand". The technology itself is beautiful, but if you leave a 50 lb. bag of dog food open and available to a dog, it'll try to eat it as quickly as possible instead of rationing it out. I see lots of people doing the same thing with technology, and they're being relentlessly encouraged to do so. Myself, I think that it's a diversionary tactic to keep people from sitting still in one place for too long, because when you do that, you might actually slow down, sit still, and take stock. That's breeding grounds for upsetting the apple cart right there and we can't have that now, can we.

I guess what I'm saying is that music (of all kinds) doesn't "matter" to as many people as it used to. The "functionality" of music in general is changing. Jazz, once, always, and forever being a type of music that has personal communication as/at its core, can't help but suffer as a result. The challenge is rapidly becoming not how to get people interested in listening to this music, it's becoming how to convince people that listening, really listening, to any kind of music as anything other than a soundtrack to their lifestyle might be worth their while.

I'm not optimistic about the chances for success right now, not on a scale large enough to really matter to society as a whole, but the one potential outlet for subversiveness might be in the electronica/ambient (and related) field, where you can at least create the illusion of passivity and non-confrontationality. And we all know that the key to successful subversion is the creation of a successful illusion, a "front". Thing is, I'm at an age and of a background where playing music that way is kinda counter-intuitive. So that makes me sorta useless. Oh well. At least I can watch and cheer from the sidelines, and come out of my cave whenever asked.

Things could be worse. Yeah, sure.

I think I had fewer and lower expectations in the past, so I'm not terribly worried about what people think of music now. In my experience, few young people in the late '50s/early '60s were concerned about music as an experience; most were content for music to be the soundtrack of their lives. Were it not so, there would be no nostalgia market and, as we all know, nostalgia has been a huge force in people's "appreciation" of music (and many other things) for so long no one can tell how long.

Of course, there are no comparative statistics to show what proportion of the population thinks of music as anything other than a background, and whether this changes over time, but I get a distinct impression from talking to young people when I was at work, and even younger ones now I'm retired, that things are no worse now than they were four decades ago; and probably at all times since the beginnings of the popularity of radio.

That's as far as the people are concerned. As far as the record industry is concerned, the majors seem to have learned how to control the market a lot better than they could forty, fifty, sixty years ago. That leaves much less opportunity for small firms to break through with something new. And, since everything new for the past sixty odd years has been brought about by small firms, it seems to me that that is where the problem lies.

Verve is important because it is a part of a major firm, but a semi-autonomous part, as are Blue Note and Atlantic. All are connected through their respective catalogues to a tradition of entrepreneurial experiment; and note that it's a tradition that made money - these are not catalogues of losers. If there were an opportunity for some serious attempt to change the market, it seems to me that it can really only come from them.

MG