Why Americans Don't Like Jazz

[Lazaro Vega]

Simon wrote: "I think that Smooth Jazz plays on this in a cynical way, by drawing on the cultural capital of Jazz to assert, in its name, that this music itself is something of value. If people just said it was instrumental pop - i.e. something without necessary pretentions to such value - I wouldn't have a problem."

Having spoken to both Bob James and Ramsey Lewis in the last couple of years the second sentance above needs to begin with "if radio people," because "smooth jazz" is invention of commercial radio, not musicians.

Aesthetically some of the "problems" with "smooth jazz" are similar to faults one might find with straight ahead or avant garde "repertory" instincts. Ramsey Lewis was frustrated that younger musicians will take a little piece of his career and try to build their commercial universe around it without understanding what led Ramsey to make the choices he made that led to the music he recorded. That the evolutionary creative process both he and James feel they've lived is misunderstood by many younger musicians looking to cash in on the "smooth jazz" formula. Essentially "smooth jazz" is three or four generations removed from electric Miles where only the commercial impulse is left to inspire, not the music. Does that make sense?

Music education is the key to turning people on again. And more bands. We need more bands. In pop, in jazz, in wherever. Regular working bands.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Simon wrote: "I think that Smooth Jazz plays on this in a cynical way, by drawing on the cultural capital of Jazz to assert, in its name, that this music itself is something of value. If people just said it was instrumental pop - i.e. something without necessary pretentions to such value - I wouldn't have a problem."

Having spoken to both Bob James and Ramsey Lewis in the last couple of years the second sentance above needs to begin with "if radio people," because "smooth jazz" is invention of commercial radio, not musicians.

Aesthetically some of the "problems" with "smooth jazz" are similar to faults one might find with straight ahead or avant garde "repertory" instincts. Ramsey Lewis was frustrated that younger musicians will take a little piece of his career and try to build their commercial universe around it without understanding what led Ramsey to make the choices he made that led to the music he recorded. That the evolutionary creative process both he and James feel they've lived is misunderstood by many younger musicians looking to cash in on the "smooth jazz" formula. Essentially "smooth jazz" is three or four generations removed from electric Miles where only the commercial impulse is left to inspire, not the music. Does that make sense?

Music education is the key to turning people on again. And more bands. We need more bands. In pop, in jazz, in wherever. Regular working bands.

That's the best critique of Smooth Jazz I've seen yet. Thanks for that thinking Lazaro.

MG

[Simon Weil]

Simon wrote: "I think that Smooth Jazz plays on this in a cynical way, by drawing on the cultural capital of Jazz to assert, in its name, that this music itself is something of value. If people just said it was instrumental pop - i.e. something without necessary pretentions to such value - I wouldn't have a problem."

Having spoken to both Bob James and Ramsey Lewis in the last couple of years the second sentance above needs to begin with "if radio people," because "smooth jazz" is invention of commercial radio, not musicians.

Right, I had the impression it was "the media" rather than the musicians who'd started it - like some bright spark came up with the label. But people like Kenny G now seem to be labelling their music as some variant on Jazz (He didn't originally) - so I think you've got to hold them up as responsible also. Mind you, if the record companies didn't see money in it, you can be damn sure no-one (much) would call this music "Smooth Jazz". I mean they can just withdraw supplies.

Yup, record companies the friends of Jazz.

Aesthetically some of the "problems" with "smooth jazz" are similar to faults one might find with straight ahead or avant garde "repertory" instincts. Ramsey Lewis was frustrated that younger musicians will take a little piece of his career and try to build their commercial universe around it without understanding what led Ramsey to make the choices he made that led to the music he recorded. That the evolutionary creative process both he and James feel they've lived is misunderstood by many younger musicians looking to cash in on the "smooth jazz" formula. Essentially "smooth jazz" is three or four generations removed from electric Miles where only the commercial impulse is left to inspire, not the music. Does that make sense?

It does make sense. My initial image of a hollowed-out society came from a town in the West of England. I used to go round on my bike, visiting various places in the country - and there was this one place, quite a historic place, which essentially had the heart knocked out of it. It had been run-down and the local authority had "rationalised" the centre - which had previously been a warren of little streets. They'd replaced it with an entirely new development full of boutiques and entirely commercial. In the process, they'd rendered it entirely anonymous. This is what happens when "only the commercial impulse is left". So I entirely agree.

For what it's worth, I quite like the Ramsey Lewis I've heard.

Simon Weil

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Stand back! Nerd approaching!

I thought the original article here was very interesting, particularly what it said about the thirties swing bands. So I decided to look at the data to see if it bore out the article. I just limited myself to big bands of the thirties and forties that had #1 hit records, and looked at whether those records were vocal or instrumental.

What I found surprised me. Something happened in the mid twenties. I wonder if someone like Allen Lowe knows what it was.

This is what I found.

THIRTIES/FORTIES BIG BAND #1 HITS

Charlie Barnet 1 at #1, vocal

Count Basie 1 at #1, vocal

Les Brown 3 at #1, 1 instrumental (I’ve got my love to keep me warm)

Cab Calloway 1 at #1, vocal

Larry Clinton 4 at #1, all vocal

Bob Crosby 3 at #1, all vocal

Dorsey Brothers 2 at #1, both vocal

Jimmy Dorsey 12 at #1, all vocal

Tommy Dorsey 17 at #1, 1 instrumental (Satan takes a holiday)

Duke Ellington 3 at #1, 2 instrumental (Cocktails for two, I let a song go out of my heart)

Benny Goodman 16 at #1, 3 instrumental (Moonglow, Don’t be that way, Jersey bounce)

Glen Gray & Casa Loma Orchestra 5 at #1, 1 instrumental (Sunrise serenade)

Woody Herman 1 at #1, vocal

Harry James 9 at #1, 1 instrumental (Sleepy lagoon)

Andy Kirk 2 at #1, both vocal

Jimmie Lunceford 1 at #1, vocal

Glenn Miller 23 at #1, 4 instrumental (In the mood, Tuxedo Junction, Song of the Volga Boatmen, A string of pearls)

Ray Noble 7 at #1, all vocal

Red Norvo 2 at #1, both vocal

Artie Shaw 4 at #1, 2 instrumental (Begin the beguine, Frenesi)

Chick Webb 1 at #1, vocal

Teddy Wilson 2 at #1, 1 instrumental (You can’t top me from dreaming)

120 #1 hits from these bands including only 16 instrumentals. Including Paul Whiteman’s 4 #1 hits from the thirties/forties brings the total to 124.

So these data do support the statement in the article.

But while I was looking through, I couldn’t help noticing the bands of the twenties. And what I saw seemed equally worthwhile looking at in detail. This time, I just looked at whether these bands’ hits (any hit, not a #1) were instrumental or vocal and when. Because there seemed to be a big turnaround.

And this is what I got from the twenties.

TWENTIES AND THIRTIES BAND HITS

Benson Orchestra of Chicago 17 hits from Aug 1921 – Jan 1925 all instrumental. 1 hit in Oct 1925 vocal.

Ben Bernie 10 hits from Apr 1923 – Nov 1925 all instrumental. 34 hits from Feb 1926 – Sep 1936 all vocal.

Carl Fenton 21 hits from Sep 1920 – Jun 1925 1 vocal. 5 hits from Jul 1925 – Aug 1927 all vocal.

Fletcher Henderson 9 hits from Nov 1923 – Dec 1928 all instrumental. 11 hits from Dec 1931 – May 1937 4 vocal

Isham Jones 42 hits from Sep 1920 – Sep 1926 all instrumental. 31 hits from Dec 1926 – Feb 1938 3 instrumentals (inc 1 at #1 (Stardust))

Roger Wolfe Kahn 10 hits from Feb 1926 – Sep 1927 4 vocal. 8 hits from Feb 1928 – Nov 1932 1 instrumental

Sam Lanin 5 hits from Sep 1923 – Aug 1926 all instrumental. 5 hits from Mar 1927 – May 1930 all vocal.

Ted Lewis 43 hits from Jan 1920 – Jan 1927, 5 vocal. 59 hits from Apr 1927 – Nov 1938 6 instrumental

Vincent Lopez 19 hits from Jul 1922 – Jun 1926, 2 vocal. 10 hits from Feb 1927 – Jul 1939, 1 instrumental.

Ray Miller 12 hits from Apr 1922 – Dec 1925, 1 vocal. 4 hits from Apr 1929 – May 1930, all vocal.

Leo Reisman 4 hits from Apr 1921 – Sep 1926, all instrumental. 75 hits from Aug 1927 – Jun 1941, 1 instrumental.

Ben Selvin 41 hits from Oct 1919 – Jun 1926 7 vocal. 66 hits from Jul 1926 – Aug 1934, all vocal.

Nat Shilkret & the Victor orchestra 15 hits from Nov 1924 – Jun 1927 10 vocal, 5 instrumental. 39 hits from July 1927 – Mar 1932, all vocal.

Paul Specht 11 hits from Jan 1923 – Feb 1927, all instrumental. 2 hits Dec 1929 & Feb 1930 both vocal.

Frankie Trumbauer 3 hits from Jun – Sep 1927, all instrumental. 6 hits from Dec 1927 – May 1932, all vocal.

Fred Waring’s Pennsylvanians 7 hits from Dec 1923 – Jun 1925, 2 vocal. 45 hits from July 1925 – Apr 1944, 2 instrumentals.

Ted Weems 6 hits from Jul 1922 – Sep 1926, all instrumental. 30 hits from Nov 1927 –Sep 1948, all vocal.

Paul Whiteman 88 hits from Oct 1920 – May 1926 5 vocal. 131 hits from Sep 1925 – Nov 1943 15 instrumental. (14 at #1, all vocal)

Only Fletcher Henderson had more instrumental hits than vocals after 1928; and he sticks out like a sore thumb in this company anyway.

This lot doesn’t summarise quite so handily, because the bands changed over at different dates. But, accepting different dates for the changeover, it’s possible to say that, before the changeover, there were 372 hits by these bands, of which 37 were vocal; 10 per cent. After the change, there were 562 hits, of which 36 were instrumental; 6.4 per cent.

Just looking at the #1 hits of these bands gives a similar picture that’s comparable with that of the later bands. Before their changes of direction these bands had 41 #1 hits, of which 5 were vocal. And afterwards, there were 34 #1 hits, of which 1 was an instrumental.

Something seems to have changed public taste between late 1925 and early 1927. I don’t know what. But it seems to indicate that the idea that the public can’t hear instrumental music isn’t quite right.

Calling Allen Lowe!

MG

[AllenLowe]

I honestly don't know, and those numbers are interesting. However - I wonder what your source was because I don't think such stats were kept in the 1920s; so, whoever cited those "hits" may be guessing. Is it that guy who writes all the books on chart numbers (can think of the name - Whitworth maybe)? Because if it is, he has been very strongly challenged on his findings.

[AllenLowe]

Joel Whitburn - just looked it up -

[JSngry]

I'd like to speculate that the "turnaraound" was at least partially a result of publishing companies recognizing the phonograph record as an ideal means for dissemenation of their goods & record companies gladly embracing the "newfound" source of fresh material as a means of providing an ongoing supply of new product.

Perfectly linear paradigm, perfectly in-synch with the times.

[Lazaro Vega]

Recently spoke to the author of that Tommy Dorsey biography, Livin' in a Great Big Way, and he notes that the Dorseys had upwards of 250 hit records between them through-out their careers. Not all #1's, but in the top lists of radio play and sales. Not all were vocals, but many were, and that was the most commercial of all the big bands.

The rise of singers popularity after WWII is a well documented trend which was shaped as much by economics and changing tastes, the eventual advent of television and the closing down of the theater circuits and ballrooms, as it was by the choices jazz musicians made.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I honestly don't know, and those numbers are interesting. However - I wonder what your source was because I don't think such stats were kept in the 1920s; so, whoever cited those "hits" may be guessing. Is it that guy who writes all the books on chart numbers (can think of the name - Whitworth maybe)? Because if it is, he has been very strongly challenged on his findings.

Yes, it's Joel Whitburn. The data are by no means perfect. In particular, it's evident that sales to African Americans weren't taken into account in anything that was being published in those days (not terribly surprising).

But I've always assumed that, despite the enormous difficulties of producing such information, what Whitburn did was the best available and basically that we have to take it, warts and all. If the challenges you've referred to have resulted in better data being published, I'd be most grateful to know where.

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Recently spoke to the author of that Tommy Dorsey biography, Livin' in a Great Big Way, and he notes that the Dorseys had upwards of 250 hit records between them through-out their careers. Not all #1's, but in the top lists of radio play and sales. Not all were vocals, but many were, and that was the most commercial of all the big bands.

The rise of singers popularity after WWII is a well documented trend which was shaped as much by economics and changing tastes, the eventual advent of television and the closing down of the theater circuits and ballrooms, as it was by the choices jazz musicians made.

I think singers have always been popular. Whitburn aggregates somehow the hits to establish a top ten sellers for each decade. in the 1900-1909 period, the top 10 sellers were all vocalists, or vocal groups. In the next decade, one band - Prince's Orchestra - was in the top 10. In the twenties, there were still Jolson, Gene Austin, Ruth Etting and Marion Harris in the top 10. And while in the thirties bands predominated, Crosby was #1, Waller and Valee were both in the top 10, and most of the bands' most popular recordings were vocals. That's true of the forties, too, but with Sinatra, Como, Shore and the Andrews sisters coming in. And of course, by the fifties, the top ten were all singers once more. Taking the long view, you can look at the "Jazz Age" (and to a lesser extent, the "Swing Era") as minor blips along the road.

MG

[AllenLowe]

in all honesty, the Whitburn data on those pre-chart "hits" has been demolished by two wrtiers who really know this area: Tim Brooks and Will Friedwald. Unfortunately I don't have the artiocles they wrote (may be buried in a file somewhere) but Whitburn's citations are completley fictitious and I would not even trust his re-evaluations, unfortunately, until he can demonstrate that his methodolgy makes any sense-

Edited March 22, 2007 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

"I think singers have always been popular. Whitburn aggregates somehow the hits to establish a top ten sellers for each decade. in the 1900-1909 period, the top 10 sellers were all vocalists, or vocal groups. In the next decade, one band - Prince's Orchestra - was in the top 10. In the twenties, there were still Jolson, Gene Austin, Ruth Etting and Marion Harris in the top 10."

Not to belabor this, but you really cannot say this with even the slightest degree of certainty - Whitburn has no numbers and no good stats to back this up. We are really flying blind in this era -

Edited March 22, 2007 by AllenLowe

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

in all honesty, the Whitburn data on those pre-chart "hits" has been demolished by two wrtiers who really know this area: Tim Brooks and Will Friedwald. Unfortunately I don't have the artiocles they wrote (may be buried in a file somewhere) but Whitburn's citations are completley fictitious and I would not even trust his re-evaluations, unfortunately, until he can demonstrate that his methodolgy makes any sense-

Thanks Allen. I'm interested in this article. Would I be able to get anywhere googling those guys?

MG

[AllenLowe]

I did an internet search but could not come up with it. The Brooks article was in an old ARSC jorunal. The Friedwald I may have in a file somewhere, and will check this weekend -