Why Americans Don't Like Jazz

[Randy Twizzle]

I don't think that most Americans have anything more than a surface interest in any kind of music.

Bingo!

Most Americans don't like anything challenging or different, whether its music, literature, films, art, food, beer, wine...

Land of the bland.

Hey if most Americans did like "challenging music, literature, films, art food, beer, wine...." who would be left for you to feel superior to....?

[Jim Alfredson]

What kind of jazz is it that most 'regular' folks think of, when they think of the kind of music they associate with what they think is jazz?? -- thus resulting in their claim of not liking (or specifically "hating") jazz??

I guess I'm asking this: what is the most commonly or frequently perceived notion of what "jazz" is?? - to those who have little to no idea what it really is. Kenny G?? Wynton?? Fast bebop with horns?? Trane, circa 1965?? Pops?? KoB?? Big Band??

I know, the answer depends largely upon what generation the person being asked is from, among other factors. Let's limit ourselves to people under the age of 45 (which, like it or not, is the age of people driving popular "culture" in this country (I did put that word in quotes). So that would be people born in or after 1962 -- people who turned 18 in 1980 -- people for whom there (probably) was no gateway to even hearing jazz much ever, except in unique circumstances that probably only pertain to less than 15% of the population.

What do THOSE people think jazz is??

The horribly boring shit that gets hired to play restuarant gigs for $25 a man?

[JSngry]

I'd be more concerned about all this if somebody could show me that there was a big market for lute instrumentals in the days of the troubadors, or if there was some notable "indigenous" culture where the folk music is entirely instrumental and nobody sings.

There's a reason why "most people" prefer songs with words and the like, and its got little if anything to do with the "dumbing down" of our "culture". It would appear to be somewhat of an eternal, universal human trait.

Now, if you want to argue against the evolving dumbing down of the lyrics and the increasingly narrow emotional scope of so much popular music, be my guest. But that's a whole 'nother thing.

[Alexander]

I remember when I was about 19 years old, I listened to a Charlie Parker LP that belonged to my father (now in my record collection). At the time, I was baffled. I had an idea of what jazz sounded like, and this didn't sound anything like what I imagined. I thought that jazz was smooth and romantic. The Bird I listened to sounded abstract. Too fast and complicated. I taped it to take with me to college (I thought I needed to have at least one "sophisticated" tape so I could impress chicks), but I put Elton John's "Greatest Hits" on the other side, and wound up listening to that WAY more than I listened to Bird.

Years later when I put the same Charlie Parker record on, I immediately recognized the first song (which had baffled me so) as "Now's The Time." I can't fathom what I thought back then. Why did "Now's the Time" sound so difficult to me? Why doesn't it sound difficult to me now? Obviously, the answer has to do with exposure. The more you hear, the more you are capable of hearing. Nowadays, "Ascension" doesn't sound all that difficult to me. When I first heard it, I thought it was just noise.

[JSngry]

Let me bump it up a notch here - I'll go so far as to say that it's "irregular", "abnormal", etc. to not like "songs with words". Not stupid songs with stupid words, but to just have a negative reaction to the mere notion of hearing a song with words.

There's people like that ya' know. And I don't trust 'em.

[Chuck Nessa]

Music is at best the music of youth/hormones for most Americans. After "youth" most of us gravitate to nostalgia to perpetuate an illusion of youth. Few Americans have an understanding of works beyond this pop culture. The idea of stuff to stimulate the heart and mind beyond personal experience is gone by adulthood.

[Noj]

Good thing we're not adults.

[Chuck Nessa]

I think I said that.

[DukeCity]

Let me bump it up a notch here - I'll go so far as to say that it's "irregular", "abnormal", etc. to not like "songs with words". Not stupid songs with stupid words, but to just have a negative reaction to the mere notion of hearing a song with words.

There's people like that ya' know. And I don't trust 'em.

Reminds me of a D/FW wedding band I played in. The bandleader scheduled a meeting with the father of the bride; met him in some tall office building in downtown Ft. Worth. After fielding a couple of questions about what kind of music he envisioned at his daughter's big event, the dad finally said, "Look, me and my family don't take much to music, so I'll just let you decide all that." End of meeting.

Edited March 16, 2007 by DukeCity

[chris olivarez]

Eddie Harris,on his comedy record "The Reason I'm Talking Shit" made the statement "The music that we're playing is not necessarily made for you're bumping and jawing-it's made for you to think-so if you're not into thinking I thought I'd tell you before we dropped that shit on you". Most Americans don't want to work to hard at listening to music the more accessible and catchy and the less challenging it is the more likely they'll get behind it and for the most part that leaves jazz-sol.

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

i can confirm: i just put on elton john: 'step into christmas' 45 single followed my nows the time AM radio boris rose bootleg version, and im pretty damn confused

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

Chris Olivberiez: WHAT DO YOU MEAN EDDIE HARRIS COMEDY RECORD???

WHAT IN THE HOLY HELL OF ALL THINGS HOLY ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT? YOU MEAN ATLANTIC RECORDS JAZZ SAXOPHONIST/TRUMPET RECORDING ARTIST EDDIE HARRIS? need more info asap!

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

you gotta tell us more eddie harris jokes

[Simon Weil]

FWIW, before I met my wife (who turns 40 this year), she pretty much thought jazz was all noisy, noodly horns -- so probably "Bird & Diz"-type bebop, and other 50's and 60's horn-based small-combo stuff (or stuff that sounds like that). "Noisy" and "busy" would be the most frequent words she would have used to describe what she thought most jazz was.

That's more or less how I heard Jazz when I was still a a rock fan - as noodling - and, if I want, I can still hear bop like that. The technical aspects of the music, which are often paramount, tend to play into that. If you look at Film music, where music is used functionally, its function is to convey mood. Realising emotion is like what music is for when it is reduced to this entirely functional form. That's at the opposite pole to what seems to the untrained ear the emotionless technical noodling of bop.

Jazz sees itself as an art. That is at the opposite pole to a purely functional use of music, such as the above. It may be why Jazz is so disliked, because it simply won't provide (unless you're initiated and/or trained) this emotional release. It's still there, but you have to work like hell to get to it. This makes people frustrated.

I still remember the effect hearing Tommy Flanagan's version of Friday the 13 had on me. Here was simple communication, easy to digest, in a compact evocative tune. It convinced me that bop wasn't this incomprehensible jive.

I think Jazz needs to work at this sort of communication.

Simon Weil

[Teasing the Korean]

Jazz sees itself as an art. That is at the opposite pole to a purely functional use of music, such as the above. It may be why Jazz is so disliked, because it simply won't provide (unless you're initiated and/or trained) this emotional release. It's still there, but you have to work like hell to get to it. This makes people frustrated.

I understand your point, but don't you think there are people out there who "use" jazz functionally, for better or worse?

[Simon Weil]

Jazz sees itself as an art. That is at the opposite pole to a purely functional use of music, such as the above. It may be why Jazz is so disliked, because it simply won't provide (unless you're initiated and/or trained) this emotional release. It's still there, but you have to work like hell to get to it. This makes people frustrated.

I understand your point, but don't you think there are people out there who "use" jazz functionally, for better or worse?

Unless you know what you're doing (aka how to listen), I don't think you can use Jazz functionally - just because you can't penetrate beneath the surface. So, yes, there are people who use Jazz functionally, but they'd have to be a subset of the Jazz as art crew - i.e. not the general public. I do think there's a certain sort of use, which revolves around the perception of Jazz as somehow a "higher" form of music, "cool", where a person will put on a Jazz record to prove he's a quality sort of person - either to himself or to others.

The obverse of this is the perception, in the wider community, that Jazz people somehow think of themselves as a cut above - as better than the rest. When combined with the current, mediocre, crop of Jazz musicians this creates a sense that Jazzers are just full of it.

I.E. It pisses people right off.

Simon Weil

N.B. I still think direct emotional content is a point that is ignored at Jazz's risk.

[JSngry]

Jazz sees itself as an art. That is at the opposite pole to a purely functional use of music, such as the above. It may be why Jazz is so disliked, because it simply won't provide (unless you're initiated and/or trained) this emotional release. It's still there, but you have to work like hell to get to it. This makes people frustrated.

I understand your point, but don't you think there are people out there who "use" jazz functionally, for better or worse?

Unless you know what you're doing (aka how to listen), I don't think you can use Jazz functionally - just because you can't penetrate beneath the surface. So, yes, there are people who use Jazz functionally, but they'd have to be a subset of the Jazz as art crew - i.e. not the general public.

But...

There was a time when jazz (of several types) was highly functional as "bar music", meaning that people used it functionally to hustle chicks, score substances of their choice, drink up and party, all that good stuff.

Having spent a fair amount of time as both player and customer in such environments, I'll say that it was a drag as far as "serious" listening (and sometimes playing) went, but otoh it led to there being a lot more performance outlets than currently exist.

A mixed blessing indeed.

[andybleaden]

I never fail to understand how many peoples lives are empty of music and who will only listen to music that is not too loud or as certain 'people in my er marriage of the female persuasion' refer to as background music ugh!

It such a torture as I get to the best bit of a solo or a climax of symphony to be asked to turn ot down...its only supposed to be background..

Its the whole friggin thing in my life....background, walls, air, feelin...not some tint

rant over

[Teasing the Korean]

As someone who has worked professionally as a jazz musician with a room full of jazz LPs and CDs, I would be lying if I said I never used jazz functionally - ie as background music while doing the dishes, as background music if friends were over for a drink. Of course, only certain types of jazz work in this context. And I hate smooth jazz, if that's what you're thinking.

I simply don't have the luxury of devoting lots of time to serious, extended and focused listening that I did when I was younger. That's adulthood, I guess...

[andybleaden]

Sure enough but it can never be only that for me at least

[AllenLowe]

this is a complicated subject, and I am posting from work, so apologies if I am missing some points already made. However I will say:

1) the "words" thing is nothing new; ask any jazz musician about gig experiences over the years; even so-called jazz audiences prefer to hear singers, because songs with words are easier to listen/relate to. Now, if the singer is Billie Holiday, that is not a bad thing; if it's ____ (fill in the name of just about every singer I've ever worked with) - well, that's another thing - or if it's, say Carmen Lundy and the band ends up wanting to murder her at the end of the night - (or as Al Haig said: "I hate working with singers. They all want to be actresses." But that's for another thread - )

2) What Jim says. Songs are really IT when it comes to American music, from the vernacular to pop; personally I'd rather listen to one good pre-War hillbilly singer like Kelly Harrell than 10 typical jazz/pop/blues singers (some exceptions: Holiday, O'Day, Lil Green, Rosetta Tharpe, Rushing, Sinatra). In the big picture, I bow to what Henry Pleasants wrote about in his book on American singers, that the whole character of American music is derived fron vocalisms, and comes from the very distinct American vocal style (which relates to speaking style), and which effects everything from rock to minstrelsy to blues to pop to country to ragtime to rap -

Edited March 16, 2007 by AllenLowe

[Teasing the Korean]

It's ironic that listeners (assuming they listen) are so vocals/word oriented, considering the *generally* low standards of pop lyrics since the days of people like Cole Porter. Aside from the better rap lyrics, that is.

[BruceH]

I don't think that most Americans have anything more than a surface interest in any kind of music.

Bingo!

Most Americans don't like anything challenging or different, whether its music, literature, films, art, food, beer, wine...

Land of the bland.

Oh, c'mon, you're just being...realistic.

[BruceH]

There's a reason why "most people" prefer songs with words and the like, and its got little if anything to do with the "dumbing down" of our "culture". It would appear to be somewhat of an eternal, universal human trait.

But of course.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

OK, that was a very interesting article.

It explained what to me has been a mystery since the fifties; how at a concert of a vocalist - whatever their style - the audience never applauded one of their big hits until they'd sung the first line - even though I knew, and assumed they knew, perfectly well from the intro what the song was going to be. Clearly they didn't.

Similarly, my wife is NEVER aware of the background music to a film. If after watching one, I comment on the music, she denies that there was any.

I forget who mentioned it, but whoever said that a personal preference for instrumental music can make it easier to listen to vocal music in a foreign language is also dead right.

Allen's comments about the long history of audience preference for vocals is right on the money. It's almost certainly the case that people sang before there were instruments. Music is NOT strictly an abstract art. It is FOR things; politics, hustlin', religion (insofar as that isn't politics), dancing, sex, courting and so on.

MG