Why Americans Don't Like Jazz

[Teasing the Korean]

...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...

There is a school of thought among many film composers that the most effective film scoring goes unnoticed. I understand the logic but don't entirely agree, because some people inherently have a greater ability or desire to pay attention to the music, regardless of the composer's intention.

[RDK]

...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...

There is a school of thought among many film composers that the most effective film scoring goes unnoticed. I understand the logic but don't entirely agree, because some people inherently have a greater ability or desire to pay attention to the music, regardless of the composer's intention.

Likely because a film score is meant to compliment whatever's on the screen - not compete with it. It's meant to evoke feeling and emotion, not to draw attention to itself per se.

[Simon Weil]

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.

But that's mood music. I mean you're putting yourself in the right mood for doing the dishes (? Something up: Fats Waller) or chatting away (Laid back: 50s Miles ballads) - or, with Jim's stuff, picking people up or whatever (Funky Organ Combo). If that is so, it's the same function as Film music - that is music used to evoke emotion. Only here it is done in a much more diffuse way - one CD evoking a general mood, rather than the very targeted (and they hope) precise way film music is used. In which case, it looks like we're saying music used functionally is, more or less, music used to evoke emotion.

If that is so, I still hold to my original position - where Jazz is at the other pole to Film Music. There isn't much immediate emotion evoked for the ordinary listener. It's OK as background, but if Mr Average tries listening to it he wonders when it's going to stop wittering away and say something.

I think Smooth Jazz is a cynical construct. It mellows a lot of people out. But the mood it creates is fake.

And, of course, people look down on background listening...

Simon Weil

Edited March 16, 2007 by Simon Weil

[Alexander]

I'd rather listen to one good pre-War hillbilly singer like Kelly Harrell...

"My name is John Johanna and I come from Buffalo town..."

Love that recording!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I think Smooth Jazz is a cynical construct. It mellows a lot of people out. But the mood it creates is fake.

I'm not sure that's right. There's been a big thread over at AAJ on the social comparison between the fifties Cool Jazz and Smooth Jazz. What seems to have emerged at the end is that the right comparison is with the very watered down material by the likes of Jackie Gleason, Les Baxter, George Shearing and Arthur Lyman, which was hugely popular in the late fifties (while the hardcore jazzmen scraped only 9 albums into the charts in that period). It has been suggested that the Gleason etc albums were aimed at, and bought by, middle class suburban whites and that most Smooth Jazz (with the exception of a few like Kenny G) is aimed at, and bought by, middle class suburban blacks.

Now you can look down your nose at these people if you like, and decry their taste. And you can describe the music (both types) as cynical constructs. But, while I agree the music industry can hype anything, I don't think it can hype a style like Smooth Jazz, which has had over 30 years of commercial success, for a whole generation, if it's a fake. This is something that some people bloody well NEED.

MG

[JSngry]

- or, with Jim's stuff, picking people up or whatever (Funky Organ Combo).

And the hardest of Hard Bop. The 50s-60s BN, Prestige, etc. stuff that "we" revere on this board as music for "listening" was in its time just as often as not hardcore inner city, social, bar music. Some people came to listen, but just as many, if not more, came for social activity and just used the music as their ambiance, for the not least of reasons that it was music that was in sync w/the rhythms and textures of their everyday life. They didn't have to sit and "think" to get it. It just hit them naturally where and how they lived.

I've seen whores & johns, pushers & junkies, lovers and theives all doing business while Red Garland & Marchel Ivery played some of the most beautiful, swinging, serious jazz I've ever heard in my life, and nobody, nobody present thought it odd that it was that way. And I'll bet something of lasting value that it was once upon a time that way in every city that had a real jazz scene.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

- or, with Jim's stuff, picking people up or whatever (Funky Organ Combo).

And the hardest of Hard Bop. The 50s-60s BN, Prestige, etc. stuff that "we" revere on this board as music for "listening" was in its time just as often as not hardcore inner city, social, bar music. Some people came to listen, but just as many, if not more, came for social activity and just used the music as their ambiance, for the not least of reasons that it was music that was in sync w/the rhythms and textures of their everyday life. They didn't have to sit and "think" to get it. It just hit them naturally where and how they lived.

I've seen whores & johns, pushers & junkies, lovers and theives all doing business while Red Garland & Marchel Ivery played some of the most beautiful, swinging, serious jazz I've ever heard in my life, and nobody, nobody present thought it odd that it was that way. And I'll bet something of lasting value that it was once upon a time that way in every city that had a real jazz scene.

Yep - and people just talking to their friends, singing "Happy birthday to you" or banging on the table for more beer.

MG

[Teasing the Korean]

But that's mood music.

Agreed. I was simply defining "functionality" in the way you mean "mood music."

...There isn't much immediate emotion evoked for the ordinary listener. It's OK as background, but if Mr Average tries listening to it he wonders when it's going to stop wittering away and say something.

This may be so, but who's to say the music isn't affecting the person subliminally in a positive way? I truly believe that there is a certain appreciation of jazz on particular levels among people who may not even realize it.

And, of course, people look down on background listening...

I've never understood this. We're all guilty of playing background music.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

We're all guilty of playing background music.

What's to be guilty about?

MG

[Teasing the Korean]

We're all guilty of playing background music.

What's to be guilty about?

MG

Nothing. I was being ironic.

[Dan Gould]

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.

Wait a minute - are you asserting that people who hate jazz are capable of perceiving the current crop of jazz musicians are mediocre and therefore any sense of superiority pisses these people off because they can tell that jazzers are 'full of it'?

That's completely ridiculous. Non-jazz fans, even self-proclaimed "haters" of the music are going to recognize that the current group of "mediocre" jazz musicians are in fact mediocre. Maybe, just maybe, they just reject that sense of smug superiority from jazzers, and don't have an f-ing clue about the music itself.

[Chuck Nessa]

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.

Wait a minute - are you asserting that people who hate jazz are capable of perceiving the current crop of jazz musicians are mediocre and therefore any sense of superiority pisses these people off because they can tell that jazzers are 'full of it'?

That's completely ridiculous. Non-jazz fans, even self-proclaimed "haters" of the music are going to recognize that the current group of "mediocre" jazz musicians are in fact mediocre. Maybe, just maybe, they just reject that sense of smug superiority from jazzers, and don't have an f-ing clue about the music itself.

I think you are "overthinking" Dan.

[Simon Weil]

But that's mood music.

Agreed. I was simply defining "functionality" in the way you mean "mood music."

Ahhhh....

...There isn't much immediate emotion evoked for the ordinary listener. It's OK as background, but if Mr Average tries listening to it he wonders when it's going to stop wittering away and say something.

This may be so, but who's to say the music isn't affecting the person subliminally in a positive way? I truly believe that there is a certain appreciation of jazz on particular levels among people who may not even realize it.

Well, I think that probably is true. But it's more to do with the general vibe thing - where I think people can probably pick up the weight and the density of the music, the texture, stuff like that - rather than the specific line that's being played. I think these sorts of things influence people in general, but the Jazz audience tends not to dwell on them, rather concentrating on those things that a sort of rational, technical - musical, hearing can bring to the fore.

This is actually why I think people can tell if the music played is mediocre or not - because the weight and texture conveys something about the depth of content - and these sorts of things are accessible, as you say subliminally, to the general audience.

And, of course, people look down on background listening...

I've never understood this. We're all guilty of playing background music.

I'm not quite sure I understand it either. I mean I actually tend to listen to Jazz records as background as a way of finding my way into the music: First hearing for the weight and texture and vibe - and then, when that has goes in, finding that I listen more specifically.

In fact, I think there is probably something artificial in the idea of background music. Like there is actually a spectrum from that to "serious" listening and it's unreal to split one off from the other.

Also I think that people in general are capable of understanding a lot (as well as being dumb).

But that sort of view is out of fashion.

Simon Weil

Edited March 17, 2007 by Simon Weil

[Simon Weil]

- or, with Jim's stuff, picking people up or whatever (Funky Organ Combo).

And the hardest of Hard Bop. The 50s-60s BN, Prestige, etc. stuff that "we" revere on this board as music for "listening" was in its time just as often as not hardcore inner city, social, bar music. Some people came to listen, but just as many, if not more, came for social activity and just used the music as their ambiance, for the not least of reasons that it was music that was in sync w/the rhythms and textures of their everyday life. They didn't have to sit and "think" to get it. It just hit them naturally where and how they lived.

Well, it was part of their lives - part of the "rhythms and textures" - part of the fabric of their life.

I've seen whores & johns, pushers & junkies, lovers and theives all doing business while Red Garland & Marchel Ivery played some of the most beautiful, swinging, serious jazz I've ever heard in my life, and nobody, nobody present thought it odd that it was that way. And I'll bet something of lasting value that it was once upon a time that way in every city that had a real jazz scene.

And those musicians were themselves, in part and at times, johns and junkies, thieves and lovers.

Yup, Culture....

Simon Weil

[Simon Weil]

I think Smooth Jazz is a cynical construct. It mellows a lot of people out. But the mood it creates is fake.

I'm not sure that's right. There's been a big thread over at AAJ on the social comparison between the fifties Cool Jazz and Smooth Jazz. What seems to have emerged at the end is that the right comparison is with the very watered down material by the likes of Jackie Gleason, Les Baxter, George Shearing and Arthur Lyman, which was hugely popular in the late fifties (while the hardcore jazzmen scraped only 9 albums into the charts in that period). It has been suggested that the Gleason etc albums were aimed at, and bought by, middle class suburban whites and that most Smooth Jazz (with the exception of a few like Kenny G) is aimed at, and bought by, middle class suburban blacks.

I think Smooth Jazz is sui generis in that it relates to people's perceptions of Jazz and draws on that to sell itself. That is I think the core of its relationship to its public is its name. This says to the general public: "This is Jazz - but smoothed out". In terms of your analysis, this would be Jazz but watered down.

I don't think it's watered down, I think it's hollowed out.

Now you can look down your nose at these people if you like, and decry their taste. And you can describe the music (both types) as cynical constructs. But, while I agree the music industry can hype anything, I don't think it can hype a style like Smooth Jazz, which has had over 30 years of commercial success, for a whole generation, if it's a fake. This is something that some people bloody well NEED.

MG

I think people need to think they are of value and what they do is of value. 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.

I think the last 30+ years, people in the West have spent hiding themselves from the fact that their societies have become hollowed out - lost their meaning and value.

And now they're starting to wake up. Some of them.

Simon Weil

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I think the last 30+ years, people in the West have spent hiding themselves from the fact that their societies have become hollowed out - lost their meaning and value.

And now they're starting to wake up. Some of them.

A very large statement. Would it stem, do you think, from Vietnam? Or is that too local a matter, when thinking about the entire West? Are you thinking, indeed, of Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, New Zealand etc etc when you make a statement like that? Or is it just America?

MG

[Simon Weil]

I think the last 30+ years, people in the West have spent hiding themselves from the fact that their societies have become hollowed out - lost their meaning and value.

And now they're starting to wake up. Some of them.

A very large statement. Would it stem, do you think, from Vietnam? Or is that too local a matter, when thinking about the entire West? Are you thinking, indeed, of Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, New Zealand etc etc when you make a statement like that? Or is it just America?

MG

If anyone's interested, my answer's here in politics.

Happened to me and MG before, that.

Simon Weil

[Teasing the Korean]

I would love to see some demographics on who actually buys lots of music, what percentage of the overall population they represent, etc. I wonder how many people in the US own 500 albums or more, and what genres they have. Conventional wisdom has us believe that it's mostly kids buying or downloading music, and I wouldn't expect most of them to be listening to jazz or classical. I've encountered many adults over the years who have no more than 25 CDs.

My point in bringing this up is I don't believe a huge number of people actively dislike jazz. I simply think that a huge chunk of the US population is not all that focused on music in general.

[Simon Weil]

I would love to see some demographics on who actually buys lots of music, what percentage of the overall population they represent, etc. I wonder how many people in the US own 500 albums or more, and what genres they have. Conventional wisdom has us believe that it's mostly kids buying or downloading music, and I wouldn't expect most of them to be listening to jazz or classical. I've encountered many adults over the years who have no more than 25 CDs.

My point in bringing this up is I don't believe a huge number of people actively dislike jazz. I simply think that a huge chunk of the US population is not all that focused on music in general.

This is the sort of question that comes up periodically. I mean how many people do listen to Jazz, how do they relate to it and why? And all the ancillary questions of its general perception in the population at large - not just in America, but throughout the world. I dare say such information exists in the files of marketing companies -- who, however, are not letting on except at a price.

What I'm wondering is if it would be possible to devise some sort of survey to find out. After all, it's an intrinsically interesting subject. And perhaps Jazz might find something in such a survey to help it out of the hole it seems to be in.

It'd be fun to do something like this.

Simon Weil

Edited March 19, 2007 by Simon Weil

[Big Beat Steve]

I still insist any such surveys, discussions, etc. are highly subjective or biased as nobody (not even in this disucssion thread here) has been able or even attempted to state what is to be considered jazz at all if we are to find out if the "general public" cares about jazz at all.

I'll bet you a nickel there are LOTs of people out there who will gladly listen to some Satchmo or Ella tunes every now and then and would not object to music like this being played in their presence at all yet would object STRONGLY to being confronted with music by Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, Peter Brötzmann or similar artists that would just be a lot of noise to them.

So what would be the bottom lime? That one moment they will accept "jazz" and the next moment they won't? How puzzling ... How would you rate this in a survey checklist?

Or take those to who "smooth jazz" is perfectly alright as "jazz" ("Why,it said so on the cover!?"") while others (including lots of regular forumists here, I suppose) wouldn't touch it with a 100-foot pole.

In short, there is no such GENERIC thing as "jazz" anymore. You need to be more specific if you want to get ahead with your surveys. And since this will fast become much too involved for general usability, any such survey, statistics become pretty meaningless.

[Teasing the Korean]

I still insist any such surveys, discussions, etc. are highly subjective or biased as nobody (not even in this disucssion thread here) has been able or even attempted to state what is to be considered jazz at all if we are to find out if the "general public" cares about jazz at all.

I'll bet you a nickel there are LOTs of people out there who will gladly listen to some Satchmo or Ella tunes every now and then and would not object to music like this being played in their presence at all yet would object STRONGLY to being confronted with music by Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, Peter Brötzmann or similar artists that would just be a lot of noise to them.

So what would be the bottom lime? That one moment they will accept "jazz" and the next moment they won't? How puzzling ... How would you rate this in a survey checklist?

Or take those to who "smooth jazz" is perfectly alright as "jazz" ("Why,it said so on the cover!?"") while others (including lots of regular forumists here, I suppose) wouldn't touch it with a 100-foot pole.

In short, there is no such GENERIC thing as "jazz" anymore. You need to be more specific if you want to get ahead with your surveys. And since this will fast become much too involved for general usability, any such survey, statistics become pretty meaningless.

I'm not claiming there would be any intrinsic value in such an exercise; I would simply like to have some magical knowledge about people's buying habits; how many CDs they have and and what they are.

It's easy for me with my twisted worldview to assume that everyone I pass on the street frequents the same haunts that I do digging for obscure vinyl. Of course, that's not the case.

[Simon Weil]

I still insist any such surveys, discussions, etc. are highly subjective or biased as nobody (not even in this disucssion thread here) has been able or even attempted to state what is to be considered jazz at all if we are to find out if the "general public" cares about jazz at all.

I'll bet you a nickel there are LOTs of people out there who will gladly listen to some Satchmo or Ella tunes every now and then and would not object to music like this being played in their presence at all yet would object STRONGLY to being confronted with music by Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, Peter Brötzmann or similar artists that would just be a lot of noise to them.

So what would be the bottom lime? That one moment they will accept "jazz" and the next moment they won't? How puzzling ... How would you rate this in a survey checklist?

Or take those to who "smooth jazz" is perfectly alright as "jazz" ("Why,it said so on the cover!?"") while others (including lots of regular forumists here, I suppose) wouldn't touch it with a 100-foot pole.

In short, there is no such GENERIC thing as "jazz" anymore. You need to be more specific if you want to get ahead with your surveys. And since this will fast become much too involved for general usability, any such survey, statistics become pretty meaningless.

I'm not claiming there would be any intrinsic value in such an exercise; I would simply like to have some magical knowledge about people's buying habits; how many CDs they have and and what they are.

It's easy for me with my twisted worldview to assume that everyone I pass on the street frequents the same haunts that I do digging for obscure vinyl. Of course, that's not the case.

I guess what you could do is devise some sort of questionaire along these lines (How many CDs do you own etc) and then post links to it in various internet forums. People would reply to it and then, when a certain number of results had come in, you could go back to these forums with the info. This way people would put the time in (to answering the questionaire), but would get something back - a general view of how people listened to music and, implicitly, their place within that.

Onto that you could graft a few Jazz-specific questions.

I think some of the "what is Jazz" questions are workable-around - as is some element of the "damn lies and statistics" thing.

But even if they're not, who cares. It'd still be fun.

Simon Weil

[Hot Ptah]

Haven't there been published surveys on the demographics of the jazz consuming audience in the U.S.? I seem to recall reading one. As I recall the demographic audience was mostly male, over 50, with high incomes and educational levels.

No information was reported on hair loss and waistline expansion, as I recall.

[Kalo]

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.

Nice observation!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Haven't there been published surveys on the demographics of the jazz consuming audience in the U.S.? I seem to recall reading one. As I recall the demographic audience was mostly male, over 50, with high incomes and educational levels.

No information was reported on hair loss and waistline expansion, as I recall.

It's pretty much like that in Britain as well. So a radio station like Jazz-FM got big money for ads. But I suspect that it was later discovered (Jazz-FM isn't playing much jazz now) that that age group, and that particular section of it that listens to jazz, is highly resistant to ads.

The only ad that's ever influenced me, in an area in which I can't make purchases, as it happens, is the ad for the Renault Clio which used Jimmy Smith's "Organ grinder swing".

MG