Jazz Standards - says who?

[Jim R]

The argument that jazz versions of Broadway tunes are different from the way they're performed outside jazz may be valid for those types of song. But it certainly isn't when considering songs like "Please send me someone to love", "I got a woman", "What's going on", "Drown in my own tears" or "High heel sneakers".

What??? I don't follow you at all. Are all jazz versions of those tunes vocal interpretations? Do they all use the original chord changes? No. As far as I remember, Frank Strozier didn't try to sing like Marvin Gaye when he recorded "What's Goin' On".

But what's different about these songs from material by jazz musicians such as "After hours", "Please Mr Johnson", "Soul serenade", "Chitlins con carne" and "Way back home"?

Uh... they were written and performed by non-jazz musicians?

R&B as a source for jazz improvisation is rather overlooked - a prejudice I think. The same can be said for Gospel songs.

It all smacks of trying to define jazz in a certain way in order to exclude the bits that are regarded as "lesser" in some way. Bollocks to that.

MG

I don't know about a prejudice... I just know you live in your own little obsessed world. Seriously, though, it might be interesting to study your complaint... I suspect you're over-reacting a bit, but I'm too tired to do the research right now.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

The argument that jazz versions of Broadway tunes are different from the way they're performed outside jazz may be valid for those types of song. But it certainly isn't when considering songs like "Please send me someone to love", "I got a woman", "What's going on", "Drown in my own tears" or "High heel sneakers".

What??? I don't follow you at all. Are all jazz versions of those tunes vocal interpretations? Do they all use the original chord changes? No. As far as I remember, Frank Strozier didn't try to sing like Marvin Gaye when he recorded "What's Goin' On".

I don't know Strozier's version of "What's going on". All the versions I've got sound to me like they use the original chord changes and the same rhythms. Some are vocals. That's also true of "Please send me someone to love". I don't have jazz vocal versions of the others I listed, which is not to say that they don't exist.

But what's different about these songs from material by jazz musicians such as "After hours", "Please Mr Johnson", "Soul serenade", "Chitlins con carne" and "Way back home"?

Uh... they were written and performed by non-jazz musicians?

I meant, apart from that.

R&B as a source for jazz improvisation is rather overlooked - a prejudice I think. The same can be said for Gospel songs.

It all smacks of trying to define jazz in a certain way in order to exclude the bits that are regarded as "lesser" in some way. Bollocks to that.

MG

I don't know about a prejudice... I just know you live in your own little obsessed world. Seriously, though, it might be interesting to study your complaint... I suspect you're over-reacting a bit, but I'm too tired to do the research right now.

I may well be over-reacting. But it seems to me that R&B, which developed during the war out of Swing, is in a different category to other kinds of music that don't have the same roots, as far as this issue is concerned. Of course, you could extend that comparison to a lot of Broadway type songs that were jazz influenced, but I think the points you and Mike made about those sorts of tunes are reasonable.

The point about few jazz standards by jazz musicians making it into the mainstream also raises an interesting issue. If tunes like "Soul serenade", "Chitlins con carne", "Moanin'", "Work song" and "Sack o' woe", to mention a few off the top of my head, are well performed by R&B or Blues bands/singers, does that count as moving into the mainstream? ie within these terms, is the mainstream simply "not-jazz"?

MG

Edited May 29, 2007 by The Magnificent Goldberg

[paul secor]

http://www.jazzstandards.com defines a jazz standard as "a composition that is held in continuing esteem and is commonly used as the basis of jazz arrangements and improvisations"

Sounds innocent enough.

But to get a little polemical, they say that only a handful of tunes became standard since the 70s, and none since 1981. Can that really be fair? The only ones that they seem to accept and that I recognise are Chameleon and Superstition. But what about Red Clay, Butterfly, Mister Magic, Cissy Strut, - any other offerings out there? Or any one want to suggest a candidate for "Best jazz standard that never was?"

I'm guessing that their argument, while somewhat hyperbolic in nature, is pretty much right.

This has a lot to do with "developments" in straight ahead post-bop music in the Wynton and post-Wynton era.

Guy

Maybe but more to do with developments in the MINDs than in the actual MUSIC itself. Throughout the 80s and 90s contemporary jazz musicians never stopped turning to material by Prince, Radiohead or Nirvana for inspiration, seemingly in spite of Marsalis. It's just that this was no longer perceived as proper jazz. No one had any problem with Coltrane turning My Favourite Things into a jazz standard even though it came from a a dodgy Rogers and Hammerstein musical sang by famed jazz heavy weight Julie Andrews. So why does the establishment have a problem with Nirvana? At least they played their own instruments! I think that the only real difference is that the people who confer "jazz standard' status on music, stopped listening to contemporary music in 1980, the year of the "last jazz standard'. Meanwhile, the label non-obessed world kept listening, borrowing and copying from whatever source around them, just like Coltrane did decades earlier. Perhaps more jazz musicians would've played stuff like Karma Police, Kiss or Come as you are, had the establishment been as ready to give them "standard" status as My favourite things in 1961

Wow, I can't wait to get a four-disc box of jazz versions of Kiss songs.

that's "Kiss" the prince hit , not the glam rockers!!!!!!!!!!! . I'm all for openess in music but I draw the line at men in make up.

So I take it you don't listen to the Art Ensemble?

[Jim R]

The argument that jazz versions of Broadway tunes are different from the way they're performed outside jazz may be valid for those types of song. But it certainly isn't when considering songs like "Please send me someone to love", "I got a woman", "What's going on", "Drown in my own tears" or "High heel sneakers".

What??? I don't follow you at all. Are all jazz versions of those tunes vocal interpretations? Do they all use the original chord changes? No. As far as I remember, Frank Strozier didn't try to sing like Marvin Gaye when he recorded "What's Goin' On".

I don't know Strozier's version of "What's going on". All the versions I've got sound to me like they use the original chord changes and the same rhythms. Some are vocals. That's also true of "Please send me someone to love". I don't have jazz vocal versions of the others I listed, which is not to say that they don't exist.

Oh, come now, MG. You can't be so centered on soul jazz that you don't realize that all kinds of jazz artists will do all kinds of things with R&B tunes in addition to every other kind of tune. I'm not questioning your taste, but... doesn't it seem obvious that everything is "fair game" in terms of experimentation in jazz? I don't even have a list prepared to counter your apparent position, but it just seems like such a given. Even if we take into account the improvisation that occurs in R&B, a jazz artist isn't going to copy the solos note for note. Obviously, there are going to be many instrumental interpretations of tunes that originally had vocals. Am I not grasping your point?

But what's different about these songs from material by jazz musicians such as "After hours", "Please Mr Johnson", "Soul serenade", "Chitlins con carne" and "Way back home"?

Uh... they were written and performed by non-jazz musicians?

I meant, apart from that.

Well, that was the general point. Differentiating between standard tunes created within the jazz realm ("jazz standards") and standard tunes that began life in another genre. Of course, the distinctions will not always be 100% easy and clear.

R&B as a source for jazz improvisation is rather overlooked - a prejudice I think. The same can be said for Gospel songs.

It all smacks of trying to define jazz in a certain way in order to exclude the bits that are regarded as "lesser" in some way. Bollocks to that.

MG

I don't know about a prejudice... I just know you live in your own little obsessed world. Seriously, though, it might be interesting to study your complaint... I suspect you're over-reacting a bit, but I'm too tired to do the research right now.

I may well be over-reacting. But it seems to me that R&B, which developed during the war out of Swing, is in a different category to other kinds of music that don't have the same roots, as far as this issue is concerned. Of course, you could extend that comparison to a lot of Broadway type songs that were jazz influenced, but I think the points you and Mike made about those sorts of tunes are reasonable.

Yes, I think I understand your point there. That's part of the reason I say that the distinctions will not always be 100% clear.

The point about few jazz standards by jazz musicians making it into the mainstream also raises an interesting issue. If tunes like "Soul serenade", "Chitlins con carne", "Moanin'", "Work song" and "Sack o' woe", to mention a few off the top of my head, are well performed by R&B or Blues bands/singers, does that count as moving into the mainstream? ie within these terms, is the mainstream simply "not-jazz"?

Good question. That was more Mike's point than mine, but I don't think of the world of "Blues" as "mainstream" in any way. In terms of "R&B", I feel the same way, except that the way the term is used today (recordings that no longer have any connection to the blues), it refers to a more mainstream music.

[K1969]

http://www.jazzstandards.com defines a jazz standard as "a composition that is held in continuing esteem and is commonly used as the basis of jazz arrangements and improvisations"

Sounds innocent enough.

But to get a little polemical, they say that only a handful of tunes became standard since the 70s, and none since 1981. Can that really be fair? The only ones that they seem to accept and that I recognise are Chameleon and Superstition. But what about Red Clay, Butterfly, Mister Magic, Cissy Strut, - any other offerings out there? Or any one want to suggest a candidate for "Best jazz standard that never was?"

I'm guessing that their argument, while somewhat hyperbolic in nature, is pretty much right.

This has a lot to do with "developments" in straight ahead post-bop music in the Wynton and post-Wynton era.

Guy

Maybe but more to do with developments in the MINDs than in the actual MUSIC itself. Throughout the 80s and 90s contemporary jazz musicians never stopped turning to material by Prince, Radiohead or Nirvana for inspiration, seemingly in spite of Marsalis. It's just that this was no longer perceived as proper jazz. No one had any problem with Coltrane turning My Favourite Things into a jazz standard even though it came from a a dodgy Rogers and Hammerstein musical sang by famed jazz heavy weight Julie Andrews. So why does the establishment have a problem with Nirvana? At least they played their own instruments! I think that the only real difference is that the people who confer "jazz standard' status on music, stopped listening to contemporary music in 1980, the year of the "last jazz standard'. Meanwhile, the label non-obessed world kept listening, borrowing and copying from whatever source around them, just like Coltrane did decades earlier. Perhaps more jazz musicians would've played stuff like Karma Police, Kiss or Come as you are, had the establishment been as ready to give them "standard" status as My favourite things in 1961

Wow, I can't wait to get a four-disc box of jazz versions of Kiss songs.

that's "Kiss" the prince hit , not the glam rockers!!!!!!!!!!! . I'm all for openess in music but I draw the line at men in make up.

So I take it you don't listen to the Art Ensemble?

Yes but only when I'm alone in the house....

[paul secor]

http://www.jazzstandards.com defines a jazz standard as "a composition that is held in continuing esteem and is commonly used as the basis of jazz arrangements and improvisations"

Sounds innocent enough.

But to get a little polemical, they say that only a handful of tunes became standard since the 70s, and none since 1981. Can that really be fair? The only ones that they seem to accept and that I recognise are Chameleon and Superstition. But what about Red Clay, Butterfly, Mister Magic, Cissy Strut, - any other offerings out there? Or any one want to suggest a candidate for "Best jazz standard that never was?"

I'm guessing that their argument, while somewhat hyperbolic in nature, is pretty much right.

This has a lot to do with "developments" in straight ahead post-bop music in the Wynton and post-Wynton era.

Guy

Maybe but more to do with developments in the MINDs than in the actual MUSIC itself. Throughout the 80s and 90s contemporary jazz musicians never stopped turning to material by Prince, Radiohead or Nirvana for inspiration, seemingly in spite of Marsalis. It's just that this was no longer perceived as proper jazz. No one had any problem with Coltrane turning My Favourite Things into a jazz standard even though it came from a a dodgy Rogers and Hammerstein musical sang by famed jazz heavy weight Julie Andrews. So why does the establishment have a problem with Nirvana? At least they played their own instruments! I think that the only real difference is that the people who confer "jazz standard' status on music, stopped listening to contemporary music in 1980, the year of the "last jazz standard'. Meanwhile, the label non-obessed world kept listening, borrowing and copying from whatever source around them, just like Coltrane did decades earlier. Perhaps more jazz musicians would've played stuff like Karma Police, Kiss or Come as you are, had the establishment been as ready to give them "standard" status as My favourite things in 1961

Wow, I can't wait to get a four-disc box of jazz versions of Kiss songs.

that's "Kiss" the prince hit , not the glam rockers!!!!!!!!!!! . I'm all for openess in music but I draw the line at men in make up.

So I take it you don't listen to the Art Ensemble?

Yes but only when I'm alone in the house....

Hey - you can just listen to Roscoe and Lester. Tune the make up cats out.

[K1969]

The argument that jazz versions of Broadway tunes are different from the way they're performed outside jazz may be valid for those types of song. But it certainly isn't when considering songs like "Please send me someone to love", "I got a woman", "What's going on", "Drown in my own tears" or "High heel sneakers".

What??? I don't follow you at all. Are all jazz versions of those tunes vocal interpretations? Do they all use the original chord changes? No. As far as I remember, Frank Strozier didn't try to sing like Marvin Gaye when he recorded "What's Goin' On".

I don't know Strozier's version of "What's going on". All the versions I've got sound to me like they use the original chord changes and the same rhythms. Some are vocals. That's also true of "Please send me someone to love". I don't have jazz vocal versions of the others I listed, which is not to say that they don't exist.

But what's different about these songs from material by jazz musicians such as "After hours", "Please Mr Johnson", "Soul serenade", "Chitlins con carne" and "Way back home"?

Uh... they were written and performed by non-jazz musicians?

I meant, apart from that.

R&B as a source for jazz improvisation is rather overlooked - a prejudice I think. The same can be said for Gospel songs.

It all smacks of trying to define jazz in a certain way in order to exclude the bits that are regarded as "lesser" in some way. Bollocks to that.

MG

I don't know about a prejudice... I just know you live in your own little obsessed world. Seriously, though, it might be interesting to study your complaint... I suspect you're over-reacting a bit, but I'm too tired to do the research right now.

I may well be over-reacting. But it seems to me that R&B, which developed during the war out of Swing, is in a different category to other kinds of music that don't have the same roots, as far as this issue is concerned. Of course, you could extend that comparison to a lot of Broadway type songs that were jazz influenced, but I think the points you and Mike made about those sorts of tunes are reasonable.

The point about few jazz standards by jazz musicians making it into the mainstream also raises an interesting issue. If tunes like "Soul serenade", "Chitlins con carne", "Moanin'", "Work song" and "Sack o' woe", to mention a few off the top of my head, are well performed by R&B or Blues bands/singers, does that count as moving into the mainstream? ie within these terms, is the mainstream simply "not-jazz"?

MG

I agree with MG. I'd go further. Jazz was the dominant musical force both commercially and artistically up until the 1960s, before rock and RnB "took over". Until then it was acceptable for jazz to appropriate tunes from other spheres be it film, musicals, folk etc. Jazz made it "better music". Jazz was self confident and saw no limits. Non jazz musicians aspired to make it big time in Jazz.

Then rock came along like a tsunami and swept away jazz's self confidence.

In a televised interview from 10 years back, Abbey Lincoln made no effort to disguise the sheer bitterness she felt, even to this day, towards the Beatles and the era of rock in general. Jazz sales declined in inverse proportion to rock's. Jazz slowly became a cultural "artefact" rather than the music folks got down and danced to. I mean there really was almost a hatred on Lincoln's face when she talked about the effect of rock on the Jazz scene.

Now if, Lincoln is anything to go by, (maybe she's just a wild one?), no wonder most attempts to integrate rock and RnB into jazz were met with such scorn by the jazz community. (today it's not scorn but simply indifference/ignorance) The musicals never threatened Jazz's hegemony, nor did films, arabic (Yusef Lateef) or gypsy music (Django). But rock stole Jazz's crown. Covering Hendrix was like sleeping with the devil. Rather appropriating other musical forms, jazz became protectionist. Isn''t there a case to be made for the snobbery as a kind of inverted jealousy, or fear even????

So there's been no new jazz standard since 1980 and only 10 in the 1970s. I can't believe that it's just cos that's "the way it is". It's because the people who proclaim themselves as the trustees of jazz's heritage and the writers of jazz history have stopped tuning in!! They've insulated jazz - thier jazz not all jazz - from the inspiration it could draw from rock and RnB.

I don't think that the reason more jazz standards originate from musicals/films rather than rock/RnB is because the former lent itself better to jazz interpretation. Afterall jazz itself has so many different tributaries and forms within itself, that it's more a question of jazz lending itself to other more rigid forms than them lending themselves to jazz. For me, Jazz's relative indifference to rock and RnB is at best arbitrary, or at worst symptomatic of a kind of cultural rivalry that's done it more harm than good.

Edited May 29, 2007 by K1969

[Guy Berger]

I agree with MG. I'd go further. Jazz was the dominant musical force both commercially and artistically up until the 1960s, before rock and RnB "took over".

Everything I've read suggests that this is a dubious claim.

Guy

[SGUD missile]

I agree with MG. I'd go further. Jazz was the dominant musical force both commercially and artistically up until the 1960s, before rock and RnB "took over".

Everything I've read suggests that this is a dubious claim.

Guy

Actually, Broadway and the Movies in the 30s / 50s provided a lot of the material for jazz players to work with ( aside from the pure jazz compositions composed by jazz players -contrefacts or not )

I submit that musicians like John Mandel, Stevie Wonder, Ivan Lins , and EW&F ( among others ) have provided a lotta music that has not been adequately covered by jazz players as yet.

( working on "love Dance " as we speak! )

[K1969]

I agree with MG. I'd go further. Jazz was the dominant musical force both commercially and artistically up until the 1960s, before rock and RnB "took over".

Everything I've read suggests that this is a dubious claim.

Guy

It's not my personal view of musical history, rather an assertion of the view that jazz had of itself back in the days of Bebop, 52nd street and all that...er, jazz. I think that in its heyday, when it was jazz rather than rock or dance that packed the night clubs, that may well have a been a prevalent viewpoint (whether factually correct or not).

Edited May 29, 2007 by K1969

[K1969]

I submit that musicians like John Mandel, Stevie Wonder, Ivan Lins , and EW&F ( among others ) have provided a lotta music that has not been adequately covered by jazz players as yet.

( working on "love Dance " as we speak! )

Definately!!! I'd add Sly Stone to that list.

[Jim R]

Jazz was the dominant musical force both commercially and artistically up until the 1960s, before rock and RnB "took over".

Jazz was dominant commercially? R&B "took over" in the 60's?

Until then it was acceptable for jazz to appropriate tunes from other spheres be it film, musicals, folk etc. Jazz made it "better music".

wtf...?

Non jazz musicians aspired to make it big time in Jazz.

I don't think that the reason more jazz standards originate from musicals/films rather than rock/RnB is because the former lent itself better to jazz interpretation.

Generally speaking, it takes TIME for songs to become standards. Sampling tunes from musicals/films was being done for YEARS before R&B existed. And jazz musicians have traditionally preferred more complex changes to work from. The blues had been there all along in jazz, and thus much of the rock and R&B lexicon (the blues element) was there already.

Regardless of all that, you talk as though the genre of "rock" has been completely ignored by the entire world of jazz, which is ridiculous. I think that things tend to evolve naturally over time. I think musicians will do what they do, irrespective of how much attention they get from writers and critics (I don't buy your assertion that the writers and trustees are the all-powerful beings you make them out to be). The chips will fall where they will.

Edited May 29, 2007 by Jim R

[JSngry]

Sorry, but jazz, "real jazz" has never been the dominant form of American Popular Music, not even during the Swing Era. It has, however, been a helluva lot closer to the "mainstream" than it is now (and at times has been a vital influence) due to various degrees of musical & societal evolution by everybody concerned.

But jazz, "real jazz" has never been the main Top 40/Hit Parade/Whatever music.

The discussion about jazz and rock is funny. Rock is dead too, even though, like jazz, it's hanging on (the difference in scale is obvous, but still...). So the discussion of one dead music resisting a newer dead music is pretty...silly at this point of the game, I think.

Arguing the 20th Century ain't exactly "moving ahead", if you get my drift...

[K1969]

Jazz was the dominant musical force both commercially and artistically up until the 1960s, before rock and RnB "took over".

Jazz was dominant commercially? R&B "took over" in the 60's?

Until then it was acceptable for jazz to appropriate tunes from other spheres be it film, musicals, folk etc. Jazz made it "better music".

wtf...?

Non jazz musicians aspired to make it big time in Jazz.

I don't think that the reason more jazz standards originate from musicals/films rather than rock/RnB is because the former lent itself better to jazz interpretation.

Generally speaking, it takes TIME for songs to become standards. Sampling tunes from musicals/films was being done for YEARS before R&B existed. And jazz musicians have traditionally preferred more complex changes to work from. The blues had been there all along in jazz, and thus much of the rock and R&B lexicon (the blues element) was there already.

Regardless of all that, you talk as though the genre of "rock" has been completely ignored by the entire world of jazz, which is ridiculous. I think that things tend to evolve naturally over time. I think musicians will do what they do, irrespective of how much attention they get from writers and critics (I don't buy your assertion that the writers and trustees are the all-powerful beings you make them out to be). The chips will fall where they will.

I don't see the writers and trustees are the all-powerful beings - if you see my previous posts in this thread I said, like you, that musicians carry on regardless of the writers, freely taking inspiration from any source they want to. I've probably overstated a few things here but you can't deny that rock stole more of the limelight from jazz than any other musical form. I'm not claiming this - it's just what I've seen and read about in countless sources of which the Abbey Lincoln reference is just one. Maybe she's just talking for her self but she seemed to feel that she was talking as a spokesperson for jazz. I just think it's very strange that we stop counting standards from 1980 onwards and can't seem to find a clear reason. This was my suggestion, slap dash though it was.

[JSngry]

It wasn't just jazz that got coldcocked by rock. The whole "Adult Pop" thing started the 60s going strong, was severly limping by the decade's end, and was pretty much dead a few years thereafter.

You know who was the first (and for a while, only) "rock" act on Columbia, then the biggest of labels, until Clive Davis revamped the roster in 1967? Paul Revere & the Raiders. The rest of Columbia was adult pop, country pop, jazz, classical, and show tunes, all of which took a hit of one degree or another during the 60s. And Dylan, who was originally signed on as a "folk" act (another popular genre that the "rock" of the 60s pretty much decimated.

And otehr than Elvis, what "rock" did RCA have before Jefferson Airplane? They too had a lot of adult pop, country pop, jazz, classical, and show tunes as the foundation of their catalogue going into the 60s.

A lot of jazz musicians of the day were bitter about the Beatles. But so were a lot of other musicians in other idioms that had larger general audiences than did jazz.

Jazz has had periods, some of them long, of being a financially viable "alternative music" that was always close to the mainstream. But it has never been the mainstream itself.

According to Wikipedia, here's the top records of 1939, one of the peak years of the Swing Era:

# "And the Angels Sing" by Martha Tilton with Benny Goodman & his orchestra

# "At The Woodchopper's Ball" by Woody Herman

# "Beer Barrel Polka" by Will Glahe

# "Begin the Beguine" by Chick Henderson with Joe Loss and his Band ( recorded July 5.

# "Deep Purple" by Larry Clinton

# "God Bless America by Kate Smith

# "If I Didn't Care by The Ink Spots

# "Jeepers Creepers" by Al Donohue

# "The Man With the Mandolin" by Glenn Miller

# "Moonlight Serenade" by Glenn Miller

# "Moon Love" by Glenn Miller

# "Our Love" by Tommy Dorsey

# "Over the Rainbow" by Glenn Miller, also Judy Garland

# "Scatter-Brain" by Frankie Masters

# "South of the Border" by Shep Fields

# "Stairway to the Stars" by Glenn Miller

# "Strange Fruit" by Billie Holiday

# "Summertime" by Sidney Bechet

# "Sunrise Serenade" by Glenn Miller

# "Tea For Two" by Art Tatum

# "Thanks For The Memory" by Bob Hope & Shirley Ross

# "Wishing (Will Make It So)" by Glenn Miller

From 1937:

* "That Old Feeling" by Shep Fields

* "Once In Awhile" by Tommy Dorsey

* "It Looks Like Rain in Cherry Blossom Lane" by Guy Lombardo

* "September In the Rain" by Guy Lombardo

* "The Dipsy Doodle" by Tommy Dorsey

* "Sweet Leilani" by Bing Crosby

* "The Moon Got In My Eyes" by Bing Crosby

* "Boo Hoo" by Guy Lombardo

* "Goodnight, My Love" by Benny Goodman

* "On A Little Bamboo Bridge" by Louis Armstrong written by Abner Silver and Al Sherman

* "Whispers In the Dark" by Bob Crosby

* "Peace in the Valley" by Mahalia Jackson, gospel music hit written by Thomas A. Dorsey

From 1941, the last pre-WWII year in America:

* "Amapola" by Jimmy Dorsey

* "Blue Champagne" by Jimmy Dorsey

* "Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy" - Andrews Sisters

* "Chattanooga Choo Choo" by Glenn Miller

* "Daddy" by Sammy Kaye

* "Dolores" by Bing Crosby, also Tommy Dorsey

* "Elmer's Tume" by Glenn Miller

* "God Bless The Child" by Billie Holiday

* "Green Eyes" by Jimmy Dorsey

* "High On A Windy Hill" by Jimmy Dorsey

* "The Hut Sut Song" by Mel Tormé

* "I Don't Want to Set the World On Fire" by Horace Heidt

* "I Hear a Rhapsody" by Charlie Barnet, also Jimmy Dorsey

* "I'll Be with You in Apple Blossom Time" - Andrews Sisters

* "Intermezzo" by Earl Hines

* "Lament To Love" by Harry James

* "Let Me Off Uptown" by Gene Krupa

* "Maria Elena" by Jimmy Dorsey

* "Music Makers" by Harry James

* "My Sister and I" by Jimmy Dorsey

* "Oh! Look At Me Now" by Tommy Dorsey

* "Perfidia" by Xavier Cugat

* "Piano Concerto in B Flat" by Freddy Martin

* "Racing With The Moon" by Vaughn Monroe

* "Song of the Volga Boatmen" by Glenn Miller

* "Take The 'A' Train" by Duke Ellington

* "There I Go" by Vaughn Monroe

* "There'll Be Some Changes Made" by Benny Goodman

* "This Love Of Mine" by Tommy Dorsey

* "Tonight We Love" by Nelson Eddy

* "White Cliffs Of Dover" by Glenn Miller

* "Yes Indeed! by Tommy Dorsey

* "You and I" by Glenn Miller

* "You Made Me Love You" by Harry James

Sure, you see some jazz, and quite a bit that's tangentally "jazzy", a helluva lot more than you do today. But jazz is not any ways dominant on these charts, and this was a time when jazz is now often referred to as having been "America's Popular Music". It just ain't so.

[K1969]

The discussion about jazz and rock is funny. Rock is dead too, even though, like jazz, it's hanging on (the difference in scale is obvous, but still...). So the discussion of one dead music resisting a newer dead music is pretty...silly at this point of the game, I think.

Arguing the 20th Century ain't exactly "moving ahead", if you get my drift...

Rock wasn't dead in 1980 which is where my focus is. That said I'm happy to let jazz and rock RIP if it means saving this thread, though I get the feeling that I've just killed it!!

[JSngry]

Alright, here's all the #1 records of 1954, the year before Elvis hit. See any jazz?

"Oh My Papa" Eddie Fisher

"Secret Love" Doris Day

"Make Love To Me" Jo Stafford

"Secret Love" Doris Day

Make Love To Me" Jo Stafford

"Wanted" Perry Como

"Little Things Mean A Lot" Kitty Kallen

"Sh-Boom" Crew-Cuts

"Hey There" Rosemary Clooney

"This Ole House" Rosemary Clooney

"I Need You Now" Eddie Fisher

"Mr. Sandman" The Chordettes

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_in_music

Other than the bleached covers of R&B songs, this is all music and artists that would soon be swept of the charts in a year or two. And again - where's the jazz, even tangentally?

Now, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_100_No._1..._1963_%28USA%29 the #1 hits of 1963, the year before The Beatles hit:

January 5 "Telstar" The Tornados

January 12 "Go Away Little Girl" Steve Lawrence

January 19 "Go Away Little Girl" Steve Lawrence

January 26 "Walk Right In" The Rooftop Singers

February 2 "Walk Right In" The Rooftop Singers

February 9 "Hey Paula" Paul & Paula

February 16 "Hey Paula" Paul & Paula

February 23 "Hey Paula" Paul & Paula

March 2 "Walk Like a Man" The Four Seasons

March 9 "Walk Like a Man" The Four Seasons

March 15 "Walk Like a Man" The Four Seasons

March 23 "Our Day Will Come" Ruby & the Romantics

March 30 "He's So Fine" The Chiffons

April 6 "He's So Fine" The Chiffons

April 13 "He's So Fine" The Chiffons

April 20 "He's So Fine" The Chiffons

April 27 "I Will Follow Him" Little Peggy March

May 4 "I Will Follow Him" Little Peggy March

May 11 "I Will Follow Him" Little Peggy March

May 18 "If You Wanna Be Happy" Jimmy Soul

May 25 "If You Wanna Be Happy" Jimmy Soul

June 1 "It's My Party" Lesley Gore

June 8 "It's My Party " Lesley Gore

June 15 "Sukiyaki" Kyu Sakamoto

June 22 "Sukiyaki" Kyu Sakamoto

June 29 "Sukiyaki" Kyu Sakamoto

July 6 "Easier Said Than Done" The Essex

July 13 "Easier Said Than Done" The Essex

July 20 "Surf City" Jan and Dean

July 27 "Surf City" Jan and Dean

August 3 "So Much in Love" The Tymes

August 10 "Fingertips Pt. 2" Little Stevie Wonder

August 17 "Fingertips Pt. 2" Little Stevie Wonder

August 24 "Fingertips Pt. 2" Little Stevie Wonder

August 31 "My Boyfriend's Back" The Angels

September 7 "My Boyfriend's Back" The Angels

September 14 "My Boyfriend's Back" The Angels

September 21 "Blue Velvet" Bobby Vinton

September 28 "Blue Velvet" Bobby Vinton

October 5 "Blue Velvet" Bobby Vinton

October 12 "Sugar Shack" Jimmy Gilmer and the Fireballs

October 19 "Sugar Shack" Jimmy Gilmer and the Fireballs

October 26 "Sugar Shack" Jimmy Gilmer and the Fireballs

November 2 "Sugar Shack" Jimmy Gilmer and the Fireballs

November 9 "Sugar Shack" Jimmy Gilmer and the Fireballs

November 16 "Deep Purple" Nino Tempo and April Stevens

November 23 "I'm Leaving It Up to You" Dale & Grace

November 30 "I'm Leaving It Up to You" Dale & Grace

December 7 "Dominique" The Singing Nun

December 14 "Dominique" The Singing Nun

December 21 "Dominique" The Singing Nun

December 28 "Dominique" The Singing Nun

Cpmapring 1954 to 1963, the shift to more "youthful" oriented material is obvious. And the advent of the Beatles pretty much killed off the market for this type rock.

so as much as I love Abbey Lincoln (which is a whole lot), I ain't buying that The Beatles killed jazz, or that Rock killed jazz, or that anything killed jazz other than jazz itself - as a whole - died a natural death but has left us with some beautiful spirits floating around waiting to come back in some other form relevant to the now to start the shit up all over again in a new way.

Edited May 29, 2007 by JSngry

[K1969]

jazz itself - as a while - died a natural death but has left us with some beautiful spirits floating around to come back in some other form to start the shit up all over again in a new way.

amen

[JSngry]

Well yeah. I mean, a big thrust of the "avant-garde" of the 50s, 60s, & 70s was "non-linearity" of one degree or another, the opening up of form, no longer needing "song forms" and such, and hey - who's really writing "good songs" today? Who needs to be? The esthetic of the old avant has begun its way into the mainstream (seldom in an "enlightened" manner, but that's not my point, other than that maybe rather than still fighting over 1980, some of our more "advanced musical minds" might want to consider what time it really is and proceed accordingly...).

The whole 20th Centruy saw the discovery of "other dimensions" to time, space, and, yes, sound. Almost all "song-based" music is still very dependent on a relatively solid 3-dimensional based perception of reality to resonate to maximum capacity (even the deepest "song" stuff resonates by suggesting other dimensions not actually delivering them), and fewer and fewer people have that these days. We're still in a very primitive, new time as far as actually delivering thes other "dimensions", but that's evolution for you, eh?

All I'm saying, I guess, is that pursuit of expanding the repertory of "songs" ain't gonna make jazz more "relevant" in the 21st century. It will merely move the period to which its backdated up a decade or two.

[.:.impossible]

Until reading this post, I had my doubts about "rock" being dead. Now I think I understand what you are saying. Music, on the whole, isn't fucked. Its just confused as hell. Most of it anyway.

Well yeah. I mean, a big thrust of the "avant-garde" of the 50s, 60s, & 70s was "non-linearity" of one degree or another, the opening up of form, no longer needing "song forms" and such, and hey - who's really writing "good songs" today? Who needs to be? The esthetic of the old avant has begun its way into the mainstream (seldom in an "enlightened" manner, but that's not my point, other than that maybe rather than still fighting over 1980, some of our more "advanced musical minds" might want to consider what time it really is and proceed accordingly...).

The whole 20th Centruy saw the discovery of "other dimensions" to time, space, and, yes, sound. Almost all "song-based" music is still very dependent on a relatively solid 3-dimensional based perception of reality to resonate to maximum capacity (even the deepest "song" stuff resonates by suggesting other dimensions not actually delivering them), and fewer and fewer people have that these days. We're still in a very primitive, new time as far as actually delivering thes other "dimensions", but that's evolution for you, eh?

All I'm saying, I guess, is that pursuit of expanding the repertory of "songs" ain't gonna make jazz more "relevant" in the 21st century. It will merely move the period to which its backdated up a decade or two.

[Chuck Nessa]

The music has moved way beyond the '30s model.

[JSngry]

As have many aspects of life in general.

[Jim R]

Jazz has had periods, some of them long, of being a financially viable "alternative music" that was always close to the mainstream. But it has never been the mainstream itself.

No wonder it was such a bitch trying to find nice sides at all those suburban garage sales over the years.

[Adam]

Now, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_100_No._1..._1963_%28USA%29 the #1 hits of 1963, the year before The Beatles hit:

June 15 "Sukiyaki" Kyu Sakamoto

June 22 "Sukiyaki" Kyu Sakamoto

June 29 "Sukiyaki" Kyu Sakamoto

July 6 "Easier Said Than Done" The Essex

July 13 "Easier Said Than Done" The Essex

July 20 "Surf City" Jan and Dean

July 27 "Surf City" Jan and Dean

August 3 "So Much in Love" The Tymes

August 10 "Fingertips Pt. 2" Little Stevie Wonder

August 17 "Fingertips Pt. 2" Little Stevie Wonder

August 24 "Fingertips Pt. 2" Little Stevie Wonder

August 31 "My Boyfriend's Back" The Angels

September 7 "My Boyfriend's Back" The Angels

September 14 "My Boyfriend's Back" The Angels

September 21 "Blue Velvet" Bobby Vinton

September 28 "Blue Velvet" Bobby Vinton

October 5 "Blue Velvet" Bobby Vinton

October 12 "Sugar Shack" Jimmy Gilmer and the Fireballs

October 19 "Sugar Shack" Jimmy Gilmer and the Fireballs

October 26 "Sugar Shack" Jimmy Gilmer and the Fireballs

November 2 "Sugar Shack" Jimmy Gilmer and the Fireballs

November 9 "Sugar Shack" Jimmy Gilmer and the Fireballs

November 16 "Deep Purple" Nino Tempo and April Stevens

November 23 "I'm Leaving It Up to You" Dale & Grace

November 30 "I'm Leaving It Up to You" Dale & Grace

December 7 "Dominique" The Singing Nun

.

What the heck was "Sukiyaki" by Kyu Sakamoto?

[K1969]

Well yeah. I mean, a big thrust of the "avant-garde" of the 50s, 60s, & 70s was "non-linearity" of one degree or another, the opening up of form, no longer needing "song forms" and such, and hey - who's really writing "good songs" today? Who needs to be? The esthetic of the old avant has begun its way into the mainstream (seldom in an "enlightened" manner, but that's not my point, other than that maybe rather than still fighting over 1980, some of our more "advanced musical minds" might want to consider what time it really is and proceed accordingly...).

The whole 20th Centruy saw the discovery of "other dimensions" to time, space, and, yes, sound. Almost all "song-based" music is still very dependent on a relatively solid 3-dimensional based perception of reality to resonate to maximum capacity (even the deepest "song" stuff resonates by suggesting other dimensions not actually delivering them), and fewer and fewer people have that these days. We're still in a very primitive, new time as far as actually delivering thes other "dimensions", but that's evolution for you, eh?

All I'm saying, I guess, is that pursuit of expanding the repertory of "songs" ain't gonna make jazz more "relevant" in the 21st century. It will merely move the period to which its backdated up a decade or two.

I hadn't looked at it that way. I see what you mean. Like the very act of asking the question about standards is to be stuck in yesterday's paradigm. (long time since I used that word). OK, on with the new....