Survey: Why Aren't More Young People Being Exposed To Jazz?

[Guest bluenote82]

Hello Everyone,

I was just curious to see why you guys think younger people aren't being exposed to jazz? Is it too intellectual for them? Is it too complex for them? What do you think?

[crabgrass]

As opposed to when young people used to be exposed to a lot of jazz? I must have missed that, when did that happen last?

[BruceW]

As opposed to when young people used to be exposed to a lot of jazz? I must have missed that, when did that happen last?

Let's try between 1930 and 1950 for starters. Most kids and teenagers were surrounded by jazz, in homes, soda joints, donut shops, juke boxes etc., (yeah, even jazz had hits on the boxes back then). Let's say after 1960 kids were exposed to jazz but less and less. Remember we are talking about young people. So if you were born after 1960, chances are you were young during the declining years of jazz (there is always a decline and rebirth isn't there) so the exposure was less and less.

Well its a start...

:bwallace2:

[BruceW]

Actually I didn't answer the first question of the thread.

Let's try, overwhelmingly more and more exposure to computers and computer games, as well as the overwhelming amount of rock and roll aimed at the youth. Movies on DVD. Go to the Blockbuster and you will see more youth than any other age group.

Well, that's a start.

:bwallace2:

[crabgrass]

As opposed to when young people used to be exposed to a lot of jazz? I must have missed that, when did that happen last?

Let's try between 1930 and 1950 for starters. Most kids and teenagers were surrounded by jazz, in homes, soda joints, donut shops, juke boxes etc., (yeah, even jazz had hits on the boxes back then). Let's say after 1960 kids were exposed to jazz but less and less. Remember we are talking about young people. So if you were born after 1960, chances are you were young during the declining years of jazz (there is always a decline and rebirth isn't there) so the exposure was less and less.

Well its a start...

:bwallace2:

I was born in 1959 and I'm fairly sure that if my father hadn't been a trumpet player with a lot of jazz records, I would have had little, if any, exposure to it.

I've seen a slight revival of sorts from, of all places, a small group of younger people whom search out the more challenging new stuff as an adjunct to their taste for the current harder forms of rock like speed metal/death metal and noise. Things like John Zorn, Ornette Coleman and Anthony Braxton, as well as an interest in the fusion of 70s Miles and such are seeing a few young ears tuning in, looking for a similar thrill. Even so, I think it's hard to call any new interest in jazz anything more than a very select special interest among the younger generation.

As for the why, I think it's much the same as it was when interest in jazz first began to fail... rock and roll. But nowadays, it competes with not just rock, but rap and hip-hop (which for all intensive purposes has become the new "jazz"), alternative, all flavors of dance... etc. Music seen as genre has splintered so much nowadays.

Jazz may not be dead, but it's smelling funnier by the minute. It's unfortunate, but unless some remarkable players come up with a startling new sound for jazz, it sure looks like "jazz" is very nearly completely installed in the museum.

[A Lark Ascending]

I don't think I was 'exposed' to jazz when I was young (let's say 1965-75 between the age of 10 and 20) - I received no education about it, heard it only in passing. What I did hear is a great deal of jazz-rock as part of a typical early 70s teenager diet of rock music. And then I got curious and started digging for myself.

Which is - to my mind - exactly what is happening with some young people today. I can't speak for the States but in the UK (and mainland Europe, I suspect) there are scores of bands on the margin of jazz and indie-rock who have a young, cult audience (just like Henry Cow or Soft Machine drew people like me in during the 70s). When groups like Polar Bear or Fraud play a festival like Bath or Cheltenham, some of the audience stay on for other gigs. Someone who has been intrigued by the experimental music of Tom Arthurs gets the chance to hear him with John Taylor and starts to get a sense that there is something rich lying behind this 'now' music.

Go to some gigs, festivals and you'll see a sea of grey hair (including mine!). But go to others - ones that connect with music young people know - and you'll see plenty of young faces lapping it up. In some cases it's just a case of performing it in a venue young people feel comfortable in.

The UK is awash with talented young players - there are several youth orchestras (one of which plays annually in a workshop in the school where I teach).

It's also worth asking just how deep exposure to jazz went when young people were exposed to lots of jazz - and I suspect that we're really talking the 30s/40s here. I get the impression that most went to hear the big bands for other reasons than to listen to jazz - and only some came away with a lifetimes interest in the jazz content.

Why aren't more people exposed to jazz? Why should they be. They'll find their own way there if it's what interests them.

O.K. Can we do 'Why aren't more young people exposed to crochet?' or 'Why do young people insist on slouching?' now. And a thread on how to cope with arthritis is long overdue.

[Guest bluenote82]

I was exposed to jazz from hearing a Pat Metheny album called "Offramp." It wasn't until I was 15 when I started to seriously listen to jazz. It was around this time I started to get into Miles Davis. I should also add that I come from a long line of jazz trumpeters: my Dad was a one, my Grandfather was one, and my Great Grandfather was one. I ended up taking an interest in guitar and piano at 10 years old, but I didn't take it seriously until I was 18 or 19. I was always interested in the chordal instruments.

Since then, I have gathered quite a bit of knowledge about this music, but there's still so much to learn.

Edited March 2, 2008 by bluenote82

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

'Why do young people insist on slouching?'

Slouching is definitely me. I've always got a backache from NOT slouching.

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Back to the groove.

Two points. First, growing up in the forties and fifties, I wasn't specifically exposed to jazz as such. But jazz informed a lot of the pop music that was around. People like Sinatra, Cole and Peggy Lee - even Doris Day (especially Doris Day) - weren't actually doing jazz, but from all these singers, and many others, you'd get a feeling of jazz that formed part of one's general perceptual background. So hearing real jazz didn't actually require the listener to make that big a leap.

Equally, the R&B & Rock & Roll of the fifties had a lot of jazz feeling, and a good many real jazz solos from the sax players. It's really not that far from Little Richard and Fats Domino to jazz, but a bloody long way from MC5 to jazz.

Second, one has to wonder why it matters. Jazz arose as a response to specific socio/cultural/political/economic situations. OK, so it arose out of circumstances, most of which have changed in many ways. Wouldn't you expect different circumstances to give rise to some other kind of music?

Exposure to jazz doesn't actually determine anything. The musicians and public of Senegal were greatly exposed to jazz in the forties, when Dakar was used as a US naval base. Many Senegalese jazz musicians started their careers then, as did some who moved there from other parts of West Africa including, a Nigerian, Dexter Johnson (a tenor player if you couldn't guess ) who started The Star Band, playing jazz. But eventually, through many incarnations, it evolved into Les Super Etoile de Dakar, Youssou Ndour's band and, through the course of those intervening years, developed an entirely different kind of music, Mbalax, in response to their specific circumstances.

Jazz has no particular virtue that needs to be preserved in the face of a changing world, any more than does any other kind of music. If jazz doesn't reflect these changes, then some other kind of music will do it. Good.

MG

[Van Basten II]

No airplay whatsoever does not help, plus i'll sound like an old reactionnary but a long and complicated musical piece without any lyrics in it, ain't gonna excite the kids in a world where instant reward is the main goal.

If you don't have the natural curiosity to go beyond what is offered on the charts, some do and some don't and for that age is irrelevant, you'll never ger real exposition to the music and its different styles.

Edited March 2, 2008 by Van Basten II

[A Lark Ascending]

Second, one has to wonder why it matters. Jazz arose as a response to specific socio/cultural/political/economic situations. OK, so it arose out of circumstances, most of which have changed in many ways. Wouldn't you expect different circumstances to give rise to some other kind of music?

...

Jazz has no particular virtue that needs to be preserved in the face of a changing world, any more than does any other kind of music. If jazz doesn't reflect these changes, then some other kind of music will do it. Good.

MG

Absolutely.

I listen to jazz because by some set of accidents I found myself/got directed towards it and found I enjoyed it. There was once a time when I probably thought it was 'doing me good', 'improving' me - perhaps listening to it appealed to my vanity, encouraging a belief that I was somewhat superior because I listened to this esoteric music.

I don't see it like that now (at least I hope I don't). I can't think of any reason why anyone ought to listen to jazz. I can find plenty of reasons why someone who stumbles on it might gain great pleasure from it (which is reason enough to make young people aware of it). But in the end, there are lots of other ways, musical and otherwise, of gaining satisfaction, engagement, excitement in your free time!!!!!

And, as MG says, there are other musics which probably do that better for 21st C young audiences.

Edited March 2, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[analogak]

because when you are in middle and high school the people who play jazz like in the high school jazz ensemble are dorks. possibly the biggest dorks in the school, if you went to public school. they are dorks from band or whatever you call the dorks who play during football games. school band? whatever. those people were and probably still are the biggest dorks so it makes the prospect of listening to and supporting what they are doing very unappealing. imo. "jazz is that loser from biology class with the white high tops playing a trumpet? i don't think i want to listen to that, thanks." that is the voice of most children in america.

[Soulstation1]

not sure i'm a fucking idiot.........

[7/4]

[Guest bluenote82]

These are some interesting opinions. Thanks for all who participated.

I believe the reason many people not just kids don't like jazz is because it's a musician's music. You have to really understand alot about music to really get inside of it. While I'm glad non-musicians enjoy the music, I have to say that they don't hear what I hear when I listen to jazz. They don't hear the time signatures, the key changes, the piano chord voicings comping behind the soloists, the interplay, the overall dynamics of the piece, the emotional impact of the soloists, etc. It's really an insider's music, but anyone with good ears can enjoy it.

To Dumpy Mama, you think middle/high school band nerds are the only ones who liked jazz? You're sadly mistaken. I knew a guy in high school who was a varsity basketball player. I was playing some Duke Jordan - "Flight To Jordan" when he walked by car one day and said he really liked that music I was playing. He asked what kind of music was that and I told him and next thing I knew, he went out and bought that same album. I saw him about a year ago and asked him if he was still listening to jazz and he said "It's the only music I listen to."

I wasn't able to turn many people on to it, but I'm glad somebody liked what I was playing enough to ask me what it was, which brings me to a good point: I believe if somebody is curious about music, then they will find it sooner or later. It might take them 20 years, but they will find it sooner or later.

It's a shame that there aren't many jazz radio stations left. Radio helps get the word out.

Edited March 2, 2008 by bluenote82

[BruceW]

It is really amazing the concepts of thought evolving around this thread. One thing I am not hearing is that the "jazz" music of today is not "moving" people. It seems the general belief is there has to be a great "brain trust" about the music, it has to be so esoteric etc. What ever happened to good melody, harmony and rhythm?? There can still be that first thing that happens when you hear something for the first time, "wow, what tune was that?" I hear a ton of good to magnificent players on the Internet from all over the world but most time, I don't hear the feeling of the music. Let me clarify, I do hear the tune; some of the complex things he/she is trying to do or rather is doing; that there is a lot of thinking that went into the tune or maybe not; but I don't hear a lot of tunes that make me want to try an hum it later on in the day or night. Has jazz gone too cerebral??? As for the young people that would certainly lose them if they even paid attention in the beginning.

The last tune that moved me (like in the old days) was a tune called "Soul Sauce" (not the soul sauce made famous by Cal Tjader) by a young group called Staboola McPet (a vibraphone/sax led group) that instantly grabbed me. These guys are good but not magnificent but yet the tune (jazz tune) "grabbed" me at first listening. That is the feeling that seems to be missing so much these days.

my 2 cents

Edited March 2, 2008 by BruceW

[A Lark Ascending]

If jazz is an insiders' music that can only be understood by the brains' trust or those who play it then it deserves to die. Pass me the hatchet.

[Rosco]

I believe the reason many people not just kids don't like jazz is because it's a musician's music. You have to really understand alot about music to really get inside of it. While I'm glad non-musicians enjoy the music, I have to say that they don't hear what I hear when I listen to jazz. They don't hear the time signatures, the key changes, the piano chord voicings comping behind the soloists, the interplay, the overall dynamics of the piece, the emotional impact of the soloists, etc. It's really an insider's music, but anyone with good ears can enjoy it.

Crap.

[Larry Kart]

One part of the problem is that there needs to be highly individual, arguably great (or at least very good) players whose music inherently possesses the virtues of near-immediate comprehensibility and charm, even though they aren't "playing down" (in some cases, couldn't play down) to anyone. Jazz used to have a lot of those players; the last of them, to my mind, was Erroll Garner. Almost everyone, except for misguided snobs, dug Garner; and most everyone who did was was digging a good part of what was really there. Ahmad Jamal? Maybe, but with Jamal I think there was some division between the genuine subtleties that made him remarkable and his trio's attractive surface (for lack of a better term) "sound." Paul Desmond? Not without "Take Five," I don't think. Likewise, perhaps, not Getz without "Desifinado" and "The Girl from Ipanema." Brubeck? Probably popular enough on his own terms in his heyday, but IMO he just wasn't that good. But Garner was all of a piece, terrifically good, completely individual, and would have been eaten up by the pretty much the same-sized audience that did eat him up if there had never been a "Misty." Gene Ammons, for sure, was another, but wasn't Ammons' appeal a good deal more tightly wrapped in his, so to speak, milieu than Garner's was? Take away that mileu and you've got Dexter Gordon after his "return" -- a great player at the top of his game, but the audience for him, though certainly large enough, was more or less that of pre-existing jazz fans. In any case, it's been a long, long time since jazz has seen a figure such as Garner, and I don't think we'll ever see one again. Jazz still has and will continue to have players that are as good as Garner was artistically, but their artistry doesn't and won't take the form of near-immediate comprehensibility and charm, while those jazz players who do manage to produce such music won't be (and won't regarded as) terrifically good players artistically. I could try to explain why, but there's probably no need to. Briefly, though, the evolving and virtually inescapable complexities of the music per se mean that if there were players who clicked a la Garner, they would almost certainly have to be "playing down" or be genuinely simple/catchy to the point where those who are interested in the music as music would soon be bored. Remember George Winston? Was he a cynic or a genuine mope? I'm not sure, but except when that thing was happening, who cares?

[Guest bluenote82]

Crap.

Said the guy who's not even a fan of jazz.

[Guest bluenote82]

One part of the problem is that there needs to be highly individual, arguably great (or at least very good) players whose music inherently possesses the virtues of near-immediate comprehensibility and charm, even though they aren't "playing down" (in some cases, couldn't play down) to anyone. Jazz used to have a lot of those players; the last of them, to my mind, was Erroll Garner. Almost everyone, except for misguided snobs, dug Garner; and most everyone who did was was digging a good part of what was really there. Ahmad Jamal? Maybe, but with Jamal I think there was some division between the genuine subtleties that made him remarkable and his trio's attractive surface (for lack of a better term) "sound." Paul Desmond? Not without "Take Five," I don't think. Likewise, perhaps, not Getz without "Desifinado" and "The Girl from Ipanema." Brubeck? Probably popular enough on his own terms in his heyday, but IMO he just wasn't that good. But Garner was all of a piece, terrifically good, completely individual, and would have been eaten up by the pretty much the same-sized audience that did eat him up if there had never been a "Misty." Gene Ammons, for sure, was another, but wasn't Ammons' appeal a good deal more tightly wrapped in his, so to speak, milieu than Garner's was? Take away that mileu and you've got Dexter Gordon after his "return" -- a great player at the top of his game, but the audience for him, though certainly large enough, was more or less that of pre-existing jazz fans. In any case, it's been a long, long time since jazz has seen a figure such as Garner, and I don't think we'll ever see one again. Jazz still has and will continue to have players that are as good as Garner was artistically, but their artistry doesn't and won't take the form of near-immediate comprehensibility and charm, while those jazz players who do manage to produce such music won't be (and won't regarded as) terrifically good players artistically. I could try to explain why, but there's probably no need to. Briefly, though, the evolving and virtually inescapable complexities of the music per se mean that of there were player who clicked a la Garner, her or she would almost certainly have to be "playing down" or be genuinely simple/catchy to the point where those who are interested in the music as music would soon be bored. Remember George Winston? Was he a cynic or a genuine mope? I'm not sure, but except when that thing was happening, who cares?

You're absolutely right, Larry. Gone are the days of Miles Davis, Bill Evans, Ben Webster, etc. What we have now are punk musicians who think they know what jazz is. It's a big problem, which thankfully, I'm not apart of. I'm happy to tell somebody who's not listening to jazz that what they're listening to is crap, because in most scenarios, it is. Yeah, it's harsh, brash, insensitive, but people always remember people who tell it like it is.

I mean that Organissimo poster dubbed "Pollock" dedicated a whole thread to me. Evidently, my opinions like that of yours, Larry, garner alot of unwanted hostility, which I think is unfortunate, because you're a very good writer.

[Rosco]

Crap.

Said the guy who's not even a fan of jazz.

uhhh.... beg pardon?

[Teasing the Korean]

Agree with the high school dork assessment.

Also, many young hipsters are put off by middle age white guys who wear stupid hats and can't play 4 bars without going into their faux Coltranisms.

That said, young people are exposed to jazz (to varying degrees) via sampling - for better or worse.

[Guest Bill Barton]

BruceW said:

"Let's try, overwhelmingly more and more exposure to computers and computer games, as well as the overwhelming amount of rock and roll aimed at the youth. Movies on DVD. Go to the Blockbuster and you will see more youth than any other age group..."

This is a very good point with the exception, I think, of the "overwhelming amount of rock and roll aimed at the youth" part. It's been a long, long time now since rock was the dominant form of popular music. How many generations now have come up listening to primarily rap and hiphop? At least three, going on four...

"Jazz may not be dead, but it's smelling funnier by the minute. It's unfortunate, but unless some remarkable players come up with a startling new sound for jazz, it sure looks like "jazz" is very nearly completely installed in the museum."

I strongly disagree that remarkable players aren't here right now and plenty more coming up.

Bev Stapleton said:

"I don't think I was 'exposed' to jazz when I was young (let's say 1965-75 between the age of 10 and 20) - I received no education about it, heard it only in passing. What I did hear is a great deal of jazz-rock as part of a typical early 70s teenager diet of rock music. And then I got curious and started digging for myself.

Which is - to my mind - exactly what is happening with some young people today. I can't speak for the States but in the UK (and mainland Europe, I suspect) there are scores of bands on the margin of jazz and indie-rock who have a young, cult audience (just like Henry Cow or Soft Machine drew people like me in during the 70s). When groups like Polar Bear or Fraud play a festival like Bath or Cheltenham, some of the audience stay on for other gigs. Someone who has been intrigued by the experimental music of Tom Arthurs gets the chance to hear him with John Taylor and starts to get a sense that there is something rich lying behind this 'now' music.

Go to some gigs, festivals and you'll see a sea of grey hair (including mine!). But go to others - ones that connect with music young people know - and you'll see plenty of young faces lapping it up. In some cases it's just a case of performing it in a venue young people feel comfortable in.

The UK is awash with talented young players - there are several youth orchestras (one of which plays annually in a workshop in the school where I teach).

It's also worth asking just how deep exposure to jazz went when young people were exposed to lots of jazz - and I suspect that we're really talking the 30s/40s here. I get the impression that most went to hear the big bands for other reasons than to listen to jazz - and only some came away with a lifetimes interest in the jazz content.

Why aren't more people exposed to jazz? Why should they be. They'll find their own way there if it's what interests them.

O.K. Can we do 'Why aren't more young people exposed to crochet?' or 'Why do young people insist on slouching?' now. And a thread on how to cope with arthritis is long overdue."

Exposure is definitely an issue. Despite years of jazz education in the schools there still is an almost complete lack of outlets for all of these knowledgeable players graduating from jazz programs. The Seattle area has a huge number of nationally and internationally respected high school jazz programs and ensembles. But where are these young musicians going to play after they are out of school? There are only so many big bands... "Why aren't more people exposed to jazz? Why should they be. They'll find their own way there if it's what interests them." Exactly! There will always be a core of people who are naturally attracted to the excitement, the adventure, the unpredictability and the creativity of this music. My own background in the music is a good example. I grew up in a small New England town where jazz was (and likely still is) as foreign a form of expression as you could possibly imagine. Attempting to learn to play the guitar at around age 11 I eventually came upon the recordings of Chet Atkins. Although he was an icon in the world of Country Western as both musician and producer, Atkins recorded some things that broke down categories. I recall my first time hearing his "January in Bombay," which combined the traditional fiddle tune "The Eighth of January" with North Indian classical music. This was long before the term or concept "World Music" was thought of. And he recorded a number of vintage jazz big band era tunes such as "Tuxedo Junction," "In the Mood" and others. My ears perked up. "What is this?" I thought. "This is different. I'd like to hear more of this." From there I went on to do research at the library and seek out the roots of the music that had attracted me. Then came a subscription to Down Beat and a voracious search for recordings. Jazz guitar was my entree: first Wes Montgomery, then Kenny Burrell, then on to others...

dumpy mama said:

"because when you are in middle and high school the people who play jazz like in the high school jazz ensemble are dorks. possibly the biggest dorks in the school, if you went to public school. they are dorks from band or whatever you call the dorks who play during football games. school band? whatever. those people were and probably still are the biggest dorks so it makes the prospect of listening to and supporting what they are doing very unappealing. imo. "jazz is that loser from biology class with the white high tops playing a trumpet? i don't think i want to listen to that, thanks." that is the voice of most children in america."

You may have a point here but this is only a surface image issue. Some people are attracted to things because those things are perceived as dorky or nerdy, after all. I confess, that was me!

bluenote82 said:

"...I wasn't able to turn many people on to it, but I'm glad somebody liked what I was playing enough to ask me what it was, which brings me to a good point: I believe if somebody is curious about music, then they will find it sooner or later. It might take them 20 years, but they will find it sooner or later.

It's a shame that there aren't many jazz radio stations left. Radio helps get the word out."

Yes, agreed. As I said before, exposure is an issue. How do you know that you don't like something if you've never heard it? If your entire exposure to "jazz" is so-called Smooth Jazz on radio it's pretty unlikely that John Nesbitt, Henry "Red" Allen, Don Byas, Erroll Garner, Fats Navarro, Ornette Coleman, Henry Threadgill, Cuong Vu or any one of the scores of creative individuals who kept or keep jazz/creative improvised music/comprovisation vital are going to ring any bells of excitement in your brain or gut.

The jazz world can be very insular. Once one "gets the bug" it never goes away and it's hard to imagine "life without jazz." Part of the downside of this is the fact that we jazz fans get very territorial about our little fiefdom. The eternal carping by various posters on this board about how crappy NPR jazz programming is a good example of this. Admittedly, I'm as guilty of this as the next guy. We need to remember that public radio, for most parts of the USA, is the only place you can hear jazz on the airwaves. Community and college radio stations still provide little pockets of the "edgier" and more adventurous parts of the jazz spectrum, but many areas of the country are not as lucky as the NYC metro area (WKCR & WFMU) or the Pacific Northwest in this regard.

Edited March 2, 2008 by Bill Barton

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

One part of the problem is that there needs to be highly individual, arguably great (or at least very good) players whose music inherently possesses the virtues of near-immediate comprehensibility and charm, even though they aren't "playing down" (in some cases, couldn't play down) to anyone. Jazz used to have a lot of those players; the last of them, to my mind, was Erroll Garner. Almost everyone, except for misguided snobs, dug Garner; and most everyone who did was was digging a good part of what was really there. Ahmad Jamal? Maybe, but with Jamal I think there was some division between the genuine subtleties that made him remarkable and his trio's attractive surface (for lack of a better term) "sound." Paul Desmond? Not without "Take Five," I don't think. Likewise, perhaps, not Getz without "Desifinado" and "The Girl from Ipanema." Brubeck? Probably popular enough on his own terms in his heyday, but IMO he just wasn't that good. But Garner was all of a piece, terrifically good, completely individual, and would have been eaten up by the pretty much the same-sized audience that did eat him up if there had never been a "Misty." Gene Ammons, for sure, was another, but wasn't Ammons' appeal a good deal more tightly wrapped in his, so to speak, milieu than Garner's was? Take away that mileu and you've got Dexter Gordon after his "return" -- a great player at the top of his game, but the audience for him, though certainly large enough, was more or less that of pre-existing jazz fans. In any case, it's been a long, long time since jazz has seen a figure such as Garner, and I don't think we'll ever see one again. Jazz still has and will continue to have players that are as good as Garner was artistically, but their artistry doesn't and won't take the form of near-immediate comprehensibility and charm, while those jazz players who do manage to produce such music won't be (and won't regarded as) terrifically good players artistically. I could try to explain why, but there's probably no need to. Briefly, though, the evolving and virtually inescapable complexities of the music per se mean that if there were players who clicked a la Garner, they would almost certainly have to be "playing down" or be genuinely simple/catchy to the point where those who are interested in the music as music would soon be bored. Remember George Winston? Was he a cynic or a genuine mope? I'm not sure, but except when that thing was happening, who cares?

Hm, Jimmy Snith?

MG