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

[BruceW]

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...

Bill, overwhelming does not necessarily mean dominant in these terms. And I am guilty of lumping rap and hiphop in with rockroll (all youth music that is not jazz)

"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.

Bill, that was not my quote. but you certainly have a view to be considered, nice overviews.

[Larry Kart]

Yes, I'd include Jimmy Smith, although he did come out of and always could fall back on (if that's the way to put it) the world of "greaze" -- as was the case I think with Ammons, in his own way.

About Bill Barton's point: "I strongly disagree that remarkable players aren't here right now and plenty more coming up."

There are and will continue be (I hope) a good many such players, but I'd be astonished if any of them becomes popular on the scale, and in the way, a musician like Garner did -- that is, attracting and knocking out the "common man" without compromise.

[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...

Bill, overwhelming does not necessarily mean dominant in these terms. And I am guilty of lumping rap and hiphop in with rockroll (all youth music that is not jazz)

"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.

Bill, that was not my quote. but you certainly have a view to be considered, nice overviews.

Oops! Sorry about that... The board software was being a pain about the multi-quoting option and I neglected to attribute that one.

Yes, I'd include Jimmy Smith, although he did come out of and always could fall back on (if that's the way to put it) the world of "greaze" -- as was the case I think with Ammons, in his own way.

About Bill Barton's point: "I strongly disagree that remarkable players aren't here right now and plenty more coming up."

There are and will continue be (I hope) a good many such players, but I'd be astonished if any of them becomes popular on the scale, and in the way, a musician like Garner did -- that is, attracting and knocking out the "common man" without compromise.

Absolutely! The mention of Garner as the last uncompromising jazz player who appealed to the "common man" is very interesting indeed. It had not occurred to me until you brought it up. Concert By the Sea is one of those jazz recordings that seemed to show up in many peoples' collections back in the day even if they had no other jazz at all.

Along these lines, how do people feel about the heyday of Fusion? In some ways, this was a populist music, and many folks I hung with at the turn of the 1970s and into the mid-'70s enjoyed both rock and jazz, perhaps because groups such as The Mahavishnu Orchestra and early Return to Forever opened their ears up a bit.

[analogak]

lol bluenote can drive to every high school parking lot in the country and crank the duke jordan. will he be able to turn all the cool kids onto jazz before the evils of hip hop, trip hop and jam bands win them over? find out by watching the documentary of bluenote 182's 2008 US tour!

[Guest bluenote82]

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...

Bill, overwhelming does not necessarily mean dominant in these terms. And I am guilty of lumping rap and hiphop in with rockroll (all youth music that is not jazz)

"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.

Bill, that was not my quote. but you certainly have a view to be considered, nice overviews.

Oops! Sorry about that... The board software was being a pain about the multi-quoting option and I neglected to attribute that one.

Yes, I'd include Jimmy Smith, although he did come out of and always could fall back on (if that's the way to put it) the world of "greaze" -- as was the case I think with Ammons, in his own way.

About Bill Barton's point: "I strongly disagree that remarkable players aren't here right now and plenty more coming up."

There are and will continue be (I hope) a good many such players, but I'd be astonished if any of them becomes popular on the scale, and in the way, a musician like Garner did -- that is, attracting and knocking out the "common man" without compromise.

Absolutely! The mention of Garner as the last uncompromising jazz player who appealed to the "common man" is very interesting indeed. It had not occurred to me until you brought it up. Concert By the Sea is one of those jazz recordings that seemed to show up in many peoples' collections back in the day even if they had no other jazz at all.

Along these lines, how do people feel about the heyday of Fusion? In some ways, this was a populist music, and many folks I hung with at the turn of the 1970s and into the mid-'70s enjoyed both rock and jazz, perhaps because groups such as The Mahavishnu Orchestra and early Return to Forever opened their ears up a bit.

I didn't like fusion that much. I felt it was trying too hard to draw rock fans into jazz. I'll be the first one to say that jazz isn't for the faint of heart. You either love it or hate it. Fusion didn't really do anything for me. It seemed like all of the jazz elements had been sucked out of it and it was going for a more rock sound.

I got into jazz because of the sound the of it, the harmony, the melodies, the overall dynamic and rhythmic structure of the music was appealing. It had a blues feeling, but was deeper, more complex and intricate then the blues. Bebop is still my favorite style of jazz and remains one of the biggest challenges for jazz musicians to overcome. "Giant Steps" is the ultimate test piece for most jazz musicians.

You can keep all that funk, fusion, and free jazz crap. I hate that stuff.

[Guest bluenote82]

lol bluenote can drive to every high school parking lot in the country and crank the duke jordan. will he be able to turn all the cool kids onto jazz before the evils of hip hop, trip hop and jam bands win them over? find out by watching the documentary of bluenote 182's 2008 US tour!

I wish I could expose more and more young people to jazz, but unfortunately, the price of gas these days would put a hurting on my budget.

[Jim Alfredson]

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.

If this is true, then I agree with Bev. Jazz deserves to die.

"Giant Steps" is the ultimate test piece for most jazz musicians.

You can keep all that funk, fusion, and free jazz crap. I hate that stuff.

Give me a break.

[Guest bluenote82]

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.

If this is true, then I agree with Bev. Jazz deserves to die.

"Giant Steps" is the ultimate test piece for most jazz musicians.

You can keep all that funk, fusion, and free jazz crap. I hate that stuff.

Give me a break.

You don't think "Giant Steps" is hard to improvise on, Jim?

Tommy Flanagan said it was one of the hardest pieces he ever played and certainly is saying alot. Flanagan on "The World According To John Coltrane" DVD.

[Guest bluenote82]

No offense to anyone here, but kids these days are exposed to some of the most awful crap I've ever heard. I mean it's no wonder they don't really get jazz, because they think that this "hip hop" and "rap" shit is music. It's not. It's pure unadulterated shit!

[Aggie87]

No offense to anyone here, but kids these days are exposed to some of the most awful crap I've ever heard. I mean it's no wonder they don't really get jazz, because they think that this "hip hop" and "rap" shit is music. It's not. It's pure unadulterated shit!

Once again you're purposely trying to offend.

There's no way in hell you can say something like BDP's "You Must Learn" is "pure unadulterated shit".

And if you can honestly say something like that is shit, then we will never see eye to eye on music. I want no part of your jazz snobbery.

Edited March 3, 2008 by Aggie87

[Jim Alfredson]

You don't think "Giant Steps" is hard to improvise on, Jim?

Tommy Flanagan said it was one of the hardest pieces he ever played and certainly is saying alot. Flanagan on "The World According To John Coltrane" DVD.

Does one have to improvise on Giant Steps to be considered a jazz musician?

Does jazz have to be "hard to play" to be considered real jazz?

I can guarantee that many of the fusion tunes you dismiss in one fell swoop are as hard to play over as Giant Steps. Does that mean they are suddenly good?

With every post you make, you paint yourself as possessing a very narrow outlook.

[Guest bluenote82]

You don't think "Giant Steps" is hard to improvise on, Jim?

Tommy Flanagan said it was one of the hardest pieces he ever played and certainly is saying alot. Flanagan on "The World According To John Coltrane" DVD.

Does one have to improvise on Giant Steps to be considered a jazz musician?

Does jazz have to be "hard to play" to be considered real jazz?

I can guarantee that many of the fusion tunes you dismiss in one fell swoop are as hard to play over as Giant Steps. Does that mean they are suddenly good?

With every post you make, you paint yourself as possessing a very narrow outlook.

I know what I like, Jim and fusion certainly isn't my cup of tea.

No jazz does not have to be hard to play to be considered real jazz. I was just saying that "Giant Steps" was or is a "test piece" for alot of jazz musicians. I have many friends who are far and away better at playing jazz then I'll ever be, but they have all said that "Giant Steps" is one of the most complex bebop tunes ever written. It goes through chord changes at such a rapid pace, it makes it difficult to solo over.

Edited March 3, 2008 by bluenote82

[Guest bluenote82]

No offense to anyone here, but kids these days are exposed to some of the most awful crap I've ever heard. I mean it's no wonder they don't really get jazz, because they think that this "hip hop" and "rap" shit is music. It's not. It's pure unadulterated shit!

Once again you're purposely trying to offend.

There's no way in hell you can say something like BDP's "You Must Learn" is "pure unadulterated shit".

And if you can honestly say something like that is shit, then we will never see eye to eye on music. I want no part of your jazz snobbery.

Sorry Aggie87, but I don't see what the big deal with song you posted. It doesn't sound like music to me. The only "hip-hop" song I ever liked was Arrested Development's "Tennessee." That's it.

I actually saw them on television perform this song on SNL and they had a great band backing them up. Whoever the guitarist was he was pretty damn good.

[Jim Alfredson]

I was responding to this:

Bebop is still my favorite style of jazz and remains one of the biggest challenges for jazz musicians to overcome. "Giant Steps" is the ultimate test piece for most jazz musicians.

You can keep all that funk, fusion, and free jazz crap. I hate that stuff.

Bebop hard to overcome? There are books and books and books and videos and play-along CDs, all dedicated to learning how to play bebop. It has been analyzed, compartmentalized, reconstituted, dissected, cloned, and force-fed into academia. What's the big mystery? The language is over 60 years old!

Which leads me to why I singled out the line about Giant Steps. If that's the ultimate test piece for most jazz musicians, than it's no wonder why jazz is dead. If everyone is still hung up on that song, which is itself 40+ years old, than how can we expect jazz to relate to our modern times and thus modern youth? This isn't the 1960s anymore.

Fusion, funk, and free jazz are crap, but you just don't understand why kids aren't into (your kind of) jazz?

Like I said, give me a break.

[Jim Alfredson]

I will add that, in my opinion, the biggest challenge for anyone calling themselves a jazz musician to overcome these days is finding your own voice.

[analogak]

"giant steps" is hard to play? bluenote, i am confused as to whether you are talking down to all of us or if you are just don't really know what the hell you are talking about.

[Guest bluenote82]

I was responding to this:

Bebop is still my favorite style of jazz and remains one of the biggest challenges for jazz musicians to overcome. "Giant Steps" is the ultimate test piece for most jazz musicians.

You can keep all that funk, fusion, and free jazz crap. I hate that stuff.

Bebop hard to overcome? There are books and books and books and videos and play-along CDs, all dedicated to learning how to play bebop. It has been analyzed, compartmentalized, reconstituted, dissected, cloned, and force-fed into academia. What's the big mystery? The language is over 60 years old!

Which leads me to why I singled out the line about Giant Steps. If that's the ultimate test piece for most jazz musicians, than it's no wonder why jazz is dead. If everyone is still hung up on that song, which is itself 40+ years old, than how can we expect jazz to relate to our modern times and thus modern youth? This isn't the 1960s anymore.

Fusion, funk, and free jazz are crap, but you just don't understand why kids aren't into (your kind of) jazz?

Like I said, give me a break.

If you can't find anything modern in what Mingus, Monk, Coltrane, Miles, Bill Evans, or Cannonball Adderley played, then why are you a "jazz" musician anyway. Sure, yeah there have been some great modern jazz musicians to come along in these past few years, but can they really compare to any of these giants?

There's nothing wrong with bebop and looking towards the past. Here is what you believe Jim: you believe that jazz has to be innovative for it to be enjoyed. If all you do is judge jazz based on how innovative or modern it is, then you're truly not a fan of the music.

Something doesn't have to be ultra modern for it to be good does it? I will tell you this, the problem I have with most modern musicians is that they're ignorant of the past. They try and be creative, which trying isn't good enough. The past is what makes us who we are does it not? It's the experiences we have that define us right?

So with all due respect Jim you can give me a break.

Edited March 3, 2008 by bluenote82

[Guest bluenote82]

"giant steps" is hard to play? bluenote, i am confused as to whether you are talking down to all of us or if you are just don't really know what the hell you are talking about.

Sure it is. If Tommy Flanagan had trouble soloing over the changes, then it must be hard! I'm talking down to anyone. I was just pointing out that this song is incredibly hard to solo over. I wonder if Oscar Peterson has ever tried soloing over that tune? Man, it would be really something if it tripped him up. Oscar was fast as lightning.

Edited March 3, 2008 by bluenote82

[Jim Alfredson]

If you can't find anything modern in what Mingus, Monk, Coltrane, Miles, Bill Evans, or Cannonball Adderley played, then why are you a "jazz" musician anyway. Sure, yeah there have been some great modern jazz musicians to come along in these past few years, but can they really compare to any of these giants?

Modern in what sense? You have to define your terms if this is going to go anywhere.

Obviously the music speaks to me or I wouldn't listen to it or have bothered learning it. But I'm not your average person on the street. The thread is about why kids are not being exposed to jazz. I would argue that it might be because of people like you who think the best years of the music are behind it. If you believe that's so, why should young people be into it? Music, for most people, is something that relates to them and the time that they are in. It's a song that invokes a memory about a middle-school crush or a killer party they went to in college. That's all it is. So why would they care about some 50 year old "modern" jazz?

I think there are a lot of neat things happening with the music, but unfortunately jazz is a four-letter word to most people. And rightfully so. They think it sucks because all they've ever heard is bad examples, or stuff that was way above their head, or they were turned off by people like you who say that the music they listen to sucks and jazz is the only real music (and only a tiny sliver of jazz at that).

There's nothing wrong with bebop and looking towards the past. Here is what you believe Jim: you believe that jazz has to be innovative for it to be enjoyed. If all you do is judge jazz based on how innovative or modern it is, then you're truly not a fan of the music.

Please tell me more of what I believe, since you have me all figured out.

You are one presumptuous dude. Your own admission that "I know what I like" extends beyond music, obvioulsy.

Something doesn't have to be ultra modern for it to be good does it?

I never said that.

I will tell you this, the problem I have with most modern musicians is that they're ignorant of the past. They try and be creative, which trying isn't good enough.

What musicians are you talking about?

The past is what makes us who we are does it not? It's the experiences we have that define us right?

Sure. And by that token, you're proving my point that the greatest obstacle of modern musicians (noticed I didn't even confine it to jazz) is to find your own voice.

The past that makes us what we are is OUR past, not somebody elses. Why should I sound like Jimmy Smith when I play? Am I black? Did I grow up in Norristown, PA in the 1930s?

My experience, my past, is totally different. So therefor if I'm being true to myself, I should sound different than Jimmy Smith, right? Sure, I fall back on his stock licks sometimes. Sure, I love his music and so I listened to it over and over again. Sure, you study those musicians you love. First you emulate. Then you assimilate. Then hopefully you innovate. That doesn't mean re-inventing the wheel, it just means speaking with your own voice.

And that's hard to do. Much harder than playing over Giant Steps.

[Jim Alfredson]

"giant steps" is hard to play? bluenote, i am confused as to whether you are talking down to all of us or if you are just don't really know what the hell you are talking about.

Sure it is. If Tommy Flanagan had trouble soloing over the changes, then it must be hard!

That's because the chart from Coltrane that he gave Flanagan had no tempo markings and Flanagan assumed it was a ballad, and so he practiced it that way. He could and I'm sure he did play it just fine later in life after having time to practice it.

Yes, it's a hard tune to solo over, but you don't you think the reason Coltrane blew such a nice solo over it is because he practiced the living bejesus out of it before the session? A lot of those runs he uses are things he already worked out beforehand so he could make it over the changes. It wasn't like he wrote the chords and melody and then never actually tried soloing over it until the session.

[Guest bluenote82]

If you can't find anything modern in what Mingus, Monk, Coltrane, Miles, Bill Evans, or Cannonball Adderley played, then why are you a "jazz" musician anyway. Sure, yeah there have been some great modern jazz musicians to come along in these past few years, but can they really compare to any of these giants?

Modern in what sense? You have to define your terms if this is going to go anywhere.

Obviously the music speaks to me or I wouldn't listen to it or have bothered learning it. But I'm not your average person on the street. The thread is about why kids are not being exposed to jazz. I would argue that it might be because of people like you who think the best years of the music are behind it. If you believe that's so, why should young people be into it? Music, for most people, is something that relates to them and the time that they are in. It's a song that invokes a memory about a middle-school crush or a killer party they went to in college. That's all it is. So why would they care about some 50 year old "modern" jazz?

I think there are a lot of neat things happening with the music, but unfortunately jazz is a four-letter word to most people. And rightfully so. They think it sucks because all they've ever heard is bad examples, or stuff that was way above their head, or they were turned off by people like you who say that the music they listen to sucks and jazz is the only real music (and only a tiny sliver of jazz at that).

There's nothing wrong with bebop and looking towards the past. Here is what you believe Jim: you believe that jazz has to be innovative for it to be enjoyed. If all you do is judge jazz based on how innovative or modern it is, then you're truly not a fan of the music.

Please tell me more of what I believe, since you have me all figured out.

You are one presumptuous dude. Your own admission that "I know what I like" extends beyond music, obvioulsy.

Something doesn't have to be ultra modern for it to be good does it?

I never said that.

I will tell you this, the problem I have with most modern musicians is that they're ignorant of the past. They try and be creative, which trying isn't good enough.

What musicians are you talking about?

The past is what makes us who we are does it not? It's the experiences we have that define us right?

Sure. And by that token, you're proving my point that the greatest obstacle of modern musicians (noticed I didn't even confine it to jazz) is to find your own voice.

The past that makes us what we are is OUR past, not somebody elses. Why should I sound like Jimmy Smith when I play? Am I black? Did I grow up in Norristown, PA in the 1930s?

My experience, my past, is totally different. So therefor if I'm being true to myself, I should sound different than Jimmy Smith, right? Sure, I fall back on his stock licks sometimes. Sure, I love his music and so I listened to it over and over again. Sure, you study those musicians you love. First you emulate. Then you assimilate. Then hopefully you innovate. That doesn't mean re-inventing the wheel, it just means speaking with your own voice.

And that's hard to do. Much harder than playing over Giant Steps.

Who said you have to sound like anybody else? Who said you have to live in the past? Who said you have to do any of the things you do? I certainly didn't. All I said was there's some great music from the 50s and 60s and you went off on a huge tangent.

The problem with modern jazz is that many of the musicians aren't familiar enough with the language. They think just because they majored in jazz compostion they understand it, but the sad reality is they don't have a clue. You will learn more on the bandstand than any school will teach you. I had a teacher named Jean Verioux who was my jazz guitar teacher when I was just starting to learn to play jazz and he was an older gentleman, maybe 75 years old, and he taught me about bebop and how to play with a swing feel and he showed me alot of things about harmony. He had played with alot of musicians in his lifetime and he gave to me a very important piece of advice: "Always look to the future, but don't forget the past."

Jazz is an improvised music, but it does have structure and form to it. It's a way of communicating not only on the bandstand, but in the studio, on the bus, on the train, or wherever you go. I'm very lucky to have had studied with Jean. I learned a ton. It also helps when he took lessons from Barney Kessel!

[analogak]

i was being sarcastic, you pedantic doofus. i

[Guest bluenote82]

i was being sarcastic, you pedantic doofus. i

How was I to know? Sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across that way when you're typing.

[Jim Alfredson]

The tangent was yours. You started talking about Giant Steps and telling me what I believe. I'm just setting the record straight.

[JSngry]

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

Why should they be?

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...VideoID=5042753

That's basically 40 year old music being played in a way that still reaches out and grabs you by the gumptions. Show me somebody today who can do that in jazz. Take all the time you need. I'll leave a forwarding address in the morning, ok?

There's a handful of "today's jazz musicians" who make music of today that grabs one by the gumptions, but unfortunately, they're nearly all tainted by that dreadful funk, fusion, and free jazz crap. It's the curse of Satan that those "musics" ever appeared. If they hadn't, Art Farmer would still make all the chicks wet. It's a world gone wrong when young folk wanna use their youthful energy for youthfully energetic purposes, I tell ya'. A world gone freakin' wrong.

Me, I gotta have music that's real about sex. god, keeping your soul while dealing with bullshit, or some combination thereof. Get 'em all three in one, and you got Thee Perfect Music, regardless of genre and/or age of performer/audience. Otherwise, you got Music About Music, which deserves all the audience it gets. Or doesn't get.