Why is jazz "background music"

[GregK]

I find that whenever I mention to someone from the pop-rock world that I listen to jazz, or if I see someone looking at a jazz CD I had lying around, I always get the "oh, I like jazz, it's great background music" line. This used to puzzle me, now it just makes me frustrated. Why do so many people consider jazz so dismissively? To me, jazz is something to be listened to actively, in the foreground!!

[Rooster_Ties]

It ain't got vocals (or most of it doesn't), and for a majority of people, music without vocals is just background music.

Thankfully not a 99% majority, but I would guess well over 50% think this.

[Uncle Skid]

I agree, it is frustrating. Another remark which I find discouraging is the "well, it's OK, but it all sounds the same to me" comment -- which I just heard my wife say this evening. I think that might be one reason why some people consider it background music. The lack of vocals probably contributes as well.

After playing some selections by Cedar Walton, Cannonball, Lee Morgan, Donald Byrd, and Organissimo -- I was a little surprised by that comment. It sure doesn't sound all the same to me.

[wesbed]

I think it depends on what kind of jazz people believe you are talking about. Much of the smooth jazz is really nothing more than nice background music. If you listen intently to it, you still don’t hear much more than sonic wallpaper.

When discussing acoustic jazz from the 40s, 50s, and 60s, I believe people tend to consider it background music because it offers nothing for the uneducated listener to grab on to. The music offers no familiar vocals to sing along with, no danceable rhythm, and generally no familiar player’s names. Who, outside of a jazz audience, has heard of Tina Brooks or Sonny Clark?

When listening to jazz, I believe people hear nice sounds coming from instruments they are familiar with and they get the sense it would make pleasant background music. You know, a nice drumming sound, maybe a well-played trumpet, piano, or saxophone and hey, this makes for great background music. It sounds cool as hell too. If listening to jazz while eating dinner, you can speak easily over it because there are no vocals. If you aren’t familiar with the music, all the playing may sound the same. A trumpet is a trumpet, a piano is a piano.

There are so many different players involved, the names may seem overwhelming to the uninitiated. Again, it’s just easier to leave well enough alone and use this music as background music. Who can keep track of all these crazy names (Miles, Thelonious, Sonny)?

From my experience, people get a sense that classical music can be either really listened to, or accepted as background music. Even when classical music is used as background music, people seem to know there is some real music somewhere in the mix. Something that could be listened to and appreciated if so desired.

What is this thing called jazz? People seem to have a difficult time with it. But, hey, it certainly sounds good in the background.

Edited December 15, 2003 by wesbed

[BFrank]

Someone at work was telling me about how her boyfriend has been getting into jazz over the past year. She is a lifelong rock fan, though. She said she liked some of the jazz he was playing, but a lot of it was not soothing to listen to. She couldn't understand that - this from someone who likes The Stranglers, Clash and a lot of the new wave/punk bands of the late 70's/early 80's.

I tried to explain that jazz is the same as all other music in that way. There are some artists like James Taylor and others like Iggy Pop.

[Jazzmoose]

This is a puzzling question to me. I've never heard of jazz referred to as background music, so I'm a bit dumbfounded by the question. Of course, the non "jazzfan" I'm most familiar with is my wife, who can't stand the idea of jazz as background music precisely because, as BFrank's coworker says, "it's not soothing". My wife listens to music primarily for the calming effect it gives her, and dislikes most jazz because it's too stressful for her. Of course, her "stress" is my "excitement". I honestly can't understand the concept of jazz as background music.

On the other hand, the last comment someone made in my office before I replied with "goodbye" the other day was "that sounds like elevator music". Candyassed heathen shithead...

[Jazz]

It has to do with development. If you are talking to someone who is used to modern rock, what do they get with any of their music? Usually simple AABA, probably 4 to a phrase, all within simple circle of fifths, primary tone melodies, and these days, probably not even any modulations (most modulations in rock are phrase modulations anyway - no gray areas to speak of). The main thing though, is that Jazz tends to have a way, waaaaay longer arc for melodic development. You can't expect someone who is used to hearing the complete musical content in a song stated within the first 20 or 30 seconds to actually understand a melodic arc that is minutes long, improvised, and is not repeated verbatim every phrase...

[randissimo]

It has to do with development. If you are talking to someone who is used to modern rock, what do they get with any of their music? Usually simple AABA, probably 4 to a phrase, all within simple circle of fifths, primary tone melodies, and these days, probably not even any modulations (most modulations in rock are phrase modulations anyway - no gray areas to speak of). The main thing though, is that Jazz tends to have a way, waaaaay longer arc for melodic development. You can't expect someone who is used to hearing the complete musical content in a song stated within the first 20 or 30 seconds to actually understand a melodic arc that is minutes long, improvised, and is not repeated verbatim every phrase...

I've noticed Jazz being played a lot on systems in super markets, restaurants, doctor, dentist, and business offices, shopping malls, and big home improvement outlets. From Carmen McRae, Chick Corea, and Pat Metheny to Miles Davis, Spyro Gyra, and John Coltrane. I'm not so sure this is a good thing..

When I first started noticing a greater occurance of Jazz in these places I thought it would help create a greater interest and awareness in the music.. However, all it's really done is replace a lot of corny and monotonous muzak, and people are hearing it in the same situations as muzak, while they are shopping or making appointments in offices. This I believe has taken Jazz out of context. So what used to be considered hip and creative jazz is now being pumped out as low volume wallpaper in retail outlets and offices and in the average mindset, it's still just muzak or elevator music.. And most of it doesn't have vocal lyrics..

So, IMO, when the average person hears Jazz in a more appropriate live environment or context, they're conditioned to think it's just background music to be ignored and not listened to.. Hence, the increased apathy and room chatter on the average gig these days in the lounges and restaurants..

Edited December 15, 2003 by randissimo

[chris]

I agree that the main element seems to be the lack of vocals and the lack of extremely simple melodic devices. It's no different than someone who doesn't read closely complaining that "nothing happens" in literary fiction or that poetry is "all boring." Or, for that matter, trying to scarf down a subtle, complex dessert like a 59 cent donut and then wondering what all the fuss was about

Perhaps this relates back to how we respond physiologically to music-- an area I really should find some time to do a little reading about...

[David Ayers]

Ornette said 'let's play the music not the background' (i.e. cycles of chords).

We can take this as a reminder that jazz has always functioned as background music for dancing and drinking.

To judge by how many CDs you guys seem to get through(! ) I have the suspicion that many people here would have no difficulty listening to jazz CDs while doing something else. Well, if you are doing something else, it becomes background music, something that in large part it was designed to be. So you can't complain when other people call it background music! (where's the kissy smiley - damn we need more smileys on this board...)

[couw]

I once went up in an elevator to the sound of Charlie Parker - weird shit. I danced my ass off in that small room, people who got on the elevator with me, got off again real soon. I wonder why ?

[Jazzmoose]

Some damned good points here, guys. Hanging out here, or with people I know who are intensely into reading, music, or whatever, I tend to forget that the average person's idea of entertainment in this culture is to sit passively in front of the television rather than actively pay attention to anything. The concept of an adult reading more than fluff (unless required by work) is simply not normal. Forget about active, concentrated listening...

And David, good point. I certainly use jazz as background music. At least when the wife isn't around!

[robviti]

for me, jazz is appealing on so many levels that it naturally lends itself to enhancing the "background" of my life. the same goes for good classical music, world music, etc. i used to think of "jazz as background music" as denigrating, since I dislike more shallow music styles like "new age" and "smooth jazz." now i just accept the fact that everything goes better with jazz!

[Jazz]

Ornette said 'let's play the music not the background' (i.e. cycles of chords).

We can take this as a reminder that jazz has always functioned as background music for dancing and drinking.

To judge by how many CDs you guys seem to get through(! ) I have the suspicion that many people here would have no difficulty listening to jazz CDs while doing something else. Well, if you are doing something else, it becomes background music, something that in large part it was designed to be. So you can't complain when other people call it background music! (where's the kissy smiley - damn we need more smileys on this board...)

David,

I used to do 4 hours a day of analytical listening to Jazz, (i.e. concentrating on the music and nothing else) and this is what I learned: straight ahead has about a billion things going on in at the same time. Polyrhythms, counterpoint, improvised substitutions - not to mention implied polyrhythms, counterpoint and harmony - spontaneous interaction between any of the members of the rhythm section, spontaneous interaction between the rhythm section and lead instruments, minute tempo fluctuations (playing behind the beat, playing energetically), incredibly precise articulation (swinging, grooving, dynamic accentuation of the melody) and on top of all of that, I knew I wasn't hearing everything that happened and most of it is improvised.

You can use Jazz as background music, sure, you can use any kind of music as background, but I gaurantee you that if you spend time concentrating on it, Jazz music will reveal subtleties and complexities that you will not find in any other kind of music. This is why calling Jazz "background music" shows a lack of understanding of what Jazz even is.

[couw]

It ain't got vocals (or most of it doesn't), and for a majority of people, music without vocals is just background music.

Thankfully not a 99% majority, but I would guess well over 50% think this.

It's because radio DJs tend to talk over the instrumental introductions and only shut up once the pop-singing starts-- People think a song starts with the lyrics, hence an instrumental track never starts and they can talk over it all they want.

[Joe G]

Randissimo and Jazzmoose hit on some good points. People in our culture, by and large, simply have not learned how to listen to and concentrate on something for extended periods of time. Except for tv. Music is everywhere in our lives, but the reason for that is usually to sell something. So we tend to tune it out. For trained musicians or a "sensitive layman" (to borrow a term from Bill Evans), there really is no such thing as "background music" most of the time. It's almost impossible for me to tune out piped in music in stores or waiting rooms, even if it's music I hate. That results in some rather unpleasant shopping or waiting room experiences, but on the plus side, I am, at the least, a discriminating consumer. If someone tries to pitch me with a lame jingle (or a lame cd), it's probably not going to work.

[Free For All]

I think the reasons stated thus far are right on. Television is effectively training people to focus for very short periods- like 7 minutes or so. People can sit in front of the TV for hours because it doesn't require uninterrupted concentration. Shows no longer have long theme song/openings, commercials are essentially fast-paced music videos, advertisements for other shows run at the bottom of the screen (I hate that one).

As far as the music, I think many people have a hard time understanding the purpose or even the process of improvisation. Appreciating a well-crafted improvised solo requires at least a little focus, and most people don't listen with the ear for detail that jazz (and classical) fans tend to have. Most people could care less if the player is making the changes, or even that there ARE changes.

They usually can't tell the head from the solo, either. It's not that these people are idiots (most of the time), it's just the culture in which they were raised, IMHO. I know my first exposure to live music was probably the church (Presbyterian), and I remember the music as being stiff and dull. I also remember a young and naive attempt to "improvise" my making up my own parts on hymns- the seeds of jazz were planted early. My parents liked jazz, though, and it was frequently playing in our house- I'm sure that's how I became a musican and fan.

I am aware that there are things that people are passionate about that I'm not interested in. When someone attempts to explain one of these things to me, I try to politely listen but often find myself in an internal battle to stay focused and not let my mind wander.

As far as jazz, I actually don't mind the fact that everyone doesn't get it.

"It's the hard that makes it good." Remember that movie line?

I kind of enjoy the intimate group. I think it is important, though, not to alienate those don't get it by coming off as an elitist. Some just aren't going to get it, and that's fine with me, because there are things other people like that I could care less about, and I'm not losing any sleep over that!

[Upright Bill]

I teach Bass and Guitar at a music store. Last week when chatting with a student after his lesson another person in the store butten into the conversation and stated, "Nobody actually likes Jazz." I guess my jaw dropped because the person went on to explain, "Nobody actually likes Jazz because the songs don't have a melody. They claim to like it so they will appear to be smart."

The person was the piano teacher.

[David Ayers]

Ornette said 'let's play the music not the background' (i.e. cycles of chords).

We can take this as a reminder that jazz has always functioned as background music for dancing and drinking.

To judge by how many CDs you guys seem to get through(! ) I have the suspicion that many people here would have no difficulty listening to jazz CDs while doing something else. Well, if you are doing something else, it becomes background music, something that in large part it was designed to be. So you can't complain when other people call it background music! (where's the kissy smiley - damn we need more smileys on this board...)

David,

I used to do 4 hours a day of analytical listening to Jazz, (i.e. concentrating on the music and nothing else) and this is what I learned: straight ahead has about a billion things going on in at the same time. Polyrhythms, counterpoint, improvised substitutions - not to mention implied polyrhythms, counterpoint and harmony - spontaneous interaction between any of the members of the rhythm section, spontaneous interaction between the rhythm section and lead instruments, minute tempo fluctuations (playing behind the beat, playing energetically), incredibly precise articulation (swinging, grooving, dynamic accentuation of the melody) and on top of all of that, I knew I wasn't hearing everything that happened and most of it is improvised.

You can use Jazz as background music, sure, you can use any kind of music as background, but I gaurantee you that if you spend time concentrating on it, Jazz music will reveal subtleties and complexities that you will not find in any other kind of music. This is why calling Jazz "background music" shows a lack of understanding of what Jazz even is.

I think my (admitedly implicit) argument was that AS WELL as being a music you can listen to, jazz ALSO functions as background music, not least because it was always DESIGNED to do so.

The movement of currents in a river is of immense complexity, but a person can still just sit back and enjoy the flow while they munch on a sammich and knock back the Jim Beam.

[Joe G]

The person was the piano teacher.

That must be one frustrated musician!

[Jazz]

I think my (admitedly implicit) argument was that AS WELL as being a music you can listen to, jazz ALSO functions as background music, not least because it was always DESIGNED to do so.

The movement of currents in a river is of immense complexity, but a person can still just sit back and enjoy the flow while they munch on a sammich and knock back the Jim Beam.

I only have a few minutes here, so I'll be brief. I understood your argument and acknowledged it. I would like you to explain why you think that Jazz was "designed" to be background music, because my understanding of what Jazz was "designed" for is just the opposite. When someone says that Jazz is "background music", what they mean is "music that is not worth paying attention to".

[David Ayers]

I think my (admitedly implicit) argument was that AS WELL as being a music you can listen to, jazz ALSO functions as background music, not least because it was always DESIGNED to do so.

The movement of currents in a river is of immense complexity, but a person can still just sit back and enjoy the flow while they munch on a sammich and knock back the Jim Beam.

I only have a few minutes here, so I'll be brief. I understood your argument and acknowledged it. I would like you to explain why you think that Jazz was "designed" to be background music, because my understanding of what Jazz was "designed" for is just the opposite. When someone says that Jazz is "background music", what they mean is "music that is not worth paying attention to".

I mean that jazz was designed to be played in places where people would dance and drink and talk. So it has to have an element in it that people don't have to listen to analytically.

I suggested that people who reject the idea of jazz as background music only have to consult their own experience of listening to jazz in this way to have some idea how people who are nonchalant about it might think.

Consider anything which does not interest you - wine, bridge construction, website construction etc etc - each of these things is of immense complexity, but does not have to be accessed in terms of the highest analytical level.

Jazz is just one of the things in life it is possible to be interested in. But its not compulsory. Ever boogied? And if you have, were you really really listening to every note?

[Upright Bill]

That must be one frustrated musician!

I think, as a general life rule, when you dislike your job you should find a new one. Many people, our pianist is one, act as if their job is a court ordered sentence.

They need to listen to more jazz!

[maren]

Ever boogied? And if you have, were you really really listening to every note?

I'm not trying to be contrary, David, believe me! It's just that, for me, whenever I DO "boogie" I'm totally listening to EVERY note! All the notes are telling me how to move! It's listening to the notes that moves me out of self-consciousness and wondering what I look like dancing (although those LOOKING might say that's a BAD thing! guess it means I'm a musician, not a dancer).

[Free For All]

I think, as a general life rule, when you dislike your job you should find a new one. Many people, our pianist is one, act as if their job is a court ordered sentence.

They need to listen to more jazz!

I agree. There are a lot of musicians and teachers who seem pretty bitter and make you wonder why they're doing it if they are so unhappy.

As far as "needing to listen to more jazz", I doubt that would have much of an effect. Obviously there are personal issues about life and self-esteem that need to be addressed before any change in attitude (or musical taste)can take place. Change most often occurs only when someone wants to change. I tried a couple of times to quit smoking, but it wasn't until I decided that I wanted to change (for myself, not for anyone else) that I succeeded. Now the urges are so slight and manageable that I don't even notice them (it's been two years).

Anyway, back to topic. I often have music on while I am doing something else- on the computer, working around the house- and I don't feel like I'm doing a disservice to the music. I also engage in focused listening- no distractions, maybe headphones. I think both types are certainly valid.

EDIT: I would add that my "background" listening takes place when I'm doing things not requiring a lot of talking. If there's a lot of conversing involved I usually go w/o the music, because if I'm trying to listen to someone the music is always distracting me. Ever put on a choice recording for friends and they immediately (or eventually)start talking? Sometimes that really offends me, although I guess I shouldn't take it personally.

Edited December 15, 2003 by Free For All