Ageing audience for jazz?

[A Lark Ascending]

Daniel Barenboim has just launched a download-only classical label.

Part of his rational is to reach a younger audience.

"Instead of crying about the fact that more young people don't go to concerts, we have to ask ourselves the questions "Why should young people go to concerts? Why should young people buy records, if they get no initiation into it?"

http://www.gramophone.co.uk/news/daniel-barenboim-launches-new-download-only-label-with-universal

I'm not sure if he's considered the question "Why should young people click on a classical music site?" Starting off with the first three Bruckner symphonies seems like more of the same rather than a radical new departure.

But I'm all for new download sites. Good luck to him.

Edited June 15, 2014 by A Lark Ascending

[Scott Dolan]

Well, all I can tell you is that throughout my life I have often been introduced to new artists and genres by ones I was listening to at the time. Or, by a mutual fan of an artist that said, "then you'll probably this as well." Nothing random about that at all.

Matter of fact, off the top of my head I can't think of a single artist or genre that I just randomly fell back asswards into appreciating.

Did you never hear something randomly on the radio and go 'Wow!'? Or in a pub or a friend's house? Or read a description of something in a magazine or book or internet site which just piqued your curiosity even though you had no experience?

I recognise totally what you mean by the 'Kind of Blue' generation thing - lots of my exploration has worked that way. But being blindsided out of left-field is just as exciting.

In my world Miles Davis, King Crimson, John Coltrane, Black Sabbath, Hank Mobley, Yes, Stanley Turrentine, Pink Floyd, Pharaoh Sanders and Jimi Hendrix all exist in the same respected circle. One of them is not "more important" to me than another, I love them all equally, just because some of those artists are jazz doesn't make them "superior". I don't discriminate based on genre.

Absolutely.

I lived through the "Tull rool, Sabbath are crap" era.

Oh, of course. There have been random occurences like that. Although I don't consider hearing a tune on the radio that strikes me as random. There's obviously a reason why I'm listening to that particular station.

But, at the end of the day, those occurences are relatively few and far between. I usually research music quite heavily. Happy accidents do occur, but not as often as with MG.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Scott Dolan

[David Ayers]

As long as we agree that Hendrix was in no way a better or more complex guitarist than I am then I'm happy. And Peas Pudding Hot is right up there as a melody with My Favorite Things.

[Scott Dolan]

I could almost cede "more complex", but there are so many ways to be complex, including being simple...and it seems like there's always people who talk about well, that's really complex, but it has no meaning to me, there's nothing there I can feel, so, what are we talking about here other than personal resonances/satisfactions? Of such things a common culture of no small reward can be built, but also can be constructed some really idiotic simplistic assumptions that lead to self-glorifying stupidity. It can go either way, it can.

Since self-glorifying stupidity drives each and every post you've ever made here, I hardly think you have any room to stand aghast.

If you don't agree with my take, good, don't agree with it.

But enough of your dime store intellectualism.

[JSngry]

Well, that's a well-reasoned logic-based objective response.

Not very complex, though.

[Scott Dolan]

Well, that's a well-reasoned logic-based objective response.

Not very complex, though.

Well let's just go ahead and agree that Stravinsky's Rite Of Spring is just as complex and difficult to play as Queen's Another One Bites the dust. It also takes the same amount of musical training, talent, and ability to play both.

On a related note, waitressing at a Waffle House is just as complex and intensive as being a surgeon performing open-heart surgery. Hey, why argue any differently?

Feel free to throw in any other false equivalency of your choosing.

Now, if you'll excuse me I'm going to go listen to my copy of the Sex Pistols cover of Zappa's Don't You Ever Wash That Thing...

BTW, on a serious note my favorite album last year, no genre excepted, was Lorde's Pure Heroine. So let's drop the "superior" nonsense.

[JSngry]

I can't tell what your point is other than that some musics are harder to execute by some peoples than other musics by some others. With this, I agree, 100%.

Waffle House, otoh, can get pretty difficult, especially on Saturday nights. I think, if I had a choice, I might prefer performing open-heart surgery. I would probably have more control over directing a desired outcome.

So, I guess we're in at least 50% agreement. Hugs!

[jazzscriveyn]

Well, here I am just back from the Vortex (London); their monthly "mopomoso" improvised music slot.

Part One – Portfolio Improvisers:

Seth Bennett (bass) / Shaun Blezard (electronics) / Anton Hunter (guitar) / Rachel Musson (saxophone) / Shelly Knotts (electronics) / Julie Kjaer (saxophone / flute) led by Steve Beresford (piano)


Part Two – Three guitarists:

Arthur Bull (electric) / Pascal Marzan (classical) / John Russell (archtop)

And guess what, half or maybe a bit more of the audience were to my estimate in their 20s and 30s.

Good!

[Scott Dolan]

I can't tell what your point is other than that some musics are harder to execute by some peoples than other musics by some others. With this, I agree, 100%.

Waffle House, otoh, can get pretty difficult, especially on Saturday nights. I think, if I had a choice, I might prefer performing open-heart surgery. I would probably have more control over directing a desired outcome.

So, I guess we're in at least 50% agreement. Hugs!

Hahahaha...

Stalemate...

[Hot Ptah]

But, no matter how one wishes to spin it, the John Coltrane Quartet is a hell of a lot more complex, and emotionally and intellectually engaging than Britney Spears.

QUOTE OF THE YEAR!

I know some very intelligent people who know theater, literature and visual arts at a sophisticated level far above mine, who totally disagree with this. I have had discussions with them about this subject. They believe that the artistry required to produce compelling vocal pop hits far exceeds the ability to improvise instrumentally, at any level of improvisational skill. To them, improvised instrumental music is "half-music", an easy out in which the musical artist does not try particularly hard, and stops before completing their musical work of art. To them, a Spears hit, or a Beatles hit, or a Motown hit from 1965, or a Frank Sinatra hit from 1955, is a far greater artistic achievement than any jazz instrumental ever. They speak articulately and intelligently about this.

I don't agree with them, but it is another point of view, which jazz lovers typically do not even consider.

[AllenLowe]

re- Larry's point, above; and paraphrasing Richard Gilman, the best art is an alternative history, all its own; and as such is, in many ways, much more revealing than those forms of expression which are narrow reflections of only a particular time and place. But let me add that jazz and vernacular music fits my idea of alternative; otherwise we would have things more appropriate for sociology 101 courses then out own listening enlightment. Or works of pure epherema, which jazz, blues, ragtime, hillbilly, gospel, et al are clearly NOT.

And hot Ptah - I can accept the point that complexity of expression goes beyond jazz improvisation - though I would stop far short of calling jazz playing only a partial-art; and I would issue a reminder that all that pop music would likely not exist except for the playing of Louis Armstrong.

but more importantly, those who embrace Brittany Spears as a prime example of pop complexity really expose the falseness of their arguments and the shallowness of their intellect (I don't mean you but those you are quoting); it is a classic academic exercise to take mediocrity and then rationalize it for 'context' and thus try to elevate it. This is something, too, of a reverse snobbery, which seems to posit that all this pop music cannot make it on its own two legs but needs havy intellectual artillery support. Which is really, really, silly.

Edited June 16, 2014 by AllenLowe

[Hot Ptah]

I think that many of us began by listening to pop music on the radio, or the pop music popular in our school, and at some point, became interested in jazz. For me, there was quite a transition, akin to learning a new language. Learning this new language and the cultural and historic content surrounding it--that was a bit of hard work. So I think it is natural to congratulate oneself on having mastered this new area of study. So often I find that those who have mastered this new area of study, jazz, then go on to consider themselves, and their musical tastes, superior to that of pop music listeners.

Our superiority complex can be increased by reading some jazz critics, who have written about jazz in a particular historical style of writing, in which individual figures, and changes in the music, are presented heroically, as if we are involved in the great sweep of highly significant historic events. That is an artificial construct by the writers, not reality.

But I don't think it all needs to be that way. If I were to study and become very familiar with the native music of Papua New Guinea this year, that would be hard work too. But then what if I came onto this site and proclaimed that I was far superior to all of you, who are listening to that superficial jazz stuff, instead of my deeper, richer, more artistically valid music of Papua New Guinea? Everyone would most likely see me as an insufferable, obnoxious snob. Some more thoughtful, calm members might say something like, "it's different music, not better." So why do we feel that the fact that we listen to an album of standards, played by a tenor sax, acoustic piano, acoustic bass and drums, in a not particularly compelling way, makes us superior to someone listening to the Zac Brown Band, or the Black Keys, or Trombone Shorty, or Aretha Franklin, or Paul McCartney, or any other pop music you might name. Is it possible that it is different, but not better? So maybe we should get off of our pedestals, and maybe that would help make jazz more popular to the uninitiated younger listener.

[David Ayers]

Actually HP I basically agree with those people. I can love jazz and improv for what it is, but not for what it isn't. Anyone who can't see the limitations of jazz basically can't see it.

[ejp626]

and I would issue a reminder that all that pop music would likely not exist except for the playing of Louis Armstrong.

And I am going to strongly disagree. This is too much of the great men of history way of thinking. If it weren't Pops, it would have been someone else, and we still would have eventually gotten around to somebody like Elvis. Too many people were playing music for somebody not to have broken through.

Just as with science/engineering. There would have been assembly lines without Henry Ford, and certainly the telephone without Bell, and somebody would even (eventually) have come across relativity without Einstein.

[AllenLowe]

armstrong invented the basic rhythm which led to rock and roll; or he codified it; either way, it is one great-man theory that works. He was as broady influential as Joyce. Something would have happened without him but not in the same way. The way in which he developed the triplet feeling which led to to the common idea of swing (or they way in which he pulled it out of the post-African Diaspoa), and the way in which that triplet feeling relates to the clave, gaves us more than we can count, including Elvis (That's Allright Mama is very Latinate) -

re David Ayers, above, I think limitations are irrelevant, though; anything and everything is limited. Charley Patton is limited, yet as profound as anything I've heard in the 20th century; same for maybe 50 other blues and hillbilly players. And 100 rockers whom I think played music as interesting as any other.

I know that's not exactly what you are talking about, but it's really less a question of limits than interest.

Edited June 16, 2014 by AllenLowe

[Scott Dolan]

but more importantly, those who embrace Brittany Spears as a prime example of pop complexity really expose the falseness of their arguments and the shallowness of their intellect (I don't mean you but those you are quoting); it is a classic academic exercise to take mediocrity and then rationalize it for 'context' and thus try to elevate it. This is something, too, of a reverse snobbery, which seems to posit that all this pop music cannot make it on its own two legs but needs havy intellectual artillery support. Which is really, really, silly.

On a related note, anyone who somehow read that Britney Spears was being held up as a prime example of pop complexity is also showing the shallowness of their intellect. Or at least horrendous reading comprehension.

Though, if someone did, I'd be overjoyed if you could quote it, or direct to the particular post.

[Scott Dolan]

But, no matter how one wishes to spin it, the John Coltrane Quartet is a hell of a lot more complex, and emotionally and intellectually engaging than Britney Spears.

QUOTE OF THE YEAR!

I know some very intelligent people who know theater, literature and visual arts at a sophisticated level far above mine, who totally disagree with this. I have had discussions with them about this subject. They believe that the artistry required to produce compelling vocal pop hits far exceeds the ability to improvise instrumentally, at any level of improvisational skill. To them, improvised instrumental music is "half-music", an easy out in which the musical artist does not try particularly hard, and stops before completing their musical work of art. To them, a Spears hit, or a Beatles hit, or a Motown hit from 1965, or a Frank Sinatra hit from 1955, is a far greater artistic achievement than any jazz instrumental ever. They speak articulately and intelligently about this.

I don't agree with them, but it is another point of view, which jazz lovers typically do not even consider.

The problem I have is the assembly line way in which modern popular music is manufactured. The overwhelming majority of boy bands and pop starlets are completely manufactured, and rarely even write any of their music or lyrics.

Even worse, there's Nashville.

While I can't stomach one second of the garbage that comes out of Nashville, there are at least enjoyable albums that come out of the Pop music world. Last year I thought both Lorde and the incredibly talented Haim sisters pput out two fantastic albums. But, true talent in that genre seems to be a very small minority. Good god, did any see the first (and hopefully only) time Taylor Swift was on Saturday Night Live. It wasn't long after Ashley Simpson broke the fourth wall with her lip-syncing shuck and jive, so all subsequent artists were very mindful not to get caught up in that. Poor Taylor really needed to, though. Her voice cracked several times, and she was as pitchy as I am.

I suppose walking into Walmart and seeing rows of plastic disposable shit lining the shelves is somewhat impressive, but I'd prefer something hand-crafted. And most modern Pop IS that plastic disposable shit. And that's why so many of them have to lip-sync when they're out live. What they do can only be properly created and processed in the factory.

[Hot Ptah]

I have had to listen a lot to an FM radio station that plays today's pop country in recent months, just because the people I have had to associate with always have it on. There is much of real merit in the pop country hits of today. They are not garbage, not all formulaic--there are some really good songs being written and performed in the country genre now. I have been pleasantly surprised. Actually I think that today's country hits sound a whole lot like the 1970s rock that many of the members here liked when they were younger, with a slight country twist.

I am not sure why, but it seems easy for jazz listeners to especially ridicule country music, even more so than other forms of pop music.

[Hot Ptah]

armstrong invented the basic rhythm which led to rock and roll; or he codified it; either way, it is one great-man theory that works. He was as broady influential as Joyce. Something would have happened without him but not in the same way. The way in which he developed the triplet feeling which led to to the common idea of swing (or they way in which he pulled it out of the post-African Diaspoa), and the way in which that triplet feeling relates to the clave, gaves us more than we can count, including Elvis (That's Allright Mama is very Latinate) -

re David Ayers, above, I think limitations are irrelevant, though; anything and everything is limited. Charley Patton is limited, yet as profound as anything I've heard in the 20th century; same for maybe 50 other blues and hillbilly players. And 100 rockers whom I think played music as interesting as any other.

I know that's not exactly what you are talking about, but it's really less a question of limits than interest.

Very interesting post. I believe that there are a few "great people" who actually make a difference. If there had not been a Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Mozart, James Joyce, Albert Einstein--it is not clear to me that someone else would have come along and done roughly the same thing. What I find irritating is when jazz writers, or historians generally, go much further, and simplify everything into separate movements, eras, or periods of great man influence, when the reality was far more complex and defies such simple characterization.

[David Ayers]

Always been true that country has produced great articulate and feelingful adult music.

A mistake to equate popular music with music aimed at children. The criticism that can be made would concern the scientific segregation of music markets which involves the creation of music specifically for the very young. But young people grow up and move on. And I speak as someone who loves the Spice Girls.

[Scott Dolan]

I have had to listen a lot to an FM radio station that plays today's pop country in recent months, just because the people I have had to associate with always have it on. There is much of real merit in the pop country hits of today. They are not garbage, not all formulaic--there are some really good songs being written and performed in the country genre now. I have been pleasantly surprised. Actually I think that today's country hits sound a whole lot like the 1970s rock that many of the members here liked when they were younger, with a slight country twist.

I am not sure why, but it seems easy for jazz listeners to especially ridicule country music, even more so than other forms of pop music.

Well, it's easy to do because it's shit. I personally think you can get used to listening to just about anything. And that's not a bad thing, mind you. Any time you find pleasure in listening that's a very good thing.

But, a guy I work with listens to it, and it's just awful, IMO.

I think the worst part being the phony "cowboy" voice and accent nearly all the male artists use.

And I'm not down on all Country music, just the modern garbage oozing out of Nashville. I listened to it a bit back in the 90's when the big crossover thing was starting to happen, and still have CD's from several artists from back then. But it has gone horribly awry since then.

Give me old school Country, Alt. Country, Outlaw, Lubbock, whathaveyou. Love that stuff quite a bit. Uncle Tupelo, early Wilco, Steve Earle, Joe Ely, Son Volt...

[ejp626]

I am not sure why, but it seems easy for jazz listeners to especially ridicule country music, even more so than other forms of pop music.

Well, that's easy. Jazz afficiandos almost always consider themselves marginalized and interested in the counter-culture, whereas mainstream country music is, with very few exceptions, steeped in patriotism. The few tolerable exceptions, like Johnny Cash, are the figures who glorify outlaws.

In its own way, this is as silly as the Mods and the Rockers or the Hot Jazz vs. Moldy Figs back in the day.

[Scott Dolan]

I am not sure why, but it seems easy for jazz listeners to especially ridicule country music, even more so than other forms of pop music.

Well, that's easy. Jazz afficiandos almost always consider themselves marginalized and interested in the counter-culture, whereas mainstream country music is, with very few exceptions, steeped in patriotism. The few tolerable exceptions, like Johnny Cash, are the figures who glorify outlaws.

In its own way, this is as silly as the Mods and the Rockers or the Hot Jazz vs. Moldy Figs back in the day.

Actually, there are lots and lots of artists in the Johnny Cash/Woody Guthrie mold these days. They just don't get airplay cuz they ain't purdy and don't sing about god and country and beer and trucks in phony accents. And most of them are very liberal politically. Hell, Jay Farrar started out Son Volt's third album, Okemah And The Melody Of Riot, with several songs just excoriating the policies of the Bush administration.

Not from that album, but one of my faves of theirs:

[mjzee]

Chalk me up as another big enthusiast for contemporary country - the music that's played on today's country radio and on awards shows such as the CMAs. There's not really a connection with jazz, so I don't mention it on this board, but I truly enjoy listening to it. And I am consistently impressed by the performing talent shown by country artists, both vocalists and musicians. Our current fave is The Band Perry, though there are also many others.

[Hot Ptah]

I have had to listen a lot to an FM radio station that plays today's pop country in recent months, just because the people I have had to associate with always have it on. There is much of real merit in the pop country hits of today. They are not garbage, not all formulaic--there are some really good songs being written and performed in the country genre now. I have been pleasantly surprised. Actually I think that today's country hits sound a whole lot like the 1970s rock that many of the members here liked when they were younger, with a slight country twist.

I am not sure why, but it seems easy for jazz listeners to especially ridicule country music, even more so than other forms of pop music.

Well, it's easy to do because it's shit. I personally think you can get used to listening to just about anything. And that's not a bad thing, mind you. Any time you find pleasure in listening that's a very good thing.

But, a guy I work with listens to it, and it's just awful, IMO.

I think the worst part being the phony "cowboy" voice and accent nearly all the male artists use.

And I'm not down on all Country music, just the modern garbage oozing out of Nashville. I listened to it a bit back in the 90's when the big crossover thing was starting to happen, and still have CD's from several artists from back then. But it has gone horribly awry since then.

Give me old school Country, Alt. Country, Outlaw, Lubbock, whathaveyou. Love that stuff quite a bit. Uncle Tupelo, early Wilco, Steve Earle, Joe Ely, Son Volt...

We have a different reaction to hearing the same radio songs, it appears. Nothing unusual about that. However, I do not know why we have to put a value judgment on music we just plain don't like. My dad would call Creedence Clearwater Revival's best songs "that garbage" when they came on the radio in the 1969-70 time period. I liked them. He didn't. I always wondered why he couldn't say, "I don't like this" instead of "that garbage."

I like the outlaw country too, at least some of it.