Can Jazz Withstand Commercialism Forever?

[GoodSpeak]

There are assaults from the Pop world, the video world and from ipods, mp3's and various other assortments of music media.

Can Jazz survive in spite of all this or are we doomed to hearing ear pabulum on the radio/streaming feeds for the rest of our lives?


There has to be a watershed somewhere.




Or a breaking point.






Your thoughts?

[Pete C]

Why dio you consider them assaults?

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Why dio you consider them assaults?

Good question, Pete.

Basically, I see a certain musical meltdown in the minds of my teenaged students.


Somehow music has become a thing to be associated with celebrities, dance moves or TV shows/movies. It has ceased being an art form....something to be appreciated or revered. It has become, instead, a commodity. A thing to be cool with or own.


I will say this, though: The alternative/Indie band crowd understands the concept of music as an art form. I'll concede on this point. The rest, however, are drawn into the commercialism.

[kedoane]

It is what those teenagers are fed on these days: what they see on the airwaves, what they hear on the commercial stations with their very restrictive playlists, etc. It really saddens me. I remember when I was in junior high and high school. I had a taste for soul, country and rock. There were artists that I have gotten into a lot (my fave in high school was Springsteen). I got into jazz more when I was in college and by the time that I have originally joined KSJS (in 1993), I decided to do jazz radio. I haven't regreted it. One thing about volunteering at a non-commercial, college radio station is that one gets exposed to the music that is not being played commercially.

My husband, who is a part time musician, loves some commercial music (the classic rock format). He also has a love for the blues and bluegrass. So my husband and I have a diverse love of musics. When my niece is around, she gets exposed to what our roommate, husband or I are playing. She is currently going to high school in Germany, staying with her godmother. She is very much into art.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by kedoane

It is what those teenagers are fed on these days: what they see on the airwaves, what they hear on the commercial stations with their very restrictive playlists, etc. It really saddens me. I remember when I was in junior high and high school. I had a taste for soul, country and rock. There were artists that I have gotten into a lot (my fave in high school was Springsteen). I got into jazz more when I was in college and by the time that I have originally joined KSJS (in 1993), I decided to do jazz radio. I haven't regreted it. One thing about volunteering at a non-commercial, college radio station is that one gets exposed to the music that is not being played commercially.

My husband, who is a part time musician, loves some commercial music (the classic rock format). He also has a love for the blues and bluegrass. So my husband and I have a diverse love of musics. When my niece is around, she gets exposed to what our roommate, husband or I are playing. She is currently going to high school in Germany, staying with her godmother. She is very much into art.

Exactly.

I, too, believe that the music of my era was more artistically inclined and less vulnerable to commercialism. Did some artists fall prey to the almighty dollar? Of couse they did. But that was the exception rather than the norm in Dem Daze.



And, Guys, I don't want this conversation to degernerate into a generational thang....instead, I want to focus upon what we can do to fix the problem.

[frankiepop]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Exactly.

I, too, believe that the music of my era was more artisyically inclined and less vulnerable to commercialism....

1968

[Gary Sisco]

No one is forced to listen to anything, young people included. I was a young person when I became a dedicated jazz fan, aged 15. All of my like-aged peers listened to the popular music of the 60s and almost nothing else. So what? It didn't mean I had to. It doesn't mean young people today have to, either, and some of them don't, as has always been the case. Jazz, particularly but not only its freer and more aggressive forms, has gained, as it always has, new fans in the generation coming up, as it has in generations past.

The only thing that's changed is technology, but jazz has survived every change of technology since the dawn of recording itself, so what is the issue?

[Coda]

As long as there are artists willing to create music that has little commercial value than jazz will be alive. The 'problem' likely rests in their need to also produce work that will appeal to a commercial segment...after all, they too need to eat.

If we as listeners are not willing to see an artist as capable of producing both types of music then it's us listeners who will suffer. I bet there are a lot of folks who already have dismissed artists who are doing exactly this....record smooth jazz as it sells and helps to fill a venue but then during a live performance breaks out of the smooth style into something more artistic.

Are there smooth jazz artists with the ability to produce top notch jazz today? Do you buy/listen to them? Are you willing to accept this commerical vein in their work and still hold them in the highest regard?

I would be the answer for many is no. Eric Alexander is a good example...clearly a man with incredible chops and an ability to swing. He's smack in the middle of mainstream jazz but doesn't get much press on this board. If he put out a smooth CD I suspect what little respect remains will go away quickly. Is this because he's already too commercial for some?

[Gary Sisco]

The relevant aspect of your question is "on this board." This board is a rarity in the jazz world, in that its majority (at least articulated majority) taste is decidedly to the out side of things when compared to the jazz world in general, where the opposite is normally found. I don't think it can be reasonably claimed that an Eric Alexander has been ignored there. This board is far from the whole of the jazz world.

It has much more to do with personal tastes and likes and dislikes than it has to do with whether or no anything is of commercial import. Some favorites, the Dave Holland Quintet, for example, are as commercially viable as anything else in the jazz world, and more than most.

[clinthopson]

From what I've heard and saw recently, jazz is quite healthy. There are many talented, skilled young players who have come into the music and made an impact, 19 year-old Troy Andrews immediately comes to mind.

But, as we've said over and over again, our music will never resonate with the masses, whether they are teenagers or older.

It demands too much from the listener.

Sure the rare piece like "Cantaloupe Island" or "Sidewinder" will achieve some popularity but IMHO it's because the player has simplified the music so it does have broader appeal.

I'm not putting that tune or any like it down, but for me, it gets pretty boring after hearing it hundreds of times.

OTOH, I never get tired of "Epistrophy.(sp?)"

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

No one is forced to listen to anything, young people included. I was a young person when I became a dedicated jazz fan, aged 15. All of my like-aged peers listened to the popular music of the 60s and almost nothing else. So what? It didn't mean I had to. It doesn't mean young people today have to, either, and some of them don't, as has always been the case. Jazz, particularly but not only its freer and more aggressive forms, has gained, as it always has, new fans in the generation coming up, as it has in generations past.

The only thing that's changed is technology, but jazz has survived every change of technology since the dawn of recording itself, so what is the issue?

Good point, Gary.

You're right...people make choices as to what they will or won't listen to. I agree. But I will argue that this is a different time period, if you will. The sheer weight in numbers of commercially driven influences on our young people is staggering.

The minds of or youth are influenced at a younger age and are constantly bombarded with commercial messages and images. Even car commercials are trying to tap into nostalgia of our generation with background songs apparently in an effort to make us buy their car. And this is just for starters.

I will further argue that the goal here is to make music the vehicle through which we connect with products not art. It gets worse every passing year.

[cookie]

Jazz can withstand anything. Those things that you initially called "assaults" could also be seen as "opportunities." No, there's precious little money to pursue those opportunities, but musicians use what resources they can to play their music their way. Maybe they use commercial music to finance their less commercial, more individual, artistic explorations. Session players come to mind. Jazz will never be a way to become rich or gain worldwide recognition. There are a very few who *do* find that perfect niche that satisfies both jazz people and the general population. Not many though and even then, the jazz people may sniff at the whiff of a sell-out. But what's a sell-out? Selling music isn't the same thing as prostitution (although some days it can feel like that).

I think that most jazz musicians do a variety of things to maintain a living in this music. Many of us play in non-jazz situations, many of us teach, some of us may run arts organizations, some compose or arrange. Some of us manage to marry well. Some of us even have---gasp!---a non-music related day job! And that work deserves respect, too (I think of Sheila Jordan). What I'm getting at is that very few jazz musicians make their bread SOLELY through performance. They make their money over time by engaging in other things besides the recording/touring industry. Most pop stars don't need to teach or wash dishes to get from day to day, but there *are* wonderful jazz musicians who do. Life ain't fair, but hey: that's why I think jazz will never die. There will always be people who will do whatever it takes and experience whatever hardship comes along in order to play it.

I think it's harder to "find your audience" when you're a jazz player because you don't have the built-in lowest common denominator market of mainstream pop music. Even if you're on a "big" jazz label, you ain't gettin' as much money as Kelly Clarkson, man! Anyway, I say the Internet has become a great jazz tool along with MP3, Ipod, etc. Radio on the other hand is a mess, but I think it's so messed-up in general, not just where jazz is concerned.

Jazz is some tough stuff. It may go waaaayyy underground, but it will never die IMO.

[cookie]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Basically, I see a certain musical meltdown in the minds of my teenaged students.

Well, Goodz, from my vantage point as a college teacher, I see alot of kids coming out of their high-schools with a great thirst for jazz. Not many of them compared to the general population, but within the selective group of music majors, I see more and more kids over the years with a deep interest in jazz and improvised music.

Even if they never become players, they will likely remain devoted audience members.

You see the general population of your high-school, but where I'm sitting, I see a lot of eager, young, talented players.

[LeMo]

Originally Posted by Coda

Are there smooth jazz artists with the ability to produce top notch jazz today? Do you buy/listen to them? Are you willing to accept this commerical vein in their work and still hold them in the highest regard?

That's one of the most stupid "statement" that I've ever read on this board.

[sonic1]

Commercialism is killing itself lately. Thus the downloading.

Real music will always survive because people don't do it for money. They do it for the love. When it comes to the general public, and kids, and all that has been discussed above, all the people who are open minded enough to listen to something besides the usual commercial fair will find it. Nobody EVER exposed me to jazz; I found it on a college radio station late one night, and ever since have been exploring the genre. That college radio station is still on the air too.

But even more than that, I have discovered music through people the most. And now we have the internet too where complete strangers can share their love of obscure music, and tell each other about even more music.

I don't know about you all, but I am not having the problem of not finding enough non-commercial music. Even if I was a millionaire I would probably not have enough money to see and hear all the musicians I want to.


I don't think we have anything to worry about. As far as Kids associating music with stars, that is not new. When I was growing up people didn't go to Kiss shows because of their musicality. In the 60s did people go see Jimi Hendrix because of his use of notes, or were there a lot of people who just thought of him as "far out"?

Most people who listen to music, especially pop music, listen for other reasons than most of us on this board. And with pop that has always been the case, thus the use of the same damn 3 chords since the blues.

Goodie, are you disturbed by rap music because of the continual expression of egotism with not a lot of content ?

Hmmm...

[Sergio Zamora]

I like that one song 'Holla Back Girl' by Gwen Stefani. It's catchy.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by cookie

Well, Goodz, from my vantage point as a college teacher, I see alot of kids coming out of their high-schools with a great thirst for jazz. Not many of them compared to the general population, but within the selective group of music majors, I see more and more kids over the years with a deep interest in jazz and improvised music.

Even if they never become players, they will likely remain devoted audience members.

You see the general population of your high-school, but where I'm sitting, I see a lot of eager, young, talented players.

That is a beautiful thing, Cookie.


Now I'm not saying all my teen students are brain dead musically. We have a fantastic music program in my school district and an award winning Jazz band on this campus. My concern is with the future as commercialism becomes more the norm rather than the exception relative to music tastes.

I see corporations using music as a manipulative tool and I find it more than a little disturbing.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

That is a beautiful thing, Cookie.


Now I'm not saying all my teen students are brain dead musically. We have a fantastic music program in my school district and an award winning Jazz band on this campus. My concern is with the future as commercialism becomes more the norm rather than the exception relative to music tastes.

I see corporations using music as a manipulative tool and I find it more than a little disturbing.

You honestly think this is new?

[Coda]

Originally Posted by LeMo

That's one of the most stupid "statement" that I've ever read on this board.

Please explain why my questions are stupid statements. It's unfair to make that statement without providing an explination.

[GoodSpeak]

Not new, Sonic....just more insidious.

In case you missed it:

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Good point, Gary.

You're right...people make choices as to what they will or won't listen to. I agree. But I will argue that this is a different time period, if you will. The sheer weight in numbers of commercially driven influences on our young people is staggering.

The minds of or youth are influenced at a younger age and are constantly bombarded with commercial messages and images. Even car commercials are trying to tap into nostalgia of our generation with background songs apparently in an effort to make us buy their car. And this is just for starters.

I will further argue that the goal here is to make music the vehicle through which we connect with products not art. It gets worse every passing year.

[sonic1]

Oh Goodie, old people have said that since day-one.

Those damned kids are going to hell.

I think some of those very kids are way smarter than you are able to see.


In order to see their genius, you need to be smarter than them goodz.

But at any rate, things are no different than they have ever been. Most adults lack musical taste, so why would the kids be any different, no matter what the time or age?

FWIW, though I am not a big rap music fan, I think a lot of intelligence goes into rap. You have to be quite sharp and fast to listen to the lyrics.

I mean, I am the first to bitch about commercialism usually, but I often wonder if it is not the same as it always was, at least in the last century--if not as long as humans have been bi-pedal.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by sonic1

Oh Goodie, old people have said that since day-one.

Those damned kids are going to hell.

I think some of those very kids are way smarter than you are able to see.


In order to see their genius, you need to be smarter than them goodz.

But at any rate, things are no different than they have ever been. Most adults lack musical taste, so why would the kids be any different, no matter what the time or age?

FWIW, though I am not a big rap music fan, I think a lot of intelligence goes into rap. You have to be quite sharp and fast to listen to the lyrics.

I mean, I am the first to bitch about commercialism usually, but I often wonder if it is not the same as it always was, at least in the last century--if not as long as humans have been bi-pedal.

Hm.

I think you missed the point.


I will suggest to you that things have changed a bit since back in the day.


Think and then compare the technology of today versus back when. TV, video, movies, music videos, commercials, the internet have launched us forward into unknown terrain. I will further suggest to you that the potentially negative influences are far and away beyond that tired old chestnut of "Those kids are going to hell." How do we know what this will do? There is nothing to base it on, Sonic. Nothing to compare it to.

To cop-out on that is to completely miss the point and ignores the real problem.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Hm.

I think you missed the point.


I will suggest to you that things have changed a bit since back in the day.


Think and then compare the technology of today versus back when. TV, video, movies, music videos, commercial, the internet have launched us forward into unknown terraine. I will further suggest to you that the potentially negative influences are afr and awy beyond that tired old chestnut of "Those kids are going to hell."

To cop-out on that is to completely miss the point and ignores the real problem.

The problem is the onslaught of new technology that replaces genius because of the constant need to adjust to it. That is not new. That has been happening since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

While some types of genius (for instance, the ability to write a symphony) lacks among people today more and more, other genius is arising. If you keep acting like an old man and pining for the old days, you will miss the current genius, and get left behind in the evolution of the mind.

This is not to say I think things are getting "better", but only that evolution is still occuring. I don't currently think evolution has ever been heading in a "better" place. Just a different one.

Natural selection doesn't make judgents like that. It just goes. You are judging the kids based on your own set of values which they obviously don't share with you.

But listen to this one Teach because this is something I think you need to know: Those kids are smarter than you. Any good teacher knows this. I already realize my children are going to be smarter than me, and see things that I can't because of my attachments to my own values and beliefs. The kids are ok, it is us that need the help.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by sonic1

... but I often wonder if it is not the same as it always was...

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

YES!!!

[GoodSpeak]

Sonic,

I case you missed my edit:

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

How do we know what this will do? There is nothing to base it on, Sonic. Nothing to compare it to.

[RedJazz]

There are at least two periods in the history of jazz when it was viturally coterminous with pop music as a whole, which is to say "commercial": the late 20's and again in the late 30s. Even in the late 40s there were valiant attempts to market bebop to a mass audience. Krupa's whole band dressed up in brerrets, goatees and horned rim glasses and managers marketed Charlie Ventura's efforts as "Bop for the people." What is more, through that entire period jazz was prememinently a dance music. Aside from "alligators" jazz fans were not simply a passive audience, but participant observors.

I say here, here to that sort of "commercialism." If anything jazz needs more of it, not less.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by RedJazz

I say here, here to that sort of "commercialism." If anything jazz needs more of it, not less.

While I don't think I agree there, I do believe the "America's Classical Music" trope has done more harm than good.

[Surfer]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Somehow music has become a thing to be associated with celebrities, dance moves or TV shows/movies. It has ceased being an art form....something to be appreciated or revered. It has become, instead, a commodity. A thing to be cool with or own.



The minds of or youth are influenced at a younger age and are constantly bombarded with commercial messages and images. Even car commercials are trying to tap into nostalgia of our generation with background songs apparently in an effort to make us buy their car. And this is just for starters.

I will further argue that the goal here is to make music the vehicle through which we connect with products not art. It gets worse every passing year.

This has been happening for a long long time, Goody. Your first sentence I will certainly echo, music is very much associated (a better word would be "disseminated") through tv shows, movies, commericials, etc. Is this more prevalent than it was in the past, perhaps, but who cares really? Remember the hubbub over Nike's use of "Revolution"? Did it "ruin" the song? Do people cease to appreciate it as "art", and simply think of it as another jingle? I really dont think its that important a question. Do I get a little pissed when Mitsubishi used Minutemen's Love Jam for a commercial? Maybe a little, but I still love that song and think of it as "art" whatever that means.

Let's take another example. I just read an interesting blurb in the NYTimes that that show Laguna Beach (ugh) used a snip of Journey's Dont Stop Believing on their show and suddenly downloads of that song when through the roof, lol. Journey's now hip again I suppose. But kids connected to that song because (I guess) 1) they thought it was catchy and 2) a show with characters they identify and like were listening to it. My point is that the more interesting aspect here is that the way music is disseminated now (with the virtual death of high profile independent format radio stations) has changed, and yes more people are finding out about "cool" music through comercials (Nick Drake), tv shows, movies etc.

But if you went down to your local VW dealership, do you really think if you asked Mr. Gen Xer why he bought a new Jetta, he'll say "because I really like Nick Drake"? Most people (and I know a few) heard the commercial, said "I like the song" and went out and bought his greatest hits CD, and never gave VW a second thought.

Of course VW is trying to attach itself to something cool, an edgy artist and create an aura of hipness. Companies have been doing this for a long time. But I really dont think that affects the way people view Nick Drake's work, songs, or him as an artist.

[GoodSpeak]

That's all well and good Surfer and you are correct up to a point.

My contention is that the commercial use of music as a sales device has become far more sophistcated and cunning it its application and completely insisdious in its use.

I see that now more than ever in the teenagers I work with daily.


Folks here seem to forget that I have been working with and around teenagers for over 25 years. I have seen, first hand, what is and has been happening to them and as a direct result of the saturation of media in their lives. I can easily compare past practices with today's commercialized manipulation. There is a vast, huge chasm of a difference


The point is these teens will one day be adults and the whole notion of each generation complains about the last one is a faded old worry bead. That simply is not a valid argument anymore.