Value of Jazz in the 21st Century

[rslaing]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481905' date='May 7 2009, 01:10 PM']rslaing, it's no comment on you as a person, but a comment on you as a musical educator. You're refusal to see value in music which doesn't meet you criteria of "proper" makes me question what kind of musical education you will give to others. In relation to this topic, it reinforces by belief that there is a form of elitism that exists within Jazz music, and I'm sure I'm not alone in finding this off putting.

What future does Jazz have if the vocal fans of the genre shout down every form of popular music? I think this is killing jazz more than the fretboard w***ery.[/quote]

I'll get this out of the way, even though it really is not strictly in topic, and then we can all get back to the topic hopefully.

OK. I don't teach much anymore. When I do, I teach music theory and how to play the instrument. Music theory is no different whether it is applied to jazz, classical, pop / whatever.

If a student wants to go off and play jazz, thats up to them, as is their choice to go off and play classical (with a specialised tutor of course) pop, or commercial music.

I don't teach anyone what type music they should prefer. That is their personal choice.

Although I do encourage them to improvise with backing tracks and the like because it helps to develop their ear. I give pupils jazz play alongs (for learning purposes only) because they are more challenging and in most cases, are better for development and application of certain aspects of theory, like, how to make sure you know which notes can be played over which modes/key centres/chord structures etc. and then once stuff like that is internalised, they can chuck away the theory books and cd's if they and apply it to the music of their choice.

I'm out of this thread now. Every time I express my opinion (and thanks for the pm's and posts etc from the folks that agree with some of them) I start to get the feeling of a wounded animal being circled by vultures. I really can't be arsed...................

Cheers

Edited May 7, 2009 by rslaing

[jonny-lad]

[quote name='BassMunkee' post='481911' date='May 7 2009, 01:13 PM']Oh God - now I'm agreeing with him again... [/quote]

So am I!

I don't think people realise how off-putting the elitist image is.

A year or two ago, all I wanted to play was jazz, but now, I'm not bothered either way...I don't care to play with musicians who think they're above me - I think it kills a good band, which IMO is several musicians working together as a team to create something good...not some lesser musicians accompanying some elite musicians.

[maxrossell]

Okay, but seriously, skankdevlar, where can I get one of those pointy hats with the shaving brush in it?

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='481927' date='May 7 2009, 01:22 PM']Oh man, I want one of those hats.[/quote]

Readily available in Southern Germany and Austria - traditional hat to go with the loden

Edited May 7, 2009 by skankdelvar

[maxrossell]

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='481935' date='May 7 2009, 01:27 PM']Readily available in Southern Germany and Austria[/quote]

I'm there, dude. Auf wiedersehen!

[Earbrass]

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='481810' date='May 7 2009, 12:06 PM']With the greatest of respect, there is a lot of good music out there nowadays if you were to look hard enough. It's fine sticking to the argument that 'music isn't what it was back in the day' but it just simply isn't true. You need to let music evolve sometime, otherwise we're stuck in a cyclical situation where views such as that simply serves to inhibit new music to come.[/quote]

Yeah, fair enough, I wasn't being entirely serious there. There's good stuff around, just as there always has been.

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='481810' date='May 7 2009, 12:06 PM']What I meant was that jazz (which as someone pointed out is far too much of an umbrella term anyway) doesn't serve as much of a huge sector of musical revenue nowadays because it seems to be viewed by most as an institution or an era, like classical. It may not be the most musically endearing news that practicing jazz musicians want to hear, but it's true.[/quote]

I just don't buy into the idea that music only matters if it's making money for someone, or has a wide appeal or a cool image. To me those are completely irrelevant to what makes good music.

[jonny-lad]

[quote name='Earbrass' post='481938' date='May 7 2009, 01:28 PM']I just don't buy into the idea that music only matters if it's making money for someone, or has a wide appeal or a cool image. To me those are completely irrelevant to what makes good music.[/quote]

IMO, it doesn't only matter if it's making money, has a wide appeal or cool image.

They are irrelevant to what makes good music, but they are relevant to what makes music popular.

That's why I think it's so important to find things yourself, lesser known music, underground sub-genres and so forth.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='481937' date='May 7 2009, 01:28 PM']I'm there, dude. Auf wiedersehen![/quote]

Bitte schon, Mein Herr.

[quote name='Earbrass' post='481938' date='May 7 2009, 01:28 PM']I just don't buy into the idea that music only matters if it's making money for someone, or has a wide appeal or a cool image. To me those are completely irrelevant to what makes good music.[/quote]

Absolutely right. World of difference between what's commercially successful and what some of us would consider is [i]good[/i]. Lots of people buy music we might think is 'bad'. But I'd rather they bought 'bad' music than no music at all.

Edited May 7, 2009 by skankdelvar

[BassMunkee]

[quote name='Earbrass' post='481938' date='May 7 2009, 01:28 PM']Yeah, fair enough, I wasn't being entirely serious there. There's good stuff around, just as there always has been.



I just don't buy into the idea that music only matters if it's making money for someone, or has a wide appeal or a cool image. To me those are completely irrelevant to what makes good music.[/quote]
I very much agree with this - given that I am in an Ambient-Shoegaze band...!

[Mikey D]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='481854' date='May 7 2009, 12:38 PM']It's a shame that if I played you Soundgarden's [i]Superunknown[/i] you'd pull a face like a six year old with a mouthful of asparagus.[/quote]

Which reminds me of one of my favourite 'jazz' bands around at the moment:

[maxrossell]

[quote name='Mikey D' post='481949' date='May 7 2009, 01:35 PM']Which reminds me of one of my favourite 'jazz' bands around at the moment:[/quote]

The irony there of course is that Soundgarden got accused of being "jazz-metal" and then "jazz-grunge" because they were always playing with time signatures and dissonances.

[BigBeefChief]

c'mon bilbo, get stuck in!

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='Earbrass' post='481938' date='May 7 2009, 01:28 PM']I just don't buy into the idea that music only matters if it's making money for someone, or has a wide appeal or a cool image. To me those are completely irrelevant to what makes good music.[/quote]


I agree. Trouble is, its the way of the world. I think that Jazz needs a bit of a PR job currently. Less people listening to it will mean less people playing it. Personally, I'd gladlly never here a jazz record for the rest of my life, but unless it attracts new players and listeners, it'll only be available in libraries and tiny corners of Suffolk.

[risingson]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481844' date='May 7 2009, 12:29 PM']....to be more focussed on image![/quote]

You're kidding? Since the 20's, nay even longer (centuries) music has been associated with image. Anyway, the point was that not about image, rather the accessibility of jazz music to a musician.

[risingson]

[quote name='Earbrass' post='481938' date='May 7 2009, 01:28 PM']I just don't buy into the idea that music only matters if it's making money for someone, or has a wide appeal or a cool image. To me those are completely irrelevant to what makes good music.[/quote]

True enough, but the original point was that how well valued is jazz in the 21st century. I think IMO that like it or not, 21st century music has everything to do with the consumer market. It's again not something that a lot of musicians like to accept, but it makes up a large factor of the dictation of trends.

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='482060' date='May 7 2009, 03:11 PM']Anyway, the point was that not about image, rather the accessibility of jazz music to a musician.[/quote]


But if the slightly elitist attitude and image of Jazz puts people off the genre, its not unreasonable to suggest that some of these people might also be musicians. The point is, in an image focussed world, Jazz does its self no favours.

[risingson]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='482064' date='May 7 2009, 03:18 PM']But if the slightly elitist attitude and image of Jazz puts people off the genre, its not unreasonable to suggest that some of these people might also be musicians. The point is, in an image focussed world, Jazz does its self no favours.[/quote]

I think that actually, people that make assumptions about any genre of music aren't doing themselves any favours. By all means, dislike a type of music, it's a free world, but opinions based on a minority of people are by no means the be all and end all. Jazz has always remained faceless to me. I'm sure there was an image at one stage or another that went with jazz reminiscent of some cliched beatnik wearing a beret and wielding bongos and a joint, but it's a close-minded assumption that all jazz musicians are of this ilk.

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='482070' date='May 7 2009, 03:28 PM']I think that actually, people that make assumptions about any genre of music aren't doing themselves any favours. By all means, dislike a type of music, it's a free world, but opinions based on a minority of people are by no means the be all and end all. Jazz has always remained faceless to me. I'm sure there was an image at one stage or another that went with jazz reminiscent of some cliched beatnik wearing a beret and wielding bongos and a joint, but it's a close-minded assumption that all jazz musicians are of this ilk.[/quote]


Hey, I'm not saying these assumptions are good things or totally correct, but they exist.

To most people Jazz is not "faceless". If it was, no one would be laughing at the Fast Show "Jazz Club" sketches.

[risingson]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='482078' date='May 7 2009, 03:34 PM']Hey, I'm not saying these assumptions are good things or totally correct, but they exist.

To most people Jazz is not "faceless". If it was, no one would be laughing at the Fast Show "Jazz Club" sketches.[/quote]

Touche on the Fast Show sketch.

I dunno, I think perhaps you're right, but hey, if there are people who think like that then they're only as closed to new music as the musos who champion their beloved jazz. I personally try not to subscribe to any assumption or image.

[mcgraham]

[quote]But if the slightly elitist attitude and image of Jazz puts people off the genre[/quote]

I have to admit, there's an element of truth in this. The number of musicians I've met who are so up themselves as an 'artiste' in their genre of choice that makes you want to dislike anything they produce just to spite them... well... there's enough of them to annoy me! And there's loads of these types in all genres, not just jazz. It's just a question of whether you've come across them in your own 'travels' or not.

With regard to jazz, I adopt the 'rules' of jazz as a mindset. I approach playing music in general with the same attitude. It's just about having fun! You can do so much with average bits of music with just a little imagination and the will to be creative and break convention. It's meant to be fun! The academic side is, to me, like learning the rules of football. I don't view it as burdensome, just a means to an end. Once you know the rules, and what areas have no rules, you know how to play the game and have fun within it.

Mark

[Earbrass]

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='482061' date='May 7 2009, 03:14 PM']I think IMO that like it or not, 21st century music has everything to do with the consumer market. It's again not something that a lot of musicians like to accept, but it makes up a large factor of the dictation of trends.[/quote]

I would have thought quite the opposite; nowadays, with the internet and all the technology at our disposal, isn't it easier than ever for people to produce and distribute their own music without the backing of the big corporations, and to find and communicate with their audience, however tiny and niche that audience may be? Surely this ought to be a golden age for non-commercial music, compared to the situation a few decades ago?

[risingson]

[quote name='Earbrass' post='482142' date='May 7 2009, 04:29 PM']I would have thought quite the opposite; nowadays, with the internet and all the technology at our disposal, isn't it easier than ever for people to produce and distribute their own music without the backing of the big corporations, and to find and communicate with their audience, however tiny and niche that audience may be? Surely this ought to be a golden age for non-commercial music, compared to the situation a few decades ago?[/quote]

It all depends on how much money you want to make. Currently I should imagine (having just done a huge part of my course on indie labels) that the current climate for such is quite poor... which is a shame, because I am about to be running a small label and a studio. The major labels still have the monopoly on things. Look at the profits on an independent distributor like CD Baby. They tout themselves on how much money they've made for indie artists who want to make it on their own, and true enough, they've helped generate quite a bit of money, but if you look at the profit of the individual musician, it's barely anything at all. The money they claim to have made is spread too thin to consider it a viable option for making any sort of living, or even a one off cash bonus.

[Earbrass]

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='482149' date='May 7 2009, 04:39 PM']It all depends on how much money you want to make. Currently I should imagine (having just done a huge part of my course on indie labels) that the current climate for such is quite poor... which is a shame, because I am about to be running a small label and a studio. The major labels still have the monopoly on things. Look at the profits on an independent distributor like CD Baby. They tout themselves on how much money they've made for indie artists who want to make it on their own, and true enough, they've helped generate quite a bit of money, but if you look at the profit of the individual musician, it's barely anything at all. The money they claim to have made is spread too thin to consider it a viable option for making any sort of living, or even a one off cash bonus.[/quote]

But for a lot of us, the money is pretty much irrelevant. I just want to make music I like and share it with people who appreciate it. I simply don't look at music as a way of making money (though I have made a modest amount of money from it in the past, when I was heavily involved in soundtrack work). In fact, if by some miracle the band I play in became commercially successful (it's not going to happen), I'd probably leave, as there's no way I'd ever give up my day job to go on tour etc. For me, if music making became a job, it'd kill all the fun. That's what I mean by "non-commercial" music - music that's made for the joy of making it, not for money.

[risingson]

[quote name='Earbrass' post='482176' date='May 7 2009, 05:02 PM']But for a lot of us, the money is pretty much irrelevant. I just want to make music I like and share it with people who appreciate it. I simply don't look at music as a way of making money (though I have made a modest amount of money from it in the past, when I was heavily involved in soundtrack work). In fact, if by some miracle the band I play in became commercially successful (it's not going to happen), I'd probably leave, as there's no way I'd ever give up my day job to go on tour etc. For me, if music making became a job, it'd kill all the fun. That's what I mean by "non-commercial" music - music that's made for the joy of making it, not for money.[/quote]

You're absolutely right, believe me, I've had nights out where this argument has come up and it always remains unresolved. I've just turned 20 and I would like to think in the future that I will be able to make some money out of what I do, but I took up music to enjoy it, and I always will. I just try and be realistic in my view. I understand that of course that music to most musicians means more to them than the money. But I guess you need to be able to make sacrifices to get to where you want to be. I guess some people would call it selling out, but you've got to fake it to make it, i.e. maybe sometimes you need to do things you're not so fussed on before you get to the position where you can call your own shots.

Hope I haven't drifted off of topic too much!

[spinynorman]

The rise and fall of jazz in three paragraphs.

Before 1900 you had two streams of music in the west, the formal classical tradition, funded by the Church and blokes in wigs with country estates, and popular/folk music fueled by beer. Both relied heavily on melody, rather than rhythm, and co-existed quite happily for centuries, because everyone knew their place. If you wanted to dance with a duke's daughter you went for a waltz in a big house, and if you wanted to dance with a milk maid, you went to the local inn for a knees up.

Then comes the 20th C and WWI, Americans are everywhere and the popular/folk music gets all mixed up with some African influences with hot rhythms. So all the milkmaids rush off to buy jazz records and learn to dance the jitterbug. Trouble is, the dukes' daughters think Americans are cool and don't see why they should miss out, so they start jitterbugging too. Now no one knows where they are. Worse, the classical composers try to absorb jazz into their compositions, but still nobody wants to dance to it, so they think, why should we bother writing tunes? This creates the conditions for Schoenberg and all the dismal honking and squeaking that followed.

Now, here's the real problem. Because "serious" classical music has gone all avant garde, a few jazz musicians think they will be taken more seriously if they start honking and squeaking too. So they invent bebop and realise that, with saxophones, which the classical guys turned their noses up at, they can honk and squeak better than anyone. Soon there's wopbop, aloobop and heaven knows what other kinds of bop, and the milkmaids, who all now work in factories, are crying "We can't dance to this." And as they look up through tear-streaked eyes and smudged mascara, there stands Elvis.

Edited May 7, 2009 by spinynorman