Jazz is "Musician's Music"

I thought it was a poorly written article that attempts to use big words and some historical facts to make it seem like it was more well written that it really was.

It completely ignores that jazz was mainstream music for the masses for a good 50 years (give or take). To say "Jazz will never become the music for the masses" completely ignores that for a period of time, it was. It also ignores that many jazz fans aren't musicians themselves.

Also the line "Classical music enjoys the prestige it has had from the beginning" leaves out the fact that during much of the middle ages, certain chords and tonal relationships were banned, and that many classical composers and musicians had to struggle with limits placed on them by such rules. And thus I find that line to be not completely true.
 
Jazz was the dominant form of pop music from about 1920-1960. But there's not just one kind of jazz. Smooth jazz and other kinds have endured and become popular, but musicians and critics make fun of smooth jazz.

Consider that musicians here predominantly wish to make music that has few listeners: jazz and heavy metal. The genres that have the most interest from the public, like country/western, are pretty much ignored here.

I put on The Bad Plus and I love it. It gives my wife heart palpitations and she says it's just noise, but she is fond of Classic Rock (ethnic white music of the 1970s).
 
DrumEatDrum said:
I thought it was a poorly written article that attempts to use big words and some historical facts to make it seem like it was more well written that it really was.

It completely ignores that jazz was mainstream music for the masses for a good 50 years (give or take). To say "Jazz will never become the music for the masses" completely ignores that for a period of time, it was. It also ignores that many jazz fans aren't musicians themselves.

Also the line "Classical music enjoys the prestige it has had from the beginning" leaves out the fact that during much of the middle ages, certain chords and tonal relationships were banned, and that many classical composers and musicians had to struggle with limits placed on them by such rules. And thus I find that line to be not completely true.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment. It's an off the cuff article that I read through but didn't want to respond to it except to say that music history changes. And that would give it more than the attention it deserves. Peeps have been saying this for 60 years. And it's been part of the classical tradition since the 1920s. There's nothing new here.

He doesn't get into the account that many of Bach's most extraordinary works were not performed as concert pieces until many decades later, as The Art of Fugue, The Goldberg Variation or his famous, Well Tempered Clavier. Bach was also known as a great improviser in his time. It also doesn't get into the fact the "classical music" or music of the period of Europe that constitute the common practice period and beyond, let's say from Bach and Vivaldi through Stravinsky even Schoenberg, has continued to be 'successful" because of the massive amounts of public and private funds that have been churned into that machine over the last 150 years.

I do agree that the decline of improvisation or emphasis on the performance and performer, that came with the rise of the great composers who started to write in the improvisation was not necessarily a good thing. But it was what happened.
 
DrumEatDrum said:
I thought it was a poorly written article that attempts to use big words and some historical facts to make it seem like it was more well written that it really was.

It completely ignores that jazz was mainstream music for the masses for a good 50 years (give or take). To say "Jazz will never become the music for the masses" completely ignores that for a period of time, it was.
Click to expand...

Well, I can't speak for the historic "facts" presented by you or anyone really.I think it is saying that jazz won't ever be the music for the masses AGAIN ... which I think is a fair assumption. ANYWAY .... not really wanting to split hairs here :) I thought there were some valid statements ... like much pop music "lacks a heartbeat" and how jazz is such an art form like no other..... how music can't live without rhythm .... Just an interesting read through someone else's perspective.
 
Sorry, couldn't get through it. It's pretty much the wrongest thing I've ever read. He makes a lot of over-broad conclusions based on, apparently, the introduction to a freshman music history syllabus that someone tore out and gave him.

So what has happened to music in its original form, at the campfires of our neolithic forefathers? It has survived in folk music, simple but rich in melody and an inspiration to composers like Smetana and Bartók, just to mention a few. Folk music has bred a vulgar offspring in pop music and in its most rabid form rock, sprung from rhythm & blues, the music of the black people in America. Music, like all art, is a two-way street: messages are sent and they are received. Pop music is produced by likeminded musicians at a frequency which is easily received by 'the big public'. Taking a cue from the alphabet: only crude messages are understood, if you can read just the first three letters. Image, visual effect, gossip, idolatry in all forms combine to sell whatever there was of music. So this is where pop became commercial and less rewarding for those who can read the alphabet from a to z.
Click to expand...
 
QUOTE....but musicians and critics make fun of smooth jazz.

Smooth Jazz musicians don't make fun of smooth jazz. They are musicians also, and some of them are great musicians. Jazz is different from today's mainstream music. Why not just leave it at that.
 
Well, at least it hasn't turned into a flamefest yet. I can only assume the falling in love thread has drained the excess testosterone for today. It appears that Bo, Bob & GD are helping the cause too, except Larry, of course.
 
keep it simple said:
Well, at least it hasn't turned into a flamefest yet. I can only assume the falling in love thread has drained the excess testosterone for today. It appears that Bo, Bob & GD are helping the cause too, except Larry, of course.
Click to expand...

Nah, the start of the thread wasn't made in the spirit of trolls -> no discussion. Even I ignored this thread for couple of hours (and THAT's rare). BUT if the initial post had put me into the right nerd-rage mindset it would have been a completely different story.
 
keep it simple said:
Well, at least it hasn't turned into a flamefest yet. I can only assume the falling in love thread has drained the excess testosterone for today. It appears that Bo, Bob & GD are helping the cause too, except Larry, of course.
Click to expand...

Dang, it seems I popped popcorn for nothing.

(just kidding).
 
You guys are funny. I'm glad it has not gotten out of hand. VERY glad. I like to hear other's point of view and I figured some of y'all do too. And thanks to JPW for realizing I wasn't trying to start anything :)
 
AHHHHHHH! A JAZZ THREAD! HEAD FOR THE HILLS! SAVE YOURSELF WHILE YOU STILL CAN! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top