Why is jazz not popular?? - Page 6

pogvseinstien1 · 06-23-2003, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by iron_sonata
I think what Homeless cop is getting at here is that jazz, being based on improv, lacks the most often overlooked key to complexity, and that is composition. Being able to jam and being able to play fast is a bit of talent, but it isnt complex. There are no different movements or key changes. And the "most basic music theories" as you refer to them are not 3 major chords, 3 minor chords, and 1-2 solos. The most basic theory is the basis for 99% of classical compositions, the sonata, it consists of 4 movements: 1) the intro, 2) the variation on the inro 3) the minuet or scherzo(faster piece generally played in a major key) and 4) the rondo. After looking at it from that perspective it makes alot more music look alot less complex. But alot of good bands play their instruments well and dont stray far from the good old 12 bar composition that the blues gave us.

I meant to quote that before the last thing i said

pogvseinstien1 · 06-23-2003, 02:00 AM

I think that jazz really is still popular. Alot of people still listen to jazz, it has just changed over the years. Bela Fleck and the Flecktones are still real popular, and Pat Methany has gone platinum on albums before, I believe Al Dimeola has too. So alot of jazz is still pretty popular. Even though alot of young people don't really listen to Miles Davis or Coltrane, alot of young people don't listen to any music from the fifties or early sixties, for the most part almost all the music from that time period has died out with the mass public, so really jazz is pretty popular and has had enduring interest for a very long time and will continue in the future. So, really its still pretty popular.

Reverend Rock · 06-23-2003, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pogvseinstien1
Your a little mixed up on what a sonata is. A sonata is a three part form that makes up alot of classical music , but defintly not 99% of it. A sonata has a begining part called the exposition where the main theme is presented, after that it goes to a different theme, which is called the development, and then it goes back to the main theme, which is called the recipulation. It is an ABA form. What you were describing was kinda mixed up because scherzo's and Rondo's are particular types of forms. A rondo is when you play one theme and than go to something else and then play the first theme again, and then does something different like an A B A C A D A E kinda form, it keeps on returning to the theme, like blue rondo ala turk. Also jazz isn't just " everyone doing whatever they one being held together by playing in key" or " jazz doesn't have any key changes or movements". Jazz is filled with key changes, no one stays and fools around in just one key. Changing keys is the fundamental part of of jazz. A jazz song might go through 10 key changes in the course of a solo. Jazz is based around playing changes in keys. That why it's so hard to play. If any of you guys play melodic instruments and you've never played jazz you should try and play a solo over a jazz tune, just pick something like donna lee. It's really hard to do because theres three or four key changes just in the first four bars. So in retrospect, jazz is complex because it requires the player to play an improvised solo over several key changes at a very fast tempo, and many rythym section players will throw in new changes without even telling the soloist and the player just has to pick up on them by ear. So Jazz is a really interesting kinda music becuase these musicians in the 50's took all sorts of harmony's from classical music and completly twisted them around into a different way, they changed ways that chords had been voiced and added new harmonies that had only been hinted at by later romantic era composers. Jazz was the fusing of many sophisticated classical type idea's with the roots type blues and swing music that had been created in america. So at the time it was something really revoluntionary because it was like a combination of two musical worlds. That why upperclass white people were drawn to it as well as many lower class blacks. For someone who had mainly listened to classical or for someone that had mainly just listened to blues or folk type music it both had something to offer.

I just wanted to say that while the above takes a good bit of digging through, it's an excellent explanation of several things that are crucial to this discussion.

Reverend Rock · 06-23-2003, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pogvseinstien1
I think that jazz really is still popular...

Popularity is such a relative thing, too. I think we've come to view popularity over the last 20 years or so in terms of "platinum sales". But that's all buying into the mindset of the big multi-national mega-corporations which have turned "popular" music into the sonic equivalent of fast food...perhaps we need to re-define "popular" at this point.

The fact of the matter is that jazz is still loved by millions of music fans throughout the world. Whether that results in "platinum" or "multi-platinum" sales figures in any particular region of the globe is perhaps not something we should pay a whole lot of attention to, after all is said and done.

Stardust · 06-23-2003, 01:07 PM

Maybe it is still popular, but it is sad, that so many people have the wrong idea about jazz. they think jazz is for a higher class, for intelectuals. But that's not true, jazz was originally made for the afro-americans as some kind of relexation music, swing music.
And it still is, it's sad, that people don't listen to it, just because they got the wrong idea.
I'm glad it isn't commercial though.

(e) · 06-23-2003, 01:16 PM

I don't think jazz is popular as in the way other genres are like rock, punk or rap but people sure do know about it. Like you said...it's not commercial which can be a good thing.

Reverend Rock · 06-23-2003, 01:25 PM

Here's a brief article on jazz from All Music Guide:

"Jazz has been called America's classical music, and for good reason. Along with the blues, its forefather, it is one of the first truly indigenous musics to develop in America, yet its unpredictable, risky ventures into improvisation gave it critical cache with scholars that the blues lacked. At the outset, jazz was dance music, performed by swinging big bands. Soon, the dance elements faded into the background and improvisation became the key element of the music. As the genre evolved, the music split into a number of different styles, from the speedy, hard-hitting rhythms of be-bop and the laid-back, mellow harmonies of cool jazz to the jittery, atonal forays of free jazz and the earthy grooves of soul jazz. What tied it all together was a foundation in the blues, a reliance on group interplay and unpredictable improvisation. Throughout the years, and in all the different styles, those are the qualities that defined jazz."

Jazz happened when African Americans began having the opportunity to become educated musicians. While appreciation of jazz is certainly not limited to "intellectuals", the complexity and skill that is involved with jazz composition and playing made jazz naturally attractive to schorlars, authors, poets, and other intellectuals.

That said, there is certainly no law that says one has to be an intellectual to enjoy jazz. But it's fascinating to me that an almost universal trait of ANTI-intellectuals has always been a prejudiced hatred of jazz.

Stardust · 06-23-2003, 01:36 PM

I totally agree with you, even with the article. Nice article!

matt21 · 06-27-2003, 12:07 AM

i think jazz now is in a good place. if it were really popular it would get crappified by people who don't care about the music. right now it's in the hands of the musicians, and i think that's a good thing, cause we've seen it before in popular music history. pat boone, for example. i don't want pat boone singing resolution from a love supreme, do you? jazz is music, by musicians and mostly for musicians. modern jazz gets a little complicated, a little hard to understand by the average person.

"Music without ideas is unthinkable, and people who are not willing to use their brains to understand music which cannot be fully grasped at first hearing are simply lazy-minded ... Every true work of art to be understood has to be thought about; otherwise it has no inherent life." - arnold schoenberg

of course, that's assuming that there is such thing as "great art." i feel that art is what you make of it, myself. but i think the first part still holds. to most people, music is wallpaper. it's just there. they don't care. and i think i'd rather have those people out of the music i care about rather than inside of it, molding it. i don't need millions of dollars and adoring fans, i just want $600 a month to live, and i think that can be accomplished by anyone who's willing to try. there's a market for everything out there, so its just a matter of finding it. i'd like to finish with a quote of my own.

"it took rock 'n roll" to make something out of nothing"

i'd also like to add...

"keith richards would be shoveling horse shit in london in the 19th century"

Psychedelic Syd · 06-27-2003, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by matt21

"keith richards would be shoveling horse shit in london in the 19th century"

-

It took me about five minutes to stop laughing after I read that... But then when I thought about it, that statement might apply to many great rock artists of the 20th century.. I guess what I am trying to say is that Keith was perfect for his time and his legacy (for the Satisfaction riff alone) will last for centuries...

And because of social climates, many great jazz artists of the 20th century may have been doing menial tasks in the 19th century as well... So while the Keith statement by matt21 would probably be true, I don't think it has any value in a discussion of "art" (outside of it being good laugh)...

-