"The jazz community has done the worst job of selling itself. They are always squabbling about what's real jazz and what's not..." -- Ken Burns

Date:	30-Nov-2000 09:15:51
From:	Adam Lozo (adam@thecia.net)
	This is a difficult question to answer. I personally like the fact that jazz falls under the radar screen of the general public. My reasons are selfish. I thoroughly enjoy attending concerts that have less then a hundred people in the audiance. I get a great seat, can take pictures of the artists (although Ron Carter scolded me for doing so), and find them very approachable. In short, I don't feel that this music will ever gain widespread acceptance. Most people prefer simple melodies, with lyrics at the forefront of all compositions. It seems almost insurrmountable that better marketing will change this mindset. Smooth jazz is an attempt to cross the lines, and may be the one form of 'marketing'to begin the education process to turn on a listener to this style of music. Jazz is a form of communication. Marketing is the process of communicating a message. If the message is 'listen to this stuff, it's good' - then isn't the message readily available? Commercial radio stations that play jazz more often than not quickly reformat away from jazz to a sound that helps bring in the advertising dollars. The real question to answer is why do people prefer simple melodies and lyrics over more complicated music? Answer - they don't really listen to music. They watch performers dance, they read gossip about their favorite personalities, they favor beautiful people over artistic qualities. Content to sit in the front row, Adam

 

Date:	01-Dec-2000 08:02:35
From:	Chris M. Slawecki (cslawec9@idt.net)
	In a way, I agree with the above. I am surprised with how bitter this sounds, but, any musical form that assumes even the slightest degree of intelligence or analysis in the listener is probably destined to nobly fail. You see it in TV, in literature, in politics -- the lowest common denominator rules. Miles Davis will forever make "better" records than Celine Dion. But Celine Dion will beat his ass to the bank every time.

 

Date:	01-Dec-2000 16:12:55
From:	Mimi Machado-Cooper (Miriam.Cooper@bet.net)
	As a person who markets Jazz for a living, I have a tendancy to agree with the first comment. There is a light however at the end of the tunnel. People truly become seduced by Jazz even though the want and ear for it does seem to be an acquired taste. I have always been a lover of jazz and when I started working for BET On Jazz 3 years ago and my love of Jazz was reignited because it is the music I grew up listening to, Latin Jazz in particular. Now very much like the open to Ken Burns Jazz boxed set says it's all I listen to, I have 1000's of CD's and I hear the changes and beautiful improvisation that takes place in every piece of great jazz from Louis Armstrong to The Marcus Johnson Project. Research indicates that BET on Jazz's target demographic is males 35 and above with incomes over 75,000 a year. But do they really do a lot of CD purchasing or is Jazz better enjoyed live? I always say get the women into it, get the younger kids into it, Jazz will sell.... I buy it I also live it heck I'm practically married to it. I think the more people listen to it they too will fall under jazz seductive spell. Mimi Cooper BET On Jazz Creative Services Producer

 

Date:	02-Dec-2000 20:38:44
From:	Emerson (Radical070@aol.com)
	While the role of jazz as sensual, "sexy" music may allow it a niche in the listening public, a general love of Jazz would be tough for folks in general to pick up through simple exposure. I am now 17; eight years ago I probably would have thought jazz to be random squaking, and then as I begin to love Steely Dan, the Allman Brothers, etc. as my musical taste matures, I go buy Kind of Blue and it blows me out of the water. This is like a transition from Mozart to Prokofiev, in some ways. My take is, if you want it you will find it, but if not, then you simply wont like it.

 

Date:	06-Jan-2001 12:12:06
From:	Alan
	I believe that jazz and classical music suffer from the same plight: depending on the place you live, the availability of good quality radio programming is either fantastic or abysmal. I was raised near Detroit, and had access to a tremendous range of music. But now, I live in a location where we're more dependent on cable and its narrow range of offerings. My best access to Jazz is my CD player, and, if I choose to stay up late, via a specific station that broadcasts jazz programming in the evening. You can have great web sites, lots of magazines, and even a Ken Burns documentary, but until potential listeners have regular access to good quality stations, your audience will remain limited. Secondly, jazz has a certain image. Friends tell me that it's too 'abstract' - and if you put on Miles Davis' Kind of Blue, followed by Eric Dolphy's Out To Lunch, you'd find two very different kinds of sounds. I think we have to see Jazz presented as a creative kind of music that requires a bit of patience and repeated listenings. I didnt really grasp Davis' Kind of Blue the first time, but some repeated listenings and I think I am on the verge of wearing the disc out. It makes me wonder what the best sequence of exposure should be - traditional jazz that MAY be easier to comprehend for the new listener? Jazz does not need to be perceived as complex, because a lot of it is not: IE I don't see Ellington or Basie as tough to grasp, Weather Report may seem more abstract. Don'f forget, a miniscule portion of the North American audience was raised with big expsoure to jazz (vs Beatles, Elvis and 'the crap we call rap'). Lastly, I have always believed that you feel the best music - more than simply hearing the music. But that's something you can't teach people - we logically all have different tastes. Perhaps we can help traditional blues enthusiasts to transition. Example: listen to Johnny Almond's solo on 'California' (J Mayall Turning Point) then pop on Coltrane's My Favorite Things. My 2 cents: access to programming, and developing the audience.

 

Date:	10-Jan-2001 10:00:12
From:	Tate (T-Worm)
	Jazz needs more media coverage (Radio, televised concerts, videos, BET on Jazz in more cities, better promotion of concerts). The artist are doing their part by sharpening their skills, and compositions. Smooth Jazz radio stations need to try playing some Miles, Herbie, and Chick, instead of Luther, Celine, and other pop/R&B artist, and not just keep playing the same rotation of current "smooth jazz" (intrumental R&B) artist.... over and over Boney James is cool, but lets hear some Coltrane also.

 

Date:	21-Jan-2001 15:36:05
From:	motheralj (edwin@iswt.com)
	i have been a jazz lover for over 50 years....and think it a most wonderful and creative art......but since say 1957 when duke ellington and dave brubeck were on the cover of Time magazine...there has been little or no promotion to the masses. my theory is at that time jazz became an intellectual music to be persued by fans.....well this killed it. jazz is an emotional music....to be good and attractive to the newcomer; it needs a danceable quality and sorry to say it needs to be sexy..... i cannot say what it would take to get jazz back with young people....the recent swing revivial has helped a lot..and it does have a danceable quality and somewhat sexy... perhaps with appropiate costumes (sexy) and a new dance move that would be relatively easy to learn...(ie...see twist..)....young people might jump on such a bandwagon. but as long as we picture in our minds scolar-type of college professor with books and brandy and a fireplace; you get the picture.....well i don't think young people who want to go....and move.....and drive....and ect..ect. are going to be drawn to jazz... maybe the tv networks and the recording industry can figure this dilemma out.

 

Date:	21-Jan-2001 19:31:38
From:	mk
	Apon working with high school students that had no experience with jazz I discovered somthing rather scary. I asked them questions to find out what they did know about jazz. When I asked them for a name of a resent jazz artist the only response I got was "Kenny-G?". I think that more would be interested in jazz if it became a fundimental part of music education. I don't see why not when it is America's main contribution to the music of the world.

 

Date:	26-Jan-2001 17:36:00
From:	Andreas
	Despite my many criticism of Wynton Marsalis's viepoints, he nailed it on the head during a segment of Ken Burns' Jazz. He said that an artform is not going to come to you. You have to make an effort. That's true of a painting by Picasso, a sculpture by Rodin, or a symphony by Beethoven. It's also true of jazz. Jazz, like European classical music, is music with a lot of depth which can be appreciated on many levels. I started becoming interested in jazz when I was was in high school. The music route I took to get to jazz was via rock artists who used some elements of jazz in their music (Santana, Frank Zappa, Jimi Hendrix) to jazz rock fusion (yes, the "F-word"! Deal with it!)and it took a while before I could approach Miles Davis or Coltrane directly. 20 years later I don't listen to jazz with the same ears as I did back then. Having listened to Zappa and Captain Beefheart did give me a leg up in appreciating the more abstract and dissonant sounds. Ken Burns mentions in the documentary that a lot of the biggest hits during the Swing era were really just pop songs which involved little or no improvisation or inovation. The fact of the matter is that most kids back then didn't give a rats ass about improvisation or jazz as an art form. They wanted to dance and have fun. Nevertheless, it's not that stuff that we remember and listen to these days. When jazz stopped being seen as dance music, the crowd that just wanted to party went to R&B and rock'n'roll. In a sense that was blessing because it removed the pressure of the chase after the big bucks, which had daunted people like Artie Shaw in the 30's. John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" just went Gold a few weeks ago (the only one for Coltrane) Because modern jazz is "under the radar", as someone else here put it, it was not stiffled creatively, as has happened with rock music since the mid 70's. Personally I'm glad that I'm not hearing "Epistrophy" or "Giant Steps" on TV commercials! Like I said, to be able to apreciate jazz requires a bit of effort and time. This will inevitably rule out the crowds who just want party music. I in no way mean to suggest that I am in any way smarter or better or whatever for having done so, but I think my life has been greatly enriched by it, and I too enjoy being able to go to the front row of a 200-seat club like the Jazz Bakery in LA to see McCoy Tyner or Ahmad Jamal!