By Walter Price

In the August issue of JazzAds on page 20, there is an interesting tidbit on the state of Jazz that deserves much more attention. It states that Jazz sales fell in 1997, dropping from 3.2 to 2.8 percent of the total market. I know Jazz fans, you're saying statistics can be deceiving and there are explanations for these numbers. Okay, then let's not use the exact numbers, but use this as a measure to say, at least in 1997, Jazz sales were down and not up.

My tirade is this-WHY THE HELL ARE JAZZ SALES DOWN? I never will believe that Jazz will return as the dominant musical genre like in the first half of this century, but I vehemently believe that Jazz should be making small incremental gains in sales. I know most young people don't like Jazz and the older crowd tends to dig it more. Nevertheless, Jazz should be making tremendous gains in the 25-50 year old age group. They have nothing to listen to except the retro oldies they grew up with, Hanson Sisters, Smashing Bumpkins, and Moesha. That age group is ripe and ready to be Jazz listeners. So why is this not happening and who is to blame?

First, the industry rats will once again hold their hands over their eyes and say, "Jazz is growing, just look at the Jazz swing movement that is sweeping the nation and how many new box sets that are selling for over $100!" Secondly, the rats being rats, will turn on each other, "Jazz radio sucks", "Jazz festivals have the worse promotion and lineups of artists", "Jazz periodicals like Downjazz (Downbeat), Jazzizn't (Jazziz), and JazzAds (JazzTimes) carry the same articles on the same dead people." Finally the rats being cornered to answer simple criticisms will finally say once again in a 150 words or less, what they are going to do to improve their magazine, festival, or radio programming to make Jazz more popular with the fans and general public.

Oh, I left out the most important rat scapegoat, YOU-the loyal veteran Jazz fan or new Jazz listener. The message to you is "You Jazz fans are not BUYING enough music and concert tickets, or DONATING enough money to help preserve and promote Jazz!" These are the same rats that believe that when they get a headache, instead of taking two pills to get rid of a headache in two hours, why not take 6 pills to try to get rid of the headache immediately-yeah that's the solution!

I believe that the solution to the sorry state of Jazz is not more CONSUMPTION! Build a great Jazz product and then people will come. Please, will some rat tell me why this is so hard? We already have some of best artists in the world and we definitely have the best music! First, Jazz rats should be getting out of their holes and start promoting Jazz like it IS the best music in the world. They also should recognize the sorry state Jazz is in and take some blame on themselves-hey Downjazz devote 20 pages to what you're doing wrong presently in regards to Jazz music(my guarantee-you will never ever see an article like that). Jazz rats should recognize that jazz is almost on the bottom of musical genres in popularity right there with polka music and start using their talents, energies, and ideas to be creative and transcend the norms of Jazz or musical promotion. Jazz hacks just need to finally realize they are not the story or the stars, the music is the showcase. Jazz artists need to realize they don't have the star power of even the Smashing Bumpkins and should be more pleasing and accessible to the general public. Just remember Jazz artist you only sold 10 CDs last year and your concert draw equaled the total population of Mayberry.

Finally, Jazz fans need to be less arrogant and selfish with the music. If you truly love Jazz, then you would want it to grow and attract more new listeners. This is not going to happen with condescending attitudes to new fans. So the next time you hear somebody listening to John Tesh, don't rush over and crucify him or her. Keep the "what a lame stupid ignorant ass" comment to yourself and say something like, "I personally don't care for his type of music, have you tried to listen to this artist, well why don't I make you a tape or you can borrow some of my music." That's right Jazz fans we are going to have to make these supreme sacrifices to jump-start Jazz once again. Call your local Jazz Z (jazz DJs) and request the music you like, write more letters to the rats in all parts of the musical industry, and most of all listen to the music you have already collected and fall in love all over again! Remember buying and consuming more is only a tired quick fix rat solution! As for me I will try to join you jazz fans in doing the things I talked about above, we can't afford to wait for the Ken Burn's documentary!

Date:	06-Aug-1998 09:45:00
From:	Judy Coverton (mcoverton.henrico.lib.va.us)
	The reason jazz has taken a backseat in my life is because I became a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ! Therefore, I've switched partners. I was once a die-hard jazz fan! Had been for years, as a matter of fact. I'm still a jazz fan. Fortunately for me, there is gospel. I know for a fact, we can't keep those cd's in stock at the Gospel book stores, because I work in such a store, and we are forever placing orders for gospel jazz. By the way, I'm 43. I believe the saving knowledge of Christ wiped out a large percent of that "vanishing" jazz audience. Jazz is good, but gospel jazz is awesome, when done to the glory of God, God in turn puts an anointing on it that cannot be matched!

 

Date:	15-Aug-1998 10:23:34
From:	Charles F. Price (w5mpd@aol.com)
	Walt, Your are dead right! Plus, the younger musiucians are taking learning from the older guys, and by that I mean material the older jazz players used----the standards. They lose an audience when they play nothing but originals by Miles, Coltrane, Shorter, Evans, Monk, etc. The musicians dig it, but the general public can digest a good rendition of an old standard easier than the forementioned. I've said it before, "it must have form, content, and direction". I think I stole that from Stan Getz.

 

Date:	19-Aug-1998 01:00:48
From:	Gord McGonigal (http://www.mbnet.mb.ca/~mcgonig)
	The real problem is that the musicians these days are too well paid. If they weren't they'd get off their asses and not let these so-called "jazz rats" call the shots. Life has actually never been better for a top jazz musician in the USA. Even if you can't command a fee like Joe Henderson's you can at least get a nice professorship at some college teaching the next crop of would-be jazz greats. I bet there are thousands of guys making more than Bird, Monk or Mingus ever did.

 

Date:	19-Aug-1998 09:57:27
From:	Pete Lyden (JazzHead, WBJB-FM, Lincroft, NJ) (jazzhead@home.com)
	You speak of not being condescending to neophyte fans, yet your sophomoric shots at various rock artists, new swing bands, etc. belie your advice. Chances are, the kids who will be the next generation of jazz lovers are listening to Smashing Pumpkins or Squirrel Nut Zippers today; putting them down for what gives them pleasure is likely to reinforce their preconception that jazz is an overintellectual snob's music. Twenty-five years ago, a high school friend of mine turned me on to jazz via Trane's "Sun Ship" (his older brother was a professional pianist heavily into free jazz, Cecil Taylor, etc.) I dug it immediately - I was listening to Black Sabbath, the Who, Hendrix, et al, and the aggression, cacophony, tricky chord and rhythm changes, and general level of noise on the Coltrane album sounded an awful lot like hard rock and metal to me. Likewise, I also began exploring more commercial versions of jazz, like George Benson (not unlike today's kids dipping their toes into the slick, irony-saturated product of new swing). Over time, my tastes shifted and grew. Free jazz led me to bop, which led me further back into swing, New Orleans, etc. The commercial stuff fell away as I became familiar with the real deal; but , because I came to jazz from my own place and in my own time, I never lost the sense of fun, discovery, and enjoyment that snagged me in the first place. It's unseemly and counterproductive to shower vituperation on others because they do not see what you see. I'm sure Louis Armstrong was well aware that he was making art and breaking boundaries when he blew the cadenza that opens "West End Blues." Still, he took the fifty dollars the record company paid him for the side, bought a few reefers, and went uptown to Harlem with the band to play for dancers and partiers until the sun came up - and never, in his long life, looked down his nose at those who chose to boogie rather than ruminate. Jazz is art; jazz is life; but, most important, jazz is fun. Don't deny that fun to others by painting them with your bitterness. peace, JazzHead Peter J. Lyden, III

 

Date:	30-Aug-1998 20:25:11
From:	Dave Nathan (dnathan18@hotmail.com)
	I've been listening to jazz for over 50 years and I wish I had a dollar for each time I heard that jazz is dying. True, jazz will never as popular as it was once (although I believe its former popularity is someone overstated). We have some new, exciting younger players. Jazz music is being taught at many educational institutions and even in here in easter North Carolina, jazz is fairly repreentetd on radio. Yes, I wish there were more live venues for jazz. But on the whole, I believe the illness or death of jazz way too premature.

 

Date:	01-Sep-1998 10:56:34
From:	Karen Angela Moore (mooretunes@aol.com)
	Walter - I couldn't agree with you more. WE are responsible for this sorry state of jazz. Whether we like it or not WE are in the midst of a slump and a misunderstanding of our music by radio, TV, film, listeners, and most of all the press. We have not rallied ourselves as a group and taken back what is rightfully ours - market share! Clubs! Etc. I believe one of our genres problems is that we DO NOT have much of a bridge between Trane, Miles, and the new cats instrumentally and the pop market. I feel that a since jazz vocals and new SONGS have been off the chart and out of the genre for so long the general public has been lost. (IMO) THAT'S why Smooth is big. We have got to have a stepping stone from where the audience is at right now to where we want them to be. WE HAVE TO LEAD! I recently released a new album that features The John Pizzarelli Trio. I have spent the past 8 months on a mission meeting and greeting and begging and cheerleading across the country and I will continue to do so for the sake of the genre. Notice I didn't include performing? I have been performing of course - but not very much. I've just been on an awareness tour mostly. I write and publish as well as perform. I believe it's critical for singers to get back into the picture and do something new with the old repertoire! The average pop/country/rock/rap artist puts out a CD a year. New material on all of it. What's the problem with the singers in jazz? The only innovators that show regularly right now are the instrumentalists. That's where the edge is in jazz right now - but the general audience needs a hook, a melody, and a lyric to grab them. It then can go one from there...

 

Date:	21-Sep-1998 02:07:14
From:	Curtis
	Hello everyone, I purposely left out my email address in fear of being spammed out of my mind. reason I feel that will happen is because I'm one of the counter-productive RATs Walter Price was referring to. I got my first taste of commercial jazz, but jazz nevertheless when I was 16. At an age where my all my peers were listening to bands like Nirvana, Smashing Pumkins.. or the equivelant of. I am now 21 and still listening to "Commercial Jazz". Why?.. for the most part I think it's because I made the transition from pop and R&B. Sadly I must tell you who that first taste of jazz was. Having said that I think you know who I'm talking about. Indeed it is the dreaded Kenny G, but since then I have discovered many other future hall of famers. I won't pretend like I know what I'm talking about when it comes to jazz history, but I listen to what I like and that's really all that matters. As a result of that first exposure of "Jazz" I am now supporting artists like Lee Ritenour, Bob James, David Sanborn, and many others alike. The 3 forementioned names are as close as to mainstream as you'll ever get in today's Smooth Market. Another name who sort of commands the same attention is Rick Braun, who when ever he plays it's no different than Miles Davis did when he was alive. I own Diana Krall's "Love Scene" album and to just let you know what a "smoothie" like myself thinks, I don't like it one bit. Well, I hope I have in my own way made a positive contribution to you message board. Take Care Curtis

 

Date:	13-Oct-1998 02:21:53
From:	Paul Abella (Pabella3@aol.com)
	Walter is wrong for the following reasons: First, he's wrong because as mentioned before, you can't knock what kids are listening to now. Smashing Pumpkins may be that insipid rock and roll greasy kids stuff, but it's filled with 7th and 9th chords, the hypnotic effect of an unchanging groove and all sorts of stuff that will sound familiar to a kid checking out Eddie Harris for the first time. The "New Swing" thing is interesting, because I'm seeing kids checking out Louis Prima and Benny Goodman, it may be happening slowly but it is happening surely. Another reason why Walter is wrong is that he is stating that record companies have some sort of duty to this stuff. Walter: you're wrong!!! The record companies report to their stockholders. They put out a likable (notice I didn't necessarily say good) product and people will flock. As long as jazz is on this kick that it must be high art (Stanley Crouch, Howard Reich and Wynton Marsalis, I'm talking to you...) jazz will stifle itself. It is its own worst PR. You want to put jazz back in the spotlight? Send out a blaring message to the world that jazz has got its groove back. #1 question people ask me as I'm pumping out Miles Smiles through my sunroof at maximum volume is "Where's the Beat?" I know where its at, but the average person doesn't. On the other hand, Medeski Martin and Wood tell you exactly where the beat is at. Concert venues can't hold onto their MMW tickets. HMMMM. I'm not suggesting that the world become a jazzy jam band, but groups like Roy Hargrove's have the right idea. As long as Columbia is releasing Geoff Keezer records (and they ARE great albums, don't mistake me here) Jazz sales will keep slipping. Yes, there is plenty of great new jazz to be found (only a fool would disagree. the future of jazz is hardly in the past) but without a strong, semi danceable sense of where 2 & 4 are, jazz will languish. Need proof? Check your history books. When did jazz start to slip? lets say 1962 or 63. When did free jazz and cats like Paul Bley and Jimmy Guiffre really start making their mark? same time brothers and sisters. The only jazz cats REALLY making it at that point were those who held respect for the groove. (Les McCann, Eddie Harris, Herbie Hancock, Ramsey Lewis, I could go on forever) Yet people swear that the only decent jazz albums were those made before 1968. To them I say "phooey!" Now of course, people will disagree with me saying that jazz is important smart people music and it needs to be studied in conservatories and turned into a pedastaled art instead of an interesting way to play a tune. (I don't remember who said he uses the word jazz as a verb, but I think that's a great way to do it.) Of course, it was that kind of thinking that got us here in the first place. What I'm getting at is that if you want jazz to sell, you have to market it well. No one should sell out and play what doesn't come naturally. That doesn't work either. But on the other hand, we need to get back to basics. Up until the jazz renaissance of the 80's, jazz artists almost always slipped pop tunes and various tunes that people would know into their setlists. People could latch onto something and they felt like part of "The In Crowd." Now, that's considered unkosher, and people have nothing to latch onto. Then the jazz community whines when no one takes notice, but when the public does like something (Diana Krall anyone?) the critics start whining "SELLOUT!" Right now, it's a catch 22. So, basically, there is no sorry state of jazz. Just a sorry state of JAZZ LISTENERS. Keep Your Ears Open, Paul

 

Date:	19-Oct-1998 18:38:09
From:	dave wayne
	...well, if you sit back & think about it logically for a second, a drop in jazz 'sales' from 3.2% to 2.8% may not even be statistically significant! If the margin of error in the market survey is greater than 0.5% (and it probably is by an order of magnitude!), the difference between 3.2% and 2.8% is negligable... it would be just like saying, "I have $5 plus or minus $6 in my wallet". Without a margin of error stated along with the statistic, the statistic is meaningless! Now, don't you wish you hadn't fallen asleep in math class? Also, the whole concept of 'jazz sales' is a disturbing one because it probably means sales of 'new' jazz CDs. My friends & i buy almost exclusively *used* CDs and LPs... so there is no way that we can be fit into a cut & dried demographic. I bought MORE jazz by buying used... maybe you should do the same! What it boils down to is that the statistic you quote has NOTHING to do with the perceived 'sorry state' of the jazz audience today, and the silly categorizations used by music profiteers are meaningless. If someone is listening to music with ANY actual improvisation in it, whether it be funk, fusion, avant-garde, big-band, blues, that is just great! If you have a searching soul you WILL discover all of the musical and improvisational art that time & circumstances permit. If you are happy to remain in one place... that's OK, too. Let's rant about something more useful next time!

 

Date:	21-Oct-1998 10:13:18
From:	horn player
	If everyone liked the same things, this would be a truly boring world. Why are you wasting so much energy spewing negativity. Listen to what you like and shut the f up! Leave the rest of us in peace to do the same. The dead guys are (correction -- were) great, but I prefer to emphasize music played by those of us who are doing it NOW. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!

 

Date:	24-Oct-1998 17:47:23
From:	Alfred Samuel
	Jazz is improvisation.What passes for smooth jazz is actually instrumental pop.Most performers tunes on those stations play the melody for three minutes, give you a thirty second solo, then vamp on the fade. At least nine out of ten.Let's not talk about the playlists,same five or six performers,same songs. Jazz is too predictable today, everyone is copying one another and playing on each others albums.Those who do rarely see the light of day.Most of the big name artists are in a comfy rut.

 

Date:	01-Nov-1998 18:41:00
From:	stephanie
	u suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Date:	04-Nov-1998 21:52:47
From:	scott
	Being a young jazz musician i just don't understand what you all are talking about. I'm just not too hip to a bunch of bickering old cats or groupies. That's probably why jazz doesn't have an overwhelming number of friends. Most of the disscussion groups i looked in have people bitchin' from Kenny G to radio. i get a bad vibe just hanging around I thought maybe people in here would talk about music. That, peace, and love. that's what it's about.

 

Date:	23-Nov-1998 12:41:50
From:	jack daniels
	white people

 

Date:	23-Nov-1998 20:19:18
From:	Mike
	I like where Jack is taking this thread...

 

Date:	29-Nov-1998 01:08:34
From:	Robb Hudspeth (robb-cheree@airmail.net)
	Videos! Let's face some facts. In the early eighties, POP MUSIC was dead. With the death of disco, the dunderhead programmers of top 40 radio stations had no idea where to go. Enter MTV, music sales increase, a whole bunch. During the summer of 1985, I enrolled in Berklee College of Music's summer program. There I met the cream of the Jazz crop. Who were they talking about? Al Di Meola, Weather Report, Jimi Hendrix etc... In other words, the Jazz artists of the future didn't have any contemperary musicians to latch onto. When I was at Berklee, the most famous alum we could come up with was Elliot Easton of 'The Cars.' Our first (and only) question and answer session was with Carlos Santana! (I love Santana, but he wasn't exactly a new 'voice'). Jazz isn't dying, it's just not growing. I now work for a television network and have access to all kinds of programming. I enjoy BET on Jazz (good luck finding it), but they're not as innovative as MTV was in the early 80's. Classical music is facing the same dillemna. Jazz and Classical music are taught as history, and not contemporary. These are viable art forms that need to be expressed to our youth! I know the argument "Mass marketing will lead to bland, un-imaginative music," Yes, but it might encourage a young wolf (not lion), to push the music farther and give the music a taste many may not like, but a flavor to entice a new generation to embrace. Jazz videos. Who knows, perhaps Kenny G will inspire some kid to open John Coltranes envelope. It could happen!

 

Date:	16-Jan-1999 22:41:07
From:	Yana (Yana185856)
	There is a lot of truth in all of the statments made in this thread -- but, what is the answer? Where do u start? My thoughts on the matter is this -- As a Jazz artist and poet -- I would like to see more artists showcased -- where it is not costing a fan/consumer 45.00 or more! I live in NY and if anyone would like to get involve on a grassroots level in promoting jazz -- e-mail me Nuff Said! Stay Strong! Yana

 

Date:	03-Mar-1999 21:01:44
From:	angela (anguslarue@aol.com)
	I can't stand being a fan of anything just for the sake of being a fan of it. Recently cigars have gotten REALLY popular around here. So you see these yuppie little shits in all the bars smoking them. The Swing kids of the 90's -- which were recruited by the film "Swingers" -- hmmm, let's say, what 3 years ago (?) have completely taken over the mainstream club scene here. Saying that jazz is not popular based solely on the fact that consumption is down amongst the 25-50 year olds is missing the point. The point is, you can't make a person have taste. You can't teach a person to have ears for jazz. You can't MAKE a person buy jazz. Either they appreciate it for what it is, and know why they appreciate it and will keep coming back for it, or they won't. I work in an art gallery, and every day it kills me that people buy art because they think they're supposed to. They're uneducated about why it's GOOD art. They see 25,000 on something and say, "Well, I could do that." Well, if you could do that, then be my guest. The problem is, they're looking for something to match their couch. Or worse, they buy something because it's a big name and they want to impress their friends. How sad. They think because it's expensive, they should boost their ego by buying it. The same thing happens with jazz. People listen and think they're "really cool" for being into jazz, but they have no idea why it's cool. I'm seeing this happening with the kids my age (25) who think the swing thing is the bees-knees. I'm not saying I'm against the swing thing...I have nothing against it. I think it's fun. It's important for what it is. But when my friends say to me, "Oh, yeah, that one song...ummm...that Frank Sinatra tune..." I have to laugh and quickly remind them that it was a jazz standard -- and that a lot of people did that tune, not just Frank. This problem doesn't exist due to a lack of education. There's plenty of people my age who have been forced to take jazz history to get out of school. It's not for lack of caring. They care, or they think they should, but they're not passionate about it. I love jazz for personal reasons. I was raised on it. I was raised on art. I love art. I love the process, not the end result. And when I listen to jazz, I'm listening to the process. And when I look at a beautiful painting, I'm thinking about the way it was painted, the colors, the composition, the attention to mood...the whole package. But if people my age don't have appreciation for jazz, I don't have time to explain it to them, although I've gotten into many a discussion trying to convince them as to why it's important. Personally, I'm not afraid of jazz going away. Look at all the people on here talking about it every day. Look at the passionate people defending this art form. And by the way, I do own the Spice Girls, and I actually enjoy it for WHAT IT IS. (I would work it into my set in a heartbeat, just for the sheer entertainment value.) I also own Michael Jackson and George Michael and Sarah Vaughan and John Coltrane and Pat Metheny and Miles Davis and...need I go on? Eclectic is okay, people. Trust me, jazz isn't going away anytime soon. Take a listen to Brasil '66 sometime and tell me that's not the cheesiest thing on earth -- and I will staunchly tell you that I love it. Just as I love my jazz albums.

 

Date:	03-Mar-1999 21:11:25
From:	angela (anguslarue@aol.com)
	oops, sorry, well, you can teach a person to have ears for jazz!

 

Date:	09-Mar-1999 08:30:18
From:	morris nelms (ninelives@sanmarcos.net)
	No one is 'responsible'. Technology has turned music into a product. This means it has no function in our daily lives. The previous generations who created and listened to Jazz were involved with music in a more direct way (more pianos in homes, for example. Piano sales are down as well.) If you wanted to hear music, you played a record or the radio (poor fidelity, better live) or played it yourself or went to a concert/club. With technology, the need for live music became less obvious. If a recording of Oscar Peterson sounds just like he sounds in person, why bother attending? Why bother learning to play an instrument, for that matter? (Don't forget to consider the decline in public music education. Band programs were cut wholesale during the last twenty years.) As to the decline in sales, music seems to be in stasis presently. This isn't necessarily bad--it happens from time to time before some new innovation appears. I bought Benny Green's CDs and listened to them. They are fine, but why buy them when I have Oscar doing the same thing (a bit better)? Mainly, I think Jazz (and Classical Music) lack leadership and direction. Once Stravinsky died, the symphonic musicians were left without an icon. As our Jazz giants die off, we are in the same position. Perhaps the next stage is a kind of 'starless' music? Or perhaps our current state of existence has no clear need for music? We have many more 'distractions' than any previous group of humans. (By the way, I'm not saying we shouldn't listen to music and certainly I don't regret buying Benny Green's CDs. I'm trying to address what is.)

 

Date:	10-May-1999 00:19:38
From:	Reggie
	Unthinking bigots like Jack Daniels who aren't a whole lot different from the Jesse Helms types of this world. Dumb comes in all colors. Dumb is not good for jazz.

 

Date:	16-Oct-1999 11:35:16
From:	Blaine Fallis - About.com Guide (jazz.guide@about.com)
	The reason jazz doesn't sell very well is because most Americans have never heard it. That is to say, the radio stations and smooth jazz labels have attempted to program people to like a certain formula, which didn't really work after awhile, and essentially turned people off to jazz. It's like the story of Snapple. Snapple was a really fun crazy drink at first, with a real office secretary featured in their ads, and good deals for distributors. Sales were up, life was good. Then Quaker bought Snapple. They tried to steer it, change it, manipulate it to improve sales? Anyway, sales plummeted. They were rescued by another company (the same that owns RC Cola) and Snapple sales have increased again like the old days. Somewhere along the way, we let Quaker Oats buy jazz. They then proceeded to try to strip it of the grassroots kind of power and appeal it had, tried to box it up and distribute it through slick radio programming, and it failed. We need to buy it back! As Jazz Guide at About.com, I get to hear many of the best new CDs each month, and I believe if people ever heard half of them, they'd love jazz. Another problem though is that jazz has become too fragmented a genre to market effectively. It's difficult to define. To the public, Kenny G is jazz, Louie Armstrong is also jazz, Wynton Marsalis too, and who the heck is Larry Goldings? Blaine Fallis About.com Guide to Jazz http://jazz.about.com

 

Date:	06-Mar-2000 12:35:08
From:	jason
	Write some thing about how jazz started.OK.And not some thing about your sorry start of jazz.

 

Date:	16-Mar-2000 17:06:33
From:	Brian
	I wonder if some of the problem on the fusion end is that jazz has had a hard time fusing with recent pop forms such as punk, metal, and grunge? There are exceptions like Zorn who are gaining a good audience from the young, but most fusion these days is the same old funk or watered down Spyro Gyra (or however that's spelled) that is going to scare the hell out of any teenager who has ever heard a punk album. I think this is a shame because the more experimental side of pop is coming close to jazz in many ways. Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth has admitted a debt to the free jazz of the 60s and some of his recent SYR eps could be classified as a form of free jazz. I think attempting to fuse jazz with the most mainstream pop simply will not work as that form of pop is too simple. But I also think jazz is missing out on a large audience by not trying harder to get the attention of pop audience's with slightly more independent and experimental tendencies. I find it easy to listen to Sonic Youth, Zorn, Armstrong, and Parker right after each other, and I think others would too if jazz would try to get in on the American indie scene.

 

Date:	29-Sep-2000 01:59:15
From:	binny
	Rock n' Roll took the fun out of jazz. It just knocked the wind out of it. Post 50s Jazz is boring to mainstream America, let's face it. Look around the room mid-set next time you're at a jazz club. People are dozing. Ya gotta put the chutzpah and fun back in jazz. Jazz and swing is a playful feeling. The three Louis's really knew how to PLAYYYY, they were like kids at a bday party. Brownie danced with his horn, Horace Silver--forget about it. They had fun, like rock n' roll. Brad Meldau? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Date:	20-Nov-2000 03:46:55
From:	Pantoum
	If something new is going to happen in jazz, odds are that most of the people here aren't going to know about it. Try not to confuse mass commercialism with artistic development. To tell you the truth, I bet there's stuff happening in all of your cities and many of you people just fail to find it. Do you really think that Parkers best jams are on his records? Art is NOT a profession and people will do it whether or not there is a price tag attached to it. Jazz wasn't originally made to be sold; IT JUST HAPPENED. The art that people are going to be talking about in 70 years from now is not on the shelves; ITS JUST HAPPENING. Take some time out to look for it or make it yourself.