Why Doesn't Contemporary Jazz Get Any Respect?

Some truth to your comment, Coltrane1, but I think youre forgetting the impact the industry has on whether youre perceived as traditional or smooth jazz. Talent doesnt seem to count for as much as what the producers and marketing execs think your place in the scheme of things is. Are you saleable seems to count more, rightly or wrongly. A very talented musician who thinks he is striving to be perceived as a more "serious" jazz artist may be pigeonholed by the industry as "smooth" jazz. Does that make him less talented than the artists who are put by the industry into the "serious jazz" category? The artist will get airplay when and where the executives think he or she should, and that is a little bit (but not by much) different than it used to be. The thread was why doesnt contemprorary jazz get more respect, and I think at this point in time most acknowledge black musicians' contributions and struggles. I've been a musician for a long time, classically trained from when I was 7 as well as self taught on contemporary music, and I find the comment about "for those who know music" very elitist. Are you saying that those you consider "less knowledgeable" cannot make a determination about what type of jazz they prefer at any given time?

Interesting thread. But the true question should be; Why Doesn't JAZZ Get Any Respect?! When was the last time you saw a Jazz segment on an awards show? Where are all the Jazz stations on radio? Why are Jazz clubs so hard to find? IMO Jazz can be compared to Classical in that it's barely being exposed to the youth and that results in a music that's fanbase continues to dwindle with each passing generation. I find that the majority of Jazz discussed here AND at jazz sites I hang at almost always are discussing music played decades ago. So on top of an uncaring general public, the people that DO enjoy the genre are usually digging music by artists that are dead. I'd never deny the greatness of classic Jazz, but the difficulty in being a successful musician playing Jazz was also one of the primary reasons "Smooth" flourished as it did. How else can you explain people like Herbie Mann, Michael Brecker, and Sonnie Fortune making records featuring electronic beatboxes? It's a sad state of affairs but I'm not concerned for myself, I know what I like and I'm not worried about 'scratching my itch' anytime during my lifetime. But my 12-yr old niece doesn't understand vinyl, certainly doesn't get large audio rigs, and can't name a single Jazz artist. What's it gonna be like 50 yrs from now?

And if, like me, you have a true passion for sub-genres like Latin Jazz or Fusion.....fuhgedaboudit!!!

I'm not buying the racial component as the root of the jazz vs. smooth jazz debate.

Black/White race relations infuses virtually every aspect of American history and the evolution of jazz is a prime example. Jazz is not the only area where the general public has marveled that a white performer can competently do what any number of black performers excel at. And it's a fact that the level of difficulty and artistry involved in creating jazz is not fully appreciated. Witness that Wynton Marsalis has dedicated his professional life to trying to get that respect.

With all that as backdrop at some point jazz evolved and became a non-exclusively black music style. I'm not sure when it happened, but at some point in the last generation or so it became a toss up whether a really good and inventive jazz musician was black or white. To take the point even further, that musician may not even be American. Traditional jazz will always be a form of black music no matter what the race of the musicians, but some parts of jazz have moved beyond that border. And it's not as if the border is clearly demarcated. (It's easier for me to see it in rock music since rock is a simple music form. The Beatles playing "Long Tall Sally" are white musicians playing rock which is a black music form. The Beatles playing "A Day In the Life" are still playing rock, but it's not derived from black music, which is not to say it is completely divorced from.) At some point the concept of jazz became an international music form that while based in black music is not entirely anchored to it. People observed this as far back as the Miles Davis/Gil Evans collaborations.

In many ways smooth jazz is to jazz what early rock was to R&B. Just compare Chuck Berry's guitar work to T-Bone Walker's. In the end it's not so much about the ethnicity of the musicians as it is about the that of the audience they are appealing to, which in turn is about the color of money.

MrMitch, it's a given that white record exec's have always called the shots concerning talent, promotion, production. I eluded to that in earlier comments regarding 'packaged goods' being bought and sold in the dumming down of a society. Profit trumps art, but generally only always. This is America after all.

I've addressed very specific and detailed reasons why 'smooth' does not gain the respect of an educated classic jazz listener. I've offered cultural, social, and political components that I feel all contribute to why smooth has not nor will it ever reach the level of an art form. It's canned "jazz" targeted for the masses. Exec's do the same thing with pop.

I agree to disagree with you regarding education and listening. There's nothing "elitist" about it. Either one has some idea of what they've just heard or they're clueless. I don't see how suggesting educating oneself about rudimentary elements of music makes one an elitist.

For example, let's examine your acknowledged specialty, classical music.

One is better equipped to appreciate a Bach or Beethoven fugue if they've some idea what a fugue is. That's all I'm suggesting. Rudimentary education of musical elements better equips the listener of processing and understanding the classical music they're listening to. Without it, it's blind listening. Of course one could really go all out and take a classical music appreciation course at most community colleges and learn a lot about classical music they're not going to discover on their own by flipping 33's.

I'm not suggesting one has to have a degree in jazz theory to understand jazz. But a basic education of musical elements empowers the listener with a greater insight into what they're hearing.

I'm saying the less knowledgeable can choose to remain less knowledgeable, or not. Education is always an invitation. Either one has the calling or not.

Only a fool would suggest what someone "should" or "should not" be listening to. People listen to what they enjoy. But until one makes the choice to understand that a diminished 5th is simply an enharmonic spelling of an augmented 4th, which is the same as a tritone, then they're clueless when a jazz artist is talking about tritone substitutions. This is about as basic a jazz terminology as jazz gets, and it's commonplace knowledge among listeners who've not studied music to any great degree.

Mrmitch, I've a question you're perfectly qualified to answer.

You're a classically trained musician whose dedicated years to the study of classical music. So if a listener believes all classical music sounds alike how would you go about educating them that no, all classical music is not alike? Of course you'd assuredly point out the many different periods of classical that are distinctly different from one another throughout time, i.e., baroque, classical, romantic, eras etc. Perhaps you'd be offended if someone equated a commonplace easy listening elevator music to a Brahms concerto. But what's the difference, all I hear are violins in both pieces? The point is, the better equipped one is to define what they're hearing, the better equipped are they to determine what their true preference is. As I mentioned before, I've nothing against smooth for it's responsible for attracting a certain percentage of the more curious to classical jazz. But to equate smooth with classic jazz sounds foolish for it's not on the same level harmonically or technically. Anyone suggesting smooth and classical jazz differences aren't worthy of distinction does not understand jazz or music.

But I've an open mind and welcome hearing why I'm completely wrong.

Onhwy61, as a contributor to the original thread 8 years ago, welcome back!

You don't see the connection, fair enough.

Contrary to what you wrote 8 years ago many believe jazz evolved because of Bebop, not in spite of it.

As an example I offer a common question that's asked:

"When did Jazz musicians start to take themselves seriously as artists?"

A typical response to that is it may have begun when folks began noticing members of the Basie or Ellington bands were playing really well and they stopped dancing and started listening.

Hmmm, that's about as plausible an explanation as I've heard.

No doubt, jazz at one point was the pop "dance" music of the day.

Contrary to your suggestion years ago I offer that Bebop is as responsible for elevating jazz to an art form as any other musical aspect of the historical jazz pot. This is creole music. Literally. It's like a gumbo, with a lil' of this and a bit of that. You can't have jazz without the blues, and you can't have the harmonic and rhythmic complexities of jazz without the subtleties of Bebop.

Furthermore, remove Dizzy Gillespie, a serious Bebop player. and a foremost ambassador and educator of jazz responsible for taking the music to all corners of the globe and what do you have? One couldn't imagine removing Stan Getz and the Brazilian influence that impacted jazz during the very early 60's. Bebop's had an even greater influence upon jazz. I couldn't imagine jazz without Dexter Gordon. Dext' never stopped being a 'bop player, nor did countless others throughout the course of their careers.