Why Doesn't Contemporary Jazz Get Any Respect?

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.

Coltrane, you missed the point entirely. No one equated classical jazz with smooth jazz, the point made was both have their place and each deserves trheir own respect for what they are. And you seem to have answered your own r hetorical question-peace out.

I agree that the race component is, if not entirely, mostly irrelevant to the debate about "contemporary" jazz. I say "mostly" irrelevant, because race has been a formidable force in the history of jazz; obviously. It is extremely difficult to discuss the subject in our politically-correct society.

Coltrane 1, I agree with much of what you say, but not all; and certainly not as concerns the relevance of race issues in the current music/jazz environment. I will try to express some thoughts/feelings in a way that, if they are to have any real significance at all, will surely rub some the wrong way. For my inability to express those thoughts in a way that is totally inoffensive to all, I apologize. But, I know where my heart lies. So, my apology only goes so far. Anyway, here goes:

The dirty little secret, and one that we white guys are too often unwilling to truly embrace, is that the greatest jazz artists have been black; end of story. There have been a few notable exceptions, but there is no question in my mind that the true innovators in jazz, and those that did the best job of expressing, through their music, the deepest depths of the human condition, were black artists. Not because blacks, as a group, have superior expressiveness ability, but because of the other part of the dirty little secret: the depth of the pain that blacks were submitted to by a predominantly white culture. Good art is always a reflection/expression of what is happening in a society, and we all know that there were some pretty terrible things going on in our society, leading up to the birth of jazz. But, and this is a big "but", that was then, and this is now.

Society evolves, race issues have evolved, and jazz has evolved. Contemporary (current) jazz, some of it clearly valid, simply doesn't have the relevance that music that expressed the social/racial turmoil at the turn of the 20th century, through the era of the civil-rights movement did. How could it? When we now live in a society which, in spite of all the cries of doom and gloom, is still one in which there is a tremendous amount of wealth, and the members in it's lowest economic strata are still able to have a lifestyle that is the envy of the vast majority of the rest of the world. We tend to lose perspective. Is it any wonder that much of the art expresses a kind of vapidness, and lack of true emotional complexity?

I don't buy that racism plays an adverse role in the success of black contemporary jazz artists. In fact, the opposite is sometimes true. I know several young white artists trying to establish themselves in the NYC jazz scene, who feel that black players get preferential treatment from producers/promoters. It wasn't long ago that Wynton Marsalis got some legal heat for trying to replace the white members of his band. Is racism dead? Of course not; probably never will be.

We are all racist. It is programmed into our genes. It is what we as individuals do with that fact that makes the difference. We strive to be more enlightened individuals by recognizing our flaws. But, losing perspective, and using race as justification for lack of self-reliance is as bad as active racism itself. We have a black president, and every ethnic color is well represented in every position of power in our society. I would prefer to celebrate that new reality, than keep looking back. And maybe then we can get to the point that we can freely state that we don't like a particular Obama policy, without fear of being called racist. Or that I prefer Tom Harrell's playing to Terrence Blanchard's without fear of the same.

Re the success of the likes of Kenny G, Chris Botti, etc. In the scheme of things, does it really matter?

Frogman, brave post. I applaud you for going there.

It's no secret that blacks excel at most anything rhythmically. That's obvious on the dance floor, the basketball court, or when it comes to creating jazz.

Wynton Marsalis holds a minority position. The playing field isn't established from his position in NYC, but rather from the board room. 99.9% of those calling promotional shots are of course white. Wynton's experienced great criticism for he's perceived by many as having made decisions that attempted to level the playing field.

Race is still a true issue today as it was 70 years ago. It's believed by many that white writers, which are by far the majority, tend to promote less talented white talent.

Yes we have a racially half black president who is also half white, and whose childhood experience was not one born of the black community. That's been well documented. The experience of most blacks in our society don't reflect the life Obama experienced. Most were not sheltered from racism, and know first hand about racism. But in America, if you're 25% black and 75% white you're still a black man if your skin pigmentation reveals anything other than white characteristics.

I strongly disagree we're all genetically wired to be racist. Most blacks aren't raised to hate or distrust whites. But being black in America is something blacks have to come to terms with very early in life. Still today. That doesn't make blacks a victim it's simply the reality of being black in this society. One merely has to attempt to hail a cab in NYC to see how far this society has come in terms of if it's acceptable to be black in America.

Having said all that, there have been many a ground breaking white artist that have produced major impacts on jazz. Bill Evans, Stan Getz, Jim Hall, the list is endless. But as you say it's obvious if one began a stat' sheet and started tallying the number of sax players, piano players, trumpet players, guitar players, blacks have been highly successful as being some of the more prominent players throughout history, in spite of the obvious racial issues they've had to overcome.

I'd think for most the music trumps the race of the individual who created it. I repeatedly return to listen to Jim Hall's Concierto De Aranjuez not because he's a white player but because it's a superb recording. Same goes for Miles' Kind of Blue.

Jazz music knows no color. It's the industry seeking the 'next great white hope' from the board room with the belief that a hot white player would yield greater returns than a hot black player that creates issues for new artists being judged based upon their skin color rather than their talent.