Jazz and Pop Music
Whenever critics write about jazz in terms of its popularity or commercial viability, I can’t help but feel as though they are either doing a disservice to the art, or at least circling aimlessly on a peripheral track. Here I will risk becoming one of those writers, but in the interest of pointing out a mistaken position that tends to arise in such arguments.
It seems that every few months, a jazz writer publishes a piece that either laments the death of jazz, or makes vague suggestions about how jazz should regain its ties to popular culture.
The latest perpetrator is Will Layman, with his article “Jazz Ain't Dead, But Charlie Parker Is – So Let’s Move On, Shall We?” Layman’s concern is “the disconnect… between the quality and variety of contemporary jazz invention and its actual audience.” He asks,
I agree with the general sentiment of Layman’s article, which is that young musicians all over the world are making great jazz that strays from its historical roots. He frequently cites the documentary “Icons Among Us: Jazz in the Present Tense,” whose producer, John Comerford, I interviewed. I sense, however, that Layman intends for “finding its way to the ears (and hearts) of younger fans – arguably the lifeblood audience it needs to continue” to mean that jazz requires a degree of popularity and commercial viability in order to survive.
If this is in fact what Layman means, then he is barking up the wrong tree. Immediately before the above statement, he writes the following, which is both correct and important:
Why worry about the lifeblood of an art with such explosive and wondrous creativity? How can Layman argue that the number of young jazz musicians is increasing and still be concerned that not enough young ears are hearing jazz? Layman is either contradicting himself, or placing too much emphasis on record and ticket sales.
Those who think the death of jazz and falling record sales are inextricable are forgetting that popular music is ephemeral, and often strongly linked to a cultural scene that involves substantial non-musical material. Jazz enjoyed the limelight at one point, but just like Whitesnake, Ashford and Simpson, and the Carpenters, it became dated and unpopular. Swing was linked to flappers and lindy hoppers, two culture trends that died and brought a certain variety of jazz down with them.
Aching for the period when jazz was cool is no different from aching for the time when hair bands were cool. It’s kind of pathetic. Of course, Layman doesn’t long for swing music, he just wants the jazz of today to enjoy as enthusiastic and widespread an audience. The problem is, he can’t reconcile his desire for popularity with his desire to avoid a cultural “scene” that involves market-ripe extra-musical material.
Layman seems wary of the attachment of jazz to a “scene” when discussing jam bands: “Kids who are grooving to the “energy” (and, well, maybe to some other substances) seem more like fans of a scene than a music.” I would ask Layman to provide an instance of popular music that isn’t attached to a “scene,” perhaps with the mystifying exception of The Beatles.
Take a look at indie rock. It has tendrils in cities all over the world, and yet many of its musicians play for tips the way many jazz musicians do. However, its health, which can be measured by abundance of skinny jeans, scraggly beards, and fixed-gear bikes, is never called into question.
Jazz isn’t attached to extra-musical cultural trends that would make its health as visible. The music and audience is too varied for jazz to achieve unified marketability. Patrick Jarenwattananon’s “Meet the Jazz Audience” project at A Blog Supreme confirms this.
But so what? Skinny jeans will eventually fade from popularity, and with it will a certain brand of rock music. Jazz has an advantage by not being tethered to popular culture. It aims for timelessness, and maybe a few of the many young jazz musicians around today will achieve it. The focus should be on their music, not how many people like it right now.
Jazz is not off track, so let’s not search for ways to get it back on. Any attempt to do this would threaten its authenticity and hinder its innovation.
It seems that every few months, a jazz writer publishes a piece that either laments the death of jazz, or makes vague suggestions about how jazz should regain its ties to popular culture.
The latest perpetrator is Will Layman, with his article “Jazz Ain't Dead, But Charlie Parker Is – So Let’s Move On, Shall We?” Layman’s concern is “the disconnect… between the quality and variety of contemporary jazz invention and its actual audience.” He asks,
How is this still-incredible music, the brilliant, second / third / fourth-generation result of Pops and Duke and Dizzy and Miles, going to find its way to the ears (and hearts) of younger fans—arguably the lifeblood audience it needs to continue?
I agree with the general sentiment of Layman’s article, which is that young musicians all over the world are making great jazz that strays from its historical roots. He frequently cites the documentary “Icons Among Us: Jazz in the Present Tense,” whose producer, John Comerford, I interviewed. I sense, however, that Layman intends for “finding its way to the ears (and hearts) of younger fans – arguably the lifeblood audience it needs to continue” to mean that jazz requires a degree of popularity and commercial viability in order to survive.
If this is in fact what Layman means, then he is barking up the wrong tree. Immediately before the above statement, he writes the following, which is both correct and important:
Young musicians are studying jazz in record numbers, and their invention is both within and bursting beyond the great tradition in startling and glorious ways.
Why worry about the lifeblood of an art with such explosive and wondrous creativity? How can Layman argue that the number of young jazz musicians is increasing and still be concerned that not enough young ears are hearing jazz? Layman is either contradicting himself, or placing too much emphasis on record and ticket sales.
Those who think the death of jazz and falling record sales are inextricable are forgetting that popular music is ephemeral, and often strongly linked to a cultural scene that involves substantial non-musical material. Jazz enjoyed the limelight at one point, but just like Whitesnake, Ashford and Simpson, and the Carpenters, it became dated and unpopular. Swing was linked to flappers and lindy hoppers, two culture trends that died and brought a certain variety of jazz down with them.
Aching for the period when jazz was cool is no different from aching for the time when hair bands were cool. It’s kind of pathetic. Of course, Layman doesn’t long for swing music, he just wants the jazz of today to enjoy as enthusiastic and widespread an audience. The problem is, he can’t reconcile his desire for popularity with his desire to avoid a cultural “scene” that involves market-ripe extra-musical material.
Layman seems wary of the attachment of jazz to a “scene” when discussing jam bands: “Kids who are grooving to the “energy” (and, well, maybe to some other substances) seem more like fans of a scene than a music.” I would ask Layman to provide an instance of popular music that isn’t attached to a “scene,” perhaps with the mystifying exception of The Beatles.
Take a look at indie rock. It has tendrils in cities all over the world, and yet many of its musicians play for tips the way many jazz musicians do. However, its health, which can be measured by abundance of skinny jeans, scraggly beards, and fixed-gear bikes, is never called into question.
Jazz isn’t attached to extra-musical cultural trends that would make its health as visible. The music and audience is too varied for jazz to achieve unified marketability. Patrick Jarenwattananon’s “Meet the Jazz Audience” project at A Blog Supreme confirms this.
But so what? Skinny jeans will eventually fade from popularity, and with it will a certain brand of rock music. Jazz has an advantage by not being tethered to popular culture. It aims for timelessness, and maybe a few of the many young jazz musicians around today will achieve it. The focus should be on their music, not how many people like it right now.
Jazz is not off track, so let’s not search for ways to get it back on. Any attempt to do this would threaten its authenticity and hinder its innovation.
Source...