Goddard Leiberson’s role should be underscored. Never has a major record company had such a musically literate person in charge. Most you can name, in the memorable words of Woody Herman, never listened to anything but their electric shaver. Goddard had a legitimate classical music background, but recognized the artistic merit of jazz without having to be convinced. George Benson is the only person I know who knew him. George and Aretha Franklin were both signed to Columbia about the same time. In spite of John Hammond’s best instincts, Columbia didn’t know what to do with them. George told me they were trying to produce Aretha the same way as Barbra Streisand. As for George, they didn’t know if he should be a jazz guitarist or pop singer. Goddard suggested they both be released after two albums. Aretha went to Atlantic, George went to Verve. They both flourished. His instincts proved to be right.
As a jazz historian, you surely had significant events in mind, that defined the period when jazz was accepted as a high art form. It's interesting for me personally, that a very large segment (perhaps majority) of my favorite recordings are from the period 1955-1962. So, I track with your time frame, but lag a bit chronologically. I feel that many recordings after 1962, had an edge that gave the music a different feel, including that recorded by the same musicians I had enjoyed earlier (i.e., Blue Note). Modality entered the mix, as well as, the influence of civil rights activism. Big bands were scuffling to survive & incorporated music from the British Invasion into their playbooks. It became a confusing time for old school mainstream jazz fans, such as myself. For me, most Fusion recordings were an abomination. They had created a soulless hybrid that lacked any identity. Of course, there were still folks like Ellington, Basie, Horace Silver & the MJQ, as well as, the lovely music blowing up from Brazil, to cling to. (And even Creed Taylor couldn't completely destroy the genius of Wes Montgomery!)
Great comment, thanks. Please keep in mind that this essay wasn’t centered on whether jazz was worthwhile before or after this time frame but merely to point out that for a brief period, jazz was viewed by America at large as high culture and the reasons why.
I would add to Marc's perceptive comments another influence on the popularity of jazz -- Playboy Magazine (of course, I read the magazine for its articles). The magazine promoted jazz for many years, reviewing new releases, conducting an annual readers' poll for jazz and founding an annual jazz festival. Hefner's TV programs Playboy Penthouse/Playboy After Dark featured many established and up and coming jazz artists (an episode of The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel fictionalizes an appearance by Lenny Bruce on the series -- you can find the original on youtube). Here's a wonderful appearance by the unjustly neglected Beverly Kenney with Hefner (who does some singing with Kenney) (Kenney even released an album titled Beverly Kenney Sings for Playboys): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuUyDmeWmRg
Hi Kat. Hope you're well. On the "Nat King Cole Show," Nelson Riddle and the orchestra were always off-camera. Not sure if that was a space thing (the only place they'd fit) or an integration thing that would inflame viewers, etc.
Viewers in 1956-57 were easily "inflamed." Tragic, really. No one was more talented and elegant than Nat King Cole and many others who didn't get their own TV shows because of that very reason. It's the fault of the advertisers. Back then. many nationally broadcast shows were sold to a single sponsor—a major car company or a consumer-goods company. They didn't want entire regions of the country angry at them and their brands. It took courage for a network to buck that. Fortunately, some did and we're better for it, since we have their talent as a performer and host documented. Here's a treat, from the UK in the early 1960s. They didn't have such issues:
…A great post on the history and many insightful comments as well - Picking up on the last comment, I have to suggest that like many genres, jazz continued to evolve. It didn’t decline. However, I recently wrote something that certainly reflected and was (unfortunately) inspired by an era’s “decline”… recorded with a quintet of a few of Chicago’s greats:
Dear Marc, In spite of jazz’s high-culture period, I have always thought that its post-War move toward a small-group, more “composed” form left behind plenty of its audience--largely because the dance went out of it. “Nothing happens until something moves,” Einstein has said. I have visited many swing-dance venues and have never seen so many people smiling ear to ear--while moving--and they keep coming back! (Taken out of context, they might look delusional.) So much of that music emerges from swing rhythm--its very architecture.
Also, with your broad historical coverage of jazz tributaries, you left out the GREAT and iconic Ed Beach (!)--perhaps the first radio jazz god. His deep voice still beats on my eardrums.
Re: Steve Allen, I love his line: “The jazz critics loved me as long as they thought I was black and dead.”
Your account of shifting generational tastes FEELS right to me. Can you back it up with any sociological studies? How would you factor Pierre Bourdieu’s examination of popular taste and social class?
As I said it feels right to me but I’m sitting in an armchair in 2026. Just like it feels right to attribute the rise of “Urban Cowboy country” (Garth Brooks et al) as filling a need for listeners who were alienated by hip hop and wanted melodies, rhythms, lyrics, and indeed a world view that they could relate to. (I’d like to know if there are any oral histories or consumer studies that actually support that theory, though.)
Not sure what you're asking me to back up. All of those factors are true. The national media viewed jazz as high culture at exactly that point in time. And then the audience for jazz evaporated as did media coverage. As I recall from my masters program in 20th century US history at Columbia, It's called original historical analysis and coming to a rational conclusion based on factual evidence.
I like your analysis of the history: record clubs, population trends, etc.
The part that feels right but I’m hoping you can back up: “parents began looking for music with an edge that made them feel young outside of the classical and pop realms.”
So for example: do we have examples from today or any time that adult parents of teenagers look for contemporary music instead of sticking with what they liked as kids themselves, and that parents seek out music that differentiates them from their kids but also other adults that they do NOT identify with. (Is that a fair reading of your thesis?)
Maybe there’s an argument that the historical emergence of teenagers with buying power in the 1950s is also driving this.
Goddard Leiberson’s role should be underscored. Never has a major record company had such a musically literate person in charge. Most you can name, in the memorable words of Woody Herman, never listened to anything but their electric shaver. Goddard had a legitimate classical music background, but recognized the artistic merit of jazz without having to be convinced. George Benson is the only person I know who knew him. George and Aretha Franklin were both signed to Columbia about the same time. In spite of John Hammond’s best instincts, Columbia didn’t know what to do with them. George told me they were trying to produce Aretha the same way as Barbra Streisand. As for George, they didn’t know if he should be a jazz guitarist or pop singer. Goddard suggested they both be released after two albums. Aretha went to Atlantic, George went to Verve. They both flourished. His instincts proved to be right.
As a jazz historian, you surely had significant events in mind, that defined the period when jazz was accepted as a high art form. It's interesting for me personally, that a very large segment (perhaps majority) of my favorite recordings are from the period 1955-1962. So, I track with your time frame, but lag a bit chronologically. I feel that many recordings after 1962, had an edge that gave the music a different feel, including that recorded by the same musicians I had enjoyed earlier (i.e., Blue Note). Modality entered the mix, as well as, the influence of civil rights activism. Big bands were scuffling to survive & incorporated music from the British Invasion into their playbooks. It became a confusing time for old school mainstream jazz fans, such as myself. For me, most Fusion recordings were an abomination. They had created a soulless hybrid that lacked any identity. Of course, there were still folks like Ellington, Basie, Horace Silver & the MJQ, as well as, the lovely music blowing up from Brazil, to cling to. (And even Creed Taylor couldn't completely destroy the genius of Wes Montgomery!)
Great comment, thanks. Please keep in mind that this essay wasn’t centered on whether jazz was worthwhile before or after this time frame but merely to point out that for a brief period, jazz was viewed by America at large as high culture and the reasons why.
I would add to Marc's perceptive comments another influence on the popularity of jazz -- Playboy Magazine (of course, I read the magazine for its articles). The magazine promoted jazz for many years, reviewing new releases, conducting an annual readers' poll for jazz and founding an annual jazz festival. Hefner's TV programs Playboy Penthouse/Playboy After Dark featured many established and up and coming jazz artists (an episode of The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel fictionalizes an appearance by Lenny Bruce on the series -- you can find the original on youtube). Here's a wonderful appearance by the unjustly neglected Beverly Kenney with Hefner (who does some singing with Kenney) (Kenney even released an album titled Beverly Kenney Sings for Playboys): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuUyDmeWmRg
What happened in 1964 to end this Golden Era? I was born that year and fear that may have been the cause of the decline of jazz.
I’m wondering where the orchestra is hiding?
*referring to the Nat King Cole performance w Oscar Peterson trio
Btw, thanks for the interesting read, Marc!
Hi Kat. Hope you're well. On the "Nat King Cole Show," Nelson Riddle and the orchestra were always off-camera. Not sure if that was a space thing (the only place they'd fit) or an integration thing that would inflame viewers, etc.
Ah! Thanks, Marc. Had to pause to consider what you meant when you said “inflame viewers.” It didn’t occur to me at first.
Viewers in 1956-57 were easily "inflamed." Tragic, really. No one was more talented and elegant than Nat King Cole and many others who didn't get their own TV shows because of that very reason. It's the fault of the advertisers. Back then. many nationally broadcast shows were sold to a single sponsor—a major car company or a consumer-goods company. They didn't want entire regions of the country angry at them and their brands. It took courage for a network to buck that. Fortunately, some did and we're better for it, since we have their talent as a performer and host documented. Here's a treat, from the UK in the early 1960s. They didn't have such issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVpHLmZDs0o
Sigh 😊 love this. Thanks for sharing.
…A great post on the history and many insightful comments as well - Picking up on the last comment, I have to suggest that like many genres, jazz continued to evolve. It didn’t decline. However, I recently wrote something that certainly reflected and was (unfortunately) inspired by an era’s “decline”… recorded with a quintet of a few of Chicago’s greats:
https://audio.com/phil-barish/audio/hail-storm
Dear Marc, In spite of jazz’s high-culture period, I have always thought that its post-War move toward a small-group, more “composed” form left behind plenty of its audience--largely because the dance went out of it. “Nothing happens until something moves,” Einstein has said. I have visited many swing-dance venues and have never seen so many people smiling ear to ear--while moving--and they keep coming back! (Taken out of context, they might look delusional.) So much of that music emerges from swing rhythm--its very architecture.
Also, with your broad historical coverage of jazz tributaries, you left out the GREAT and iconic Ed Beach (!)--perhaps the first radio jazz god. His deep voice still beats on my eardrums.
Re: Steve Allen, I love his line: “The jazz critics loved me as long as they thought I was black and dead.”
All the best!
Peter Gerler
Newton, MA
Your account of shifting generational tastes FEELS right to me. Can you back it up with any sociological studies? How would you factor Pierre Bourdieu’s examination of popular taste and social class?
As I said it feels right to me but I’m sitting in an armchair in 2026. Just like it feels right to attribute the rise of “Urban Cowboy country” (Garth Brooks et al) as filling a need for listeners who were alienated by hip hop and wanted melodies, rhythms, lyrics, and indeed a world view that they could relate to. (I’d like to know if there are any oral histories or consumer studies that actually support that theory, though.)
Not sure what you're asking me to back up. All of those factors are true. The national media viewed jazz as high culture at exactly that point in time. And then the audience for jazz evaporated as did media coverage. As I recall from my masters program in 20th century US history at Columbia, It's called original historical analysis and coming to a rational conclusion based on factual evidence.
I like your analysis of the history: record clubs, population trends, etc.
The part that feels right but I’m hoping you can back up: “parents began looking for music with an edge that made them feel young outside of the classical and pop realms.”
So for example: do we have examples from today or any time that adult parents of teenagers look for contemporary music instead of sticking with what they liked as kids themselves, and that parents seek out music that differentiates them from their kids but also other adults that they do NOT identify with. (Is that a fair reading of your thesis?)
Maybe there’s an argument that the historical emergence of teenagers with buying power in the 1950s is also driving this.
To be clear I’m not on the attack! I agree it’s a “rational conclusion.” I’m looking for confirmation.