A really good piece of writing for sure. However, I have long ago given up on trying to convince people that they should listen to jazz. You really find yourself up against a wall. They will sit there with their arms folded as if to say, “Go on then, impress me”. And, in some cases their resistance will be to all forms of jazz. Including, Armstrong, Ellington, Peterson, Holiday, Davis, etc, etc. The only jazz likely to make them listen will be Sinatra, Fitzgerald and other forms of, but not all, big band swing jazz. I have a lot of tremendously talented musician friends, (I’m a drummer), who would not even consider listening to jazz. It is like trying to convince someone who doesn’t like fish that a Dover Sole or a perfectly cooked Lobster is not only nourishment but food heaven. They ain’t gonna go for it, buy it or try it.
So, I switch off from having to play and learn a countless number of pop & rock back beat classics by listening to jazz on my own, at home. And I guess that’s the way it will stay.
I just finished Johnny Dankworth's autobio, "Jazz in Revolution" (1998), and came across JD's explanation for why Jazz isn't and will never be popular:
......."jazz is a music for the minority. It can only be truly understood and evaluated by people gifted with 'chordal ears'- IOW, those lucky folk who can listen to the improvisational skills of a soloist and still hear the underlying chord structure. So jazz music can only by luck become popular in the wider sense.,and can rarely enjoy the financial security and mass acclaim which goes with that phenomenon. Thus most jazz musicians remain skilled, dedicated and poor, and even a jazz world-star name like Dizzy Gillespie's was and still is for that matter-unfamiliar to most people in the country of his birth."
He used Diz as an example, because he was working with him at the time, and was a very close friend of his.
Chuck Israels tells a story in "Bass Notes" about how he was flown over to the UK,all expenses paid by Johnny, and found himself in a studio with some of the best jazz players in the world *Phil Woods, Dick Morrissey, Tubby Hayes, etc...
Mystified, he asked Johnny what he was doing there with all these jazz greats,
Here's the first episode of "Peter Gunn," broadcast in the fall of 1958 with music by Henry Mancini. I was 5 years old. It was the first jazz experience--and for that matter, musical experience--I can remember.
Looking back, I can understand why this hit me so deeply. The sounds were what I learned later were called "harmonies" and were--and are--pretty sophisticated. You have to have an ear for such things, and not everyone does. That's why jazz, classical, and other "art musics" have minority audiences.
I don't know where my affinity for these sounds came from, but my life and career were shaped at this very early age. Thank you, Henry Mancini and producer Blake Edwards.
Thanks for the info & link. I just watched Peter Gunn; dig the cool combo at Mother’s bar. Thought it was Victor Feldman on vibes but I looked up cast/crew, appears to be Larry Bunker, who I thought was mainly a drummer, but he definitely played vibes too! (Another swingin’ combo is in the Johnny Staccato 50s crime TV show)
It IS Victor Feldman, though Larry Bunker also played vibraphone for Mancini. On another episode, Shorty Rogers plays flugelhorn at an after-hours session at Mother's. The "Johnny Staccato" combo was led by Red Norvo.
Thanks, Bill ! I swear I thought it looked more like Victor (that hair & face) than Larry (used to have a mustache?) so I guess whatever cast/crew list I was viewing was completely messed up wrong; was trying to steer away from AI so I thought it was from IMBD. Anyway, I do recall seeing Red Norvo’s name listed for the J.Staccato episodes along w/ a stellar bunch of other names I recognized and I’m sure you do too!
Great comment Christian. Thanks for your kind words. All points of view are welcome and all make me thing. The only ground rule is that all parties remain cordial and mature. It's a global community and everyone loves the same thing—beauty. So peace and intelligence are easy. Best, Marc
When I was listening to & playing jazz in the early '60s, I was also listening to & playing the mountain music and blues from the 1920s through the 1940s, finding the melodies to be incredibly beautiful. It was all the same...
Yep. After hosting my show last night, 3 hours of jazz (I guess the word avant garde applies - or simply not straight ahead jazz) all I wanted to listen to in the ride home was early aughts Flaming Lips. And I was struck by the beauty in those simple melodies in slightly askew psychedelic rock settings.
I remember hearing Bill talking about searching for the most beautiful kinds of beauty. That has always resonated with me. It’s interesting, the different ways that people are constructed. I have quite a few friends who are able to appreciate that something is beautiful but don’t experience the feeling of being moved by it. And others who don’t seem to be moved much at all by so many of the things that I find so compelling and profoundly moving… And, of course, a few who experience these things in the same ways that I do. I feel lucky to get those goosebumps. That feeling of experiencing the truly profound, that place where beauty and truth seem to reveal each other, is what drew me to Bill’s music in my late teens. I had listened to a lot of classical music, and then began to dive into jazz. I was always more moved by texture and lyricism than by technique and flurries of notes. I listened to a lot of Stan Getz and Paul Desmond in those formative years. They both had a wonderful sense of melody and lyricism, along with such mastery of their instruments, and such a rich tone. I also listened to a lot of orchestral works, always loving rich string sections and arrangements. That led me to Don Haas and Clare Fischer, and many of the composers of film scores, and then ultimately to Bill. His playing grabbed me from the first listen and continues to do so to this day. And perhaps more than any other artist I can think of, Bill’s playing and his music grew from the inside, in constantly evolving and profound ways, always with the design of a creator who was on a lifelong mission to dig deeper and find more beauty in everything that he did musically, never settling for easy solutions or cliches, and always knowing that there was more to discover.
That was certainly very evident with his last trio. Marc arrived, and the textures and lyricism and rich depth of the trio’s sound unfolded in wonderful new ways. You could sense that in Bill’s playing, and in the concerts with that trio, where he seemed genuinely excited again. He was finding new ways of going inside the harmonies with Marc, and his playing was really evolving in great new ways. I was at three of the concerts at Keystone Korner in San Francisco in 1980, less than two weeks before he died. By then a lot of his playing had become rushed and felt more reckless than in the past, but the core nature of his exploration was still very much intact and was present in all of his playing. He was still digging and probing, searching and discovering, right up until the end. That search for greater and deeper beauty never ceased. When I think of that kind of creativity and creative mission, a couple of quotes come to mind: "Talent does what it can; genius does what it must". And, "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see". That was and is to me the beauty of Bill and his music, and of true art that can be powerfully transcendent. DBT
Marc... This is easily one of your best pieces. Anyone who's a jazz fan has had to deal with other music lovers who think it's a waste of time. I long ago gave up trying to convince my musically inclined friends that they were losing out. They just weren't interested. And speaking of interest, I have a twin brother who, like so many others, thinks jazz sucks. Go figure. As a result, I've folded my tent and I listen alone. But, I'm not complaining. Why? Because I know something they don't...that they don't know what they're missing.
Thanks for your kind words, David. You’re not alone at JazzWax. You’re able to hear the beauty that musicians put into the music. This intent doesn’t exist in any other form of pop music. Others can’t hear what you hear because they don’t recognize it and are more conditioned to respond to catchy melodies or a beat that is familiar. You hear the beauty that jazz delivers.
Sorry to comment on this thoughtful piece somewhat late. I agree that to appreciate jazz, one has to find the beauty in it. And beauty is in the ear of the beholder. I find much classical music and opera to have extraordinary beauty: Bach's works for solo violin, Brahms' Requiem, almost any work by Puccini. But I don't pursue classical music the way I do jazz. Jazz has characteristics beyond beauty that make it unique. It encourages deeply personal interpretation, for instance. Not just of songs, melody and harmony, but of the time itself. Jazz is the only music I know in which the fundamental rhythmic feel ("swing") is based upon a player's personal interpretation of subdivisions of the beat, which can't truly be reduced to notation. John Coltrane sounds completely different from Cannonball Adderley on Miles records not because they're playing different horns, but because each feels eighth notes in a personal way. It's also fascinating that a band of jazz artists who each have uniquely internalized swing eighths still sound great playing together.
That brings up a larger point, which is that there is an excitement about the interaction of jazz musicians interpreting the music that springs from the act of creating something completely new for the first time. It involves risk and trust, and those things are palpable to the audience member, even if they don't know the tune. I have friends who don't listen to jazz recordings regularly, for instance, but love hearing live performances. Indian music and flamenco also share this dynamic, but the freedom possible in the interplay is greater in jazz.
I may be cynical, but I believe the reason jazz is not enjoyed by a larger audience has more to do with commerce. The modern entertainment industry is about product and sales, and it is easier to mass produce artists whose work sounds like something that has sold well before. One can't create a unique talent like Charlie Parker or Bill Evans or Keith Jarrett, and if one could, he'd have no way of knowing if he'd make back the investment. Better to create Taylor Swift.
Given all this, I'm surprised that the audience for jazz is as large as it is. I'm also glad to see a growing number of younger people at gigs and festivals. I'd like to think it's a sign of reaction against mass produced popular culture in favor of art and beauty.
Years ago as a student at Ohio University I got a knock on my apartment door at about 11pm. Two tall, majestic African American men asked if could come in and wait until my neighbor returned from campus. (My neighbor was the newly minted African American studies professor.) While we waited for Professor Troup to return, I was introduced to two heavyweight musicians and the "space music" of the late Coltrane vibe. Those two men opened the doors of perception for the young white musician I was back then. What a privilege.
I’m new to Substack and I’m also a lifelong professional “jazz” musician and composer.
I’m fortunate to work with the next generation of jazz artists and supporters through our nonprofit public charity organization that mirrors a professional and real world music industry experience.
It’s a merit based tuition free fellowship program for high school and college students held during spring and summer each year.
We just completed our 8th successful season and commercial album recording.
Foregoing the old “no longer the popular music of today” memes, I have mostly heard jazz music referred to as an acquired taste.
However I have typically found that the acquisition of any such acquired jazz taste to be based upon competence of both musicians and audiences alike.
Jazz is cool again in our region because the next generation of musicians here is creating a culture that includes the music. They are not asking for permission or approval from the jazz aristocracy.
I could go on… visit https://YOUTHJAZZ.US if you’re interested in learning more about what we’re doing.
My introduction to jazz was Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood and also Guaraldi’s Charlie Brown soundtracks. Am forever grateful. And to Bugs Bunny for all the classical music.
I think some people are just wired differently. I have many friends who are seriously into music, but not one of them would spend even five minutes listening to Charlie Parker. What's even stranger is that one of those "friends" happens to be my twin brother. Go figure.
I am sorry, but this just feels wrong. People already look at jazz fans with a raised eyebrow, suspecting us of being snobs. I know that I love jazz but I don’t know why. One thing I’m pretty sure about is that it isn’t good for me or the jazz world in general to make claims about beauty and some special ability to appreciate beauty. Let’s keep the peace. Live and let live. Those folk love their bluegrass. They find beauty there. Fine. Screamo fans over there. House aficionados over there. It’s all good. Isn’t beauty a kaleidoscope? Subjective? Informed by norms and culture?
Hi Jon. Thanks for your comment. I would politely disagree. All beauty isn't a "kaleidoscope." If that were the case, everything would be in the museum and art would be worthless. My post isn't about snobbery or elitism. Anyone can appreciate jazz, with or without money or an education. My point is simply to explain what distinguishes jazz from other forms of popular music, why some people get it and others don't. The only other form that starts from the premise of emotionalism and projecting beauty is classical. But many back in the early years of the LP couldn't afford multiple records that held a full classical work or found the music too demanding. Easy listening stepped in. Jazz approached music the same way as classical, to make listeners feel beauty. At any rate, a good springboard for further examination. Thanks again for weighing in. A joy to read your reaction and perspective in a peaceful and rational forum, something that seems lost today. Best, Marc.
A really good piece of writing for sure. However, I have long ago given up on trying to convince people that they should listen to jazz. You really find yourself up against a wall. They will sit there with their arms folded as if to say, “Go on then, impress me”. And, in some cases their resistance will be to all forms of jazz. Including, Armstrong, Ellington, Peterson, Holiday, Davis, etc, etc. The only jazz likely to make them listen will be Sinatra, Fitzgerald and other forms of, but not all, big band swing jazz. I have a lot of tremendously talented musician friends, (I’m a drummer), who would not even consider listening to jazz. It is like trying to convince someone who doesn’t like fish that a Dover Sole or a perfectly cooked Lobster is not only nourishment but food heaven. They ain’t gonna go for it, buy it or try it.
So, I switch off from having to play and learn a countless number of pop & rock back beat classics by listening to jazz on my own, at home. And I guess that’s the way it will stay.
I just finished Johnny Dankworth's autobio, "Jazz in Revolution" (1998), and came across JD's explanation for why Jazz isn't and will never be popular:
......."jazz is a music for the minority. It can only be truly understood and evaluated by people gifted with 'chordal ears'- IOW, those lucky folk who can listen to the improvisational skills of a soloist and still hear the underlying chord structure. So jazz music can only by luck become popular in the wider sense.,and can rarely enjoy the financial security and mass acclaim which goes with that phenomenon. Thus most jazz musicians remain skilled, dedicated and poor, and even a jazz world-star name like Dizzy Gillespie's was and still is for that matter-unfamiliar to most people in the country of his birth."
He used Diz as an example, because he was working with him at the time, and was a very close friend of his.
This explains a lot.
What a fabulous insight by Johnny D.
Chuck Israels tells a story in "Bass Notes" about how he was flown over to the UK,all expenses paid by Johnny, and found himself in a studio with some of the best jazz players in the world *Phil Woods, Dick Morrissey, Tubby Hayes, etc...
Mystified, he asked Johnny what he was doing there with all these jazz greats,
"Because you're the best", Johnny replied.
‘Chordal ears’
Here's the first episode of "Peter Gunn," broadcast in the fall of 1958 with music by Henry Mancini. I was 5 years old. It was the first jazz experience--and for that matter, musical experience--I can remember.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSXd1rSzh14&list=PLJwIFLur634z2MWb5hrAZaJ_1-Ie-9D56
Looking back, I can understand why this hit me so deeply. The sounds were what I learned later were called "harmonies" and were--and are--pretty sophisticated. You have to have an ear for such things, and not everyone does. That's why jazz, classical, and other "art musics" have minority audiences.
I don't know where my affinity for these sounds came from, but my life and career were shaped at this very early age. Thank you, Henry Mancini and producer Blake Edwards.
Thanks for the info & link. I just watched Peter Gunn; dig the cool combo at Mother’s bar. Thought it was Victor Feldman on vibes but I looked up cast/crew, appears to be Larry Bunker, who I thought was mainly a drummer, but he definitely played vibes too! (Another swingin’ combo is in the Johnny Staccato 50s crime TV show)
It IS Victor Feldman, though Larry Bunker also played vibraphone for Mancini. On another episode, Shorty Rogers plays flugelhorn at an after-hours session at Mother's. The "Johnny Staccato" combo was led by Red Norvo.
Thanks, Bill ! I swear I thought it looked more like Victor (that hair & face) than Larry (used to have a mustache?) so I guess whatever cast/crew list I was viewing was completely messed up wrong; was trying to steer away from AI so I thought it was from IMBD. Anyway, I do recall seeing Red Norvo’s name listed for the J.Staccato episodes along w/ a stellar bunch of other names I recognized and I’m sure you do too!
Great comment Christian. Thanks for your kind words. All points of view are welcome and all make me thing. The only ground rule is that all parties remain cordial and mature. It's a global community and everyone loves the same thing—beauty. So peace and intelligence are easy. Best, Marc
When I was listening to & playing jazz in the early '60s, I was also listening to & playing the mountain music and blues from the 1920s through the 1940s, finding the melodies to be incredibly beautiful. It was all the same...
Yep. After hosting my show last night, 3 hours of jazz (I guess the word avant garde applies - or simply not straight ahead jazz) all I wanted to listen to in the ride home was early aughts Flaming Lips. And I was struck by the beauty in those simple melodies in slightly askew psychedelic rock settings.
I remember hearing Bill talking about searching for the most beautiful kinds of beauty. That has always resonated with me. It’s interesting, the different ways that people are constructed. I have quite a few friends who are able to appreciate that something is beautiful but don’t experience the feeling of being moved by it. And others who don’t seem to be moved much at all by so many of the things that I find so compelling and profoundly moving… And, of course, a few who experience these things in the same ways that I do. I feel lucky to get those goosebumps. That feeling of experiencing the truly profound, that place where beauty and truth seem to reveal each other, is what drew me to Bill’s music in my late teens. I had listened to a lot of classical music, and then began to dive into jazz. I was always more moved by texture and lyricism than by technique and flurries of notes. I listened to a lot of Stan Getz and Paul Desmond in those formative years. They both had a wonderful sense of melody and lyricism, along with such mastery of their instruments, and such a rich tone. I also listened to a lot of orchestral works, always loving rich string sections and arrangements. That led me to Don Haas and Clare Fischer, and many of the composers of film scores, and then ultimately to Bill. His playing grabbed me from the first listen and continues to do so to this day. And perhaps more than any other artist I can think of, Bill’s playing and his music grew from the inside, in constantly evolving and profound ways, always with the design of a creator who was on a lifelong mission to dig deeper and find more beauty in everything that he did musically, never settling for easy solutions or cliches, and always knowing that there was more to discover.
That was certainly very evident with his last trio. Marc arrived, and the textures and lyricism and rich depth of the trio’s sound unfolded in wonderful new ways. You could sense that in Bill’s playing, and in the concerts with that trio, where he seemed genuinely excited again. He was finding new ways of going inside the harmonies with Marc, and his playing was really evolving in great new ways. I was at three of the concerts at Keystone Korner in San Francisco in 1980, less than two weeks before he died. By then a lot of his playing had become rushed and felt more reckless than in the past, but the core nature of his exploration was still very much intact and was present in all of his playing. He was still digging and probing, searching and discovering, right up until the end. That search for greater and deeper beauty never ceased. When I think of that kind of creativity and creative mission, a couple of quotes come to mind: "Talent does what it can; genius does what it must". And, "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see". That was and is to me the beauty of Bill and his music, and of true art that can be powerfully transcendent. DBT
Marc... This is easily one of your best pieces. Anyone who's a jazz fan has had to deal with other music lovers who think it's a waste of time. I long ago gave up trying to convince my musically inclined friends that they were losing out. They just weren't interested. And speaking of interest, I have a twin brother who, like so many others, thinks jazz sucks. Go figure. As a result, I've folded my tent and I listen alone. But, I'm not complaining. Why? Because I know something they don't...that they don't know what they're missing.
Thanks for your kind words, David. You’re not alone at JazzWax. You’re able to hear the beauty that musicians put into the music. This intent doesn’t exist in any other form of pop music. Others can’t hear what you hear because they don’t recognize it and are more conditioned to respond to catchy melodies or a beat that is familiar. You hear the beauty that jazz delivers.
Sorry to comment on this thoughtful piece somewhat late. I agree that to appreciate jazz, one has to find the beauty in it. And beauty is in the ear of the beholder. I find much classical music and opera to have extraordinary beauty: Bach's works for solo violin, Brahms' Requiem, almost any work by Puccini. But I don't pursue classical music the way I do jazz. Jazz has characteristics beyond beauty that make it unique. It encourages deeply personal interpretation, for instance. Not just of songs, melody and harmony, but of the time itself. Jazz is the only music I know in which the fundamental rhythmic feel ("swing") is based upon a player's personal interpretation of subdivisions of the beat, which can't truly be reduced to notation. John Coltrane sounds completely different from Cannonball Adderley on Miles records not because they're playing different horns, but because each feels eighth notes in a personal way. It's also fascinating that a band of jazz artists who each have uniquely internalized swing eighths still sound great playing together.
That brings up a larger point, which is that there is an excitement about the interaction of jazz musicians interpreting the music that springs from the act of creating something completely new for the first time. It involves risk and trust, and those things are palpable to the audience member, even if they don't know the tune. I have friends who don't listen to jazz recordings regularly, for instance, but love hearing live performances. Indian music and flamenco also share this dynamic, but the freedom possible in the interplay is greater in jazz.
I may be cynical, but I believe the reason jazz is not enjoyed by a larger audience has more to do with commerce. The modern entertainment industry is about product and sales, and it is easier to mass produce artists whose work sounds like something that has sold well before. One can't create a unique talent like Charlie Parker or Bill Evans or Keith Jarrett, and if one could, he'd have no way of knowing if he'd make back the investment. Better to create Taylor Swift.
Given all this, I'm surprised that the audience for jazz is as large as it is. I'm also glad to see a growing number of younger people at gigs and festivals. I'd like to think it's a sign of reaction against mass produced popular culture in favor of art and beauty.
“Without beauty, jazz is worthless. How true..
And as Nietzsche once said, ‘without music, life is a joke.’
Years ago as a student at Ohio University I got a knock on my apartment door at about 11pm. Two tall, majestic African American men asked if could come in and wait until my neighbor returned from campus. (My neighbor was the newly minted African American studies professor.) While we waited for Professor Troup to return, I was introduced to two heavyweight musicians and the "space music" of the late Coltrane vibe. Those two men opened the doors of perception for the young white musician I was back then. What a privilege.
Thanks for this fabulous overview of what makes jazz the greatest musical expression & experience of the modern era.
I’m new to Substack and I’m also a lifelong professional “jazz” musician and composer.
I’m fortunate to work with the next generation of jazz artists and supporters through our nonprofit public charity organization that mirrors a professional and real world music industry experience.
It’s a merit based tuition free fellowship program for high school and college students held during spring and summer each year.
We just completed our 8th successful season and commercial album recording.
Foregoing the old “no longer the popular music of today” memes, I have mostly heard jazz music referred to as an acquired taste.
However I have typically found that the acquisition of any such acquired jazz taste to be based upon competence of both musicians and audiences alike.
Jazz is cool again in our region because the next generation of musicians here is creating a culture that includes the music. They are not asking for permission or approval from the jazz aristocracy.
I could go on… visit https://YOUTHJAZZ.US if you’re interested in learning more about what we’re doing.
My introduction to jazz was Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood and also Guaraldi’s Charlie Brown soundtracks. Am forever grateful. And to Bugs Bunny for all the classical music.
Glad you enjoyed Elisa. This one's for you.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVDFljvgbgw
Delish!
I think some people are just wired differently. I have many friends who are seriously into music, but not one of them would spend even five minutes listening to Charlie Parker. What's even stranger is that one of those "friends" happens to be my twin brother. Go figure.
I am sorry, but this just feels wrong. People already look at jazz fans with a raised eyebrow, suspecting us of being snobs. I know that I love jazz but I don’t know why. One thing I’m pretty sure about is that it isn’t good for me or the jazz world in general to make claims about beauty and some special ability to appreciate beauty. Let’s keep the peace. Live and let live. Those folk love their bluegrass. They find beauty there. Fine. Screamo fans over there. House aficionados over there. It’s all good. Isn’t beauty a kaleidoscope? Subjective? Informed by norms and culture?
Hi Jon. Thanks for your comment. I would politely disagree. All beauty isn't a "kaleidoscope." If that were the case, everything would be in the museum and art would be worthless. My post isn't about snobbery or elitism. Anyone can appreciate jazz, with or without money or an education. My point is simply to explain what distinguishes jazz from other forms of popular music, why some people get it and others don't. The only other form that starts from the premise of emotionalism and projecting beauty is classical. But many back in the early years of the LP couldn't afford multiple records that held a full classical work or found the music too demanding. Easy listening stepped in. Jazz approached music the same way as classical, to make listeners feel beauty. At any rate, a good springboard for further examination. Thanks again for weighing in. A joy to read your reaction and perspective in a peaceful and rational forum, something that seems lost today. Best, Marc.
Any Betty Carter fans out there?
Huge Betty Carter fan here! Luckily I got chance to see her live many years ago, absolutely brilliant!