Music Lane

It's all about the music, dude! Sit down, relax and listen to some tunes.

Return to Music Lane

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Jazz is now the least popular U.S. musical genre.

74.105.57.126
Posted on April 29, 2015 at 10:15:41
rbolaw
 Falling below even classical, but only because of classical's better album sales (otherwise, they are tied for last). At least, that's what Nielsen says. But Nielsen seems to report on only a short list of genres.

For example, Balinese gamelan music is not considered, though "world" music was a genre that used to occupy at least a couple of shelves in the record shops. Folk music isn't on Nielsen's list, either. Sorry, Weavers.

So it seems those two genres at least have beaten jazz over the edge of the cliff.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Jazz is now the least popular U.S. musical genre., posted on April 29, 2015 at 13:08:26
fantja
Audiophile

Posts: 15518
Location: Alabama
Joined: September 11, 2010
 Not surprising at all. Our current society (99%) lacks the personal depth and intelligence, required, to understand both Classical & Jazz Music.

Are you in w/ the "in-crowd" (1%) ?

 

RE: Jazz is now the least popular U.S. musical genre., posted on April 29, 2015 at 13:30:07
coffee-phil
Audiophile

Posts: 1444
Location: Shingle Springs CA
Joined: January 7, 2010
 To me it is sad. I see it as a dumbing down of our society. They mention that even long term fans are exhibiting behaviors which cause them to ignore new artists.

I myself have been a member of the SF Bay area jazz station KCSM for a couple of decades but this year I did not renew. I rarely listen any more. I sure do not want to come off as the "Jazz Poilce" but what they are playing now to me seems to be "smooth jazz" or something of that quality.

I do still have my Jazz records and listen to them but on the radio it is virtually all classical for me now.

Phil

 

RE: Jazz is now the least popular U.S. musical genre., posted on April 29, 2015 at 13:46:41
Daverz
Audiophile

Posts: 2104
Location: So. California
Joined: September 24, 2002
 All sorts of crap gets dumped into the classical category, so I wouldn't take sales figures too seriously.

 

Are you kiddin'?, posted on April 29, 2015 at 13:52:46
rbolaw
 If you've read some of my posts here, tiresome as they may be to get through, ;), you know I'm with the "in crowd." I've never felt any need to limit myself to what everyone else listens to.
More importantly, I don't put arbitrary boundaries such as "genre" designations on what I might be interested in. Great music, in fact great art in general, rises above such things. Another poster here made that point very well not too long ago.

 

Thanks! Was trying to figure out why I didn't get that stuff..., posted on April 29, 2015 at 14:36:06
musetap
Audiophile

Posts: 31874
Location: San Francisco
Joined: July 8, 2003
Contributor
  Since: January 28, 2004
 and just tryin' to figure THAT out was making my brain hurt.


"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure



 

I'd Put "Popular" in Quotes..........., posted on April 29, 2015 at 16:51:27
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "Not surprising at all. Our current society (99%) lacks the personal depth and intelligence, required, to understand both Classical & Jazz Music."

I liken America's culture to a closed city where the only restaurants are fast food.... Those who've never left the city would believe that a Whopper hamburger is at the high-end of culinary excellence.....

The people themselves aren't the problem, it's America's network media that hides quality music from the masses..... Most people don't know that the music even exists..... (I think the fact that most music presented being digitized doesn't help matters either.) If 100 Americans under age 40 were surveyed, I'd guess less than five would know who Miles Davis or Cannonball Adderley was......

 

That is, until you see the going prices on vintage vinyl..., posted on April 29, 2015 at 16:56:47
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
 in a use record store!




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

That goes to show you it was never popular to begin with..., posted on April 29, 2015 at 17:21:40
kuma
Audiophile

Posts: 10272
Location: IN
Joined: July 8, 2001
 that's why they were never issued in a large quantity. Hence it's silly money for a mint copy of old Van Gelder Blue Note or Riverside. :/

In my mind, American jazz died at the end of the 60s. All the giants are dead now anyways.

 

RE: "All the giants are dead now anyways.", posted on April 29, 2015 at 18:00:45
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
 You could say the same for Classical. ;-)


First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

Depends how you define 'jazz' and 'classical' -- and 'dead'., posted on April 29, 2015 at 19:06:43
rbolaw
 Music continues to evolve, but for me, music of eras past isn't dead so long as their are performers who can do it justice, and/or use it to move in new directions.

Check out NPR's tiny desk concerts, discussed here before. All sorts of strands in the stream of music, including the supposedly dead jazz and classical.

 

RE: As well as how you define 'giants'.... /n, posted on April 29, 2015 at 19:20:23
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
 n


First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

Don't tell Sonny Rollins, Herbie Hancock, Wayne Shorter, McCoy Tyner..., posted on April 29, 2015 at 20:32:42
musetap
Audiophile

Posts: 31874
Location: San Francisco
Joined: July 8, 2003
Contributor
  Since: January 28, 2004
 Ornette Coleman, Chick Corea, Toots Thielemans, John McLaughlin, Mose Allison, Kenny Barron, Dave Holland, et al. that they are dead.

They wouldn't appreciate that.

Don't have time to list all the great jazz recorded post 1969...

"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure



 

no. not the same...., posted on April 29, 2015 at 21:12:42
kuma
Audiophile

Posts: 10272
Location: IN
Joined: July 8, 2001
 classical is mostly about *covering* tunes by dead composers.
I would bet that there are better interpretors than the composers themselves playing their own tunes. Instruments today are better, too.

It seems to me that today's *jazz* are all imitations. They don't sound fresh like Bird, Miles, Mingus, Evans, Tatum etc..

When they died they took their art with them. Their phrasing, timing, pacing etc.. were so intuitive and spontaneous creation that only they can play like that again.
Unlike classical music, it's just not about their composition. It's about their creative interpretation that made them so special.

Jazz music, on a whole, some fabulous things happen at a spare the moment. Totally unrehearsed.
Try to tell that to Celibedache. :P

In addition, today's major record label will never allow a kind of creative freedom, nurturing and support to the artists. ( like the original Lion/Wolff Blue Note )

 

"today's major record label"..., posted on April 29, 2015 at 21:25:07
David Smith
 LOL!

At least you're humorous.

Dave

 

...Lee Konitz, Roy Haynes, Tom Harrell, Slide Hampton, Marcus Belgrave, , posted on April 29, 2015 at 21:30:42
David Smith
 Jimmy Heath, Jimmy Cobb, Tootie Heath, George Coleman, Jack DeJohnette, etc...

 

I know it's subjective..., posted on April 29, 2015 at 22:51:04
kuma
Audiophile

Posts: 10272
Location: IN
Joined: July 8, 2001
 I like some of the live ones but in my mind, they don't major up.

Hancock has done some funky stuff post 60s but I find his early stuff purer. His Grammy Award winning records leave me cold. I find his non award winning five Blue Note records are much stronger than his last 5.

I stopped buying his records after 'River'.

I have and listened to the artists you've listed but from the late 60s on jazz has been crossed over with other genre and, whilst some of them are fun, it doesn't feel pure to me.

Actually I started out with post '60s jazz and I went backwards in time and discovered the *golden age* of jazz.

 

Fine Arts attract small audiences., posted on April 30, 2015 at 00:55:06
jusbe
Audiophile

Posts: 5950
Location: North Island
Joined: April 4, 2000
 Often rarefied, subtle, sophisticated and regularly monied. Since when has volume and huge sales been an arbiter of quality?

As the Danes say, 'Millions of flies eat shit. That doesn't make it food'.


Big J

"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."


 

Those prices are due to Asian collectors, posted on April 30, 2015 at 07:04:56
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Jazz is much more popular in Asian and European countries. Kind of ironic since it is such an American art form.

 

RE: "They don't sound fresh", posted on April 30, 2015 at 07:07:33
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001

These two guys knew about 'fresh'.




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: Jazz is now the least popular U.S. musical genre., posted on April 30, 2015 at 08:04:20
Hornlover
Manufacturer

Posts: 2529
Joined: March 8, 2002
 'Smooth jazz' is an insult to real jazz. It makes me want to throw up!

 

oh yeah. cuz, they were the makers. (nt), posted on April 30, 2015 at 10:03:51
kuma
Audiophile

Posts: 10272
Location: IN
Joined: July 8, 2001
 .

 

Cool... all paths backwards from and forwards from Miles Davis..., posted on April 30, 2015 at 12:20:49
musetap
Audiophile

Posts: 31874
Location: San Francisco
Joined: July 8, 2003
Contributor
  Since: January 28, 2004
 were my stepping stones. "Bitches Brew" led to John McClaughlin AND Charlie Parker!

Crazy about Sonny Rollins on B/N AND some of the recent titles... Duke Ellington remains as much of a touchstone as Sonny Sharrock or Joe Zawinul.

And if we don't have our favorites by now, something is amiss, so it must remain subjective.

You made it as far as "The River"? That's well beyond my call of duty yet doesn't detract
from Mr. Hancock easily qualifying as a "GIANT"!

"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure




 

Can *highly ecommend the recent KHIOV Hancock pressings., posted on April 30, 2015 at 12:39:43
jusbe
Audiophile

Posts: 5950
Location: North Island
Joined: April 4, 2000
 Of not-so-recent work admittedly.



Big J

"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."


 

(I can recommend it too). nt, posted on April 30, 2015 at 12:40:14
jusbe
Audiophile

Posts: 5950
Location: North Island
Joined: April 4, 2000
Big J

"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."


 

Well - it could migrate to Europe and beyond., posted on April 30, 2015 at 14:05:45
andy evans
Audiophile

Posts: 4378
Joined: October 20, 2000
 I'm sure this would shock purists who claim it's American music, but jazz has been alive and well in other countries for a very, very long time. Don't know the sales figures though.

 

No!, posted on April 30, 2015 at 19:27:27
Awe-d-o-file
Dealer

Posts: 21037
Location: 50 miles west of DC
Joined: January 10, 2004
 You admitted the categories were limited. Who gives a shit what Nielsen says? Are they still a factor? If they are it won't be much longer just like TV today won't. Ask Billboard instead

E
T
ET

"If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking till you do suck seed" - Curly Howard 1936

 

OK., posted on April 30, 2015 at 19:36:10
rbolaw
 I wasn't claiming any profound significance for this story, just that it was interesting. Nielsen numbers probably still mean something in some contexts, but far from everything. It certainly doesn't matter a whole lot to me personally, as I listen to jazz and classical big time.

Your passion is good to see, but we're on the same side in this one.



 

Chet Baker., posted on May 1, 2015 at 02:14:34
jusbe
Audiophile

Posts: 5950
Location: North Island
Joined: April 4, 2000
 "In Europe they look upon jazz as art. In America it's a diversion. Somebody opens a restaurant and installs another band off to the side. People don't listen."

-Chet Baker, Milan 1954.



Probably unfair, in many respects, but clearly it was his experience. I adore Jazz, and many other genres. Most of them are not represented on charts. I somehow manage to survive and keep breathing - like many a fellow music-lover!


Big J

"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."


 

People will always search for the genuine, but may find it elsewhere, posted on May 1, 2015 at 04:54:33
andy evans
Audiophile

Posts: 4378
Joined: October 20, 2000
 Intelligent and creative young people will always search for the genuine, the different, the message. They're just not currently getting it from atrophied art jazz or atonal modern music.

They get the exciting and the new from experimental indie pop, some of the better rappers, stuff like that. Any art form has to be new and vibrant to match the times. As others have said, if Mozart were alive today he'd probably have a rock band or be an internet entrepreneur.

 

Chet Baker in Milan..., posted on May 1, 2015 at 09:36:09
kuma
Audiophile

Posts: 10272
Location: IN
Joined: July 8, 2001
 This is a good one.


 

RE: I'd Put "Popular" in Quotes..........., posted on May 1, 2015 at 12:47:12
Old SteveA
Audiophile

Posts: 648
Joined: March 27, 2011
 & this exactly why you couldn't pay me enough to spend any time on
"Social Media" sites such as "Facetwit" (yeah I combined them).

I will also never knowingly go to Wikipedia for information (I'm too tempted to offer them worthwhile information to replace most of the nonsense they have to offer)

Someone should come out with a counter that records the Email addresses of those using these sites so that intelligent people can abuse them (the Wiki
users at least !)

 

RE: I'd Put "Popular" in Quotes..........., posted on May 2, 2015 at 04:47:36
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 I post on Twitter.... But try to stay clear of the rabble.... (Most of my "tweets" happen to be sports related.)

 

RE: People will always search for the genuine, but may find it elsewhere, posted on May 2, 2015 at 05:14:52
David Smith
 "They're just not currently getting it from atrophied art jazz or atonal modern music."

"Atrophied" how? How informed are you on the subject?

Dave

 

RE: I'd Put "Popular" in Quotes..........., posted on May 2, 2015 at 05:52:35
Old SteveA
Audiophile

Posts: 648
Joined: March 27, 2011
 But you do avoid Wiki though,right ? Or as I like to call Wiki "Ripley's"
with a much lower credibility. At least there they gave you the choice to
"Believe it or not"

I don't know,but I have a feeling "Ripley's" Mentally Challenged offspring
may have been the founders of Wikipedia. Better yet they may be descendants of "Murphy" but less positive !!!

 

Jason Moran, Pat Metheny, Gary Burton, Joe Lovano ..., posted on May 2, 2015 at 06:07:07
Dave Pogue
Audiophile

Posts: 11689
Location: DC Area
Joined: October 9, 2001
 ...John Scofield, Tord Gustavsen, Tomasz Stanko, Ralph Towner, Robert Glasper, Al DiMeola, Julian Lage, Peter Erskine, John Taylor, Marc Johnson, Eliane Elias, Stefon Harris, and that's just off the top of my head. i'm sure I missed a bunch.

 

RE: Baker in Italy..., posted on May 2, 2015 at 07:33:12
genungo
 "Chet Baker with 50 Italian Strings" is another good one, not to be missed.

 

RE: "... if Mozart were alive...", posted on May 2, 2015 at 07:52:28
genungo
 For me, both rock music and classical music are musically entertaining, but in fundamentally different ways.

Mozart was an adept practitioner in his day, but I think it's fair to say that this adeptness was somewhat conditional. Good classical composers or performers won't necessarily make good rock composers and performers - as a matter of fact, adeptness in one style might sort of pre-ordain incompetency for the other. There's no telling how he good (or poorly) he would have fared had he worked within a radically different social and artistic climate. If magically transported into today's musical environment, it is quite possible that he would die laughing before his pen had a chance to hit paper.

 

Hey, STFU you atrophied, unexciting, non-genuine atonal SOB! nt, posted on May 2, 2015 at 11:45:46
Rick W
 nt

 

Careful -- one of those is a serious insult., posted on May 2, 2015 at 12:15:23
rbolaw
 I know you were just joking, Rick, but these days you just can't call people atonal.

 

:-) nt, posted on May 2, 2015 at 13:21:51
Rick W
 nt

 

You got me beat! nt, posted on May 2, 2015 at 16:02:00
David Smith

 

And at that, I forgot to mention ..., posted on May 2, 2015 at 16:23:13
Dave Pogue
Audiophile

Posts: 11689
Location: DC Area
Joined: October 9, 2001
 Larry Willis, Wayne Horvitz, Fred Hersch,, Kenny Burrell, Enrico Pieranunzi, Russell Malone, Mike Stern, John Abercrombie, Paul Bley, Gene Bertoncini, Jessica Williams, Bill Mays, and those are just among the pianists and guitarists. Probably ought to mention Rick Wald (Hi Rick) but the horn players are a whole other universe, too many to cover.

 

Atonal music hasn't been popular with new composers for 40 years or more, posted on May 2, 2015 at 19:16:25
Daverz
Audiophile

Posts: 2104
Location: So. California
Joined: September 24, 2002
 Some people still haven't gotten over the culture wars of the 1960s.

 

It became the least popular in the '60s, posted on May 3, 2015 at 09:21:33
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63565
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
 When you have Wes Montgomery covering Beatles tunes and dropping dead, Miles Davis noodling around on an electric keyboard and Alred Lion selling the Blue Note label because he can't keep afloat the greatest ever record company, you know there is a seriously foul problem. Other types of music are much more easily marketed. Especially rap, which is 95% marketing.

 

Where are you getting your info from? Seems like bs to me., posted on May 3, 2015 at 09:55:41
Rick W
 Getz/Byrd Desifinado in '62; Getz/Gilberto Ipanema in '64; Song For My Father in '64; Lee Morgan's big hit Sidewinder in '64; A Love Supreme in '64; Mercy, Mercy, Mercy in '66; Wes didn't die until '68 and had big hit w/A Day In The Life that year; Bitches Brew in '70; Mahavishnu '71-76; Return To Forever in the '70's.

I could list more. No, jazz wasn't remotely as popular as r&r, but sure as hell was still selling and attracting audiences in the '60's/70's.

 

What type of car did Miles Davis drive in the late '60s?, posted on May 3, 2015 at 10:18:52
David Smith
 Perhaps relative to the '50s you have a point, not relative to 2015.

Dave

 

RE: Where are you getting your info from? Seems like bs to me., posted on May 3, 2015 at 17:26:59
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63565
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
 Why do you think jazz musicians were switching en masse to electric instruments and few of the defining jazz labels survived the decade with their founding producers?

Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll was on the rise and jazz was on the decline throughout the '60s. Sure there was a market for it, but the jazz snob contingent was and is a miniscule vertical compared to fans associated with rock and R&B.

 

Miles did well throughout his career, posted on May 3, 2015 at 17:29:46
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63565
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
 He knew how to be a bandleader and a businessman, not just a musician. He was always able to attract the best talent to his bands and most lucrative record deals. For jazz. Beyonce has sold a lot more records.

 

I'm not sure I follow how Beyonce outselling Miles supports your claim., posted on May 3, 2015 at 19:55:34
David Smith
 I mean, so did Elvis and ABBA.

On another topic, your claim about jazz being less popular in the'60s than it is today remains odd.

Dave

 

The "jazz snob contingent"?, posted on May 3, 2015 at 20:09:20
Rick W
 Is that your view of jazz fans? Hmm, no comment on the very popular recordings I mentioned. How old are you? Just wondering if you were going to jazz clubs/festivals in the '60's.

BTW - Rockers were only 50 years or so behind jazzers in the sex & drugs departments.

 

You badly misunderstood my claim, posted on May 3, 2015 at 21:10:17
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63565
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
 >> your claim about jazz being less popular in the'60s than it is today <<

I never made such a claim. I said jazz became the least popular in the '60s. Both classical and pop/R&B were more popular than jazz in '60s, and have remained so.

 

Yeah, you know, the contingent that would sooner argue about a phrase on an audio board than acknowledge a fact, posted on May 3, 2015 at 21:32:32
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63565
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
 The "very popular recordings" you mention are unknown by 99.9% of the music-buying public and are to some extent resented by real jazz aficionados as being undeserving of their recognition relative to thousands of superior recordings that are never mentioned.

Jazz never had the "tune in, turn on, drop out" image associated with '60s rock.

 

This is true, posted on May 3, 2015 at 22:00:05
David Smith
 Your wording was not particularly clear, and whether your claim is accurate or not jazz was still somewhat popular in the '60s, and pretty dramatically different than the situation today.

Dave

 

"if Mozart were alive today he'd probably have a rock band or be an internet entrepreneur" , posted on May 4, 2015 at 05:45:24
Timbo in Oz
Audiophile

Posts: 23221
Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia
Joined: January 30, 2002
 I like to think he would still have better taste than have a rock band.

After all he did actually like the sound of acoustic music.




Warmest

Tim Bailey

Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger


 

LOL. You, of course, represent "real jazz aficionados"., posted on May 4, 2015 at 09:47:54
Rick W
 The topic was popularity, not whether Jackie McLean's Right Now was musically hipper than Take Five. 'Course nobody heard of Brubeck in the '60's, right? If you think 99.9% of the music-buying public never heard of Desifinado or Mercy in the '60's I gotta wonder if you were even alive then.

Anyway, you win. I can't compete with your expertise.

 

You're not seeing the big picture. Jazz record labels became unprofitable/unsustainable in the '60s, posted on May 4, 2015 at 10:24:06
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63565
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
 Stop focusing on me personally or a tiny handful of jazz records and take a look at what really happened with regard to music commercially in the '60s. One view that matters more than individual records that were exceptions to the rule is to look at entire record labels. Blue Note was sold to Liberty Records in 1967 (or 1965 if you look on the Blue Note Wiki page, which I think is wrong). Liberty was commercially a failure and was absorbed by UAR in 1969. Blue Note was founded in 1939 and was one of the strongest brands in jazz. It is a logical litmus test. Do you think it's a random coincidence that a jazz label going strong from 1939 became unprofitable in the mid-60s?

The other jazz labels also became unprofitable and unsustainable in the '60s and followed a similar downward spiral. All this proves the point. If you want to focus on a few titles that were exceptions to the rule, you're not taking a realistic snapshot. The tiny handful of records that were in everyone's collection and then almost never played did practically nothing to make jazz more popular.

The fact is incontrovertible that other music left jazz commercially unviable as the '60s wore on. Huge stadiums were consistently filled with young rock stars playing the same 3 chords over and over again. Concert halls were sold out playing the same Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms symphonies over and over again. Meanwhile, jazz artists were left to deal with predatory club managers trying to get people to buy alcohol in tiny dives. Rock records were going gold and platinum while jazz records were collecting dust in the bins. It's surprising that the lack of jazz's commercial appeal relative to classical and rock is being cast as something new.

 

RE: You're not seeing the big picture. Jazz record labels became unprofitable/unsustainable in the '60s, posted on May 4, 2015 at 12:20:36
Rick W
 So why start with the '60's if you choose to ignore jazz recordings that were popular (even amongst the "masses") in the 60's - or discredit them as jazz pap dumbed down in hopes of mass appeal?

Jazz was at its zenith of popularity in the swing era when it was THE popular *dance* music. In terms of popularity it was downhill from '50's bebop on, when the music ceased to be dance music.

Whether you consider recordings like those I mentioned to be unrepresentative of "cutting edge" or "hardcore" jazz or not, the recording and radio industry certainly called it jazz, as did the public. For that matter, so did jazz musicians. Contrary to what you seem to think, those recordings sold a helluva lotta records and were even played on MOTR radio stations. You'd hear Jimmy Smith recordings like Hobo Flats (Oliver Nelson charts) all over the radio. How do you think Getz became loaded with money if his bossa nova records weren't popular with the normally non-jazz fan public? Brubeck of course was beyond popular. Eddie Harris's Exodus ('61) set his career off. Listen Here was pretty damn popular in '67, and like Exodus was heard all over the radio dial, not just on jazz stations.

Dizzy's band played on the Ed Sullivan Show in '61 - one of the most popular tv shows of the era. Duke & Ella appeared on that show in the '60's, they weren't the only jazzers to do so. Steve Allen had a super popular tv show in the '60's, and aside from his house band full of jazzers like Herb Ellis, Condoli bros., Frank Rosolino etc. he regularly had jazz groups featured. I saw/heard guys like Les McCann (just as an example) for the first time on his show, and Les wasn't playing pap.

Needless to say, compared to f'ing Patti Page - let alone r&r like Elvis, the Beach Boys, Beatles etc. - jazz was a minor sideshow in the '60's. But its relative, and I think the really drastic drop into the abyss was yet to come. You site Bluenote being sold, but jazz in the '60's hardly died when Lion exited the biz. The only big selling and popular jazz recording I mentioned that was on Bluenote was Sidewinder.

Dunno if its really true, but I've heard/read 'Trane was making hundreds of thousands per year in the '60's. Festivals and clubs I went to in the Wash., D.C. area in the '60's were consistently packed. Monk was on the cover of Time magazine in '64. CTI didn't even start releasing until '70 IIRC, and initially did well with Hubbard, Turrentine etc. The Red Clay and Sugar LP's sold pretty damn well for jazz, and was a huge boost for their careers. Remember, Bird wasn't exactly getting awards from the industry for platinum records in the '50's.

I tried thru Googling, but was unable to come up with sales figures for jazz recordings vs. classical recordings in the '60's. I'd be surprised if classical outsold jazz, but I can't say for sure.

BTW -- if ya haven't read 'em already, a coupla books I thought were pretty interesting:

The House That 'Trane Built (about Impulse)
Last Sultan (about Ertegun and Atlantic)


 

The '50s were a great decade for jazz sales, posted on May 4, 2015 at 14:03:36
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63565
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
 The advent of long-playing records and stereophonic records coincided with the evolution of jazz from big band dance hall music to small ensemble be bop and post bop. Jazz as America's "classical" music was also somewhat aligned with the conservative social mood of the country.

While I agree with your assessment that the '50s may have been the beginning of the end, as jazz transitioned away from dance music, the most successful artists like Nat King Cole and Frank Sinatra still owed their underlying musical support to jazz.

I would argue that jazz in many ways DID die with Lion's retirement. Sure, it would continue to be played (albeit often with electric instruments and increasingly unworkable "fusion" arrangements) and celebrated up through today. But with the occasional exception, jazz is almost always at its best when it raises the spectre of its golden age, emulates its pioneers or most explosive and classic musicians and composers. If you focus on the rule and not the exceptions to the rule--of which there are some great examples--you'll have to admit I am right.

 

"you'll have to admit I'm right", posted on May 4, 2015 at 18:37:47
David Smith
 LOL! Got that Rick?

Dave

 

"I'd be surprised if classical outsold jazz ...", posted on May 5, 2015 at 11:49:04
rbolaw
 Me too. The mid-60s marked the end of the era of (relatively) high public profile for classical music in the US. The Voice of Firestone went off the air in 1963, and the Bell Telephone Hour followed in 1968. Classical radio began a slow but consistent decline. The introduction of the CD in the mid 80s made (nearly) everyone repurchase their music collections, but that only stalled the decline for about 15 years.

I don't think Ed Sullivan knew sh#t about music, but Johnny Carson sure did. He may not have had all the best jazzers on his show, but Buddy Rich and Pete Fountain were regular guests, as were a number of other very good ones. He favored ultra-uptempo tunes and fleet-fingered players for both jazz and classical acts, which he also featured, including Eugene Fodor (many times), Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg and James Galway.

Once Carson retired, I can't think of another big mainstream prime time show regularly featuring classical music. OTOH, David Letterman regularly featured David Sanborn, who is great imo, though that was late night, post-prime time. You could still find some jazz elsewhere on TV too. Classical music, otoh, disappeared almost entirely except for public TV. Dick Cavett routinely interviewed classical stars, but that wasn't a music show.

But all that doesn't mean jazz or classical music died in the 80s, obviously. They had and still have many devoted followers, just more as niche genres than mainstream. The internet has done a lot to compartmentalize the niche genres, so they may not be so visible to those who aren't interested in them, but they are very much still there.

Isn't all that obvious?

Edit: And you can still hear great live jazz all over the place. Jazz did not "die" in the 60s. It just became less prominent on the front page and network TV.

 

I'm too overwhelmed by the eruditeness of your exposition to reply. nt, posted on May 5, 2015 at 13:44:07
Rick W
 nt

 

:-) nt, posted on May 5, 2015 at 15:50:26
Rick W
 nt

 

sarcasm is boring, posted on May 7, 2015 at 09:46:11
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63565
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
 You cited 5 titles and tried to extrapolate a position based on those few exceptions to the rule. At least I focused on the plight of record labels, which is a much better barometer. You're perfectly welcome to disagree but you haven't done a lot to explain your reasoning, and digressing into sarcasm isn't helping you.

 

RE: "you'll have to admit I'm right", posted on May 7, 2015 at 09:48:59
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63565
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
 Your failure to explain why you disagree is tantamount to admitting I'm right.

It's common knowledge that the popularity of jazz evaporated in the '60s.

 

More LOLs, posted on May 7, 2015 at 11:24:48
David Smith
 My lack of response is because you are clearly not worth the time to explain all the ways you are misinformed.

But the short of it is, jazz stopped being pop music in the mid '40s, and your view of Alfred Lion is based more on eBay prices and internet hype than reality.

You claiming to be right does not make it so.

Dave

 

RE: OK., posted on May 7, 2015 at 17:02:39
Awe-d-o-file
Dealer

Posts: 21037
Location: 50 miles west of DC
Joined: January 10, 2004
 I hear you and thanks for the reply. I tend not to post things that seem to have a possibility of being really wrong and have no alternative data to confirm it. I like lots of weird music that is far less popular than jazz too. Cheers!

E
T
ET

"If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking till you do suck seed" - Curly Howard 1936

 

RE: "you'll have to admit I'm right", posted on May 18, 2015 at 07:13:11
GEO
Audiophile

Posts: 4749
Joined: April 7, 2000
Contributor
  Since: September 9, 2000
 Your posts border on the absurd. So many cliches in the posts...you left out the jazz musicians with the track marks in their arms as contributing to the demise of jazz.

 

Page processed in 0.057 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]