 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
104.58.205.212
In Reply to: RE: Where are you getting your info from? Seems like bs to me. posted by Rick W on May 03, 2015 at 09:55:41
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.
Follow Ups:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Edits: 05/04/15 05/04/15 05/04/15 05/04/15
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)
Edits: 05/04/15
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.
Edits: 05/07/15
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.
nt
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.
LOL! Got that Rick?
Dave
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.
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.
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
nt
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
