going over this thread JAZZ IS LIKE HEROIN TO ME ! ! ! ~~~~ ILM POST-1945 JAZZ ALBUMS POLL - THE RESULTS COUNTDOWN (now counting top 25!) and listening to nothing but jazz in the last couple days - I've realized I have very little understanding/conception of the jazz audience of the 60s. I kind of assume jazz reached its commercial/popular peak much earlier (I know Miles' best-selling albums were in the 60s, but the ubiquity of jazz as a dominant style seems undeniable for earlier eras like the 20s-40s than it does for the 60s, what with r'n'r in the picture), but as a genre the general consensus represented here is that the aesthetic/artistic peak was in the late 50s through the 60s. This is when a lot of the essential ingredients of jazz - swing, improvisation, acoustic ensemble playing - became really intensely refined. But exactly how popular was, say, a giant like John Coltrane...? I have no idea. And who bought these records? Middle-class black people, white "intellectuals"...? I can't really see Hank Mobley and Grant Green appealling much to teenagers, the whole Blue Note vibe is one of adult sophistication, for example.― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:31 (1 week ago)
like I would guess the genre skewed older and richer...? Black kids were being sold r&b, motown, etc. and white kids were being peddled a combination of pop and rock, I kinda can't imagine jazz was even on the menu for most younger music consumers...
xp
― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:33 (1 week ago)
but then jazz was sold to rock fans after that shakey
― Armand Schaubroeck Ratfucker, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:34 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
xp yeah i sort of wonder about jazz audiences, too -- obviously people like miles and coltrane were big cultural figures, but a lot of the time they'd be playing these tiny clubs! there must've been a disconnect between people who bought records and people who went out to gigs for whatever reason.
― tylerw, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:34 (1 week ago)
I don't think Coltrane was ever that popular among the general populace... A Love Supreme was considered a hit album by 60s jazz standards, but it didn't sell quite as much as the big rock and pop albums of the era. I think even back then Coltrane was mainly listened by "serious", highbrow jazz fans; the big, popular jazz hits of the 60s were more melody and/or groove oriented, like "Watermelon Man", or "The 'In' Crowd", or "Mercy Mercy Mercy".
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:38 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
obviously people like miles and coltrane were big cultural figures, but a lot of the time they'd be playing these tiny clubs
exactly I find this perplexing, this ability to occupy a "serious" and well-preserved cultural space while... not really selling all that many records or being all that popular...? how does that work? seems like anything comparable would be totally impossible today. but maybe I'm underestimating how much Miles and Coltrane sold. certainly I can see how they would have something of an appeal to a casual, adult, well-educated middle class music listener, but uh how many of those were there in America really...
― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:39 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
but then jazz was sold to rock fans after that shakey
after what...? Bitches Brew?
― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:40 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
coltrane "crossed over" with my favorite things, but i think he just used that as leverage for the rest of his career to do what he wanted, as opposed to repeating the formula ad nauseam. though i suppose there are a few attempts at another "favorite things" in his catalog -- greensleeves, chim chim cheree, etc.
― tylerw, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:40 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
How it was explained to me in a 20th century music class: bebop's complexity and undanceability, while they were musical advances, were bad news for the form economically from the late 40s on. As jazz switched from a dance music to a chamber music, R&B and rock and roll claimed their audiences.
loads of xposts
― Halal Spaceboy (WmC), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:41 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
not really selling all that many records or being all that popular...? how does that work?
I think the key is that Coltrane and Miles appealed to the type of serious listeners who are also music writers, or musicians themselves, and they kept their names alive even if they weren't selling big amounts of records.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:41 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
how does that work?
the house that trane built book from a few years back about impulse records goes into some of this -- basically there was a fairly sizeable core audience of die hards, but in general, the label coasted by because it was part of ABC Paramount. Impulse had a few hits (ray charles comes to mind) that made the label able to get by for a while, i think.
― tylerw, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:42 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Were these artists profiled in, say, LIFE magazine, the way contemporary visual artists were (esp. thinking of the abstract expressionists)? They may have been chosen representatives of serious art by mass media publications.
― _Rudipherous_, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:43 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
As jazz switched from a dance music to a chamber music, R&B and rock and roll claimed their audiences.
this makes sense. what seems really odd to me is that the artform would fluorish and reach its peak several decades AFTER its commercial peak.
xp
― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:46 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
obviously people like miles and coltrane were big cultural figures, but a lot of the time they'd be playing these tiny clubs! there must've been a disconnect between people who bought records and people who went out to gigs for whatever reason.
seems like back around the middle of the 20th century artists (visual and musical...authors too) could get to be "big cultural figures" and not be all that popular. a houswife or salesman in Lawrence, Kansas would know OF someone like Coltrane, Miles Davis, Keurorac, Ginsberg, Warhol etc, but not be too familiar with their work. they'd know they were important figures in their discipline, but not why.
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:46 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
lee morgan's "sidewinder" crossed over and sorta kick started the "soul jazz" thing in the early/mid 60s. my understanding is coltrane lost a lot of fans after 'a love supreme'
― excuse me you're a helluva guy (m coleman), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:46 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
like once it had weaseled its way into being considered "serious"/highbrow it was able to economically coast and reap the benefits of that security without having to sell records.
xp
― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:47 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
They may have been chosen representatives of serious art by mass media publications.
That's my sense of it (mainly from talking to older family members)
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:47 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I guess the economic bar was reset a good bit lower and artists could experiment. xp to shakey
― Halal Spaceboy (WmC), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:47 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
the soul/jazz movement is an obvious pop re-crossover attempt - a move back to jazz as dance music, but this time replacing swing with contemporary (at the time) funk and r&b rhythms. (I'm not knocking this stuff, I like a lot of it).
xp
― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier),
An interesting example of how much critical consensus has shaped our understanding of that era of jazz is that Charles Lloyd was actually one of the most popular, if not the most popular jazz artist of the 60s, yet he has been almost completely excluded from the 60s jazz canon, because his artistic merits weren't considered big enough, and the critics felt he was pandering to the hippie audience.
More discussion on the subject in this thread:
Artists/bands that were once quite popular, yet nowadays are mostly ignored in canonical history books
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:55 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
xp - Didn't a bunch of musicians end up spending long periods in Europe because it was they only place they could make any sort of reliable income?
― dubplates and monster munch (seandalai), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:55 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
they still do!
― i drive a wood paneled station dragon (La Lechera),
Were these artists profiled in, say, LIFE magazine, the way contemporary visual artists were (esp. thinking of the abstract expressionists)? They may have been chosen representatives of serious art by mass media publications.
Yeah. Here's a Miles write-up from Time, in 1958. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,868196,00.html
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra),
During the 1970s Lloyd played extensively with The Beach Boys both on their studio recordings and as a member of their touring band. In the late 1970s Lloyd was a member of Celebration, a band composed of members of the Beach Boys' touring band as well as fellow Transcendental Meditation followers Mike Love and Al Jardine. Celebration released two albums.
WHAT THE FUCK
― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:58 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
European support of chamber music extending to American forms, Americans being too invested in moving they asssss shocka.
― Halal Spaceboy (WmC), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:58 (1 week ago)
was thinking some more about the 60s jazz audience this morning and wondering if there was a modern parallel to the cultural space that jazz occupied during that time - "serious" music, audience of primarily college kids and middle class "intellectuals", paid lots of lip service by mainstream media, perceived as "cutting edge" and then thought... oh duh, indie rock
― you will always be wrong (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 13 September 2011 16:33 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
big bands:dancing::bebop:chinstroking:::"rock and roll":dancing::indie rock:shoegazing
― Antonio Carlos Broheem (WmC), Tuesday, 13 September 2011 16:38 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
exactly
― you will always be wrong (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 13 September 2011 16:43 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
vulcan mind-meld
that one music appreciation course I took where the prof said "jazz just turned from a dance music to a chamber music" snapped so much into sharp focus for me -- that progression has been repeating for centuries
― Antonio Carlos Broheem (WmC), Tuesday, 13 September 2011 16:52 (57 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
A while ago I started a thread where I tried to formulate that sort of change in musical genres, but it wasn't very popular:
Major musical changes and the body/brain dichotomy.
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 13 September 2011 16:56 (54 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
not enough of an attention-getting thread title, should've gone with IS INDIE ROCK THE NEW JAZZ???!?!!! lol
― you will always be wrong (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 13 September 2011 17:10
Is it? Does indie have the same type of audience as jazz in the 60s or have the same amount of cultural cache? If not, who does? What current music will be the big cultural signifier of this time?