Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eosp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!eosp1!lincoln
From: lincoln@eosp1.UUCP (Dick Lincoln)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Jazz and/in US society
Message-ID: <1260@eosp1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 15:31:09 EST
Article-I.D.: eosp1.1260
Posted: Mon Nov 19 15:31:09 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Nov-84 03:13:12 EST
References: <140@mhuxr.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Exxon Office Systems, Princeton, NJ
Lines: 93

> Why does jazz not sell millions of LPs?  Barring that, why does
> this music not have a comittment from the music business establishment
> to keep it active and alive, a la classical music, which does not
> sell either???

> Here is an American art form (the ONLY one!) that the crushing
> majority of Americans ignores often proudly so, dismissing it as
> abstruse, obscure and boring? The same people *often* know little if
> anything about classical music, but classical music is "cultured",
> while jazz is "obscure"

> Could it be that US society is not ready to accept (after 100 years) a
> music in which all major innovators have been black (after all these
> Negroes all got rhythm :-)

> Marcel Simon

You're wrong about the "selling" of classical and "fringe-classical"
music (such things as "Boston Pops", etc).  This stuff sells very well
into its relatively concentrated market, much better than jazz.

And that brings up another point - there is NO "committment from the
music business establishment" to keep ANY form of music alive.  What
committment there is to keeping music alive comes from the ARTS
establishment, not from the BUSINESS establishment.  "Classical" music
has significant financial backing because:

(1)  Often the Arts and Business establishments encompass the very
     same "captains of industry" and wealthy "beautiful people".

(2)  "Classical" music is generally accepted by the Arts Establishment
     as being art - the same is NOT true for jazz or any other form of
     "pop/cabaret" music.

(3)  "Classical" music sells very well in the right places, thank you
      very much, especially the old "war horses".

Standard "cabaret" music is supported by many of the same people as a
lark, not serious art, which explains the continued popularity of
Broadway musical even at today's outrageous ticket prices.

This argument implies that the true understanding of the music by
"classical" audiences is not significantly greater than their
understanding of jazz, which I believe to be true of the relation of any
significant art to its "audience".  Lasting art is only for the few
because of the depth of study and concentration required to understand
and truly appreciate it.

There have been times when jazz was very successful and popular, again
without any real understanding of, or committment to, it by the relative
"masses" supporting it.  The '30s and 50's are good examples.  The rich
white folk traipsed up to Harlem in the 20's and early 30's in mass
hordes to hear any number of excellent black jazz bands at places like
the Cotton Club.  Swing became immensely popular in the late 30's,
although it soon was watered down into the "Glenn Miller sound" and the
like.  Dave Brubeck, certainly recognized as a jazz artist (though
white), had the largest selling LP at the top of the charts in the late
50's: "Jazz Goes to College."  His "Time Out" album also landed in the
top 20 about a decade later.

The jazz audience in the 50's suddenly switched by and large to Folk
Music.  Can you imagine a "true jazz lover" suddenly trading in his
Charlie Parker and Clifford Brown/Max Roach albums for the Kingston
Trio?  Yet apparently that's exactly what literally hundreds of
thousands of people did.

It's interesting to note that jazz "progress" has been inversely related
to its commercial success: the last two periods of success cited above
coincided with innovative stagnation while jazz changed radically
outside of and in between those periods (Be-Bop and "Modal - No Harmonic
Progression" (John Coltraine, McCoy Tynor, Carl and Paula Bley, Cecil
Taylor, etc.) waves).  Economic forces cause this: during "good times"
the money is in making the same sound over and over again and the newly
arrived promoters drive the whole jazz scene; during "hard times" only
the artistically driven stay with it and essentially starve.

I find that popularity and acceptance of any "art form" has more to do
with its promotion and trappings than its content: anything unfamiliar
played at Lincoln Center will be a hit if:

  (1)  It has the right promo buildup
  (2)  Whoever introduces the act to the audience (it's a required
       ritual at jazz concerts) gives the distinct impression that the
       musicians are great or near-great.
  (3)  The performance gets a couple of good reviews from "major" art
       critics.

What actually goes on on the stage will probably be essentially
irrelevant.

I also quibble with your statement that, "all major innovators [in jazz
music] have been black..."  Certainly most have been, but not all.
REAL jazz folks know that Miles Davis is a creation of Bill Evans.