After a long discussion with one of my other About.com cohorts, Jacob Teichroew, about the recent column (Can Jazz be Saved?) by Terry Teachout and the internet onslaught that followed, I have a few words on the subject of the so-called "Death of Jazz." (insert minor 7th chord please)
My main argument is this - although jazz as an art form is alive and well (ten million strong and growing), commercially speaking, it's not a player. And it hasn't been, really, since the 1950's - early 1950's. And by the time of its commercial decline, it had really only been going strong (ie. been the popular music of the day) for 15 years - tops.
How does this affect current jazz musicians or listeners? It couldn't affect them less. It's not like any of us that are playing or listening to jazz (okay, maybe there's a few of you 80-plus-ers that are crying right now, but lets be honest, you're not reading this because you don't know how to turn on a computer) were alive during the hay-day of jazz. So what did we have that we are now missing?
And again, this says nothing of jazz's vibrance as an art form or as a creative enterprise.
As a jazz musician just don't expect to sell anything. To me, to anyone. Just don't do it. Don't try to get 100 people to your gig. Don't try to make money from your recordings. Just play, and be a badass while doing it. If the plinko ball falls in your slot and you do sell a million records (hello Norah Jones) have fun with it.
But really, there's nothing you can do, nothing you can tell the younger generation, that will "make jazz a popular music again." If that's what you want, I guess my advice is build a time machine and head on back - cause otherwise, sadly, you're fishing in an empty pond.
Is jazz dead? No. But if it is, it's nothing new. It's been dead for a couple of decades now.
(Update: to read Jacob's response, please head over to jazz.about.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment