
Why most people don't like jazz - RevRal
http://dyske.com/paper/778
======
dan_sim
I'm a musician myself who used to play jazz. The problem with jazz is that is
considered by the people who listen to it like "pure art" when it is just a
style of music. Jazz (and classical) is elevated higher than other form of
music and music teachers will expect a good musician to play jazz.

If jazz lovers would stop thinking at themselves as "higher educated" and jazz
would go back to the people who want enjoy a good swinging song (Ella
Fitzgerald, Satchmo, ...) maybe then, jazz would be loved again.

~~~
sp332
Wynton Marsalis says "When the music stopped being about dancing, people
stopped listening." I never completely bought it, but I like the sentiment
anyway :-)

~~~
mtalantikite
I went out to see Roy Haynes/Roy Hargrove the other night, and he basically
said the same thing on stage. Looking out into an audience of mainly dead
silent white people, he said something to the extent of:

'I remember when I was playing in Spain some years back with Joe Henderson and
Chick Corea, and man the audience gave us no love back. But at the end of the
concert a couple thousand of them all put up their lighters or candles in the
air, and that was how they showed their appreciation. I don't care for that,
put those lighters away. Back in the day people would get up and shout when
they felt the music. You guys need to give it to us on stage so we can give it
back to you, it goes two ways."

I think one of the main reasons "jazz" has fallen off is the price of it and
the audience it therefore attracts. $35 for 45 minutes of music and a drink
minimum at some crammed club like the Village Vanguard or Blue Note only
attracts tourists and people with disposable income.

I remember going to see Jack Dejohnette with Danilo Perez at the Blue Note,
and most people I heard talking had no idea who they were -- they were all NYC
tourists. The Blue Note is like the Disney Land of Jazz, complete with a gift
shop upstairs so you can buy keychains.

It _is_ nice, though, to see young guys like Chris Dave, Marcus Strickland, or
Robert Glasper going out on tour with Mos Def or Erykah Badu, and then in turn
drawing young people that normally would be listening to only hip-hop back out
to their gigs. There is still some hope yet that people won't be priced out of
the music and young people will start being introduced to it again.

~~~
sliverstorm
I hate it when people shout and yell and scream and whistle at concerts :(

I'm there to hear the music, not listen to myself and other people's voices.

I know that probably makes me sound like I'm a bit stuck up, or an old fogie,
but honestly, I go to concerts to listen to music. That can't be that wrong.

~~~
Pistos2
I think part of this is culture. I grew up in North America, and when I
visited the Philippines later in life, and went to watch shows in concert or
in clubs, I was shocked at first because the audience would, without fail,
applaud or cheer when the singer would sing the first line of the song. On
account of my western upbringing (especially with regard to classical music),
I was somewhat scandalized, and almost felt upset at my fellow audience
members. I soon learned that, in doing so, they did not intend any disrespect,
either to the performer or the rest of the audience, but rather were showing
their support, appreciation and enjoyment of the musician's offering. A sort
of "two-way" concert experience.

I suppose that, if most of the audience wants silence, it's respectful to keep
silent during performances. At the same time, if most of the audience isn't
concerned about that, I suppose it isn't that big a deal?

------
swannodette
The state of music commentary on this thread is low enough to be insulting and
pretty much validates the article. I find it humorous that a website that
draws people dedicated to abstract thought can have such a mediocre
understanding of music and music history. Do yourself a favor, find a piece of
music that you think you don't like. Sit down and listen to it 50 times
without distraction so that you know all the changes, turns, asides, tensions,
contractions, contradictions, and undulations. If you still don't like, fine.

But I say 9 times out of 10 with this approach you'll realize you know so
little about music and there is much more to know and you'll be practically
giddy to expand your knowledge.

The distance between Arnold Schoenberg and Lady Gaga is less than you think.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_Sit down and listen to it 50 times without distraction so that you know all
the changes, turns, asides, tensions, contractions, contradictions, and
undulations._

In college I had a minor in electronic art. We'd sit through each other's
performances and then comment on all the various artistic work that went into
them.

The elephant in the room was that it was all BS. I couldn't count the number
of times that someone told me "I appreciated the way you used X to emphasize
Y". In truth, nothing had been farther from my mind; it just worked out that
way.

So I think that a huge portion of what you're interpreting in the changes,
turns, etc. are just happenstance. It's just that our minds are such
incredible pattern-recognizing machines, and are so malleable, that it's
trivially easy to spot some pattern and rationalize a whole lot of noise (in
the information processing sense) into spurious meaning.

How else to explain someone deciding that Ursa Major looks like a bear?

~~~
seabee
It's valid to recognise a pattern, a technique that you used. Name it if you
like. The mistake is only made when they believe the pattern was made
intentionally. More often than not, the only thought entering your mind as you
compose is 'this is pleasing, so I will keep it'.

However, even if those facets of the music you interpreted exist by chance
rather than by design, they still have value and are a source of inspiration.
Conversely, bad designs exist. It's the outcome that matters; that's what you
learn from. Not from intentions.

------
halostatue
I grew up playing music (eight years piano, variously oboe, clarinet, and
several years vocal).

I don't like jazz. I think that a lot of it is self-indulgent noodling.

I can appreciate the talent of some of the artists, but I can't get into it. I
feel the same about country music and rap: there is artistry there, but I
can't stand 90%+ of it and don't want to waste my time listening to it to find
the really good stuff from the derivative, self-indulgent crap.

Yes, I pay attention to the lyrics (because of my time as a vocalist), but I
also pay attention to the music.

I think most people don't like 'jazz' because it's an ill-defined "style" that
ranges from reasonably well known swing and "standards" to obscure fusion or
acid jazz. The more obscure you get, the more inside baseball the discussions
become and the less accessible they are to people who might just "like" the
sound of a particular song. (The same could be said about the more obscure
corners of 'rock'.)

~~~
birdman
Agree with the self-indulgent part. It's sophisticated to like jazz so people
try to like it. And then they do because one can grow to like anything.

From TFA, "... the American ears are getting lazier and lazier."

I'll agree with that, but I don't consider it a bad thing. Jazz seems to
meander and is only impressive once paid close attention to. I want music to
come and hit me; I don't want to have to work for payoff.

~~~
wfarr
That's really quite the generalization. Some forms of jazz are very much like
that, yes; however, there are many forms of jazz, particularly focusing on
those from 1910-1950, which are very structured in form and don't really lend
themselves to being "self-indulgent".

It'd be like me saying that all rock is talentless because it's all just a
"fuck the man" wall of distortion. Yes, there's some rock music that's like
that, but rock is an expansive genre and claiming that all or even the
majority of rock is like that would be very naïve.

~~~
bpyne
I read a book on Duke Ellington in which he expressed concern for the emerging
BeBop style's destruction of Jazz. It seems like he foresaw the move from
structured, dance-able music to explorative music as isolating the music from
the larger population. It's interesting that I didn't understand his opinion
until just now. I'm still not sure I agree with it, but I can see how making
music less dance-able could turn off people.

~~~
tjr
Whatever bebop did to "destroy" the jazz that came before it very likely would
have happened anyway. The big band jazz of the sort Ellington was best known
for was dying out, primarily for financial reasons, and an increasing number
of people who wanted to dance along with music were dancing along with rock
rather than jazz.

But, looking back at the big picture that even Ellington couldn't see at the
time, I don't think that bebop destroyed jazz at all; it was the next
evolutionary step, just as Ellington's jazz was a step beyond Dixieland-style
jazz.

~~~
bpyne
I'm in 100% agreement. Btw, the book I referenced is "Beyond Category" by John
Edward Hasse.

------
dlytle
There's a difference between being able to appreciate the artistic value of
something, and being able to enjoy it. I don't like jazz, and I mostly listen
to music where I can't understand the lyrics, or where none exist. Sometimes
people just don't enjoy certain genres of music. I'm sure part of it is
cultural, but this article seems to portray the inability to enjoy jazz as
some sort of cultural failing, and that's just ridiculous.

Pixote was thought-provoking, emotional, and well made. Despite that, I did
not enjoy it. That does not mean I'm incapable of recognizing art, it just
means that I don't enjoy the style of the piece in question.

~~~
mojuba
Jazz as a genre is more complex than virtually any other genre of music. It
employs more subtle and more complex harmonies which are usually not used
anywhere else, neither are seen in music textbooks. Plus improvisation which
essentially is composing on the fly - something not every musician is capable
of keeping up and not every listener is capable of understanding. In other
words (and this shouldn't be news) jazz is a language that you need to learn
in order to enjoy it. That's the point of the article.

(Some parts of jazz though are pretty "accessible", such as Billie and Nina,
but if you forget about the lyrics and the emotional side of their art and
leave only the music, that for the most part wouldn't be a good example of
jazz.)

~~~
autarch
I enjoy classical music of the modern period like Messiaen, Britten, and
others. This is arguably more complicated than jazz.

I don't really like most jazz. The performers are mostly amazing players, but
the music doesn't provoke any emotional reaction from me, whereas listening to
something like Messiaen's Turangalila is as close to a religious experience as
I'll ever get.

------
ecoffey
I thought I was the only one who didn't pay attention to lyrics.

My friend and I kinda of resemble that dynamic. He loves some of the shittiest
songs (imo) because of interesting lyrical content, where as I totally ignore
them. If I like them it's because of how they were sung not because of me
diving through looking for "meaning".

That's why after all these years Pinback is still one of my favorite bands.
Their voices are just another instrument in a lot of their songs, since it
sounds like Rob Crow kind of mumbles through them all, and they're usually
sitting a layer or two down in the mix.

For example: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59cQWw9ctOA> (not the greatest
quality I know). It's the _way_ he sings / shouts "Stop! It's too late! I'm
feeling FRUS-trated!" that draws me in.

~~~
davi
I also don't really listen to lyrics, largely because it is hard for me. I
think I actually have some sort of perceptual incapacity -- I have to really
_try_ to understand them, whereas it seems other people hear them very easily.
Even when I try, it's hard. I'm smart in other ways, but in this regard I am
comparatively deficient. Anybody else on HN share this 'syndrome'?

For me, music has always been about structure, tone, melody -- I like the
Eagles, for example, but when I started hearing the lyrics (it took me a
while, and they're pretty easy), I was like, "Man, these guys are _cheesy_!"
In some agreement with this article, I love jazz. Check out my friend Daniel
Levin for how far out I like it: <http://www.daniel-levin.com> (annoying flash
site but has samples of his music)

~~~
nollidge
Yes, I share that syndrome, though it depends on the artist. I'm convinced the
reason that there are so many passionate haters of Coldplay out there is
because they're focusing on the lyrics, which are totally vague and, IMO, just
written as another component of overall aesthetic.

On the other hand, I can't listen to Bob Dylan or Eminem [1] _without_ hearing
the lyrics, because in their case the music is really just there as a
scaffolding for the words.

[1] How's that for a juxtaposition?

~~~
CWuestefeld
There's a lot of music having lyrics that seem engineered to be ignorable,
making me think that the artist only intended them to be placeholders, either
because they wanted the voice to be a freer instrument, or just because the
genre format demanded lyrics.

Aside from the obvious case of scat-singing, examples that come quickly to
mind are Frank Zappa, Presidents of the USA, and Rob Zombie. I lot of the
lyrics on King Crimson's _Discipline_ seem to almost make it explicit that the
lyrics themselves are an appendix. (I recall an interview with Zombie: someone
asked him what some strange lyric was supposed to mean, and he replied
something like "I don't know, it's just the song").

But it would be wrong, I think, to assert that instrumentals or lyrics for the
sake of the voice are somehow on a higher plane. I think that being able to
produce excellent melody and harmony _as well as_ excellent lyrics, and to
integrate them well, is the highest form.

~~~
nollidge
Regarding your last line (which you maybe just meant as an aside), I'm a huge
fan of all the artists I mentioned, so I hope I didn't give the impression
that I think any of them are on some higher plane than the others. Just that I
like them for different reasons.

------
snitko
It's not the problem of lyrics vs words in the first place. It's a problem of
lack of musical education. Give a person a guitar or a piano and within a year
she starts paying attention to the composition and performing skills. And her
tastes may change dramatically too. So in a sense, I consider "listening to
words" not as an alternative point of view, but rather a lack of musical
training. Sure, words may simply be bad, but they alone usually cannot make
song good or bad, while music composition and performing definitely have this
power.

Also, please do not think of Americans that way. People in general tend to
ignore music because they don't have a proper training. Same here in Russia.
Same would even be in Japan. I would even rank Americans and Europeans higher,
because they're naturally exposed to different quality music a lot more, than
any other culture.

~~~
stcredzero
I've been playing gigs as a Irish Trad musician for 20 years. There are an
astonishing number of Americans who can't clap on the beat. There are also
lots of Americans who can clap somewhere near the beat, but then are still
without awareness of how small variations in timing and emphasis can change
the feel or swing of the beat.

There are a disturbingly large number of people who -- by their own account --
can't distinguish or process melodic information. I cringe when I think of the
100's of teenagers I've seen purposefully blowing away the high frequency
sensitivity it takes to appreciate all the subtle timbres of acoustic
instruments.

It's not all Americans. When I go to certain music festivals or even certain
regions of the country, I'm surrounded by people who can perceive these things
and who understand. I find that energizing. On the flip side, I am often
saddened by my different awareness in other places. It's like living in a land
of the maimed. It's like being the only sighted person on the planet, with no
one to talk to about the beauty of the sunset, the spectacle of the night sky
in the countryside, or my favourite paintings.

~~~
heyitsnick
Why do you consider this both astonishing and disturbing?

I don't find this surprising, nor do I see the problem.

~~~
stcredzero
Funny you should say that. Those who I find astonishing and disturbing in this
way seldom see the problem.

~~~
heyitsnick
Sorry, I'm not clear what you mean. What's the problem?

------
keyist
An interesting corollary is that jazz musicians tend to not have as striking
an image when it comes to their marketing. Compare what you first visualize
when you hear the names KISS or Flava Flav versus say Brad Mehldau or Keith
Jarrett.

EDIT: This is probably due to jazz musicians taking themselves more seriously
and wanting to be known more for their music than anything else. If a jazz
artist enlisted Dir En Grey's stylist, it may invite insinuations that any
success is due to marketing instead of artistic merit.

EDIT: To further clarify -- average person's image of:

Rock/Metal: shirtless guys with long hair and tattoos playing guitars

Pop: Pretty boys/girls in shiny costumes who can dance

Jazz: dude with curly hair holding a saxophone

~~~
aristoxenus
Have you noticed how much more sophisticated Lady Gaga's music is than the
rest of what's popular these days? Her popularity has nothing to do with that.
It's the way she throws in catchy verbal chants and is equally brilliant at
visual and personality branding. And she as a great name.

~~~
anon-e-moose
No, I have not. All of her songs sound the same to me, the repeated nonsense
stuttering included. And I say this as a person who as listened to thousands
of hours of techno/electronica/drum and bass.

~~~
aristoxenus
I'm not comparing The Fame Monster to the Diabelli variations.

She's (very) commercially successful -- her revenues have surely long since
eclipsed the entire D&B economy totalled over time.

Among commercially-successful acts, her product happens to be a lot more
richly constructed than the competition. But the Mac isn't loved for it's BSD
kernel -- it's the complete package. Gaga's success should be instructive to
anyone hoping to make a splash in any industry.

------
jsz0
Whew lots of words to sum up something that seems kind of obvious to me:
People just aren't exposed to good jazz very often. We mostly hear really
terrible soul defeating elevator jazz. People grow up understanding the
language of rock, country, hip hop, etc so they will almost certainly hear
some really good examples of music from these genres and naturally gravitate
towards some or all of them. Jazz is an art form you really have to seek out
these days. The better question is why did popular culture move away from jazz
in favor of these other genres? I think it reflects the demand for shorter
more concentrated messages in music. The 2-3 minute song is how most people
consume music. If you sliced out some choice 2-3 minute segments of some great
jazz albums I bet they could be palatable to a bigger audience even today. We
see this in film & TV today with jazz and orchestral music. People like it but
not in big doses.

~~~
Semiapies
I suspect many people in their 20s and 30s aren't aware of much of the jazz
they've come in contact with as _being_ jazz. When the expectation for jazz is
"Kenny G.", you can come across quite a bit of it from older movies, TV shows,
and pop music without recognizing as such.

------
aston
The criticism of rap in the middle of the piece seems both misplaced and
undereducated. Some of the most musically complex instrumental music I've
heard in the past few years has come out of the hip-hop world. Take a song
like T-Pain's "Chopped and Screwed" [1] and try to pick it out on the piano --
it's got enough 7's,9's and alt chords to make any jazz listener happy. Rap is
probably the only pop genre where fans pay enough attention to the background
to like a song/artist for the lyrics (Nas) or the beat (Kanye) or both
(Jay-Z).

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtP6arjZmzI>

~~~
Radix
I'm not convinced. The melody sounds simple and repetitious, and the verses,
mostly sung by tPain, are similar. The rest is just a fleshing out of these
ideas, though, there is rythm and lyrics. I think you'll disagree with me, but
I believe that's more because you disagree with me and the authors definitions
of music than because I'm wrong.

Having said that, would you like to try to send me to some hip-hop I'll like.
I've been looking, but when listening to music that has lyrics I have to
listen to them, and I don't like these, or most rap for that matter. I've yet
to find any particular artist I really like yet.

Jack White puts it well. On whether he does or does not particularly like hip-
hop: "Not particularly. I find OutKast and Wu-Tang Clan interesting. But I
consider music to be storytelling, melody and rhythm. A lot of hip-hop has
broken music down. There are no instruments and no songwriting. So you're left
with just storytelling and rhythm. And the storytelling can be so
braggadocious, you're just left with rhythm. I don't find much emotion in
that."

~~~
gruseom
I agree with Jack White. Thanks for the quote. Still, as a very-non-hip-hop-
fan, I have to admit: there may be nothing in it that I can appreciate besides
rhythm, but that rhythm is often amazing. It's like Monet said about Manet:
"Only an eye, but what an eye!"

(Actually, that's not true. The other aspect of hip-hop that I can appreciate
is its linguistic sophistication. It's not exactly lyrical, though; it's more
like verbal variation on the rhythm. So maybe it is the same thing after all.)

------
CoreDumpling
By this logic, English-language opera (yes, it exists) ought to be doing well
in America. Check your local opera house schedule and see how many
performances you can find that are not in Italian, German, or French.

There is some merit to this argument, that some music can't be appreciated as
easily unless you attach it something people can easily relate to. Even
classical music isn't immune to this, hence the existence of program music
like Beethoven's 6th symphony and many other works from the Romantic era.
Today, it's mostly film scores that fall into this category of instrumental
music that is best understood within a certain context.

I think the difference today is that the context itself has changed. We've
transitioned to an urban, fast-paced lifestyle and have lost touch with the
beauty of nature from which many instrumental pieces draw inspiration. We've
become more materialistic, hence the prevalence of "bling" in rap songs. The
host on my local classical station once remarked that there are only two
serious topics in music: God and sex. Though I'm not religious, I can tell
that these days it's much less of the former and more of the latter.

That said, I wouldn't be so pessimistic right now. Think long-term: in 100
years, how many people will still be listening to Brahms, and how many will
still be listening to Britney Spears?

~~~
jerf
"By this logic, English-language opera (yes, it exists) ought to be doing well
in America."

We call them "musicals". They're doing OK.

If you want to argue that a "musical" is an "opera plus some stuff added to
make it more palatable to visually-oriented Americans" I'm not going to argue.

~~~
anigbrowl
No way - operatic singing techniques are _fundamentally_ different from other
kinds of singing, and much harder work physically. Next time in you're in the
shower or wherever you can sing, do a chorus of some song you like. Then take
a deep breath and instead of using your throat as you do when you talk, use
your abdominal muscles to _push_ the air out of your lungs while you sing,
such that you can feel the notes resonating your chest cavity. It isn't just
louder, it fundamentally changes the characteristics of your voice.

Part of what makes popular music so compelling is that using microphones to
amplify the voice allows singers to present a much more intimate quality -
they're right there with you, and that intimacy is strongly coupled to the
emotional content of the song, even if it's coming through a stadium-sized
sound system. It's like the amplification creates a bridge between the singer
and the audience. but in opera, (even with amplification) the singer is bridge
between the melody and the audience...a big reason why opera singers don't
always look right for the part, but when they open their mouths, it ceases to
matter...if they're good enough.

I like the opera a lot and go several times a year...but don't get me started
on all the things that are wrong with the opera industry. As with nerdy and
self-indulgent jazz, the arts establishment is fucked and limits its own
audience by wasting huge amounts of money on packaging the product so it
becomes a high-priced status symbol - perhaps even deliberately. Every year in
San Francisco they do one or two free operas at the baseball park (via
simulcast from the opera house), and people love it - last time it attracted
over 35,000 people. But if you want to go the Opera house you'll probably have
to pay $75-1000 per ticket to subsidize a small army of union stagehands and
visual designers, and they send out glossy-full color begging letters every 6
weeks as if people went to the opera to look at the costumes and stage
furniture. Well, I guess some of them do, but I imagine that composers and
singers would rather be appreciated for their musical ability than their
ability to look like they stepped out of a history book.

~~~
stan_rogers
Opera != _bel canto_. True, the classic opera (say, late baroque through
Puccini) was written specifically for the _bel canto_ voice due to the
increased size of the audience over the previous, more intimate pieces, the
unfortunate lack of amplification, and the relatively few vowels to be found
in Italian (and French, for that matter) but there's no real reason to equate
a genre of theatre with any particular vocal style. Hearing a Purcell piece
sung with the English-mangling roundness of vowels required for the italianate
style is as disturbing to me as _Nixon in China_. Even loudness is not an
excuse -- the reverberations of Ethel Merman's last "on with the show" have
not yet died down.

There's no need for opera to become fossilised, nor for it to aspire to an
audience of fossils. _Jesus Christ Superstar_ should have changed the world --
not that it was the best that could have been done, but it should have opened
doors everywhere to the possibility of actually keeping opera relevant.

------
bpyne
Jazz not being in the limelight anymore is not really a fault of the music,
the listeners, or the players. It's not an unhealthy turn of events either. I
think it's as simple as a new generation has come up who wants to "have their
say": they want to express their own take on life in their own way. Another
generation will come along in 20 years and supplant them. It's a never ending
cycle.

Jazz isn't anywhere near death judging by the number of internet radio
stations offering it. Jazz musicians are still exploring musical boundaries.
Admittedly there are fewer venues but you can still find them.

Another consideration is the influence Jazz had on the mainstream. Groups like
the Dave Matthews Band embody the Jazz spirit very much.

What I'd like to hear more of is people from other cultures mixing Jazz into
their own native music.

Jazz is, to me, about exploration.

NOTE: Edited the first sentence due to a blatant abuse of negatives.

------
bryanh
Not that I entirely agree with this article, but as a jazz musician, it
definitely interests me.

I am curious though; when was the last time everyone listened to an entire
album while doing nothing else? (no driving, surfing, working, etc...)

~~~
stan_rogers
Earlier today, in fact. But it's not so much the attention span thing that
gets in the way (I play reeds, by the way) but the intellectual masturbation
of a lot of jazz that turns people off.

I've yet to run into anybody who turns their nose up at, say, Dave Brubeck's
"Time Out", which is certainly rhythmically sophisticated but tuneful, or
Kenny Burrell's "Midnight Blue" (an album that's usually the first up for
visitors). It's the "I'm an artiste, dammit" attitude, the cleverness for
cleverness' sake, the removal of anything remotely engaging at a visceral
level -- the attempt to emulate in the jazz idiom what Schoenberg perpetrated
on "serious" music -- that forces people to decide that the Emperor is without
skivvies to cover his shame.

Lyrical content is a red herring as well. There's a lot of dance crap (and
some that's not crap) that gets heavy rotation in the wider world that is
entirely word-free.

Okay, jazz is all about painting oneself into a corner and finding imaginative
ways of escaping the trap you've set for yourself, but there's no harm in
playing something that manages to capture a tune along the way rather than
merely tracking the letter of the changes. Too many jazzers forget that it's
still music.

~~~
colomon
And there is also a good amount of jazz music with lyrics. In fact, there is
very little music out there in any genre that has the lyrical heft that Jon
Hendricks or Kurt Elling have in their denser vocaleses.

But yeah, on your first point there, I remember a big double-bill concert
around here about ten years ago. The first half was fairly traditional jazz,
well-attended and apparently well-liked. The second performer's music could
best be described as a quick, semi-recognizable head followed by minutes of
endless sixteenth notes without any appreciable (to me, anyway) form or
structure. There was obviously an incredible amount of skill on display, but I
found it unimaginably boring. I wasn't alone: after about ten minutes of the
second half, there was a steady stream of people getting up and leaving during
the performance. So did I eventually.

------
bitwize
"The self-surrender of classical music to a sterile, scholastic avant-garde
after World War I doomed WFLN to the status of a fading museum of antiquities
before that radio station was even born. The hankering of dance-band leaders
to be seen as high artists after World War II sapped jazz of its vitality.
Both genres have been steadily losing market share for decades because they
deliberately turned their backs on the mass audiences they formerly
commanded."

<http://catb.org/~esr/writings/arts.html>

Personal note: I've been to jazz concerts where the musicians were in it to
have fun, not to make a statement or prove their avant-garde-ness. This
included a real exciting swing performance with dancers at an airshow. When
played as such the music is invigorating like nothing else.

------
dasil003
I like the article and there's a lot of truth to it, but I have two critiques.

First, the music that people like is heavily based on familiarity. People want
one or two original elements in a song, but if the overall structure and
composition of the song isn't following familiar patterns they will be unable
to enjoy it. This is why artists like Frank Zappa are more appreciated by
musicians than the general public. After repeated listenings, you find a lot
of musical meat, which can then be broken down into more repetitive poppy
elements. Jazz in general is much the same, but even further away from pop
music today than Zappa was.

The other critique is about the assertion that "rap" music is just about
lyrics. One of the foundations of hip-hop and something that sets it apart
from other music throughout history, is that it is the first form of music to
be built primarily from the manipulation of other recorded music. And it does
so in a way that maximizes the impact of the music via looping and sampling.
The degenerate form of hip-hop that is dominant today in the form of club
music with banal hedonistic lyrics, autotuned vocals, and repetitive plain
rhythmic styles is nothing more than familiarity breeding popularity. However
the art form of hip-hop is alive and well and still progressing (hopefully
sampling can see a proper fair-use legitimization in court soon).

------
aarghh
I disagree with the assertion that this is due to the abstraction associated
with instrumental music as opposed to vocal music. Most people relate to
instrumental music quite well - it needs to have the right rhythm, the right
hook. Lots of rock is instrumental, with fairly vapid lyrics - its still
pretty popular. Blues - put someone in a room playing John Lee Hooker, and I'd
be surprised if they don't start tapping their feet. "Boom, Boom" isn't too
much of a lyric, but what a hook!

The problem is the accessibility of "modern" jazz - much of it tends to be
divorced from its origin as dance/march music, and that is where the
abstraction plays a role. I love Bill Frisell's work, for instance, because of
the structural aspects of his music - but its not necessarily very appealing
to most of my friends.

------
run4yourlives
Wow what a great article.

I didn't fully appreciate his take until this line: "Jazz to most people is
like a color on a wall; unless you hung something on it, they don’t even
notice it."

It's funny, because I like jazz and classical, along with most music, and even
I view the two types as "colour on the wall" in many ways.

~~~
ichverstehe
Until you put on Peter Brötzmann or some of those wild Coltrane live
recordings.

~~~
bbgm
:-) I don't think anyone will call some of those Coltrane recordings or
Ornette Coleman "color on the wall"

------
samd
I think this article is more accurate:

[http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/11/18/116-black-
music-t...](http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/11/18/116-black-music-that-
black-people-dont-listen-to-anymore/)

------
ghfdrvtsyup
I agree with the article to an extent, but I don't agree that musical
education will necessarily make people like instrumental music in general or
jazz music specifically. The truth is most people don't really care about
music and pop/radio music is sufficient and exciting enough for them. This is
not a bad thing.

I don't like the assumption that there is necessarily some sort of proper
'way' of listening to music that can be or should be taught. People who like
music will like music and seek it out, people who don't won't.

------
Tycho
Jazz can be hilariously inaccessible. I think one of the problems is much of
it is 'standard based' (ie. they're improvising around the chords and melodies
of classic old songs like Autumn Leaves, All of Me) but they take HELLA
liberties (i once heard a Dinah Washington rendition of All of Me and could
swear she didn't know what the song actually was). Once you know the
standards, and the majority of them really are gems in their own right, you
start to realize what the jazzmen are really DOING, what patterns they're
playing with. Then you can follow and appreciate long improvisatory solos
better. But if you're just hearing some 60 year old song that you don't even
KNOW, and they assume that you already know it SO WELL that they barely need
to play the original melody, and they're ramping up the complexity 5x to
challenge themselves, then it's tough going.

Something that's helped me a lot recently is typing standards into Spotify and
just listening to different versions of the same song (not always jazz
artists) for hours. I used to think 'why can't all standards be as enjoyable
as Summertime?' but now they kinda are

------
hernan7
For a more recent take on the subject (including opinions of some jazz
musicians), see <http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread.php?t=42725>

Personally, I don't have the foggiest idea of how one would go about marketing
jazz. I got my taste for jazz from my parents, who were fans of "hot jazz"
(a.k.a. traditional or Dixieland jazz). They were never into any modern
(postwar) jazz styles, and accepted big band/swing only reluctantly. Glenn
Miller was "too commercial" for them :-)

One problem that I see with jazz evangelists is that they tend to push the
more abstract/ academic masterpieces in detriment of the more digestible
stuff. I can see some kid like I was getting into Satch and Bix and Django,
and then going on to discover Mingus, Parker, Weather Report, and so on, like
I did. But I'm not sure if you can throw "Blue Trane" cold at somebody without
giving them any context, and expect them to like it because "it's good for
them".

~~~
tjr
Context is very important for the more "masterpiece" recordings. The
relatively short history of jazz music shows a continual building upon
previous works, exploring new ideas and new sounds.

Handing a jazz novice "Blue Trane" might be akin to handing a Star Trek novice
"The Search for Spock"; it may or may not be superficially enjoyable, but to
really understand it requires more background knowledge.

------
maxklein
I absolutely hate the instrumental nonsense that a bunch of music school
graduates are producing this day, but I love jazz. Play Ella Fitzgerald,
Billie Holiday, Satchmo, Anita O'Day, Peyroux, even Diana Krall. This is what
Jazz was initially defined as - jumping up and down the scale on a trumpet and
wearing old Egyptian costumes is not Jazz for me.

------
timwiseman
Its an interesting concept, and I do agree that to a degree he is right. But
that is definitely not the whole of it.

Personally, I enjoy a variety of classical musical and some modern purely
instrumental music (TSO for instance has many purely instrumental pieces that
are classically inspired, as does their forerunner Savatage, though the
connection to the classical inspiration is less obvious there.) I still do not
like jazz. In my admittedly limited exposure to it, I find much of it to be
rather dissonant and atonal (I am well aware there are multiple types of jazz
and not all will have these properties)

I suspect I could acquire a taste for it if I wished and spent some time
studying it, but I have seen no reason to yet. I rather enjoy classical,
metal, and hard rock and there is enough depth there to keep me quite
satisfied for many lifetimes.

It is quite easy to enjoy and appreciate instrumental music without enjoying
or appreciating jazz.

------
philwelch
I have this same argument with my girlfriend all the time--not about jazz, per
se (which I haven't gotten into) but about the general topic of music vs.
lyrics. Some of my favorite songs I still don't know all the lyrics to, but
she knows them by heart even though she zones out during the guitar solos. And
her favorite songs, I listen to the basic instrumental loop and get bored with
it.

There are ways to learn to listen to instruments, though. You just have to
consciously do what an instrumental listener does unconsciously, which is to
focus on instruments instead of vocals. You can start by picking out one
instrument and following it throughout the song, though as you learn the song
better you start learning when to switch between instruments and eventually
how to absorb the gestalt of them.

I'm not totally uninterested in lyrics, but they have to have something to
play against that enhances them rather than just being there.

~~~
mattm
I've noticed this as well.

In general it seems women listen to lyrics more while men pay attention to the
instruments more.

------
smokinn
I don't really need a whole blog post to explain why people don't like jazz;
it's because to most people it sounds like a cacophony of random noise.
(Especially in "live jams")

Unless you've studied music and know what they're trying to show, where
they're going and the technical difficulty involved, you just won't be able to
appreciate it.

He does being up a very valid point though which was crystallized for me when
I heard "How you remind me of someday". Basically Nickelback had this one
really popular song called "How you remind me" and then, later, released
another really popular song called "Someday". It was the same song. To prove
the point someone mashed them together, putting "How you remind me" in the
left speaker and "Someday" in the right speaker. The result was amazing:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvujgcbaCF8>

Talk about formulaic.

~~~
eru
The formula for producing (potential) hit songs are pretty well-known. Not all
follow this schema, e.g. Blue Monday from New Order, but that's the exception
rather than the rule.

------
wazoox
I remember readng this a long time ago. About that time I've also read this
wonderfully amusing piece from Pat Metheny about Kenny G:
<http://www.jazzoasis.com/methenyonkennyg.htm>

This is a hell of a crucifixion :)

------
anamax
Most people don't like {musical genre} so why should jazz be any different?

------
sp332
I like (among other types) a sub-genre called "smooth jazz". But I always used
it as background music, and in fact thought it was designed to be background
music (not being complex enough to hold one's attention), until I saw a live
smooth jazz concert on TV. The musicians were putting a lot of emotion and
skill and effort into making those sounds, but I had never "heard" what they
"saying" in the music. I have to concentrate to get the content of the music,
which I can't sustain for more than a few minutes before my mind wanders.

------
ivanzhao
I don't usually smoke pot; but when I do I usually end up with Coltrane, and
he makes me want to cry.

------
ThomPete
Jazz music used to be pop music.

The reason why many people don't like jazz music is the same reason some don't
like classical music.

It doesn't say them anything because they weren't brought up with it.

------
zefhous
Interesting, but I think this is missing a lot of the reasons Jazz isn't
popular. Lyrics are a part of it sure, but that's just on the surface of the
issue.

He talks a lot about _listening_ to music, but I like to make a big
distinction between _hearing_ and _listening_. It's kind of like seeing a
website and _really looking_ at its design. Listening is an active, focused
activity; hearing is passive. In my experience, even many musicians I've
played with don't really know how to listen to a recording.

That's one part if it, but there's so much more. Another issue is that casual
ears just aren't equipped to appreciate the extended harmonies, progressions,
and chord substitutions that are used in Jazz. It is so advanced beyond what
most of us can understand that it doesn't really mean anything.

Last thing I'll mention is part of the culture of Jazz. Jazz musicians get
bored easily, they master one thing and then just keep pushing it forward.
Sometimes it's just a sport where the whole point is to demonstrate how far
you can push the theory and how fast you can play. That's not conducive to
listener enjoyment.

------
olh
I'm Brazilian and here jazz is also far way from the mainstream. I like jazz
that "got the blues"; listen to some Focus jazz and you will see what I mean.

The problem with jazz is that, as commented by other folks, it is an art. Some
jazz scales sounds suck, but they are hard to do. You will only like these
musics if you appreciate the ability of the musician on playing it, and not
the "sound/music" itself.

------
roundsquare
I think the author is missing two big points. The first is that, for people
currently in their 20's (and probably a bit older/younger as well) jazz was
something their parents enjoyed a lot. In the US, there is an strong tendency
to dislike whatever our parents like, so from a young age jazz is
automatically crossed off, and that carries over as we get older.

Second, if his argument was correct, Americans would generally require some
kind of lyrical coherence to enjoy music. If each sentence in a song were
completely disconnected from the previous sentences we wouldn't enjoy it.
However, witness the popularity of DJ Girl Talk[1]. From a lyrical point of
view, its only fairly connected. Of course, Americans will generally recognize
the lyrics and that may offset my point to some degree, but I'm not convinced
it does. (FWIW, I only recently found DJ Girl Talk and have become obsessed,
so take that for what its worth).

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=05DBB3473E2A7D56>

------
Goladus
_The current market share of Jazz in America is mere 3 percent._

That doesn't mean most people don't like Jazz. It just means they don't tend
to seek it out ahead of other alternatives. Jazz isn't associated with pop
culture which is to say sex, relationships, and high school / college kids.
But most people, should they find themselves in a space with a good jazz band
playing, would enjoy it.

------
prewett
The reason why I don't like jazz is that my ears can't find any pattern to it.
There's no melody, except at the beginning and end of the piece, so the notes
just sound random. So to me the music is largely indistinguishable from noise.

Once I discovered that jazz is apparently about the chords it made more sense.
(The notes appear to be unimportant as long as everyone is in the same chord)

~~~
tjr
Those seemingly random notes are improvisation. Depending on the arrangement
and/or preferences of the individual player, yes, those notes may be based on
the chord progressions... or based on a particular scale or mode ("modal
jazz")... or pulled together from a catalog of memorized melodic fragments...
or some combination of all of the above.

In general, players who are also proficient composers tend to be the best
improvisors. Players who are only players can be good improvisors, but their
improvisations tend to be more on the mediocre / less inspiring side.

Unfortunately, it sure seems to me that we've had less and less good jazz
composition over the years, which might explain why more and more jazz
improvisation sounds rather lousy.

On the other hand, some improvisation made by expert jazz players really does
sound very strange on purpose, e.g., the "Science Fiction" recordings of
Ornette Coleman. You might like it, you might not, but either way, it's pretty
far out there.

~~~
prewett
I agree, the random notes are improvisation. But improvisation can also be
done with non-random-sounding notes: Mozart's variations on "Twinkle, Twinkle,
Little Star" are very impressive. The difference being that with Mozart you
can still hear a melody. You'd have to be really good to do this on the fly in
a solo, though, which is probably why a lot of the great jazz bands practiced
beforehand (it wasn't strictly improv)

------
jcapote
Wait, most people don't like jazz? _confused_

~~~
Semiapies
I submit most people don't like what they _think_ is jazz. Jazz is a very big
label.

~~~
jcapote
Exactly. I hated jazz too when I thought it all sounded like Kenny G.

------
WilliamLP
I was hoping this article would tell me more about why _I_ don't like jazz. I
don't know why! I've tried. I love all forms of classical music. I like rock
and pop music. I know the opera repertoire really well and have sung several
major tenor roles. But I just can't get to like jazz at all for some reason.

~~~
CoreDumpling
Have you tried listening to Shostakovich? He was moderately successful at
blending jazz and classical elements, as well as at polarizing critics in the
process.

~~~
hernan7
Or that Jazz Flute Suite record by Bolling & Rampal.

~~~
sp332
One of my favorite records :-) I also like Bolling's _Suite for Chamber
Orchestra and Jazz Piano Trio_.

------
hkuo
I used to be a huge jazz fan. I discovered it around my senior year in high
school and just started eating it all up. While other cars were blaring rap
music and Guns and Roses, I would be playing John Coltrane and Thelonious Monk
and Duke Ellington.

So I can speak from personal perspective on how I lost interest and give my 2
cents on why it's lost popularity. It's actually pretty simple. There's just
nothing new. No innovation. That's it. I enjoy the melodies when I hear them
and there are appropriate times when I will put it on, but it is what it is
and nothing more these days.

~~~
tjr
I still am a fan of jazz, but I agree with the sentiment. By the late 1960's
or so, jazz innovation was beginning to wane in favor of copying elements of
rock music, seemingly in an attempt to gain more listeners.

Some great jazz/rock fusion came out of this (e.g., Weather Report), but it
was more or less an evolutionary dead end for jazz. By the 1980's, jazz
started going back to the styles developed in the 1950s/1960s, and most of the
jazz we hear made today is just rehashing what the masters did during that
era, only not as well, and without the creative freshness.

I personally think pretty much every genre of music has hit up against this
lack of creativity recently, though... I really don't hear much new music that
I think is all that great.

------
ugh
I have often wondered whether I would be listening to the same music if
English were my first language. Probably not. I listen to markedly different
stuff depending on language. No lonely songwriters singing English in my
collection. Less English rap than German rap.

I have always been listening to tons of German rap but have only in recent
years started to listen to more American rap (as my ability to understand
English improved – now probably pretty much on par with my ability to
understand German). Make of that what you will, might just be a coincidence.

~~~
andrewcooke
i don't think i've (knowingly) heard any german rap - is there anything you'd
particularly recommend?

------
scott_s
I find it sad that some of my favorite pieces of music are inaccessible to
most people - but it's not their failing. My own personal preferences causes
me to listen for certain things in the music that I hear. In particular, I
like music with depth and layers, clever melodic hooks, and some changes in
tempo and rhythm. Like jazz, the best parts of it are instrumental.

But most people just can't seem to get past all of that screaming in death
metal.

------
thangalin
Many people like jazz ...

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myJj0mNNe1Y>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJBjNkacy8o>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf65VY_ebUg>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSfK-0tZ73I>

------
anigbrowl
I don't think it's so much about lyrics (although instrumental music tends to
be less popular in general). Nor is about musical ability. I'm only a mediocre
musician, but I can appreciate musical structure very well and like to compose
in unusual modalities, especially phrygian. I know far better musicians than
myself who don't like jazz; meanwhile my Dad has a complete tin ear and
couldn't carry a tune in a bucket, but he loves jazz despite having little or
no musical knowledge. I can't stand it, but not because I think it's bad - I'm
really impressed by the depth and skill of jazz musicians. I just can't take
it in any significant quantity.

My problem with it is that I get frustrated by the fact that it isn't
necessarily going anywhere - the exploratory and whimsical nature of it upsets
me because it conflicts with my desire for structure and resolution. I think
my Dad likes partly because of this; it doesn't demand that he model structure
and tension, he's quite happy to just be a passenger and enjoy the musical
scenery. This is not to say it _lacks_ structure or harmonic tension. Harmony
is the weakest part of my musical ability and I'm just not able to appreciate
the relationships between complex chords and for that matter I'm not much good
at polyrhythms either. Strangely, on occasions where someone has tried to get
me more into jazz, if we agree in advance on a musical modality I am able to
improvise reasonably well and we can have an extended musical 'conversation':
it's easier for me to play than it is to listen to, or at least it was when I
practiced on a more regular basis. But the emotions it arouses in me largely
consist of 'Aaagh! Please stop fucking around and get to the point!!'.

Most commercial music is highly structured, both rhythmically and
harmonically. Jazz reminds of those art projects where they make blank molds
of some kind of sculpture and then hand them out to artists to decorate as
they see fit, such that the shape of the sculpture is less important than the
mix of color and pattern the artist wishes to explore, a 3-dimensional blank
canvas if you like. Very often the results seem to have nothing to do with the
shape, but I find myself thinking that if the shape is so unimportant, go
paint a piece of canvas or something. I know these artists are saying
something about deconstruction of the form by projecting things onto it which
don't fit its obvious structure but I'm at a complete loss as to why you would
choose a specific form if the primary thing you want to say is that form isn't
important. Or maybe it's just that I find some such work innovative but have
no patience for the ensuing horde of people copying the same idea and just
doing so with their own favorite patterns and colors. It's like saying you
feel liberated because you put on a straitjacket and then took it off again.

/handwaving

------
Perceval
On of my favorite essays on music is by an art critic/dealer named Dave
Hickey. He wrote a collection of essays called _Air Guitar_ , which is worth
picking up even if (like me) you're not interested in art dealing or art
criticism. He's a very lucid writer about the value of art for life.

Anyway, in the chapter "The Delicacy of Rock-and-Roll" he ends with thoughts
on what he considers to be the two most fundamentally _American_ musical
forms: jazz and rock-n-roll. Here's the quote:

"Jazz presumes that it would be nice if the four of us--simpatico dudes that
we are--while playing this complicated song together, might somehow be free
and autonomous as well. Tragically, this never quite works out. At best, we
can only be free one or two at a time--while the other dudes hold onto the
wire. Which is not to say that no one has tried to dispense with wires. Many
have, and sometimes it works--but it doesn't feel like jazz when it does. The
music simply drifts away into the stratosphere of formal dialectic, beyond our
social concerns.

Rock-and-roll, on the other hand, presumes that the four of us--as damaged and
anti-social as we are--might possibly get it _to-fucking-gether_ , man, and
play this simple song. And play it right, okay? Just this once, in tune and on
the beat. But we can't. The song's too simple, and we're too complicated and
too excited. We try like hell, but the guitars distort, the intonation bends,
and the beat just moves, imperceptibly, against our formal expectations,
whether we want it to or not. Just because we're breathing, man. Thus, in the
process of trying to play this very simple song together, we create this
hurricane of noise, this infinitely complicated, fractal filigree of delicate
distinctions.

And you can thank the wanking eighties, if you wish, and digital sequencers,
too, for proving to everyone that technologically "perfect" rock--like "free"
jazz--sucks rockets. Because order sucks. I mean, look at the Stones. Keith
Richards is _always_ on top of the beat, and Bill Wyman, until he quit, was
always behind it, because Richards is leading the band and Charlie Watts is
listening to him and Wyman is listening to Watts. So the beat is sliding on
those tiny neural lapses, not so you can tell, of course, but so you can feel
it in your stomach. And the intonation is wavering, too, with the pulse in the
finger on the amplified string. This is the delicacy of rock-and-roll, the
bodily rhetoric of tiny increments, necessary imperfections, and contingent
community. And it has its virtues, because jazz only works if we're trying to
be free and are, in fact, together. Rock-and-roll works because we're all a
bunch of flakes. That's something you can _depend_ on, and a good thing too,
because in the twentieth century, that's all there is: jazz and rock-and-roll.
The rest is term papers and advertising."

------
coverband
I would argue that the original proposition is flawed. If we did an
experiment, most people who would listen to live jazz or a good recording in
an easy atmosphere would enjoy it. It's just that jazz music can rarely be fit
into your busy life full of 30-second interruptions. So you stick with music
where a 30-second lick/rhyme/lyric/beat can stay in your head.

------
zaphar
I think I actually fall somewhere in the middle. I evaluate a piece of music
by both lyrics and melody/harmony/beat...

I can appreciate purely instrumental and also Rap which is heavy on lyrics and
beat. I think being too far on either end of the spectrum causes you to lose
out.

------
ivanzhao
When t-shirts and sweat pants roaming around town everywhere, who still cares
about jazz?

a jazz party in 1957: [http://www.ivy-style.com/shoulda-been-there-dizzys-jam-
sessi...](http://www.ivy-style.com/shoulda-been-there-dizzys-jam-
session-1957.html)

------
axod
If you haven't already seen it: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TebUMhJAKSM>

(The fast show, "Jazz Club")

"So er what tune are you going to play for us today Jefrey?"

(offended) "Tune??? Tune??? This is _jazz_!"

------
nerme
I take some issue with the basic thesis.

I don't think you can outright separate the appreciation of music in to two
camps, that of the musical content and that of the lyrical content.

Much as in poetry, the sounds and rhythm of the words are an integral part of
what makes a good melody.

Hip-hop might actually be the ultimate example of this. Sure, there is
content, but it is mainly about the flow of the lyrics. The fact that the
author of the post looks to hip-hop as being some kind of example of the
decline in musical appreciation just tells me that he is himself is lacking in
the ability to properly listen to music.

Jay-Z has amazing flow. Busta Rhymes is a freaking explosion of syncopated
beats, as good as swinging as Gene Krupa, but managing to tie lyrics in as
well. KRS-One? Snoop? Eminem? They are practically jazz drummers who use their
mouths instead of a drum kit.

I would bet the fact that they're talking about drugs, violence, money, women,
and what it's like to be poor are the main reasons they turn people off. Most
detractors don't want to know that this world exists and sure as hell don't
want to have anything to do with it.

Beyond hip-hop, this is an important element to pretty much all music that
could be labeled as "good". Sure, the actual language content is important...
you're going to connect with more people if you're singing about heartache and
love than if you're singing about molecular biology. However, if your lyrics
are set to a stale melody, or don't have a rhythmic foundation that inter-
plays with the rest of the music, it's not going to sound good, and people are
not going to like it.

Vowel sounds are incredibly important. Imagine the lyrics to your favorite
song. Now, get rid of the consonants, and listen to the rhythm of the
different vowels. More than likely, you'll find a syncopated pattern. There
might be an interplay of the "ee" and "ah" sounds, there might be repeated
"oo" sounds at the end of every verse, etc. It may be simplistic, but I can
guarantee it's there.

There are a number of great songs that have either nonsensical lyrics in them
or at least very simplistic content. Led Zeppelin has never been known for
their lyrics and are still selling tons of albums every year. "Ob-la-di-ob-la-
dah"? "Ma ma ma my sharona"? And I'm just sticking to rock/pop music with
these few examples...

Style and fashion, of course, have a lot to do with popular appeal. And these
are based on trends, where timing is everything. If The Beatles were to have
never existed (and somehow music today ended up where it is without them,
which is highly unlikely) and they suddenly emerged, I'm not sure that they
would be all over the airwaves. Sure, there would be people who were
absolutely smitten with them, but I they are who they are because of a certain
time and place. They hit their peak when albums like Pink Floyd's "Piper at
the Gates of Dawn" were top 10 albums in the UK. Can you imagine that? Piper?
Top 10? That is one weird and crazy album. Actually, I think it got to number
6 on the charts.

There are a lot of elements that go in to music. But they go in to and form a
cohesive whole. It is very hard to separate out one element from another and
say that this element is more important than another element.

I don't see how you can split lyrics from their musicality.

~~~
Radix
_Most detractors don't want to know that this world exists and sure as hell
don't want to have anything to do with it._

I just can't relate to it at all. It isn't so much that I don't want to hear
it exists as I don't know how to believe it exists. To me it sounds like a
culture self inflicting damage. I've looked a little for something I really
like in hip-hop, but can't find anything I _really_ like. Radio hip-hop causes
me discomfort. I don't like t-pain (how I wish for the death of auto-tune). I
can't listen to lyrical music without listening to the lyrics and I can't
relate to hip-hop. (Actually I really like Lupe Fiasco, don't always relate,
but with him it's okay.)

Also, ob-la-di-ob-la-da isn't non-sensical in the same way 'my sharona' is.
It's a non-sense phrase that gives weight to the light hearted music and
simple message of "life goes on" leaving the listener to imply the 'just keep
going's and 'life is good's.

------
devin
I don't really care for the article. All I have to say is listen to more Dave
Holland Quintet.

------
zackattack
Ok, I agree. BUT I've yet to see a PRACTICAL inventory of what must be done to
reduce the need to filter experience through interpretation.

~~~
anigbrowl
Take the chairs away.

Seriously. Seating is a scam to collect economic rents on artificially-induced
scarcity. Chairs are for sitting and maintaining social ordering, and most
people are respectful of that, and by implication of each other. And they are
optimal for some kinds of performance. but standing is more equitable and
allows people to literally vote with their feet. I have been falling-down
tired waiting for a concert to begin, only to forget myself when the artist
goes to work - which is why I bought the ticket in the first place.

The fact that two largest ticket companies are now merging into one with a
virtual monopoly on the live entertainment industry is a bad, bad thing.

I know, this is bit tough on the disabled who are unable to stand for a long
time or at all, but there are ways to work around that.

