How marginal is creative jazz ?

[Ian Thumwood]

Line up for Vienne was announced last week and it was staggering to see so many names who have appeared over the last three years materialise once again. I was also quite staggered to see that, for the second year, more creative aspects of jazz seem to be marginalized. Some of the non-jazz gigs often transpire to be really good so you can't criticise until you have heard the music. There is always the possibility of hearing something different such as Teduschi Trucks last year which I felt produced the best gig of 2014 by a country mile.

Oddly, I regularly look at this link to see what the jazz record buying public in the supposedly "savvy" US are putting in their baskets.

http://news.allaboutjazz.com/jazzweek-radio-chart-april-6-2015.php

It is satisfying to see some familiar names like Eddie Henderson, Steve Turre, Charles McPherson, Russell Malone, Jeremy Pelt and Kevin Eubanks turn up in list but it is amazing just how many unfamiliar names are listed. When you google them the results turn up a comfortable mainstream that is almost hidden in the UK. The only "progressive" musician on the list is Vijay Iyer and the Brit jazz scene is represented by Jamie Cullum !!

I find it strange that so many stellar labels like Delmark, Sunnyside and Criss Cross are not represented and more "visible" specialist labels seem under-represented. Is the US jazz audience really so conservative and no representative is this chart of the market for jazz in the global scale of things. Is the audience really so conservative and are the motivating elements that drive the music forward so loved of both SA and myself so niche? Reading this list makes you think that the jazz audience has lost it's bottle.

2015 is turning out to be a strange year for new releases. We are already in April and I haven't seen anything that especially piques my interest other than the DeJohnette album with a load of old Chicago cohorts like Abrams, Threadgill and Mitchell. With now decent Delmarks on the horizon (in my opinion the best jazz label at this point in time) , 2015 is a disappointment 1/4th through the year.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

is that chart about radio plays Ian?

good to see Charles McPherson is popular!

[Ian Thumwood]

I think this chart is based on record sales or downloads although there is nothing on the website to corroborate this.

I often look at this chart as it is a guide to what might be available to buy on future although the review section of All About Jazz gives a broader picture - it seems to specialise in a lot of self produced records too. It is interesting to see how "softer" styles of jazz seems to be more popular whereas most of the people I know who listen to the music don't like the commercial influence on jazz. The chart may be distorted because so many musicians are now issuing their own records without, perhaps, access to wider distribution.

Reading the new Blue Note book, there was an interesting comment that many of the so-called "Classic" jazz albums were slow sellers and that jazz records traditionally take a number of years to establish a reputation. I think the comparison was made regarding Andre Previn recordings of "My fair Lady" being the best selling jazz albumin the year it came out and a list of other releases from the same year offered a stark contrast. It is quite intriguing. Have the "fringe / casual" jazz fans possibly bought more records than the more hardcore audience or are the hardcore audience likely to spread their allegiance to more "niche" styles of jazz.

Whatever the answer, it is fascinating that the most popular jazz albums seem to be less demanding ones to listen to. Some of the reviews of the group who have the current best selling record (a piano trio I have never heard of before) are quite damning on Amazon.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think this chart is based on record sales or downloads although there is nothing on the website to corroborate this.

I often look at this chart as it is a guide to what might be available to buy on future although the review section of All About Jazz gives a broader picture - it seems to specialise in a lot of self produced records too. It is interesting to see how "softer" styles of jazz seems to be more popular whereas most of the people I know who listen to the music don't like the commercial influence on jazz. The chart may be distorted because so many musicians are now issuing their own records without, perhaps, access to wider distribution.

I think that's quite probably right, Ian.

Reading the new Blue Note book, there was an interesting comment that many of the so-called "Classic" jazz albums were slow sellers and that jazz records traditionally take a number of years to establish a reputation. I think the comparison was made regarding Andre Previn recordings of "My fair Lady" being the best selling jazz albumin the year it came out and a list of other releases from the same year offered a stark contrast. It is quite intriguing. Have the "fringe / casual" jazz fans possibly bought more records than the more hardcore audience or are the hardcore audience likely to spread their allegiance to more "niche" styles of jazz.

Whatever the answer, it is fascinating that the most popular jazz albums seem to be less demanding ones to listen to. Some of the reviews of the group who have the current best selling record (a piano trio I have never heard of before) are quite damning on Amazon.

All this is readily understandable, I would think.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

I think this chart is based on record sales or downloads although there is nothing on the website to corroborate this.

I often look at this chart as it is a guide to what might be available to buy on future although the review section of All About Jazz gives a broader picture - it seems to specialise in a lot of self produced records too. It is interesting to see how "softer" styles of jazz seems to be more popular whereas most of the people I know who listen to the music don't like the commercial influence on jazz. The chart may be distorted because so many musicians are now issuing their own records without, perhaps, access to wider distribution.

Reading the new Blue Note book, there was an interesting comment that many of the so-called "Classic" jazz albums were slow sellers and that jazz records traditionally take a number of years to establish a reputation. I think the comparison was made regarding Andre Previn recordings of "My fair Lady" being the best selling jazz albumin the year it came out and a list of other releases from the same year offered a stark contrast. It is quite intriguing. Have the "fringe / casual" jazz fans possibly bought more records than the more hardcore audience or are the hardcore audience likely to spread their allegiance to more "niche" styles of jazz.

Whatever the answer, it is fascinating that the most popular jazz albums seem to be less demanding ones to listen to. Some of the reviews of the group who have the current best selling record (a piano trio I have never heard of before) are qui
te damning on Amazon.

"Reading the new Blue Note book, there was an
interesting comment that many of the so-called
"Classic" jazz albums were slow sellers and that
jazz records traditionally take a number of years
to establish a reputation."


When I used to write hip comments for the old NY Jazz Corner web site, I was told that the worst selling Bluenote album ever (and there was some strong competition) was Leo Parker's "Let me tell you about it". 1961. A album I bought on release/import in the early 60s in Cardiff (Turkish guy in City Radio) and still love to this day despite its lack of critical envelope pushing. On the other hand, The Three Sounds recorded well over 18 LPs, all of which were steady sellers for the label. When was real "taste" ever popular? Is it only Les ducks trotsky who dig Gigi Gryce's qrt date with Monk? Le Shuffle Boil?

"Leo, he played great bottom lines" ~ Dexter Gordon.

BN.

[Ian Thumwood]

It is strange when you consider that the sales of jazz records are probably dominated by people who don't like jazz!

I think it is quite obvious that something inaccessible and strident is unlikely to shift units beyond a dedicated , esoteric following yet you would have thought that the partisan nature of jazz fans and the fact that an appreciation of jazz does require a degree of intelligence and an amount of integrity would have had some bearing on what sells.

I was given a back copy of Jazzwise earlier this evening and in Nicholson's column he mentioned the fact that so many records nowadays seem to reference back to earlier, "classic" records and that since the 1990's, a small proportion of jazz records have managed to sound relevant beyond a couple of years. I don't agree with the latter statement as there have been some terrific albums since the 1990's yet the demise of CD's does seem to have resulted in more popularist stuff dominating when, even about ten years ago, more significant new releases could enjoy a higher profile in stores like HMV and Virgin.

I was listening to a very good album in my car this week that featured a star studded group led by Malachi Thompson and featuring the likes of Hamiett Bluett and Oliver Lake. The results are nothing short of staggering but the integrity of the music is such that it makes you realise that many of the more lauded releases of the last few years are piss poor in comparison. This is the real deal. A lot of new releases seem like a facsimile of jazz as opposed to being the genuine article.

I would have thought that the evolution of the internet would have had a more moderating effect of commercial pressures and the ability to get your music "out there" so much more readily would have resulted in more musicians taking a chance. The second decade of the 2000's does seem to be a period where there is a lull in the creativity of the music as well as increasingly becoming pleased with itself. One thing I really miss with buying "new" records is the fact that it is far more difficult to be surprised by what is being released or to sense the music having a sort of shock value. When I was exploring the music, there was a degree of cache with listening to someone like Thelonious Monk and you got excitement as you explored ever more challenging music, whether it be Lester Bowie, Albert Ayler, Ornette Coleman, etc. When I was about 16 I can remember hearing Charles Fox play a record by John Surman with Karin Krog called "my friends" which left a lasting impression on me as I couldn't believe anything so different from my favourite saxophonist of the time (Coleman Hawkins) could be jazz. I really miss the fact that jazz no longer really seems to be the sound of surprise and judging by the chart, you start wondering if the audience for jazz would be happier for the music to remain within the perceptions of what jazz should be about. A chart list like this does remind you that jazz is , perhaps, becoming too polite and whilst there are plenty of musicians whose music I feel is in honest to the integrity and edgy enough to bend my ears, it would appear from this chart that people aren't buying this music. The only "contemporary" discs I've bought since Christmas have been by Satoko Fujii and Jason Adasiewicz, both of whom could broadly be considered avant garde. Neither of these musicians are producing music which is anything like the kind of jazz logged within that chart - even on comparison with some of the few musicians on the list I am aware of and whose music I like.

It would be interesting to see some kind of assessment of long term sales to see what jazz records by contemporary artists have a long term sales trend or are able to build up a kind of "legacy" status. I think this chart never makes great reading whenever I check it out yet helps to explain the appearance of artists like Caro Emerald on JRR as well as the negative feel back from a "genuine" jazz on last week's programme. I don't think that Trad v Modern has truly been a factor within the jazz audience since the 1960's but are we now seeing a case of the genuine jazz fans v the "plastics?"

[Beef Oven!]

It is strange when you consider that the sales of jazz records are probably dominated by people who don't like jazz!

Ian, this sounds interesting. What do yo mean? Tell us some more.

[Ian Thumwood]

Ian, this sounds interesting. What do yo mean? Tell us some more.

What is mean is that there is a lot of music in that chart which is only on the fringes of jazz or certainly the more popular elements of the music. I'm talking about the likes Jose James, Quincy Jones, Eliane Elias, Diana Krall, Jamie Cullum and Kenny G. You could argue that some of this music should not even be in a jazz chart. The people buying these records are unlikely to be the ones buying Wayne Shorter, William Parker, etc. There seem to be a good number of vocalists and even the more "genuine" jazz artists on the list seem to be playing in a contemporary mainstream style. I think most jazz fans will gravitate to edgier material or at least something that does not appear to be compromised by commercial pressures. For example, I would doubt in more than a dozen records on that list would appeal to the people who usually contribute to that list.

I'm intrigued by the number of musicians on that list who are unfamiliar. I've googled some of them and they seem funny choices for a record buying public albeit I expect the sales reflect air play.

[Ian Thumwood]

"Reading the new Blue Note book, there was an
interesting comment that many of the so-called
"Classic" jazz albums were slow sellers and that
jazz records traditionally take a number of years
to establish a reputation."


When I used to write hip comments for the old NY Jazz Corner web site, I was told that the worst selling Bluenote album ever (and there was some strong competition) was Leo Parker's "Let me tell you about it". 1961. A album I bought on release/import in the early 60s in Cardiff (Turkish guy in City Radio) and still love to this day despite its lack of critical envelope pushing. On the other hand, The Three Sounds recorded well over 18 LPs, all of which were steady sellers for the label. When was real "taste" ever popular? Is it only Les ducks trotsky who dig Gigi Gryce's qrt date with Monk? Le Shuffle Boil?

"Leo, he played great bottom lines" ~ Dexter Gordon.

BN.

There are some informed views on the Amazon website regarding this Leo Parker album. The inference is that it was made as favour to an old friend on the insistence of Ike Quebec. The lack of familiar names in the line up also suggest that the record had limited appeal. I haven't heard anything by Parker for a long while and it is one of those records on Blue Note which intrigue although I understand it to be far from a perfect session.

It is strange how "inferior" records can enjoy reputations beyond their musical content merely through being made by Blue Note whereas better records on less fashionable labels can be over-looked. I'm not too fussed by Gene Harris as a pianist (I have seen him perform live too) but his music is professional and polished within it's limited sphere. The impression I get of the Leo Parker session is that it is very rugged and under-rehearsed.

Blue Note records are highly addictive and generally the quality control is exceptional. There are some misjudgements and I don't think that everything they produced was brilliant. However, the label has a partisan following unlike no other and it is intriguing that fans appear to prefer inferior records on Blue Note to better albums on less trendy labels. Listening to the Jimmy Heath Riversides recently, I don't think they share the immediate appeal of most Blue Note records yet the writing on them and the leader's playing is probably more considered than the snappier Hard Bop stuff - Heath's records are solid and mastercraftsman-like yet had they been recorded on Blue Note, they would be revered. The more that I listen to jazz, the more that you start to realise that some heavy-weight musicians do get over-looked by fans and there is a trendiness which not only favours more commercial acts but associations with particular labels like Blue Note or ECM where more indifferent albums are received better than they might be on other labels. Check out John Kelman's reviews on All about jazz where everything ECM produce seems to get lauded to the hilt and written about in purple prose. I think that the most interesting jazz being performed today seems to be on independents like Cuneform, Delmark, etc with Criss Cross fulfilling the more mainstream role once inhibited by Blue Note.

I think that the jazz-audience is easily the most discerning audience after Classical music and probably more unforgiving of substandard / commercial / unimaginative music making yet I there is also an unthinking element whereby great music can be over-looked for often non-musical reasons and average music over-praised because of rare appearances by little known musicians, long-term unavailability or just through brand loyalty to a label. That said, the aforementioned chart is quite staggering in revealing the kind of stuff that is popular nowadays with most musicians you would consider to be "trend-setters" largely absent. The quality of material doesn't seem to improve over the months either. This chart is pretty representative.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well the long tail distribution applies to many markets Ian; the internet download and library opportunities proliferate and cds sales figures will be as dodgy [or not] as the chart numbers have always been ....

jazz has never been popular in market size except for the pre-war and wartime swing boom; after that it was all Alma Cogan ....

really creative art [music/painting/literature/drama/&c] is always going to be rather marginal compared to the large mass market products and diversions - if what is entailed by 'creative' is complexity, boundary transgression, unfamiliarity, dissonance whatever ... and in some of our lifetimes, though presently much less so [despite the dreadful apartheid of the public vote in the Voice last night] racial and ethnic attributes of artists have marginalised their works ...

i went to a Bebop Revolution gig in Phoenix AZ about four years ago .... my friend's wife (J) drove me to the gig [no small journeys in a place like Phoenix!] ready to endure a music she did not like for my sake ... the gig was in a cavernous and modern Church Hall ... the 100 plus audience was surrounded by empty space [only in America would a small parish church hall be so cavernous] ... J, although in her fifties, was perhaps the youngest member of the audience ... some of the ladies were still dressed in their nurses uniforms, there were Zimmer frames so they could have been working for all i know ...in any case the quintet played some interesting stuff ... J who had been expecting to actively dislike the music was taken aback by the age of the audience [all, as we do, revisiting younger days] and the sexiness of the bass player - result a convert to Bebop which she confessed was much more likeable than she had thought .... all sorts of ways of being marginal Ian

[Ian Thumwood]

Calum

I agree. What is odd is that I think that charts such as this or anything else you could consider to represent a "market sounding" of the jazz audience often yield strange results.

I've always been of the opinion that jazz fans have always had a healthy disregard for commerciality or anything that seems not to be "genuine." This was probably not truer that with the Trad v Modernists argument of the 1950's / 60's but whilst this argument now seems ridiculous with so much Modern Jazz now being over 50 years old, the audience for the music remains savvy and discerning. This is what makes me sceptical of these kinds of charts as the representative sample from which these best seller records are taken is probably pretty small anyway. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that the way to get an audience interested in jazz and to maintain a healthy level of support is to ensure the music is authentic and genuine and in no way artificial. Coming away fro gig over the years, the audience members seem pretty quick to criticise where the music is safe, the musicians felt not to be trying or in the material in uninspired. I'm therefore always baffled that "softer" types of jazz feature so prominently in these kinds of charts as you never seem to meet people who are in to Jose James. Sit next to a stranger at any jazz gig and they will quickly tell you the merits of some esoteric record / musician, etc. I've never heard anyone enthuse about some of the more commercial acts on that list. Maybe I am wrong thinking that a festival full of hard-hitting and uncompromising jazz musicians playing undiluted jazz (whether from bebop through to free / improv) would attract a bigger audience who would respond to a programme with such integrity since jazz fans would turn up knowing that they would be unlikely to have the wool pulled over their eyes. As a football fan, it is normal to complain about the kind of treatment that many clubs dish out to their fans such as over-pieced tickets and replica kits, yet I sometimes think that the jazz audience is treated with a degree of contempt from both record and festival promoters who believe that they will have greater commercial success with a softer approach to the music.

I was a bit staggered by your account of the small audience size for a gig in Phoenix which may be accountable to the poor choice of venue. I've heard other accounts from musicians from places like Kansas City where the current scene is thriving as well as a story from the manager at Turner Sims who told me about the large audience for some quite challenging gigs at a jazz festival in Chicago. I do think that the marketing of jazz is often uneven and came sometimes be a bit insulting to the intelligence of fans.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

er that was a good venue Ian; Phoenix is definitely not Kansas City, however Ravi Coltrane filled a big theatre there that summer ... the Bebop Revolution Quintet was local but professional and had been colleagues and friends of Pete Jolly who was from Phoenix Mr Jolly had recorded on Jerry Donato's, the Tenor Player, latest cd

[Ian Thumwood]

The Bebop Revolution don't seem too shabby from their website - so much good quality jazz from the US never seems to get heard over here.

Back in the 1990's and early 2000's, Virgin in Southampton used to heavily profile new releases and you could find that lot of new material was made available on the headphone available in the store. I had forgotten this as it seems so long ago that I last bought anything from a record store other than the odd raid of the bargain bucket. The system they used seemed to suggest that Virgin had a good grasp on the contemporary mainstream and would profile material like the latest Verve and Blue Note release - not unreasonable to suggest this captured a fair assessment of what was popular at the time.