The Way it is

[Old Grumpy]

Stuart Nicholson, writing in the current (December/January) issue of Jazzwise, may strike a chord with many on these boards. In his regular column - "The Way it is" - he observes that the "tendency to reduce all DJs (sic) to reading out texts from listeners is in danger of dumbing down the cultural playing field for jazz too."

I cannot find electronic version of this piece, but it is on page 17 if you can find a copy.

There was apparently a plaintive letter in Radio Times: "Clare Teal's show has been revamped to include her reading out dreary emails from listeners. There was one recently about recipes for green tomatoes - that was before I switched off in despair"

Nicholson goes on to observe that this was not an aberration on the part of Clare Teal, but part of the one-size-fits-all formula adapted by the BBC to woo younger audiences.

Well said Sir! (as the Colonel would say).

OG

[Tom Audustus]

Yes. I saw that article too. This dumbing down of BBC Radio has been going on for years. After all, it is why we are posting on this forum !!!

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

........ well said indeed!

[french frank]

I've just had a scanned copy of the article sent to me...

"Their belief that any music that is not pop or rock is out of touch with majority taste and thus irrelevant, and the way they have driven a coach and horses through their Royal Charter, should be of concern to us all."

Whereas the similar FoR3 concerns are mainly focused on the classical music output on Radio 3 (where else would it be?), would I be right in thinking that R3 has not descended to these depths with its jazz output?

The CMSSC Charter review inquiry is calling for submissions - to be in by this coming Friday.

This point will be made in as general a way as possible in our response, i.e. referring to the BBC overall.

[french frank]

Just had an idea .. heh, heh ...

[eighthobstruction]

Just had an idea .. heh, heh ...

....

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the bbc has absolutely neglected any intelligent and authoritative programming about jazz ... we have three essentially playlist presenter led programmes [Requests; Jazz Line Up and Geoffrey] of these Alyn is an expert historian and practitioner.... JRR is a stalwart of the schedule not to be messed with but he used to do much more intelligent stuff [essay surveys etc]... JLU can be very variable but is mostly celeb style interviews and marketing .... surprisingly tho Jon3 has been adventurous and interesting this last year or so despite some ill informed contributions... alas GS is just opening Proper Boxes and Greatest Hits CD's and reading the odd sleeve note ... why he could not have seen out his time on JRR beats me ....

but any sense of Jazz as an Art with Ecologies Histories Trajectories and Geographies is utterly missing; the BBC and R3 especially have surrendered any authority [certainly compared to NPR in the USA] in Jazz and live in the unaware miasma of celebrity, record pushing and indolence

[french frank]

the bbc has absolutely neglected any intelligent and authoritative programming about jazz ... but any sense of Jazz as an Art with Ecologies Histories Trajectories and Geographies is utterly missing; the BBC and R3 especially have surrendered any authority [certainly compared to NPR in the USA] in Jazz and live in the unaware miasma of celebrity, record pushing and indolence

Very useful - and of course the same can be said about most of the classical programmes now, there's just more of it. And World Routes, anyone?

Nicholson's comments about 'interactivity' are right on the button:

"Who listens to this codswallop? Hasn't it occurred to the Director General of the BBC, the Chairman of the BBC Trust, any of the free-lunching BBC Trustees, or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that interacting with the public in this way is simply a substitute for having something to say?"

I had already picked out the two clauses he quotes from the Royal Charter.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

not to mention Indian Classical Music

eg

[Serial_Apologist]

Half listening in bed to Radio 4 this morn, (as one does), I heard it said that a certain London-based commercial radio station whose name I omitted to note is incurring demonstrations outside its premises against its policy change to more mainstream pop fare from that appealing to the Black and Caribbean listenership, thus allegedly contravening its license, in the way jazzfm was once alleged to have done; so this cave in to capitalist realism seems to be occurring everywhere at present.

Edit: See http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...o-Capital-Xtra

[Ian Thumwood]

I don't know if "dumbing down" is the right phrase as to my ears the problem is really one of arrogance insofar there are now producers of radio programmes who feel programmes need to be "re-freshed" as the current formats have become stale.

I listened to Radio 4's "Feedback" in the car last night where BBC Radio 2's revised schedule for Sunday evenings received alot of criticism. Since Humph finished, I never listen to this station but was curious as to learn how "light" music was being marginalised and how an older generation of the audience felt they were no longer being catered for. Part of me is quite cynical about this as much of this music is actually the antithesis of what I feel music should be about. It can be bland, "easy to listen to" and of little real artistic merit. The people who love these programmes are very likely to have been the same people who 20 to 50 years ago have jazz a hard time . So, in many respects, my response would be tough sh*t. "Radio 2 needs to ensure that is evolves with the potential audience so a listener who nowadays wants to hear "older styles of music" will be expecting Adam & the Ants or Kid Creole & the cocoanuts who rarely get played on the radio these days. They will certainly not want "The organist entertains" or "Sing something simple." These are the people who think that the anondine, singing bovine otherwise known as Adele is extremely talented even if she is more hideous than anything Gary Larsson could have dreamt up. It is a case of the bland leading the bland. If you rate Adele highly or believe Elton John to be some kind of musical god, then Radio 2 is for you. I think any6one even remotely informed about music considers this station a lost cause.

In this respect, I agree with what Radio 2 has done. It is a popularist radio station whose remit seems to cater for people who don't really like real music. I can therefore understand what has been done to the schedule. To continue being relevant, the Head of Radio 2 is totally correct in that the programmes must move with the demographic. Part of this means signing up to the cult of personality hence Jamie Cullum's jazz and the raft of sh*t that Radio 2 pumps through the airwaves. This station caters for the kind of people who don't like to be challenged or , to put it another way, subscribe to the view outlined in the Daily Express this week by the porcine Venessa Feltz's regarding her view that Classical music was unlistenable. The end result is like trying to tailor a suit for people of a range of sizes. In the end you know the result will be terrible and you should give up expecting anything else. The end product suits now one only those idiots too daft to realise that the suit doesn't fit ! I also think that Radio 2 needs to be a nice, shiny digital project and therefore can appreciate why Seasick Steve is more appealing than Charley Patton

As far as commercial radio is concerned, this churns out an even greater volume of excrement, in my opinion. It is f***ing appalling. I feel it is misguided to expect commercial radio in this country to respect it's audience and most radio presenters on commercial, popular radio are total morons who should have been strangled at birth and who have been dumbed down to appeal to their audiences which are usually made up of teenage mums with creole ear-rings or chavs. Radio 2's audience too are probably only tuning in to listen to the radio when "I'm a celebrity" isn't on the TV. The secret is in the name "commercial radio" and if they are t5o specialize in particular styles of music whether it is jazz or reggae, the ££££'s are more important than the content. Ever listened to Jazz FM during the day time? Hard to believe this is supposed to be the stuff Art Blakey said was the "sound of survival."

Where I totally agree with Calum (and , even more unlikely, Stuart Nicholson) is that there are specialist programmes where the music is generally unrepresented on the radio or absent from mainstream BBC. Two styles that I love are blues and big bands. Both are of total musical merit yet BBC 2 is more likely to give doo~wap or rock~a~billy music as much coverage as jazz. The Clare Teale programme is too much of a mish mash to appeal and lacks the kind of insight that this form of music is due. My issue would be I don't like "non jazz big bands" and therefore the dreadful music of British Dance Bands sits at odds with say Count Basie records featured Lester Young. They have a totally different audience. I would like to see big band music accorded proper attention but I could see the issue of filtering out many of the studio big bands of the 1950's as being problematic. Is there still an audience for Billy May? On the evidence of this board, the answer would appear to be "no" and I think these days most people who listen to big bands will be jazz fans who understand and appreciate the history and importance of records by the likes of Fletcher Henderson. Jazz Files's "Arranging the score" did this perfectly.

My response is this. Radio 2 can go to hell in a hand cart but surely Radio 3 needs to step up to the plate and provide a show that is a serious platform for big band and blues music. It doesn't need Brian Ferry explaining his love of vintage jazz or Robbie Williams "swing pastiches" to present these shows but someone who can treat their audience with respect and inform their audience. Surely this is where Radio 3 must step in?

End of rant. Cue Dame Flosshilde to have her fingers hovering over the "complaint" button.......

[John Wright]

End of rant. Cue Dame Flosshilde to have her fingers hovering over the "complaint" button.......

Ha, don't worry Ian, anyone who suggests ALL British Dance Bands music is dreadful isn't worth arguing with :) but, in agreement, I certainly wouldn't produce a podcast that played a Billy Cotton/Alan Breeze record after one by Count Basie/Lester Young. (Breeze was that terrible singer (the white one) who carried on into Cotton's TV show).

[Ian Thumwood]

John

Not a fan of British dance bands even though there are some very good records produced by british big bands in the 30's and 40's who really understood what the music should be about. I wouldn't call these dance bands but a lot of the music was little to the music produced by sweet and micky mouse bands in the States.To be more sensible abnd considered, I would suggest that there is a large element of big band music which was the pop music of the day. A good proportion of the music recorded was trivial pop and even some of the singers with great bands such as Goodman, Shaw, Kirk , etc now sound deadful to my ears with the passge of time.

Where I am sure you will agree, when you consider who was writing for the best bands (Ellington, Strayhorn, the Henderson brothers, Mary Lou Williams, Gerry Mulligan, Gil Evans, Don Redman, Bill Challis, Edgar Sampson, Tadd Dameron, Sy Oliver, Eddie Sauter, Buck Clayton,Buster Harding, Thad Jones, Quincy Jones, Toshiko Akiyoshi etc) this is music that is very informed and often sophisticated. I grant that not all arrangers were producing gems but a significant proportion of them were writing material that deserves a serious platform to be heard and not a glib Radio 2 style programme. Perhaps coming to this music through my father means that I have a different view of the music than someone who grew up listening to it as a teenager but i feel that the emphasis regarding what defines this era has shifted in the last 20 or so years with the likes of Miller and James perhaps diminishing in stature as the audience has started to recognise the brilliance of say Andy Kirk's work in the 1930's. Curious to see how "Territory bands" now seem to be coming more in the spot light through the work of people like Steve Bernstein. For me, this style of jazz retains it's fascination.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i have serached and searched and can find no lonk to the STuart Nicholson piece [is it only available in print or subscription?] if some one could put up a link to it i would be most grateful...

[John Wright]

John

Not a fan of British dance bands even though there are some very good records produced by british big bands in the 30's and 40's who really understood what the music should be about.

Ian, I think YOU are not seeing what the British Dance Band music was about; the key word is 'dance'. The public were dancing waltzes and foxtrots and jives, no point putting on a jazz record that is complete improvisation from beginning to end if you want to dance with your girl for three minutes. We're talking different genres and different audiences so I don't know why you continue to compare them.

I do go along with your posting above though, but please accept that bands of the day, both sides of the Atlantic catered for the dancers and for the 'listener'. Much of the Goodman, Shaw, Kirk output was dance music, just as in Britain so was Ambrose, Joe Loss and Harry Roy (many of their records were issued in USA on Victor and Decca) but some records made by all those bands clearly would be difficult to dance to - those are for listening to, and were a chance for the arrangers and musicians to demonstrate their skills, and people bought those records, though is less quantities. Such records were made and issued in Britain, I have a lot of good examples.

The point I think we are making, with regards to BBC radio, there should be two separate programmes of 'vintage band music', one for jazz one for dance.