Why don't jazzers record pop tunes any more?

[burning dog]

Sam'n'Ella

[MrGongGong]

Hey, here's a thought.

Maybe you just don't like jazz.

BN.

What has liking it got to do with anything ?
I like music ,some of it is 'jazz' , some isn't

[Tenor Freak]

I like jazz.

[MrGongGong]

I like jazz.

Does that (as Ian suggests) make you morally superior than someone who likes Beyonce ?

[Tenor Freak]

Does that (as Ian suggests) make you morally superior than someone who likes Beyonce ?

Good question. Now I have met Ian and we had a very interesting conversation on jazz as we both are amateur musicians. He knows his onions when it comes to many areas where I really know nothing. When I was 17 I might have answered yes to your question, mind you it was the mid 1980s when I discovered jazz, and pop music was taking a severe turn for the worse. I blame the increased availability of cocaine to the musical community.

But I'm older now and with it I suppose a kind of revelation has emerged that nobody can claim any moral high ground over anyone else when it comes to musical genres and which is better than the rest. There are many genres I hate (for example Schlagermusik, a lot of Country, most opera, large blocks of Western orchestral classical music mostly around the early to mid 19th Century, West End/Broadway/Hollywood musicals) but I could not claim that, for example, Miles Davis is inherently better. I think Miles, despite his failings as a human being (and don't worry Calum/Malcolm I will censor my own post to save you the job) created music which had more meaning to me, over most of his career.

As it happens, I also like Beyonce, so I suppose I am morally superior to myself. Which means that I am not. Morally superior to anything, actually.

There you have it, I like Miles, Bird, Diz, Wayne Shorter, Joe Henderson etc but I also like the Beach Boys, the Beatles, Madness, and electronic music (IDM mainly, not House/rave/acid). I also like old TV themes, and film music.

I'll sign off with a pop song which I think should have been covered by some jazzers...a personal favourite and a very intelligent song/arrangement:

[Tenor Freak]

This (also from Pet Sounds):

[MrGongGong]

Good question. Now I have met Ian and we had a very interesting conversation on jazz as we both are amateur musicians.

That's nice to know
because in here he seems to prefer to get out a soapbox and make sweeping statements rather than have actual conversations.

It would seem that the answer to the original question is

They do ........

[cloughie]

What has liking it got to do with anything ?
I like music ,some of it is 'jazz' , some isn't

[cloughie]

This (also from Pet Sounds):

Fine - just shows how easy it is to take a good tune and play around with it by competent musicians for whom it is their trade (do they write their own stuff and is it good?) The clever guy was the one who wrote the original and the collaborators who created the original track. It could be argued there are certain things, albums, which are best left as they are Pet sounds is one. Another is Carole King's Tapestry - beautifully arranged and performed - and has not been improved on by other's attempts.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

it is about how we use words and emphasise stuff ...

speaking of morality there were and presumably still are some very dodgy jazz artists [stealing to pay for drugs being No 1] but with the improvements in the USA civil society that seems to less of a feature

when Louis Armstrong said yes to recording hello Dolly i guess most of us wished he hadn't but i doubt he thought about it for more than a few minutes.... and yet watching him and Bing in High Society on the box he had us won over in seconds .... [better material though]


songs these days are diva videos or club dance numbers ...Pet Sounds is 47 years since release ...

at a gig i have often forgotten the 'song' or whatever the band use to improvise on by about two minutes in .... it s only on record that it seems to matter to me listening; on the whole i prefer the artists to take the royalties themselves

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

I would never buy a record by a dodgy jazz artist who stole to pay for his/her addiction...

Just say no.

BN.

[cloughie]

I would never buy a record by a dodgy jazz artist who stole to pay for his/her addiction...

Just say no.

BN.

I assume you mean knowingly - you have no way of being certain.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

I assume you mean knowingly - you have no way of being certain.

I am CERTAIN. Thats why I will never buy a Bluenote album because....Its been my motto since I was 14 and first heard Monty Sunshine. He didnt need heroin to sound like Bird. OK maybe a beer or two.

Jamie Cullum doesn't use and he's a jazz great. As is Carol King. Everytime I hear her in a hotel lift I think "Fek Off Ella....this stuff is THE deep"

BN.

[Ian Thumwood]

Gong / Bruce

I'm in to all sorts of music, not just jazz. I also listen to Classical music ranging from Bach to Messaien but suppose that my main interest is in early 20th century stuff although I like Early Music groups like L'Appegiatta. In addition I've got a lot of Country blues in my CD collection as well as the odd "World music" record and a few "pop" CD's even though I would suggest these are of the more intelligent kind such as Bjork, etc. I don't think that jazz has a moral superiority but I would argue that Classical, jazz and other serious music does have a technical one. You will find more musical "intelligence" in Classical music and jazz as these are two types of music which have evolved out of their earlier social role to become something that is primarily concerned with the technical or theoretical aspects of how the music is created even if this is to varying degrees. I don't think that this is the case with pop music and I've even heard a more "credible" artist like Kate Bush explain that she relies upon other musicians to realise her musical ideas as she cannot express these on the stave. It is a stupid argument to apply morals to music and whilst I concur that it is ridiculous to "score" music so that one style, composition or artist is graded against another, as a rule Classical music and jazz are technically superior to pop. You could also say the same about Indian classical music even though I have no knowledge of this other than the expertise of others who appreciate this oeuvre.

I don't think I am being a snob or indeed getting on my soap box about this. All I am doing is expressing my opinion and as Bruce said, when I met him to hear a Kenny Wheeler gig we had some interesting discussions about different music. Despite your contentions, I don't shut my ears to other styles of music yet I can recognise why many jazz musicians have eschewed performing pop music. This might be for several reasons such as the poor quality of the music or the fact that the better quality pop songs are wrapped up in defining arrangements which owe as much to identifying the tune as the melody. I can concede that a good arrangement for a pop song could make a jazz version sound much inferior. It might also be worth noting the comment by the late, great Steve lacy who, when pressed by an interviewer as to why he refused to perform pop tunes, responded that there was too much great jazz out there that was either un or under - recorded and why should he bother looking elsewhere for inspiration. The fact that he was also a prolific composer and wrote compositions dedicated to Josef Haydn , for example, or utilised African instruments is suggestive that he wasn't some kind of jazz hermit closed off to other music.

Trust that this answers your question.

Ian


PS: Where's S-A? Surprised that he hasn't added some of his well-thought out arguments to this thread.

[Serial_Apologist]

Fine - just shows how easy it is to take a good tune and play around with it by competent musicians for whom it is their trade (do they write their own stuff and is it good?) The clever guy was the one who wrote the original and the collaborators who created the original track. It could be argued there are certain things, albums, which are best left as they are Pet sounds is one. Another is Carole King's Tapestry - beautifully arranged and performed - and has not been improved on by other's attempts.

Hmmm - not sure I agree. Someone once said that light music was where the tune was more important than what you did with it, and I'm rather thinking that's the point with jazz improvisation, since it is its internal processes, improvisation prime among them, that have largely (if not wholly) driven its advances, rather than the tune at any point its vehicle (however nice). Development sections in classical music are another analogy.

The composer in his castle, the jazzer at his gate - there are political dimensions too for consideration.