[Dixielandjazz] Elevator Music - Jazz?

[Steve Barbone]

Bob Ringwald's take on about elevator music and jazz is interesting. The
following article was written 3 years ago by a Japanese man, who has an
American girlfriend. If he is correct, then most Americans don't even really
hear elevator music. (or jazz in its pure forms) It is just a wash of
rhythmic background. Though written in 2003, this article brings more
questions than answers.

My take is that Mr. Suematsu is right in his contention that Americans have
trouble grasping abstracts like the current avant garde jazz, indeed, avant
garde music of any genre and/or very modern paintings etc. And that they do
not "hear" Chris Botti or Kenny G. What the hear is the rhythm pulse, or if
they see them live, they see the "presentation" music looks "jazzy".

So Chris, Kenny, David, and all the other smoothies make long green on
camera, but hopefully jam a bit on their own.

BTW, I also think that while much of the article is valid, I strongly
disagree with the last paragraph. IMO, The are many jazz musicians who bring
something "new" to the table even though they are playing an older musical
form. 

Cheers,
Steve Barbone

Why Americans Don't Like Jazz: By Dyske Suematsu | Sep-17-03
    
The current market share of Jazz in America is mere 3 percent. And, that
includes all the great ones like John Coltrane and the terrible ones like
Kenny G. There are many organizations and individuals like Winton Marsalis
who are tirelessly trying to revive the genre, but it does not seem to be
working. Why is this? Is there some sort of bad chemistry between the
American culture and Jazz? As ironic as it may be, I happen to believe so.

The other day, I was having a conversation with my girlfriend about the new
TV commercial by eBay where a chubby lady sings and dances to an
appropriated version of "My Way" by Frank Sinatra. They entirely re-wrote
the lyrics, and, instead of "my way", she sings, "eBay". I said to my
girlfriend, "They did a really god job in adapting the original song." Then
she had a sudden revelation: "Ah, that's why I like it so much!" She
actually did not realize that it was based on Sinatra's song.

My girlfriend and I have always known how differently we listen to music. I
tend to entirely ignore lyrics, while she tends to entirely ignore music. We
are two opposite ends of the spectrum in this sense. I often would remark to
people how I like a particular song, and my friends would look at me like I
am crazy. After a careful listening of the same song again, I realize that
the lyrics are shamefully tacky. The opposite happens often too where many
of my friends love a particular song, and I can't understand what is good
about it until I pay attention to the lyrics.

The eBay example is an extreme case where, stripped of the lyrics, she had
nothing to recognize it by. Change the lyrics, it is an entirely different
song to her. But it would be the other way around with me. I would be less
likely to notice that the lyrics have been changed. With the eBay tune, I
only noticed it because she sings aloud, "eBay". If it weren't for that, I
probably wouldn't have noticed that the lyrics were rewritten.

My girlfriend and I represent convenient stereotypes of the Americans and
the Japanese in terms of our musical orientations. I know why the Japanese
love Jazz so much. Since we grew up listening to songs in various foreign
languages (especially English), in essence, half of what we hear commonly is
instrumental. When you don't understand what the singer is saying, he/she
might as well be just another musical instrument. Most Japanese people have
no idea what the songs are about when they are listening to Madonna, Michael
Jackson, or Britney Spears. Our ears are trained to listen to instrumental
music. This is in fact true with most other countries where they cannot
escape the dominance of American popular music.

On the other hand, especially with the advent of music videos, the American
ears are getting lazier and lazier. Not so long ago in Western history, most
people knew how to play a musical instrument or two. Now the vast majority
couldn't tell the difference between a saxophone and a trumpet. The American
culture is so visually dominant that given a piece of music without anything
visual associated with it, most people's eyes wander around nervously, just
like the way a nervous speaker doesn't know what to do with his hands. In
the USA, music cannot stand on its own. It must tag along with something
visual. Otherwise, people would not know what to do with it.

And, it is not just the visual dominance and the under-developed ears that
are problems. The American audience does not know what to do with the
concept of abstraction. They do not see or hear something for what it is;
they have to symbolically interpret it. The value lies only in the
interpretation, not in what it is. Even though aesthetically there are no
significant differences between a painting of, say, Mark Rothko and one of
Monet, the former is utterly unacceptable for many people while they
consider the latter to be a master. The difference is that in Monet's
paintings, you can still see things represented in them: rivers, trees,
mountains, houses, and so forth. The viewers interpret these objects, and
project the beauty of nature unto the paintings, which makes it easy to
appreciate them. Given a painting by Mark Rothko, there is nothing they can
mentally grasp on to. The minds that are incapable of grasping things beyond
interpretations, do not know what to do when nothing is represented in what
they see, i.e., when there is nothing to interpret. In Rothko's paintings,
there is nothing more to them than what they are. If you cannot accept them
as what they are, they completely elude you.

The same happens to instrumental music. If there are no lyrics, if there is
nothing for the minds to interpret, projecting of any emotional values
becomes rather difficult. On the other hand, as soon as the lyrics speak of
love, sex, racism, evil corporations, loneliness, cops, etc., suddenly all
sorts of emotions swell up. Jazz to most people is like a color on a wall;
unless you hung something on it, they don't even notice it.

On top of all these problems, Jazz has its own problems. The form of Jazz no
longer has anything compelling to offer. If you push the form too far, what
you get is Cecil Taylor. Although I love his music, I'm not sure if I would
call it Jazz. Other than the symbolic similarity of instruments and the fact
that it is improvisational, his music has nothing in common with the
stylistic structure of Jazz. (Also the fact that he is Black is another
superficial resemblance.) To call something Jazz just because it uses the
instruments commonly used in Jazz, and because it is improvised, would
broaden the definition of the term so much to the point that it would lose
its meaning. Jazz, in this sense, did not die. What died is not the musical
spirit of Jazz, but the word "Jazz", and nothing else. The word "Jazz"
should be dead, because we have already moved on. Those who insist on
playing "Jazz" in the traditional stylistic sense of the word are equivalent
to those who reenact Civil War as a recreation. There is nothing wrong with
having a little fun, but don't expect to make any compelling artistic
statement through it. Playing "Jazz" is not playing music; it's playing
musicology.