[Dixielandjazz] Elevator Music - Jazz?

Thu Aug 10 13:45:03 PDT 2006

Steve Barbone wrote that his take on Mr. Suematsu's comments (article below) 
is that "Americans don't even really hear elevator music."

I believe this is true.  I can be in a crowde of people and the only ones
that hear the background music are the musicians in the crowd.

I often question people as to the song that is being played in the
background at the particular mmoment, (that is unless it is so-called 
"Smooth Jazz" which has no definable tune).  The only ones who are aware  of 
is playing in the background are the musicians in the crowd.

Otherwise, the elevator music in the background is like an anoying hum or 
buzz from a fan or refrigator.  You don't notice that it is bothering you 
until it goes off.  Then you say, "Whew."

How about we come up with another name for "Smooth Jazz?"  It is an 
abomination to label it with the word Jazz.

--Bob Ringwald

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Barbone" <barbonestreet at earthlink.net>
To: "DJML" <dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:36 PM
Subject: [Dixielandjazz] Elevator Music - Jazz?

> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dixielandjazz mailing list
> Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz
>
>