[Dixielandjazz] Was Jazz Ever Popular? Yeah. Will it be again? Oh yeah!

Rocky Ball bigbuttbnd at aol.com
Thu Jan 11 20:50:15 PST 2007


Great points, Larry and Charlie.

I, too, believe that Rock and Roll went country! In my way of  
thinking Buddy Holly was driving early Rock toward a country sound  
(along with Elvis, Bill Haley, Pat Boone to a degree, and others) but  
his early demise left a leadership hole and then the British invasion  
(which was fueled by the influence of American R&B in England) sent  
us squarely back to R&B and Soul as the path for Rock N Roll. Only 2  
things could compete with the British at the time: The Beach Boys and  
Motown. Motown was obviously from the R&B school but the Beach Boys,  
curiously enough, were a blend of Chuck Berry guitar and  
sophisticated, JAZZ-INFLUENCED, vocal harmonies. Brian Wilson has  
readily admitted that his 2 favorite groups growing up were Chuck  
Berry and the Four Freshmen with their modern jazz influenced vocal  
harmonies. The Beach Boys generated a little stir on the West Coast  
but I don't think of them as generating a "new school" of music like  
Motown did. (I'm not saying they weren't amongst the most popular  
groups of all time... I'm saying there are not a lot of current  
groups that you can trace directly back to the Beach Boys as major  
influences.)

It wasn't until the 70s when Southern Rock burst on the scene with  
groups like The Allman Brothers, Lynyrd Skynyrd, the Atlanta Rhythm  
Section, Wet Willie (and more) that a new branch of Rock headed back  
toward Country and kind of linked up to the traditions that Buddy  
Holly had started. Today you would categorize a Lynyrd Skynyrd tune  
(if it were coming out now) as a Country genre! Even the Eagles and  
the Doobie Brothers sound more like today's country. Things have  
changed.

I'm one that is completely unperplexed about Dixieland being  
something other than the "Popular" music of today. To me music is  
music and I hear the influences of Dixieland, Louis Armstrong and  
more in all sorts of examples in today's music. I'm from the school  
that says all of it, as far back as 1860 in America and maybe  
further, is DANCE music! Most music in the last 150 years that is  
rendered with a discernible beat, is DANCE music. Written to be  
danced to. I'm not talking about classical music or church music or  
Marches or moonlight and magnolia slow ballads (although there is  
some argument for that) or music written for a movie expressly  
created to render a MOOD for the story on the screen... but Popular  
music by its very nature exists to be DANCED to. And Traditional Jazz  
is no exception. Armstrong, as a boy, stood at the door of the Funky  
Butt Club and watched and heard and learned from the musicians  
playing for the dancers who were "grinding away" to this new  
improvised music. He soaked that up and took it with him (obviously  
adding a heck of a lot along the way)!

But Americans have always had that ADHD tendency that you adroitly  
point out... the biggest difference between then and now is the SPEED  
at which new ideas are communicated throughout the country. Word of  
mouth in the 1830s, Minstrel shows in the late 1800s, sheet music at  
the turn of the century, Vaudeville in the early 1900s, radio and  
records and movies in the 20s, television in the 50s, the Internet  
today... each mode adds a new and faster component and American's  
have had and continue to have the capacity to learn and use these  
"new" technologies at an ever increasing pace. And with the new  
technologies comes more choice... and less patience for the same  
thing in more than a few minute increments before moving on.

I think good music of any style today, played well and energetically,  
will find an audience that appreciates it. One advantage we have  
today as OKOM musicians is that most people younger than us have  
never heard the music we play and often their discovery of it is just  
as exciting for them as it was for their great-grandparents in 1925.  
However, there are more choices available for today's listener than  
for those in 1925 so they quickly move on. One constant, though, that  
doesn't change and hasn't changed since way before Jazz was born is  
the ENTERTAINMENT factor. If it is not entertaining then it will be  
tossed aside quickly. That was true in 1825, 1925 and will be true in  
2025. Musicians relate to Louis Armstrong for his high caliber of  
creativeness and technical skills.... we call it musicianship. But  
for non-musicians the draw was his ability to ENTERTAIN. Perhaps his  
60+ year career is more attributable to the public being constantly  
entertained by him than by his sheer musicianship alone.

Eddie Davis, the great NY banjo player once gave a lecture that I  
attended in which he theorized and demonstrated that each time a new  
musical genre was introduced in America it always started as a very  
SIMPLE structure, especially harmonically. And then, as great  
musicians picked up the banner and began to fiddle with it, it  
naturally became more and more complex until it reached a point where  
the general public could no longer UNDERSTAND it. At that point a new  
genre, once again very SIMPLE, got introduced and the cycle slowly  
repeated itself. Over and Over. You can trace that through church  
music, Country and Western and, more obviously to us... Jazz (popular  
music). Early Jazz was simple and recognizable from a harmonic  
standpoint. As more advanced musicians either took up the music or  
grew up in the music it became more and more complex until the Birth  
of the Cool and perhaps FREE JAZZ became unintelligible to most of  
the public and many of the musicians. Bang! 3 chord Rock N Roll comes  
in. Even over rock's history we find complexity creeping in and  
suddenly a new SIMPLE genre bursts forth: Punk, Grunge, Alternate,  
and more. Always back to 3 chords and something simple and new. Even  
rap in many ways is a return to super simplicity in answer to an  
incredibly high level of harmonic complexity of R&B artists like Al  
Green and Lionel Ritchie.

We are dance musicians. Our forefathers, who created it, were dance  
musicians. Put our music in a museum and it dies. Play it like it is  
in a museum and it dies. But that's true of any music. Play it in an  
entertaining way so that people can move and groove to it and it  
soars. We often, as musicians, confuse what the music means to US as  
being the same thing as what the music means to non-musicians... and,  
in my opinion, that is our greatest source of confusion and angst.  
Joe Public will never have the passion for any music for long that  
compares to the passion of the musician who plays it. We should not  
expect them to do so. We will always be disappointed in the outcome  
if we do. We can pass SOME of our passion along to them through our  
energy on stage and through our sincere desire to ENTERTAIN them.  
Once we master that component the type of music we play matters  
little to them. They will follow us.

Another source of confusion and angst for us is the record business.  
Once we finally realize that the MUSIC BUSINESS, as we know it today  
and for the past 100 years is a MANUFACTURING business. The record  
company makes records (now CDs) just like Ford makes cars. The only  
difference is that they need musicians to play and perform as an  
enticement for the public to buy their product. Somewhere somebody  
thought it might be useful to make the musician feel important by  
calling what we do ART. Tain't so. It may BE art..  to us and a few  
other folks... but it's not ART to them any more than the latest Ford  
Fusion is ART to Ford. It is a product that needs a workforce to  
design it and a separate work force to manufacture it and a separate  
work force to distribute it. It is a numbers driven, bottom-line  
business like most. There's nothing wrong with that. If you want to  
be in the product manufacturing business then get into it in a big  
way and let the numbers drive the business as it should be. Produce  
only what sells big and take pride in that. If, however, you want to  
be in the ENTERTAINMENT business then find a niche and service that  
niche market better than anyone else. OKOM is not the product  
manufacturing business to be in. Maybe in 1930 it was the ULTIMATE  
product manufacturing business to be in but not today. However, OKOM  
may be the quintessential niche ENTERTAINMENT business to be in  
today! After all there is far less competition in the local market  
(the cities in which we live) than ever before. But we must observe  
the rules of business if we want to succeed... identify our  
customers, market to them (let them know we exist), provide what they  
want (which will always be ENTERTAINMENT first, music second), and be  
unique... bring something to the market that sets us off from the  
rest of the pack (if there is a pack!) These are the same things we  
must do well in ANY business we endeavor to grow. Forget records  
(CDs) as a big thing to our business... at best it is a source of  
additional income not a revenue stream for riches. Forget what the  
RECORD companies call POPULARITY or RADIO PLAY. It's not going to  
happen to the average OKOM band. Forget the public CLAMORING for  
Dixieland... not going to happen. But you could very likely get the  
local public to CLAMOR for your individual group if you are  
ENTERTAINING, even if you happen to play Dixieland!

One last thing in this TREATISE! For 100 years the Music Business in  
America has been about creating, manufacturing and distributing a  
product (records, tapes, CDs, DVDs, etc.) and they have held sway  
because the process of manufacturing and distributing this product  
has been too massive and expensive an undertaking for the average  
musician to accomplish at home. It just was too much trouble to press  
vinyl in your basement and then ship the product to every record  
store and radio station in the country. Today, however, the  
manufacturing and distribution chain has changed and the record  
companies are way, way, way behind in protecting their product  
(probably too far to ever catch up... the horse is already long gone  
from the barn!). Not just protecting it from piracy.... but  
preventing you and me from creating, manufacturing, distributing and  
SELLING the same product in our basement. Since everything in the  
Music Business revolves around selling THE PRODUCT the whole business  
plan is now up for grabs. Survival for them means finding something  
new that they can get out ahead of and PROTECT. I believe that the  
next great product will be PEOPLE. Live performances (maybe showing  
on your HDTV in your living room but still the real live thing!).  
We're not far from being able to order a LIVE concert on a massive  
scale as a pay per view item (in fact, it's been done several times  
already). The protection comes from the provider being able to  
prevent you from seeing it without paying for it. The technology will  
prevent you from copying it as well. The exclusivity of the live  
performance beamed to any computer in the world is the ultimate  
product... you can't get it anywhere else but from the artist that  
performs it. The Music Business will be looking for (and paying for)  
ENTERTAINERS at that time. The worm will have turned! I hope we live  
long enough to see it!

My 4 cents worth, anyway!

Take Care.

Rocky Ball - banjo
The Ruby Reds Band - Atlanta
www.rubyredsband.com

On Jan 11, 2007, at 5:53 PM, Larry Walton Entertainment - St. Louis  
wrote:

> Rocky - As far as I can see nothing completely killed jazz because  
> obviously we still have it around in all it's forms but the  
> listening public has developed an ever changing and at a faster and  
> faster paced taste for more and different things.  In the 20's  
> things went fairly slow and by ww2, radio and more availability of  
> recordings sped things up a bunch.  Enter a more affluent teen age  
> group.  The changes took place even faster.
>
> While some things are not necessarily moving faster today the  
> splinters of each style are proliferating so fast that most people  
> can't even keep up with the names of them.  I think maybe the line  
> was drawn when people stopped naming dances in the 60's and 70's.
>
> A case in point.  Early rock and roll such as Buddy Holly, Elvis  
> and Bill Haley bears almost no resemblance to today's rock except  
> we still call it rock.  I think early rock is alive and well we  
> just call it Country and Western.
>
> Getting people out of their homes and away from TV is the hope of a  
> large segment of the entertainment industry today.  Did TV kill the  
> movies? Absolutely not but there aren't many theaters either.  Why  
> go to the show when you can see it on TV for free (??)  Why should  
> you go to a venue to hear a band when you can have them at their  
> very best for the price of a CD. You can also turn them off too if  
> you only want to hear one track then listen to another.  I can  
> change tracks with just a touch on my IPOD so I can channel surf  
> even there.  It's a far cry to when you sat and listened to a band  
> for several hours.  I hate to say it but I don't want to listen to  
> anything for more than an hour or so.
>
> TV stations and some cable channels are in trouble because someone  
> invented the clicker.  The American public has a collective case of  
> ADHD.  They demand ever faster, funnier, bloodier, newer, cheaper  
> and I might add more potty mouthed and vulgar entertainment.   
> Sounds a lot like the new music too.
> Larry
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rocky Ball" <bigbuttbnd at aol.com>
> To: "Charles Suhor" <csuhor at zebra.net>
> Cc: "jazz" <dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Dixielandjazz] Was Jazz ever popular music?
>
>
>>
>> Maybe I'm disagreeing with you, maybe not...
>>
>> BUT
>>
>> ...the PBS Ken Burns' JAZZ series clearly notes that before the 1929
>> Stock Market crash JAZZ accounted for 70% of the profits of all
>> American Record Companies! I remember reading in one of the Louis
>> Armstrong biographies that Louis' record sales (actual platters, not
>> money!) were over a million and that was primarily sold through
>> grocery stores at a nickel a disk... all in the 20s and 30s. Burns
>> makes it clear in his research (and I have read it independently in
>> many places before and since JAZZ) that early Jazz (ESPECIALLY before
>> the Depression) WAS THE POP MUSIC (most popular music) of the day.
>> The country was in the infancy of disposable income in the 1920s (at
>> least until the Depression sidetracked that for 20 years) and
>> American YOUTH were leading the way in an unprecedented surge of  
>> self-
>> indulgence. Of course it would take another cycle of that in the
>> 1950s for youth and their disposable income to usher in the
>> popularity of Rock n' Roll.
>>
>> To me the evidence is clear that early JAZZ hit the country in 1926
>> the same way that early ROCK N ROLL did in 1956 and habits, social
>> mores and the music business were forever changed by it. Was Jazz
>> ever POPULAR MUSIC? YES! It was THE popular music of its day and the
>> repercussions of its innovations continued through the more
>> commercial swing era, Rock N Roll era and into popular music today.
>> The foreword to the Rolling Stone History of Rock N Roll cites Louis
>> Armstrong as the most influential musician that made Rock N Roll
>> possible! Ken Burns (and his celebrity contributors) affirm this
>> throughout the 10 part JAZZ series.
>>
>> ~Rocky Ball
>> Atlanta
>>
>>> On Jan 11, 2007, at 5:49 AM, pat ladd wrote:
>>>
>>>> After WWII the public didn't want the fast pace of
>>>> the swing bands that had dominated for a decade but something to
>>>> relax
>>>> by, romantic stuff.>>
>>>>
>>>> Not sure about the `fast pace` Charlie.  A lot of the WW2 swing  
>>>> Bands
>>>> tunes were sentimental ballads. Thousands of people weere away from
>>>> loved ones. There was a focus on a `great day` when the war  
>>>> would end
>>>> and everyone could return home. Sure there were bands producing
>>>> fireworks but Moonlight Serenade was the top tune. Blue birds over
>>>> the
>>>> White cliffs, Silver Wings in the Moonlight and so on made up a  
>>>> major
>>>> proportion of a bands  pad.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Past
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're totally right of course, Pat. And it was the dreamy sweet  
>>> stuff
>>> of the swing bands that people wanted to continue after the war, not
>>> the hot swing, so the vocalists held sway.
>>>
>>> Which raises another point. It's been said that the Swing Era of  
>>> about
>>> 1935-45 was the main one in which jazz was THE popular music. Very
>>> true
>>> when we think only of the hot big band stuff by Basie, Goodman,  
>>> Shaw,
>>> Duke, Woody, etc.. But sooo much of  the sweet material bears so
>>> little
>>> resemblance to jazz that you can almost call it anti-jazz. A  
>>> stretch,
>>> but not by much when you listen to some of the innumerable icky
>>> ballads
>>> in the books of lesser and even better swing bands. It served a  
>>> social
>>> function both during and after the war, but it's ever farther from
>>> jazz
>>> than the post-ragtime/pre-Mickey dance bands of the 20's and
>>> before. At
>>> least, the latter had a kick to them.
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dixielandjazz mailing list
>>> Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
>>> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dixielandjazz mailing list
>> Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
>> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz
>
>



More information about the Dixielandjazz mailing list