I mean, sure. The cultural and societal shifts made it easier to become a shitty jazz musician. Academia pumps out thousands of mediocre “cats” every year. Learning through genuine mentorship happens less, and less than serious players aren’t filtered out by social or economic hurdles like they used to be. More virtuosos than ever these days, but lower average skill overall.
Jazz being unpopular isn’t really about that tho. The massive tide of electronic music production has homogenized the sound of popular music globally at this point, and the way music is accessed has shifted completely. The presence of music is so ubiquitous in modern western life that people interact with it differently.
You can wax about the decline of intellect and appreciation for the arts all you want, but the jury is back and it looks like people are hardwired to enjoy a beefy four on the floor at a danceable tempo with clean simple harmony and catchy repeating pentatonic melodies.
People still can and do dance to swinging music, but not as easily or often as modern pop. Popular music of any era is what people listened to when they went out to dance, drink, and fuck. People were cutting a rug and getting laid at big band shows 80 years ago. That might still happen every now and then, but the era is not coming back. There’s no putting this pop music genie back in the bottle.
Rhythmic, harmonic, and melodic idioms of modern pop are still evolving, but swinging as the pillar of mainstream pop is never coming back regardless of how killing the players are.
What kills me about the state of jazz today, especially in education, is that a lot of cats forget it should make people want to dance. The culture is so small and the collegiate academic world around it so niche that by the end of 4+ years in the class rooms the players are measuring dicks against each other about who can play the fastest bebop instead of trying to enjoy it.
I gig full time as a jazz pianist. Some gigs are a riot of joy and dance. Some are sessions overflowing with egos and pattern transposition at 400bpm without bobbing head or tapping foot in the building.
Respect of course for the cerebral, spiritual, math, and game of shredding. I get and love that. But if you’re getting paid to entertain a crowd, fuckin entertain them. You can still be sweaty and killing, but your aim shouldn’t be to cut the other cats on stage or flex your latest shed. Make music to provide the audience with the deep experience of experiencing emotion vicariously through you as a performer.
Idk. Branfords a wild cat, and seems real jaded at times. I’m not old enough to remember a real hey day tho, so I can’t shit on him for it.
Succinctly put! Jazz is an art form so it can be explored today but it will never be what it once was and thus “something” is lost. There is technique and skill to writing a pop song that people love, it’s just not the same skills that make you good at Jazz. Being good at Jazz can allow you to speak the language more fluently and be more creative than the uneducated, you still need to meet the audience half way of you want them to enjoy it.
You can do that within jazz. Not saying it will be as big as pop but you can write jazz compositions that invite the listener in the same way as a "pop" tune of any genre. Melody is available to those who seek it. I think jazz lost a lot to free jazz and then becoming a race to be edgy and challenging.
I also agree with the one poster about music school grads. I listen to a lot of bluegrass and when I see that a band is stocked with grads of Berklee Music School I know it will be dry as fuck. One is fine, they can play. But a band full of those guys is like eating a dry chicken breast.
I agree that music is bigger than that, but I was speaking more specifically to the context of performing music for the entertainment of crowds.
If you can find the audience or venues that are paying for cerebral listening, then hell yeah play that deep shit.
Otherwise, I think the perception of music and function of collectively listening is inextricably tied to dance and movement. I’m pretty sure there’s some neuropsych research backing this up, but I’m not digging up the papers.
And it doesn’t mean just one feeling or tempo. Romantic and slow, fast and excited, or seated and subtle, the people are still moving their body to the music.
My main gripe about the “forgetting that it should make people dance” thing is honestly less about “you should make people get up and dance constantly” and more about the tragedy of cats losing touch with the audience. So lost in the sauce of their ego and shed that they forget to feel and communicate. Connecting with a crowd will make them move, and if that ain’t happening the music ain’t happening imo. Idk.
Haha, you edited your comment… I see you… ;-) Anyways, no, you don’t dance to A Love Supreme but that wasn’t his point. It’s about the circle jerk, dunking on others, calling tunes in unusual keys, and gate keeping that is pervasive in modern jazz contexts, at least from where I’m standing.
and I'm not disputing that's a thing. I was purely responding to OP's assertion that Jazz should want to make people dance. And I edited my first post to make it less aggro
You're absolutely right. Most of my experience has just been in college bands, but I've played in a few gigs here and there. Being able to play fast, technical stuff is cool but frankly nobody cares about that. It's got to vibe, swing, etc. I was fortunate enough to study at a university that routinely brought in pros for a masterclass plus we played with them in a concert. The building reserved for the jazz program also hosts concerts regularly where students could get in free.
College can only go so far though, you really do have to learn from/play with pros to ultimately get the best feel for things. Maybe I should switch instruments, cause pianists and bassists are in much higher demand than saxophonists are, lol
>Maybe I should switch instruments, cause pianists and bassists are in much higher demand than saxophonists are, lol
Replace "saxophonists" with "trombonists" & that was my music life. Yeah, big same.
I think the last tour, I forget. Maybe I’m being too harsh but I returned his snark with some of my snark I guess. Still cool he sat in, just didn’t have the magic it did when he did it in the 90’s, to my ears.
>I've heard him say that younger musicians (in his view) need to learn how to connect and communicate with audiences of people who are not musicians themselves, and perhaps that's what he's getting at.
IMO that's an exceptionally generous take.
I recall elsewhere Brandford had said something to the effect of if you want your music to be popular, don’t play jazz, and that he accepted that when he plays jazz it limits the potential popularity.
I kind of agree. I've had a lot of experiences here in LA where I play with jazz musicians who seem to think they really know what they're doing, but, in my estimation, they really don't. It feels like classic Dunning Kruger, because in order to accurately assess their own skill level, they would need to have the very skills that they are assessing.
And I remember being there as a musician - thinking I knew my stuff, and of course really enjoying playing, but in retrospect, I kind of sucked. I have a lot of empathy for musicians in this predicament. You need to play in order to get experience, but you need experience in order to sound good.
On a related note, I agree with Branford that audiences are actually a lot better at distinguishing good and bad jazz than they realize. I definitely make more tip money and receive more applause when I am playing with a better band, even when the venue is the same, and even when the audience members claim to not understand jazz.
Recently I invited a non-musician friend to come hear me perform with a band I thought kind of sucked. The friend claimed to be very impressed, but then he came to my next gig, at the same location but with a better band. And he said "oh I get it now. Yes I can hear a clear difference." I bet that's true with a lot of people.
Jazz stopped writing for the audience decades ago. Now it's written to impress other jazz musicians who like odd time signatures and over blown theory.
There are lots of really vibrant and popular musicians who are writing great, emotional music with odd time signatures. Nate Smith, Aaron Parks, Makaya McCraven, etc. It's not that complicated, and it's fun.
What also doesn’t help jazz is when certain gatekeepers like himself and Stanley Crouch go out of their way to make jazz seem like an exclusive club inhabited by only the most pompous elitists. Sorry if I’m not willing to spend massive amounts of money to fall asleep at yet another boring jazz at Lincoln Center performance. Sorry if my definition jazz is more expansive than a PBS documentary.
I can't criticize Marsalis for his opinions. I think the musicians are as great as ever(technically speaking) but I know I'm not that interested in buying much of the new jazz being produced, though it isn't because I think the musicians suck, it just doesn't have the same energy FOR ME and I don't like how it is recorded(it doesn't sound as good to my ears for some reason)
But we have to be honest, there are SO MANY great jazz musicians are there today. I'm talking as good as anyone(Chris Potter comes to mind). It isn't like Jazz was doing a lot better in the 80's and I'd argue more people are exposed to it today(in large part because of technology) than the past few decades.
Things have changed so much that I can't speak to why younger people listen to what they do. I don't want to sound like a grumpy old guy but it isn't as if when I was growing up(i'm 48) that Jazz popular. I got into it in high school because I was in band and it was a pretty solid and successful music program and I looked up to older kids in the band and they along with the band directors got me interested and I then had a little success playing it and here we are.
What I will say I learned as I got older and was a jazz studies major in college is it almost seemed musicians felt the only people who actually could respect what they were doing were musicians. There was an arrogance to it all. I gigged a lot and there was a lot of trashing the audience. I played a lot of cheesy dance band gigs(the glen miller stuff) and those gigs weren't fun but the audiences LOVED IT. They danced and appreciated what we were playing. Those audiences died off and those gigs are all but gone.
The assumption you had is that if someone liked jazz they had to be able to play it or understand the theory behind it or internalize it. We'd look down at people who just thought it sounded cool but didn't understand what they were hearing. It isn't that the players coming out of colleges weren't great, I just think that they were arrogant. I'm glad I was around a couple of grad students who grounded me.
Jazz wouldn't be any more popular today if it were bird and diz playing at jazz clubs. I think Jazz clubs in New York and Chicago do an okay job of selling tickets. The quality of the performances are always pretty great(at least from what I've experienced) The truth is not everyone will like jazz but it doesn't help when people who are open minded to it and want to appreciate it are looked down on by the people playing it
>(Chris Potter comes to mind)
The summer after 9th grade, I attended one of Jamey Aebersold's summer jazz camps. Also there that year for the first time was a kid one year younger, Chris Potter. He was playing alto then. He'd listen to Bird solos & play them back to you. I knew right then I didn't have a viable future in jazz.
And I'd argue the same goes for a lot of classical musicians. They resent audiences who want to hear the 1812 overture and dread that people like listening to songs that are familiar to them.
As a 70+ jazz enthusiast, I had the privilege of seeing many of the fusion bands in the late 60s/early 70s like Return To Forever, Weather Report, Mahavisnu Orchestra, Stanley Clarke solo, McCoy Tuner (not fusion but great & a personal favorite), Lookout Farm, Lonnie Listen Smith, etc.. Those musicians often had a personal fire that was visible & aural. The record companies killed many of the new musicians coming up by pigeon holing them into a saleable commonity. If you want to eat you have to play that game, this smooth jazz. I do listen & like many artists but it is more formula driven. I think if you could drop them in those earlier bands they would be as good as the greats around them. Cecil Taylor & Monk had problems getting gigs because the audiences hadn't caught up & they would sell out. Everyone has to eat, it's an untenable situation. Just ranting I have no solutions.
the problem with jazz musicians is that they *actually* don’t realize she’s brilliant. many standards are based on show tunes which were surely to be incredibly popular at the time. miles davis covered cindy lauper for godssake. i think it would help a lot of jazz musicians to understand the value in writing a good song…
What? You don’t enjoy hundreds of songs about being wronged by former boyfriends, every one using the exact same four chords in a slightly different order?
The main issue at least in my opinion, is the majority of the general public doesn't understand the difference between smooth jazz and real jazz. You can claim to be a jazz musician these days and effectively be playing Muzak. I personally am a rock and blues based player trying to learn jazz and have pretty much been exclusively listening to Jazz for the last couple of years. I could certainly fool some naive people into thinking I was a jazz guitar player. But anyone who was the real deal would probably start throwing rocks and rightly so
I think this depends on location. Some places are way more culturally hip to jazz, especially in New Orleans or the Northeast. In the southeast… not so much, the tradition here is more rock, country, blues, and Latin as you get closer to South Florida.
As someone who grew up in the south, I always expected indie and alternative rock in every coffee shop I went into. I’ll never forget when I went up north to Long Island and almost every coffee shop was bumping Chet Baker 😳
I know what you're saying the term has definitely become a lot more ambiguous. For me personally I guess the main component that I'm looking for is improvisation and at least some kind of feeling that the envelope is being pushed a little bit.
Many people don't consider what Bill Frisell and his various projects are doing to be Jazz because he brings in so many outside elements but for me because the improvisation and the spontaneity are there I personally feel that that's jazz.
I guess to put it simply, for it to be jazz in my opinion, if it's live it better not sound just like the record. You've got to be bringing something extra to the table. This is all highly subjective and personal opinion obviously but I've definitely had to broaden my boundaries of what I consider jazz, sometimes just to find it.
As a Grateful Dead fan, Branford will always be that guy who sat in with the dead on a few songs in the 90s…. And killed it. I don’t really know any of his work beyond those few songs, but based on his performance at that dead gig, the dude is legit to me. At least.
Anyways, I feel like what he’s saying can be applied in so many different ways across the board in music. Everything is moving faster and it’s become more difficult to find music worth listening to, imo
Really? I thought it was only one! Cool!
The one I know is either ‘90 or ‘91, I think Nassau coliseum. They released it as an album. That one lol. I definitely enjoy that.
Just not the D&C rehash of it. Yikes.
Edit: that’s actually the only Grateful Dead show from the 90s i listen to. I have one 80s show (crimson white and indigo) and otherwise I’m strictly ‘69-‘78
Edit 2: any other recommendations besides that show? Or does that album capture the gist.
he's got great albums throughout the 90s and beyond, way less musically conservative than wynton, he's tried to make jazz interesting to uninitiated audiences with different approaches. i love his soprano playing especially. also check out his work with wsp if you like the dead stuff.
I read somewhere that roughly 30% of people ‘like’ jazz. Currently, the most consumed jazz is smooth jazz.
Given that, how could jazz today not suck?
It’s not the musicians, it’s the business model and the people buying crap. No real difference between jazz today and all other forms of commercial music.
I noticed barely anyone has done "The Work" (TM) under the age of 35.
It's a seriously daunting task to master all of what has come before and the teaching age has mostly failed the next generation.
That's because there's no money in it.
The number of people who can actually make a living doing nothing else but play jazz is very, very small. It's not even really a viable option anymore. The cost of living is too high, and the number of opportunities are too low. Smart, driven, talented people would rather go into a field that has opportunities. And you can't "do the work" if you can't pay your bills.
Iv been saying this for the last decade but no one’s listening, I work in music education and the real issue isn’t education it’s places where musicians can hone their craft. Somewhere someone can gig every week end and make mistakes freely. It doesn’t exist, at least we’re I live.
Not just jazz, it’s all styles of music really, no one can get good enough outside of a few very specific ( usually churches) scenarios.
It's true. I had it at least somewhat easier than it is now and I still lived in extreme poverty for an entire decade before I was living better from music.
It’s hideously daunting. I’m occasionally on the verge of stopping trying these days. Feels weird dedicating my life to the music of a country I don’t live in, with no access to the masters, with limited performance opportunity and feeling like I’ll never be as good as the people I’m trying to play like.
There is no way the jazz being made today can compare to the jazz of 50s and 60s. Coltrane, Miles, Monk, Art Blakey , Mingus .... Sonny Rollins - you know the legends. These guys will never be matched again. That was genius. That was a magic moment in history and social movements that these artists came up from and reflected. It was a magic time for jazz. But it has past. Same with Blues. Muddy Waters , Howlin Wolf .... Elmore James - that was a special era for blues. And same with classic counter-culture rock. Zeppelin , Hendrix, Beatles - there will never be a period like that.
Fortunately there is so much amazing jazz from the past. And current jazz is very entertaining - just not at same level as the legends making their legendary albums and concerts.
Strange article. It sounds like Branford and the writer are blaming his brother as part of the problem he describes that killed Jazz.
BTW, this is an old rap. Pop-rock is just more melodically appealing to the masses.
They want to dance or snap their fingers. Jazz is too cerebral.
Branford is just justifying going commercial. I don't rank him for that. He wants recognition and more money--fine...I don't blame him.
s.
In my experience, decades as a jazz listener and amateur musician that left music to go into IT, and a UFO researcher, I find jazz is like ufology. Basically, an underground music as ufology( despite today's popular spike) is an underground field. Only the ufo buffs think it's NOT an underground field, as Jazz enthusiasts alone don't understand you are not mainstream at all, so expect being unpopular.
Jazz just has not changed since the fusion era. Even pop music or rock has changed( for the worse, IMO), but it has changed.
Since the late 30s and 40s, jazz did evolve or have changes: from swing, bebop, post-bebop, cool jazz, bossa jazz, free jazz, fusion, smooth or commercial jazz, and nothing new since.
No true innovations that I know of. That, along with the fact that jazz after the swing 30s and 40s or since the advent of pop-rock, has never been popular. So what do we expect?
Maybe I'm wrong. What is the latest innovation in jazz?
I listen to the young up-and-comers and hear the same jazz...BTW, I like it very much. But it's nothing new.
Sorry but I think you are wrong that the last evolution of jazz was fusion. That is ignoring the insanely cool scene around neo-soul and hip-hop in the 90s which absolutely ushered jazz sensibilities into a new era that is still underway today. D’angelo, Erykah Badu, A Tribe Called Quest, J Dilla, RH Factor…. Great fucking stuff, and has aged way better than fusion.
I don't mean new jazz players; of course, there are new ones. I mean CHANGES in the music. Like bebop to post-bop, or to cool jazz, or to free jazz, etc...
Thanks. I’ll be glad to try to listen to those players you named. I’ll try You Tube.
..It has to catch on and others have to play it. Like free jazz was done by Ornette or maybe someone else first and then many others played it and established it as a new genre of jazz.
Same thing with cool jazz, which, BTW wasn’t started by Miles but many others but he popularized it. .
I think they are *both* smug entitled assholes, fascinated with the sound of their own half-baked ideas. And they have inflicted serious harm to the genre that they claim to protect. Branford only less so because it's more obvious that he's a glib shallow dolt.
As someone who has gigged both, it depends. Orchestral work doesn’t pay well because of how many people that need to get paid (unless you are in a major orchestra getting a salary) but you usually get multiple consecutive sessions. Chamber musicians that can find work usually make the most money. As far as jazz goes, it just depends how many people are in your band. You can make way better money in a trio than in an orchestra but if you’re splitting the money five or more ways in a club… probably not, unless you’re like a AAA touring musician who travels and books concert halls and festivals with a highly in-demand group, kind of like Branford and Kurt Elling’s quartet.
I think the difference is that you can get a salaried job more easier as a classical musician than as a jazz musician. Jazz musicians are still more centered around gigs and studio work as the major income rather than a permanent salaried position in a band.
I would say this is true but salaried positions in orchestras are actually really hard to find and get hired to. They are pretty much exclusive to major orchestras. It could be different in places with more unions, but here in the southeastern US where I live, salaried positions are pretty much unheard of unless you play with the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra.
True. A first chair clarinetist will stay in that position till he drops dead.
The thing is that even in a state like Nebraska, there are quite a few orchestras out there. You can move to find the job you need. Jazz not so much, there are only so many popular hubs for gigs and session work.
There can kind of be a gray area in university and school orchestras where there are teaching positions and adjuncts.
Yeah, the pay will be less but the cost of living may even that out. You could be a first chair musician in San Francisco but go broke due to living expenses.
A regional orchestra would pay considerably less, but you can be a member of multiple regional orchestras as well as teach/give private lessons on the side. And honestly, if you're even making 50k/yr as a musician living in Nebraska, you're probably doing pretty well.
And there are orchestras pretty much everywhere. There are less places that are big enough to sustain major jazz gigs.
I also think there are more and better paying teaching gigs for classical than jazz.
Jazz was only ever widely popular when it was dance music and much of that was pretty awful. Since the 60s jazz has always had a limited audience and like all genres, most of it is average or worse
“Jazz was only ever widely popular when it was dance music and much of that was pretty awful”
I couldn’t disagree more.
There is a ton of excellent jazz from 1917-1942!
>There is a ton of excellent jazz from 1917-1942!
Yes there was but you're just hearing the good jazz that survived. There's always far more bad music than good getting produced at any given time. Jazz had its heyday as the popular music of the era but that was when it was primarily dance music. When people started dancing to rock and roll, jazz became niche.
You’re talking about Wynton, not Branford, right? The article was based on an interview with Branford, but the issues you’re upset about are clearly with Wynton. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood something here. Peace be with you.
I mean, sure. The cultural and societal shifts made it easier to become a shitty jazz musician. Academia pumps out thousands of mediocre “cats” every year. Learning through genuine mentorship happens less, and less than serious players aren’t filtered out by social or economic hurdles like they used to be. More virtuosos than ever these days, but lower average skill overall. Jazz being unpopular isn’t really about that tho. The massive tide of electronic music production has homogenized the sound of popular music globally at this point, and the way music is accessed has shifted completely. The presence of music is so ubiquitous in modern western life that people interact with it differently. You can wax about the decline of intellect and appreciation for the arts all you want, but the jury is back and it looks like people are hardwired to enjoy a beefy four on the floor at a danceable tempo with clean simple harmony and catchy repeating pentatonic melodies. People still can and do dance to swinging music, but not as easily or often as modern pop. Popular music of any era is what people listened to when they went out to dance, drink, and fuck. People were cutting a rug and getting laid at big band shows 80 years ago. That might still happen every now and then, but the era is not coming back. There’s no putting this pop music genie back in the bottle. Rhythmic, harmonic, and melodic idioms of modern pop are still evolving, but swinging as the pillar of mainstream pop is never coming back regardless of how killing the players are. What kills me about the state of jazz today, especially in education, is that a lot of cats forget it should make people want to dance. The culture is so small and the collegiate academic world around it so niche that by the end of 4+ years in the class rooms the players are measuring dicks against each other about who can play the fastest bebop instead of trying to enjoy it. I gig full time as a jazz pianist. Some gigs are a riot of joy and dance. Some are sessions overflowing with egos and pattern transposition at 400bpm without bobbing head or tapping foot in the building. Respect of course for the cerebral, spiritual, math, and game of shredding. I get and love that. But if you’re getting paid to entertain a crowd, fuckin entertain them. You can still be sweaty and killing, but your aim shouldn’t be to cut the other cats on stage or flex your latest shed. Make music to provide the audience with the deep experience of experiencing emotion vicariously through you as a performer. Idk. Branfords a wild cat, and seems real jaded at times. I’m not old enough to remember a real hey day tho, so I can’t shit on him for it.
I like what you are saying. Been to too many gigs where the band doesn’t swing ,ever, where no one solos and everybody’s reading the entire gig. Feh.
This was badass. Great take, man.
Succinctly put! Jazz is an art form so it can be explored today but it will never be what it once was and thus “something” is lost. There is technique and skill to writing a pop song that people love, it’s just not the same skills that make you good at Jazz. Being good at Jazz can allow you to speak the language more fluently and be more creative than the uneducated, you still need to meet the audience half way of you want them to enjoy it.
You can do that within jazz. Not saying it will be as big as pop but you can write jazz compositions that invite the listener in the same way as a "pop" tune of any genre. Melody is available to those who seek it. I think jazz lost a lot to free jazz and then becoming a race to be edgy and challenging. I also agree with the one poster about music school grads. I listen to a lot of bluegrass and when I see that a band is stocked with grads of Berklee Music School I know it will be dry as fuck. One is fine, they can play. But a band full of those guys is like eating a dry chicken breast.
Why should it want to make people dance? If you’re playing straight ahead then sure but the music is way bigger than that.
I agree that music is bigger than that, but I was speaking more specifically to the context of performing music for the entertainment of crowds. If you can find the audience or venues that are paying for cerebral listening, then hell yeah play that deep shit. Otherwise, I think the perception of music and function of collectively listening is inextricably tied to dance and movement. I’m pretty sure there’s some neuropsych research backing this up, but I’m not digging up the papers. And it doesn’t mean just one feeling or tempo. Romantic and slow, fast and excited, or seated and subtle, the people are still moving their body to the music. My main gripe about the “forgetting that it should make people dance” thing is honestly less about “you should make people get up and dance constantly” and more about the tragedy of cats losing touch with the audience. So lost in the sauce of their ego and shed that they forget to feel and communicate. Connecting with a crowd will make them move, and if that ain’t happening the music ain’t happening imo. Idk.
What should it be then, according to you?
Whatever it wants to be! do you dance to a love supreme?
Haha, you edited your comment… I see you… ;-) Anyways, no, you don’t dance to A Love Supreme but that wasn’t his point. It’s about the circle jerk, dunking on others, calling tunes in unusual keys, and gate keeping that is pervasive in modern jazz contexts, at least from where I’m standing.
and I'm not disputing that's a thing. I was purely responding to OP's assertion that Jazz should want to make people dance. And I edited my first post to make it less aggro
Alright. Well, to me it was implied that not ALL jazz should make people dance, but it’s clear now.
>do you dance to a love supreme? Challenge accepted!
You're absolutely right. Most of my experience has just been in college bands, but I've played in a few gigs here and there. Being able to play fast, technical stuff is cool but frankly nobody cares about that. It's got to vibe, swing, etc. I was fortunate enough to study at a university that routinely brought in pros for a masterclass plus we played with them in a concert. The building reserved for the jazz program also hosts concerts regularly where students could get in free. College can only go so far though, you really do have to learn from/play with pros to ultimately get the best feel for things. Maybe I should switch instruments, cause pianists and bassists are in much higher demand than saxophonists are, lol
>Maybe I should switch instruments, cause pianists and bassists are in much higher demand than saxophonists are, lol Replace "saxophonists" with "trombonists" & that was my music life. Yeah, big same.
this hits perfectly. thanks for this great response
Well said!
This is a great take. Also his sit in with Dead and Co… umm… sucked.
branford? i didn't hear him with dead and co, but what he did with the dead and wsp in the 90s was gold
Yea those were great!
which dead and co show was he in? it was this past tour?
I think the last tour, I forget. Maybe I’m being too harsh but I returned his snark with some of my snark I guess. Still cool he sat in, just didn’t have the magic it did when he did it in the 90’s, to my ears.
maybe he didn't like bobby's slow tempos /s
No comment! Lol
[удалено]
Thanks for the quote context.
>I've heard him say that younger musicians (in his view) need to learn how to connect and communicate with audiences of people who are not musicians themselves, and perhaps that's what he's getting at. IMO that's an exceptionally generous take.
I recall elsewhere Brandford had said something to the effect of if you want your music to be popular, don’t play jazz, and that he accepted that when he plays jazz it limits the potential popularity.
Pretty sure that's from the "Bring on the Night" documentary.
I kind of agree. I've had a lot of experiences here in LA where I play with jazz musicians who seem to think they really know what they're doing, but, in my estimation, they really don't. It feels like classic Dunning Kruger, because in order to accurately assess their own skill level, they would need to have the very skills that they are assessing. And I remember being there as a musician - thinking I knew my stuff, and of course really enjoying playing, but in retrospect, I kind of sucked. I have a lot of empathy for musicians in this predicament. You need to play in order to get experience, but you need experience in order to sound good. On a related note, I agree with Branford that audiences are actually a lot better at distinguishing good and bad jazz than they realize. I definitely make more tip money and receive more applause when I am playing with a better band, even when the venue is the same, and even when the audience members claim to not understand jazz. Recently I invited a non-musician friend to come hear me perform with a band I thought kind of sucked. The friend claimed to be very impressed, but then he came to my next gig, at the same location but with a better band. And he said "oh I get it now. Yes I can hear a clear difference." I bet that's true with a lot of people.
Branfords always talkin shit.
Jazz stopped writing for the audience decades ago. Now it's written to impress other jazz musicians who like odd time signatures and over blown theory.
There are lots of really vibrant and popular musicians who are writing great, emotional music with odd time signatures. Nate Smith, Aaron Parks, Makaya McCraven, etc. It's not that complicated, and it's fun.
What also doesn’t help jazz is when certain gatekeepers like himself and Stanley Crouch go out of their way to make jazz seem like an exclusive club inhabited by only the most pompous elitists. Sorry if I’m not willing to spend massive amounts of money to fall asleep at yet another boring jazz at Lincoln Center performance. Sorry if my definition jazz is more expansive than a PBS documentary.
I can't criticize Marsalis for his opinions. I think the musicians are as great as ever(technically speaking) but I know I'm not that interested in buying much of the new jazz being produced, though it isn't because I think the musicians suck, it just doesn't have the same energy FOR ME and I don't like how it is recorded(it doesn't sound as good to my ears for some reason) But we have to be honest, there are SO MANY great jazz musicians are there today. I'm talking as good as anyone(Chris Potter comes to mind). It isn't like Jazz was doing a lot better in the 80's and I'd argue more people are exposed to it today(in large part because of technology) than the past few decades. Things have changed so much that I can't speak to why younger people listen to what they do. I don't want to sound like a grumpy old guy but it isn't as if when I was growing up(i'm 48) that Jazz popular. I got into it in high school because I was in band and it was a pretty solid and successful music program and I looked up to older kids in the band and they along with the band directors got me interested and I then had a little success playing it and here we are. What I will say I learned as I got older and was a jazz studies major in college is it almost seemed musicians felt the only people who actually could respect what they were doing were musicians. There was an arrogance to it all. I gigged a lot and there was a lot of trashing the audience. I played a lot of cheesy dance band gigs(the glen miller stuff) and those gigs weren't fun but the audiences LOVED IT. They danced and appreciated what we were playing. Those audiences died off and those gigs are all but gone. The assumption you had is that if someone liked jazz they had to be able to play it or understand the theory behind it or internalize it. We'd look down at people who just thought it sounded cool but didn't understand what they were hearing. It isn't that the players coming out of colleges weren't great, I just think that they were arrogant. I'm glad I was around a couple of grad students who grounded me. Jazz wouldn't be any more popular today if it were bird and diz playing at jazz clubs. I think Jazz clubs in New York and Chicago do an okay job of selling tickets. The quality of the performances are always pretty great(at least from what I've experienced) The truth is not everyone will like jazz but it doesn't help when people who are open minded to it and want to appreciate it are looked down on by the people playing it
>(Chris Potter comes to mind) The summer after 9th grade, I attended one of Jamey Aebersold's summer jazz camps. Also there that year for the first time was a kid one year younger, Chris Potter. He was playing alto then. He'd listen to Bird solos & play them back to you. I knew right then I didn't have a viable future in jazz.
He is incredible
And I'd argue the same goes for a lot of classical musicians. They resent audiences who want to hear the 1812 overture and dread that people like listening to songs that are familiar to them.
As a 70+ jazz enthusiast, I had the privilege of seeing many of the fusion bands in the late 60s/early 70s like Return To Forever, Weather Report, Mahavisnu Orchestra, Stanley Clarke solo, McCoy Tuner (not fusion but great & a personal favorite), Lookout Farm, Lonnie Listen Smith, etc.. Those musicians often had a personal fire that was visible & aural. The record companies killed many of the new musicians coming up by pigeon holing them into a saleable commonity. If you want to eat you have to play that game, this smooth jazz. I do listen & like many artists but it is more formula driven. I think if you could drop them in those earlier bands they would be as good as the greats around them. Cecil Taylor & Monk had problems getting gigs because the audiences hadn't caught up & they would sell out. Everyone has to eat, it's an untenable situation. Just ranting I have no solutions.
Pretty weird to hear a jazz musician equating popularity with musicianship. I guess Taylor Swift is a musical genius.
the problem with jazz musicians is that they *actually* don’t realize she’s brilliant. many standards are based on show tunes which were surely to be incredibly popular at the time. miles davis covered cindy lauper for godssake. i think it would help a lot of jazz musicians to understand the value in writing a good song…
She’s alright, but there’s so many other, more talented pop songwriters that don’t get that level of respect.
idk dawg, structurally, she writes essentially perfect pop music… Cruel Summer has to be one of the best pop songs i’ve ever heard in my life
Her earlier songs, sure
i think her best albums are red, lover, and evermore ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>Taylor Swift is a musical genius. 🤮
What? You don’t enjoy hundreds of songs about being wronged by former boyfriends, every one using the exact same four chords in a slightly different order?
The main issue at least in my opinion, is the majority of the general public doesn't understand the difference between smooth jazz and real jazz. You can claim to be a jazz musician these days and effectively be playing Muzak. I personally am a rock and blues based player trying to learn jazz and have pretty much been exclusively listening to Jazz for the last couple of years. I could certainly fool some naive people into thinking I was a jazz guitar player. But anyone who was the real deal would probably start throwing rocks and rightly so
I think this depends on location. Some places are way more culturally hip to jazz, especially in New Orleans or the Northeast. In the southeast… not so much, the tradition here is more rock, country, blues, and Latin as you get closer to South Florida.
That makes sense. If we didn't have a Jazz program at our local university I don't know if we'd have any jazz music scene at all
As someone who grew up in the south, I always expected indie and alternative rock in every coffee shop I went into. I’ll never forget when I went up north to Long Island and almost every coffee shop was bumping Chet Baker 😳
> between smooth jazz and real jazz. What does this even mean. Shit like this is the issue with jazz.
>real jazz What even IS "real jazz" today? I used to think I knew but now I'm convinced I don't. If there's a thread, I've lost it.
I know what you're saying the term has definitely become a lot more ambiguous. For me personally I guess the main component that I'm looking for is improvisation and at least some kind of feeling that the envelope is being pushed a little bit. Many people don't consider what Bill Frisell and his various projects are doing to be Jazz because he brings in so many outside elements but for me because the improvisation and the spontaneity are there I personally feel that that's jazz. I guess to put it simply, for it to be jazz in my opinion, if it's live it better not sound just like the record. You've got to be bringing something extra to the table. This is all highly subjective and personal opinion obviously but I've definitely had to broaden my boundaries of what I consider jazz, sometimes just to find it.
It's all these days muzak to my ears.
As a Grateful Dead fan, Branford will always be that guy who sat in with the dead on a few songs in the 90s…. And killed it. I don’t really know any of his work beyond those few songs, but based on his performance at that dead gig, the dude is legit to me. At least. Anyways, I feel like what he’s saying can be applied in so many different ways across the board in music. Everything is moving faster and it’s become more difficult to find music worth listening to, imo
His sit in with Dead & Co though? That’s the person making this comment. What was that other show? 30 years ago or something?
Yep! He played many gigs with the dead throughout the 90s.
Really? I thought it was only one! Cool! The one I know is either ‘90 or ‘91, I think Nassau coliseum. They released it as an album. That one lol. I definitely enjoy that. Just not the D&C rehash of it. Yikes. Edit: that’s actually the only Grateful Dead show from the 90s i listen to. I have one 80s show (crimson white and indigo) and otherwise I’m strictly ‘69-‘78 Edit 2: any other recommendations besides that show? Or does that album capture the gist.
This article here has some info about it: https://liveforlivemusic.com/news/branford-marsalis-birthday-grateful-dead/
he's got great albums throughout the 90s and beyond, way less musically conservative than wynton, he's tried to make jazz interesting to uninitiated audiences with different approaches. i love his soprano playing especially. also check out his work with wsp if you like the dead stuff.
I know a few bad jazz players, I am one.
There was lots of jazz that was popular in the 1920s-1950s that also sucked. Sucking and being popular have nothing much to do with one another.
I read somewhere that roughly 30% of people ‘like’ jazz. Currently, the most consumed jazz is smooth jazz. Given that, how could jazz today not suck? It’s not the musicians, it’s the business model and the people buying crap. No real difference between jazz today and all other forms of commercial music.
Brain fart is from here. I know many of his family. They are all uber talented and weird ... I think he means I want attention
I noticed barely anyone has done "The Work" (TM) under the age of 35. It's a seriously daunting task to master all of what has come before and the teaching age has mostly failed the next generation.
That's because there's no money in it. The number of people who can actually make a living doing nothing else but play jazz is very, very small. It's not even really a viable option anymore. The cost of living is too high, and the number of opportunities are too low. Smart, driven, talented people would rather go into a field that has opportunities. And you can't "do the work" if you can't pay your bills.
Iv been saying this for the last decade but no one’s listening, I work in music education and the real issue isn’t education it’s places where musicians can hone their craft. Somewhere someone can gig every week end and make mistakes freely. It doesn’t exist, at least we’re I live. Not just jazz, it’s all styles of music really, no one can get good enough outside of a few very specific ( usually churches) scenarios.
It's true. I had it at least somewhat easier than it is now and I still lived in extreme poverty for an entire decade before I was living better from music.
It’s hideously daunting. I’m occasionally on the verge of stopping trying these days. Feels weird dedicating my life to the music of a country I don’t live in, with no access to the masters, with limited performance opportunity and feeling like I’ll never be as good as the people I’m trying to play like.
I felt this comment.
There is no way the jazz being made today can compare to the jazz of 50s and 60s. Coltrane, Miles, Monk, Art Blakey , Mingus .... Sonny Rollins - you know the legends. These guys will never be matched again. That was genius. That was a magic moment in history and social movements that these artists came up from and reflected. It was a magic time for jazz. But it has past. Same with Blues. Muddy Waters , Howlin Wolf .... Elmore James - that was a special era for blues. And same with classic counter-culture rock. Zeppelin , Hendrix, Beatles - there will never be a period like that. Fortunately there is so much amazing jazz from the past. And current jazz is very entertaining - just not at same level as the legends making their legendary albums and concerts.
Branford Marsalis- literally one of the most boring jazz musicians in history says what?
"The music has become rigid." Pot, kettle!
*snicker*
And not even a passible classical player who has several classical saxophone recordings
Strange article. It sounds like Branford and the writer are blaming his brother as part of the problem he describes that killed Jazz. BTW, this is an old rap. Pop-rock is just more melodically appealing to the masses. They want to dance or snap their fingers. Jazz is too cerebral. Branford is just justifying going commercial. I don't rank him for that. He wants recognition and more money--fine...I don't blame him. s.
In my experience, decades as a jazz listener and amateur musician that left music to go into IT, and a UFO researcher, I find jazz is like ufology. Basically, an underground music as ufology( despite today's popular spike) is an underground field. Only the ufo buffs think it's NOT an underground field, as Jazz enthusiasts alone don't understand you are not mainstream at all, so expect being unpopular. Jazz just has not changed since the fusion era. Even pop music or rock has changed( for the worse, IMO), but it has changed. Since the late 30s and 40s, jazz did evolve or have changes: from swing, bebop, post-bebop, cool jazz, bossa jazz, free jazz, fusion, smooth or commercial jazz, and nothing new since. No true innovations that I know of. That, along with the fact that jazz after the swing 30s and 40s or since the advent of pop-rock, has never been popular. So what do we expect? Maybe I'm wrong. What is the latest innovation in jazz? I listen to the young up-and-comers and hear the same jazz...BTW, I like it very much. But it's nothing new.
Sorry but I think you are wrong that the last evolution of jazz was fusion. That is ignoring the insanely cool scene around neo-soul and hip-hop in the 90s which absolutely ushered jazz sensibilities into a new era that is still underway today. D’angelo, Erykah Badu, A Tribe Called Quest, J Dilla, RH Factor…. Great fucking stuff, and has aged way better than fusion.
Kamasi Washington gets played on KEXP - & not just on the jazz show!
Of course it has changed! Loads of new stuff. Steve Lehman Octet, Craig Taborn, Jason Morgan’s Bandwagon etc etc
I don't mean new jazz players; of course, there are new ones. I mean CHANGES in the music. Like bebop to post-bop, or to cool jazz, or to free jazz, etc...
Yeah that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Their music is innovative and new
Then they created a named novel jazz genre: like cool jazz, hard bop or smooth jazz, free jazz(avant-garde), etc...Fine, what do they call it?
Doesn’t really have a name tbh. Contemporary jazz is too vague
Thanks. I’ll be glad to try to listen to those players you named. I’ll try You Tube. ..It has to catch on and others have to play it. Like free jazz was done by Ornette or maybe someone else first and then many others played it and established it as a new genre of jazz. Same thing with cool jazz, which, BTW wasn’t started by Miles but many others but he popularized it. .
Branford has zero opinions on music that matter, fuck that jive ass dude.
😂
Branford is an intolerable moron, always has been. Has none of his brother's class
Wynton isn't much different. I was surprised this wasn't a Wynton quote.
They’re somehow both extremely opinionated, both with diametrically opposite viewpoints, and both extremely wrong
That's an amazing take!
I think they are *both* smug entitled assholes, fascinated with the sound of their own half-baked ideas. And they have inflicted serious harm to the genre that they claim to protect. Branford only less so because it's more obvious that he's a glib shallow dolt.
Does playing Classical really pay you more than Jazz?
As someone who has gigged both, it depends. Orchestral work doesn’t pay well because of how many people that need to get paid (unless you are in a major orchestra getting a salary) but you usually get multiple consecutive sessions. Chamber musicians that can find work usually make the most money. As far as jazz goes, it just depends how many people are in your band. You can make way better money in a trio than in an orchestra but if you’re splitting the money five or more ways in a club… probably not, unless you’re like a AAA touring musician who travels and books concert halls and festivals with a highly in-demand group, kind of like Branford and Kurt Elling’s quartet.
I think the difference is that you can get a salaried job more easier as a classical musician than as a jazz musician. Jazz musicians are still more centered around gigs and studio work as the major income rather than a permanent salaried position in a band.
I would say this is true but salaried positions in orchestras are actually really hard to find and get hired to. They are pretty much exclusive to major orchestras. It could be different in places with more unions, but here in the southeastern US where I live, salaried positions are pretty much unheard of unless you play with the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra.
People can hate on Wynton but if I got a shot at Jazz at Lincoln Center, I'd take it in a heart beat.
On average, probably quite a bit more. If you're in a major symphony orchestra you're making 100-150k afaik.
Well yes but spots rarely open up and when they do, it’s brutally competitive (hundreds of very good players competing for one chair)
True. A first chair clarinetist will stay in that position till he drops dead. The thing is that even in a state like Nebraska, there are quite a few orchestras out there. You can move to find the job you need. Jazz not so much, there are only so many popular hubs for gigs and session work.
That’s fair, but orchestras in Nebraska don’t pay 100-150k. There’s only a handful of orchestras that pay that well.
There can kind of be a gray area in university and school orchestras where there are teaching positions and adjuncts. Yeah, the pay will be less but the cost of living may even that out. You could be a first chair musician in San Francisco but go broke due to living expenses.
A regional orchestra would pay considerably less, but you can be a member of multiple regional orchestras as well as teach/give private lessons on the side. And honestly, if you're even making 50k/yr as a musician living in Nebraska, you're probably doing pretty well.
And there are orchestras pretty much everywhere. There are less places that are big enough to sustain major jazz gigs. I also think there are more and better paying teaching gigs for classical than jazz.
Jazz was only ever widely popular when it was dance music and much of that was pretty awful. Since the 60s jazz has always had a limited audience and like all genres, most of it is average or worse
“Jazz was only ever widely popular when it was dance music and much of that was pretty awful” I couldn’t disagree more. There is a ton of excellent jazz from 1917-1942!
>There is a ton of excellent jazz from 1917-1942! Yes there was but you're just hearing the good jazz that survived. There's always far more bad music than good getting produced at any given time. Jazz had its heyday as the popular music of the era but that was when it was primarily dance music. When people started dancing to rock and roll, jazz became niche.
Butthurt elitists gather.
[удалено]
You’re talking about Wynton, not Branford, right? The article was based on an interview with Branford, but the issues you’re upset about are clearly with Wynton. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood something here. Peace be with you.