Why people don't get Jazz...

With all the new pop music coming out, force-feeding the general public, I frequently find myself in discussion revolving around the evolution of music and the understanding of it. It reminded me of a blog post written by Monday Michiru and her views on why some people are not so keen on Jazz. It says that the lack of interest is mainly due to education where parents and schools should start implementation at a younger age. However, as one musician put it, quoted below, education can also prove to be a hinderance on the imagination. Perhaps as parents and teachers, we can educate as well as encourage that there are no limits to one's own conceptions to the art form.

"I recently went to see my husband perform at Birdland with a new group legendary bassist Dave Holland had put together, a Sextet including Mulgrew Miller on piano, Eric Harland on drums, Robin Eubanks on trombone, and Antonio Hart on alto sax. At my table was a friend who, while appreciating various forms of music on quite a wide scale compared to the normal folk, was still seemingly new to jazz. In fact, he had tried to wrangle some of his friends to partake in the evening, but as he explained, jazz was a hard sell. We talked a little about why people weren't too into jazz, and he factored in the very valid issue of poor marketing effecting people's image of jazz. But I think "marketing" or lack of is a poor excuse, and even when it is used effectively, such as in the case of Wynton Marsalis, it can hinder the true essence of jazz.I will share with you something that is still under wraps, but for the sake of this point I am trying to make, I have been approached by a group of people who are attempting to put together a DVD record company of jazz music. Their vision is to make a company whose DVD images are unmistakably their brand, and the music to be something more digestible than what they call the more "academic" jazz. I had a meeting with them last week, and it was interesting to hear them talk about how jazz has a stale image, that there is no real modern jazz, etc. While I understand what they're saying, and it's true that many "jazz" artists have a tendency to regurgitate the past and do yet another version of "My Funny Valentine" or "Moon River," or the standard standards in be-bop, there are also the young crop of jazzers, some of who were on display that night at Birdland, exploring music in a new avenue, and while it's jazz, it's not jazz in the be-bop sense of what was going on in the 60s. Of course I didn't want to blow my deal with these people and say that to them, and I'm flattered that they want to include me in on this DVD project even though I don't really view my music as jazz. But that's another story.I think music of all forms has taken a beating by the lack of education, again a subject we touched upon that night at Birdland with my friend. I was lucky in that I was in the House of. Because of my parent's involvement in jazz and music overall, I took an interest and fortunately showed talent at an early age and decided at 11 to study classical music and flute, all with the idea of becoming a musician one day a perfectly real career choice. I was listening to Stravinsky by the age of 8 alongside the Beatles. I was studying Mozart and Debussey in my teens while listening to Steeley Dan, Stevie Wonder, Chick Corea and funk music. I was playing in an orchestra doing Mahler and Dvorjak by age 16 while dancing to and appreciating Michael Jackson, Diana Ross and Oingo Boingo. And there was the ever constant flow of original jazz music my parents were composing and playing at home.I'm not writing this to try and impress, but rather to impress upon the fact that I don't think there are kids in these age groups today who are exposed to such a variety of really deep music, at least not in the U.S. and perhaps some from other countries might find this to be true as well. The government and the educational system is definitely at fault here, and I hate to say it but parents as well. If it's not part of people's environment, how else are they going to develop an appreciation towards it?Music is definitely a language. The different "tongues" and slangs are the different styles, whether it's jazz or classical or whatever, but first there are the ABCs (the notes). From there you develop your language (the melodies and songs), learn to string together your sentences (the scales), then understand the meaning behind the words (the chords), and so forth. If the language is foreign to you, well, you're not going to want to communicate or understand. It's too hard a work, and most people are too lazy to want to learn, or just don't know where to start.Jazz is that original and beautiful art form where there is essentially a head, or the actual song which is the melody in a certain rhythmic meter (in 4, 6, 7, whatever) under certain chords in a certain format, then the musicians expand on the melody over the form of the song, meter and chords. When the musician is well versed, they can break the format but still stay in it. Which really wigs us out; it's a real ride. Unless the listener is educated enough in music, or used to hearing this type of music and understand what is going on or, again using the language metaphor, can understand the language, they're just not going to get it. It's going to go over their heads and it might as well be a person mumbling at them and BORING. Sorta like how the parents sound on the Peanuts cartoons. Like my son listening to the news. Although lately he's starting to catch certain stories: "Who's Bush?" Okay, that's again another story.And that basically sums up my theory of why people aren't into jazz, or other "sophisticated" forms of music. Jazz in a most rudimentary form can be considered a little stale, yes. I would have to agree with that. As one musician friend sarcastically commented while listening to the radio, "Great, I needed to hear yet another version of XX." But in its modern incarnation, it is beautiful, masterful, deep, spiritual, and you can see each musician weaving around in what they have trained and studied years and years to be able to get under their fingers; it is truly awesome and quite frankly COOL. It is idiosyncratic. It is intelligent. I personally don't think it's academic. Do jazz musicians look academic to you? Sorry it's not dummified for people to "get." It is truth. You don't see a lot of b.s.ing jazz musicians. They see society and people as it is, have refused to partake in the mainstream, and have sought the harder route because they know there is truth to be found in that road.And that is basically my theory of why people don't really get into jazz. It's easier to deal with b.s. than be challenged."

Monday Michiru

"Jazz has gone the route of opera, classical music, and ballet. . One word comes to mind regarding all of these – inbred. Like aristocracy of the past, when an art form comes to view itself superior, when it stops looking forward and only reminisces about glory days, when it only “breeds” within its own kind and refuses to see out of its own circle, the inevitable outcome is languid, slow, boring, energy-less, vibrancy-less, relevancy-less, whiny, pabulum. Who is blamed for the drop in jazz’s appeal?...Education is the one thing that has most contributed to Jazz’s demise. "

Klaus Milbitz