RE: [Harp-L] Why is intelligent music is dying

["Tom Watson" <fountain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well thought out, and eloquently expressed.  I used to like jazz because it was cool.  Now, in my 60's, I don't know enough about jazz to appreciate it.  My music is the blues, because it speaks to my soul, and because so many others share my love for it.  I can play, sing, dance to and enjoy the blues, a lot like folks did 100 or so years ago.  Jazz now requires a sophistication I do not possess.

-----Original Message-----
From: harp-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:harp-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug Schroer
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 12:22 PM
To: Harp-l for posting
Subject: [Harp-L] Why is intelligent music is dying

Here is one over simplified way to look at it.  It creates a false dichotomy of extremes when actually it is a range of musical forms with much falling between those extremes:

There has been an artistic and musical divide for centuries, if not longer.  There are folk forms that reflect the common life experiences and emotions of average working people, that are used as celebration and as a reflection of their life circumstances and experiences.  Dancing is often a big part of enjoying this music.  Sometimes the music is a mourning of horrible circumstances, be it blues, country, or folk music.  Floods, mine disasters, romantic relationships, heartbreak, murder, perseverance through adversity, etc. are reflected in these forms.  While there are highly skilled musicians performing this music, the performance of these forms remains accessible to everyday citizen musicians and even hacks.  The enjoyment of this music is accessible to a wide range of people.

Then there are the "elite" forms supported by those with power, money and influence.  Those with the gold and the power have used these forms of music to differentiate themselves from the masses.  Rulers supported performing artists and commissioned symphonies, which reflected upon the importance of the rulers.  Classical music is the prime example of this form, with opera and ballet also fitting the elite art category.  Folk dance and folk music was looked down upon by the elite and their sycophants.  It was a mark of success and importance to attend the symphony and disdain the lower forms.

In America and other nations the burgeoning middle class adopted some of the elite forms and subsidized them as a group endeavor, though the wealthy continued providing much of the support.  Government arts grants later became a factor, and gaining the favor of bureaucrats became important in supporting the arts.

Jazz started out as a music form accessible to a wide range of listeners, and was a form encouraging social interaction and dance by average people, not just the elite sitting in an audience, listening for chordal subtleties.  The bands were supported by the people who came out to dance and party.  As jazz increased in complexity and required increasingly more educated listeners, leaving dancing behind, it limited it's audience and achieved the status formerly held by classical music.  It is now an elite form.  It is unrealistic to expect a large portion of the population to learn to sit and listen to these forms in a concert hall.  They want to celebrate, escape day to day life, and party.

In America, African music became blues and combined with European forms in America gave birth to jazz.  Blues also gave birth to rock and roll.  R & B, soul, funk grew out of this stew.  Rap came out of the combination of rhythms and the spoken word expression of life experiences of the non-elite.  At this time much of jazz and much of classical music has become a cerebral endeavor reserved for a diminishing group of elite educated music listeners.  One might dare to apply the labels of Apollonian and Dionysian to the extreme examples of the cerebral vs. celebratory forms.  The populace wants to party and dance.  Jazz today seldom supports this.

If jazz is to survive (or classical music, for that matter) beyond being background music for advertisements or an art form with few listeners, there needs to be movement back toward accessibility by the general population.  This means it needs to become part of social interaction and perhaps even dance.  Jazz was originally a dance music, and a party.  Only in late night sessions did the musicians play for other musicians with educated ears, and only then did they push the boundaries of the form beyond what the general population could understand.  Now, all jazz musicians want to be those players, but there is not a large audience clamoring for such performances.

As noted, this is one way to look at it, and an over simplification at best.  The issue of visual art forms supplanting the auditory experience is not even addressed.  At a recent live performance I witnessed a large portion of the audience holding up smart phones to record the performance.
The recording was more important to them than experiencing the music in the moment.  This was rock and roll, not an elite form.  Technology is becoming a barrier between musicians and the experience of live music.  That is another topic...

Doug S.