Jazz has never been popular

I think a lot of people would say popular Big Band music was not exactly jazz.

But I suppose that's sort of defining the terms such that they prove the argument.

Yeah, he's only talking about post-WWII it seems. Before that jazz was pretty pop, right?

xpost

I'm thinking about big band, traditional jazz before that...

What was most popular in the pre-rock days ranged from swingy pop that was definitely not jazz to Benny Goodman, which I think pretty obviously qualifies as jazz.

I assume Branford is really talking about heady, small-group instrumental jazz, be-bop and on.

It might be worth pointing out that albums like My Favorite Things and Kind of Blue have been big sellers.

Why is it important to him that jazz has never been popular, I wonder? (It may just be the editing of the interview that makes it seem so vehement, I grant you.)

Tax bill?

I also think it's a bit unfair to distinguish the music from the lifestyle - clearly rock owes much of its popularity to the lifestyle associated with it.

I have to leave work now but I find this really, really interesting.

As well as its principal practitioners being "fit" (xpost).

(so do I - I wish someone had started this thread earlier)

Why is it important to him that jazz has never been popular, I wonder?

The need to justify to himself what he's doing, probably. And because I'm sure interviewers are always asking him why jazz isn't more popular, or what can be done to make it more popular. And his answer is basically "small-group instrumental art music just doesn't top the charts."

The mid/late '20's were not called "The Jazz Age" for nothing. Linked to on this page:

http://vitaphone.blogspot.com/2007/01/snows-of-yesteryear.html

(scroll down) is an mp3 from a 1929 Colleen Moore movie called "Why Be Good?" Colleen Moore at the time was the biggest movie star in the world, many of her films featured Jazz parties in the storylines. The ones with semi-sychronised soundtracks like this one featured Jazz a lot. This kind of suggests that at that time Jazz was indeed very popular! (the track is great as well)

Why is it important to him that jazz has never been popular, I wonder?

He has a point that modern jazz (ie bebop and most everything after) is pretty much non-pop by intention, so why keep wringing hands over the fact that jazz doesn't sell and is unappreciated by the masses, etc.

xpost

And his answer is basically "small-group instrumental art music just doesn't top the charts."

"Green Onions"

Not the same as jazz at all of course, I'm just being contrary.

Bebop was all about separating the wheat from the chaff anyway, so it has a built-in rarefied quality, and most small group jazz has continued from that tradition. Even if you were just going to the Vanguard for the atmosphere, it meant you saw yourself as some kind of sophisticate out of a Playboy magazine, right?

Which is I guess what Jordan just said too.

I can't think of anything ever said by a Marsalis that I agreed with, really. Those guys prefer wringing their hands to ringing the changes.

I'm willing to give him a pass and assume by "jazz" he means "the kind of jazz I play," which in context makes perfect sense.

("kind of jazz" in the broadest sense, i.e. small group instrumental jazz)

The party scene w/Branford in Mo' Better Blues to thread

why does anyone listen to branford marsalis talk

it's interesting how he equates "not popular" with "people talking over the music." i would like to pursue this further but i have showering to do.

Dolphy live at the Five Spot just would not be the same without the incessant clinking of cutlery on plates.

Even if everyone at the Vanguard were listening intently, that wouldn't exactly have made Bill Evans the biggest name in American music at the time.

Jon OTM - Monk at the Blackhawk has great cash register rings.

Branford is a cool dude, I had a good conversation with him once. My only issue with him is his conflicted relationship to New Orleans music, I think.

Why is it important to him that jazz has never been popular, I wonder?

I suspect it's to put an end to arguments about how to reclaim a state that he think never existed. (Or to avoid having people put pressure on him and other jazz musicians to do something to reclaim a popularity that he's saying never existed.)

I tend to be defensive of the Marsalli even though I disagree with them on a lot of things.

My only issue with him is his conflicted relationship to New Orleans music, I think.

Well, with a brother like Wynton, it's not hard to understand. (Actually, I don't know the specifics of this, but it's hard to believe it wouldn't have something to do with reacting to Wynton's mythologizing.)

as of 2001, Kind of Blue was triple platinum

My guess is that it's more to do with reacting to where he grew up, with everyone playing the same tunes and him wanting to do something more sophisticated? All of Wynton's retro stuff came way later -- when Wynton & Branford played together that music was pretty fucking crazy.

But on the other hand I've got mad respect for the Honors series that his label is doing.

Jordan-- please recommend me one or two records of Branford & Wynton being pretty fucking crazy together.

Black Codes (From the Underground)

Live at Blues Alley (no Branford on this though)

It might be worth pointing out that albums like My Favorite Things and Kind of Blue have been big sellers.

As pointed out above, Kind Of Blue has sold three million copies or so. And all the label had to do to get it there was keep it continuously in print for 58 years and counting, remaster it several times with publicity campaigns for each new version or new format, etc., etc.

But aren't these hits (My Favorite Things, Kind of Blue, Time Out, Headhunters) kind of the exception that proves the rule?

we're saying that they aren't exactly huge 'hits'

Yeah, I suppose using the KOB example is a bit like using Olatunji: Drums of Passion to suggest that African drumming is popular.

What about fusion?

Maybe it wasn't "popular" in the same way that swing was ubiquitous in the 1940's, but I think it broke through to the mainstream enough to make a mark on the rock crowd.

But then, Wynton says fusion isn't jazz, so I guess that's right out.

I don't think fusion is jazz, and I love fusion.

KOB's had fifty years of renown as the greatest jazz album ever. To have only gone triple platinum in that time when, I dunno, Journey's greatest hits is diamond, puts it into perspective a little.

Obviously jazz has occasioanlly thrown up the odd hit single (Cannonball Adderly's Mercy Mercy Mercy was top ten, wasn't it?), but it's a minority concern and has been since at least Elvis. Ragtime, swing, big band... they're all genres and styles unto themselves, often related to jazz, often heavily, but then so are rock and hip hop sometimes, too. Jazz itself has always (where always is... postwar, the era of popular, recorded, mass-produced music) been a minority concern.

Any artist is ultimately a minority concern, since I don't think there are too many albums that are owned by a majority of people.

Yeah but we're not talking about artists, we're talking about a whole genre. I'd wager that most households with music in them have some rock and pop, but that only a small percentage have some jazz.

Yeah, I think you're right. But I'll bet in 1956 most households with record players had at least some jazz.

Well, nah, actually I'm not sure about that. Maybe in 1937? But at that point I wonder if most people even had record players.

Exactly. It was (relatively) popular when recorded music was a specialist concern. I'd wager that... most households with a proper hi-fi have some jazz.

I don't know, I'll bet that a majority of people have at least a couple token jazz cds/records, whether it's Billy Holliday, KoB, or Getz/Gilberto or something.

xpost

If not specialist, at very least bourgeois.

All this stuff is relative, but Jordan I'd guess you're wrong about that. Maybe a majority of people who own a large number of albums, but there are a lot of people out there who just own 10 CDs or so.

Hurting on the 8080 blooddiamonds, or whatever.

There are a few mildly jazz-ish artists that are enjoying huge popularity right now - Michael Buble, Norah Jones, (I think) Diana Krall. I guess they're more analagous to the jazzy pop records of people like Sinatra than to the jazz Marsalis is talking about.

I thought Michael Buble was a Josh Groban-type. Actually, I don't wanna know.

I would take up the jazz records in the 50s bet.

He does a fair number of standards and swing tunes.

Most jazz, especially the kind he's talking about, is instrumental. That seems even more important to this discussion. Instrumental music has never been as popular here as someone singing a song.

I don't understand this definition of jazz that begins with post-war bebop wtf

fuckin Marsalis and his super-narrow genre blinders

things I learned from ILM today: Hot Fives = "not jazz"

But the thing is, it's not like he's unaware, he just played on a record of traditional jazz with New Orleans dudes (the B0b French thing on his label).

Actually that makes me wonder - were the Hot Fives really popular recordings?

Also, how well do current ideas of popularity track with earlier eras. The age of coast-to-coast radio networks is only pretty recent with all the Clearchannel engulf-and-devouring, right? Regional popularity isn't the same thing as national or international popularity at all, and the former is rapidly becoming (if it is not already) a thing of the past.

"Take the 'A' Train" = not jazz, etc etc

"Take the 'A' Train" = not popular

A number of 78s sold a million copies in the 20s, which is amazing when you consider how many fewer people there were in the U.S. and how much more difficult distribution must have been. But I don't know if the Hot Fives records were big sellers -- anyone?

perhaps he's referring to the era when it was ordinary for many people to buy long-playing recorded music, ie the 50s on? because the question asks about record company marketing? and his examples of 'back in the day' are from the 50s and 60s? and though he refers to live jazz, he's referring to recordings of live jazz?

http://www.sc.edu/fitzgerald/collection/dustjackets/images/jazz.gif

xpost

For what it's worth, though, I think the average American's primary understanding of the word "jazz" is very 50s/60s/bop/etc., and wouldn't include pre-war big-band/swing/etc. unless you, like, told him it should.

fast forward to 2080, and the landscape will be dominated by electronic music fans will be all "rock was never popular"

I would think the average American would think jazz standards - ie, music they have heard

fitzgerald wrote about average americans

and those dudes on the cover were listening intently

popularity is generational

Anybody have the Ken Burns DVDs handy?

the former is rapidly becoming (if it is not already) a thing of the past.

no!

referring to regional popularity

agreed

The idea of a "regional hit" is such fun.

I don't think it's a specialized definition of jazz, it's just Branford being hyperbolic when he says "never popular". I think his real point, and it's a good one, is that jazz isn't as popular as most people take it to be: the dominant popular music before rock. When it was actually, say, Bing Crosby.

well R&B is in between jazz and rock but yes, jazz was the dominant popular music for awhile. in fact bing crosby is a bad example of yr point because he clearly came out of that era

There are, of course, totally different perspectives on both sides of the pond.

No, I meant Jass wasn't the dominant popular music before rock, that Bing Crosby (for example) was.

i know, but i'm saying that you might as well count bing crosby as 'jazz'

deej is largely correct

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BXoufT76L._AA240_.jpg

I love this "even though people called it jazz at the time, and it was popular - actually it was neither" line of reasoning though, keep at it.

after all jazz is only whatever Wynton Marsalis (and maybe Stanley Crouch) say it is, right?

You mean it isn't?

I would think the average American would think jazz standards - ie, music they have heard

Or Bing Crosby, but see, part of the semantic trickery that goes on here is that people think of those standards as just, like, popular song -- part of being standard means that people will never have to think of something as belonging to a nameable separate genre.

My only point here is that, right or wrong, if you ask most people who some major jazz artists are, or what kinds of images they associate with jazz, they will not mention swing or Bing -- from the somewhat-informed to the very-informed, they will say Miles Davis, Coltrane, Mingus, groups of four or five men in suits playing saxophones in a smoky bar. I mean, if you seriously doubt this, just visit every "jazz brunch" in your city and count how many are playing pre-war big-band stuff!

I dunno, my experience is different - yr propping up a bit of a strawman there, the mythical "average American"

Actually trad jazz is a lot more common at jazz brunches than at nightclubs. :> Brunch is too early for burnin post-bop.

"Careless Whisper" was a massive, massive hit. I don't know what these Marcellus brothers are soughing on about.

the generational point upthread is a good one, in relation to what audiences consider jazz - my grandparents, for example, would cite Big Band stuff, as would my parents. But people from my generation (ironically, people who were not by and large not alive to experience jazz culture firsthand) would be more likely to cite Miles and Coltrane.

Hire a jazz band for an office party in this country - I bet you they play big band stuff (even if its a small combo!) as opposed to "Goodbye Porkpie Hat" or "A Love Supreme"

after all jazz is only whatever Wynton Marsalis (and maybe Stanley Crouch) say it is, right?

i forgot about the wild popularity of cecil taylor and malachi favors in the 30s

I don't think people at the time would have called Bing Crosby jazz!

um, they did.

Well do you think they were right?

Hire a jazz band for an office party in this country - I bet you they play big band stuff (even if its a small combo!) as opposed to "Goodbye Porkpie Hat" or "A Love Supreme"

So today's default jazz is 20's-40's repertoire played in 50's-60's arrangements? Hmm.

I think restaurant jazz combos are equally likely to be Spyro Gyra-type ack. Especially if it's after 9pm.

Btw dudes come see my pre-war jass combo this weekend!

You guys must go to horrible restaurants/office parties.

I mean how is singing pop songs and standards over fully composed arrangements with little or no improvisation jazz?

Wynton and Stanley Crouch's definition is narrow for sure. but calling Bing Crosby, Rudy Vallee, all of that "jazz" is a little too broad. "The jazz age" is just a catch phrase. At any rate, neither of these is what Branford was talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u5kXsUpYfQ
Bing Crosby performing in "The King of Jazz"

Yeah, Rich is saying what I mean but much better.

I'm playing devil's advocate, Hurting, but what about highly arranged Ellington or other big band stuff...if you cut out the solo sections is it all of a sudden not jazz?

yes I think Bing Crosby did some jazz material. He's not jazz the way, say, Louie Armstrong or Count Basie is, but there's degrees here... Bing dabbled in it, as he did with many things.

Anyway, I really think Branford's point is "Music of the sort that I do was never all that popular, and therefore it's pointless to go on wringing our hands about why it isn't more popular" And if his reference points are things like Bill Evans and Coltrane, than I have to ultimately agree, even if I can nitpick a little.

Shakey, have you seen "The Jazz Singer"?

On the first page of my jazz textbook in college, it said there's no satisfactory definition of jazz in the sense of there being several features that *always* need to be present in order for a piece of music to count as jazz. There *are* several features that are common to a lot of jazz music, however, including improvisation, rhythms that "swing," and the use of "jazz instruments" (which is still rather vague) -- and if the music has at least a couple of these, then there's a good chance that it's jazz, but not necessarily.

yeah but that isn't what he actually says - he literally says JAZZ WAS NEVER POPULAR.

Which is either a) demonstrably untrue, or b) more of his endless stream of egotistical bullshit wherein "jazz" = what Wynton does, and nothing else.

x-post

xpost

Jordan, I know this is just adding to the question, but what do you mean by "trad jazz?" (Ha, and Jon, isn't "20s-40s repertoire in 50s-60s arrangements" actually what a decent amount of 50s-60s jazz WAS?)

You guys are right enough about this that I'm going to back up my claim a decade or two and say that possibly (late) Ellington worked through a bridging period there that the bulk of people, on hearing it, could agree to think of as definitively / quintessentially jazz, in a kind of central, baseline way. (Still, I do kind of cling to the idea that losts of people's estimation of what jazz is involves 50s/60s improvisation, if only because that's the most obvious, radical leap that marks modern jazz as a thing to itself.)

(What I mean by the parenthetical Jon part of that = if you take "50s-60s arrangements" to also include improvisation, there's gonna be a decent amount of 20s-40s tunes getting improvised into something else through those decades anyway.)

Jazz music has never been popular. I think that we need to get away from that lie.... Jazz has never been popular. I think that is just a common thing to say, and I don't know why.

"Getting away from that lie" necessitates agreeing with Wynton's narrow definition of jazz - which spans maybe a couple decades and does not accurately reflect the wide range of music that has been called "jazz" throughout the 20th century.

I mean how is singing pop songs and standards over fully composed arrangements with little or no improvisation jazz?

does it swing? (Is Chet Baker or Billie Holiday singing?)

xpost to nabisco-- Agreed. Although one could also envision this hypothetical office party combo going for more of a "big band, but with fewer players" kind of thing, which is not quite the same as what you just outlined.

Haha Shakey, Branford has never subscribed to Wynton's jazzhole ideas! Dude had a hip-hop/jazz fusion band and all.

xxxpost

Oh c'mon, people labeled things jazz to sell them. And it didn't have to be Cecil Taylor either.

"Getting away from that lie" necessitates agreeing with Wynton's narrow definition of jazz - which spans maybe a couple decades and does not accurately reflect the wide range of music that has been called "jazz" throughout the 20th century.

Hence the short shrift the Sixties got in the Ken Burns thing, right?

Haha Shakey, Branford has never subscribed to Wynton's jazzhole ideas! Dude had a hip-hop/jazz fusion band and all.

arrrgh sorry yeah I know, mixin up my names there - my apologies for any confusion

hey waitaminit that was Hurting that mixed the two up, not me!

that Ken Burns thing was a fucking joke

Jordan, I know this is just adding to the question, but what do you mean by "trad jazz?"

When I say traditional jazz I mean pre-bebop, specifically New Orleans music, with the associated repetoire and styles. You could say "dixieland", but only old white dudes play/call it dixieland.

Shakey I'm not saying you mixed them up, I'm saying this -- more of his endless stream of egotistical bullshit wherein "jazz" = what Wynton does, and nothing else. -- is not true.

Uh, no I didn't. I definitely know the difference between the two.

I don't get what you're implying there Jordan - that because Wynton accepts Branford's music (does he? didn't he give Branford shit for his hip-hop associations...?) he has a wider definition of jazz than just his own post-war/pre-free jazz ouevre...?

arghh nevermind I am totally mixing them up what is my goddamned problem

I guess my use of the term "Marsalli" might have confused things further. I really just wanted to say "Marsalli"

"I love this "even though people called it jazz at the time, and it was popular - actually it was neither" line of reasoning though, keep at it"

That kind of reasoning seems to be popular with heavy metal.

We're all aware of Wynton's scornful orthodoxies, and various snob definitions of jazz. All Branford meant was that Louis Armstrong, Count Basie and Charlie Parker sold their share of records, but not as many as Rudy Vallee, Al Jolson, and ....Whitey McInsipid, whoever.

"never popular" was an overstatement, true.

Whitey McInsipid, whoever.

Whitey McCerebral, OTOH, didn't sell too many.

Whitey McCerebral, OTOH, didn't sell too many.

Do you mean George Russell or Lennie Tristano?

It's a little unfair to read too much into an off the cuff interview comment anyway - he's even saying things that somewhat contradict each other. I think what he's getting at is ultimately clear and reasonable and he's just using language that makes his statement sound a bit too strong.

Ha, I meant Bill Evans, b/c that's who Branford mentioned

ok dudes it was fun to argue about jazz music today, thx

Actually, this talk of Whitey McCerebral is now reminding me that I always want to check out some Jimmy Giuffre. What's the go-to with him?

Yeah, he's only talking about post-WWII it seems. Before that jazz was pretty pop, right?

Even after WW2. I mean, you'd struggle to claim stuff such as Frank Sinatra's "Songs For Swingin' Lovers" album isn't jazz.

I didn't think that Time article he's talking about was all bad:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,873856,00.html "> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,873856,00.html
So a mainstream news magazine ran a cover story on Monk that was focused more on personality than critically dissecting his musical style. Isn't that true of most such feature articles? Anyway, this mid-60's Time we're talking about - not exactly the touchstone of hipness. (See Don't Look Back lately?) His broader point is true - that Americans treat music as entertainment, not art - but griping about it feels petty. Most people don't have the same reverence for music that professional musicians do. You could say the same for most professions.

What's more interesting to me is how jazz has gotten less popular (the Time article talks about Monk having a three-albums-a-year deal at Columbia - I'm pretty sure that's hard to come by nowadays) even as it's been placed on a pedestal by those who enjoy it (there's not going to be much during-song chatter going on when a big-name jazz band is playing a club nowadays, is there?) What led to this rarefied status?

Hi, I don't know how to use hyperlinks.

What led to this rarefied status?

Time. Changes in technology.

Jon, Jimmy Giuffre 3 is a GREAT album. It's so tonal and easy to listen to that you probably won't think of it as "cerebral." I do believe it was pretty forward-thinking in its use of drumless trio (one of the first maybe?). Giuffre also has his more avant garde stuff which I'm not all that partial to, but Free Fall is an oft-praised record.

Do Jaga Jazzist really sell that much less than John Coltrane did in the 50s?

Time. Changes in technology.

Not something about the music itself? I always thought the 60's avant-garde takeover turned off mainstream fans.

I always thought the 60's avant-garde takeover turned off mainstream fans.

Obviously it did, but 70s and 80s fusion did enjoy quite a bit of mainstream popularity. Herbie Hancock's "Rockit" was even a Top 10 hit.

there wasn't really a "takeover" though - it's not like there weren't still people making records of swingy, beboppy tunes.

What's more interesting to me is how jazz has gotten less popular (the Time article talks about Monk having a three-albums-a-year deal at Columbia - I'm pretty sure that's hard to come by nowadays) even as it's been placed on a pedestal by those who enjoy it

The moment something's put on a pedestal is often the moment it jumps the shark, in terms of broad popularity. The Ken Burns baseball documentary, for instance, seemed to confirm that baseball was a glory of the past. It's a curious thing, I don't know if one causes the other, or what.

there wasn't really a "takeover" though - it's not like there weren't still people making records of swingy, beboppy tunes.

That is true. But then, I guess jazz not dominating like it used to in the 40s or before is probably more due to rock arriving on the scene in the mid 50s than due to bop and avant garde jazz. Pop music until the mid 50s was still very much about big band jazz, no matter what Charlie Parker, Dizzie Gillespie or even Miles Davis were doing in the jazz underground.

I don't know if one causes the other, or what.

A decline in popularity definitely inspires the pedestal effect among the devoted. When mainstream appeal is remote, the pedestal is really all that's left, both for the musicians and the audience. When everyone else stops paying attention, the common response seems to be, we'd better be sure to pay very careful attention or (1) it may just disappear and (2) treating it as other than IMPORTANT would imply that everyone else is right. This works in the other direction too though - once something's clearly on the pedestal most people steer clear.

It's the steer clear response that's interesting.

I've only gotten this far in the thread:

The age of coast-to-coast radio networks is only pretty recent with all the Clearchannel engulf-and-devouring, right?

I guess the steer clear response is something like, who wants to work at being entertained? People already have to work at their jobs.

Whitey McCerebral, OTOH, didn't sell too many.

Do you mean George Russell or Lennie Tristano?

george russell is black.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/amg/pop_albums/6/7/l/d67074meulb.jpg

The title track of which has a vocal by Bing Crosby.

Whoa, I never knew George Russell was black. In fact I thought I had heard him denigrated as one of those white musicians who intellectualized jazz too much or something.

Hey I never knew that either. And I never he knew wrote "Cubano Be, Cubano Bop" until a few seconds ago. But we probably shouldn't admit to this because Shakey Mo will somehow wave this in our face as well.

Now that he's done namechecking the Wynton/Stanley/Ken Holy Trinity of Guys Who Are Singlehandedly Stifling Jazz And I Am Against Them Therefore I Am In Fact In Favor Of Jazz Creativity.

Considering he doesn't know Wynton from Branford, probably not.

Maybe Stanley Crouch is the reason jazz isn't more popular. Because if he wasn't out there pulling the wool over people's eyes, teenagers would be lining up at the record store to buy Peter Brotzman records.

Maybe Stanley Crouch is the reason jazz isn't more popular.

crouch's whole approach to exposing the music to new listeners is usually along the lines of, "what YOU listen to SUCKS! listen to jazz, you stupid jerk!"

i am at a loss as to why that approach doesn't get the desired results.

i blame jay leno

was this popular, brainfjord?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0h2ZIoE7dA

I don't get it - does the fact that Branford plays sax on a Sting song make it jazz?

it didn't prevent it from sucking

And I don't really get the ire directed at Branford for a tossed off remark. It's not like he published a position paper called "The Myth of Jazz Popularity," he's just saying let's stop putting all this pressure on a somewhat esoteric style of music - a certain specific kind of jazz to be exact - to find its way into the forefront of public consciousness since it never really was.

No one can stop Sting from sucking.

jazz is popular enough.

japan alone...

not to mention sweden...

how many jazz festivals are there in the u.s. every year? a thousand? probably too many.

A thousand sounds high.

there are a lot though.

Wisconsin's finest music festival, the Ziegler Kettle Moraine Jazz Festival features international jazz musicians and vocalists in an outdoor setting under a spacious tent surrounded by rolling hills and rustling trees.

Previous festival headliners have included the Jeff Kashiwa, Jonathan Butler, Yellowjackets, Michael Lington, Steve Oliver, Marion Meadows, Keiko Matsui, Kim Waters, Mindi Abair, Kevin Eubanks, Rick Braun, Fourplay, Down to the Bone, Richard Elliot, Acoustic Alchemy, Joyce Cooling, Marc Antoine, Jesse Cook, Dave Koz, Craig Chaquico, David Benoit, Boney James, Peter White, and Brian Culbertson.

Those are almost all smooth jazz artists. I guess that's a whole other argument.

Wait a second, should I be able to tell Wynton from Bradford? I mean, I've seen 'em both play a couple of times, and they seemed OK, but nothing to write home about, and nothing that I felt like I should investigate further.

Brotzman, on the other hand, put on a hell of a show when I saw him, even if about a third of his set was the jazz equivalent of speed metal wank solos.

Part of the popularity problem, at least to my ear, is that jazz has such a goddamned overstuffed set of cultural baggage. While you can analyze a Girls Aloud song, I'd argue that the mythical average listener rarely does, even as they enjoy it. I don't think that happens with jazz, or classical, really.

I have never heard of that festival.

the hugh jass festival?

Although I did see Kevin Eubanks at a festival in Milwaukee once and everyone was all "we love you Kevin, show us your muscles" and he hit them with some crazy M-Base shit, it was great.

I would rather listen to Branford's band than Brotzmann.

Why does it always have to be either/or?

Jordan, tell that to your new leader, scott!