Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jon Wallis's avatar

The problem is that "jazz" is way too broad a term, encompassing everything from Derek Bailey and Art Ensemble of Chicago, through Trad and Big Band, Charlie Parker and Miles Davies , to George Benson, Sarah Vaughan and (god help me) Kenny G.

It's like asking someone what "classical music" means to them — is their answer engendered by Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Stockhausen, Pärt, Reich, Nancarrow or Macmillan?

Or "pop"... you get the idea — you'll likely get as many answers as the descriptor encompasses.

It's some sort of corollary of "mu" — "unask the question", because it can't get a meaningful answer (see, eg, Robert M. Pirsig's "Zen & The Art...")

Expand full comment
Nina Collavo's avatar

Speaking as one of those inscrutable youngsters you like to study, I can offer some insight. I’m a college student and I engineer a jazz radio show on our campus station. There are a lot more jazz enthusiasts than you might think among my age group! I love jazz and agree with you that it’s far more exciting and startling than “romantic”, but I think my peers have the perception that it’s the product of a bygone age, something quaint and charming like black and white movies. Also, it’s not at the forefront of counterculture how it used to be (no one is writing articles about the sinfulness of jazz today!) so it doesn’t have the appeal of rebelliousness that a lot of young people seek out in music. I think a lot of it is a matter of attention span too. 10 minute songs are implausible.

Love your newsletter!

Expand full comment
135 more comments...

No posts