gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680598 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 09:48:14 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Brian and a move towards an authentic pop musical vocabulary  (Read 7200 times)
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« on: July 27, 2021, 10:11:22 AM »

As many of you may know, one of my primary goals has been to "academize" the work of the Beach Boys; to package it in a way that shows off its intrinsic worth as part of the glories of Western Art.  A perspective that I'm now trying to suss out is the idea that Brian, alongside his faithful studio musicians, was a part of a movement within the Hollywood popular music scene that was developing what I am calling, at the moment, an authentic pop vocabulary.

Here's what I mean by that --  the kind of arrangements and, in particular, orchestrations that Brian and a handful of his peers were doing were a natural extension of the popular music that came before.  These were traditions that emerged directly from a taproot of popular classical music, big band, swing, and rock 'n' roll.

In contrast, after this movement died out (for various reasons) my contention is that, rather than join a developing continuum of innovation, when pop/rock arrangers and producers dipped into instrumentation outside the now standard rock set-up, these arrangers are simply grafting a foreign vocabulary onto their own limited pop-rock vocabulary -- it's not authentic; it's a chimera.

Now, I would appreciate two forms of feedback:

1.  Does this position make sense?
2.  If you buy it, can you help me come up with a handful of arrangers/producers who were part of this movement with Brian?  I think that, for instance, you could put Jack Nitzsche in there, Jan Berry, Billy Strange...etc. 

Thanks!  I'm hoping to write a paper on this.
Logged
Rocker
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 10622


"Too dumb for New York City, too ugly for L.A."


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2021, 11:40:46 AM »

I think I know what you mean. Sounds like a very interesting idea and project!


Although they started way back in the 50s and didn't work solely in L. A., I think one of the most important objects would be Leiber&Stoller. They are basically the blueprint for the Brian Wilson, Phil Spector, Jan Berry etc. type of producer (in fact, trivia time, the term "producer" on records was coined for L&S).
Logged

a diseased bunch of mo'fos if there ever was one… their beauty is so awesome that listening to them at their best is like being in some vast dream cathedral decorated with a thousand gleaming American pop culture icons.

- Lester Bangs on The Beach Boys


PRO SHOT BEACH BOYS CONCERTS - LIST


To sum it up, they blew it, they blew it consistently, they continue to blow it, it is tragic and this pathological problem caused The Beach Boys' greatest music to be so underrated by the general public.

- Jack Rieley
Wirestone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6043



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2021, 01:14:41 PM »

I feel as though “authentic” is a rather fraught word in this context. Many artists continued to create orchestral pop through the 70s, 80s, 90s and beyond. And while I understand the concept of grafting on out of context instrumentation, Brian himself tacked on Lawrence Welk-style strings to the Surfer Moon before developing a more integrated sonic vocabulary.

There’s also an element here that seems to overlook the work of folks in Philadelphia who created sumptuously orchestrated tracks in the mid-70s, along with disco, which was likewise often carefully arranged for large ensembles. These weren’t movements created by white dudes in California, but does that make them less “authentic”?
Logged
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2021, 01:40:14 PM »

I feel as though “authentic” is a rather fraught word in this context. Many artists continued to create orchestral pop through the 70s, 80s, 90s and beyond. And while I understand the concept of grafting on out of context instrumentation, Brian himself tacked on Lawrence Welk-style strings to the Surfer Moon before developing a more integrated sonic vocabulary.

There’s also an element here that seems to overlook the work of folks in Philadelphia who created sumptuously orchestrated tracks in the mid-70s, along with disco, which was likewise often carefully arranged for large ensembles. These weren’t movements created by white dudes in California, but does that make them less “authentic”?

I agree with all of this, but I'm trying to keep the focus as narrow as possible for the sake of writing a concise paper, rather than a multi-volume work, at this point.  Certainly your Gambles, Huffs, and Bells, and all the people doing that Sigma sound stuff were creating their own vocabulary, and as such, they deserve credit and they deserve focus.  But after devoting decades to studying the Hollywood scene, I am not going to be the person to do that.

Of course, "authentic" is always a horrible, contentious word in almost any context.  I could probably find a less fraught word.  Perhaps "ex introrsō" or somesuch.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2021, 03:10:03 PM »

There is a precedent in popular music which I think has to be noted, which if the exact dates can be noted (and I'm not sure they can because it's somewhat dependent on the opinion of the person listening) would parallel Leiber & Stoller's orchestral leanings in pop (being watched by their protege Phil Spector) and may even pre-date it.

I'd recommend at least an introductory discussion on what's referred to as "The Nashville Sound". Late 50's, early 60's Nashville session machine at work, mostly at RCA studio A, Bradley's Barn, etc and on RCA's label.

Here was an overt attempt to shift country music into something more palatable to the masses, and make a lot more money in the genre in the process. They took a genre that had handfuls of sub-genres or labels and basically smoothed it out by adding elements of pop music which was getting airplay and also smoothing out some of the rough edges. What was "hillbilly", "rockabilly", "Honky Tonk", and based a lot on the blues and blues song forms was now getting pop song forms and arrangements which were more from lite pop of the 50's than honky-tonk jukebox hits.

They added string sections, horn sections (often members who became stars themselves as Danny Davis and The Nashville Brass later), background vocal groups (often The Anita Kerr Singers), and they had a core group of studio players who played 98% of these sessions in Nashville and became known as The A-Team. Even an A-Team member like pianist Floyd Cramer who had worked with Elvis on the early RCA sessions (and worked with almost everyone else in Nashville in the 50's and 60's) went on to have massive hits singles and instrumental albums using that same formula. The single "Last Date" in particular pretty much encapsulates the "Nashville Sound" as much as "TSOP" by M.F.S.B. would later do as a Philly Soul instrumental smash hit in the early 70's. And, as any number of the LA Wrecking Crew instrumental hits like Taste Of Honey or No Matter What Shape pretty much summed up the sound of that core band too, in a hit record form.

I think it's very much a template for what would happen in LA, only predating it by either 4 years or 2 years depending on whose account of the history you might read. But take that template, and it's what Phil and Brian and all the Wrecking Crew participants ended up doing in LA. Right down to the fact that most of the true "classics" of the scene were mostly recorded in one of the same 3 studios on most of the big hits, and often using the same core players. And it was not hard rock, or even what purists would call rock and roll music, it was not blues based as the songwriting moved away from blues forms by that time, and just like the Nashville Sound took the hillbilly and rougher sounds out of the genre, so did a lot of the LA records from 62-66 that are in this sub-genre.

It's hard not to see a parallel on both a business model and even a modus operandi overall between that late 50's/early 60's "Nashville Sound" and the 62-66 LA scene with their taking more unsophisticated styles and sounds and polishing them up with orchestral and pop touches. Surf music with sophisticated harmonies and strings, with an occasional harp...rock and doo-wop chord changes with strings, horn sections, and orchestral percussion...etc. I'd also throw in as a possible precedent - to a much lesser degree - the attempts in the 50's to make rock and roll music "safe" by having Pat Boone and that crew recut original rock and R&B tunes with similar orchestrations and pop sounds. Even though I'm not a fan, there is even a parallel in that sub-sub genre of "lite rock remakes" where the addition of strings and the ways they made the beat less insistent and more lightweight put less emphasis on the all-out groove and rhythm and turned small-combo rock and roll bashers into lite pop offerings. 

Once listeners heard strings and vocal group backings on the radio, the thinking at that time was more people would listen and buy. I don't think Nashville was concerned with the art as much as trying to sell more country music to the average people who would not listen to honky-tonk and hillbilly music. And all this was at a time when the Grand Ol' Opry *still* did not allow drums on that stage.

Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2021, 03:43:18 PM »

There is a precedent in popular music which I think has to be noted, which if the exact dates can be noted (and I'm not sure they can because it's somewhat dependent on the opinion of the person listening) would parallel Leiber & Stoller's orchestral leanings in pop (being watched by their protege Phil Spector) and may even pre-date it.

I'd recommend at least an introductory discussion on what's referred to as "The Nashville Sound". Late 50's, early 60's Nashville session machine at work, mostly at RCA studio A, Bradley's Barn, etc and on RCA's label.

Here was an overt attempt to shift country music into something more palatable to the masses, and make a lot more money in the genre in the process. They took a genre that had handfuls of sub-genres or labels and basically smoothed it out by adding elements of pop music which was getting airplay and also smoothing out some of the rough edges. What was "hillbilly", "rockabilly", "Honky Tonk", and based a lot on the blues and blues song forms was now getting pop song forms and arrangements which were more from lite pop of the 50's than honky-tonk jukebox hits.

They added string sections, horn sections (often members who became stars themselves as Danny Davis and The Nashville Brass later), background vocal groups (often The Anita Kerr Singers), and they had a core group of studio players who played 98% of these sessions in Nashville and became known as The A-Team. Even an A-Team member like pianist Floyd Cramer who had worked with Elvis on the early RCA sessions (and worked with almost everyone else in Nashville in the 50's and 60's) went on to have massive hits singles and instrumental albums using that same formula. The single "Last Date" in particular pretty much encapsulates the "Nashville Sound" as much as "TSOP" by M.F.S.B. would later do as a Philly Soul instrumental smash hit in the early 70's. And, as any number of the LA Wrecking Crew instrumental hits like Taste Of Honey or No Matter What Shape pretty much summed up the sound of that core band too, in a hit record form.

I think it's very much a template for what would happen in LA, only predating it by either 4 years or 2 years depending on whose account of the history you might read. But take that template, and it's what Phil and Brian and all the Wrecking Crew participants ended up doing in LA. Right down to the fact that most of the true "classics" of the scene were mostly recorded in one of the same 3 studios on most of the big hits, and often using the same core players. And it was not hard rock, or even what purists would call rock and roll music, it was not blues based as the songwriting moved away from blues forms by that time, and just like the Nashville Sound took the hillbilly and rougher sounds out of the genre, so did a lot of the LA records from 62-66 that are in this sub-genre.

It's hard not to see a parallel on both a business model and even a modus operandi overall between that late 50's/early 60's "Nashville Sound" and the 62-66 LA scene with their taking more unsophisticated styles and sounds and polishing them up with orchestral and pop touches. Surf music with sophisticated harmonies and strings, with an occasional harp...rock and doo-wop chord changes with strings, horn sections, and orchestral percussion...etc. I'd also throw in as a possible precedent - to a much lesser degree - the attempts in the 50's to make rock and roll music "safe" by having Pat Boone and that crew recut original rock and R&B tunes with similar orchestrations and pop sounds. Even though I'm not a fan, there is even a parallel in that sub-sub genre of "lite rock remakes" where the addition of strings and the ways they made the beat less insistent and more lightweight put less emphasis on the all-out groove and rhythm and turned small-combo rock and roll bashers into lite pop offerings. 

Once listeners heard strings and vocal group backings on the radio, the thinking at that time was more people would listen and buy. I don't think Nashville was concerned with the art as much as trying to sell more country music to the average people who would not listen to honky-tonk and hillbilly music. And all this was at a time when the Grand Ol' Opry *still* did not allow drums on that stage.



Good thoughts -- I think you're right that Nashville has to be acknowledged in the narrative.
Logged
Wirestone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6043



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2021, 04:18:13 PM »

I'm vibing with the concept of the pop vocabulary, now that you've explained things more. That is, that the tradition of Hollywood and jazz and all sorts of recordings in California created this rich vein of music that was partly expressed by artists, but also (or even more importantly) by producers and arrangers. And how this very particular semi-orchestrated sound was hugely dominant and influential for a time but then faded. I also wonder about the ways in which it went underground or survived even after its pop moment was past -- in soundtracks and even commercial session work.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2021, 04:18:50 PM by Wirestone » Logged
Greg Parry
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 108



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2021, 12:48:46 AM »

In looking for people who were part of the same movement as Brian, I think you'd have to consider Curt Boettcher. I know some people balk at this notion, but often that's a reaction to some of the more grandiose claims made by Gary Usher which placed Boettcher above all others, Brian included.

I would not put Boettcher ahead of Brian in most respects, but he was certainly doing some interesting work in the period from '66 to '68. A lot of the woodwind parts on the Ballroom sessions are really unique, and Begin is just sublime from start to finish. That intro, which fuses harpsichord with a drum sound which fully anticipates Zeppelin seems to come from a universe in which Smile was released.  I would also say he was pushing effects such as tape delay to their limits as part of the arrangement well before Brian.

If it was me I'd also consider Michael Brown and his father.
Logged
Rocker
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 10622


"Too dumb for New York City, too ugly for L.A."


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2021, 07:04:09 AM »

There is a precedent in popular music which I think has to be noted, which if the exact dates can be noted (and I'm not sure they can because it's somewhat dependent on the opinion of the person listening) would parallel Leiber & Stoller's orchestral leanings in pop (being watched by their protege Phil Spector) and may even pre-date it.

I'd recommend at least an introductory discussion on what's referred to as "The Nashville Sound". Late 50's, early 60's Nashville session machine at work, mostly at RCA studio A, Bradley's Barn, etc and on RCA's label.

Here was an overt attempt to shift country music into something more palatable to the masses, and make a lot more money in the genre in the process. They took a genre that had handfuls of sub-genres or labels and basically smoothed it out by adding elements of pop music which was getting airplay and also smoothing out some of the rough edges. What was "hillbilly", "rockabilly", "Honky Tonk", and based a lot on the blues and blues song forms was now getting pop song forms and arrangements which were more from lite pop of the 50's than honky-tonk jukebox hits.

They added string sections, horn sections (often members who became stars themselves as Danny Davis and The Nashville Brass later), background vocal groups (often The Anita Kerr Singers), and they had a core group of studio players who played 98% of these sessions in Nashville and became known as The A-Team. Even an A-Team member like pianist Floyd Cramer who had worked with Elvis on the early RCA sessions (and worked with almost everyone else in Nashville in the 50's and 60's) went on to have massive hits singles and instrumental albums using that same formula. The single "Last Date" in particular pretty much encapsulates the "Nashville Sound" as much as "TSOP" by M.F.S.B. would later do as a Philly Soul instrumental smash hit in the early 70's. And, as any number of the LA Wrecking Crew instrumental hits like Taste Of Honey or No Matter What Shape pretty much summed up the sound of that core band too, in a hit record form.

I think it's very much a template for what would happen in LA, only predating it by either 4 years or 2 years depending on whose account of the history you might read. But take that template, and it's what Phil and Brian and all the Wrecking Crew participants ended up doing in LA. Right down to the fact that most of the true "classics" of the scene were mostly recorded in one of the same 3 studios on most of the big hits, and often using the same core players. And it was not hard rock, or even what purists would call rock and roll music, it was not blues based as the songwriting moved away from blues forms by that time, and just like the Nashville Sound took the hillbilly and rougher sounds out of the genre, so did a lot of the LA records from 62-66 that are in this sub-genre.

It's hard not to see a parallel on both a business model and even a modus operandi overall between that late 50's/early 60's "Nashville Sound" and the 62-66 LA scene with their taking more unsophisticated styles and sounds and polishing them up with orchestral and pop touches. Surf music with sophisticated harmonies and strings, with an occasional harp...rock and doo-wop chord changes with strings, horn sections, and orchestral percussion...etc. I'd also throw in as a possible precedent - to a much lesser degree - the attempts in the 50's to make rock and roll music "safe" by having Pat Boone and that crew recut original rock and R&B tunes with similar orchestrations and pop sounds. Even though I'm not a fan, there is even a parallel in that sub-sub genre of "lite rock remakes" where the addition of strings and the ways they made the beat less insistent and more lightweight put less emphasis on the all-out groove and rhythm and turned small-combo rock and roll bashers into lite pop offerings. 

Once listeners heard strings and vocal group backings on the radio, the thinking at that time was more people would listen and buy. I don't think Nashville was concerned with the art as much as trying to sell more country music to the average people who would not listen to honky-tonk and hillbilly music. And all this was at a time when the Grand Ol' Opry *still* did not allow drums on that stage.




Yes, Nashville also came to my mind, but I didn't mention it because as I understood Joshilyn, her work would be settled on L.A. But yes, Nashville's Pop influences shouldn't be underestimated. A lot of big and influential hits came out of there. Elvis Presley, Roy Orbison, Everly Brothers, Patsy Cline a.s.o.
Chet Atkins, Bill Porter, Owen Bradley are among those behind the glas. Not to forget the great Billy Sherill.

But if we are going that route, there also needs to be a point made for Memphis and it's music. Starting with Sun Records and evolving to an industry that had Stax, Hi-Records and Amercian Sound. The question would be if a line has to be drawn for an academic work so that you have more narrow definitions of "Pop". Otherwise you'd have to work a very wide field.
Logged

a diseased bunch of mo'fos if there ever was one… their beauty is so awesome that listening to them at their best is like being in some vast dream cathedral decorated with a thousand gleaming American pop culture icons.

- Lester Bangs on The Beach Boys


PRO SHOT BEACH BOYS CONCERTS - LIST


To sum it up, they blew it, they blew it consistently, they continue to blow it, it is tragic and this pathological problem caused The Beach Boys' greatest music to be so underrated by the general public.

- Jack Rieley
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2021, 08:33:05 AM »

One of my reasons for citing the Nashville Sound was to show that a lot of these events and milestones in the 60's music scene didn't happen in a vacuum and there were precedents from those who came before. In the case of the Nashville scene centered around 1960, minus a few years either way, I'd suggest it was a template if not a direct influence on the LA scene. They took rough-hewn music styles and sounds, often recorded with bare-bones primitive methods by musicians not considered sophisticated or learned in the vocabulary of music and dressed the genre up with musical trimmings like string backing, vocal group backing, and in general a more grandiose form of production. It took the small combos who were making hillbilly music and playing honky tonks to the cleaners and made the country genre they were creating into a smooth and polished singer backed by orchestral instrumentation and singing a song with pop song form and structure rather than a hillbilly version of the blues form.

And it worked! They sold millions and people who would not listen to country of the overly twangy and cry in your beer variety were buying these records because they sounded like pop music. For better or worse, of course, in terms of people who love real, rough-hewn country music like me, but it made them money and sustained the entire genre basically.

It's almost exactly what would happen in LA, when you took these Southern California kids recording in garages and cheap small studios playing garage-band versions of doo-wop and blues song forms with regionally appropriate lyrics about girls, surf, and hot rods and eventually surrounded the song productions in a more grandiose way which also allowed the lyrics to develop more sophistication too.

Hence, the LA "California Sound" sound of 62-66, led by Spector, Wilson, Melcher, etc.  It's nearly a carbon copy of the "Nashville Sound" template a few years earlier in the way it took unpolished (yet very catchy) music and musicians and boosted the genre through production and arranging so more listeners would buy it.

I didn't mention Memphis because the bulk of their run of influence mostly came after the LA run, while Nashville came before and could be used as a precedent example. Unless, of course, you mention Stax, but again there wasn't really an overt or noticeable attempt to "clean up" or make more palatable to the general public any music being recorded at Stax, it was all about capturing the feel and the groove of the Memphis area musicians and artists cutting records there. Unless I'm missing some examples, those early and mid 60's Stax records were known for a tight rhythm section and a horn section, no extra polish on top in the way of strings or orchestral arrangements. And the other Memphis players clique at American Sound like Reggie and Chips and the guys were cutting their most influential music with their own signature polished production sound in the later 60's, after Nashville and LA did their groundwork.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
maggie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2021, 10:30:05 AM »

As many of you may know, one of my primary goals has been to "academize" the work of the Beach Boys; to package it in a way that shows off its intrinsic worth as part of the glories of Western Art.  A perspective that I'm now trying to suss out is the idea that Brian, alongside his faithful studio musicians, was a part of a movement within the Hollywood popular music scene that was developing what I am calling, at the moment, an authentic pop vocabulary.

Here's what I mean by that --  the kind of arrangements and, in particular, orchestrations that Brian and a handful of his peers were doing were a natural extension of the popular music that came before.  These were traditions that emerged directly from a taproot of popular classical music, big band, swing, and rock 'n' roll.

In contrast, after this movement died out (for various reasons) my contention is that, rather than join a developing continuum of innovation, when pop/rock arrangers and producers dipped into instrumentation outside the now standard rock set-up, these arrangers are simply grafting a foreign vocabulary onto their own limited pop-rock vocabulary -- it's not authentic; it's a chimera.

Now, I would appreciate two forms of feedback:

1.  Does this position make sense?
2.  If you buy it, can you help me come up with a handful of arrangers/producers who were part of this movement with Brian?  I think that, for instance, you could put Jack Nitzsche in there, Jan Berry, Billy Strange...etc.  

Thanks!  I'm hoping to write a paper on this.

I really appreciate the work you do, but I don't accept your premise at all.

It is true that pop music has gradually shed the specific type of chromaticism and orchestration Brian and others derived from "light" classical music, swing, etc.

But it was gradual -- and Brian's work (and the Beatles, etc. etc. etc.) was a part of that process. Something like "Do It Again" bears more of a relationship to modern studio pop music than it does to Irving Berlin.

Pop music became less and less chromatic and less orchestrated over a long period of time and, even though Brian's own music is/was highly chromatic and highly orchestrated for pop music in the "rock" era, it was still part of that evolution.

The move from the high chromaticism of 1940s pop to something like Adele is a gradual process and it's a bit like a "ship of Theseus" trying to figure out where the line is that it lost its connection to jazz/classical music. There is no moment you can point to that is the turning point, and even if there *was* a moment, I don't think Brian Wilson is it.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2021, 10:31:04 AM by maggie » Logged
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2021, 10:43:28 AM »

If I can get this idea extended into a Phd topic, the breadth could widen -- I have considered and been putting feelers out for doing a PhD on, essentially, the Hollywood recording scene of the 1950s and 60s, for a little while now.

But until such time, I figure I can at least lay the groundwork.  I'd probably put in a paragraph or two about the precedents, and a paragraph or two about the antecedents.  I plan to use lots of musical examples, notated in condensed scores.  

A big part of the thesis is how the studio musicians in LA (as well as other places, of course) were part of the development because they collaborated a lot with the same people, and because they could play anything.  The rock and roll vocabulary comes out of very limited musical abilities (often channeled into greatness) and narrow instrumental possibilities.  The pure classical vocabulary can play anything, but the players may not be as responsive as the LA studio players were, and the instrumentation choices are more limited.  It's closer to a jazz idiom, but without the high level of improvisatory flights.

It all lined up, with arrangers and producers who remembered fondly the popular music of the 40s and 50s, embraced the energy of Rock and Roll, but rejected its increasingly codified forms.  At the same time, these producers exploited the supreme abilities of their musicians in a way that allowed for rapid development -- they were essentially the Finale, or MuseScore of the time -- you give them what to play, you can hear it right way, you can adjust.

Lots of threads I could go on talking about!
Logged
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2021, 10:51:24 AM »

As many of you may know, one of my primary goals has been to "academize" the work of the Beach Boys; to package it in a way that shows off its intrinsic worth as part of the glories of Western Art.  A perspective that I'm now trying to suss out is the idea that Brian, alongside his faithful studio musicians, was a part of a movement within the Hollywood popular music scene that was developing what I am calling, at the moment, an authentic pop vocabulary.

Here's what I mean by that --  the kind of arrangements and, in particular, orchestrations that Brian and a handful of his peers were doing were a natural extension of the popular music that came before.  These were traditions that emerged directly from a taproot of popular classical music, big band, swing, and rock 'n' roll.

In contrast, after this movement died out (for various reasons) my contention is that, rather than join a developing continuum of innovation, when pop/rock arrangers and producers dipped into instrumentation outside the now standard rock set-up, these arrangers are simply grafting a foreign vocabulary onto their own limited pop-rock vocabulary -- it's not authentic; it's a chimera.

Now, I would appreciate two forms of feedback:

1.  Does this position make sense?
2.  If you buy it, can you help me come up with a handful of arrangers/producers who were part of this movement with Brian?  I think that, for instance, you could put Jack Nitzsche in there, Jan Berry, Billy Strange...etc.  

Thanks!  I'm hoping to write a paper on this.

I really appreciate the work you do, but I don't accept your premise at all.

It is true that pop music has gradually shed the specific type of chromaticism and orchestration Brian and others derived from "light" classical music, swing, etc.

But it was gradual -- and Brian's work (and the Beatles, etc. etc. etc.) was a part of that process. Something like "Do It Again" bears more of a relationship to modern studio pop music than it does to Irving Berlin.

Pop music became less and less chromatic and less orchestrated over a long period of time and, even though Brian's own music is/was highly chromatic and highly orchestrated for pop music in the "rock" era, it was still part of that evolution.

The move from the high chromaticism of 1940s pop to something like Adele is a gradual process and it's a bit like a "ship of Theseus" trying to figure out where the line is that it lost its connection to jazz/classical music. There is no moment you can point to that is the turning point, and even if there *was* a moment, I don't think Brian Wilson is it.

Well, I'm not sure that that is my point.  I think that the kind of vocabulary I'm talking about is largely lost, and although I appreciate your point that it's a process, and I agree that Brian was not the turning point, my point is only that he and his cohort went on a distinct and now extinct line.  They expanded this very specific vocabulary to it's baroquest limits, and then, yes, it went downhill.  But I'm not concerned (for the purposes of putting together a thesis) with the decay, only the climax.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2021, 11:08:24 AM by Joshilyn Hoisington » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2021, 11:45:22 AM »

I think the biggest challenge is trying to codify anything in popular music beyond the relatively short period of time in which a certain category of pop music or a characteristic group of sounds was popular. It's made increasingly difficult to focus on the period of the 50's up to, say, 2000, because it could be argued that every truly major musical act or sonic trend had roughly a 5-7 year run of innovation, success, and influence before tastes and trends changed and there were different sounds audiences en masse wanted to hear and buy.

It's also more difficult with popular music because unlike classical music of the previous 300 years, the continued creation of the music depends almost solely on commerce to fund the machinery that cranks out new music. There are no wealthy sponsors, grants, or other forms of monetary support as in classical music. 18th and 19th century classical composers were not being funded through ticket sales or concert tours, and obviously not through media sales or airplay royalties when such media - including published sheet music available to the general public - did not exist.

And it is worth noting that 5-7 year span as almost a standard which can apply to almost any of the truly major acts, including The Beatles, Beach Boys, Elvis, even U2 and other examples who crossed the threshold from musicians into pop culture icons. When you break it down, most acts did the work which sold the best, influenced the most, and broke new ground artistically in that small span of 5-7 years (give or take). There are exceptions like Sinatra, of course, but generally these artists get perhaps one decade or less of truly inspired, influential work and after that, something new comes along.

What makes the 60's in particular even more difficult is that everything surrounding popular culture, pop music, and the technology in which pop music was created and delivered to audiences was changing rapidly, if not every year. Consider just the examples of The Beatles and Beach Boys: The Beatles of 1967 sounded nothing like The Beatles of 1963. The Beach Boys of 1966 sounded nothing like the Beach Boys of 1963. The Rolling Stones of 1969 sounded nothing like the Stones of 1964. And all of that change and growth happened within 3-5 years. It takes major artists today 3-5 years to make a new album, versus changing and innovating so much in that same time frame that the sounds and music of those artists becomes unrecognizable when played back to back, even though it's the same people writing and performing the music.

I think some of it comes down to the basic fact of popular culture where tastes change, and audiences' buying and listening habits change. And even that runs in 3-5 year cycles, more or less. Take any year in popular music from the 50's to the 1990's, look at the top song charts for that year, then go forward and backward 5-7 years from that starting point. The trends show themselves in what kind of music was selling the most and making those charts.

Any major producer, and any major studio in those years will have had a "run" of success where they just happened to hold the golden ticket and were making sounds which people wanted to buy. I have to think as much as talent and skill is a factor, there was a timing factor too that was more akin to winning the lottery than it was part of a masterplan to make music that people wanted to buy and hear by the millions. I think that aspect is what makes codifying certain elements in that music's creation and structure very difficult, because what was codified in 1965 as being the elements of a successful "sound" in popular music was already gone a few years later, to be replaced by something else which would also soon be replaced. It's the ever changing nature of pop culture and popular tastes which say this art will be in people's minds one year, and a few years later it will not. It's hard to say that what Elvis was doing from 1954-1958 was any more or less artistic than what Stax Records was doing from 1964-1968, or American in Memphis from 1968-1972, or The Beatles from 63-69, or The Beach Boys from 63-66, or the Philly Soul records from 72-76, or U2 from 85-91, or Garth Brooks in the 90's, or any other example of an artist or studio situation that had an amazing run of influence or success. They all sold massive amounts of product, and influenced the sound of their respective genres before being replaced by the Next Big Thing that came along.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2021, 11:52:30 AM »

All true, which is exactly why I'm trying to narrow the focus down to something worth commenting on.  Doing scholarship on popular music is hard, also, because there's so little of it to build on.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2021, 12:14:25 PM »

All true, which is exactly why I'm trying to narrow the focus down to something worth commenting on.  Doing scholarship on popular music is hard, also, because there's so little of it to build on.

I'm curious to hear more on the last statement, "there's so little of it to build on". I think popular music - especially that of the 1960's, but in general too - has so much diversity and so many examples where a line of influence can be drawn in "six degrees of separation" style from any given influential piece of music both backward and forward to any number of other examples. I think the sheer availability of examples in popular music due to expanding technology and mass media, and the countless influences which followed offer a lot more openings to build on than the classical libraries which are pretty much set in stone regarding what a certain composer did and what future musicians and composers took from it. In popular music the interpretation factor alone created dozens of unique interpretations of the same piece, whereas most listeners could hear 20 different performances of Beethoven's 9th from the past 100 years and would be hard pressed to notice any significant differences between the performances.

I think one element of early "rock journalism" that is perhaps still holding back a scholarly dissection of the music is that those early critics would often review pop music in terms of the classical and jazz music criticism of the day instead of taking pop music as its own genre with a different goal and a different set of parameters to critique. And if not that, they swung the pendulum too far the other way and used underground and Beat-style writing to dissect the music, almost as if the purpose of reading the review was to read the style of the reviewer versus getting an opinion on the music being reviewed. It's hard to elevate a music genre which was conceived and created under totally different mindsets and with different sets of goals from the composers using standards set by commissioned works.

I think it has to be segmented to dissect the various forms within the genre of pop music, going so far as to ask why did records cut at Gold Star sound so different from records cut at Putnam's or Columbia or Sunset when the same core musicians are playing on the records, but with so much cross-pollination of influence and outright copying of previous sounds and styles to make new music, it really is a difficult task.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
maggie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2021, 12:18:12 PM »

All true, which is exactly why I'm trying to narrow the focus down to something worth commenting on.  Doing scholarship on popular music is hard, also, because there's so little of it to build on.

I can relate to what you're saying. I don't do academic scholarship anymore, but I was very much in that world for around 10 years, and I did actually plan to write something on Brian but I couldn't crack the nut. I ended up writing about jazz instead.

While there is a fair amount of scholarship on boomer pop/rock, IMO there is still no good academic treatment (musicological or otherwise) of Brian Wilson specifically and why he's interesting. It's just a lot of cliches and "received wisdom."

The problem, as ever, is the knowledge gap: there just aren't enough musicologists with the social history awareness, and not enough social historians with the musicological awareness.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2021, 12:21:31 PM by maggie » Logged
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2021, 12:24:29 PM »

All true, which is exactly why I'm trying to narrow the focus down to something worth commenting on.  Doing scholarship on popular music is hard, also, because there's so little of it to build on.

I'm curious to hear more on the last statement, "there's so little of it to build on". I think popular music - especially that of the 1960's, but in general too - has so much diversity and so many examples where a line of influence can be drawn in "six degrees of separation" style from any given influential piece of music both backward and forward to any number of other examples. I think the sheer availability of examples in popular music due to expanding technology and mass media, and the countless influences which followed offer a lot more openings to build on than the classical libraries which are pretty much set in stone regarding what a certain composer did and what future musicians and composers took from it. In popular music the interpretation factor alone created dozens of unique interpretations of the same piece, whereas most listeners could hear 20 different performances of Beethoven's 9th from the past 100 years and would be hard pressed to notice any significant differences between the performances.

I think one element of early "rock journalism" that is perhaps still holding back a scholarly dissection of the music is that those early critics would often review pop music in terms of the classical and jazz music criticism of the day instead of taking pop music as its own genre with a different goal and a different set of parameters to critique. And if not that, they swung the pendulum too far the other way and used underground and Beat-style writing to dissect the music, almost as if the purpose of reading the review was to read the style of the reviewer versus getting an opinion on the music being reviewed. It's hard to elevate a music genre which was conceived and created under totally different mindsets and with different sets of goals from the composers using standards set by commissioned works.

I think it has to be segmented to dissect the various forms within the genre of pop music, going so far as to ask why did records cut at Gold Star sound so different from records cut at Putnam's or Columbia or Sunset when the same core musicians are playing on the records, but with so much cross-pollination of influence and outright copying of previous sounds and styles to make new music, it really is a difficult task.

I mean academically speaking, Craig.  When you are expected to cite serious scholarship, and there isn't any serious scholarship on the topic, it's hard to build up an academic paper.  As maggie notes immediately below, there is literally no truly academic work on Brian's music.
Logged
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2021, 12:29:03 PM »

All true, which is exactly why I'm trying to narrow the focus down to something worth commenting on.  Doing scholarship on popular music is hard, also, because there's so little of it to build on.
IMO there is still no good academic treatment (musicological or otherwise) of Brian Wilson specifically and why he's interesting. It's just a lot of cliches and "received wisdom."

The problem, as ever, is the knowledge gap: there just aren't enough musicologists with the social history awareness, and not enough social historians with the musicological awareness.

I completely agree -- There's so much of people saying Brian is an amazing genius but absolutely no explanation.  I'm not sure if he was a genius, but I do think he was important, and I think the movement he was part of is important, and I think I can articulate why, eventually.  Someone has to!
« Last Edit: July 28, 2021, 12:29:29 PM by Joshilyn Hoisington » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2021, 12:29:37 PM »

All true, which is exactly why I'm trying to narrow the focus down to something worth commenting on.  Doing scholarship on popular music is hard, also, because there's so little of it to build on.

I can relate to what you're saying. I don't do academic scholarship anymore, but I was very much in that world for around 10 years, and I did actually plan to write something on Brian but I couldn't crack the nut. I ended up writing about jazz instead.

While there is a fair amount of scholarship on boomer pop/rock, IMO there is still no good academic treatment (musicological or otherwise) of Brian Wilson specifically and why he's interesting. It's just a lot of cliches and "received wisdom."

The problem, as ever, is the knowledge gap: there just aren't enough musicologists with the social history awareness, and not enough social historians with the musicological awareness.

Just to preface, this is coming from someone who studied jazz, wrote about jazz, played jazz, and teaches jazz: The death knell of jazz seems to have been when the music was overly intellectualized and it became more common to read about or be lectured about how great it is versus hearing actual examples of how great it is in the present day. I think, sadly, certain circles intellectualized the sheer visceral fun out of the genre. I'm hard pressed to find one example of truly new jazz music made in the past 40 years that has struck a deep chord with me. When that does happen, it's usually a performer playing either a version of an old standard from 80 years ago, or playing in the style of a previous innovator. Modern jazz composers have by and large forgotten the emotion of jazz, and how it connected with the general public at one time to become the pop music genre of its day.

That's why I'm kept calm in the long-term outlook of music appreciation whenever I see new, young performers singing God Only Knows, or younger listeners getting excited about Beatles music and wearing the associated T-shirts and other wear. They're actively living the music, and not going to a lecture hall to be told how great it is. And that's the line which I supposed has to be walked like walking on eggshells, so the music of Brian and his peers doesn't become so intellectualized that it gets out of reach to the general public as sadly happened with modern jazz.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
maggie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2021, 01:01:49 PM »

All true, which is exactly why I'm trying to narrow the focus down to something worth commenting on.  Doing scholarship on popular music is hard, also, because there's so little of it to build on.

I can relate to what you're saying. I don't do academic scholarship anymore, but I was very much in that world for around 10 years, and I did actually plan to write something on Brian but I couldn't crack the nut. I ended up writing about jazz instead.

While there is a fair amount of scholarship on boomer pop/rock, IMO there is still no good academic treatment (musicological or otherwise) of Brian Wilson specifically and why he's interesting. It's just a lot of cliches and "received wisdom."

The problem, as ever, is the knowledge gap: there just aren't enough musicologists with the social history awareness, and not enough social historians with the musicological awareness.

Just to preface, this is coming from someone who studied jazz, wrote about jazz, played jazz, and teaches jazz: The death knell of jazz seems to have been when the music was overly intellectualized and it became more common to read about or be lectured about how great it is versus hearing actual examples of how great it is in the present day. I think, sadly, certain circles intellectualized the sheer visceral fun out of the genre. I'm hard pressed to find one example of truly new jazz music made in the past 40 years that has struck a deep chord with me. When that does happen, it's usually a performer playing either a version of an old standard from 80 years ago, or playing in the style of a previous innovator. Modern jazz composers have by and large forgotten the emotion of jazz, and how it connected with the general public at one time to become the pop music genre of its day.

That's why I'm kept calm in the long-term outlook of music appreciation whenever I see new, young performers singing God Only Knows, or younger listeners getting excited about Beatles music and wearing the associated T-shirts and other wear. They're actively living the music, and not going to a lecture hall to be told how great it is. And that's the line which I supposed has to be walked like walking on eggshells, so the music of Brian and his peers doesn't become so intellectualized that it gets out of reach to the general public as sadly happened with modern jazz.

With all due respect -- and to a degree I share some of your evident despair with where jazz has ended up -- you're talking about a personal feeling, not the actual state of things. Saying "there is a lot of academic study of jazz" and "I don't like contemporary jazz" (or even "contemporary jazz sucks") is not actually making any kind of causal connection between one and the other, even if you are right that jazz has lost its vitality. And as to that point: I happen to love a lot of contemporary jazz, I happen to perceive its originality, and I don't see why my personal feeling about it or my historical awareness of it are less legitimate than yours.

Pursuant to what Joshilyn said just before this post, I think there is actually a lot of very good scholarship of pop music that hasn't managed to destroy the vitality of the art. For example, I think there's a lot of more than decent scholarship of hip-hop, both from a musicological and from a social history point of view. And the kids still like it, so I don't think "intellectualization" has hurt (or has the potential to hurt) anything.

I absolutely support Joshilyn's project of trying to do an academic study of Brian's music, I just don't agree with the premise of this specific thread.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2021, 01:04:20 PM by maggie » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2021, 03:30:52 PM »

All true, which is exactly why I'm trying to narrow the focus down to something worth commenting on.  Doing scholarship on popular music is hard, also, because there's so little of it to build on.

I can relate to what you're saying. I don't do academic scholarship anymore, but I was very much in that world for around 10 years, and I did actually plan to write something on Brian but I couldn't crack the nut. I ended up writing about jazz instead.

While there is a fair amount of scholarship on boomer pop/rock, IMO there is still no good academic treatment (musicological or otherwise) of Brian Wilson specifically and why he's interesting. It's just a lot of cliches and "received wisdom."

The problem, as ever, is the knowledge gap: there just aren't enough musicologists with the social history awareness, and not enough social historians with the musicological awareness.

Just to preface, this is coming from someone who studied jazz, wrote about jazz, played jazz, and teaches jazz: The death knell of jazz seems to have been when the music was overly intellectualized and it became more common to read about or be lectured about how great it is versus hearing actual examples of how great it is in the present day. I think, sadly, certain circles intellectualized the sheer visceral fun out of the genre. I'm hard pressed to find one example of truly new jazz music made in the past 40 years that has struck a deep chord with me. When that does happen, it's usually a performer playing either a version of an old standard from 80 years ago, or playing in the style of a previous innovator. Modern jazz composers have by and large forgotten the emotion of jazz, and how it connected with the general public at one time to become the pop music genre of its day.

That's why I'm kept calm in the long-term outlook of music appreciation whenever I see new, young performers singing God Only Knows, or younger listeners getting excited about Beatles music and wearing the associated T-shirts and other wear. They're actively living the music, and not going to a lecture hall to be told how great it is. And that's the line which I supposed has to be walked like walking on eggshells, so the music of Brian and his peers doesn't become so intellectualized that it gets out of reach to the general public as sadly happened with modern jazz.

With all due respect -- and to a degree I share some of your evident despair with where jazz has ended up -- you're talking about a personal feeling, not the actual state of things. Saying "there is a lot of academic study of jazz" and "I don't like contemporary jazz" (or even "contemporary jazz sucks") is not actually making any kind of causal connection between one and the other, even if you are right that jazz has lost its vitality. And as to that point: I happen to love a lot of contemporary jazz, I happen to perceive its originality, and I don't see why my personal feeling about it or my historical awareness of it are less legitimate than yours.

Pursuant to what Joshilyn said just before this post, I think there is actually a lot of very good scholarship of pop music that hasn't managed to destroy the vitality of the art. For example, I think there's a lot of more than decent scholarship of hip-hop, both from a musicological and from a social history point of view. And the kids still like it, so I don't think "intellectualization" has hurt (or has the potential to hurt) anything.

I absolutely support Joshilyn's project of trying to do an academic study of Brian's music, I just don't agree with the premise of this specific thread.


I'm just giving my opinions, coming from a background of being a jazz musician and currently teaching jazz music. I am talking about the state of things as I see them and as other jazz musicians I've discussed this with have seen it too. It doesn't mean that's the state of things overall spoken as a definitive fact, but it's a pretty common opinion that jazz overall has stagnated in terms of commercial viability, popularity, and even the general public having a basic knowledge of any jazz artists from the past 40 years except perhaps for the Marsalis brothers due to their visibility on TV. Unless you're really into the jazz scene, it's just not in the public eye, and has become - sadly - a niche genre where the older back-catalog classic albums outsell anything new on a regular basis. The most exposure a lot of listeners under the age of 25 have gotten with jazz, if they're not musicians, has come in lecture halls or music appreciation courses. They're not hearing jazz and connecting to it in too many cases.

I never said nor suggested that my personal feelings or historical awareness were any greater or lesser than yours, so I'm not sure where that statement is coming from. I'm just calling it as I see it, and it's my opinion. However, it is true that legacy albums like Kind Of Blue or A Love Supreme continue to outsell and remain more visible than the bulk of modern jazz, and a majority of the charts played at the average jazz gig are songs written over 45 years ago or songs and standards from the Real Book, because that's what people know and that's what people want to hear. In my opinion I don't know of many modern jazz songs that have taken their place next to those standards, and I doubt a lot of them will because many of the compositions are too complex and lack a melodic component that listeners can attach themselves to and groove with. Too many composers seem to go for mathematical, polyrhythmic grooves and angular versus linear (and memorable) melodies, if it's not outright discordant harmony underneath everything.

I think as jazz became more intellectual, and things like dancing to jazz were frowned upon if not outright mocked (see the Ken Burns documentary for examples), the genre itself lost the general public. Then it turned into a situation where it felt like various academics and experts were trying to tell people why they should like jazz and why they're wrong not to versus celebrating the music and trying to reconnect the music to the popular culture, as if that would be a bad thing to return to the 30's and 40's when the kids would keep track of all the big bands and the musicians like kids today may follow the Kardashians or the latest K-Pop boy bands.

I think striving for sophistication and a higher intellectual plane in music is a great pursuit, but not if it basically takes the enjoyment of the music out of the sphere of the general public you're trying to connect with, and it requires a lecture from a professor to explain why someone should like the music they're just not feeling.

Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2021, 03:36:17 PM »


I mean academically speaking, Craig.  When you are expected to cite serious scholarship, and there isn't any serious scholarship on the topic, it's hard to build up an academic paper.  As maggie notes immediately below, there is literally no truly academic work on Brian's music.

This is what I don't understand about academia overall. Someone with an expertise in the field has to be the first to publish, and if it's a topic that has no precedent, someone submitting a paper can and will be the first. I hope it hasn't gotten to the point where a truly new topic being treated in a scholarly and academic manner, elevating it to that level of scholarship in essence, gets rejected because no other academics have previously published on that topic and no citations can be made. It becomes a chicken versus the egg scenario.

I know it's simplistic, but someone had to be the first to publish on the genius of, say, Debussy at a time when no one had done so previously. So can it be with Brian Wilson and the musicology behind his legacy!
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
maggie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2021, 06:50:52 PM »


I'm just giving my opinions, coming from a background of being a jazz musician and currently teaching jazz music. I am talking about the state of things as I see them and as other jazz musicians I've discussed this with have seen it too. It doesn't mean that's the state of things overall spoken as a definitive fact, but it's a pretty common opinion that jazz overall has stagnated in terms of commercial viability, popularity, and even the general public having a basic knowledge of any jazz artists from the past 40 years except perhaps for the Marsalis brothers due to their visibility on TV. Unless you're really into the jazz scene, it's just not in the public eye, and has become - sadly - a niche genre where the older back-catalog classic albums outsell anything new on a regular basis. The most exposure a lot of listeners under the age of 25 have gotten with jazz, if they're not musicians, has come in lecture halls or music appreciation courses. They're not hearing jazz and connecting to it in too many cases.

I never said nor suggested that my personal feelings or historical awareness were any greater or lesser than yours, so I'm not sure where that statement is coming from. I'm just calling it as I see it, and it's my opinion. However, it is true that legacy albums like Kind Of Blue or A Love Supreme continue to outsell and remain more visible than the bulk of modern jazz, and a majority of the charts played at the average jazz gig are songs written over 45 years ago or songs and standards from the Real Book, because that's what people know and that's what people want to hear. In my opinion I don't know of many modern jazz songs that have taken their place next to those standards, and I doubt a lot of them will because many of the compositions are too complex and lack a melodic component that listeners can attach themselves to and groove with. Too many composers seem to go for mathematical, polyrhythmic grooves and angular versus linear (and memorable) melodies, if it's not outright discordant harmony underneath everything.

I think as jazz became more intellectual, and things like dancing to jazz were frowned upon if not outright mocked (see the Ken Burns documentary for examples), the genre itself lost the general public. Then it turned into a situation where it felt like various academics and experts were trying to tell people why they should like jazz and why they're wrong not to versus celebrating the music and trying to reconnect the music to the popular culture, as if that would be a bad thing to return to the 30's and 40's when the kids would keep track of all the big bands and the musicians like kids today may follow the Kardashians or the latest K-Pop boy bands.

I think striving for sophistication and a higher intellectual plane in music is a great pursuit, but not if it basically takes the enjoyment of the music out of the sphere of the general public you're trying to connect with, and it requires a lecture from a professor to explain why someone should like the music they're just not feeling.



We're veering way off topic, but there has been a rush of new jazz musicians in just the last couple of years -- Kamasi Washington and Jon Batiste in the US, and Shabaka Hutchings, Nubya Garcia, and Moses Boyd in the UK -- who have been racking up major concert tours, big streaming numbers, awards, and a huge amount of press coverage, the kind not seen for jazz musicians since Wynton. AND, unlike Wynton, their audience is almost 100% young people. Bands like Sons of Kemet and The Comet Is Coming sure as hell aren't rehashing Kind of Blue or Bitches Brew.

Whether they are any good or not, and whether or not they deserve the attention (I am agnostic on these questions), they're a big deal, and they clearly attest to the music's continuing vitality. I teach 18-22s and many of them are excited about this music just as they are by Lil Uzi Vert or what have you.

I would think that someone who makes a living teaching jazz would be aware that jazz is kind of having a huge youth moment right now??? Clearly the academy hasn't been cramping the music's style because the Shabaka projects are about as un-academic as jazz gets these days.

I'm sorry that I reacted testily to your post, it was just the whole "I am a jazz musician, I teach jazz" preamble that made it sound like you were trying to pull rank on me and/or Joshilyn. Honestly, "all the jazz musicians I know agree with me" gives the same impression.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2021, 06:53:17 PM by maggie » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2021, 09:22:45 PM »


I'm just giving my opinions, coming from a background of being a jazz musician and currently teaching jazz music. I am talking about the state of things as I see them and as other jazz musicians I've discussed this with have seen it too. It doesn't mean that's the state of things overall spoken as a definitive fact, but it's a pretty common opinion that jazz overall has stagnated in terms of commercial viability, popularity, and even the general public having a basic knowledge of any jazz artists from the past 40 years except perhaps for the Marsalis brothers due to their visibility on TV. Unless you're really into the jazz scene, it's just not in the public eye, and has become - sadly - a niche genre where the older back-catalog classic albums outsell anything new on a regular basis. The most exposure a lot of listeners under the age of 25 have gotten with jazz, if they're not musicians, has come in lecture halls or music appreciation courses. They're not hearing jazz and connecting to it in too many cases.

I never said nor suggested that my personal feelings or historical awareness were any greater or lesser than yours, so I'm not sure where that statement is coming from. I'm just calling it as I see it, and it's my opinion. However, it is true that legacy albums like Kind Of Blue or A Love Supreme continue to outsell and remain more visible than the bulk of modern jazz, and a majority of the charts played at the average jazz gig are songs written over 45 years ago or songs and standards from the Real Book, because that's what people know and that's what people want to hear. In my opinion I don't know of many modern jazz songs that have taken their place next to those standards, and I doubt a lot of them will because many of the compositions are too complex and lack a melodic component that listeners can attach themselves to and groove with. Too many composers seem to go for mathematical, polyrhythmic grooves and angular versus linear (and memorable) melodies, if it's not outright discordant harmony underneath everything.

I think as jazz became more intellectual, and things like dancing to jazz were frowned upon if not outright mocked (see the Ken Burns documentary for examples), the genre itself lost the general public. Then it turned into a situation where it felt like various academics and experts were trying to tell people why they should like jazz and why they're wrong not to versus celebrating the music and trying to reconnect the music to the popular culture, as if that would be a bad thing to return to the 30's and 40's when the kids would keep track of all the big bands and the musicians like kids today may follow the Kardashians or the latest K-Pop boy bands.

I think striving for sophistication and a higher intellectual plane in music is a great pursuit, but not if it basically takes the enjoyment of the music out of the sphere of the general public you're trying to connect with, and it requires a lecture from a professor to explain why someone should like the music they're just not feeling.



We're veering way off topic, but there has been a rush of new jazz musicians in just the last couple of years -- Kamasi Washington and Jon Batiste in the US, and Shabaka Hutchings, Nubya Garcia, and Moses Boyd in the UK -- who have been racking up major concert tours, big streaming numbers, awards, and a huge amount of press coverage, the kind not seen for jazz musicians since Wynton. AND, unlike Wynton, their audience is almost 100% young people. Bands like Sons of Kemet and The Comet Is Coming sure as hell aren't rehashing Kind of Blue or Bitches Brew.

Whether they are any good or not, and whether or not they deserve the attention (I am agnostic on these questions), they're a big deal, and they clearly attest to the music's continuing vitality. I teach 18-22s and many of them are excited about this music just as they are by Lil Uzi Vert or what have you.

I would think that someone who makes a living teaching jazz would be aware that jazz is kind of having a huge youth moment right now??? Clearly the academy hasn't been cramping the music's style because the Shabaka projects are about as un-academic as jazz gets these days.

I'm sorry that I reacted testily to your post, it was just the whole "I am a jazz musician, I teach jazz" preamble that made it sound like you were trying to pull rank on me and/or Joshilyn. Honestly, "all the jazz musicians I know agree with me" gives the same impression.

I understand - Just please don't misquote me. I never said nor would I say "all the jazz musicians I know agree with me", and what I did say is directly above in the post you quoted. And I wasn't trying to pull rank or anything of the sort. I said I teach jazz and play jazz, which I do, so I'm not trying to talk down on a style of music which I have experience in as others might do on styles they don't know much about but criticize or talk smack about it anyway.

What I've noticed in the youth movement *I've heard* is that a lot of it has a large element of funk and even borrows some rhythms from hip-hop breakbeats, which is fine but it's not quite jazz. And a lot of it seems to be coming from a jam band mentality, with those funk beats playing under the extended solos. Maybe that's the present and future of jazz? Maybe that's done to appeal to younger listeners who are more tuned into hip-hop samples of those old funk beats? I don't know. If it gets kids into different kinds of music, I'm all for it. But whether it's jazz or not is something I haven't agreed on yet.

I think Jon Batiste gets a lot of attention too because he's been fronting the house band on a late-night talk show for years, and he's one of the more visible jazz musicians now because of that, much like when Branford was fronting the Tonight Show band for Jay Leno back in the day. Yes he's a really talented player, but when I hear his latest album and especially the single being played from that album, it has prominent New Orleans parade beats and some modern production hooks but it's not really jazz to my ears. Just like some jazz fans don't like Smooth Jazz or the way it turns nearly every track into a smooth funk beat.

I'll have to check out some of those newer artists from the UK, I'm not as familiar with them as those in the US. For me, I still miss the 90's acid jazz like The Brand New Heavies, Us3, etc., but even that sub-genre had to run its course eventually. I think the best marriage of genres was Tribe Called Quest, again going back years at this point. I haven't heard any better combination of hip=hop and jazz than Tribe, they're still the best in my book. Maybe that's why when I hear more prominent newer artists like Trombone Shorty, it often sounds to me like what was being done in acid jazz almost 30 years ago and a few decades before with Miles' 70's bands, marrying jazz elements and harmonies with danceable funky beats. I guess it's all about preferences and what some consider jazz versus others, which is a debate in every genre of music!

Getting back to semi-on-topic, I raised the issue of the jazz genre stagnating because there really has not been anything truly new that has been widely influential for decades, and it seems to be stuck on repeat. What Brian Wilson was doing in 1965 and 1966 was new and original and continues to be influential, but even that did not happen in a vacuum, and neither did the LA scene surrounding him and his peers similarly making innovative music. They took what had existed previously and made something new, and made it their own inventions. I don't hear much of that in jazz today, and a lot of jazz minus that with the funk beats is written over the average listener's head. If these newer artists are connecting with younger audiences I'm all for it, but going to a jazz concert and hearing over an hour of discordant polyrhythmic free jazz compositions and random sax bleating is not going to appeal as much to those young listeners currently digging Batiste, Kamasi, Trombone Shorty, and Thundercat.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
gfx
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.066 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!