Let's Reopen Old Wounds!

[Soul Stream]

It's not music to these people, it's product.

SS, with all due respect, one could use that exact phrase to criticize separating music into different genres.

I think not "labeling" music is a sort of misplaced idealism. There are different kinds of music. These different kinds of music made by human beings on the planet earth can pretty much be lumped together into groups. Is that "bad?" For some it is...for others such as myself it's just a given reality. On the whole, musicians like to think of themselves and their music as unique and individualistic. But there's always lots of other musicians out there doing similar things. That's why terms like Rock, Rap, Blues, Country and Jazz hold up. They're constants. Lot's of subdivision goes on beyond that...but if it ain't broke don't fix it. And I guess I just don't see it as broke. If you're a punk-country-klezmer band...there's a catagory for you...it's called alternative rock.

[Johnny E]

I think its ridiculous to get criticized for expecting a record store to organize stock by genre. Do you really want to go through every musician or group whose name begins with M to find Hank Mobley CDs

Yes.

I might find that copy of 'To Our Children’s Children’s Children' I been looking for or that out of print Ennio Morricone soundtrack. It doesn't take that much longer and the potential benefits more than outweigh the negatives.

[JSngry]

Genres are useful for marketing, and marketing is useful for getting stuff heard, so that's not at all a bad thing in and of itself.

But genres as a means of identifying yourself, your soul, hey, that's death.

Unless one chooses to become one's product, in which case, hey, go for it.

Sucker.

[Joe G]

This might not mean much, but one of my least favorite questions to answer is, "What kind of music do you play?" Especially when it comes from people who have not delved very deeply into the world of music. Something in me balks at having to narrow it down to a label.

[Alexander]

It's not music to these people, it's product.

SS, with all due respect, one could use that exact phrase to criticize separating music into different genres.

I think its ridiculous to get criticized for expecting a record store to organize stock by genre. Do you really want to go through every musician or group whose name begins with M to find Hank Mobley CDs

Its a simple method of time-saving. And yes, Jim, part of selling "product" is making it easier to find for the customer.

Oh, come on! You don't have to go through "every musician or group." That's what those little cards with the artist's name are for. You scan the cards in the "M" section to find "Mobley." It wouldn't add that much time to the process.

The way I see it, it's more that people don't want to have music they *don't* like near the music they *do* like. They don't want to have to see the little card for "Brittany Spears" when they go looking for "Sonny Stitt." Well, get over it. There's always going to something you don't like. Just look past it.

[md655321]

Thing is, I actually prefer this board. I guess I sometimes feel nostalgic for BNBB as my doorway to jazz discussion on the Internet, but... hardly ever think about it that way now.

I agree. The BNBB will always be a bit of nostalgia for me. I spend hours and hours learning about jazz from those boards, and I feel I am 1000x the jazz fan I am because of it. This place is great, but I feel we've become a bit of a hard egg to crack, as the Big O took after where Blue Note left off, so alot of the basic discussion of jazz is omitted. For the age I was and the fan I was, BNBB was invaluable to me, just as this place is for the age I am and the fan I am. We are better off for it now.

And I still like Norah Jones.

[RDK]

Fuck that. If I'm in the mood for jazz, there's no way I'm going into a store like Amoeba and want to search through uncategorized music. I'm not in favor of narrow classifications, but I'd much rather there be seperate Rock, Jazz, Blues, Classical, Country, etc. sections than to have everything lumped in together.

[Jim Alfredson]

This might not mean much, but one of my least favorite questions to answer is, "What kind of music do you play?" Especially when it comes from people who have not delved very deeply into the world of music. Something in me balks at having to narrow it down to a label.

My favorite part is when you answer that you play jazz and they say, "Jazz? Oh, I like jazz. It's so relaxing."

[JSngry]

"Well", I like to retort, "so is sex. Are you ready for that?"

[chris olivarez]

So a psychiatrist said that there is a strong male identity to jazz forums and the members feel threatened by females.

Comments?

The words faulty generalization comes to mind. I wonder how a professional psychiatrist could come to such a conclusion unless this person got their degree from the proverbial cracker jack box.

[chris olivarez]

The moment the BNBB board shut down I moved on. The big O works for me.

[Simon Weil]

So a psychiatrist said that there is a strong male identity to jazz forums and the members feel threatened by females.

Comments?

Might be. There is the locker room thing to do with the "gorgeous babes" posts which certainly is threatened by women's presence. But then, on the other hand, there is a kind of civilised thing - to do with a fair degree of restraint with which people go at each other. Women are generally reckoned to have a "civilising" influence in social situations.

There is no doubt that Jazz is a kind of "male" lake - and historically that has been built on a fair degree of sexism. I know when I've brought up the subject people have got uneasy, but one can hardly deny that Jazz is one of the most "male" of all the arts. Certainly compared to classical music or pop - with their numerous female stars - the difference is most striking.

You know, Jim maintains this place is like a bar - and it's his forum. But then, when a woman walks into a bar that's kind of different from when a woman goes into a coffee shop.

I think Jazz needs to change to survive. I'd say that change would involve women (substantially).

Or not.

Simon Weil

Edited February 27, 2007 by Simon Weil

[Quasimado]

Reading all this, it's not hard to see why the BNBB went where it went ...

Q

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

"Well", I like to retort, "so is sex. Are you ready for that?"

But does it get you anywhere?

MG

[porcy62]

So a psychiatrist said that there is a strong male identity to jazz forums and the members feel threatened by females.

Comments?

Might be. There is the locker room thing to do with the "gorgeous babes" posts which certainly is threatened by women's presence. But then, on the other hand, there is a kind of civilised thing - to do with a fair degree of restraint with which people go at each other. Women are generally reckoned to have a "civilising" influence in social situations.

There is no doubt that Jazz is a kind of "male" lake - and historically that has been built on a fair degree of sexism. I know when I've brought up the subject people have got uneasy, but one can hardly deny that Jazz is one of the most "male" of all the arts. Certainly compared to classical music or pop - with their numerous female stars - the difference is most striking.

You know, Jim maintains this place is like a bar - and it's his forum. But then, when a woman walks into a bar that's kind of different from when a woman goes into a coffee shop.

I think Jazz needs to change to survive. I'd say that change would involve women (substantially).

Or not.

Simon Weil

I disagree with you.

Tough jazz players were traditionally males, but we had great female singers, now things are changed. Like everythings as well. Jazz is quite young compared to other forms of art, so if you think at writing or painting you should remember that women struggled for years to gain a recognition. If jazz is born as "brothel music" is not surprising that it takes, and will takes, more time to include women. In the early years of theater acting were considered a disdaining job, and actor and actress were assimilated to thieves and prostitutes.

Classical music is totally different because, historically, learning an instrument was part of the "good education" of a young girl in a bourges family of XIX century. So it was socially accepted that a woman like Clara Schumann played at public concerts.

Early rock music was male oriented, as well, and women were usually singers. No Erika Clapton or Johanna Lennon or Fran Zappa in the line up of classic rock bands.

And, frankly, some of the today's females pop stars are often quite offensive in their exposure of sexuality, is another form of sexism IMHO, for sure Shakira or Britney got a lot of money, but the issue don't change in its term.

If you are referring to the public listeng to jazz, in my experience, women usually aren't big consumers of music. They never were, a part some things like Beatles Mania and few others cases. Mostly they are more interested in Literature or Movies, though I meet women at gigs. Usually I found much more women in book shops then in records shops.

BTW Jazz is a small niche in the market, and things will not change even if women will become more interested in it. IMHO obviously.

Edited February 27, 2007 by porcy62

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

in my experience, women usually aren't big consumers of music. They never were, a part some things like Beatles Mania and few others cases.

I think you're wrong there. IN Britain, in the early '60s, EMI 45s were issued in paper sleeves with adverts for record-related products on the back - EMItex record cleaing material, the Record Mail, EMI record tokens. And there were some with ads for LPs. By the late '60s, these had been replaced by ads for make-up.

I think EMI knew who was buying all the pop singles.

MG

[AllenLowe]

funny thing about Norah JOnes - I heard her, on the radio, singing a Hank Williams tune and thought, wow, this is a great country singer. But than I heard her singing some jazz tunes and I thought, wow, this is the world's most shallow jazz singer.

and I think we're confused here - she's related to ALBERT Shankar -

[porcy62]

in my experience, women usually aren't big consumers of music. They never were, a part some things like Beatles Mania and few others cases.

I think you're wrong there. IN Britain, in the early '60s, EMI 45s were issued in paper sleeves with adverts for record-related products on the back - EMItex record cleaing material, the Record Mail, EMI record tokens. And there were some with ads for LPs. By the late '60s, these had been replaced by ads for make-up.

I think EMI knew who was buying all the pop singles.

MG

That's what I thought, but I wasn't able to explain. Pop singles vs Rock Album, I'll bet the most of the buyers of Pink Floyd Lps or Stones or Bowie were males. personally I had some girlfriends, I mean friends, really interested in music, and few of them turn their interest in a passion. That's would an issue worth investigating for a psychiatrists. On the other end collecting something, or shopping compulsion, is transgender.

Edited February 27, 2007 by porcy62

[Dan Gould]

It's not music to these people, it's product.

SS, with all due respect, one could use that exact phrase to criticize separating music into different genres.

I think its ridiculous to get criticized for expecting a record store to organize stock by genre. Do you really want to go through every musician or group whose name begins with M to find Hank Mobley CDs

Its a simple method of time-saving. And yes, Jim, part of selling "product" is making it easier to find for the customer.

Oh, come on! You don't have to go through "every musician or group." That's what those little cards with the artist's name are for. You scan the cards in the "M" section to find "Mobley." It wouldn't add that much time to the process.

Number one, who says there are name cards? I think the point of this mishmash is to have alphabet cards and nothing more.

The way I see it, it's more that people don't want to have music they *don't* like near the music they *do* like. They don't want to have to see the little card for "Brittany Spears" when they go looking for "Sonny Stitt." Well, get over it. There's always going to something you don't like. Just look past it.

I do that every day in the jazz department. You think I like seeing Spyro Gyra in such close proximity to Sonny Stitt? How about Tangerine Dream by The Three Sounds? That's bad enough to make me without seeing Slayer or Britney.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

in my experience, women usually aren't big consumers of music. They never were, a part some things like Beatles Mania and few others cases.

I think you're wrong there. IN Britain, in the early '60s, EMI 45s were issued in paper sleeves with adverts for record-related products on the back - EMItex record cleaing material, the Record Mail, EMI record tokens. And there were some with ads for LPs. By the late '60s, these had been replaced by ads for make-up.

I think EMI knew who was buying all the pop singles.

MG

That's what I thought, but I wasn't able to explain. Pop singles vs Rock Album, I'll bet the most of the buyers of Pink Floyd Lps or Stones or Bowie were males. personally I had some girlfriends, I mean friends, really interested in music, and few of them turn their interest in a passion. That's would an issue worth investigating for a psychiatrists. On the other end collecting something, or shopping compulsion, is transgender.

Oh, and don't forget all those ladies who used to chuck their knickers at the likes of Illinois Jacquet.

Now, if jazz musicians were STILL playing music that made ladies want to chuck their panties on stage...

MG

[paul secor]

I guess I don't understand why they put Al Green or Norah Jones on the Blue Note imprint. The label has a legendary jazz history...why muddy the waters? Al Green is the man...but can't the EMI umbrella find a more fitting label? Same with Norah.... I think that's really the issue here. If Led Zeppelin reunited under the Blue Note label, would that be cool?

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I've really had it with genres. I used to keep my collection organized by genre, but I've dropped all such distinctions and let everything co-mingle. So, in answer to your last question, I don't think I would have a problem with a reunited Zeppelin recording for Blue Note...

There's a record store here in town that refuses to seperate the CDs by genre. So you have to go from A-Z of every conceivable kind of music to "browse." There's a reason there are genres, because it's a practical application. Play me a record, and I could tell you a genre it belongs in. I don't care what people want to pretend. There ain't nuthin' new under the sun. No matter how genre-bending an album might be it still fits somwhere. Music is music at it's heart.... But Paleaaase, when I want to find something, give me a reference point. Blue Note is one of the greatest and only pure jazz labels in history. EMI is so big they could put any artist on any imprint...why does it matter to them. I think it just damages the brand, to put it in marketing terms which is, like it or not, what we're REALLY talking about here. It's not music to these people, it's product.

Just curious - do they file classical CDs mixed in with everything else by composer, by performer, or ?

It sounds like browsing there could be fun, assuming that I had a lot of time to spend.

[ghost of miles]

This might not mean much, but one of my least favorite questions to answer is, "What kind of music do you play?" Especially when it comes from people who have not delved very deeply into the world of music. Something in me balks at having to narrow it down to a label.

My favorite part is when you answer that you play jazz and they say, "Jazz? Oh, I like jazz. It's so relaxing."

My wife & I were sitting in a restaurant here in Bloomington on a recent Sunday afternoon, and they were playing some godawful contemporary version of "Come Rain or Come Shine." I couldn't ID the singer, but I was positive it was some washed-up 1980s New Wave star... kind of a cross between the Spandau Ballet vocalist and Boy George, but not actually either one of them. It was very schmaltzy and fatigued-sounding at the same time, with some limp brass in the background; we've had a bevy of bad Great American Songbook (or GAS, as the Yahoo Songbirds call it) tributes from fading rock vets lately, but this one really piqued my curiousity. My wife went up to the counter to order a coffee drink and asked what was playing. When she came back, she said, "Don't get mad..." Then proceeded to tell me that the guy behind the counter had said he wasn't sure what it was, because it came off an employee's ipod, "but I think it's Miles Davis." My wife said, "Uh, are you sure?" (She knows Miles' recordings fairly well.) He said, "Well, yeah... you know, it's jazzy and stuff... I'm pretty sure it's Miles Davis!"

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

This might not mean much, but one of my least favorite questions to answer is, "What kind of music do you play?" Especially when it comes from people who have not delved very deeply into the world of music. Something in me balks at having to narrow it down to a label.

My favorite part is when you answer that you play jazz and they say, "Jazz? Oh, I like jazz. It's so relaxing."

My wife & I were sitting in a restaurant here in Bloomington on a recent Sunday afternoon, and they were playing some godawful contemporary version of "Come Rain or Come Shine." I couldn't ID the singer, but I was positive it was some washed-up 1980s New Wave star... kind of a cross between the Spandau Ballet vocalist and Boy George, but not actually either one of them. It was very schmaltzy and fatigued-sounding at the same time, with some limp brass in the background; we've had a bevy of bad Great American Songbook (or GAS, as the Yahoo Songbirds call it) tributes from fading rock vets lately, but this one really piqued my curiousity. My wife went up to the counter to order a coffee drink and asked what was playing. When she came back, she said, "Don't get mad..." Then proceeded to tell me that the guy behind the counter had said he wasn't sure what it was, because it came off an employee's ipod, "but I think it's Miles Davis." My wife said, "Uh, are you sure?" (She knows Miles' recordings fairly well.) He said, "Well, yeah... you know, it's jazzy and stuff... I'm pretty sure it's Miles Davis!"

There! See what you get if you become popular!

Great story Ghost.

MG

[porcy62]

in my experience, women usually aren't big consumers of music. They never were, a part some things like Beatles Mania and few others cases.

I think you're wrong there. IN Britain, in the early '60s, EMI 45s were issued in paper sleeves with adverts for record-related products on the back - EMItex record cleaing material, the Record Mail, EMI record tokens. And there were some with ads for LPs. By the late '60s, these had been replaced by ads for make-up.

I think EMI knew who was buying all the pop singles.

MG

That's what I thought, but I wasn't able to explain. Pop singles vs Rock Album, I'll bet the most of the buyers of Pink Floyd Lps or Stones or Bowie were males. personally I had some girlfriends, I mean friends, really interested in music, and few of them turn their interest in a passion. That's would an issue worth investigating for a psychiatrists. On the other end collecting something, or shopping compulsion, is transgender.

Oh, and don't forget all those ladies who used to chuck their knickers at the likes of Illinois Jacquet.

Now, if jazz musicians were STILL playing music that made ladies want to chuck their panties on stage...

MG

The same psychiatrist of the article can you explain that females usually grown up and became adult, we, childish male, never come through the teen ager hood. Though I doubt our friends of the band would be happy if Chuck would chuck his panties on stage...

BTW some of my above female friends spend the same amount of money I spend in records in clothes or shoes.

Edited February 27, 2007 by porcy62

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

in my experience, women usually aren't big consumers of music. They never were, a part some things like Beatles Mania and few others cases.

I think you're wrong there. IN Britain, in the early '60s, EMI 45s were issued in paper sleeves with adverts for record-related products on the back - EMItex record cleaing material, the Record Mail, EMI record tokens. And there were some with ads for LPs. By the late '60s, these had been replaced by ads for make-up.

I think EMI knew who was buying all the pop singles.

MG

That's what I thought, but I wasn't able to explain. Pop singles vs Rock Album, I'll bet the most of the buyers of Pink Floyd Lps or Stones or Bowie were males. personally I had some girlfriends, I mean friends, really interested in music, and few of them turn their interest in a passion. That's would an issue worth investigating for a psychiatrists. On the other end collecting something, or shopping compulsion, is transgender.

Oh, and don't forget all those ladies who used to chuck their knickers at the likes of Illinois Jacquet.

Now, if jazz musicians were STILL playing music that made ladies want to chuck their panties on stage...

MG

The same psychiatrist of the article can you explain that females usually grown up and became adult, we, childish male, never come through the teen ager hood. Though I doubt our friends of the band would be happy if Chuck would chuck his panties on stage...

BTW some of my above female friends spend the same amount of money I spend in records in clothes or shoes.

Well, that's what Chuck regards as listening to jazz for social reasons.

MG