Commercial; when did it become a dirty word? why?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I hoicked this post by Chris out of another thread, because I thought it kind of admitted some knowledge of this.

I lived through that period and was active in the business during part of it. Was there racism within jazz? Definitely, but I never sensed that it had anything to do with a coastal divide, neither musically nor geographically. There were people on both coasts who thought the West Coast variety of jazz to be somewhat anemic. It often was. There were also people who saw the gospel-tinged, decidedly black "soul jazz" (don't confuse it with "soul music"--a derivative label) as bordering on pop. "Pop" was a derogatory term in jazz circles (almost as horrifying as "commercial" had been n a previous decade), and with more musicians having a conservatory education, it was almost inevitable that jazz would spawn a less finger-snapping style. I recall Jimmy Giuffre, having just given a college concert, being asked where the rhythm was. "It is understood," he replied.

Well, not everybody understood that explanation, but this was a wonderful period in jazz that offered an eclectic bag of approaches. I don't recall ever hearing a musician degrade the opposite Coast's music, and this was a time when I had casual conversations with many of the top players (including Cannonball) on a daily basis. I do, however, remember the late 50s-early 60s as a time when many black musicians began to voice their political grievances--some scared the pants off the white people and sometimes brought out dormant racism among my white colleagues. Many did not understand the surfacing militancy, but that is because their ignorance did not prepare them for it.

I LIKE commercial music, as most will have guessed But I really want to know how "commercial" became a pejorative expression, and when and why.

I don't think it was pejorative in the thirties. Did anyone say, "Oh, that Goodman, he's so commercial"? Or Basie, or Ellington.... etc. I think not, though I don't actually know.

MG

[MoGrubb]

This post splits a lot of hairs with me. I prefer a more generalized concept of "commercialism." Maybe it became a dirty term about the same time that "prostitution" did? However, I don't let the term(s) interfere with what I like, and at the same time, I recognize and don't deny that some music that I like is commercial.

I have heard it said that Goodman's music/swing was the business side of jazz, which could be construed as "commercial." I tend to agree, eventhough I highly respect his musicianship.

Edited October 11, 2007 by MoGrubb

[Christiern]

I think it, loosely, was an accusation that the artist/work caters to a broader, non-jazz market.

In 1958, George Shearing told me that he found it amazing how jazz critics labeled his music "commercial" only after his records started showing impressive sales. The music he was playing/recording prior to that (i.e. prior to being given the derogatory label) was no different.

Success can be a curse, I guess.

I really don't know how far back the term, as applied to jazz, goes. It might stretch back to the big bands--they were certainly as close as jazz ever got to being pop music.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I think it, loosely, was an accusation that the artist/work caters to a broader, non-jazz market.

I wasn't specifically thinking of it solely in relation to jazz, though of course that's of major interest.

It says on the sleeve of vol 9 of the Rev J M Gates Document series that he made more recordings than any other African-American preacher up to WWII (about 210 sides). He probably made more than almost all other African-American artists in any field. He didn't have a contract; his manager hiked him round to almost every record company open in those days. According to Dixon & Goodrich, he was outselling Bessie Smith in 1930. It's axiomatic, therefore, that he was commercial. But did people disparage him (or Bessie, for that matter) for being commercial? I doubt it.

Something happened to change things. I think it was critics, but I don't know.

MG

[Alexander]

I think it, loosely, was an accusation that the artist/work caters to a broader, non-jazz market.

In 1958, George Shearing told me that he found it amazing how jazz critics labeled his music "commercial" only after his records started showing impressive sales. The music he was playing/recording prior to that (i.e. prior to being given the derogatory label) was no different.

Success can be a curse, I guess.

I really don't know how far back the term, as applied to jazz, goes. It might stretch back to the big bands--they were certainly as close as jazz ever got to being pop music.

I remember reading that members of the rock group, Chicago, bemoaned the way their audience accused them of "selling out" when their first album began generating singles about a year after it's initial release. What bugged them was that the same songs that fans claimed were "too commerical" (such as "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is") were on the very album that they had embraced BEFORE it became successful.

I know that a lot of people dismiss people like Brubeck out of hand because he was popular and sold a lot of albums. Anything a large number of people like CAN'T possibly be good.

[7/4]

Done for money, not for artistic purposes.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Done for money, not for artistic purposes.

It's ALL done for money. Show me the musician who didn't want paying.

MG

[ejp626]

Done for money, not for artistic purposes.

It's ALL done for money. Show me the musician who didn't want paying.

MG

You should read the stories of the Jimmy Giuffre Trio. They knew they were playing playing unpopular music and kept at it for quite a while for artistic purposes, though they could have made a lot more money going to a different format. And yes, they eventually threw in the towel (after making $0.75 at a gig), but an awful lot of musicians will follow their artistic bent rather than just go where the money is. That's why so many die broke and we don't have 100% smooth jazz artists (only 85%). If it was only about money, we probably wouldn't have musicians at all, only more doctors and lawyers.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Many die broke because they get screwed. Many die broke because they don't have a lifestyle that takes into account saving for retirement during the good times. For every Johnny "Hammond" Smith, who had a comfortable retirement from property investments, there must be hundreds who spent money like water.

And, as you said, Giuffre also wanted paying. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have thrown in the towel when the band were making 75c a gig.

MG

[MoGrubb]

So where does Trane's A LOVE SUPREME fall? It's sold, and is selling, a bunch of copies, as is/did Miles' KIND OF BLUE.

Commercial implies intent moreso than sales success; did you record something to express yourself as an artist or to make bread, to fulfill something already in demand?

We're definitely talkin two commercials here. e.g. Anything that CHICAGO recorded, whether it was popular and sold or not, was commercial.

[Alexander]

So where does Trane's A LOVE SUPREME fall? It's sold, and is selling, a bunch of copies, as is/did Miles' KIND OF BLUE.

Commercial implies intent moreso than sales success; did you record something to express yourself as an artist or to make bread, to fulfill something already in demand?

We're definitely talkin two commercials here. e.g. Anything that CHICAGO recorded, whether it was popular and sold or not, was commercial.

Really? You think that Chicago formed because they saw a huge untapped market for jazz and classical influenced pop groups featuring a horn section?

Isn't it possible for a pop group to make music for extra-commerical reasons? Obviously the Beatles and the Stones made tons of money. Do we doubt their motives as well? How about the Grateful Dead? And what about artists who continue to tour and produce albums for years after they've made more than enough money to live on for the rest of their lives? Are they still only in it for the money?

[clifford_thornton]

I think Miles was a great businessman, and had quite a hand (as did Columbia) in pushing his music. Less so Trane, but still...

There are those artists who create work that is on the surface rather uncommercial, but through either their own ability to hype or the record company's, get a lot of notice. Or perhaps they've got just enough balance between "out" and "in" to be magically appealing to both interests (Sonic Youth being a good example - hella businesspeople as well, natch).

Jimmy Guiffre made some weird-ass music; love it, but can't imagine it being for "everybody."

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

We're definitely talkin two commercials here

I think you're talking about the difference between "commercial", which relates to the unaltered thing that a person or group does/do for reasons that seem good to them, and "commercialised", which relates to something that's altered in order to sell to a wider audience than it would otherwise attract, or which is promoted in such as way as to do that.

But the concept of "wider audience than it would otherwise attract" is inherently difficult. I don't mean this in the sense of "mass market", which to many people means a broad cross-section of the population of America.

There are many mass markets. The mass market for Youssou Ndour is the entire population of Senegal (irrespective of which tribe people belong to). The mass market for Cowboy Copas was a certain section of the white population of America. The mass market for Rev J M Gates was the black population of America. The mass market for Bing Crosby was the entire population of the West.

Commercialisation, in my view, aims to maximise sales in the "natural" mass market, or to extend sales beyond that market into others (which is known as "crossover" in America).

I can understand why people deprecate "commercialisation", because it means that the music ceases to truly reflect how a musician wants his music to be received by the audience, and is therefore a less genuine expression of the musician's art. But I can't understand why people deprecate "commercial". This is what I'm trying to get at.

MG

[ejp626]

But I can't understand why people deprecate "commercial". This is what I'm trying to get at.

MG

Because it is almost always "better" to be in on a secret, to be an insider. There will always be people who feel that music whose natural audience is a mass audience is inferior to music that is aimed at a narrow niche (to which they belong). These people are particularly upset when "their bands" go commercial and try to broaden their fan base. A lot of it has to do with maintaining cultural status and the more insider knowledge one has, the more status one will have in these circles. One might almost consider it a game in the art or music worlds to be as obscure or unpopular as possible and still have a viable career outside of commercial channels. I'd say go read Simmel and then Bourdieu on elite tastes and why they persist in mass society. As for why jazz artists themselves bought into or played up the difficult aspect of the music at the expense of popularity, I'm sure there are many reasons, including wanting to be accepted in the hipper circles and the believe that serious artists were not mere entertainers. Some felt compelled to follow their own vision (again sort of an elite artistic worldview) and were not particularly concerned with whether the world followed.

I think there's no question that there are plenty of things I go so precisely because I know they are out of the mainsteam. At the very least, you usually don't have to fight 2000 other fans to get seats to a Roscoe Mitchell or Fred Anderson concert.

[Christiern]

One mistake that most of us make is to place artists in narrow boxes. Herbie Hancock was a jazz musician in the ears and mind of most people, so he was severely criticized when he went "commercial." Had he not come to Rockit via V.S.O.P., Miles, etc., he might well have avoided the pointed fingers. Let's face it, Kenny G comes under heavy attack from listeners who listen to his music with jazz expectancy--think of him as a pop artist and there will be far less to find fault with.

[Alexander]

I think there's no question that there are plenty of things I go so precisely because I know they are out of the mainsteam.

I did this when I was younger. I scoffed at Elvis, James Brown and Frank Sinatra as a teen precisely because they were so "mainstream." I mean, who's more mainstream than Elvis, beloved as he was by blue-haired old ladies and the type of person who purchases paintings on black velvet? And EVERYBODY agrees that James Brown pioneered funk...even people who don't like (or even know anything about) funk music. When I'd discover an artist that everybody in the world didn't seem to know about (we'd snicker about it. "Check out that dude. It's like he doesn't even KNOW who Tim Hardin is!"), I'd pride myself on my good taste and my ability to see that the pop music emperor has no clothes.

As I grew older, however, I realized that liking things because they were obscure was just as immature as liking things because they were popular. I checked out JB, Elvis and Frank and discovered that there was a reason they were so famous and beloved by all: They were fucking AMAZING. But you have to get to the point where you can see PAST all the hype and (in Elvis's case) bad taste. Sometimes good things are popular and sometimes popular things are good.

Edited October 11, 2007 by Alexander

[paul secor]

Purchase and listen to the music that moves you (in whatever way it might), and that's what's commercial (for you).

[7/4]

Done for money, not for artistic purposes.

It's ALL done for money. Show me the musician who didn't want paying.

MG

There's plenty. There's the ones who are OK with $20 a night for playing in a restaurant and then there's the ones who are only interested in making money, they measure their success by how much they make, not how good the music is.

There's my short answer, if that doesn't make sense, well...you would have to be there.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Done for money, not for artistic purposes.

It's ALL done for money. Show me the musician who didn't want paying.

MG

There's plenty. There's the ones who are OK with $20 a night for playing in a restaurant and then there's the ones who are only interested in making money, they measure their success by how much they make, not how good the music is.

There's my short answer, if that doesn't make sense, well...you would have to be there.

But the ones who do it for $20 a night are still being paid; they're doing it for money. That's a commercial activity. It's not VERY commercial, I'll agree. But people who talk disparagingly about "commercial" never say HOW commercial commercial has to be before they think it's bad; they always use it as an absolute term.

MG

[7/4]

Done for money, not for artistic purposes.

It's ALL done for money. Show me the musician who didn't want paying.

MG

There's plenty. There's the ones who are OK with $20 a night for playing in a restaurant and then there's the ones who are only interested in making money, they measure their success by how much they make, not how good the music is.

There's my short answer, if that doesn't make sense, well...you would have to be there.

But the ones who do it for $20 a night are still being paid; they're doing it for money. That's a commercial activity. It's not VERY commercial, I'll agree. But people who talk disparagingly about "commercial" never say HOW commercial commercial has to be before they think it's bad; they always use it as an absolute term.

MG

Maybe that example didn't make my point very well. There are musicians who don't make any money, who are just glad to get their music heard.

Edited October 11, 2007 by 7/4

[Guy Berger]

Done for money, not for artistic purposes.

It's ALL done for money. Show me the musician who didn't want paying.

MG

I think 7/4 meant music that compromises artistically in order to get more money. (i.e. The artist deliberately "reduces the quality" of their music.)

This opens up a whole can of worms and may be so subjective as to be completely meaningless (though I don't think so), but I think that's what people mean when they accuse an artist of producing "commercial"/"commercialized" music or "selling out".

edit: I was going to say that this kind of thinking becomes more prevalent once an art form starts actually being considered ART by its audience, but the more I think about it maybe not.

Guy

Edited October 11, 2007 by Guy

[AndrewHill]

Done for money, not for artistic purposes.

It's ALL done for money. Show me the musician who didn't want paying.

MG

I think 7/4 meant music that compromises artistically in order to get more money. (i.e. The artist deliberately "reduces the quality" of their music.)

This opens up a whole can of worms and may be so subjective as to be completely meaningless (though I don't think so), but I think that's what people mean when they accuse an artist of producing "commercial"/"commercialized" music or "selling out".

Guy

I agree with the "subjectivity" of what it means when an artist "compromises" his/her/their music for more appeal/money/fame etc. I don't remember where I heard/read this but someone said/wrote (man, it could've been in the liner notes of Kofi, but I don't have that cd available at th moment) about Donald Byrd's electric period that he wasn't selling out, he was buying in.

[Chuck Nessa]

Done for money, not for artistic purposes.

It's ALL done for money. Show me the musician who didn't want paying.

MG

Within limits. The rate you change these limits is a defining point for any musician ( or anyone presuming to be an artist ). This is based on an interpretation of an "artist" as someone doing what they "have to do" and someone doing "what gets over".

[Alexander]

Done for money, not for artistic purposes.

It's ALL done for money. Show me the musician who didn't want paying.

MG

There's plenty. There's the ones who are OK with $20 a night for playing in a restaurant and then there's the ones who are only interested in making money, they measure their success by how much they make, not how good the music is.

There's my short answer, if that doesn't make sense, well...you would have to be there.

But the ones who do it for $20 a night are still being paid; they're doing it for money. That's a commercial activity. It's not VERY commercial, I'll agree. But people who talk disparagingly about "commercial" never say HOW commercial commercial has to be before they think it's bad; they always use it as an absolute term.

MG

Maybe that example didn't make my point very well. There are musicians who don't make any money, who are just glad to get their music heard.

But even those musicians would gladly quit their day jobs in order to make a living doing the thing they love. Let's face it: The Monks of the world (those people who suffer in noble obscurity, not giving an inch, until the glorious day the whole world figures out how brilliant they are and they wind up on the cover of Time) are few and far between. Most of us have to make some compromises in order to make a living. At the moment, I'm acting in local theatre for nothing, but I'd give my eye teeth to act and get paid for it. In order to do that, I'll have to make concessions and do things I'd probably rather not (like doing commericals). That's show biz, emphasis on the BIZ.

[7/4]

That's show biz, emphasis on the BIZ.

I'm not in show business. Not interested at all.