Obama should follow Carter's lead and bring jazz back to the Wh...

If President-elect Barack Obama wants to make a bold cultural statement - one that resonates deeply with his autobiography and with the legacy of his adopted hometown, Chicago - there's a compelling way to do ...

[alli]

"No city (New Orleans included) has given more to jazz than Chicago, the place where Armstrong, Morton and generations thereafter have launched their international careers."

I'm sorry, but no. Not even close. New Orleans is the world's epicenter of jazz, full stop.

However, both Chicago and New Orleans will benefit from an increased spotlight on jazz. No reason we can't all share, but seriously, have you *been* to New Orleans? No one can say what you said with a straight face if they've been here.

[Patrick]

It will be nice to have a president who has some taste in music. Lee Greenwood appointed to the Arts Council??? Maybe Greenwood is a good Republican, but is music is trite and lacking in any serious artistic merit. Dubya, don't let the door hit you in the bum on your way out!

[Joe Guzzardo]

I though I had heard once that in all his 8 years as president Reagan never once had a man of color over to the White House for dinner. I'd like someone to debunk that. I've Googled it a fair bit but haven't found anything to confirm or deny that statement.

I'd read once that if Mozart were alive today, he'd be a jazz musician. Jazz is, imho, one our our highest art forms.

[john williams]

Oh , I hope so

[domini]

alli wrote:

"No city (New Orleans included) has given more to jazz than Chicago, the place where Armstrong, Morton and generations thereafter have launched their international careers."
I'm sorry, but no. Not even close. New Orleans is the world's epicenter of jazz, full stop.
However, both Chicago and New Orleans will benefit from an increased spotlight on jazz. No reason we can't all share, but seriously, have you *been* to New Orleans? No one can say what you said with a straight face if they've been here.

True. If they had said that about Chicago and blues, it would be different. But jazz's home and heart remains in New Orleans. I mean, really. Has the author heard of Dr. John?

We should have jazz AND blues at the White House. Ramsey Lewis, George Duke, Herbie Hancock, Joe Satriani, Chick Corea, Santana, Urban Knights, Dr. John...oh my God. We need for jazz funk, jazz-soul, blues fusion, and neo blues to get that kind of attention. This music is good, but the record companies have no idea how to market it. If it is played at the WHite House all sorts of people will hear it and demand will increase.

Please, please, please.

[blackmamba]

Of course there is also the Chicago blues sound-Muddy Waters, Howlin Wolf, Jimmy Reed, Otis Rush, Magic Sam, Willie Dixon, Luther Allison, Chess and Alligator Records etc. Then there is gospel which was born in Chicago through the magical genius of Thomas A. Dorsey and Mahalia Jackson. What about the Chicago vocalists like Lou Rawls, Sam Cooke, Nat King Cole,Curtis Mayfield, Mavis Staples etc? Louis Armstrong found his jazz voice when he came to Chicago to play and live.

[Simple truths]

domini wrote:

<quoted text>

We should have jazz AND blues at the White House. Ramsey Lewis, George Duke, Herbie Hancock, Joe Satriani, Chick Corea, Santana, Urban Knights, Dr. John...oh my God. We need for jazz funk, jazz-soul, blues fusion, and neo blues to get that kind of attention. This music is good, but the record companies have no idea how to market it. If it is played at the WHite House all sorts of people will hear it and demand will increase.
Please, please, please.

If there truly was a market for jazz the record companies would find a way to exploit it and make money from it. Getting people to hear jazz has not and will not increase demand. What happens is that demand for whatever particular artist happened to be heard will increase demand for that artist to the extent that that artist will be ostracized from the jazz community for "selling out".

I think more than any reason that the jazz elitist habit of scorning success explains why jazz will never succeed with a mass audience. Maybe it is better that way, maybe not, but it is wearisome to hear devotees plead for a larger audience even as they do everything they can to turn that audience away.

[domini]

Simple truths wrote:

<quoted text>
If there truly was a market for jazz the record companies would find a way to exploit it and make money from it. Getting people to hear jazz has not and will not increase demand. What happens is that demand for whatever particular artist happened to be heard will increase demand for that artist to the extent that that artist will be ostracized from the jazz community for "selling out".
I think more than any reason that the jazz elitist habit of scorning success explains why jazz will never succeed with a mass audience. Maybe it is better that way, maybe not, but it is wearisome to hear devotees plead for a larger audience even as they do everything they can to turn that audience away.

Jazz started as a mass based audience music. It was the dance music of the 20s through the 60s. Modal jazz, and the schools trying to codify jazz, hurt it. But the success of Norah Jones, Santana, US3, etc shows that when medlodic jazz it is given wide distribution, it sells.

I have seen businesses screw up marketing ideas that then became popular. The auto industry fought ideas that would have kept them profitable (for the second time in my lifetime at that.) My faith in business to market stuff is not high.

[imho]

Simple truths wrote:

<quoted text>
If there truly was a market for jazz the record companies would find a way to exploit it and make money from it. Getting people to hear jazz has not and will not increase demand. What happens is that demand for whatever particular artist happened to be heard will increase demand for that artist to the extent that that artist will be ostracized from the jazz community for "selling out".
I think more than any reason that the jazz elitist habit of scorning success explains why jazz will never succeed with a mass audience. Maybe it is better that way, maybe not, but it is wearisome to hear devotees plead for a larger audience even as they do everything they can to turn that audience away.

the simple truth is that there is a market for jazz that the record companies did figure out how to exploit. that was in reissuing digitally remastered versions of classic music from the 60's.

[[I think more than any reason that the jazz elitist habit of scorning success explains why jazz will never succeed with a mass audience.]]

your grammar is terrible. who scorns success? the musicians? the fans? you mean that fans go to hear unsuccessful musicians? wouldn't that make them a success? or do you mean that musicians play "avant garde" music in order to not become successful? your thoughts are very muddled.

saying "Getting people to hear jazz has not and will not increase demand" is silly. of course it will increase demand, in the same way that obama mentioning the book "a team of rivals" increased demand for that book. or maybe you have another reason that a three year old biography of lincoln is ranked #159 in sales by amazon. that's number 159 OUT OF ALL BOOKS PUBLISHED IN AMERICA.

all that having been said, will jazz in the white house help jazz? as my bubbeleh would say, "it couldn't hoit."