If you had half a clue, you'd know that artists like Corea, and Hancock did not fail but were extremely successful in bringing new folks to jazz. Not top 40 hit record success, but that standard is measured best over the long haul with "deep catalog sales". When you figure economies of scale,labels like BLUE NOTE and VERVE etc do extremely good business and royalties to aritsts get paid.

PFunkjazz said:

Really, they were successful? How? Sales of jazz records accounted for 90% of all sales in the 1940s. We're down to 3% of all sales today. They did a bang-up job. As for Blue Note, they would have gone out of business in the late 1960s if Alfred Lion hadn't sold them. Likewise, the Verve label was not even active for years, until their parent company revived the label name a few years back.

NEWS FLASH! Record industry in throes of major downturn!

All labels have cut back units and many artists in pop and rock are aso not being retained (Mariah Carey) or are causing their label major anguish (Michael Jackson) with lackluster sales.

I'm not saying there hasn't been a change in musical trends (even Prince has gotten caught up in this). It's pretty obvious that jazz has been margainalized due to changing tastes. Still, when both Verve & BN were reactivated, there were major pushes to market their back catalogs as well as develop new artists.

Moreover jazz is performance music. Records are fine for a collector and aficianado to own and peruse, but the thrill of jazz is in the live performance. Despite trends in the record industry, jazz bookings for festivals and concerts are pretty respectable.

And what does economies of scale have to do with this?

With a lot less overdubbbing and guest star salaries,it generally costs less to record jazz records. When expenses are decreased you don't really need as deep a market penetration as the latest pop record to make a profit.

Please, I have half a clue, times two.

[b]NEWS FLASH! Record industry in throes of major downturn!

I'm not saying there hasn't been a change in musical trends (even Prince has gotten caught up in this). It's pretty obvious that jazz has been margainalized due to changing tastes.

PFunkjazz said:

Wow, that has absolutely no relevance to our discussion. Even if the record industry was in the midst of its greatest year ever, jazz would still have only 3% of sales, which is significantly less than what they did 40 years ago. Jazz is less and less influential, and I'm saying that fusion had something to do with that.


But you're wrong. Fusion actually caused jazz to grow more as a commercial music the biggest sellers were crossover hits from Benson, Grover, Hancock, Corea and Weather Report. It's an altogethr different debate as to what fusion added to the aesthetics of jazz. The trend was very successful in generating sales and new fans. Some stayed on thru their inital exposure, some didn't. Fact-of-the-matter is, jazz was pushed into a neo-con revisionist (via Wynton Marsalis) trend that countered the commercial success of fusion which had mixed results for jazz.




Isn't that what our discussion is about?
Not really I just hijacked the thread cuz I'm bored at work.

Why was jazz marginalized?
This was due to rock & roll back in the mid-50s. Fusion was more than 15 yrs away.

If fusion was so great and influential,
You're misreading me on how "great" fusion was. It was flawed and commercialized jazz, but it's top layer artists like WR, Corea and Hancock were indeed successful in doing something new and innovative.

then where is it today?


Depends on where you look. Jazz meshing with rock is especially apparent on the jamband scene with bands like PHISH WideSpread Panic, Dave Matthews, Disco Biscuits etc. I've caught a number of bonafide jazz acts at these fests like SOULIVE FAREED HAQUE JOHN SCOFIElD, KARL DENSON TINY UNIVERSE and even avant-garde jazz like SUN RA ARKESTRA.

Plus Marcus Miller, Herbie Hancock and Pat Metheny continue to tour and pull from this demographic Also a lot of straight-ahead jazz old & new are still getting fans.

It's all underground and doesn't get the purview of MTV or PEOPLE magazine. You can check the scene in RELIX magazine or online at jambands.co and for gigs and such jambase.com



Prince recorded his great fusion album, and where is that gonna get him? The poorest-selling album of his career

I haven't heard NEWS so I can't comment on it. However, I never thought much of MADHOUSE at the time.

Great. Just what I needed... another thread about how much better a certain type of music is than the other. I'll just leave now.

Tupac

Boy there are really some pompous people on the the org. Especially the PFJazz guy. U always have this i'm superior type attitude in every post. Since your such a marginal fan why don't u spend your time on a Jazz site and sparse us all your snide comments.

If you had half a clue, you'd know that artists like Corea, and Hancock did not fail but were extremely successful in bringing new folks to jazz. Not top 40 hit record success, but that standard is measured best over the long haul with "deep catalog sales". When you figure economies of scale,labels like BLUE NOTE and VERVE etc do extremely good business and royalties to aritsts get paid.

Really, they were successful? How? Sales of jazz records accounted for 90% of all sales in the 1940s. We're down to 3% of all sales today. They did a bang-up job. As for Blue Note, they would have gone out of business in the late 1960s if Alfred Lion hadn't sold them. Likewise, the Verve label was not even active for years, until their parent company revived the label name a few years back. And what does economies of scale have to do with this?

garnis said:

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

Lesson about Shuggie Otis: The man played EVERY instrument of his albums, including horns. He also wrote the orchestra arrangements. Prince cant even write music properly. He is an amazing musician, but he?s just nowhere near Shuggie.

Lesson about Mandrill: Mandrill not worth mentioning? Are you sure you are not confusing them with the Backstreet Boys? Mandrill are probably the tightest and prolific band that has emerged out of the 70s.

Carlos Wilson, the leader, composer and arranger of Mandrill, plays even more instruments like Prince. He beats him on the drums easily, and he is an amazing horn player (trombone, alto sax, tenor sax and flute), something that is out of the picture for Prince. He also writes orchestral music.
I have worked and toured with Mandrill, and I have seen Prince work, and I can assure you that Mandrill would kick Prince`s ass easily. The music they have recorded between 1970 and 1974 beats pretty much EVERTHING in composition, texture, arrangement and groove than Prince has ever written, maybe with the exception of songs like Chrystal Ball. Santana has worshipped Mandrill, so has Miles Davis and even Duke Ellington.
Back in the days, groups like The New Birth, Earth Wind and Fire, War and Parliament used to OPEN for Mandrill, because nobody wanted to go on after them.
You really need to study one`s music before you make a ridiculous comment like the one above.

to this thread I have to say quality not quantity. Prince's material although cool is not always top quality. I'm amazed at how an artist like MJ can still cause people to faint on sight over two decades after his crowning achievement.

marcdeondotcom said:

so how much quality do you say he lacks?

EGOBOOST said:

N.E.W.S. and Rainbow Children are outstanding and I think that he may win back a lot of folks with these releases.. these are top quality! MJ has put out a lot of stinky poo as well but I just think it's funny how one artist can constantly turn out material and not be as known or appreciated.

marcdeondotcom said:

True very true. Sometimes I've wondered how the general public didn't recognize him as a legend considering he released at least one album each year. MJ one every 4 years. That's why us special folks love Prince so much!!! Our taste in music is top dog.

There's a lot of musical snobbery in here.

whodknee said:

aka wrongheaded bellyaching.


And most of the posts don't have much to do with what the original poster is asking.

their i think is one man who is prob better than prince, and tht is elvis, he wrote a lot of hes songs not all of them but sum, but look at how many songs elvis brang out, and albums, he is still bringing them out and he is dead!

You said you didn't like Vanity because of its dated sound, as if it has a freshness stamp or something. I was merely using Dixieland to illustrate the point.

There's a lot of musical snobbery in here. Jazz WAS great back when it was relevant and before the mainstream latched on. As far as comparing some of these other guys with Prince, well show me what they could play and the SONGS they wrote. It's much easier to jam around a basic idea then compose music with lyrics.

Think so? Actually, its quite more difficult to write a piece of meaningful and deep instrumental music. Letting the instruments speak is the most difficult musical task ever. While most of the modern shit lives of the lyrics, imagine it without them. It will be dull and boring. And its funny that you say "jazz WAS great nback then"... like its not great anymore.

Some knuckleheads are holding up Vanity's songs as an example of what Prince was doing. We know he didn't think much of those and that's why he gave them to her. If Prince's goal back in his heyday was to be the best jazz musician around I'm sure he'd be up there with Miles, Ellington, etc.

You dont even know what you are talking about. Prince is a whole other trip. He would never have been like Ellington, because Ellington knew so much more about music. You make it look like that Prince didnt wanna play jazz because it wasnt enuff for him. While in reality he didnt get into playing it because he knew too little about music and didnt know how to play Jazz. He still doesnt. If you cross out his previous work, judging him by his jazzful attempts, he wouldnt even be fitting in the standard.

As it is, he wanted to be famous and current so he chose to do "popular" music. However, his brand of pop was unique so in this case that's not a bad thing.

It was kinda uinique in the 80s, and nobody in here will say that Prince wasnt great. But hardcore fans like you seem to be so focused on Prince only, that you are missing out on musical reality.
Duke Ellington was a god, a superstar until he died at age 76. Prince is only 44, and he is only a star to his fanbase (including myself btw). But to the rest of the musical world, he doesnt mean shit.

I find Mandrill tight as a group undoubtedly, but their music is 100% traditional funk. To me, you gotta push it further or go home. Mandrill are definately tight, but to me, Prince has something in his imagination that allows him to do amazing things in music. I think the diversity of his music is best compared to someone like Duke Ellington.