One of the things that popped into my mind during History as Fiction yesterday came up in relation to somebody's comment about Jazz music (or any other kind of cultural phenomenon) selling out. Selling out would encompass the phenomenon becoming more common and more accessible to more people. Another effect is that the phenomenon strays from its original intentions and purpose, and becomes diluted and different.
The question that arose in my mind was, "Isn't this inevitable? Does it not make sense that the longer something is around, the more dispersed throughout the world it will get and the more it will change?" I feel like the answer to these questions is that this occurrence is inevitable, but that it's not necessarily bad. Nothing can really stay the same forever, especially something that is amorphous and undefinable as a cultural phenomenon. Although it might be sad that something changes in its nature because it is enjoyed by a large and diverse group of people as opposed to a small and select group of people, I think we shouldn't be surprised by this; it's only natural, and is only a matter of time that the phenomenon is going to morph, change, and spread. I think this is what happened to Jes Grew; it ended because the times moved on, and the world as a whole was concerned with different things. Jazz was still alive, it was just that the Jes Grew associated with it had run its course.
Another question arises that's not really related to the book, but was just something I was wondering about. It kind of connects to something cultural being enjoyed by a larger group of people, and it generally leads to the comment, "I knew that song before it was popular," or "If that's the only song you know by [fill in the blank], then you're not a real fan." These comments beg the question, "Why does something have to be obscure to be good?" Or perhaps not obscure, but exclusive? I'm not quite sure I know the answer, but I don't think it has anything to do with the song (or whatever cultural phenomenon the conversation is about) intrinsically. I think it's mainly to do with the fact that people want to feel like they know something that others don't. That a song is special, and therefore "good" because it's a secret. Once the secret gets out, and once the song becomes popular and commercialized, then it has "sold out" in a way.
I think this reaction is kind of sad, and like I said in my first few paragraphs, this development is inevitable. No artist that's any good is going to stay underground forever. People are going to discover them, and share them with others, and eventually, even if they don't get uber famous, they will become more well-known. This doesn't change the quality of the work, it just changes how people feel about the work. If people subsequently feel like the artist sold out because they are more popular, it's not really the artist's fault, it's just that the perception of them is changing.
Anyway, I don't really have any conclusive answers; I just think it's kind of interesting to try to figure out why we (and I include myself in this) want to have this feeling that we know something that other people don't; that we know about this super obscure band that's so awesome and once people start to like them, they become "old," but you can say that you knew them before they were popular.
2 comments:
I agree I don't really think Jazz music "sold out" at all. I don't know much about Jazz history, but from what I get is that times changed which brought more new forms of Jes Grew. You bring up an interesting point about the obscurity of a band and the value some people see in the music, I hadn't really thought of it before as an "I know something you don't know" kind of thing, but it totally fits.
Well, according to many jazz artists themselves, swing and big band as it flourished in the 1920s and 1930s became so thoroughly commercialized that it ceased to be an appealing field for innovation. So you had be-boppers like Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie playing in big bands uptown in the early evening, mostly to tourists for decent money, and then closing out the night downtown in small clubs, creating their own defiantly *non-danceable*, increasingly complex and innovative *new* form of jazz (often tweaking and riffing on popular standards of the day). So it's not like "jazz" is one thing, and with any cultural form, you always have a range of things going on at once. A younger generation of artists rejecting the safe commercialism of the previous generation.
As to the "I was into them before they were cool" thing, I have a LOT to say on this topic from personal experience, but I don't want to hijack the whole comment stream.
Post a Comment