Norah Jones & Diana Krall - Evil?

So are they bringing back jazz or killing it?


By J.D. Considine

The Globe and Mail Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2003 (http://www.globeandmail.ca)


Don't look now, but jazz singing has quietly become the new Easy
Listening. And boy is it big business.

At a time when jazz instrumentalists are lucky to see sales in the
low five figures, Diana Krall's last three studio albums have all been
million-sellers, certified platinum in the U.S. Then there's newcomer
Norah Jones, who is widely expected to sweep the Grammy Awards this
Sunday, and has so far sold more than four million copies of her debut,
Come Away with Me. Last month, the album shouldered aside Eminem and
Shania Twain to spend several weeks atop the Billboard charts.

Jazz singing has gotten so hot that even pop vocalists want a
piece of the action. Aging rocker Rod Stewart snuck back onto the charts
last year with a collection of standards called The Great American
Songbook, and wound up with his biggest hit in years, while k. d. lang's
latest release was an album of duets with jazz crooner Tony Bennett,
called Wonderful World.

With a host of others - Jane Monheit, Cassandra Wilson, John
Pizzarelli, Jaqui Naylor, Eliane Elias - queuing up to join the gold
rush, it would seem that there has never been a better time to be a scat
singer. Yet funnily enough, what these best-selling jazz singers deliver
has little to do with jazz, beyond a walking bass and an occasional
piano solo.

Instead, their music sits squarely in the middle of the road,
offering obvious melodies, a soothing mood and a veneer of
sophistication - qualities eminently familiar to fans of Percy Faith or
the Jackie Gleason Orchestra. Albums like Krall's The Look of Love, with
its whispered vocals and lush Claus Ogerman orchestrations practically
scream, "This is mood music!" (Except, of course, that mood music never
screams.)

Because it's so pretty, so determinedly inoffensive, it's hard to
hate this music. But it's very easy to despise the musical dumbing-down
that comes with aspiring to a higher class of aural wallpaper. Where
once jazz singers strove to stretch the boundaries of music, embarking
on improvised flights of fancy, as did Ella Fitzgerald, or turning a
tune inside-out à la Betty Carter, today's young crooners are
principally blessed with an ability to smooth things over, to massage a
melody into an easily digestible dollop of sound.

Billie Holiday died for this?

In fairness, we can't blame the jazz audience for this devolution,
because frankly, there just aren't enough jazz fans to generate millions
of CD sales. No, this is a pop phenomenon, fuelled in part by the market
clout of aging boomers.

According to a poll conducted last year in the U.S. for the
Recording Industry Association of America, nearly a quarter of CD sales
were to listeners aged 45 and older. This age group is the
fastest-growing demographic in the music market - and not just because
comparatively few of them know how to download music from the Internet.

Having grown up with an active interest in rock, boomers have been
entering middle age with an enduring interest in new music, as well as
the disposable income needed to feed that hunger. This has given rise to
a radio format called adult-album-alternative radio, a format touted
within the industry as "music for grownups." Offering everything from
Elvis Costello to Coldplay to Ry Cooder, Triple-A radio emphasizes
musical daring and artistic value while simultaneously downplaying
aggression and attitude. In that sense, it's an alternative to the bland
mainstream pop of Barbra Streisand and Celine Dion, as well as to the
raucous edge of hip-hop and heavy metal.

But even though Jones, Krall and the other young jazz singers have
benefited somewhat from the boom in Triple-A radio, the secret of their
success lies not with radio but with shopping malls, coffee bars,
waiting rooms and other public places that discreetly serenade clients.
Because over the years, the constant murmur of soothing melodies at work
and in the market has trained people to want some sort of sound in the
background - not to listen to, but merely to hear.

"Music has become completely ubiquitous," says Roy Trakin, a
senior editor at the trade magazine Hits. "People expect to have it
around them all the time." At the same time, what they want is more
background than foreground - a sound that's pleasant, mildly engaging,
but not particularly distracting. As do the people in movies, we've come
to expect a certain amount of soundtrack in our lives.

Krall, Jones and their ilk aren't the first jazz-based musicians
to benefit from this hunger for easy-listening fare. In the late '80s
and '90s, "smooth jazz," a blandly melodic blend of fusion jazz and R &
B, became standard fare in elevators everywhere. Derided by jazz purists
as "fuzak," smooth jazz turned the bleat of a soprano saxophone into the
most feared cliché in popular music, in the process making millions for
the likes of Kenny G, Najee and George Howard. Yet for all its militant
mellowness, smooth jazz has always tried to maintain some rhythmic
urgency, fuelling its airy noodlings with grooves derived (read: watered
down) from funk.

The new jazz singing, by contrast, takes its rhythmic cues from
the denatured swing of '50s saloon singers. Harry Connick's soundtrack
recording for When Harry Met Sally was a pioneering work in this regard,
with its mannered croon and lush orchestrations offering a suave,
Sinatra-esque vibe but without the original's bite. The effect was
classy and comfortable background music - a perfect romantic soundtrack
even if you weren't at the movies.

At the time, many assumed that younger listeners were simply
searching for a new Sinatra. They weren't. (Connick, who later evinced a
genuinely Sinatra-style pugnacity, found that out the hard way.) What
they really wanted was quiet sophistication and melodies that didn't get
in their face.

Such music doesn't have to be bedecked with Nelson Riddle-style
string arrangements. Like Jones, Cassandra Wilson gets similarly
soothing results from acoustic bass and the muffled whine of a steel
guitar. But it won't ever stretch a melody out of shape, or take a solo
into uncharted territory, or challenge its listeners.

And if Jones, as expected, walks away with a handful of Grammys on
Sunday, we'll doubtless be seeing more understated, undemanding albums
from well-groomed, smooth-voiced, inoffensive jazz singers.

It won't mean a thing, but it will have that swing. Sort of.

 

Interesting premise for an article. The other day I was talking with my wife and bemoaning the fact that Rod Stewart could do such a mediocre job of covering the great American standards and still sell millions of CDs. The missus, who is a few years younger than me, pointed out how she got interested in people like Sinatra, Ella, and Billie by first hearing Linda Ronstadt's collaborations with Nelson Riddle. So I guess it serves a purpose. And when the guy in the adjoining apartment listens to Norah Jones, which is in no way "jazz" in my not-so-humble opinion, it's a lot less assaultive than what he usually plays.

JD

 

The problem is more to do with the public's perception of jazz. I work with one guy who thinks of it as just "background music," and there are others who think of Kenny G as being real jazz. If it's watered down, laid back, and employs what I guess the average person considers to be "traditional jazz instruments" (saxophones or a piano-bass-drums trio), it counts as jazz. I'm not sure how someone like Diana Krall will affect the rest of jazz music, but I would think (and hope) it would be minimal. Jazz in general isn't much of a cash machine, and I don't see producers coaxing Wayne Shorter or Wynton Marsalis to do supper-club music.

Of course, while Tony Bennett and Frank Sinatra are considered vocal pop, I think every jazz fan should have some of their records because they are great vocal records a jazz enthusiast will enjoy and something that jazz students could even learn from. But, again, someone like Norah Jones doesn't really show any real jazz roots the way Frank does in his singing.

 

David Lee Roth said that rock critics like Elvis Costello because they look like Elvis Costello.

J.D. Considine looks exactly like Elvis Costello.

Diana Krall is dating Elvis Costello.

Is this how Considine expresses his jealousy?

It is interesting that Considine chooses to frame his discussion of Jones with speculation about what her Grammy success will mean to "jazz" when Jones' album was competing in the "pop" category. If you're going to declare Jones a jazz artist for the sake of questioning her jazz credentials... well, that's a bit of a straw man argument, isn't it?

 

That article pretty much says it all.

 

Jones and Krall are diluting jazz the same way countless of country artists have been diluting country music the past 15 years. It's all about profit and popularity, and the masses (us) are eating it up.

 

Has Norah Jones actually referred to her music as jazz? I haven't heard her do so, and I'm not even sure Blue Note is promoting it as jazz. Still, you hear people in the public call it jazz and then there's an AP report on the Grammy's that just came out, claiming that there was expectations that the album would only appeal to the "jazz purist" crowd when it came out, and it makes you wonder if people learned anything from Ken Burns' flawed but popular documentary.

 

I guess it's possible that people are calling it jazz because her label (Blue Note) is known as mainly a jazz label.

 

I don't think jazz will be diluted by the success of laid-back pop mistaken as jazz. Because of the nature of the music, it's impossible. There's no way you can do that to someone like Joe Lovano or Josh Redman and change what they do night after night in clubs all over the country. At the same time, jazz has learned, to a certain extent, to survive on small sales. There is not jazz radio like country radio, or 24-hour jazz stations like 24-hour country stations. This music hasn't been that popular for a long time, but it has learned to thrive and progress. You can't keep it quiet in the public eye, but you can never kill jazz.

 

A thoughtful article.
Music has been moving into the background for years. Many people don't sit and actively listen to music, it's there to fill a void. You dance, you clean house, you read a magazine or surf the net, drink coffee or a cocktail, shop, drive...anything but shut up and listen.

I agree that music for the background will never challenge a listener. Jazz isn't alone in being modified to quietly sit in the background. Classical radio, what's left of it, is programmed for mood music as well. You won't here a Mahler or Bartok on classical radio, or a vigorous string quartet. You won't even hear much Beethoven. You'll hear a lot of middle movements from Haydn, Mozart and Dvorak symphonies, maybe an aria or two. Don't want to make anyone spill their coffee...

Dan C

 

Well, Diana Krall is definitely jazz--the lighter side of the dial, as was Harry Connick, Jr.--but unmistakably jazz. Maybe not innovative, but then, not all music has to be. I just dig her--and her music--a lot. I understand going in we're not dealing with an avatar, just a lady who loves doing what she does. Nothing wrong with that, and it's got more substance than critics give her credit for. And remember, Norah is still getting her feet wet; let's give her a few more albums and see where she wants to go.

I wouldn't say either artist is 'diluting' jazz; that's just nonsense. Pop singers with jazz leanings have been around a long time. These two are just the most successful and memorable of recent years. Most of the bashing seems to center around their success as much as the music itself.
So what, sue them for selling? Isn't that what jazz needs? I've never gotten the impression Krall is making concessions to anybody; this is what she digs. I'm glad I'm along for the ride.

ED

 

I partially agree, Diana Krall was jazz but when I listen to the catalog, she seems to be distancing herself from jazz
All for You - Jazzy.
Love Scenes - Less Jazzy
When I look into your eyes - less Jazzy
The Look of Love- Orchestration
Live in Paris - the new material was covering Joni Mitchell and Billy Joel

It just seems like she is making one safe album after another and eventually people will get tired of it. I know I am.

She's doing what she wants, and I think what she wants to do is sell albums and make money. I'd love to see her tour with Russell Malone again to get back to more traditional jazz roots, but I support a big Jazz tent philiophy

Thanks,
Aaron

 

Steve,
I took it another way and I didn't see much jazz-purist grandstanding here.
Pointing out that "jazz" only hits the mainstream when it's packaged or "watered down" isn't necessarily saying that it will destroy jazz.

I agree with his point that music has moved into the background. Listeners don't want to be challenged or involved, they just want a soundtrack.

OTOH, plenty of people are paying good money to see Krall and Jones live, but I'll bet that most who buy their CDs don't really want to be "bothered" by their music.

Quiet music, drink coffee, read a book...

Dan C

 

Right on Steve! Succinct and to the point. I'm with you all the way.

 

I don't see how Jones or Krall could possibly be considered "evil". "Safe" or "overplayed" perhaps, but come on.

Last time I checked, Kenny G was still filed under Jazz. Need I say more?

 

J.D. Considine is an A*hole IMO. and I've gladly taken the opportunity to rip him a new one personally whenever said opportunity presented itself. He HATES Jefferson Airplane, he's whined tediously about how awful Let It Be and the White Album are, and in general he's just another blabbering critic.
He used to work at a record store here in Baltimore and would corner the customers to tell them that Elvis Costello was the saving grace of ROCK AND ROLL!
I can't believe he still has a career at this. It's too bad he doesn't understand good music, but so few critics do....

 

Steve - Who is Considine patronizing?

Wow, it's fun reading all these disparate viewpoints. No one sitting on the fence here.

 

The way I look at it is that the huge sales of Krall and Jones allow more reissues of the Blue Note and Verve releases I want to see to come out!

Glad these lovely ladies are selling albums and winning award, and better them then Kenny G!

 

Although I like Norah Jones's singing, I only tell people she is jazz to casual music listeners although she is more pop vocal than jazz although she does have jazz influences.

 

Well if you spell their names backwards you get

Llark Anaid and
Senoj Haron

both of which sound evil to me

Imagine if there were no neat pigeonholes to place music in and people had to decide based on the performance and their own preferences - but that's a bit radical

All the best - Andrew

 

Norah's cute and Diana's very leggy! It doesn't hurt their careers.

I like cbsolson's (sorry I don't remember your name) take. Isn't this just pop in jazz clothing?

Not to go off-topic, but what in the hell is Faith Hill doing with, "Cry?" What do you call that exactly?

 

My name is Bradley and really "Cry" is a power-pop/rock song, written by Angie Aparo that has nothing to do with country. The whole Cry album is full of this type of song while in the case of a few songs including "Free," they have techno and modern R&B influences. Right, Norah is really pop in jazz clothing.