Jazz’s PR problem

I disagree with Paul de Barros’ conclusion that a poor and paralyzing image has kept jazz from being embraced [“Mayday for the Music Too,” Nov. 6]. Ultimately, listeners choose what they listen to. No matter what corporate-bashing individualists say, a poor image will not keep an entire genre out of the mainstream if it appeals to the public’s tastes.

The problem with jazz is that it has become too postmodern, too self-referential and complex (rhythmically, harmonically), so that listeners -- even trained ones! -- don’t really know what they’re listening to. The Dan Browns of jazz have a strong mass appeal because smooth jazz has clear, identifiable elements and elicits an immediate aesthetic response. Straight-ahead jazz does not. The most popular (living) straight-ahead players are guys like Brad Mehldau, Joshua Redman, Bill Frisell and Keith Jarrett, who, in spite of all of their inventiveness and complexity, sell records because they are at once accessible, infectious and tasteful.

I don’t even think mainstream audiences have accepted Coltrane or Monk, because their musical ideas were too exposed, too bare to reach a large audience. They have been admitted into musical history as icons and geniuses by critics and academics without much consideration from the masses. It’s sort of like Varese or Schoenberg or Stravinsky, who are too troubling (and powerful) to deal with, so the public says “the hell with it” and calls them masters but does not buy their recordings.

It doesn’t really bother me that I listen to music that is esoteric and underappreciated. It is unfortunate, though, because I think a lot of people would truly love the music if they gave it a fair listen and had an understanding of the musical elements.

DANIEL TANNENBAUM

Los Angeles