jeffersonparish
New member
Any jazz historian's on here?
After hearing Quincy Jones talk about him, I read Louis Jordan's biography, Son of Arkansas, Father of R&B. Because I've been listening to pop and rap so long, I needed something different, and Quincy Jones and Ray Charles gave LJ major props so I bought the book. During breaks from reading, I listened to the songs that were mentioned and actually found a good bit that I liked immediately.
Maybe someone who plays jazz and knows more about jazz history can shed some light on this interesting part – in the book, it says that when his career started to decline, jazz and rock 'n roll were increasing in popularity. Louis's big band style didn't fit into either. What confuses me is that he was considered 'too pop for jazz.' I don't understand this AT ALL. Yes, he wrote songs about fish fries and military lingo, but the book doesn't give any indication that anyone thought his musicianship was sub-par.
This actually threw me off so much that I looked up some other articles about this and it appears that this snobbish attitude seems to have the norm of jazz musicians at that time. It's as if other musicians looked down on the style (not so much Jordan himself) because it was focused on showmanship and entertainment so much, instead of solos, etc.??? If so, how does that make sense, considering Duke Ellington also did that style of music?
I'd love to hear from some jazz heads, as I'm a lyricist and topline writer for pop music, so I don't listen to songs 'with a musician's ear.' And when I listen to Louis Jordan's music, I don't see why anyone would look down on it.
Thanks,
Jay
After hearing Quincy Jones talk about him, I read Louis Jordan's biography, Son of Arkansas, Father of R&B. Because I've been listening to pop and rap so long, I needed something different, and Quincy Jones and Ray Charles gave LJ major props so I bought the book. During breaks from reading, I listened to the songs that were mentioned and actually found a good bit that I liked immediately.
Maybe someone who plays jazz and knows more about jazz history can shed some light on this interesting part – in the book, it says that when his career started to decline, jazz and rock 'n roll were increasing in popularity. Louis's big band style didn't fit into either. What confuses me is that he was considered 'too pop for jazz.' I don't understand this AT ALL. Yes, he wrote songs about fish fries and military lingo, but the book doesn't give any indication that anyone thought his musicianship was sub-par.
This actually threw me off so much that I looked up some other articles about this and it appears that this snobbish attitude seems to have the norm of jazz musicians at that time. It's as if other musicians looked down on the style (not so much Jordan himself) because it was focused on showmanship and entertainment so much, instead of solos, etc.??? If so, how does that make sense, considering Duke Ellington also did that style of music?
I'd love to hear from some jazz heads, as I'm a lyricist and topline writer for pop music, so I don't listen to songs 'with a musician's ear.' And when I listen to Louis Jordan's music, I don't see why anyone would look down on it.
Thanks,
Jay
Last edited: