I don't want to disagree too strenuously for fear of putting you off, but from a jazz musician's standpoint, there are a few things this article brought to mind.

No one will debate (if they have any ears) that Buble's voice is nice, and he might be doing something to bring jazz to the mainstream, but jazz, by it's very nature, is not a mainstream thing. It was born to rebel against the mainstream, and though that rebellion is no longer necessary, it still remains largely the province of other musicians. Here's why I say that.

Music is a language, and like the English language, there are infinite ways to say infinite different things. But if you look at that metaphor, you can just browse around JU or your forum of choice, and see that some speak it better than others. When you see a guy say "I had a hard day. My boss said this. The weather was that. I am glad to be home." you can't argue that the guy is speaking correct English, but it's not very interesting. He might just be a minimilist, but more likely, his ability to paint a picture with his words isn't developed to the point of capturing an audience.

In jazz, the defining element is ad lib. We jazzers (and I'm not a master by any means, but I can comprehend more than I can play) look at a set of "chord changes," with no notes to go by, and we "speak" out melody completely at will without any forced structure. Well, unless it's avant garde, we actually construct a structure as we go, and then express ourselves through it, and the art is conveying the structure and the melody to an end listener that may know nothing about music and having them still "get it" anyway. Buble puts a little twist on things, but he basically follows what has already been done before him, and the only thing that is different is the nature of his voice and some inflection - which I don't disrespect at all - but at the end of the day, he's a voicer - not a jazz musician.

I admit, I was a little taken aback with the comment about Willie Nelson and Eric Clapton. Sure - they must have approved, or the guy couldn't have done the songs, but I'm doubting pretty strenuously that Nelson or Clapton fans are going to find more soul in what Buble put out than what they heard in the originals because something the original has is....ORIGINALITY.

Jazz is (usually) about creating something NEW. Something that is yours, and guaging it's appeal with your skill to convey high language art to low language listeners. Buble has all that except the "new" part. When he picks up a horn and blows changes over Cherokee at 300 beats a minute, I'll be impressed. Until then, he's just another voicer to me - rehashing the same old stuff, but doing so with a notably golden tone quality.

Part of me likes when someone brings jazz into the mainstream, but part of me wishes it would stay amongst the people that understand the nuances of eloquently constructed sentences - the "writers" of music.

No disrespect Ockhams, but you sound like the sort of jazz snob I can't stand. All musical forms have their snobs (sorry to keep using the insult, Ockhams, but I can't think of another word. Take it as a compliment that I respect what you have had to say enough to want to write a lengthy response to it. You are quite eloquent in expessing yourself, I simply have a philosophical point of difference with you).

I used to be a member of the Crowded House fan club. I have more than 20CDs by Crowded House/Neil Finn because I love Neil's music. But I got really sick of many of the fan club members' snobbishness. They would whinge that the mainstream didn't worship the ground Neil walked on in the way they did, saying that it just showed how the mainstream weren't smart enough to get it. Then if Crowded House had a hit, they would get upset that it had become part of the mainstream. In other words, they were there to reassure themselves of their own superiority.

The key taboo among Crowded House fans was to admit that you were a fan of the song "Weather With You", which they saw as a commercial track just written for the mainstream in order to get a hit. To be a true fan, you had to like the obscure track 13 on a particular album, with its quirky keyboard piece. It was all a bit ridiculous and suffocating to me. I actually had much the same taste as the snobs. I didn't like Weather With You that much, but I don't consider anyone a lesser fan with no understanding of the complexities of Neil Finn's music just because they liked that song. It's just not my favourite song because I get bored with it.

Other people I know consider all of Crowded House's material too mainstream for them. Who cares? If the singer has expressed their emotions through song, and I can relate to the emotions they are expressing, then that is what is important. Anything else is missing the point. Music is about music. It's about expressing yourself when words simply won't do the trick. It's not about how many bizarre chord changes you can do. If a chord change is expressing what you're doing, taking the song to a higher level, then go for it. But it shouldn't be there for the sake of the ability to play notes or think up new ideas. No music is better than it sounds in my opinion.

I am a voicer myself, albeit being paid considerably less than Buble. I have no interest in music that scats around 5 million notes in a matter of seconds simply to show off that the musician can play those notes. I believe that in music, simplicity is the key to beauty. That's why I hate Baz Luhrmann...the man has no understanding of subtlety or simplicity.

I count myself a Clapton fan and a very big fan of both those songs on Buble's album, but always felt the originals were a little cheesy. Buble has smoothed this out and made a far more timeless recording (though that is hard to judge until time has gone by of course). I always liked those songs but never listened to them. Now I do.

I don't know that I even agree that jazz was invented to rebel against the mainstream. Punk was a definite concerted effort to be anti-mainstream. Jazz was just a bunch of black guys trying to have fun and to get up and dance. That in itself was very rebellious. The music too was of course very different from the mainstream country music. It had more complex rhythms and chord structures, but I have never had the impression that this was because of any desire to challenge the mainstream. It was just part of the musical heritage they got from African music. The African-Americans had a new social context and their music came alive in reaction to that context, but in my research of the birth of jazz, I don't recall anything suggesting they were paticularly deliberately rebelling against the mainstream in the way punk did. Blues had a more rebellious spirit, but even there I don't think that that's what makes blues special.

Scat is fantastic and I think it is a weakness of Buble that he can't scat, but I don't think it suits his style. Sinatra too couldn't scat for quids. Ella Fitzgerald on the other hand was very good at it and never overdid it.

To me, Buble is doing something new. His music actually sounds fresh and alive, while Sinatra sounds like someone who was relatively alive once. Sinatra too is probably too mainstream for you, I don't know. I'm not interested in what's mainstream or alternative. I listen to an alternative radio station in my car because it has music that I like. Sometimes that music hits the charts, sometimes it doesn't. What interests me is does the musician have soul. Can s/he express emotions through songs? Buble can do this very well, and I think the Call Me Irresponsible album is an important step forward in him feeling more comfortable in doing that.

Thanks for keeping the discussion alive Ockhams.

Well first, my friends call me Ock, and it's easier to type So feel free.

I was amazed when you had posted so recently on a very old article of mine regarding Today's Music Critics, and I don't want you to have the wrong idea.

More often than not, I play "mainstream" music. It's what I'm paid to do, and if the general public isn't entertained, I haven't done my job. Musicians are whores. We have to be to live because JoePublic holds the dollars we pay our rent with, and if we don't please them, no dollars. So musicians are forced to "musically sleep with" whoever will pay them a buck to play the latest drek that uninformed society members insist is "good music." JoeListener doesn't even realize that he/she has forced us to be whores. Doesn't realize that this is a form of violence at worst, and apathy at best. It's not snobbery - at least it isn't intended to be. I'll try to explain with another metaphor, which is what I always tend to do.

Suppose you are a writer - of words. You've studied the English language for years, have a vocabulary which allows you to paint subtle nuances into your sentences that go very far in painting a much more defined mental image than someone with less vocabulary. The problem is, after you craft your incredibly descriptive sentences, your reader says "Huh huh...I picked up that book once, but it didn't have any pictures in it, and there were too many big words."

Is it snobbery to wish that there was an education level that would allow you to display your gift to a larger audience that would actually understand what it was you were writing about? What you were trying to say? Or should you relegate yourself to the fact that you're alone in the world with a talent very few can comprehend...not because they CAN'T but because they WON'T. And that's my issue. It isn't because they can't...it's because they won't. So who is the snob, really?

This is a problem I see with culture. That the people adding to it, or attempting to, have to lower their abilities to the least common denominator not because that LCD doesn't have the capacity for understanding the full beauty of something cleverly created, but because they're too lazy to even attempt it and that equates to no market for anything above "See Jane run. See Spot run. Run Spot, Run!"

None of this has to do with Buble, for the record. Just responding about what might be perceived as snobbery is the result of someone who is tired of being a whore for people who are quick to naysay talent, but very slow to learn the skills necessary to accurately determine that their naysaying is justified.

Sinatra too is probably too mainstream for you, I don't know. I'm not interested in what's mainstream or alternative.

Nah, not at all. I think you just misunderstood me. I don't care what's mainstream or not, either. I only care that the people that label music as "good" or not have an educational leg to stand on.

Hey Ock. I enjoyed your article, and it seemed pertinent to what I wrote here.

I get what you're saying about education. I have an English degree, so the ability to wite is important to me. But I think art is different. That's the problem with using metaphors to prove your point. It's a good tactic, and often valid, but in this case I think your 2 examples are not closely enough related.

I agree about the LCD thing. I hate that about TV. When I was doin comedy acting, I became aware that you could do jokes in a few ways. You coyuld do them subtly and only a few people would get them, but those few people would be bent over. Or you could hit the audience over the head with the joke and get more people laughing. The more people laughing, the less they laughed. It was a question of balance.

But I consider my music different. Music is about a connection. It's a far more emotional journey. In fact, technical knowledge can stifle creativity to an extent. My mother is a brilliant musician and highly creative, but to my surprise has great difficulty trying to swing when we do a song together. She finds it hard to undo her immense classical training.

Hey Ock. I enjoyed your article, and it seemed pertinent to what I wrote here.

I get what you're saying about education. I have an English degree, so the ability to wite is important to me. But I think art is different. That's the problem with using metaphors to prove your point. It's a good tactic, and often valid, but in this case I think your 2 examples are not closely enough related.

I agree about the LCD thing. I hate that about TV. When I was doin comedy acting, I became aware that you could do jokes in a few ways. You coyuld do them subtly and only a few people would get them, but those few people would be bent over. Or you could hit the audience over the head with the joke and get more people laughing. The more people laughing, the less they laughed. It was a question of balance.

But I consider my music different. Music is about a connection. It's a far more emotional journey. In fact, technical knowledge can stifle creativity to an extent. My mother is a brilliant musician and highly creative, but to my surprise has great difficulty trying to swing when we do a song together. She finds it hard to undo her immense classical training.

I agree about the LCD thing. I hate that about TV. When I was doin comedy acting, I became aware that you could do jokes in a few ways. You coyuld do them subtly and only a few people would get them, but those few people would be bent over. Or you could hit the audience over the head with the joke and get more people laughing. The more people laughing, the less they laughed. It was a question of balance.

I realize that life is not "ideal." But I won't suffer when folks think that an ideal should not be strived for. In this case, you're suggesting (or seem to be) that the creativity of a work should take into account the audience that will view/listen to it. And I agree that this is the case if money/acceptance is your goal. A musician/comedian without an audience is just some guy/gal talking to themselves.

But ideally, again with the focus on striving, a creator should be able to create without respect for who will hear in the end. These people - you, me, others - are the ones adding something NEW to the world - straight out of our minds from nothing. As an audient, I respect the musicians I hear enough to try and understand what it is they are trying to convey. I feel I owe them that much. Sometimes it's stuff that I've heard from tons of other musicians in tons of other places. Sometimes, it's Hiromi Uehara (which I hope you stopped by and listened to.)

In fact, technical knowledge can stifle creativity to an extent.

Yeah I know a bunch of guys/gals that play jazz by "rules." I play mine *with* rules but letting heart and ear be my main guides.

I'm flattered you had a listen asaxy. We disagree obviously, but that's the point of music.

I agree that this is the case if money/acceptance is your goal. A musician/comedian without an audience is just some guy/gal talking to themselves.

I was referring to amateur theatre, but it's not just about acceptance. I believe music is far more dynamic. It's a relationship between performer and artist. It's about connecting with them.

a creator should be able to create without respect for who will hear in the end.

I'm sorry. I think that's silly. Arguably, there are much higher standards when you don't have to just pump out any old melody that comes into your head, but also have to create something that is pleasurable for others to hear.
I don't believe music is necessarily selling out just because it sells records. Selling out is when you write something that is not you for the sake of the audience. Writing something that lots of people enjoy is not just hard, it's a rare gift. And if you're putting down how you feel in a melodic way, then that's what it's all about.
It's not even about whether you're doing originals or covers in an original way. I write my own original songs, but frankly there are lot of covers I enjoy singing more because they have done 2 things: 1 expressed an emotion I also feel. 2 they've expressed it in a melody that makes me truly feel that way when I sing it. I let go more when doing a cover like that and I feel my best vocals are done on other people's work.
And also, why can't music be about having fun with a crowd of people?Or taking a beautiful song and singing it better than the original? I mean, it would be a complete waste if Bob Dylan was the only person to ever record his songs. The same for Lou Reed. They are amazing writers, if I were them, I'd want someone talented as a singer to do my work.

I guess we're bound to disagree here, but I think you're restricting yourself from enjoying music just for the hell of enjoying it. Music is about soul! It's about feeling it! Not chord changes or progressions.

No, I don't believe we disagree at all. I'm just not conveying myself well - apparently - because the things you think I think, I do not think them at all.

I have a perfect visual explanation, but I'm going to try words first.

I was killing time last night searching YouTube for Hiromi videos which I was very happy to see there were many of them. And along with those videos there were a couple from people that had picked out one of her songs and were playing them. Of these, only one had a video of her playing it and a video of someone else playing it. The video of the guy playing her tune was good. All the notes were right. All the rhythms were right. But there was a definite lack somewhere. It's that very music is about soul thing you said, and it's the very creative energy of the originator of the song that I said.

Here are the URLs to both. Tell me what you think the difference is.

The song is "Green Tea Farm"

Hiromi's version (after the interview)

The Other fellow's version

I just listened to both again. One makes me cry, because creation and originality happens right on the spot - Hiromi's of course. And it's more than her technique that causes this. Clearly she is rewriting her own song, through the use of substitute chords and styles, right there in that moment. That's what asaxygirl was referring to about live jazz. It's different everytime, and each replay of a tune is a new creation.

The other guy's version is a quite accurate reproduction, note for note, of the original recording. But it's flat (not pitch-wise). It's flat because he isn't creating anything new - he's mimicing. In my opinion, of course.

Ock:

Basically, you don't want to hear how great a person is at playing an instrument. You want to hear how great a person is at creating music, on the spot...

As for me, I listen to music that entertains me. I will only say "I like it" or "I don't like it" unless asked for futher criticism, because I'm not a musician. If you need my opinion on a piece, you're probably about to sell out. But it won't work, anyway, because my taste is not necessarily the public taste.

I do like jazz, and I enjoyed Hiromi's piece. I don't like covers, for the most part, because it's ripping off someone else's work. If I was a musician, I would probably play covers, because I am not very creative as far as I can tell. But I've never really tried either.

Like you said, the culture is built on people who don't even try to understand music. I admit I'm one of them. But I'm not going to go around saying what's 'good' or 'bad', just what I 'like' or 'don't like'.

Man, I wish I was great at playing an instrument. Maybe then I could get creative with it...

But, I'm too busy to practice!