I have a question that i been trying to find good sources for. the question is,

Jazz lost much of its popularity in the 1950's, yet the big band singers became more popular than ever. Why did this happen?

Any links that might help me answer this would be appreciated.

Could it have something to do with the emergence of popular music culture and Elvis Presley?

One would assume that the jazz movement had to keep up with new trends, so managers and agents chose to promote vocalists (potantial celebrities?) over the more intellectual properties of jazz.

This has certainly happened in many other genres. Almost every purist style has started as an innovative art form and ended as a lucrative business idea.

Big band singers would be far more capable in recording catchy songs for the public and would have received better backing from the industry.

This is just a hypothesis. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!

From my position as a know-it-all amateur loving jazz fiend, I see that jazz started to become far more a head music than a party good time music around the '50's.
We saw free jazz and darker tones enter the room and of course, the crowds stuck with the friendlier big band stuff rather than follow Coltrane, Ayler, Taylor et al down their queer rabbit holes, full of dissonance and disquiet.

But that's just my amateur take on it of course.
Here is a very pertinent article I think.
http://www.jazzwax.com/2008/05/what-killed-jaz.html

quote:

Originally posted by Kulturtrager:
From my position as a know-it-all amateur loving jazz fiend, I see that jazz started to become far more a head music than a party good time music around the '50's.
We saw free jazz and darker tones enter the room and of course, the crowds stuck with the friendlier big band stuff rather than follow Coltrane, Ayler, Taylor et al down their queer rabbit holes, full of dissonance and disquiet.

But that's just my amateur take on it of course.
Here is a very pertinent article I think.
http://www.jazzwax.com/2008/05/what-killed-jaz.html

Very good point. This looks like it will be quite an interesting thread.

Mmm, the idea of a musical genre shifting in popularity in general is a cool thing to ponder, and jazz is a great example.

The argument that the women/girl demographic drives profile of music is very interesting.
That jazz left behind girls who wanted fun and dancing to get all manly and nerdy with technique and tormented playing in odd rhythms is a solid argument i reckon.

Big bands; would you go see one unless you were looking to score with some chick?
Sure, Peggy Lee or Sarah Vaughan out front of Basie or whoever is appealing, but I do think women were far more likely to wanna go dance, drink, have a fun time.
Men were more interested in getting in their blouses or alternatively, heading off to the basements to nod meaningfully at other lost souls.

Whaddya all think?

LOL This looks like a question from my music class this week. Mt San Jacinto possibly? lol

That "Big Band" stuff from the '50's is not what I would consider jazz at all. The popular era of the jazz big band basically ended in the mid 40's and if you listen to the big hits of the early/mid 50's they are what most people would call "easy-listening" or "crooning" or something like that- but definitely not jazz. So I guess I would say that the reason why the big band singers were popular in the 50's is because they stopped playing jazz and just did the 50's equivalent of Whitney Houston.

Now we get into a debate about the definition of Jazz...which changes the whole question...

Jazz got looser?!? I didn't think that was possible!