We may have touched on this subject in the past but working at a college and speaking to so many young people as well as adults here, I'm often told that today's music fans are simply NOT, as they say, "into" instrumental music. We even have younger professors who do radio programs on our college station who play strictly "vocal" cuts. We're a non-commercial station using a variety of student DJ's who aren't bound by any playlist requirements, aside from limiting the number of tracks that they can play by an artist during a particular hour. Yet even on our station it appears to be vocal-vocal-vocal.

Since most posting on this site appear to have a preference for instrumental music, what do you believe is the reason for this phenomena?

I have two basic thoughts on this:
1 - Most young people, including non-commercial radio deejays, are used to hearing vocals in everything they and their peers listen to. So anything that doesn't have words is a challenge - uncharted territory - for them. They just don't get it and have a hard time understanding why anybody else would like it (notwithstanding some familiar TV/movie themes, Christmas songs and perhaps some old pop/rock/soul hits like Classical Gas, Love's Theme, The Horse, Green Onions, etc.
2 - Short attention spans. A person can hear a vocal song without really paying attention, and through repetition, can learn some or all of the words. With instrumental music, you actually have to listen. People's tendency to multitask limits the amount of focus the brain can give toward music.
Does anybody ever sit quietly and listen to music? It seems we're always doing something: reading, talking, writing, household chores, talking, washing the car, texting, driving, talking. Even at concerts, there are chatterboxes who can't seem to part with their cell phones.

Yep, one has to listen to instrumental tunes to "get' them. My wife likes no instrumental music at all. She will go to a concert with me and like it, but she does not care for anything instrumental, even after hanging around with me for twenty years. Peace and goodwill.

Haha, Mark. I feel ya.
My wife doesn't care for it as a rule, although she has attended one Spyro Gyra concert and a Chris Botti concert with me. She didn't like Botti at all, but she did enjoy SG. There was a time when she liked some of this music, but generally, she won't sit still and listen to it.
But every once in a while, I'll catch her humming along to Morning Dance or some other song she's heard me play hundreds of times.

Music without lyrics takes more effort and attentive listening to understand the motional message/connection to the song.

This Friday on my radio show (6:00-8:00 AM EDT) I am going to pose this question to the College and local community requesting e-mail responses at jazz@wdcv.com or phone calls during the time slot to 717-245-1444.

Interesting to read any responses.

Phil,

It would be nice if you could share some of those responses with us. I'd be interested in hearing them.

I think Woody nailed it perfectly why most people prefer vocals to instrumentals.

Younger people don't listen to instrumental music because humming is not part of the American Idol style!

I'm into instrumental music. In fact, it's all I listen to.

For my part, I like to think about words. Even when I'm passively listening (which seems to be all the listening I do these days), a phrase will turn in my head and make me think while I do whatever it is I'm doing. I just really love lyrics, generally, and the use of language by others.

For instrumental music, well, my favorites are in storage. :p I find that I need to be in the right mood to hear anything new, and like I said, I don't get that much active listening time.

my husband incidentally only listens to film soundtracks.

Nothing wrong with that, Leslie. I love lyrics, too.
Personally speaking, if time stopped and I wasn't getting any new jazz over the last 15-20 years, I probably would spend as much time (if not more) listening to my favorite rock, pop and soul bands as I do instrumentals. But with a few exceptions like Rob Thomas, U2, Maroon 5 and a handful of '90s acts, vocal music just doesn't interest me like it used to. It has little to do with the words, but much to do with the overall sound and (for me) irritating drum loops. And to be fair, a lot of instrumental music has that, too, but I find plenty of instrumentals that are more engaging.
To me, it's not an either/or deal. There's no reason why a music lover can't have both.
It's just that a lot of people nowadays want lyrics only. Most pop and R&B songs I hear these days don't even have an instrumental break where a horn section might lead, or you get a piano, sax or guitar solo. In R&B, it seems the producers are so into pushing the voice of the day that even background instrumentation is reduced to a pre-fabricated plug-in, rather than an integral part of the composition. How else to explain bass lines that stay the same through an entire song?

I am definitely more into instrumental music than vocals, but it would be nice to hear a refreshing new vocal. Its the pushing of the voice of the day, as Woody mentioned, that has become a total turn off to me. Any recordings that starts with the singer moaning are an instant click factor and I can't stand to listen to somebody saying "bayayayabee" and other words strung out into 30 syllables. On top of that some songs don't get past repetitious loops of the same phrase. Kem is a good example; come on baby, come on girl, ooh baby, ooh girl, yeah baby, yeah girl and dah dah dah dah dah. Click!

Totally agree with you on this point Billy. Most of what passes as vocals tune these days don't say anything- it's like Billy said, a bunch of "ooh baby do me baby" stuff. They are variations of the same theme. Where's the creativity in that?

I remember interviewing Brenda Russell a few years ago and she talked about how hard it is to write a good lyric. But, there are still some really good people out there who can do just that. (And she's one of them!)

Because jazz composers are so technically trained they tend to write complex music... some so sonically technical, a well-carved melody is absent. Even when a jazz song has solid song structure, (Verse, Chorus, Bridge, Verse, Chorus) for example, the song is so overloaded, the melody is buried in the production.
Very few jazz artists (me included) have yet to learn the beauty of 'simple'.
I'll give you a great example:
Hurricane Ike mandated our evacuation, so we spent an entire week holed up in an Austin hotel room. TV watching was our high point that week. Out of sheer boredom I watched George Hamilton play Hank Williams in a black and white movie depicting Hank's life. I detest country music, but I was drawn in to this movie - for whatever reason.
Many of Hank's hits were performed throughout the movie.
Fast forward - at the end of the movie, "Hank" sang one of the most simple songs ever written, (Only 3 chords and a great melody) "Im So Lonesome I Could Cry".
Well, guess what? This country music hater, cried like a broken-hearted, lovesick teenager thinking he would never be happy again - I was totally mesmerized throughout this and other songs written by the genius known as Hank Williams.

Simple and Universal = CONNECTION - my rediscovered formula, and THE reason "instrumental music" does not connect with the masses (last time I checked, I too, was part of 'the masses').

There is "simple," and there's "dumbed down."
I disagree that jazz artists don't know simple. If they didn't, we wouldn't have universally loved songs like Satin Doll, Take the "A" Train and Caravan. Or, for the more contemporary, Morning Dance, Breezin' and Feels So Good.
But this music is a far cry from "T-shirt and no panties on," "lying naked on the floor" or any of the aforementioned "ooh, baby" variations.

OK - MOST jazz composers don't USE simple...especially today with vast technology resident in the studio and their homes offering overuse temptation following every other note.
"Satin Doll" "The 'A' Train" and others penned in that era relied on solid compositional knowledge; and for that reason, its appeal was much more far-reaching.

awww. heck. I wanna see the American Idol auditions when someone starts humming or scatting Morning Dance. Really.

Randy's eyes will bug out, Paula will giggle and Simon will lean back in his chair and look bored. Then Randy will say, "dog, that was great but it's not exactly singing. And you were pitchy, ya know?"

The overwhelming majority of music listeners don't share the love you and I share for the Contemporary Jazz music genre.

I've only recently learned to reluctantly accept this fact... other people will never accept it.
Oh yeh - "fact" is, MOST people (for reasons only a Music Technologist may be able to explain)will continue to patronize music styles we may consider beneath our self-proclaimed, sophistication.

BTW I read the subject line as "Why Are So Many Not "Into" Instrumental Music?"
Stated differently than previous posts my opinion to THIS question is:
Last week I rediscovered that NOTHING in music is stronger and more universally appealing than the elusive marriage between -perfect lyric; perfect music - tongue-in-cheek-scatting to "Morning Dance" doesn't even come close.

I don't think it has anything to do at all with self-proclaimed sophistication. It has to do with radically different age demographics and exposure to music which an age group identifies with. Which is why I have identified American Idol as a current culture phenomena which reinforces listening habits.

The question was....

Kat,
I agree with your observation, and I may have misinterpreted your first reply... if so, I apologize.

I've been composing and producing music for over 25 years. One would think that dedication would enable me to correctly answer ANY question concerning music.
Truth be known - if I did have the answers, I would appeal to enough Contemporary Jazz fans to now live the life I once dreamed of enjoying many years ago.

Maybe YOUR profession as Musical Technologist has given you the tools to give absolutes to questions such as Why Are So Many Not "Into" Instrumental Music?

I'm growing very weary of trying to figure these things. I have, and will continue to produce music to the best of my abilities, but I will always keep an open mind to new ideas and genres.

Peace

In encouraging responses from early morning listeners and kids on campus, I wanted to read some of your responses on the air. However, I'm aware that some of you may not want that to be done with your opinion(s). Keep in mind that I will not use any names [usernames or otherwise] on the air, just the comments.

Let me know your preference about airing your comments only. Above all, thanks for the responses to this disturbing subject.

Phil,

OK with me.

James

Phil, help yourself, buddy. Any opinion I give about music or the people who listen to it (or don't "listen"), I've probably stated a number of times in a number of ways. You may use my name.

It's nice that you asked Phil.....

My feeling is that you are going to uncover a generational gap.

You may have at it buddy if you think my unsophisticated gut level likes and dislikes generated from rank and file involvement over the last 35 years are worth repeating.

Most vocal oriented music is over produced, and I do not care for what most songs have to say. I am a musician (well a drummer anyway), and I have always listened closely. So I get instrumental music.

I have a son who is fourteen, and I have made it a point to make sure he hears a wide variety of music. He likes contemporary jazz better than fusion or straight ahead jazz. He also likes instrumental rock. IMHO, it is all about exposure. No one will like what he or she has never heard. Peace and goodwill.

Any of you can quote me for whatever reason you want. You are my internet friends.

That strikes very close to the heart.
When I really started to get into music, it didn't hurt that my favorite bands of the day (Earth, Wind & Fire, Electric Light Orchestra, Steely Dan, Chicago, Commodores) were good vocal groups that were also excellent musicians. But a very big factor in why I appreciated their music and came to love jazz and (at the time) John Williams' movie soundtracks, was listening closely.
That meant no distractions.
Turn on the stereo (with or without headphones), lay back, close the eyes, and hear the music - all of it.
Not only appreciate the leads (vocals mostly) but hear those funky bass lines, those background strings or horns, that rhythm guitar, break down a symphonic composition (listen to violins on one pass, woodwinds the next, brass the next), and when singing along, rather than try to match the lead vocalist (who often had the high voice), sing in harmony with the 2nd tenor or baritone.
I should point out that I sang in school choirs during those years, so that automatically made me one who pays attention to accompaniment and separates the different vocal parts (or, in a symphony, the different orchestral elements). Even though I couldn't sing them, I knew in my head the alto, soprano and bass parts (my voice is a natural baritone but due to some foolhardy extra effort on my part, the directors had me sing tenor), even when we split into eight-part harmony. I also noticed that while we were used to having only a piano accompany us that when we did a Christmas program with band instruments for accompaniment, they were playing the same notes we were singing.
It's possible that I would listen to instrumental music the same way regardless, but since I was a choir member during that critical period of my music appreciation, I have to admit that choral training is a major influence in the hows and whys of my listening habits.

Thanks Jazzwriter -- the ability to listen as you've described above is what I think distinguishes someone who really understands and appreciates music from someone who looks at music as mere background, or a mere accessory to life, rather than something with deep soul that should be appreciated.


I'm teaching my 9 year old daughter to listen to music. She plays the piano very well for her age, and has good time and a pretty good ear. However, if I would ask her to listen to a song she would listen to the first few bars and then say "I don't like it" or "I like it" -- like people who view music as a mood creator, and not taken seriously.

In the evening, at bedtime, she never wants to go to bed, so I let her stay up if she will listen to what I call "The Song of Appreciation". This is usually a song from a genre that is new to her, that evokes emotion in me, or that contains something unique and worthy of discussion. We've listened to progressive rock, classical fugues, sheer acapella music -- stuff like that. She's also encouraged to play music she finds interesting and I have to comment on it.

During the song, we have a couple guidelines:

1. No one is allowed to start a conversation about anything but the song we're listening to.
2. No one is allowed to leave the room or do something else while claiming to listen to the music
3. At the end we both have to share what we found interesting about the music, and can play it again to describe what we mean, and where the interesting thing happened. We can also share criticism about the music or the thoughts it evoked while listening.
4. Dancing to the music is encouraged but not required:))

We've done this for about a month now, and she always agrees to the Song of Appreciation. It's helped me too, as it let's me step into her world of musical appreciation. Hers tends to be piano-related music (nor surprisingly) and it's usually music that is perceived as peaceful and beautiful -- enobling to the spirit. Prior to doing this, I didn't know that about her.

So, I think the Song of Appreciaton will become entrenched in our family culture as long as my daughter disdains bedtime

May every family have a Song of Appreciation.

LOL -- when I read your response to this last night Jazzwriter, I laughed out loud, sincerely. And I chuckle about it whenever I've quoted it in my mind since then. Such a humorously reverent and dry response ... thanks!

I'm new around here, so be gentle ...........

People have become addicted to talking.

We have two ears and one mouth for a reason.

But, it is very hard for most people to not talk, let alone listen.

Listening takes work.

You have to listen to non-verbal music for it to inspire you, good or bad.

Again, people want to talk, not listen.

Ahhh! You're welcome here. Pretty much all of us are gentle, but watch out for the Kat (Hey Kat )


Interesting offering zhambone. I agree.

Welcome, zhambone.
And you're right. You would think society had never lived without cell phones, Blackberries or Blue Tooths (Blue Teeth?).
Devices do come in handy, so I don't begrudge anyone for having them. But so many people have become enslaved. It's not that they have much to say, but they have to have a conversation going at all times.
It's pretty bad when a businessman doing a presentation interrupts because he has an incoming call.
The urge to talk is definitely a factor in why people only hear music but don't actually listen.

Hi all . . .

Responses to this question have been coming in at a rather slow rate, but there have been some that follow:

One caller offered the following:

“It’s not that I only like music that has lyrics, but I believe when you meet someone you like at a club, you can be dancing and the lyrics of a song can simply draw you together. That happened to me with that special person and the lyrics of great music helped draw us to the point of eventually getting married. Of course once you are familiar with the lyrics of a song, even when you hear an instrumental version of that music you can still reflect on the words in a meaningful way.”
_______________________

A student DJ referring to this response had this to add:

Hi Phil,

I recall on the air you were saying something about a person who built up a relationship between the lyrics of a song and a particular moment in time, whether it's something very special and happy, or heartbreaking. When lyrics and vocals are part of a song, it offers up a way for the listener to actively participate by singing along or by relating to the lyrics. I'm an art major, and I find that the casual viewer might be uncomfortable with abstraction. Music is fundamentally an abstract, transitory art form. By including words and lyrics, we negate that abstraction, by using those words as an anchor of representation.

I agree, just flipping through the channels on the radio, we find the sound saturated with vocals and lyrics that aren't always necessary. Perhaps a most telling example of this saturation of words in the auditory experience of radio comes with commercials. How many times do we hear car ads or non-prescription medication ads where the essentials of the product are yelled by the announcer, and the details of that sale are crammed in and announced auctioneer-style in the radio version of fine print? Suddenly, it's no longer information we experience, but meaningless noise which inhibits our desire to wait for the next song. I don't think this last bit answers your question, but the chatter on the radio, between talk shows, commercials, and vocal music has taken over. Have a great day!
__________________

Hey Phil,
I think the real thing you are talking about is the lack of this type of music on 'commercial' radio. I love instrumental music but it probably isn't the type of music you are thinking of. We do listen to some Jazz like Miles Davis and others of that sort but I also listen to a lot of electronic music that is essentially 'instrumental'. I also have a few bands that have no lyrics but are a standard indie band otherwise. These are bands that would never be heard on mainstream radio though. It's not that it isn't great music, but commercial radio only wants songs that you can sing to and obviously an instrumental song has no lyrics. I hope this helps. Cheers.
_________________________

I posed the question to the station's Executive Staff of Students, many of whom enjoy instrumental music, and yet are pretty savvy on what the problems are in the music industry.

I think all those are very good responses. Each from a different perspective but, looking at the big picture, I believe they're very accurate.

The first one, about the emotional connection, while I do believe it's true for a lot of people, a good instrumental ballad can accomplish the same thing if given a chance - case in point: Barry White and the Love Unlimited Orchestra - Love's Theme.

The middle one, where he talks about commercials.
Do any of you remember John Moschitta Jr. ?
His ads were fun, and you can understand what he's saying. The contemporary commercials where they quote the disclaimer at a thousand words per minute, you're lucky to make out a sentence. Quite annoying.

Mark, I'm not sure if you made this comment within a specific context, but as is, I absolutely disagree.

I came across some old notes from when I covered the Antonio Hart workshop last year. I had intended to do an analysis of the program, but things were so busy at the time, I never got around to it. So here are some comments made that I think are relevant to this discussion.

Following are comments made by Thelonious Monk Jr. during an interview:

"There's a disconnect between children and this particular music." - in reference to jazz

".... when academia intellectualized jazz and stopped people from dancing, that began the disconnect."

(paraphrased)
In this country's 225-year history, 200 of them have been spent analyzing European musical history - music that we borrowed.

"It's incumbent upon us to teach them their history." - Monk, referring to young people and American-born jazz and blues.

"A culture that does not teach its children is doomed."

paraphrased:
Other cultures have thousands of years to appreciate art. Americans have 200 years to begin to sort out what is American art.

"America loves jazz music. This was the dance music for 25 - 30 years."

The following was stated either by T.S. Monk or by Antonio Hart. I don't remember which:
"American children tend to gravitate toward jazz music if the information is there."

Note: The workshop itself was about blues music and how it relates to jazz, but most of the introductory comments were specific to jazz.

OK. It is all right if we disagree. But how can a person like music if that person has never heard it? Maybe you know something I don't. Peace.

That's pretty much it. And a big reason for the birth of smooth jazz in mid-80's and why so many were drawn to it. It resembled rock and you could dance to it. It didn't resemble cool-bop or ragtime.

Then it became intellectualized as well, and the battleground emerged. Was it watered down jazz or real?

Stereotypically, jazz fans are portrayed as intellectual, music snobs. Yet here on this board, we know that isn't true.

I went on another one of the NYC cruises and people were still lamenting the death of CD101 on FM. One guy told me that he went into the grocery store and when he came out, the format had flipped. He said "They told us there wasn't an audience for it anymore. Yet it seemed as if there was, people were still listening".

Mark, my understanding of what you were saying is that one cannot like music that one has never heard before, which is actually a common sentiment. Alternatively put, it has to be familiar to some extent. It is that concept that I disagree with. It is possible for a tune to blow me away on its very first listen. Case in point: Spanish Girl by the Ripps.

Within the context of this topic, its easier for some (most?) people to feel drawn to music which is familiar, in other words instrumentals which they have heard several times before and can attach to a highlight in their life, or, an instrumental cover of a familiar vocal song.

Ah, Crackberry....too true

AG & V,
Cabbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbage
nu-bee

OK. I was not thinking about familarity at all. I agree that one can like a song or tune while hearing it the first time, even if the style is much different than anything that person has ever heard. It has happened to me (upon hearing the band Montreux on NPR one night). What I was trying to say is that I could not have liked Montreux if I had never heard them. I suppose I was not too clear.

Peace and goodwill.

I wonder how many heard Andy Williams' vocal version of that tune.

Here's another interesting response:

Dear Mr. Peoples,

Sorry to take forever to respond to this question. I just haven't had time to give it some thought.

I suspect that instrumental music is under-appreciated because audiences in general lack sufficient musical knowledge to appreciate the complex melodies, harmonies, tempos, phrasing, chord progressions, etc. that prevail in good instrumental music. Lyrics communicate on a more familiar level. We use words to communicate our thoughts and feelings every day. Our self-definitions tend to be in words rather than sounds or images.

Like English, music is a language that needs to be learned and practiced. Certain cliches or accepted metaphors can aid our understanding of music, but they can be reinterpreted. I've wondered before how minor sounds became associated with a dark and brooding mood. What is inherently more dark and brooding about a minor ninth chord than a major chord?

I am also of the opinion that good instrumental music is woefully underrepresented in the commercial media. Rather than play something creative from Zappa, Coltrane, Stravinsky, or likewise, the dominant smooth jazz stations (my Dad was a smooth jazz fan for a while) tend to play cookie cutter songs highlighted by a melody aped from a popular vocal tune, a lame drum machine rhythm track, and an even more lame soprano sax solo. If more people were exposed to good instrumental music, and took the time to communicate with it, lyrical music wouldn't be so dominant.

Gee, that sounds familiar.

Indeed it does!

Dr. Gregory House: "Remind me of your influences here. I'm gonna say Thelonius Monk and the sound a trash compactor makes when you crawl inside it."

This seems like as good a place as any to post this link:
Are daytime soap operas doomed?
One of the typical comments about what jazz needs in order to survive is stated here, about attracting a "younger" audience. Could this guy's suggestion for soaps be a solution for music?

I'm a senior in high school, and I have been listening to Spyro Gyra since my freshman year.

One of the reasons for, that I believe, not liking instrumental music is that one, as said before, they can't comprehend it. There are hundreds of kids that just don't understand rhythms and such. They would rather have the meaning given to them in words, so they can "relate it to their (albeit odd) lives".

I don't like music with words because it puts the music in a box. But Spyro Gyra, Eric Marienthal, Kirk Whalum, etc., the music they play, or Jazz Fusion/Smooth Jazz, isn't limited by words. It can fit any kind of mood.

As for myself, I barely listen to the words, if any, in a modern song. I listen to the instrumentals. And as for that, most of it isn't really music. It's all sythesized. I rarely get a modern song with actual instruments with professionals playing with them. I could sit at a synth and create Rap beat.

I don't classify that as music at all.

That sounds like me when I was your age. I fell in love with instrumental music because it didn't matter what mood I was in. So many of my friends had to be in a certain mood to play their rock, pop, funk or soul. But jazz, as well as my favorite vocal bands of the day who had a lot of instrumental solos, I have always been able to enjoy no matter what.

That's one of the reasons why I like them. However, I love the complexity of their music. All the different parts moving together to make one awesome song. I like listening to all the different instruments that are playing, picking out the chord changes and rhythms. These are professional musicians. Not just someone sitting at a synth and hitting the same buttons over and over again, which is seen in Rap and hip-hop beats. I don't like my music handed to me, I like depth, such as in Spyro Gyra. So far, there hasn't been a song that I haven't liked.