Why do think Jazz has not been able to gain any commercial success in the past 60 years?

Most forms of music are primarily vocal, including the Blues that gave birth to Jazz, which in the other hand, is primarily instrumental. I don't think its a coincidence that the last Jazz that enjoyed widespread popularity was Jump Blues, which came on the heels of Big Band (another vocal Jazz). Not to say that instrumental expression is devoid of the emotional component generally provided by words and the human voice, but most people seem to find it preferrable to hear those two rather than a heart wrenching sax solo.

because it's really hard to dig. I mean are you able to have jazz on all day long without tearing your hair out?

Because it gets almost no airplay.

Music becomes popular and commercially successful through repetition on the radio and on music television stations. These stations want tracks that change every three minutes so that listeners don't get bored and change the channel. They won't play a 15-minute jazz composition, so people won't hear it and won't go buy it.

Jazz has gained commercial success over the past 60 years, just not at the same rate of other genres of music.

it has a following. it was so ground breaking during it's hey day.

I have a partial answer. Two reasons.

1.
In today's times, most people don't take the time to just sit and listen. Every bodies on the go, (When they are sitting still, its usually spent giggling along to the silly joke on the TV).The popular stuff is popular because its fitting for a busy mind. Its intentionally too loud, because it has to yell at people to get its attention, like someone selling something on a busy sidewalk.
If more people were to really just sit and listen to music, they would be horribly bored and disgusted with whats popular. Being still, and listening to music gives the mind a real good base on which to hear music right down the quietness of the music, to hear whats really there.

2.
I think that back before the digital age, it was not as convenient to skip tracks. You put a record on and it was just one groove all the way to the end. 8 tracks had only 4 place to skip to, cassettes were a pain to fast foreword to the right spot.
Today we have remote controls to instantly skip over a track that's not immediately satisfying. Its too easy to be a lazy listener with today's technology, for most people.

Of course, the media just goes with whatever sells, so there is no help from the people who have the most power to change things, for the most part.

I don't see jazz becoming popular any time soon. It will take some kind of unforeseen change, as far as I can tell.

Takes too much actual brain use and lets face it 90% of the people are way too busy for that they want stupid lyrics, catchy pop music, retail and food chains, it is a microwave society and most bubble brain sheep just like what everyone else likes and they are spoon fed by such music icons as Hannah Montanna and Britney Spears, oh the tragedy of it all when the are millionares and so many great jazz musicians are broke unless they sell out or go mainstream with very few exceptions. Go to New Orleans the foreighners and real jazz people are at Preservation Hall the masses are at the duling piano sing along show.

People are dumb, and music's evil corporate masters like it that way.

people nowadays just don't know how to appreciate REAL talent. it takes actual smarts to play an instrument, compose music and arrangements. songs on the radio use samples, voice inhancers and all kinds of b.s. to TRY to sound 'good'. people seem to be satified with simple lyrics and simple tunes. its really sad. personally, i love to hear an awesome horn section and a jammin piano.

It's tempting to say "well, music now sucks and people don't appreciate good music," but you have to keep in mind that every generation has said that. Socrates was saying that 2300 years ago, and every generation after him said it too.

Jazz hasn't achieved commercial success since it became significantly different from pop music. Jazz didn't become what we think of as jazz overnight; when Louis Armstrong was singing "Stardust," it wasn't a huge departure. People already knew "Stardust." But the music continued to evolve and become more and more complex, and eventually jazz musicians made a conscious movement away from the harmonies and melodies of established popular music in order to experiment. Some people followed them, most didn't. Music that is as complex and demanding as jazz will ALWAYS be niche music, because most people will not want to put in the effort to listen to it.

And jazz has had commercial success in the last 60 years, albeit sporadically. Every now and then something will cross over and a lot of people will buy it, and the great jazz albums continually sell well. But it's an intellectual form that demands more than most people care to put into their music. This has been the case since jazz became jazz, and there's nothing strange about it. Different strokes.

The answer to this question is deeper than a John Coltrane solo. Many factors have contributed to the limited acceptance of Jazz by American Society (as opposed to other countries and cultures).

1.) Race
2.) Class
3.) Complexity of the Music (difficult to replicate)
4.) Impatience of the General Public (jazz doesn't change quickly enough for the listening public.... not that it needs to).
5.) Unwillingness of musicians to compromise improvisation for standardization (although it seems like that may be changing...unfortunately).

I find it funny everyone thinks everyone on the go yet Americans are becoming more sedentary in life because things are getting done much faster.

Jazz is in the toliet because of lot of things. Technology, lack of intelligence, a following with money. Basically any gigs at clubs now are just jam sessions because anyone who gonna come to here you play, more than likely plays themselves. If your a jazz musician, your more than likely arent rich, thats if you dont have a day job so when people come out to clubs they dont have any money themselves to spend thus nixing any future gigs at the particular club because all they want is for you to bring people out and spend money.

Really, youd have to play an instrument to realize and appreciate how good jazz is.

Ya know that's funny as in ironic when you mention "any commercial success" .Just look at what national advertisers use as music for their products and you will hear Mingus and Louis Armstrong,Louis music one time had three of his songs on different commercials!!Right now on a credit card commercial which has been played frequently you can hear Louis doing When The Saints Go Marching In. Now these big time corporations aint putting music on their commercials so that their products wont sell are they? Jazz has had some commercial success in the last 60 years for sure.
One of the big problems with Jazz is the SNOB attitude by it's listeners and players. Sort of SNOBS vs SLOBS who are drawn toward simpler more fun music which some Jazz just aint fun to listen to. There are other reasons of course ,but to say Jazz has had no commercial success for the past 60 years just aint so.

Well music is image based now with a much less emphasis on the music and more on the performer in terms of how they look and how well they dance. Attention spans are shorter. Jazz musicians are not glorified on the tv like mainstream rock. rap and pop musicians, so it is not seen as cool as other genres of music.

I think that musicians need to push jazz in different ways so that people who do not regularly listen to jazz will buy jazz CDs. I think that living in the past is good but experimenting with adding unique, more modern sounds to jazz will help more with the appreciation of the art.

What are you talking about?

Diana Krall, Michael Buble, Jane Monheit, Harry Connick Jr. have no commercial success? Try and get a ticket to a concert.

Most people will recognize the voice of Louis Armstrong or Ella when they hear it, it's that ingrained in American culture.

Nancy Wilson was the #1 seller for Capitol records and just got another grammy a couple years ago.

I think jazz music is not trendy or fadish, but it has great staying power.

people dont have a sense of real music anymore...everybody just like a bunch of computer effects...nobody can dig jazz unless they play it or know somebody who does

People like to dance to music. In the 1940's, jazz transitioned from swing (dance) music to "let's sit down, listen and appreciate" music. That's when it lost its commercial success and became mostly artistic. And that's when rock n roll was created to fill the void.

Personally, I think it is to Jazz's credit that it avoids commercial success for the most part. Those who have gained commercial success have not been 'true' jazz artists, rather, they are 'pop'. The ability to break into the popular mainstream certainly does not define an art form - take the pop divas for example. Do you think they are true musicians. If so, read no further!

I like the idea that those of us who choose to appreciate and listen intently to jazz are fewer in numbers than those who buy Brittney Spears CDs. It speaks volumes about maturity and good taste. So, who cares if nobody buys the latest offerings from the modern jazz stylists, such as Joshua Redman, Eric Alexander, Pat Metheny or the other 'true' jazz artists? These guys are selling enough recordings and packing clubs and concert halls to make a very lucrative career. Do you think that anyone who is a true artist/musician cares about his/her music played on Top-40 stations? I don't think so. Again, it is to their credit that they are not thrown into the mainstream.

... and yet, people still drink coke? Jazz enjoys a degree of commercial success, but you have to be more specific, Norah Jones, Diana Krall, and Bela fleck are still selling cd's,