Can Jazz Be Saved?

[Elliot]

From the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...103850572.html

Can Jazz Be Saved?
The audience for America’s great art form is withering
By TERRY TEACHOUT
New York

In 1987, Congress passed a joint resolution declaring jazz to be “a rare and valuable national treasure.” Nowadays the music of Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker and Miles Davis is taught in public schools, heard on TV commercials and performed at prestigious venues such as New York’s Lincoln Center, which even runs its own nightclub, Dizzy’s Club Coca-Cola.

Here’s the catch: Nobody’s listening.

No, it’s not quite that bad—but it’s no longer possible for head-in-the-sand types to pretend that the great American art form is economically healthy or that its future looks anything other than bleak.

View Full Image

Grant Robertson
The bad news came from the National Endowment for the Arts’ latest Survey of *Public Participation in the Arts, the fourth to be conducted by the NEA (in participation with the U.S. Census Bureau) since 1982. These are the findings that made jazz musicians sit up and take *notice:

• In 2002, the year of the last survey, 10.8% of adult Americans attended at least one jazz performance. In 2008, that figure fell to 7.8%.

• Not only is the audience for jazz shrinking, but it’s growing older—fast. The median age of adults in America who attended a live jazz performance in 2008 was 46. In 1982 it was 29.

• Older people are also much less likely to attend jazz performances today than they were a few years ago. The percentage of Americans between the ages of 45 and 54 who attended a live jazz performance in 2008 was 9.8%. In 2002, it was 13.9%. That’s a 30% drop in attendance.

• Even among *college-educated adults, the audience for live jazz has shrunk significantly, to 14.9% in 2008 from 19.4% in 1982.

These numbers indicate that the audience for jazz in America is both aging and shrinking at an alarming rate. What I find no less revealing, though, is that the median age of the jazz audience is now comparable to the ages for attendees of live performances of classical music (49 in 2008 vs. 40 in 1982), opera (48 in 2008 vs. 43 in 1982), nonmusical plays (47 in 2008 vs. 39 in 1982) and ballet (46 in 2008 vs. 37 in 1982). In 1982, by contrast, jazz fans were much younger than their high-culture counterparts.

What does this tell us? I suspect it means, among other things, that the average American now sees jazz as a form of high art. Nor should this come as a surprise to anyone, since most of the jazz musicians that I know feel pretty much the same way. They regard themselves as artists, not entertainers, masters of a musical language that is comparable in seriousness to classical music—and just as off-putting to pop-loving listeners who have no more use for Wynton Marsalis than they do for Felix Mendelssohn.

Jazz has changed greatly since the ’30s, when Louis Armstrong, one of the *supreme musical geniuses of the 20th century, was also a pop star, a gravel-voiced crooner who made movies with Bing Crosby and Mae West and whose records sold by the truckload to fans who knew nothing about jazz except that Satchmo played and sang it. As late as the early ’50s, jazz was still for the most part a genuinely popular music, a utilitarian, song-based idiom to which ordinary people could dance if they felt like it. But by the ’60s, it had evolved into a challenging concert music whose complexities repelled many of the same youngsters who were falling hard for rock and soul. Yes, John Coltrane’s “A Love Supreme” sold very well for a jazz album in 1965—but most kids preferred “California Girls” and “The Tracks of My Tears,” and still do now that they have kids of their own.

Even if I could, I wouldn’t want to undo the transformation of jazz into a sophisticated art music. But there’s no sense in pretending that it didn’t happen, or that contemporary jazz is capable of appealing to the same kind of mass audience that thrilled to the big bands of the swing era. And it is precisely because jazz is now widely viewed as a high-culture art form that its makers must start to grapple with the same problems of presentation, marketing and audience development as do symphony orchestras, drama companies and art museums—a task that will be made all the more daunting by the fact that jazz is made for the most part by individuals, not established institutions with deep pockets.

No, I don’t know how to get young people to start listening to jazz again. But I do know this: Any symphony orchestra that thinks it can appeal to under-30 listeners by suggesting that they should like Schubert and Stravinsky has already lost the battle. If you’re marketing Schubert and Stravinsky to those listeners, you have no choice but to start from scratch and make the case for the beauty of their music to otherwise intelligent people who simply don’t take it for granted. By the same token, jazz musicians who want to keep their own equally beautiful music alive and well have got to start thinking hard about how to pitch it to young listeners—not next month, not next week, but right now.

—Mr. Teachout, the Journal’s drama critic, writes “Sightings” every other Saturday and blogs about the arts at www.terryteachout.com. Write to him at tteachout@wsj.com.

[Bill Barton]

"...jazz musicians who want to keep their own equally beautiful music alive and well have got to start thinking hard about how to pitch it to young listeners—not next month, not next week, but right now."

I totally disagree with this pronouncement. Marketing isn't the key. All musicians should be playing what they feel and letting the chips fall where they may. "Pitching" it to anyone - young or old or in-between - isn't going to make any difference in the long run.

[Gary Sisco]

The eternal subject. Jazz has been withering away nearly as long as the state.

[Ron Thorne]

Uh oh, Mr. Teachout has mentioned Wynton in the same sentence as Mendelssohn. I smell trouble brewing.

[Monte Smith]

Never in my lifetime has jazz had a future.

[Chazro]

Y'know fellas, just 'cause this subject's been discussed ad nauseum doesn't mean it isn't relevant. Over at the Latin Jazz board I frequent, this same article came up a few days ago and it's gotten quite a few responses, thoughtful and serious ones, from fans and pro's alike. Yeah, Jazz has been dying a slow death for the last few decades, but it's reaching a terminal stage. One of the more interesting (and hopeful) points I read is that schools are pumping out more and more students that can really play (check out Bobby Sanabria's 'Kenya Revisited' recording for a prime example of what students can do!). I guess the only fact that's relevant to me is this; is Jazz dying? Yes. Will it die before I do? No. It'll never completely die, but I never thought I'd see the day that Jazz fans and Classical fans would be groups to be compared. Interesting to note how Jazz isn't considered a "young' persons music anymore.

[stonemonkts]

Originally Posted by Chazro

Interesting to note how Jazz isn't considered a "young' persons music anymore.

I don't think it has been a "young persons' music" since 1950, or so.

[Monte Smith]

I think Latin jazz is a much more vibrant music than jazz. So no wonder they are worried about mortification.

[Peterdubya]

I think the article raises a lot of good, serious questions, AND I think MARKETING is a key point here.
There was a time when having a great band was all that mattered, if you played a lot, you got gigs, you built an audience and voila, that was it..... but no mas.

You can have a great band, but if you don't have a web sight, and a way to reach an audience, and a way to get your name and music out there, no one is going to come to your gigs, and thus..... the question, can jazz be saved.

I will have more on this..... but not right now.

[Jazzooo]

"I totally disagree with this pronouncement. Marketing isn't the key. All musicians should be playing what they feel and letting the chips fall where they may. "Pitching" it to anyone - young or old or in-between - isn't going to make any difference in the long run."

I agree and disagree with everything you've said. Musicians should be playing what they feel, period. But marketers should be marketing harder, and differently. I'll bet the musicians who market themselves are having better careers right now than others (surprise, surprise). But regardless of who does it, music should be pure, and marketers should be doing a better job.

[Ron Thorne]

Marketing does matter, and it's insane to think otherwise, frankly. Educating, exciting and steering potential patrons, fans, (whatever designation you choose) to a musician's or band's performance, live or recorded, is absolutely essential. The "art" of creating music and marketing are not mutually exclusive. Marketing doesn't require compromise. Virtually everything created for purchase can benefit from proper marketing.

[Bill Barton]

Originally Posted by Chazro

Y'know fellas, just 'cause this subject's been discussed ad nauseum doesn't mean it isn't relevant. Over at the Latin Jazz board I frequent, this same article came up a few days ago and it's gotten quite a few responses, thoughtful and serious ones, from fans and pro's alike. Yeah, Jazz has been dying a slow death for the last few decades, but it's reaching a terminal stage. One of the more interesting (and hopeful) points I read is that schools are pumping out more and more students that can really play (check out Bobby Sanabria's 'Kenya Revisited' recording for a prime example of what students can do!). I guess the only fact that's relevant to me is this; is Jazz dying? Yes. Will it die before I do? No. It'll never completely die, but I never thought I'd see the day that Jazz fans and Classical fans would be groups to be compared. Interesting to note how Jazz isn't considered a "young' persons music anymore.

and...

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/ind...howtopic=54107

In particular, check out Larry Kart's post #8.

[Ron Thorne]

I don't like the use of the word "pitching", whether used by Terry Teachout or Larry Kart. The connotation is neither an accurate nor positive one in my opinion.

Larry makes some good points, otherwise.

[Scott Yanow]

Another dumb article about the death of jazz. I recall reading an article about how jazz was finally dead. That piece was dated 1921.

As Lester Bowie asked, "Is jazz dead? Well, it depends on what you know."

Jazz is in great shape, it's the jazz business that stinks. That's been true ever since I started following jazz in the 1970s.

If jazz is dead, then I suggest that Terry Teachout stop covering it. Instead of offering some logical strategy for increasing jazz's audience, he just joins the chorus of no-nothing nay-sayers.

Whenever I see Gordon Goodwin's Big Phat Band in the Los Angeles area, the place is packed with young people. His big band is not playing simplistic music or the latest funk hits. They are playing modern big band music. Why is the place always packed, even on a Monday night? Intelligent marketing. Learn to sell jazz without altering the music. It can be done. But not by most of the New York critics who don't seem to realize that much of the best jazz is found beyond the Big Apple's city limits.

[Tom Marcello]

Marketing matters, good music matters, recordings and airplay matters and good, exciting live performance matters. You have to have it all for the artists to survive and thrive in these times where there is so many entertainment options available that weren't around in 1982.

Both the presenters and the musicians have to have a real love and commitment to provide the best that this music has to offer to move on and secure the future.
There's a lot of tough choice that have to be made. Always has been.

Regarding the numbers:
Who were the "Jazz' acts that people were seeing in 1982?
If they were acts like Earl Klugh, The Crusaders and Grover Washington, which were commercial acts, that's not the jazz we talk about here, those numbers alone may be faulty.

In general, I think this "Death of Jazz" talk in counter-productive.

Edit: I just read Scott's post above. BRAVO!

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by Tom Marcello

Marketing matters, good music matters, recordings and airplay matters and good, exciting live performance matters. You have to have it all for the artists to survive and thrive in these times where there is so many entertainment options available that weren't around in 1982.

Both the presenters and the musicians have to have a real love and commitment to provide the best that this music has to offer to move on and secure the future.
There's a lot of tough choice that have to be made. Always has been.

Bingo, Tom! I tried to say essentially the same thing in a different manner earlier.

Edit:Yes, Scott nails it, too!

[Bill Barton]

Originally Posted by Jazzooo

"I totally disagree with this pronouncement. Marketing isn't the key. All musicians should be playing what they feel and letting the chips fall where they may. "Pitching" it to anyone - young or old or in-between - isn't going to make any difference in the long run."

I agree and disagree with everything you've said. Musicians should be playing what they feel, period. But marketers should be marketing harder, and differently. I'll bet the musicians who market themselves are having better careers right now than others (surprise, surprise). But regardless of who does it, music should be pure, and marketers should be doing a better job.

Yes! Perhaps I wasn't totally clear in my original post. I'm not suggesting that marketing doesn't matter. Of course it does. But Teachout seems to be urging musicians to specifically target their presentation to younger audiences.

Originally Posted by Ron Thorne

Marketing does matter, and it's insane to think otherwise, frankly. Educating, exciting and steering potential patrons, fans, (whatever designation you choose) to a musician's or band's performance, live or recorded, is absolutely essential. The "art" of creating music and marketing are not mutually exclusive. Marketing doesn't require compromise. Virtually everything created for purchase can benefit from proper marketing.

Yup, proper is the key word here.

Originally Posted by Scott Yanow

Another dumb article about the death of jazz. I recall reading an article about how jazz was finally dead. That piece was dated 1921.

As Lester Bowie asked, "Is jazz dead? Well, it depends on what you know."

Jazz is in great shape, it's the jazz business that stinks. That's been true ever since I started following jazz in the 1970s.

If jazz is dead, then I suggest that Terry Teachout stop covering it. Instead of offering some logical strategy for increasing jazz's audience, he just joins the chorus of no-nothing nay-sayers.

Whenever I see Gordon Goodwin's Big Phat Band in the Los Angeles area, the place is packed with young people. His big band is not playing simplistic music or the latest funk hits. They are playing modern big band music. Why is the place always packed, even on a Monday night? Intelligent marketing. Learn to sell jazz without altering the music. It can be done. But not by most of the New York critics who don't seem to realize that much of the best jazz is found beyond the Big Apple's city limits.

Some very good points here, Scott, especially regarding the business, although I didn't interpret the Teachout article as yet another "Jazz Is Dead" obit. Seems to me that he's saying it's sick. Sidebar: I wonder how many live performances he's attended recently? Or how many CDs he's bought? Or how many MP3s he's downloaded?

Originally Posted by Tom Marcello

Marketing matters, good music matters, recordings and airplay matters and good, exciting live performance matters. You have to have it all for the artists to survive and thrive in these times where there is so many entertainment options available that weren't around in 1982.

Both the presenters and the musicians have to have a real love and commitment to provide the best that this music has to offer to move on and secure the future.
There's a lot of tough choice that have to be made. Always has been.

Regarding the numbers:
Who were the "Jazz' acts that people were seeing in 1982?
If they were acts like Earl Klugh, The Crusaders and Grover Washington, which were commercial acts, that's not the jazz we talk about here, those numbers alone may be faulty.

In general, I think this "Death of Jazz" talk in counter-productive.

Edit: I just read Scott's post above. BRAVO!

Well said, Tom, well said!

[Ron Thorne]

Bill, I wasn't slinging a personal arrow at you (or anyone, actually) with my marketing comments. Sorry if I gave that impression, which is entirely possible now that I've re-read the various posts.

I'm very passionate about jazz as well as solid, tasteful, passionate marketing.

[Scott Yanow]

Terry Teachout says, "In 2002, the year of the last survey, 10.8% of adult Americans attended at least one jazz performance. In 2008, that figure fell to 7.8%." There were a lot more Americans in 2008 than in 2002. I don't have the figures but I suspect that the number of Americans who attended at least one jazz performance in 2008 was not much lower than in 2002.

Terry Teachout admits that he does not know how to get young people listening to jazz again. Perhaps, since he is a well read writer, he should actually spend ten minutes thinking about it and come up with some fresh ideas instead of trying to bury jazz. Most jazz writers who spend so much time listening to the music are full of ideas on how the music can do better.

Teachout should realize that jazz's golden age started around 1920 and it is still going. Yes the music business stinks, but the death of the large record companies should be celebrated not mourned.

[scotpgot]

"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny." - Frank Zappa



This is a complex subject, and one that has been talked about for as long as I can remember. I guess part of the argument should be how do you define "dead". Sales are down, club gigs are down, live jazz is down. But are there fewer jazz musicians out there? Is there less music? Less innovation? Personally, I can find jazz wherever I go and look for it. And not just the classics, modern, new music that I haven't heard before - from artists that are unknown up-and-comers.

What I also find particularly interesting is listening to some of the current "pop" artists, I hear quite a bit of swing. M. Ward, She and Him, Ray LaMontagne...I hear jazz in a lot of their music. Add to that artists like Norah Jones and Dianna Krall, I wonder if part of the problem isn't that after an artist sells 500,000 albums or more, they can no longer be considered jazz and move into the Pop category.

As far as marketing goes, sure a better job can be done. But for more time to be spent on marketing these artists, more money has to made from them. For more money to be made, they have to be marketed better. Well, you see the problem...Still there's things to be done. For example, Telarc is a subsidiary of Concord. Concord has plenty of pop artists. Take one of them (let's say, Sia, who has a fantastic voice and seems down to earth enough to be willing) and put them in front of a jazz combo, or just work with one of the "jazz" artists from Telarc, and say, "This is what's out there."

Finally, I might come from a slightly different perspective, as I think I'm slightly younger (30) than the average jazz fan, but my friends don't not listen to jazz because it's "too complex" or because it's over their heads. They don't listen to it because it's boring, it doesn't speak to them. I really think it's just a matter of taste (and yes, marketing). But anyone who suggests the "dumbing down" of jazz is the answer should be punched in the face.

[Gary Sisco]

Well, since the subject repeats itself endlessly, I'll offer my two cents again (and again). Worried about it? Wanna double the jazz audience? Turn one friend on to jazz in a real way. I've done my part several times over.

[stonemonkts]

There are plenty of jazz artists recording (and gigging) music today but I'll be damned if I can figure how most of them make a living from it. In fact I believe there are more people making the music today than ever before (if emusic is any indication), but again, how can they make a living?

[Gary Sisco]

There weren't a great many young people listening to jazz when I was young. I've been a jazz guy since age 15. 40 years. If anyone thinks significant numbers of young people were listening to it then, think again.

It was also dying then. And before.

[clinthopson]

This dead horse has been beaten about a bazillion times.

The only time that "jazz" was popular was during the swing era.

[Chazro]

Here's one of the more interesting 'takes' on the situation that I've read:

I have played jazz all of my life. I have dedicated every penny I have to making records (16 recordings since 1996). I make less then 20 cents on the dollar for the records I produce. I rarely work and although I receive good reviews am unable to get management or agents to support my endeavors. Jazzheads, the company I record for, is supportive, but I don't think they get very much financial return for their efforts on my behalf.

I lived through the transition from Jazz to rock and roll, from jazz
being the cool music of the 1950's to jazz being of geriatric concern
(if that, since the baby boomer generation think of rock as art music). I made a living in the 60's playing Latin dance music and integrated that experience into my jazz conception and opened up a new world of music to my conception as a jazz musician.

If it wasn't for my PhD in Philosophy and a full time academic position I would not be able to support my music. But being a jazz musician is the most important thing in my life. It is what I live to do, and at 69 years old it is keeping me alive and optimistic about life's possibilities. I consider it the greatest privilege of my life that I am able to play jazz and able to make a contribution to one of the great human enterprises of the 20th century (and hopefully beyond).

Jazz remains to me what it was when I was a teenager, the coolest and best thing out there.

Mark

Mark Weinstein, Jazz Flutist

[Gary Sisco]

Sometimes it seems like jazz writers have about five template articles. The dying of jazz is one.

Almost all musicians make the bulk of their living, if they do, from gigs, not records. This isn't only the case in jazz. We sometimes forget that for every "big time" act, there are many thousands of others. For every musician who manages to make a living from it, many thousands who don't.

The music business is not the same thing as the making of music.

[Bill Barton]

Thanks for sharing that beautiful and potent quote from Mark Weinstein, Chazro.

[hornplayer]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

There weren't a great many young people listening to jazz when I was young. I've been a jazz guy since age 15. 40 years. If anyone thinks significant numbers of young people were listening to it then, think again.

It was also dying then. And before.

same for me, only the number of years is greater. When I was a kid, late 40's, 50's, my folks still went out DANCING to Count Basie, Benny Goodman, and the like. In high school, we had live bands at ALL our dances, even those in the school gym. Usually local teenagers combos, but for our big club do's we had people like Ralph Marterie and Woody Herman... big names in the 50's. These days folks of all ages think of DJ's when they think of dancing. People even hire DJ's instead of bands for their weddings!

As long as Jazz is thought of as music you sit and listen to, it's going to be "museum stuff." If there were a way to get people dancing to live music again, maybe....

[Gary Sisco]

I don't know. There has always been music to dance to and music to listen to, still is today. I worked in a club for a few years that featured three or four bands most nights -- most of them bands that were up and coming big time -- and almost always, the audience stood and listened (and talked) while holding pints of beer. Very, very little dancing went on. On the other hand, there was dj music intended to be dance music, and people did dance to it. Often the same people. I don't think the number of jazz listeners is much related to dancing.

Hell, I've seen thousands of people at reggae concerts, with almost no one dancing.

I'm with Branford Marsalis on this question. Back early 90s sometime, I read an interview in one of the glossies, where he answered the question by saying that Americans don't like jazz. They've had nearly a century to decide and they've decided.

The simplest explanation, to me, is that for most people jazz just isn't what they're wanting to hear. There are also a number of people who like the idea of jazz more than they like to listen to the music. And then there are jazz people.

I don't like a whole lot of music I hear. I love a whole lot of other music. I doubt very much that I'm all that different on the issue as anyone else.

[Jesse]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Branford Marsalis...answered the question by saying that Americans don't like jazz. They've had nearly a century to decide and they've decided.

Billboard #3 release in the US currently: