Can Jazz Be Saved?

[Jazz+]

EXCERPT from article:

 

http://sbk.online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320303103850572.html

 

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 its growing olderfast. 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%. Thats 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zyzik]

>>>Can Jazz Be Saved?

 

I don't think so unless jazz musicians start playing for listeners not for themselves and they stop practicing scales and sh$t on stage. Unnecessary complexity and lack of message in it kill jazz.

 

[Sven Golly]

[Nillerbabs]

Of course it can.

 

 

This is also a matter of defining jazz music. Music in general is changeable and is affected by influences and events. Expecting loads of people to listen to music like it was several decades ago is naive - I myself thoroughly enjoy this kind of jazz music.

All the time, new subgenres appear, born from surrounding influences: other genres of music, trends (musical as well as non-musical) etc. I wouldn't know about America, but in Denmark a recent jazz-fusion renaissance, funk-jazz and electronic/experimental jazz music are all very popular genres amoung young people, including me, and attract massive audiences.

 

I myself live in a dull, boring, techno-ruled provincial town. But whenever I go to a major city, I witness this phenomenon. And I realize jazz is doing better than all right. I don't know the intentions of the OP, but stamping all music that borrows elements from other genres as non-jazz is IMO wrong. Jazz is fluent, living, spontaneous improvisational music.

[ProfD]

That shrinking audience includes the investors who once started record companies and opened establishments catering to Jazz.

 

Today, those cats take their chances with an auto-tune phenom versus a virtuoso musician. Pop music sells.

 

Jazz outlets still exist domestically and even moreso abroad. Of course, the higher profile gigs cater to 'established' artists. Catch 22.

 

Most musos prefer focusing on art while someone else takes care of business. The reality is, the market is over-saturated with music.

 

Affordable technology enables anybody to write, compose and produce CDs.

 

So, regardless of style/genre, musos have to make a lot of noise in order to be heard and it has to appeal to the audience.

 

Jazz musicians also have to work harder investing in themselves and continuing to play music wherever possible in order to sell it.

[ITGITC]

>>>Can Jazz Be Saved?

 

I don't think so unless jazz musicians start playing for listeners not for themselves and they stop practicing scales and sh$t on stage. Unnecessary complexity and lack of message in it kill jazz.

 

 

 

OTOH, I am so very disappointed in the general populace of the USA and music education here.

 

It's like the old joke, "What's the difference in ignorance and apathy?"... The answer?

 

"I don't know. And I don't care."

 

Holy crap Batman.

 

People turn on the radio in the car to keep them company. They don't know who the artist is or care if there is a message in the song.

 

People go to bars to hook up. If there's a band playing they really don't know and don't care (and I found this out just the other day from a coworker) if the bass guitar is being played live, or if it was previously recorded.

 

Where is music education these days? Money for school programs is gone. The budget has been slashed for musicians playing in the symphony.

 

We've had this discussion many, many times before on this forum. I can only add that it seems to be getting worse.

 

And I think it's getting worse for jazz because:

 

* the audience isn't there to support it

 

* ticket prices to see the top artists have gone through the roof

 

* the general public is uneducated as to what makes great music and is just as happy to hear "Old Time Rock & Roll" for the millionth... freakin'... time

 

* DVDs, and music/movies on demand make it easy to stay at home and enjoy the concert on your widescreen with 5.1 audio

 

*Baby Boomers are getting older and don't get out on the town as much

 

* there is less music education in schools, thus younger people don't have a clue as to what constitues quality music - be it jazz, rock, blues, country, classical, etc. They just don't know - and don't care.

 

---------

 

Yet, I believe the worm will turn and that people have never lost interest in seeing and hearing music produced in real time by good musicians - right before their eyes.

 

Give me an act that plays quality music that hasn't been played to death - and plays it well. Add to that musicians who enjoy engaging the audience and making them feel a part of the fun that they're having on stage.

 

If you offer an audience that combination, they will come to hear you.

 

Otherwise, what reason do people have to leave the comfort of their living room?

 

Tom

 

 

 

 

 

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Jazz, like rock and blues, suffers from an embarrassing lack of talent and stack of hacks taking all the paying gigs. I'm not talking about on the touring level, but in the local scenes. In my town there have been some very serious jazz cats; but there are few real jazz 'bands', mostly a handful of active minor 'names', who book gigs, and pull their 'band' from the same pool of a handful of players who all know the same songs. So if you go to dee "Freddy F" or "Bill P" or anyone else, you probably get the same drummer, etc that you saw with "George G" last week, and the same limp rehash of the same songs. The audiences stay away in droves. And it isn't even that these guys aren't talented... they are just too lazy, a little afraid, and have mortgages to meet, so they take the safe and easy way out rather than try to suffer the headaches and heartaches of putting together a real band.

[Dave Horne]

>>>Can Jazz Be Saved?

 

I don't think so unless jazz musicians start playing for listeners not for themselves and they stop practicing scales and sh$t on stage. Unnecessary complexity and lack of message in it kill jazz.

 

I think it might be interesting to actually hear you play since you have such strong opinions. Will you be uploading any mp3's anytime soon?

 

Just wondering.

 

this added ... zyzik's approach is to blame the victim. She deserved to be raped because of how she dressed?; jazz is in bad shape because of all the self indulged players?

 

Blaming the victim - and old and badly used argument.

 

[J. Dan]

I think music in general has gone through a slump that we're already coming out of. For quite a while there has been a lack of appreciation for live music as well as a decline in music education. Blame it on Hip-Hop, Britanny Spears, Guitar Hero, or whoever you want. But I think a backlash is beginning to emerge. Around here anyway, the live music scene seems to have come back. And I think once people get into the mindset of watching live performances and learning to appreciate elements of the performance, it's only a matter of time before they expand their horizons and seek out the best talent - which will inevitably lead them to Jazz at some point.

 

All of the smaller hip restaurant/bars around my neighborhood (which is a college neighborhood) have Jazz - some of them 5 nights a week. When I'm off from the band for a weekend, I don't check out the competition at one of the wall-to-wall meat market clubs we play, I go get a glass of wine and enjoy a Jazz trio somewhere. And from the looks of it, I'm not alone.

[Dana.]

 

I will see your and raise you .

[zyzik]

Blaming the victim - and old and badly used argument.

 

oh yeah, great approach - blaming everybody else but yourself...

 

[Tusker]

Around here anyway, the live music scene seems to have come back. And I think once people get into the mindset of watching live performances and learning to appreciate elements of the performance, it's only a matter of time before they expand their horizons and seek out the best talent - which will inevitably lead them to Jazz at some point.

 

Ditto here. Good live music will always have a place in somebody's heart. People are drawn to the beauty of the moment when performer and audience are joined together... particularly in improvisation. Still, like all things Jazz will suffer a sea change I believe ... into something rich and strange. Some of us may not recognize it.

[ProfD]

Where is music education these day? Money is gone for school programs. There is no money to pay for musicians playing in the symphony.

Music thrived before it was codified and has always undergone changes.

 

A quick and dirty 100 year timeline of Pop music that has come and gone:

 

Classical - Dixieland - Ragtime - Swing - Big Band - Bebop - Doo Wop - Heavy Metal - Punk - Funk - New Wave - Grunge - ?

 

Musicians steal, er, take various musical elements combined with technology and put their own twist on it.

 

Music education will develop appreciation for different forms. It will not determine what folks actually like and want to hear IMO.

 

In fact, many trained musos started and/or participated in the aforementioned styles now residing on dead sea scrolls.

 

For the sake of this discussion, the older forms of Jazz aren't as popular as some of its stylistic offspring.

[frogmonkey]

There's the expectation of the old jazz fan that jazz should be familiar, that the repertoir should be from the great American songbook.

 

There are the old jazz musicians who play the old repertoir... for the millionth time. There are new musicians who do that too. There was a time when those tunes were culturally relevant, but they are not relevant anymore.

 

In New York City there are plenty of cats playing modern Jazz, and I'd say jazz is alive in NYC even though I suspect that there may just be a critical mass of jazz musicians who constitute the audience as well. But going around to the downtown clubs where cats really cut loose and play crazy shit, I often got the feeling that it was just that: shit. I found myself thinking "What was the point of all those notes?" Was the player actually trying to communicate something? Because it often didn't seem like it. There was no generosity toward the audience, no attempt to connect. It was "sit down, be quiet, and look how awesome I am".

 

I guess I'm saying that the old school plays the same old stuff that is no longer relevant, even though it is still familiar to some. The new school over-reacts in an attempt to get away from that "old and familiar" pigeonhole by playing incomprehensible gobbledygook.

 

Old School: "Jazz is an old art which much be preserved intact"

 

New School: "Jazz is an art which must remain true by not catering to anybody's taste. Good taste is the enemy of creativity."

 

neither of those really work imo.

[orangefunk]

I think there is a lot of great jazz around, esp in Europe. One of the problems jazz has had in the past is a kind of elitist high brow culture, but I have found that the best musicians themselves don't think about those things.. more for the older critics and upper middle class...

 

This does put people off...

 

Here in Oslo you can see many great bands, heavy boppers, fusionists, soul, classical influenced euro jazz a'la ECM... sometimes you see it on the same gig.. ;-)

 

However, the audiences are still not exactly stellar... unless theres a festival on...

 

 

 

 

[ITGITC]

Music education will develop appreciation for different forms. It will not determine what folks actually like and want to hear IMO.

 

Of course.

 

I'm asking that music educators help students to differentiate great music from crap no matter the genre.

 

I did not grow up listening to a lot of bluegrass music. It is still mostly foreign to my ears. But PBS has a show or two that features bluegrass groups and I am always amazed at the talent I see developed at such an early age. And although I find it hard to relate to the lifestyle, I respect the talent and the technical aspects of their solo efforts, their ensemble efforts, and their vocal harmonies.

 

And that same sentiment applies to classical music. My parents didn't listen to classical music much or play it on the stereo when I was growing up. (I think the term was "HiFi/Stereo" back then.) So it has taken me a little longer to make the jump to classical than it did from R&B / R&R -> Blues -> jazz.

 

And I agree with other posters, I hate to be in the audience when a musician is just wanking. It could be jazz. It could be rock. But I figure that when you take a solo, make a statement - say whatever it is you want to say, then shut up and give someone else a turn. Right?

 

 

 

 

 

[Sven Golly]

Blaming the victim - and old and badly used argument.

 

oh yeah, great approach - blaming everybody else but yourself...

 

[David R]

This has circulated around the jazz blogs (yes, there are such things) and on Twitter over the past week or so.

 

The general consensus is that Teachout and the NEA study fail to take into account most jazz artists under 40 and the off-the-beaten-path venues that have sprung up over the last five years. Jazz, the music, does not need to be saved. It's as vibrant as ever, with more creative music than can humanly be absorbed every year. Seems like enrollment in jazz studies programs is up to.

 

How the music is promoted and presented needs to change. It shares the same stigma as classical music - of needing tons of prior knowledge before darkening the door of a jazz club or a concert hall. I love playing my music in non-jazz venues, bringing the music to people who wouldn't normally set foot in the "jazz clubs" in town. I don't know how many times I've heard people say "I don't like jazz, but I like this." It's imperative for the pricier clubs and concert venues to offer student discounts, as well. The more community and collectivization there is among jazz musicians, promoters, media and fans, the better.

[ProfD]

I'm asking that music educators help students to differentiate great music from crap no matter the genre.

Coming up with a consensus on what constitutes crap is a slippery slope.

 

H*ll, a bunch of KB players have a hard time agreeing on the best RED KB.

 

Otherwise, I wholeheartedly agree that music education should be automatic in schools.

 

Especially considering some of the BS electives they offer kids nowadays.

[timwat]

First thing I asked myself is - "Why is Terry Teachout writing about jazz?" Teachout is not the WSJ's music writer, critic or reviewer. Teachout is their drama critic.

[iLaw]

I object to the whole concept of trying to measure the health or life expectancy of any artform by taking a poll. Most of the greatest art humans have ever created would poll poorly today compared to the Black Eyed Peas. In 1990 it would have polled poorly compared to Wilson Phillips. In 1950 it would have polled poorly compared to Perry Como. I don't see where that analysis gets me anywhere.

 

Larry.

 

[DanS]

Every jazz fest show I've ever seen in Montreal has been well attended.

No worries.

[Jim Alfredson]

There's a 14 page thread on my forum about this: http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=54107

 

Some interesting reading by serious fanboys (and girls) and some musicians.

 

My take?

 

Most jazz musicians (of the non-smooth variety) take themselves way to seriously and develop a "hipper than thou" attitude towards the audience. I believe in general that if you're not connecting with the audience (at least a portion of it... you can't please everyone all the time), then the problem lies with you.

 

Case in point: I just finished a 6 day tour of various small towns in northern lower Michigan. The towns, with one exception, are all quite poor, populated by people who probably don't have the highest grade of educational backgrounds. We played hard, treated the audience like we appreciated them being there (we did), briefly explained the background behind some of the music we played, and did mostly our own originals. And people loved us. Sold a nice handful of CDs at each gig, had people coming up saying "I don't really care for jazz, but I love your music!" and just overall a very positive experience.

 

That's pretty much par for the course for us. It helps that I'm pretty good at "reading a room" and can tell when things are working or not. But we never have to resort to playing "Mustang Sally" to get people into our music. We're playing odd time signatures, using some modern harmonic concepts, not dumbing things down. We're playing instrumental music that requires a bit of attention. But people still get it.

 

If you're up there blowing endless solos on 50 year old tunes with the same swing feel over and over and over and over again and acting like you're the second incarnation of John Coltrane (and how many people can back that attitude up?), people will be turned off. And that's what I see again and again in a lot of traditional jazz players. It's boring TO ME and I like jazz! Imagine what it's like to someone who's not necessarily a fan?

 

I remember doing a joint radio interview to promote the Old Town Jazz Festival, which happened two weekends ago. It was me and a fairly well-known smooth jazz saxophonist on the other line talking to the DJ. Both organissimo and this saxophonist played the festival (he had an enormous crowd, btw). The DJ asked something about why we're different, what makes our music special, and I said "Well, for one thing we play mostly original music. We're also a real band; same line-up has been together since the inception almost 9 years ago. And we also try to connect to the audience. Most traditional jazz musicians seem to be apathetic towards the audience." And the smooth jazz saxophonist chuckled. He said, "Right on. You have to engage the audience."

 

Having seen a few smooth jazz shows now (including the one at the festival), I can say that although I don't really like the music, I understand the appeal and I think traditional jazz players can learn something from the approach.

 

Does that mean "dumbing" thing down? No. It just means having respect for the audience. They can tell when you don't give a shit. They can tell when you're "scared", be it of the changes or whatever. They can tell when you've got an attitude. They can tell when they're being talked down to. Respect the audience, play with authority, stop acting like it's 1959, and jazz will be just fine.

[Fusker]

"reel to reel will be the death of the music industry"

 

Sound familiar? Yet here we are, and there is still music being recorded.

 

I have to ask, was there some golden age (in the US at least) of music education? When was this? The answer is...never.

[humannoyed]

One must look at where jazz came from to understand and appreciate the possibilities still left for any style which still carries this label.

 

Jazz was the result of a culture with great rhythmic tradition coming together with a culture with great harmonic tradition. It was so fresh and different when it first came together because it drew from the strengths of the other. It has continued to evolve, but...at some point for many became the worship of the earlier styles that were a result of this unique fusion of cultures. This is like worshiping a mule as the mother of all future great equine breeds. Yes, the great attributes of the mule are from both it's donkey and horse parents, but a mule is sterile and can't produce more of it's own.

Only through the study of our roots musics - African, and European (and hopefully other) can fresh new life be put into a style that bares the name jazz. Otherwise it is mostly a rehashing of what someone did better the first time.

 

Maybe many jazz educators are really where a lot of the problem lies with a lack of interest in jazz.

[Fusker]

I should add my mindset was public education, K-12 with my earlier question.

[zyzik]

If you're up there blowing endless solos on 50 year old tunes with the same swing feel over and over and over and over again and acting like you're the second incarnation of John Coltrane (and how many people can back that attitude up?), people will be turned off. And that's what I see again and again in a lot of traditional jazz players. It's boring TO ME and I like jazz! Imagine what it's like to someone who's not necessarily a fan?

 

+1, exactly what I said in shorter way...

[timwat]

Jim hit it nail on head. Respect the audience, play with authority and stop acting like it's 1959.

[kanker.]

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.

Those numbers aren't surprising. Jazz has become a chamber music. It is something that people go to school to learn, and it sounds like it. Jazz should be street music, it should reflect the culture of the current time. Don't get me wrong, I love and play standards, and love more traditional acoustic jazz styles, but they aren't the end all be all of jazz. Jazz should be a living, breathing entity, not the codified chamber music it has generally become.

[ITGITC]

I'm asking that music educators help students to differentiate great music from crap no matter the genre.

Coming up with a consensus on what constitutes crap is a slippery slope.

 

Exactly.

 

And that's why I wouldn't dare try to define what constitutes crap - for someone else. Not when it comes to choice of music genre.

 

But when a band gets on stage and doesn't take the time to tune up every once in awhile - that's crap.

 

When that same band just can't hit the harmonies because they choose to sing flat (because they're lazy singers) - that's crap.

 

When the band plays music that no one has ever heard of - and the audience is starting to yawn and walk out... that's crap.

 

 

 

Hmmmmmm... wish I had mentioned this to the band I heard the other night.