Can Jazz be Saved?

[jtlownds]

Received this, this morning, from a trombone player friend of mine. Thought it might be of interest to some of our members.

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.

[Michael Case]

I'm sorry to say this, but jazz musicians are doing themselves in. Between the purists who insist on presenting the music EXACTLY like they did in the 40's 50's and 60's and the people who write such complex music that no one can follow. I have a friend I used to play with back in NYC who really felt it was a badge of honor to empty a room with the music he played. Too many players in my opinion feel it's wrong to find a happy medium between their art and appealing to listeners. As much as I love jazz, I can't see how it will continue to survive if more jazzers don't open themselves up to everything that has happened musically since 1965. I look at the music from the 70's, 80's and even some 90's stuff and see that MANY jazz artists were opening up, but the forces of purism seemed to come on strong and stop progress dead in it's tracks.

Once again this is my opinion, feel free to open a dialogue or ignore it as you wish. I just don't want to be flamed.

[bassist1962]

I agree with Mr. Case on this. I have run into so many jazz players that think/feel that if the music is understood by the masses, that there is something wrong with it, and it can't be worth anybody's time or energy. A lot of these musicians feel that if the listener (or players for that matter) can't (or don't want to) do the intellectual gymnastics required to enjoy the music, then they are ignorant.

[txstatebass]

I actually heard a customer at my gig last night say we looked like we were having too much fun. I guess he was expecting four brooding, angry jazz musicians. Glad we could disappoint.

[bobalew]

There is more trouble afoot than musicoporosis (I made that up myself!). Literature is also troubled. Geography is no longer understood. History is forgotten. There is decline in general knowledge. I have more to say about this, but I need to go play my video games ...

[Michael Case]

Education is at a crisis point now. I've have dealt with parents who think that if they harass a teacher enough that a failing grade can be changed. Never mind that the kid failed for a reason, it's kind of a shame. Elementary, middle, and high school counts only to get a kid into college, which only counts t get a masters, which only counts to get a job. There is no love of learning or desire for knowledge.

[jtlownds]

PBS did a program on jazz a few weeks ago. It was oriented toward free jazz. I have never been a big fan of free jazz, but some of it was pretty good. The one thing that really stood out to me, was that every musician that they interviewed said, " If the audience doesn't like what I'm doing, I'm cool with that." A couple of them even "bragged about emptying out the house. I just can't get my head around that attitude. I hope those guys have got day jobs.

[bassist1962]

I found this attitude in the rock medium as well. It seemed a few years ago, if you were nominated for a grammy it meant that you had lost some artistic value, and God forbid if you actually won! Whatever happened to the days of feeling that your (high art) music was finally being accepted, and that the masses had opened up? I am not advocating commercialism at all, but if you don't want to attract an audience, (as Jim said) I hope you have day jobs.

I myself am more a blues musician than jazz, and I am trying to teach my children an appreciation for the music, and all of its forms.

[Michael Case]

Free jazz, straight ahead most of it is dated and idea whose time has passed. We don't drive model T fords anymore. Why? Because things have progressed. I really don't get why people think the world wants to hear four to the bar walking and tunes from the '20s anymore.

[davidAaronCarte]

I've played plenty of empty rooms and I can't say I was ever happy about it

[Michael Case]

Originally Posted by davidAaronCarte

I've played plenty of empty rooms and I can't say I was ever happy about it

But there are people who find it to be a badge of honor.

[Marc Piane]

I agree with lots of what's being said but I can't help feeling like we are some bitchy old lady knitting circle. Kids today and all. There's only one reason to make music... because you enjoy it. I'm not going to poo poo someone else's motivation. If they want to clear the room then great. More at my gig.

[Roger Davis]

Re the education thing, I've just watched the TV and saw the National Youth Orchestra playing Respighi's Roman Festival - 12 double basses! You can't fake that and the maximum age was 19. It was absoulutely fantastic.

Re jazz, is it like art when peoples' perception/understanding has a plateau? Mine's Impressionism - beyond that I don't get it and I suspect that there are many who don't even go that far. What we today call 'modern jazz' is fifty years old, yet it is difficult to find a good audience who understand the music. I'd love to play Adderly Bros/Blakey stuff but in UK there is no great audience. So I play Dixieland to 'good houses'. It's not my preference but I'd prefer to play to a well-filled hall than an empty house, whatever the music. It is up to us as musicians to reach out, entertain, communicate and, without lowering standards, sell our music to a wider audience. Do we play enough blues numbers? That seems to bridge the age gap a lot, yet some musos consider it all a bit 'too easy'.

Just a few mildly alcohol-induced thoughts on a Saturday night.

[Handyman]

Not too surprising. There's been very little new in Jazz since the 1970s. Thirty years of stagnation isn't going to do much to attract young listeners.

[Michael Case]

Originally Posted by fingers

I agree with lots of what's being said but I can't help feeling like we are some bitchy old lady knitting circle. Kids today and all. There's only one reason to make music... because you enjoy it. I'm not going to poo poo someone else's motivation. If they want to clear the room then great. More at my gig.

Of course it's not anyone's business what someones motivations for playing are. I was just making an observation of the world how I see it. I don't agree with it and believe it's a shame and discredit to this great art form of ours.

As far as more people at your gig, my experience tells me that if a person gets a bad taste in their mouth about music, especially jazz which has a pretty bad reputation in the popular mind set, they aint goin' to nobody's jazz gig anymore.

[bassist1962]

Originally Posted by fingers

I agree with lots of what's being said but I can't help feeling like we are some bitchy old lady knitting circle. Kids today and all. There's only one reason to make music... because you enjoy it. I'm not going to poo poo someone else's motivation. If they want to clear the room then great. More at my gig.

+1000

[ryco]

I play jazz because I enjoy it! It's fun communicating with others on a musical level!
But I'm reading out of standards books with older players. A thrill for me!

It's hard finding places to play anymore. A lot of people just don't like/appreciate the style.

I have a hard time listening to today's smooth jazz/fusion. Endless solos over a bass riff - maybe a chorus. Gets old damn fast.

[Jason Sypher]

I don't follow jazz anymore but I do follow music in general. I think there is a lot going on in "jazz" these days, particularly in Europe but in the US as well. I don't think it's going to "die" but it may lay somewhat dormant to the greater society for some time before it catches on again. This has happened before. I'm not so sure there has been any one figure to rise up and capture the imagination, hearts and ears in quite awhile. Sometimes that is necessary to start a resurgence. It's a rough gig for someone who wants to play the music seriously. When I first studied jazz in the 90's I felt that it was kind of elitist but I was a kid, hanging with kids. (One of those kids was Vijay Iyer). I wanted it to be more open than it felt at the time but it doesn't seem that way to me now. Jazz musicians I know now listen and play all kinds of music with equal intensity. I personally still like it all, from Louis to Iyer. I like four on the floor bass, I think it sounds great when played well. I spoke with a guy at a party a few months ago that was a modern jazz composer who had a terrible attitude about all jazz that came before. It was SO beneath him that it almost physically pained him to listen to the record that was spinning at the party (Art Blakey). I really couldn't understand his stance and the folks that were listening to his rant (non-musicians) couldn't really even understand what he was getting at, they just slowly shrunk away, one by one, until it was just me and him trying to find something to talk about that we both liked....

[Michael Case]

Don't get me wrong I do love to listen to and play some good four to the bar walking. I even enjoy playing standards, but I also understand that it is not relevant to people today (not even to me). I just believe that too many guys ages 20 to 40 get caught up in the classic style and push away all the other influences. I believe that there can be a happy medium between classic jazz and a more contemporary sound. It doesn't need to be a straight ahead vs. free vs. smooth jazz type of deal. And to the folks who play jazz because they like it, don't you like playing music for people who dig it? Look at it this way; you could just make it a Blockbuster night with Mary Palmer and her five sisters, or you could go out and try to meet a woman either way you can take care of certain needs, but which do you prefer?

[salcott]

Book recommendation: "Idiot America; How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free", by Charles Pierce