The future of jazz cds

[A Lark Ascending]

Jazz Services did a survey three or four years back to estimate the support for jazz in the UK. The figures they came up with had jazz as equal with opera and not far behind classical in general.

The difference is that opera and classical are widely regarded as 'culture' by the Old Etonions who run things in the UK so they get the lion's share of the subsidy. One of the reasons I loath the whole concept of 'art' (to refer back to an old argument!!!!).

So change the equation. Make them see it as art - and not just art, but some of the greatest and most substantial art of this era. Which is what it is.

Then they'll be stuck.

Simon Weil

This reminds me of the old argument of the upper crust that aiming for an egalitarian society is ludicrous; we should be trying to raise the working classes into the upper crust.

Yeah, they meant that too.

The term 'Art' is a means of exclusion.

[Simon Weil]

Jazz Services did a survey three or four years back to estimate the support for jazz in the UK. The figures they came up with had jazz as equal with opera and not far behind classical in general.

The difference is that opera and classical are widely regarded as 'culture' by the Old Etonions who run things in the UK so they get the lion's share of the subsidy. One of the reasons I loath the whole concept of 'art' (to refer back to an old argument!!!!).

So change the equation. Make them see it as art - and not just art, but some of the greatest and most substantial art of this era. Which is what it is.

Then they'll be stuck.

Simon Weil

This reminds me of the old argument of the upper crust that aiming for an egalitarian society is ludicrous; we should be trying to raise the working classes into the upper crust.

Yeah, they meant that too.

The term 'Art' is a means of exclusion.

Well look, Bev. Jazz was produced, invented by American blacks. About as lower class as you can get. You don't have to raise nothing to nothing. All you've got to do is demonstrate that the stuff produced by these people, and others who have followed in their wake, is just as good as stuff produced in other forms.

If the word "art" sticks in your craw, don't use it.

The 60s is when the current period for Visual Art begins (more or less). Jazz since the beginning of the 60s is much more interesting, profound etc than visual art.

Just because a bunch of public school guys run the art council doesn't mean you can't beat them at their own game. Unless despair is in your system.

Simon Weil

[A Lark Ascending]

Not at all. Just don't play by their rules.

Call it music.

I never understand why music, painting, theatre etc needs dividing into 'Art' and 'Not-Art.'

Whetever you call it I think the audience is out there for jazz and jazz related music, even if it is unlikely to ever to be that big. There is such a power in improvised music that I just don't see it dying like some people worry about.

And people will want to hear it at home as well as at a concert. Which is why I think jazz recordings will continue to get to us...maybe not in the way we are used to.

I've never found it easier to find a vast range of jazz CDs as I do today and I've been buying since the late 70s. Now maybe the range was bigger before that. I somehow doubt it.

[David Ayers]

But Bev, you understand entirely the distinction between art and non-art since it is at the heart of the radio listening figures you quoted. Setting aside the fact that audience cannot be properly understood from radio listening figures (I would stress concert attendance) you implicitly endorse the notion that jazz should be treated differently from other musical forms which you choose not to mention. Shouldn't pop rock folk etc etc all be included in your analysis? It is debatable whether jazz should be insisted on as anything other than a historical genre (I agree with Miles and Duke on this one). But if you are going to insist on this generic identity then at least acknowledge that what you are doing is insisting on a notion of art and quality.

The more I look at this debate the more I think that I have over-rated jazz.

Edited May 29, 2003 by David Ayers

[A Lark Ascending]

You are spot on, David. I would include folk, reggae, country, pop and whatever else in my calculations and would not expect jazz to get preferential treatment from public funding bodies.

We live in a country where some public monies are used to fund music, theatre, painting etc. I would hope the bodies responsible would use those monies to support musics which have a following but not to the degree that more popular musics do. Some musics can function on market forces alone; others struggle desparately.

Now I know that leaves the big question of which musics or musicians do and which don't get the funding. But I'd say that deciding to fund 'those that are Art' is a pretty ropey measurement to be used. It's the measurement that has been used for decades and the clique that make the decision consistently decide that Opera is more Art than jazz. I just think the idea of 'Art' is a hopeless tool of measurement.

I don't feel I over-rate jazz at all. I know I prefer it to other types of music (whilst loving plenty of other types to). But at no point would I argue for jazz alone to get special treatment. I'd just argue that for a healthy cultural life overall (very small c on 'culture') it is in the interest of society to foster a diversity of music, painting, theatre, cinema etc. So lets shut down Covent Garden (the penguins can all go to Glyndebourne) and distribute the vast sums that get sucked away there to the less obvious jazz, reggae, folk, country, rock, pop, classical etc musicians on some degree of parity. I'm sure the business world would rapidly bail out Covent Garden so there continued to be a fine place for the well heeled to parade their fine frocks and their love of 'Art'.

Edited May 29, 2003 by Bev Stapleton

[David Ayers]

The point of subsidy is access. You are right, end those subsidies you mention and the well-heeled would not have to do without. But access would be denied to the less well-off.

But your hostility to venues such as Covent Garden is not an argument for subsidising anything else. Why the hell should anyone's taxes pay subsidies for any art, say for jazz or folk, which in any case is much cheaper to put on than grander things? The question is do people who want it have access? The answer in the case of jazz and ther musics is certainly yes. Only Madonna is oversubscribed and subsidies wouldn't help there.

I don't think your ressentiment would translate into public policy - neither is it hard to see why public policy has not gone further in the direction you would like.

By the way your argument to be effective would need to embrace other modes (theatre) and have something to say about the funding of the BBC (end the license fee) before it even began to take effect in the way you would like.

The argument about who pays for what, why and how, is broader than the tired old argument about jazz subsidies. What other aspects of your life would you like tax payers to pay for?

[A Lark Ascending]

Health! (Shut down private medicine)

Education (Shut down the public schools and bus the Etonions into comps like the place where I work).

The buggers wouldn't put up with underfunding for very long if they had to experience what most people do!

Seriously, the point I see behind public funding of painting, music etc is based, as I said before, on the premise that diversity is beneficial to society as a whole. Leave it all to market forces and you are in danger of getting a very narrow diet.

I'm not arguing for an increase in funding of these areas; just a fairer distribution. And one of the consequences of that redistribution would be the collapse of places like Covent Garden. Their existence is based on inequality.

Agree entirely about the BBC. And believe me I've put my two penny worth in there more than a few times over the years. Maybe when I get that knighthood they'll listen!

[Simon Weil]

The more I look at this debate the more I think that I have over-rated jazz.

See, I know you think that David (or are leaning that way) because you've said it (sort of) a few times. In the end the issue comes down, to me, on the valuation I place on the guys from the 60s. I think there is a grandeur and a reaching of extraordinary emotional places sufficiently often in those guys that I start looking at comparisons with people like Picasso and Kandinsky.

This is not to say one can't find that in other Jazzers of other periods, just that my sensibility takes me in the 60s direction. The problem is "so what?". I mean I might feel that, that this stuff is wonderful and marvellous. But who's to say that's not complete bullshit, if whatever is so great can't be put into words so that others can get to see why it is so damn great.

And ain't nobody done that.

You see I think the stuff is there in Jazz.

Simon Weil

Edited May 29, 2003 by Simon Weil

[A Lark Ascending]

The more I look at this debate the more I think that I have over-rated jazz.

Over-rated in relation to what?

Does it need to be rated?