Current Popularity of Jazz

[Hot Ptah]

 

1 hour ago, Hot Ptah said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hip-hop-dominant-genre_us_596e3844e4b010d77674183e?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

This article shows that jazz is about as popular as classical and children's music. In streaming, jazz falls behind children's music. Jazz's album sales are comparable to Latin music, but Latin music is streamed much more often.

 

I had hoped that people who subscribe to streaming services such as Spotify might venture into jazz, because the universe of music can be searched and listened to quite easily. Apparently large numbers of people have not called up jazz artists from the streaming library.

Look at the large numbers for the streaming of the top ten most popular albums. They are far greater than the album sales. This is where jazz is really not taking off, streaming

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Hot Ptah

[BillF]

Not surprised to read that. No one I speak to at jazz gigs streams jazz, as I do. They're almost all in my age group - I'm 77 - have been diggin' the sounds since c.1960 and, in some cases, have never used a computer. I guess it's just the continued influence of my daughters, aged 30 and 36, that got me into streaming. IMO jazz and streaming belong in different eras - one half a century ago, one of today. I think the Huffington Post's figures bear that out.

[JSngry]

So, jazz is just as popular as it's been since the last 5-10 articles about how jazz is not popular?

Dammit jazz, there's musics that aren't as good as you, but you know what? They want it more!

So c'mon jazz, get your ass into high gear and show 'em what you're made of. Ok? Hell yeah.

Alright, Jazz on three. 1 2 3 -

JAZZ!!!!!!!!

[Scott Dolan]

Last 5-10?! 

I believe you left out some very important zeroes. 

The words "Jazz" and "popularity" haven't been compatible in the same sentence since the 1950's. Did we need HuffPo to confirm that? Jazz is classical American music. Emphasis on "classical". 

Nothing new here, and certainly nothing to wring hands over. Jazz has settled nicely into its' historical lot. It's time we fans did, as well.  There's no shame in that. 

Even Joe Montana and Dan Marino had to retire eventually. 

Nice run, nonetheless. 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Scott Dolan

[Hot Ptah]

My point in posting this was NOT to make the super obvious old point that jazz is not very popular.

My point was to show how streaming is becoming huge in pop music and more popular in other genres like Latin--but not in jazz.

i was slow to try steaming but now I love it. In my car, I can play my Spotify Premium ($10 a month) through my car speakers, from my cellphone. Today I played on a whim whatever I felt like hearing moment to moment. It was Miles' "Nefertiti," the opening track of Wayne Shorter's "Supernova," Weather Report's "Gibraltar," Duke Ellington's "Jack the Bear," James P. Johnson's "You've Got to be Modernistic," Arthur Blythe's "Odessa." All so easily available. I love it.

Nothing stops a rock or pop listener who is on their steaming device from thinking, "huh, I will pull up that John Coltrane guy, I have heard his name, let's see what he is like," and two seconds later they are listening to Coltrane, including possibly an intelligently chosen playlist posted by a jazz lover. 

However, apparently almost no one does that, from the numbers accompanying this article. I find that disappointing. 

 

[Ken Dryden]

If more students took a jazz survey course or attended a concert while in college, the numbers could grow. But the current generation doesn't seem to be willing to give jazz a chance.

[Hot Ptah]

1 hour ago, Ken Dryden said:

If more students took a jazz survey course or attended a concert while in college, the numbers could grow. But the current generation doesn't seem to be willing to give jazz a chance.

Very true. One piece of anecdotal information only. There is a large public high school near me with a jazz band which wins national awards.. I asked the jazz band director if he wanted a donation of my 40+ year collection of down beat and Jazz Times magazines, for the music library. He replied, "I can't get my jazz musician students to listen to a three minute recording of the piece we are going to rehearse, by the original jazz artist who recorded it. I pass out a one or two page article about the piece of music and the musicians who composed and recorded it, and all of the student musicians throw them on the floor unread. I hear them playing rap on their phones on the way out of the rehearsal room."

Also, there are surprisingly few jazz concerts on many college campuses today, taking the nation as a whole.

[HutchFan]

2 hours ago, Hot Ptah said:

Nothing stops a rock or pop listener who is on their steaming device from thinking, "huh, I will pull up that John Coltrane guy, I have heard his name, let's see what he is like," and two seconds later they are listening to Coltrane, including possibly an intelligently chosen playlist posted by a jazz lover. 

However, apparently almost no one does that, from the numbers accompanying this article. I find that disappointing. 

HP,  you make an interesting point.  

On the flip side, I think one of the challenges with jazz as it relates to streaming is that jazz often requires many listens before it begins to "sink in" and make sense.  Often, the listener has to make an investment -- in time, in psychological "energy" -- before the Ah-ha! moment comes.  And I think this is especially true for listeners who are relatively new to the music.  Unfortunately, for beginners, I don't think streaming is conducive to this sort listening -- repeated listening, intent listening.  Streaming is wonderful for exploring new music -- especially if you have some context and background for what you're hearing.  But, in the case of the beginner, I think the volume of available music can be almost overwhelming.

Speaking for myself, I know that I had to hear Kind of Blue about 20 times before it "suddenly" opened up and blew my mind.  I had to hear A Love Supreme many, many times before I got a foothold on the music.  For me, Ellington's music took even longer.  Years. No joke. But I'd made literal financial investments in recordings, so I kept coming back to them.  I sensed that something was there that I wasn't quite getting.  So I kept coming back.  And then, after a period of time, I'd get the payoff.  ...Of course, now that I've been listening for years, making my way into the music is much easier -- usually.  But that process of discovery, of unlocking, is still part of the enjoyment.

I wonder if I would have made those initial investments if I were a young person today.  Streaming makes it so easy to "surf."  Would I have focused on one thing over-and-over again -- enough to get me over those initial hurdles?  I don't know.

 

1 hour ago, Hot Ptah said:

Very true. One piece of anecdotal information only. There is a large public high school near me with a jazz band which wins national awards.. I asked the jazz band director if he wanted a donation of my 40+ year collection of down beat and Jazz Times magazines, for the music library. He replied, "I can't get my jazz musician students to listen to a three minute recording of the piece we are going to rehearse, by the original jazz artist who recorded it. I pass out a one or two page article about the piece of music and the musicians who composed and recorded it, and all of the student musicians throw them on the floor unread. I hear them playing rap on their phones on the way out of the rehearsal room."

That's a bummer.

And it's probably no different than the English teacher who's trying to help the students to realize that the novels and poems and stories they're reading could actually be interesting and have personal meaning -- if they would really engage with the texts.  But, in today's world, that's a tough challenge -- for both the student and the teacher.  There are so many barriers to that particular type of enjoyment.

Edited July 19, 2017 by HutchFan

[Scott Dolan]

Ah, my apologies, HP. I misread your intentions. 

Now, to address your actual point, I think looking no further than this BBS is quite instructive. Most Jazz fans are older, and mostly dead set in their ways. Just look at all the analog vs digital warfare that has taken place over the years. Here, AND elsewhere. 

Another sticking point for many, and yes I'm going down this road out of necessity, is the fact that most still think that digital files sound like the old, crappy 96kbps mp3's that dominated the market two decades ago. That turned them off to the digital medium, in many cases, permanently. 

I'm glad you took a chance on streaming. I myself just started using a streaming service a couple of months ago. And still, no matter through my mains, or my headphones, I hear no difference between it and CD audio. But that's simply a nonstarter to many folks. 

As for the younger audience, Jazz has a steep "learning" curve. Just like all classical and improvised music. No steady rock n roll backbeat, no dice. 

[Hot Ptah]

1 hour ago, Scott Dolan said:

Ah, my apologies, HP. I misread your intentions. 

Now, to address your actual point, I think looking no further than this BBS is quite instructive. Most Jazz fans are older, and mostly dead set in their ways. Just look at all the analog vs digital warfare that has taken place over the years. Here, AND elsewhere. 

Another sticking point for many, and yes I'm going down this road out of necessity, is the fact that most still think that digital files sound like the old, crappy 96kbps mp3's that dominated the market two decades ago. That turned them off to the digital medium, in many cases, permanently. 

I'm glad you took a chance on streaming. I myself just started using a streaming service a couple of months ago. And still, no matter through my mains, or my headphones, I hear no difference between it and CD audio. But that's simply a nonstarter to many folks. 

As for the younger audience, Jazz has a steep "learning" curve. Just like all classical and improvised music. No steady rock n roll backbeat, no dice. 

You said something really interesting. I listen to music in my car a lot as I do a lot of driving. I hear no difference in sound quality between playing a CD and listening to a steaming service through my cellphone into the car's speakers. Of course, this is not audiophile sound equipment here. But the supposed terrible flaws in the streaming sound are simply not audible to me

[OliverM]

I only stream during holidays and/or for exploring new music, but always go back to a physical format when I enjoy the music. I don't have a DAC for streaming so sonic difference is huge because of that.

Edited July 19, 2017 by OliverM

[Scott Dolan]

HP, that's because those flaws no longer exist. My system may not win first place at an audiophile convention, but it's pretty unforgiving just the same. 

The modern codecs (almost all from the Advanced Audio Codec family) have perfected compression to the point where there simply is no audible difference. I've done my own testing, knowing full well which was the CD and which was the AAC file. 

Again, that is the biggest stumbling block, IMO. Most won't give the modern codecs a chance. Especially the older Jazz set that grew up listening to LPs. 

I'm afraid that folks like you and I are outliers when it comes to older fans not afraid to try a new form of audio consumption. 

A Jazzhead buddy of mine, who is older than me, finally gave Spotify Premium a whirl after reading something I posted about modern codecs sounding just as good as CD. He's happier than a pig in shit with it! 

[Hot Ptah]

Here is something else about streaming. It is so easy to listen to albums you don't have, and have never heard,  to figure out if you want to buy them. 

There are a great many albums by Chick Corea and David Bowie which I have never heard. With streaming I can plow through them one after another while driving. It made me realize that there are not that many David Bowie albums that I want to buy. That would have been a $300 experiment at least if I had bought all of his CDs which I had never heard. I am glad that I heard the albums once. I now have a much better perspective on the nature of his artistry 

[Scott Dolan]

2 hours ago, OliverM said:

I only stream during holidays and/or for exploring new music, but always go back to a physical format when I enjoy the music. I don't have a DAC for streaming so sonic difference is huge because of that.

Yes, you do need a comparable DAC to obtain a comparable sound. Which is another hangup, since a lot of people don't want to have to add a standalone DAC to their existing systems. That part I most certainly understand. 

 

1 hour ago, Hot Ptah said:

Here is something else about streaming. It is so easy to listen to albums you don't have, and have never heard,  to figure out if you want to buy them. 

There are a great many albums by Chick Corea and David Bowie which I have never heard. With streaming I can plow through them one after another while driving. It made me realize that there are not that many David Bowie albums that I want to buy. That would have been a $300 experiment at least if I had bought all of his CDs which I had never heard. I am glad that I heard the albums once. I now have a much better perspective on the nature of his artistry 

Hahaha...I actually went through the same thing with Bowie, coming to the exact same conclusion!  

Another aspect of it for me is you can listen to albums that are kind of in that grey area. You like them, but don't necessarily love them. So you may not want to plunk down full boat for a CD, or a complete album download. With streaming, when the fancy strikes, you can listen to it. 

I mean, good lord. Am I the only person who has numerous CDs sitting in the rack that I might have listened to 2, maybe 3 times and never went back to it again? 

[Hot Ptah]

3 hours ago, Scott Dolan said:

 

Another aspect of it for me is you can listen to albums that are kind of in that grey area. You like them, but don't necessarily love them. So you may not want to plunk down full boat for a CD, or a complete album download. With streaming, when the fancy strikes, you can listen to it. 

I mean, good lord. Am I the only person who has numerous CDs sitting in the rack that I might have listened to 2, maybe 3 times and never went back to it again? 

I probably have over 10,000 albums like that. I have been pondering since I started using streaming, whether I would have put together such a huge music collection if streaming had been available from the 1970s on. Probably not. My ex-wife once angrily commented, "you don't know that you will love that CD--you are just buying it to find out what it sounds like!" My reply was, "so?" But I could have just listened to a lot of the albums in my collection once or twice on streaming and been happy with that for the rest of my life, if it had been available.

Now my 21 year old daughter, my only heir, absolutely dreads the thought of having to deal with my music collection when I die. She does not like music, does not have the most rudimentary idea of what might be valuable in the collection, and sees it as a giant headache.

[Niko]

I've heard that story "now that I have spotify I can really start exploring genres I never had access to" exactly once... the guy (around 30, indie background) was thinking of Mozart operas rather than jazz... that being said, most of my colleagues between 30 and 45 have at least some interest in jazz (I've been asked to explain concepts like "standards" [is it really unclear who is associated with what song?] and "improvisation" [is everybody improvising at the same time?] by different people in the last few months... when there are interesting concerts, most want to be notified). In contrast, most of the older guys (still working, so below 67) prefer rock to jazz... by and large, I don't think that interest in jazz has changed that much over the past four or five decades... how/whether people buy records has

[Hot Ptah]

1 hour ago, Niko said:

I've heard that story "now that I have spotify I can really start exploring genres I never had access to" exactly once... the guy (around 30, indie background) was thinking of Mozart operas rather than jazz... that being said, most of my colleagues between 30 and 45 have at least some interest in jazz (I've been asked to explain concepts like "standards" [is it really unclear who is associated with what song?] and "improvisation" [is everybody improvising at the same time?] by different people in the last few months... when there are interesting concerts, most want to be notified). In contrast, most of the older guys (still working, so below 67) prefer rock to jazz... by and large, I don't think that interest in jazz has changed that much over the past four or five decades... how/whether people buy records has

I am glad that you have that experience. I wonder if it is part of current German culture, as opposed to American? I don't know about that, I am just wondering.

 I do not experience any increased interest in jazz from the people I know between 30 and 45 at all. Virtually all of the people I know who have any interest in jazz are over 50 years old.

[Scott Dolan]

3 hours ago, Hot Ptah said:

I probably have over 10,000 albums like that. I have been pondering since I started using streaming, whether I would have put together such a huge music collection if streaming had been available from the 1970s on. Probably not. My ex-wife once angrily commented, "you don't know that you will love that CD--you are just buying it to find out what it sounds like!" My reply was, "so?" But I could have just listened to a lot of the albums in my collection once or twice on streaming and been happy with that for the rest of my life, if it had been available.

Now my 21 year old daughter, my only heir, absolutely dreads the thought of having to deal with my music collection when I die. She does not like music, does not have the most rudimentary idea of what might be valuable in the collection, and sees it as a giant headache.

I had the exact same thought cross my mind when I first switched from CDs to downloads. I would look at my rack of 1,000+ CDs and think, "if only CD quality downloads had been around when I started creating this mess!" 

Having turned into somewhat of a minimalist, I'd have gladly gone the download route instead. 

[JSngry]

Sam Rivers says what's the big deal y'all?

impulse!

[Hot Ptah]

The New Wave of Streaming Is On Impulse!

[David Ayers]

I don't really know what streaming figures mean in relation to 'popularity' or overall sector revenues etc., or even the overall dimension of existence and practice of any particular genre of music or of music as such. Because on this board we are into historical recordings we tend to have a high estimate of the meaning and purpose of recordings. We also remember when for popular music seven figure 'album sales' were a measure of something.  I think on this one our starting optic might be a bit skewed. 

 

 

 

 

[Scott Dolan]

Then what else do you go by in the age where streaming is the overwhelming format of choice? 

[Hot Ptah]

What strikes me is that the great majority of the listening public has wholeheartedly embraced streaming, even in niche genres such as Latin music ---except for jazz and classical.

[David Ayers]

4 hours ago, Scott Dolan said:

Then what else do you go by in the age where streaming is the overwhelming format of choice? 

I don't have time to spell out an answer but - to state it quickly - if these figures put jazz and classical on a par in terms of this measure, that needs to be set against our sense of how these two musics (although jazz confusing conflates once-popular song, various idiomatic forms, and improv) fare overall, institutionally and across all lifeworld parameters. So a few days ago I was listening to a Birtwistle premiere at the Proms, Barenboim conducting, Royal Albert Hall fullish (4000+). not the first outing for this work which Barenboim had premiered in Berlin. The concert can be streamed on audio or tv from the BBC for a month. The work required a gigantic orchestra by any standards. So plenty of money, interest and availability, and symbolic kudos. And plenty of folks there on the day to hear.  But not on the streaming services. Next week I will be at a posh opera venue. Invariably sold-out, everybody dressed up, fine dining, picnicking and whatnot. And maybe there will eventually be a DVD or broadcast. Again, not on streaming but loads of cash and people, and no sense that this is a struggling sector. So the streaming data might look the same for jazz and classical but my own sense anyway is that the two areas are not very comparable, in terms of consumption but also in terms of social support and perceived legitimacy.

[Scott Dolan]

3 hours ago, Hot Ptah said:

What strikes me is that the great majority of the listening public has wholeheartedly embraced streaming, even in niche genres such as Latin music ---except for jazz and classical.

Right, but what other genre with a decidedly older fan base has embraced streaming? 

David, we saw Brit Floyd and their $1mil stage show a month ago with about 3,500 other fans. They don't offer anything to stream either. I have no idea what that actually means, or that it tells us anything. Trying to compare live music with recorded music doesn't seem to make much sense, IMO.