Assassins Get Paid REALLY Well These Days!

[Tom Storer]

It's about how this ain't jazz no more. This is now "America's Classical Music" in the worst possible way at every possible level.

Yeah, but what is "this"? Wynton's output? JALC's programming? The caricature of jazz that is presented by the media? It's not because those things "ain't jazz" that there is no jazz to be found by those who care.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Ok, it's really not about bullshit getting all the bread. That's par for the course and has been damn near forever.

It's about how this ain't jazz no more. This is now "America's Classical Music" in the worst possible way at every possible level.

And FUCK THAT.

End of story.

Well, that's been implied for many decades now, starting, I suppose, when those French geezers began to write about jazz as if it were part of the European aesthetic. And musicians were lauded as such over there - not that people like Bechet and Hawkins shouldn't have been lauded, but on their own terms. But you can't blame them for taking what they could get, either.

That was the thin end of the wedge, it seems to me. Marsalis is the fat (cat) end.

MG

[wolff]

43 Mil in revenue(204 Mil in assets), and the guy gets a Mil a year. I'd hire him!!

He puts asses in the seats!!!!

Quit your whining/hating!!!!

[marcello]

Listen, I'm no fan and I heard part of the last JALC work, which sounded like tepid late 1960's Ellington out takes with african percussion, but JALC does more than their concert series and tours.

The fact than Dizzy's continues to have a more than decent schedule that keeps musicians employed (with good coin) is one reason to applaud JALC. That space wouldn't exist without being supported by the Executive Director. JALC also has the extensive educational programs that also gives musicains income and keeps young musicians, of all economic tiers, interested in the music.

If you balance the bad with the good, the good wins out.

[king ubu]

under closer scrutiny - aren't we all assassins, with our luxury problems and fat cd collections....

sorry, but this thread title bothers me

and I have not one disc by Wynton, never cared for what he did, am of the opinion that the whole ideological thing he does isn't good in any way - but this thread is just as ideologically one-sided, I think.

[andybleaden]

Check this article out: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/ar...conductor_in_us

If these conductors, many of whom simply stand up there swinging a baton and don't play a note, can get paid as much as $3.5 million, why the hell shouldn't Marsalis, who actually writes music and plays an instrument, get $1 million?

I've seen the Boston Pops several times. I was always amazed at how Keith Lockhart's baton never seemed to be on the beat, nor did the band seem to follow any of his cues. His baton "swooosh" is flamboyantly wacky, often getting the crowd to laugh. And he gets $739,894 for that?

I'm sorry, but you guys are off base here. The "stars" of the top orchestras, and JALC is a top orchestra making plenty of money, get paid well. Why shouldn't Wynton Marsalis?

I am with Kevin on this one

'we' seem to like this sort of spokesperson stuff to box things off so why not him

I have never had the beef/hatred/jealousy people seem to have about him

or Keith Jarret

or even ( as I am going away for a few weeks and may miss the backlash) Norah JOnes

There you go. Said it now.

BYeee

[AllenLowe]

well the issue is bigger than Marsalis - someone is going to get the salary there, even if it is not him - the issue is the inflated salaries in the so-called non-profit world - and that's a REAL big can of worms -

[andybleaden]

We got a whole of guys loading there bank accounts through exploitation of millions across the world.....and I do not mean the private sector. That you take for granted.

I always think with this whole Wynton business if there ain't some nasty hidden agenda lurking around comments about him

[John L]

Why should shit of any nature get renumerated so extravagantly?

Jim: Weren't you born and raised in the USA? Shit in the USA usually gets renumerated extravagantly when it sells well.

From those numbers, it looks to me like the Lincoln Center is not doing too bad a job at selling itself. Wynton is still probably bringing in at least as much as he takes home. If Britney Spears and Michael Bolton can rake in money like that, why shouldn't Wynton?

[Christiern]

That money is excessive and not commensurable with the yield from myopic leadership that does not seem to grasp the needs of the jazz community.

"JALC is a top orchestra" -- huh? In what sense? If its musically, we are indeed in deep trouble--the orchestra is a mess. But, keep on lickin' Kevin! Is Michael C on the shelf now?

Edited August 17, 2007 by Christiern

[JSngry]

Institutionalizing of European Classical Music has made it healthier and more vital now than it's ever been in it's mutli-century history. No reason to think that jazz won't reap the same benefits for the same reasons. Something to look forward to, that is!

Yeah, "assassin" is probably the wrong term. Let's substitute "necrophilliac sodomizer" instead. Two words are better than one, especially if that's how you get paid, or get paid to project.

Y'all can have all of it y'all want. Me, if I'm gonna spend time with dead people, I wanna make sure that they're fully dead. I'll be there soon enough my ownself, so until then, give me the livliest life, the richest heritage, and don't nobody come 'round me who's confusing concerts with seances.

[MoGrubb]

Check this article out: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/ar...conductor_in_us

If these conductors, many of whom simply stand up there swinging a baton and don't play a note, can get paid as much as $3.5 million, why the hell shouldn't Marsalis, who actually writes music and plays an instrument, get $1 million?

I've seen the Boston Pops several times. I was always amazed at how Keith Lockhart's baton never seemed to be on the beat, nor did the band seem to follow any of his cues. His baton "swooosh" is flamboyantly wacky, often getting the crowd to laugh. And he gets $739,894 for that?

I'm sorry, but you guys are off base here. The "stars" of the top orchestras, and JALC is a top orchestra making plenty of money, get paid well. Why shouldn't Wynton Marsalis?

I'm not defending Lockhart, unless I'm missing something in your post, fwiw, the conductor's main function is to rehearse the orchestra/band. By the time the group gets on stage everything is supposedly so well prepared, the group is so together, that all he needs to do is give downbeats and cutoffs, maybe a few cues. It's common knowledge that he is mainly for show and emotional appeal at concerts.

[Larry Kart]

Excerpt from a 2005 interview with knowledgeble good guy Marty Khan, about his book “Straight Ahead: A Comprehensive Guide to the Business of Jazz (Without Sacrificing Dignity or Artistic Integrity).” Comments on the pernicious somewhat sub rosa economic effects of Jazz@LC on other jazz artists are particularly noteworthy. I have heard similar detailed accounts from musicians-bandleaders on how the marketing of Jazz@LC ensembles and the very large fees those ensembles command have knocked the crap out of the touring scene for other artists/bands who used to be able to play the sort of college and art center venues that Khan refers to at one point. Complete text here (SR is Steve Rowland):

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=16904

SR: That's a pretty bleak picture you're painting, man.

MK: Look around. The economic environment and the music itself are in complete turmoil. No touring, no record sales, no vibrant scene, no new leadership, no innovative directions, no public visibility, no new audiences. And schools are spewing out legions of new musicians into the mix with little opportunity to express their art and get paid. It's a mess, man.

SR: But there are groups touring—and getting really well paid. How does that factor in?

MK: Sure. All-star aggregations doing tributes. The Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra and some Marsalises—don't get me started—a few other big names sucking down enormous fees. Look at the Great Depression. The general illusion is that everybody went broke. But the reality is that all that happened was a major shift in the distribution of wealth. All the money that was lost by the multitudes went into the hands of the few.

Let's just look at Tucson, for example. In the 2003/4 season, our monolith facility, The University of Arizona presented three jazz artists on their series. The Preservation Hall Jazz Band, Branford Marsalis and Wynton Marsalis—and that guy for the 7th time in the 10 years we've been here. Don't get me started! (laughter) The lowest paid of them was Branford at $17,000. The next jazz gig in town pays around $1000—if you can get it . Mostly they're door gigs or under $100 per man. No economy can thrive in such a polarized environment.

This situation is being replicated all over the country, and actually being fortified by the various funding initiatives that are primarily benefiting presenters and leaving musicians out in the cold. It's tragic.

SR: There seems to be a feeling among many of its critics that everything wrong with jazz today is Lincoln Center's fault. Is that your view?

MK: This may surprise a lot of people, but no, I don't. It's a symptom of the problem. Just like Bush isn't the problem in politics. He's a symptom of the problem. A malaise of ignorance, indifference, greed and whatnot that poisons the atmosphere and allows these damaging organisms to thrive.

When Lincoln Center was first conceiving its jazz program nearly 20 years ago, everybody was saying to me “Isn't it great? This is going to put jazz in a great position.” Yeah, bent over and spread wide. I told anyone who would listen that it would polarize funding, undermine touring and zombie-fy jazz. I said they'd find some mediocre technician to ordain as visionary and we'd all be paying for it for decades to come. And no, I don't own a crystal ball (laughter).

SR: But you don't blame them for polarizing funding, touring or making the music a museum piece?

MK: Look, I blame Bush and his cronies for destroying our economy and environment, disenfranchising most of America with their “starve the beast” philosophy of government, and making us all complicit by our tolerance of “pre-emptive” war, while making us all more vulnerable to terrorism. But I blame us for letting them do it. That's how I feel about Lincoln Center.

Musicians have allowed a man who's never gained the true respect of his fellow musicians to be sold to the public as an Ellingtonian visionary. Funders have poured millions of dollars into a boondoggle that only delivers a tiny fraction of the booty in meaningful returns. Fine Arts sponsors pay its stodgy orchestra one-night sums that could underwrite a great jazz artist's entire tour, and then force that tripe down the throats of audiences unfamiliar with the art form, who would be infinitely more enriched by listening to any Duke Ellington album than hearing the LCJO. Worst of all, jazz “advocates” point to it as some great model that proves the acceptance of the art form and an economic ideal to which other musicians and facilities should aspire.

SR: Let's examine that last statement. Couldn't an argument be made that Lincoln Center is an example of the potential for jazz?

MK: Empirical evidence says otherwise. The music is being marginalized in every walk of life. Not just in major media, but even in the industry realm. Virtually non-existent on television, even cable and satellite—Yeah, I know BET; don't get me started (laughter)—disappearing on radio, where even the few NPR stations that have been playing it are dropping or cutting programming. Invisible in mainstream magazines and sharply trivialized in music magazines. Even jazz rags are turning their focus to artists who are only marginally valid as jazz artists. The same can be said for many festivals that claim to be jazz, and are increasingly bringing more and more artists of other popular genres into their programming. The Ken Burns extravaganza didn't even cause a blip on the radar screen—except for his own CD marketing. Don't get me started here either!—and in the eyes of Public Broadcasting, Wynton is virtually portrayed as the last living jazz musician.

SR: But he draws audiences wherever he plays. The Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra sells out all over the country. Why is that?

MK: Marketing, man. They thrive on the strangling of the scene, and that's what's happening all over. Facilities draw audiences, not necessarily the artists who perform at them. In Tucson, Wynton and the various big names and all-star aggregations that almost exclusively make up today's touring jazz artists can draw 1500-2500 people at the University of Arizona, our arts monolith, at ticket prices of $24-50. Other internationally-acclaimed jazz artists playing here at $12-20 a ticket will draw as little as 60 people, at best 300-400.

This isn't just true of jazz, but all of the performing arts. The Buena Vista Social Club has played here every year for the past four or five years, selling out two or three shows each time. 5000-7500 people at $25-$60 a head. Another excellent and reputable Cuban group comes to town and draws 75 people at $10. We saw the Blind Boys of Alabama at the U of A with 2200 people in 2000. In 2002, we saw them at a beautiful, intimate hall with about 80 other audience members in a 500 seat facility.

This situation is being replicated all over the country. We recently traveled to Albuquerque to see Randy Weston in a wonderful theater. There were less than 100 people there. Two weeks later Wynton sold out 1400 seats at the same theater in two shows—and another 1400 in two shows in Santa Fe, about 60 miles away. Of those 2800 people in that single market who attended Marsalis' gig, not even 100 were interested in one of the true jazz greats? Doesn't make sense.

Funders perpetuate this situation through facility-based funding. People like Bill Cosby, Whoopi Goldberg and Willie Nelson contribute their efforts to fundraising events for Lincoln Center. These are concerned and generous individuals who think they're contributing their efforts to a worthy cause. If there was an entity in country music or society in general that was doing the equivalent damage that Lincoln Center is really doing to jazz, Willie Nelson would be in the front line of protestors.

SR: It sound like you do blame Lincoln Center.

MK: Yes, as I'd blame any predator. Any beast that must consume to feed its out-of-control imperative. But again, it's the syndrome that's really at fault not the symptom that thrives on it. Let's look at their recent fundraising campaign to build three halls in that big Columbus Circle boondoggle. $150 million dollars was raised—all to build a club in a city filled with clubs and concert facilities. Do you have any idea what $150 million dollars could do for jazz? Health care, pension funds, product distribution and marketing, establishment of artist-driven c3s and the professional training programs needed to make them work, and so forth? Even a fraction of that money could go a long way in addressing those issues.

And what does Lincoln Center do with that scratch? Real estate! I hear they're nice facilities. I mean, how nice can they be? And all these concerned funders, fans, celebrities and so forth plunk down their money to contribute to this, when there's so much need on the jazz scene? Then there's the collateral damage as other facilities try to replicate Lincoln Center, but aren't doing all that well. Just as other festival promoters emulate George Wein, but nobody has ever been able to replicate his empire. Just as no jazz musicians are going to be able to replicate Wynton's empire—as “BeatDown” Magazine recently referred to it.

But lots of mini-versions of all of the above are springing up. Little fiefdoms of exploitation, with their various spins that offer a distorted whiff of actual progress and systemic improvement.

SR: Is this only occurring in the area of live performance?

MK: No, it permeates everything. It's the American way, which until around 20-25 years ago was not prevalent in the world of fine arts and non-profit dedication.

Now the fine arts and funding world have bought in completely. Let's look at the Ken Burns mess. A filmmaker of dubious quality—pretty much exclusively a product of Public Broadcasting—and with no previous knowledge or even interest in jazz, gets millions of dollars to create the biggest film extravaganza on the history of jazz. A great opportunity for the art form, right? True recognition across the land in untapped areas, right? Huge new audiences of consumers who will buy concert tickets, fill clubs and make those CDs fly off the shelves, right?

You know what sold? Videos and DVDs of the series. Copies of the book connected with the series. CDs compiled to be marketed with the series. That's it. Not a blip on the chart for the artists portrayed, not even for Wynton, who was lionized by it while almost everybody but Pops and Duke were smeared.

Those Ken Burns Jazz—think Sherman and Atlanta when you hear that—CDs dominated the jazz charts. I contacted over 30 record stores in 15 cities to ask if people were buying any of the artists' own CDs along with the Burns compilations. The answer was always a resounding no.

Marketing, my man. Mass marketing. That's what made Burns. That's what's made Wynton. That's what we're up against. It's an empty promise of potential success to which not one in 10,000 will actually have access.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Larry Kart

[king ubu]

Yeah, "assassin" is probably the wrong term. Let's substitute "necrophilliac sodomizer" instead. Two words are better than one, especially if that's how you get paid, or get paid to project.

I like *that*, now!

[Kevin Bresnahan]

"JALC is a top orchestra" -- huh? In what sense?

Look at the numbers from that link Jim provided. JALC is making a lot of money playing Jazz, probably more than any Jazz orchestra in history. Tell us of another Jazz band that made $12 million/year!

But, keep on lickin' Kevin! Is Michael C on the shelf now?

I point out some facts and somehow I'm lickin' some boots? I ain't defending the Marsalis musical world, I'm merely pointing out that his salary is far more in line with most artists in similar positions. You're the one who sees it as boot lickin'.

I imagine you can't see your shoes with the woody you're sporting now that there's another "Bash Wynton Marsalis" thread.

[Christiern]

"JALC is a top orchestra" -- huh? In what sense?

Look at the numbers from that link Jim provided. JALC is making a lot of money playing Jazz, probably more than any Jazz orchestra in history. Tell us of another Jazz band that made $12 million/year!

Oh, I see, money is your yardstick. I never thought of it that way, so I guess I'll now have to re-evaluate Kenny G, surely the top saxophonist!

Guess we just have a different set of values when it comes to jazz, Kevin.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Guess we just have a different set of values when it comes to jazz, Kevin.

I would think so! I value the music, first and foremost. You'd keel over and die of apoplexy before ever admitting that Wynton Marsalis can play. You don't listen to the music, you listen to the man.

What I don't get is how you've ever been able to stomach so of the music played by other outspoken Jazz musicians. There have been many assholes who've jumped up onto the bandstand. Do you allow their personal defects to intrude onto your enjoyment of their music as well?

[Christiern]

Lame, Kevin--very lame.

[Alexander Hawkins]

$1,069,366. The vast majority of jazz musicians the world over would LOVE to earn as much as the last 5 numbers, never mind all 7. They'll likely never make that much in their entire careers...

If we're talking money from gigs, rather than teaching/workshops/session work etc. - I'll bet you most of the players in the UK (don't know how it is in the US!) would jump all over even the last four figures. Sad!

[andybleaden]

Lame, Kevin--very lame.

Nope it ain't bullshit or lame but some of us ( I do not have 1 record by the guy by the way- never appealed to me...neither did Duke or Count or Miles if I am honest) just do not and will not hate him in the venomous way I see around me...same with Keith Jarrett etc etc

Dig the difference

Or don't

Its up to you

[Christiern]

Lame, Kevin--very lame.

Nope it ain't bullshit or lame but some of us ( I do not have 1 record by the guy by the way- never appealed to me...neither did Duke or Count or Miles if I am honest) just do not and will not hate him in the venomous way I see around me...same with Keith Jarrett etc etc

Dig the difference

Or don't

Its up to you

You misinterpreted my post--I was not talking about Wynton being lame.

[Van Basten II]

Is Marsalis being blamed or accused for making money, having a philosophy that you despise or for making music that does not appeal to your ears ?

In terms of moneymaking, they are a lot of worse culprits than him. If he can make money doing his stuff, good for him.

Philosophy wise i try to separate myself from my appreciation or non-appreciation of the music and the artist's opinion about it. If an artist dislikes another one for artistic reasons, am i supposed to choose between them.

Finally, if you don't care for his music, ther's plenty to listen somewhere else instead of hating the guy.

I can understand the annoyance at the guy and i share it for nominating himself, prime minister of jazz or whatever you can call it. But quite frankly, i don't care much about the opinion of the masses regarding the cultural industries. As long as he does not put his weight to forbid music he does not care for, he can do whatever the hell he wants.

[Christiern]

I think we are seeing some over-reaction here--I don't think anyone in this thread has expressed "hatred" for any particular musician. Well, perhaps it plays better that way for some people.

[Van Basten II]

I did not know that that being called an assasin was a pet name

[Christiern]

Well, now now you know.