Concert deathwatch

[Spontooneous]

We're seeing the slow, painful death of a jazz concert series here in Kansas City.

The Folly Theater jazz series audiences are getting smaller and smaller. The hall seats about 1,060. The first concert this season, the Preservation Hall Jazz Band (I know, I know...), sold about 600 tickets. The second, Jane Bunnett and the Spirits of Havana (well, that's better), sold about 500.

In better days, Sonny Rollins sold out the hall, Dave Holland and Don Byron drew 800 apiece, and Lester Bowie did 700.

What do you see as the problem here?

Is it that their bookings this season are uninspired? (Later in the series, Ramsey Lewis and Peter Cincotti.) Would things be better if the bookings took more chances? Have they retrenched into dullness?

Is it that they've failed to build a new audience as the old-line Kansas City jazz crowd ages (and dies)?

And I'd like to know: Are you seeing the same sort of thing where you live?

And what do we do about this?

A lot of questions there, I know. But this is really depressing me right now. I don't want this series to die. And after lackluster ticket sales last year, the vultures are circling.

Help!

[Free For All]

I'm afraid part of the problem is the fact that KC audiences don't tend to have the most cosmopolitan taste in music.

Not to be overly pessimistic, but this is the midwest, bordering on the south, and I think people (here and elsewhere) just aren't very adventuresome when it comes to seeking out music and entertainment (hence the current popularity of the sequel). I'm not surprised Jane Bunnett didn't sell- no one here probably knows who the hell she is! Turn on the TV and what do you see? Ads for BRANSON........................just shoot me.

Ramsey Lewis and Peter Cincotti? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......................

I don't think it has to be this way, but I sure don't know what the solution is.

I feel your pain!

By the way, my wife and I just bought a house here in KC, so it looks like (for the forseeable future) that this is where I'll be fighting my part of the battle to keep jazz alive and kicking.

Edited November 11, 2003 by Free For All

[Rooster_Ties]

I wish I knew what the answer was, but I think part of it is the constant programming towards the older "subsription" target audience at the Folly Jazz series. I'm guessing that upwards of 75% of their subscribers are over the age of 60. And anything the least bit 'progressive' - and they walk out after the first set (or at least quite a number of them do). And more than two concerts per season like that, and they stop renewing their subscriptions. (If it ain't got that swing, it don't mean a thing.)

So for years now, the Folly has programmed to the lowest and most conservative common denominator (at least more often than not).

BUT, that doesn't explain why single-ticket sales haven't picked up some of the slack, for shows like Dave Holland's group a couple years ago. (???)

I can't help but think that if they programmed MMW on that series (as part of some well labeled "progressive" sub-series), and then booked a 'Dave Holland'-type act as part of the same (well labeled) 'progressive' sub-series (so the 'blue-hairs' know to stay away) -- then they might be able to signal to a younger crowd that Holland's group is just as great as MMW. (Or maybe that's just wishful thinking.)

Or maybe program somebody like John Scofield, which kind of splits the difference between MMW and Dave Holland.

I wish I knew the answer. Seems like Columbia, MO (big 'university' town 2 hours east of Kansas City, where the University of Missouri is), and even Iowa City (with the University of Iowa) seem to know how to bring people out of the woodwork.

Is it just that people are too lazy to come out in numbers for concerts?? Or are ticket prices the problem?? (Folly ticket prices are about $25 a head these days, I think.)

I've heard that people in Kansas City are notoriously cheap, to the point of turning around to go somewhere else when presented with something as simple as a $5 cover charge to get into a club like The Blue Room (best club in town, holds about 150 people, I'm guessing). I know, cuz I've seen this any number of times, where a groupl of 4 to 6 people all arive together, and then when they realize it's going to cost them $20 to $30 to get in the door (total cost, not individual cost), they turn tail and run.

Hell, Kansas City isn't like anywhere else I've been in St. Louis, or Chicago, or NYC -- where there's routinely a $10-$15 cover, PLUS a one or two drink minimum (at $5-$8 per drink, even just for coffee or a soda).

Man, we've got it so cheap here in Kansas City, and people still balk at cover charges. Not everybody - but enough people to have a financial impact on things.

I definitely would welcome more discussion on this topic. What's it like in your city????

[sheldonm]

I went to see George Coleman in Chicago (Jazz Showcase) a few weeks ago and there were about 50 people in attendance. The owner told me that one night during the week, he had about 17 people for 2 shows and this is George Coleman! I have been to a ton of shows there and they do sell out on occasion but many nights there may be 50-100 people total at the show I attend. Benny Golson and the Dave Holland Quartet will be playing soon and I'm sure the attendace will be better but I'm always freaking out at the low attendance during some of these shows. You've got to wonder how long some of these "jazz only" clubs can hang on!

Mark

[kh1958]

I once attended a show by blues guitarist Philip Walker at a club and there was one other person besides myself in attendance.

[Jim Alfredson]

People don't want to go to jazz clubs anymore. They don't want to have to sit in an audience and be quiet and pay attention constantly to the music. That's just not what people want to do.

If jazz clubs are going to survive they are going to have to change. Ron Blake and I have talked for hours about this.

[sheldonm]

Wow, I must be completely different! I can't wait to find a place where I can sit for an hour or so and not have to talk or listen to someone talk!!! From what I've seen in many clubs, some of the people continue to talk and laugh all through the performance, which pisses me off!

[Dan Gould]

Here in south Florida there are at least 5 or 6 "Jazz Societies" which try to attract corporate sponsorship, state grants, and member dues to bring in an assortment of jazz artists, mostly during the "season"-October/November through April or so.

The concert venues are typically small theaters which work quite well.

But I would say that the problem isn't the size of the audience but the age. My wife and I are in our mid-30s and we are always amongst the 10 or twenty youngest people in attendance, and that's including the teenagers who usually appear to have been dragged to the concert by their folks.

But for me, its the Jazz Society concerts that get my attention and my cash. There are a handful of active clubs but their music policies aren't exactly strict about defining "jazz" and I inevitably find the level of conversation and disrespect to be too much to tolerate.

At least with the jazz society concerts, the blue hairs are there to listen-and me and my wife are still agile enough to get around them and out the door when the concert ends!

[Morganized]

Spontooneous,

Not directed at you, but maybe it's like President Clinton used to say when he ran against the first President Bush.

It's the Economy Stupid

Just a thought. People don't have the bucks and the mood has changed. All of the charities are hurting. Not just in Kansas City but everywhere.

Otherwise, I agree with much that has been said here already.

[Free For All]

People don't want to go to jazz clubs anymore.  They don't want to have to sit in an audience and be quiet and pay attention constantly to the music.  That's just not what people want to do.

I really think that, especially with younger people, that we are dealing with a decreasing attention span as well as competing with instant gratification. Other than those who "get it", most people get bored listening to instrumental music, whether it's a symphony or a jazz trio. They often seem to prefer the involvement of a singer so at least there's an understandable language to relate to.

It's the same with students- many don't want to put in the long hours required to learn an instrument. I notice it all the time when teaching or doing clinics- you talk for awhile and then become very aware of a general "tuning out" of the students- they just kind of glaze over like a deer in the headlights. Usually I'll try to mix up the talking with playing demonstrations, or try to find a way to keep them involved in some way, but you end up feeling more like an entertainer than an educator or artist.

I taught a 300 student jazz history class once- you know, one of those general ed "cash cows" for the music department. Man, don't think THAT was easy-

I really tried to find ways to keep it interesting and not just a dry lecture class. I felt my responsibility was not only to get them to regurgitate facts, but also to try to nurture a future jazz audience. I used in-class performances, videos, had them do concert reviews (I wish I'd saved some of THOSE!), everything but juggle.

It's hard and frustrating and sometimes I feel like saying "if you're so bored and uninterested then what the f*#@ are you doing here?"

Edited November 12, 2003 by Free For All

[Rooster_Ties]

I really think that, especially with younger people, that we are dealing with a decreasing attention span...

I'm sorry, what were you saying???

I generally agree. For most people, the notion of sitting down and listening to instrumental music (of any kind), for anything longer than about 5 minutes, is probably pure torture.

Then again, I surprise myself at the degree to which going to hear Mahler's 7th Symphony (which is over an hour long), has kept my attention each of the two times I've heard it performed live. (But even one movement into a Mozart or Hayden symphony, and I start to fidget, big time!!)

I think part of it is TV, and especially the younger "MTV" generations (of which I'm almost a part - I'm 34 years old), have been raised to have attention spans that last about 5 or 10 minutes. And when it comes to television news, we all have become ever so used to soundbytes of 20, 15, 10, or even closer to 5 seconds. When was the last time you heard a segment of a political speach that lasted more than a minute?? (Other than on C-SPAN, or maybe PBS)

Most classical music, and I would argue much jazz - is about delayed gratification. That deeper connection you feel with particular tunes, or particular soloists - that only comes with repeated exposure (and at least some focussed listening). I think this is especially true of classical music, where it often takes a dozen or more listens to a large-scale work, before I can even begin to get 'inside' it. (And not just modern works, but even the big works of the 19th Century.)

[Soul Stream]

I went to see George Coleman in Chicago (Jazz Showcase) a few weeks ago and there were about 50 people in attendance. The owner told me that one night during the week, he had about 17 people for 2 shows and this is George Coleman! I have been to a ton of shows there and they do sell out on occasion but many nights there may be 50-100 people total at the show I attend. Benny Golson and the Dave Holland Quartet will be playing soon and I'm sure the attendace will be better but I'm always freaking out at the low attendance during some of these shows. You've got to wonder how long some of these "jazz only" clubs can hang on!

Mark

I've been dumbfounded myself at many weekday shows at major jazz clubs in NYC. Take away the japanese tourist element and it really would look bad.

...but I'll have to quote yet again my favorite Chet Baker line..."The cultural level in the states is dismally low. There's almost no jazz clubs left to play there."

[JSngry]

Not really relevant to the specific topic of this thread, but I have very mixed emotions about the "concert" setting for jazz in general. There's a layer of detatchment between performer and audience that doesn't always jibe with the communal nature of the music.

I'm not too fond of the notion of going someplace where an audience is supposed to sit and recieve. Where's the interaction, the exchange of energies? Although nobody likes the boorish patron who blabbers on constantly, oblivious to the music, what's wrong with just hanging out in an environment where the music is part of the overall fiber of the environment? Doesn't bother me one bit. If anything, I prefer it.

Sure, you can get a good vibe in a concert setting, but the notion that this is "Art" (note the capital "A"), and that the audience is supposed to be reverent and all that shit, well, that's just too much for me more often than not. That's why the outdoor setting seems to work so well so often - people are relaxed, coming out to have FUN, for crissakes, and there ain't a damn thing wrong with that.

Sure, some musics demand a more intimate, quiet setting for full appreciation, but the way I look at it is, if that's what you do, accept the fact that you're going to have a comparatively limited audience, and proceed accordingly. No sense in trying to fit the square peg into the round hole, so to speak. Frustration is too often the result of unrealistic expectations.

If Jane Bunnet's doing her Cuban thing in a venue that does not allow for people to get up and MOVE to the music, that's a fundamental misunderstanding right there. By whom, I can't say. But the notion that sitting and listening reverantly is somehow "better" than being involved in an overall "environment" is not as accurate as often as we might like to believe. If you want to attract a "broad" audience, don't present the music in a setting that requires specialized listening habits, simple as that.

[Joe G]

Good point Jim. I saw Poncho Sanchez in Lansing in a smallish concert venue, and he was obviously frustrated that people weren't dancing. He finally said, in effect, that they weren't going to play if we weren't going to dance. Well, we did, though it was a little awkward dancing in rows of seats.

I personally feel more relaxed when I'm not the sole focus of attention in a room, as long as someone there is digging it.

[Rooster_Ties]

It's "bringing up old threads" day for the Rooster. Hopefully I'll think of something useful to contribute to this one any minute now. Until then, BUMP!!!

[sheldonm]

...on the other hand, I went to see Pat Martino last night in Chicago and the place was packed to the rafters. Pat played for about 75 minutes non-stop and the crowd was diggin' it. Man, that guy can play!!! He makes a point to let the crowd know they could be somewhere else and he appreciates them being there, a very gracious guy!!!! I have heard many people say he is one of the nicest guys in the business and I would have to say he's up there on my list, and I've seen a lot of live shows.

[neveronfriday]

Wow, I must be completely different! I can't wait to find a place where I can sit for an hour or so and not have to talk or listen to someone talk!!! From what I've seen in many clubs, some of the people continue to talk and laugh all through the performance, which pisses me off!

Hooray!

I'm not weird.

Cheers!

[RainyDay]

I went to Yoshi's last month to a sold out show. Yoshi's e-mail machine is going full tilt either because business is really good or slacking off, don't know. Haven't been to any SF Jazz stuff in a year so I don't know how it's doing but I haven't heard that it's doing poorly from friends who go. I'm going to assume (yes I know) that jazz is doing at least okay in the East Bay because more little clubs are popping up and more restaurants are featuring jazz on weekends and for Sunday jams. Reminds me of how things were in the 1970's and 1980's.

SF Jazz concerts tend to be pretty staid affairs. The only concert I can recall where the SF audience went a little nuts was Ahmad Jamal a couple years ago. Yoshi's usually has a pretty responsive crowd. Usually quiet when they are supposed to be but some nights there's way more chatter than necessary. At Yoshi's, someone in the audience will ask you to be quiet if you keep talking. One night, a guy actually brought in his laptop in the middle of a set, turned the thing on and the YELLOW light from the screen was just a little distracting and annoying. Before you could say "what's your problem" a staffer had scurried over to tell him to turn the damn thing off.

I don't love concerts because of the distance, literally and figuratively, between the artists and the audience. I prefer clubs as long as they aren't a place where people go to socialize and not listen. Audiences don't have to be quiet, shouting, clapping, calling out is cool, non stop talking is not cool, which includes explaining every note to your girlfriend--not cool. Maybe this is a guy thing.

The exception is outdoor concerts. Something about being outside that loosens everybody up. More distractions and more talking but somehow it isn't as annoying as an indoor show. It's hard to be bothered by someone talking, at say, Monterey when it looks like that United jet is going to land on the stage.

[Bill Nelson]

Well I sure dug it -- as I wasn't on this scene last November.

(Thanks, Foghorn!)

As for real jazz club booking and concert 'programming' in Athens-Atlanta,

it's a sure way to lose the farm, the inheritance, your shirt and wallet.

You might as well go for a ride in the bronze-handled sedan, serve a 'major'

in the oblong penalty box, or hold the line in the pine phone booth while

waiting for The Man to Pick-up.

But at least you'll have gone out in style while making a joyful noise!