Can Jazz Be Saved?

[AllenLowe]

to sum up - the only way to make jazz and improvised music viable (and I don't really believe this will ever happen) is to

1) locate and identify the network of clubs who book the music

2) organize them into a national coop

3) tap into some better known musicians who believe in the coop idea, as basically bait for lesser knowns;

4) locate and id the national audience; there's enough there for sustenance, even if they are small in numbers compared to some other forms -

5) book this network of clubs on a national basis, and make sure bands and clubs share the work and don't, as usually happens on local scenes, monopolize one club and kill the scene through overexposure and boredom -

that would be a start, but it will not happen in my lifetime, as, in my experience, musicians are too self-destructive professionally, and can never really look at the big picture - they will just grab all available gigs, and will not do anything that appears to benefit them less than others -

Edited August 15, 2009 by AllenLowe

[rockefeller center]

SAVE "JAZZ",8

Edited August 15, 2009 by rockefeller center

[AllenLowe]

it's time for real and practical tactics - as one navigates the non-profit world one realizes that they are unable to really do anything but hold conferences and establish committees. It is one of the things that has killed the music, as a LOT of resources and money have been squandered in this way. I spent a few years with the New England Foundation as they wasted all the money given them by the Leila Wallace Fund to, allegedly, change the way the music was organized among non-profit presenters. All the cash ended up going to the same old same old acts - good acts, yes, but musicians who did not need the subsidy - when I objected strenuously to what was happening I was "rotated" off the committee - about 2 years later an internal auditor for Leila Wallace issued a report which was highly critical of the way the money had been administered, and who, as I heard, gave the same criticisms that I gave. But they would not let anyone on the outside see the report.

that's why I think we need to just do it - sponsor venues and performers, and match the two. But I truly believe that, at this point, it is a hopeless task. If the non-profits can't do it, how can we leave it to 1) musicians and 2) club owners, who bare basically 1) flakes and 2) businessmen?

Edited August 15, 2009 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

Hmmm....flakes and businessmen had a pretty good run there...but then they both forgot, each in their own way, that making money was a game as much as it was a war...the war took over, flakes turned into pacifists, businessmen into mercenaries, and the game all but was left behind.

Too bad.

[DMP]

In what must be a first, Ramsey Lewis has a letter in today's "Journal" responding to that article.

[Larry Kart]

it's time for real and practical tactics - as one navigates the non-profit world one realizes that they are unable to really do anything but hold conferences and establish committees. It is one of the things that has killed the music, as a LOT of resources and money have been squandered in this way. I spent a few years with the New England Foundation as they wasted all the money given them by the Leila Wallace Fund to, allegedly, change the way the music was organized among non-profit presenters. All the cash ended up going to the same old same old acts - good acts, yes, but musicians who did not need the subsidy - when I objected strenuously to what was happening I was "rotated" off the committee - about 2 years later an internal auditor for Leila Wallace issued a report which was highly critical of the way the money had been administered, and who, as I heard, gave the same criticisms that I gave. But they would not let anyone on the outside see the report.

that's why I think we need to just do it - sponsor venues and performers, and match the two. But I truly believe that, at this point, it is a hopeless task. If the non-profits can't do it, how can we leave it to 1) musicians and 2) club owners, who bare basically 1) flakes and 2) businessmen?

True stories above, but on the part of the Chicago scene that I'm plugged into, for the last decade or so the musicians (or some of them -- the right ones, informally selected by the community) have been the "presenters" too and have been taking care of business in all respects like you wouldn't believe. For sure, many talented musicians wouldn't want to, and/or couldn't take on that role, but it has been and is being done.

[Teasing the Korean]

Oh, Christ, I accidentally killed jazz. I'm so sorry.

[AllenLowe]

its heartening to hear, per Larry, that such organization can or has happened. The reasons it so rarely happens are probably more complicated than those which I indicated in my last post; it's just that, in my life, I've been around this block too many times to have any confidence that it might happen on any large scale. Ultimately it's a money issue and might be resolved with enough resources; but with the arts in this country, most money goes to organizations and what ends up in performers' hand is a matter of trickle down economics.

In Portland nearly everybody is playing for free, even in venues where the bar/restaurant owners are taking in thousands of dollars per night. My feeling has always been that if you are going to work for nothing it's better to organize your own performances in alternative spaces, where at least you know you are getting an accurate accounting. It's more work in the short run, but more musically and financially rewarding in the long run.

Edited August 15, 2009 by AllenLowe

[Guest Bill Barton]

Allen and Larry have made some really good points in the last few posts on this thread. Here in Seattle, we have a number of grassroots organizations that are taking care of business. Earshot Jazz, The Monktail Creative Music Concern, Gallery 1412 and Wayward Music Series all are doing their part to keep jazz, creative improvised music of many stripes and experimental music thriving. The key word is "grassroots." Musicians and fans working together is the way to go. We can't rely on business or arts organizations.

[JSngry]

Well, won't musicians and fans working together eventually (if not sooner) become de facto businesses and/or arts organizations?

[Guest Bill Barton]

Yes, I suppose so, but I'm referring to cooperatives rather than the politics-hobbled non-profit arts organizations such as those Allen referenced in his post.

[JSngry]

Yeah, I know. But it's been my experience that sooner or later...

But if there's exceptions that prove the rule (and no doubt there are), then so much the better.

[A Lark Ascending]

It seems to be as hard as it's ever been to survive as a jazz musician in the UK - and yet there's no end of new musicians appearing in a multitude of jazz styles and substyles. Plenty of festivals and concerts (both national and international).

There's a pretty strong movement here at present that is aiming at the youth market - not so much industry generated as musician generated. Young musicians who trained as jazz musicians but who were listening to indie-pop or rap or drum'n bass etc and want to include that in their music. Some of the most successful bands of recent years - Acoustic Ladyland, Polar Bear etc - have gone straight for the indie-rock audience. Of course, this can lead them to losing some of their jazz listeners (I've become less enthusiastic because I'm not keen on punk stylings or the repetitive drum/bass thing)...but that has always been the price that absorbing ideas from outside of the jazz mainstream has had to pay. It has to happen. We're not talking hear about popular bands aiming to get rich quick but young musicians who have a training in jazz but who want to be linked with their own generation.

As to how far this can draw younger people into listening to the central jazz canon, I'm more sceptical. I was at a double bill a few months back- started with the Portico Quartet, a fairly lightweight semi-minimalist group who won a national prize, got on radio and therefore had the place packed with a very young and enthusiastic crowd. However, vast numbers left once their set was over, not prepared to give the Bojan Zulfikarpašić quartet a chance. Now the latter was hardly playing 'When the Saints Go Marching In' or 'Take Five' - it was an intense, burning set, including the ultra-hip drummer from Acoustic Ladyland/Polar Bear - but most of the younger crowd never gave it a chance.

I've seen a number of jazz 'revivals' here over the years (i.e situations where the arts pages of the national press and the major record labels notice it for a while) but they don't last. Yet the music still thrives and new players continue to well up in a variety of settings - everything from the indie-jazz bands I mention through hard bop types (Empirical) to almost West Coast revivalists (Allison Neale). Like big bands, jazz ain't coming back...but I think it's always going to be here.

Someone mentioned earlier that adults aren't as interested in music as they once were - I think that's very true in general; there are far more alternatives to leisure time activity than there were even in the mid-70s when I got hooked. But I think there will always be enough of an interested audience for music that strays off the motorways and onto the country lanes (and even the rugged footpaths) to sustain musics like jazz. But no-one is going to get rich doing it.

[fasstrack]

To sort of merge this with an earlier dicussion on education, b/c the two are closely linked:

I'm temporarily holed up in a jazz desert: W. Palm Beach, Fla. Been going to the one jam session in town just to get out and meet people. There are young players here (and I mean young), either already in university or about to go. I guess it's either U. of Miami or a local college.

But two disturbing things I see: first, these sincere young people----some of whom can play a bit already (it's a different standard, I think, the students in NY seem way advanced)---go back very little to the roots of their respective influences. It's normal for young people to do this, I realize, but copying copycats is not a way to get to the real goodies and find oneself. The other, more disturbing thing: there is no work for these people. I spoke to a young guitar player who wants very much to do this (his father is a drummer who, I'm sure, encourages him) but he says there's nowhere to play. To play, not gig. He was asking me how I learned and I said I bugged people who knew more than me and tried to sit in, etc. I wanted to be encouraging, hating people who shoot down dreams. But I also wanted this young man to have a realistic view. I told him and his dad he's gonna have to get out of W. Palm Beach to learn anything and to hang in. If he comes, say, to NY ironically, he may well wind up being part of the problem that made it so hard on me and other older pros: kids competing for the same jobs and underselling or doing it for nothing for the experience/exposure.

I think these schools, along with teaching the work of popular players (I understand it's a business and asses need to be in seats) should teach their predecessors (sp?) to let these kids know what's happening. I'm sure the good teachers do, despite what I saw last night. But the main thing is: what does the future hold for these kids after they leave the nest? What innovative people will provide money and programs to make this a viable pursuit for people just starting?

Edited August 17, 2009 by fasstrack

[Jazzmoose]

I find that post a bit surprising. Were you guys who are musicians surprised to find out that it's a horrible career choice money-wise? I mean, it was obvious to me that unless you were incredibly lucky (and, of course, had the sense to be into rock or country; rap wasn't around yet) that wanting to be a professional musician either meant a teaching gig, or else you were like the kid on the playground who was "going to play in the NBA". I don't mean this as a putdown; I just assumed that people who were musicians were just so devoted to their music that they had no choice in what they did rather than they expected to make a decent living at it.

I hope this post doesn't come across as snide; I don't mean it that way at all!

[Lazaro Vega]

Ramsey Lewis responds:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0291383166.html

[rockefeller center]

Ramsey Lewis responds:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0291383166.html

That's some naive stuff.

Edited August 18, 2009 by rockefeller center

[Drew Peacock]

I"m not nearly as pessimistic about the future of jazz as stated in the original article. There are signs that the youth market is moving away from the pop music found on most FM radio stations into a much broader spectrum of music. They enjoy finding new bands that are unknown. They are much more willing to experiment and purchase a single by an unknown after hearing a clip on itunes.

I do think that the article makes a valid point about needing to market to the young. There are plenty of studies that show that children are able to pick up a 2nd language much more quickly than an adult. I feel that the same applies to jazz. One only needs to look around to the current jazz musicians as futher evidence. Many many of them had parents that were either performing musicians or at least had a wide varity of music to listen to when growing up. This early exposure leads to better understanding, deeper listening, and a wider acceptance of music in general.

I never understood why musicians do not perform free concerts in schools as a way of marketing themselves. Heck, it's a daytime gig so it's not likely lost income from another paying job. I remember hearing bands when I was in High School. I distinctly recall having the Air Force Jazz Band perform at my school which had a lasting impression on me. I see little downside in marketing jazz this way and would expect that most schools would embrace these types of programs. They want to offer programs that exposure students to the Arts but have great difficulty due to dismal budgets.

[rockefeller center]

I"m not nearly as pessimistic about the future of jazz as stated in the original article. There are signs that the youth market is moving away from the pop music found on most FM radio stations into a much broader spectrum of music. They enjoy finding new bands that are unknown. They are much more willing to experiment and purchase a single by an unknown after hearing a clip on itunes.

I do think that the article makes a valid point about needing to market to the young. There are plenty of studies that show that children are able to pick up a 2nd language much more quickly than an adult. I feel that the same applies to jazz. One only needs to look around to the current jazz musicians as futher evidence. Many many of them had parents that were either performing musicians or at least had a wide varity of music to listen to when growing up. This early exposure leads to better understanding, deeper listening, and a wider acceptance of music in general.

I never understood why musicians do not perform free concerts in schools as a way of marketing themselves. Heck, it's a daytime gig so it's not likely lost income from another paying job. I remember hearing bands when I was in High School. I distinctly recall having the Air Force Jazz Band perform at my school which had a lasting impression on me. I see little downside in marketing jazz this way and would expect that most schools would embrace these types of programs. They want to offer programs that exposure students to the Arts but have great difficulty due to dismal budgets.

What?

Ah, nevermind.

[Drew Peacock]

What? I'm interested in your perspective. I was referencing the original article, not Ramsey's which I admit I haven't read.

[Larry Kart]

Ramsey Lewis responds:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0291383166.html

Dress for success.

[Jim Alfredson]

SAVE "JAZZ",8

So what part of jazz are "we" trying to save? The artistic part or the part that makes money, because the latter hasn't been true in a long time!

The former is quite healthy. We've already discussed briefly current artists who are pushing things forward.

I'll never forget my late father remarking on hearing the rough mixes for our album "Groovadelphia":

"Wow. It's really great. But aren't you concerned about turning off some of your fans?"

And I said, "There are billions more people that don't know about us than do!"

Got to take some risks.

[A Lark Ascending]

A view on the current British scene from trumpeter Henry Lowther (check your Collier, Westbrook, LJCO etc records, not to mention a fair few 70s rock records)...I stumbled on it whilst looking for something else:

What do you think of today's Jazz Scene?

It's often said that jazz is dead but won't lie down! In many ways this is true but it is also true that jazz is having a harder time than ever these days. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is a lack of interest and therefore a lack of exposure in the media. One possible effect of this is that, with some exceptions, the average age of the jazz audience is now about my age (in my 60s) and young people are not being attracted to the music. Jazz has always been a bit maverick in the sense that neither the media, the music industry, the broadcasters or the Arts establishment can decide what to do with it. Is it high brow art music or low brow light entertainment? Of course it's neither or both, some of it is and some of it isn't. The present Government has not been supportive either, even obstructive, with it's insane and irrational Premises Licence Act which came into force in November, 2005. I know of a number of venues that no longer host live music events because they couldn't be bothered with the red tape or weren't prepared to meet the extra costs involved. On a more optimistic note there are dozens of wonderful and many outstanding young jazz musicians emerging and they all do it for no other reason than love of the music. In London there are now one or two venues which these young musicians run and organise themselves and, indeed, they are also attracting a young audience. I wish them all well! They deserve to be supported as much as possible.

http://www.artsinleicestershire.co.uk/jazzinleicestershire/

[Guest Bill Barton]

Ramsey Lewis responds:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0291383166.html

That's some naive stuff.

At the risk of sounding naive myself, I have to admit that I can see where he's coming from with that "dress for success" thing (as Larry succinctly summed it up.) Problem is, does anyone really think that the freaking three-piece-suit thing is going to attract younger audiences? Right. I do think that dressing differently from how one dresses "on the street" when one is on-stage may be wise. Otherwise it may appear that you're practicing in public.

Ramsey Lewis? Wait a minute. Has he produced any music of substance at all since the Argo/Cadet days? I'd venture the opinion that his career path is a perfect example of what's wrong with the idea of catering to the lowest common denominator.

[fasstrack]

I find that post a bit surprising. Were you guys who are musicians surprised to find out that it's a horrible career choice money-wise? I mean, it was obvious to me that unless you were incredibly lucky (and, of course, had the sense to be into rock or country; rap wasn't around yet) that wanting to be a professional musician either meant a teaching gig, or else you were like the kid on the playground who was "going to play in the NBA". I don't mean this as a putdown; I just assumed that people who were musicians were just so devoted to their music that they had no choice in what they did rather than they expected to make a decent living at it.

I hope this post doesn't come across as snide; I don't mean it that way at all!

Whose post?