Ageing audience for jazz?

[Steve Reynolds]

So the question is, how does jazz appeal to those people? I think it does not appeal to them at all. There is a huge entertainment deficit in today's jazz, which makes it very off-putting to a great many people today.

These days, people just want to have fun.

I don't think that jazz doesn't appeal to "those people" because "there is a huge entertainment deficit in today's jazz." Rather, as I think you suggest, it's because the kinds of musical entertainment they prefer already amply satisfy their desires to" just ... have fun." If I'm already having lots of fun, why would I go in search of some other ways to do that?

Pondering these problems, there's always a temptation to say that jazz such as it is needs to be significantly other than it is, and then we might be OK. Not that the various ways that jazz is nowadays ought to be regarded with complacency, but my experience over the years has been that if we try to gee up the music's supposed "entertainment deficit," we then won't be OK, or that much better off, in terms of popularity, we'll just have some more music that no one will care that much about or remember after a short while. Hey, what about Windham Hill? That was supposed to be our salvation at one point.

​BTW, that is not to dismiss the important practical points that Allen Lowe made in post #34.

I agree that jazz should not be watered down to try to appeal to a mass audience. However, even in my lifetime I can remember Lionel Hampton, Clark Terry, Dizzy Gillespie, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, Art Ensemble of Chicago, and Sun Ra emphasizing an entertainment aspect in their shows, or at least a lively, friendly interaction with the audience. Charles Mingus, Dexter Gordon and Carla Bley had large personalities and some people went to see them partly to hear their between song comments and just to see them.

I am not aware of anything like that today. I can't name any jazz artist who presents an entertaining, engaging or compelling onstage personality, or who makes their shows entertaining. There are no jazz artists that I can think of who would generate a comment like "oh, he or she is really cool" from a member of the general public.

ICP, William Parker's Quartet, and I would even venture to say Tony Malaby, despite what some feel is his desultory appearance.

The bands I see are mostly highly entertaining *and* musically invigorating.

Almost all the bandleaders are open and warm to the audience and my experience is the audience has plenty of fun.

My belief is that most people just don't love music in the same way that some of us do - and that once they end up with some sort of stable life, they like what they might hear on the radio or see on TV. And the few concerts they might see would be a band from their past (Fleetwood Mac or The Eagles) or something that they heard on hot 97 or whatever the current Top 40 station is where they live.

Same as it ever was, really - but as someone pointed out, music on a deep listening level is simply not as important to as many as it once was as there are a zillion new ways to be "entertained".

Who is going to investigate some wordless sort of music when they aren't even really excited about the music they might currently listen to in between tweeting, surfing on line or watching DVRs of the latest shows or sporting events?!?!

[Lazaro Vega]

Steve Reynolds wrote, "The audience at the concert last week in Montclair, NJ was pretty much a microcosm of the community. Mixed races, ages, sexes, etc. "

That's the jazz audience -- it is everyone who's interested in musical ideas. In our time, the marketing world we live in does not deal with that level of real democratic listenership. It pulls it apart and goes after component parts. And it's so sophisticated that when it encounters the type of challenges faced by marketing jazz, which is more sophisticated than today's marketing model predictors, it's the inability to reach the market that fails, not the music's ability to reach human truths that resonate across the human community.

[Larry Kart]

So the question is, how does jazz appeal to those people? I think it does not appeal to them at all. There is a huge entertainment deficit in today's jazz, which makes it very off-putting to a great many people today.

These days, people just want to have fun.

I don't think that jazz doesn't appeal to "those people" because "there is a huge entertainment deficit in today's jazz." Rather, as I think you suggest, it's because the kinds of musical entertainment they prefer already amply satisfy their desires to" just ... have fun." If I'm already having lots of fun, why would I go in search of some other ways to do that?

Pondering these problems, there's always a temptation to say that jazz such as it is needs to be significantly other than it is, and then we might be OK. Not that the various ways that jazz is nowadays ought to be regarded with complacency, but my experience over the years has been that if we try to gee up the music's supposed "entertainment deficit," we then won't be OK, or that much better off, in terms of popularity, we'll just have some more music that no one will care that much about or remember after a short while. Hey, what about Windham Hill? That was supposed to be our salvation at one point.

​BTW, that is not to dismiss the important practical points that Allen Lowe made in post #34.

I agree that jazz should not be watered down to try to appeal to a mass audience. However, even in my lifetime I can remember Lionel Hampton, Clark Terry, Dizzy Gillespie, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, Art Ensemble of Chicago, and Sun Ra emphasizing an entertainment aspect in their shows, or at least a lively, friendly interaction with the audience. Charles Mingus, Dexter Gordon and Carla Bley had large personalities and some people went to see them partly to hear their between song comments and just to see them.

I am not aware of anything like that today. I can't name any jazz artist who presents an entertaining, engaging or compelling onstage personality, or who makes their shows entertaining. There are no jazz artists that I can think of who would generate a comment like "oh, he or she is really cool" from a member of the general public.

2) I also think that jazz, at a certain point, became too introverted, too shy. Not just in disdaining the entertainment aspect, but even in the way musicians played. As an example, consider the David Sanborn sound: thin, even notes with no vibrato. Contrast that with a Coleman Hawkins or Dexter Gordon - a big meaty sound that can easily fill a room. It's as if men shrank in the last few decades.

But Sanborn, whatever his jazz content might be, has been a very popular figure for a long time now -- probably more so, in terms of record sales, than Dexter Gordon ever was.

[BillF]

So the question is, how does jazz appeal to those people? I think it does not appeal to them at all. There is a huge entertainment deficit in today's jazz, which makes it very off-putting to a great many people today.

These days, people just want to have fun.

I don't think that jazz doesn't appeal to "those people" because "there is a huge entertainment deficit in today's jazz." Rather, as I think you suggest, it's because the kinds of musical entertainment they prefer already amply satisfy their desires to" just ... have fun." If I'm already having lots of fun, why would I go in search of some other ways to do that?

Pondering these problems, there's always a temptation to say that jazz such as it is needs to be significantly other than it is, and then we might be OK. Not that the various ways that jazz is nowadays ought to be regarded with complacency, but my experience over the years has been that if we try to gee up the music's supposed "entertainment deficit," we then won't be OK, or that much better off, in terms of popularity, we'll just have some more music that no one will care that much about or remember after a short while. Hey, what about Windham Hill? That was supposed to be our salvation at one point.

​BTW, that is not to dismiss the important practical points that Allen Lowe made in post #34.

I agree that jazz should not be watered down to try to appeal to a mass audience. However, even in my lifetime I can remember Lionel Hampton, Clark Terry, Dizzy Gillespie, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, Art Ensemble of Chicago, and Sun Ra emphasizing an entertainment aspect in their shows, or at least a lively, friendly interaction with the audience. Charles Mingus, Dexter Gordon and Carla Bley had large personalities and some people went to see them partly to hear their between song comments and just to see them.

I am not aware of anything like that today. I can't name any jazz artist who presents an entertaining, engaging or compelling onstage personality, or who makes their shows entertaining. There are no jazz artists that I can think of who would generate a comment like "oh, he or she is really cool" from a member of the general public.

I'll add another name to your list of artists who "entertain": Pharoah Sanders. He kept a (for jazz) relatively youthful audience well entertained with singing. dancing and clowning (as well as playing superlative tenor) when I saw him at Manchester's Band on the Wall a couple of years ago - but, of course, he belongs to that older generation whom you've listed. Of younger Americans whom I've seen recently - Eric Alexander, Jim Rotondi, Gary Smulyan - there was nothing for those who weren't already committed to the music - which was great, of course. The one exception I can think of from today's guys is Britain's Alan Barnes, a world class saxophonist who, as Bev says, could earn his living as a stand-up comedian if he didn't have the music.

[A Lark Ascending]

1) Jazz got so caught up with "jazz as an art form" that "jazz as entertainment" was dismissed, as if "entertainment" itself is a dirty word.

I think that is the heart of it.

Through most of its existence jazz has been a pretty broad church able to cover a range of music from the easily accessible to the complex, obscure and elliptical. Some people drawn by the former find their way to the latter.

There is still plenty of easy-to-listen to jazz (think of all those Criss Cross albums [which I like!]) but the idiom is one from long ago and hard to connect to from modern popular music.

I don't know what it's like in other parts of the world but there have also been plenty of young bands in Britain mixing up jazz/improvisation with a punkier, ambient or whatever style more familiar to a younger audience - Seb Rochford, a great jazz drummer, constantly says that he listens mainly to alternative rock so it's natural it comes out in what he plays. Yet I'm not sure that approach has done much to win a sustained audience. Bands like Polar Bear and Acoustic Ladyland seemed to be the next big thing ten years ago (I was convinced they were) yet seem to have settled into a marginal place on the edge of jazz and the indie-rock scene.

Part of me feels that it's in the natural order of things for genres to be born, grow and then die. Maybe jazz as we know it (music with a significant amount of improvisation placing a premium on swing and a strong connection with a blues/American popular music tradition) is on its way out. But the heyday of jazz is still in living memory and so music will continue to be made in that tradition to service that group of enthusiasts. But after that... We'd like to believe that some of the jazz made in the 20thC is 'timeless' and that it will continue to be listened to like Bach, Mozart or Beethoven. But I somehow doubt that jazz has enough support from those who decide what will remain in the canon to be kept as a cultural essential in the way classical music is.

I find it hard to believe that the idea of music with a strong improvised element will not continue; but it won't sound like what we are used to. Maybe the sort of music Steve champions is already well down that path.

Edited June 9, 2014 by A Lark Ascending

[Steve Reynolds]

Plus the idea that extended improvisations or continuous playing through different compositions cannot capture the attention of an audience is not accurate based on my experience.

When the music is good, people listen and get into it.

[A Lark Ascending]

Plus the idea that extended improvisations or continuous playing through different compositions cannot capture the attention of an audience is not accurate based on my experience.

When the music is good, people listen and get into it.

Some people will.

But that sort of music has a tiny audience. It might seem otherwise at a dedicated New York or London venue with millions living within commuting distance. I can't imagine many turning out for it in the market town I live in. We don't even get mainstream jazz here!

Remember that in its determination to confront conformity and stereotype much of that music deliberately throws out or disguises the things most people recognise as music - recognisable melody (in the sense of tunes), a danceable beat, standard harmony.

There is no doubt that if you are receptive to having your prejudices about music confronted then it can be enjoyed by anyone. But, as you said earlier, most people's interest in music doesn't go that far (and there's no reason it should).

[BillF]

Part of me feels that it's in the natural order of things for genres to be born, grow and then die. Maybe jazz as we know it (music with a significant amount of improvisation placing a premium on swing and a strong connection with a blues/American popular music tradition) is on its way out. But the heyday of jazz is still in living memory and so music will continue to be made in that tradition to service that group of enthusiasts. But after that... We'd like to believe that some of the jazz made in the 20thC is 'timeless' and that it will continue to be listened to like Bach, Mozart or Beethoven. But I somehow doubt that jazz has enough support from those who decide what will remain in the canon to be kept as a cultural essential in the way classical music is.

Sounds like a fair assessment.

[Steve Reynolds]

Plus the idea that extended improvisations or continuous playing through different compositions cannot capture the attention of an audience is not accurate based on my experience.

When the music is good, people listen and get into it.

Some people will.

But that sort of music has a tiny audience. It might seem otherwise at a dedicated New York or London venue with millions living within commuting distance. I can't imagine many turning out for it in the market town I live in. We don't even get mainstream jazz here!

Remember that in its determination to confront conformity and stereotype much of that music deliberately throws out or disguises the things most people recognise as music - recognisable melody (in the sense of tunes), a danceable beat, standard harmony.

There is no doubt that if you are receptive to having your prejudices about music confronted then it can be enjoyed by anyone. But, as you said earlier, most people's interest in music doesn't go that far (and there's no reason it should).

Agree with all of this. My wife heard the stuff I listen to at home for years and besides a few things, I was forced into listening via headphones. Cecil Taylor scared her and forget about Brotzmann.

But when saw the musicians live it all changed.

She told Nasheet Waits that he should be on Jay Leno

[BillF]

"Remember that in its determination to confront conformity and stereotype much of that music deliberately throws out or disguises the things most people recognise as music - recognisable melody (in the sense of tunes), a danceable beat, standard harmony." (Lark Ascending)

Exactly. My 26-year-old daughter who likes chart pops says the music I play is "just a jumble of sounds" - and that's the Criss Cross "easy listening" you mentioned, Bev!

Edited June 9, 2014 by BillF

[Hot Ptah]

Plus the idea that extended improvisations or continuous playing through different compositions cannot capture the attention of an audience is not accurate based on my experience.

When the music is good, people listen and get into it.

Some people will.

But that sort of music has a tiny audience. It might seem otherwise at a dedicated New York or London venue with millions living within commuting distance. I can't imagine many turning out for it in the market town I live in. We don't even get mainstream jazz here!

Remember that in its determination to confront conformity and stereotype much of that music deliberately throws out or disguises the things most people recognise as music - recognisable melody (in the sense of tunes), a danceable beat, standard harmony.

There is no doubt that if you are receptive to having your prejudices about music confronted then it can be enjoyed by anyone. But, as you said earlier, most people's interest in music doesn't go that far (and there's no reason it should).

Agree with all of this. My wife heard the stuff I listen to at home for years and besides a few things, I was forced into listening via headphones. Cecil Taylor scared her and forget about Brotzmann.

But when saw the musicians live it all changed.

She told Nasheet Waits that he should be on Jay Leno

When I took a contemporary country music fan to see Terri Lyne Carrington's "Money Jungle" tribute concert, she absolutely could not sit through it. She was confused, bored and disliked it. She found absolutely nothing to latch onto in the music.

Terri Lyne said between songs that her goal was to play the blues, but the blues very abstracted, so that there was no direct blues feeling in the blues songs. She succeeded. It was an avant garde, post-modern take on "Money Jungle"--whenever the band came close to playing one of the songs simply and directly, they quickly went outside to avoid actually stating any melody.

Some of the members on this board could admire the craftsmanship in such an approach, the intellectual challenge it presented. One might have their ears challenged, recalling the original album and contrasting it on the fly, to what Carrington and her band were playing instead.

An uninitiated but willing pop music fan found nothing to enjoy, however. This is the album that won the Jazz Grammy last year, too.

This is one person, one concert, but a lot of what we are discussing here is very anecdotal, based on a limited event or experience.

[mjzee]

[Larry Kart]

A passage from my book, FWIW:

'At one time, so the argument goes, jazz musicians were content to think of themselves as entertainers, not self-conscious artists. If the practitioner of modern jazz wants to please himself and his peers first and the audience second, if at all, he must endure the consequences of this unrealistic, willful act.

'The problem with that argument, though, as British saxophonist Bruce Turner says in his whimsically titled autobiography Hot Air, Cool Music, “is that scarcely any jazz musicians are able to recognize this picture of themselves. There are some jazzmen who are great entertainers. Louis Armstrong, Fats Waller, and Lionel Hampton come immediately to mind. But they are the exception, not the rule. For the most part those of us who play jazz for a living do not know any way of entertaining an audience other than by making the best music we are capable of…. The ‘jazz is entertainment’ theory is only about money, when you boil it down. Jazz finds itself sponsored by the entertainment industry, and in return the latter feels entitled to demand its pound of flesh. Fair enough, but why in heaven's name confuse the issue? The distinction between what is done for love and what is done for quick cash is an obvious one.”

[xybert]

Who is going to investigate some wordless sort of music when they aren't even really excited about the music they might currently listen to in between tweeting, surfing on line or watching DVRs of the latest shows or sporting events?!?!

Not to mention playing videogames, which is a billion dollar industry which last i heard had officially eclipsed the movie industry earnings wise. From housewives playing casual games on smart phones to hardcore PC gamers, people are in to gaming. And unlike music they're willing to spend money on it. People will spend thousands on consoles and games; that's a large slice of the disposable income pie right there.

Jazz is not that popular but i think the age of traditional popularity, household names etc, in pretty much any genre, is largely over. It was a blip.

Having said that, i think if promoted in the right way jazz could at least reach more of the young/alternative audience. At the end of the day jazz is a different language to what most people grew up with. What motivation does anyone have to learn a second language if they don't need it? Also, it's a fact of life that factors other than the music itself come in to play = for most people jazz is a faceless, contextless music. When we pick up an album and look at the personnel we sense the history of the players and everything that comes with it: "whoa i wonder what Dude X will sound like with Dude Y on bass prior to that period of his playing." For most people however the personnel are a list of random names that carry no weight whatsoever. I've often thought that if a listener listened to an album not as a 'jazz' album but as an experimental album from one of their favourite alt bands it would be a mind opener.

I'm 33 and starting getting in to jazz at around 25. FWIW here's what i thought pre-indoctrination:

- In general i disliked brass.

- The saxophone is the least cool instrument on the planet. In the eighties when i was growing up it seemed like every horrible pop song and cheesy sitcom theme featured a corny saxophone solo.

- As a hip hop fan, i'd often check out jazz due to enjoying songs with jazzy samples. It always felt like it was missing something without the beat. Vacant, lacking.

- Beats. I can't stress enough how used we are to hearing a strong kick snare four four beat and how wrong it feels to not have it there (in hindsight this is weird as i dug film music and other stuff that didn't have a beat).

- That 'tss t t tss t t tss' and walking bass line thing made me want to slit my wrists.

- Sometimes i'd enjoy the heads but i found solos to be completely tedious. Listening to Kind of Blue it was like a switch when the solos would start, like the carpet was being pulled out from under my ears.

- Beats. No beats. No good.

- Funny thing is i don't even remember consciously thinking that jazz was old or dead or whatever. People don't give it that much thought.

[ejp626]

A passage from my book, FWIW:

'At one time, so the argument goes, jazz musicians were content to think of themselves as entertainers, not self-conscious artists. If the practitioner of modern jazz wants to please himself and his peers first and the audience second, if at all, he must endure the consequences of this unrealistic, willful act.

'The problem with that argument, though, as British saxophonist Bruce Turner says in his whimsically titled autobiography Hot Air, Cool Music, “is that scarcely any jazz musicians are able to recognize this picture of themselves. ...

The distinction between what is done for love and what is done for quick cash is an obvious one.”

I would have to strongly disagree with the last statement. People very quickly rationalize what it is that they are doing (essentially a cash grab) as something artistic. Maybe not the first album of pop hits, but certainly by number 4, 5 or 6. (I'm looking at you, Bud Shank.)

I think there is no question that jazz musicians are put in this terrible bind. If they do covers that end up being cheesy (which is no means all of them), they are accused of selling out. If they refuse to play standards, then they are stuck up and helping to kill off an art form. Most of us want something right between these two poles, but we all have different view where that middle path should be. And of course, a relatively small minority really do want the avant stuff.

I would generally agree with Bev, that if you are in New York, London or Chicago (the Empty Bottle), you can find a mixed audience enthusiastic about even the most out music, but this really is not the case elsewhere where the crowds are older, white and musically quite conservative. Over time, I've joined this crowd and developed a real distaste for out music (and seeing this played live has not helped matters at all!). I certainly see contemporary jazz musicians as chasing the fringe of the fringe of the fringe, and I don't think the long term prospects are particularly good, either financially or musically.

[Hot Ptah]

Who is going to investigate some wordless sort of music when they aren't even really excited about the music they might currently listen to in between tweeting, surfing on line or watching DVRs of the latest shows or sporting events?!?!

Not to mention playing videogames, which is a billion dollar industry which last i heard had officially eclipsed the movie industry earnings wise. From housewives playing casual games on smart phones to hardcore PC gamers, people are in to gaming. And unlike music they're willing to spend money on it. People will spend thousands on consoles and games; that's a large slice of the disposable income pie right there.

Jazz is not that popular but i think the age of traditional popularity, household names etc, in pretty much any genre, is largely over. It was a blip.

Having said that, i think if promoted in the right way jazz could at least reach more of the young/alternative audience. At the end of the day jazz is a different language to what most people grew up with. What motivation does anyone have to learn a second language if they don't need it? Also, it's a fact of life that factors other than the music itself come in to play = for most people jazz is a faceless, contextless music. When we pick up an album and look at the personnel we sense the history of the players and everything that comes with it: "whoa i wonder what Dude X will sound like with Dude Y on bass prior to that period of his playing." For most people however the personnel are a list of random names that carry no weight whatsoever. I've often thought that if a listener listened to an album not as a 'jazz' album but as an experimental album from one of their favourite alt bands it would be a mind opener.

I'm 33 and starting getting in to jazz at around 25. FWIW here's what i thought pre-indoctrination:

- In general i disliked brass.

- The saxophone is the least cool instrument on the planet. In the eighties when i was growing up it seemed like every horrible pop song and cheesy sitcom theme featured a corny saxophone solo.

- As a hip hop fan, i'd often check out jazz due to enjoying songs with jazzy samples. It always felt like it was missing something without the beat. Vacant, lacking.

- Beats. I can't stress enough how used we are to hearing a strong kick snare four four beat and how wrong it feels to not have it there (in hindsight this is weird as i dug film music and other stuff that didn't have a beat).

- That 'tss t t tss t t tss' and walking bass line thing made me want to slit my wrists.

- Sometimes i'd enjoy the heads but i found solos to be completely tedious. Listening to Kind of Blue it was like a switch when the solos would start, like the carpet was being pulled out from under my ears.

- Beats. No beats. No good.

- Funny thing is i don't even remember consciously thinking that jazz was old or dead or whatever. People don't give it that much thought.

Your pre-indoctrination thoughts are exactly the type of things I hear from my business clients and other people I have to socialize with for business. This may be shocking to those on this board, but a lot of educated adults, successful in a career, cannot identify a trumpet or saxophone when they see one in person--and they certainly cannot identify the sound of either instrument. When they do hear the sound of a trumpet or saxophone, they tune it out, "know" that they don't like it. It is all just too foreign to them. These are not dumb people by any means.

Also, many of these educated, successful people do not like to hear all-instrumental music, and do not like to hear many solos, or any extended solos. To them, soloing is "not music."

Finally, your point about the beats is so true. So many people I have been meeting can only listen to music with the hip hop beat behind it. Otherwise it is too strange to them.

Also, I love your comment that "people don't give it that much thought." That has been my experience. It is not that people dislike jazz. It is that they never think of jazz at all. It is like saying to me, do you dislike the folk music of Western Mongolia? I have never thought of it, one way or the other.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Hot Ptah

[Steve Reynolds]

Who is going to investigate some wordless sort of music when they aren't even really excited about the music they might currently listen to in between tweeting, surfing on line or watching DVRs of the latest shows or sporting events?!?!

Not to mention playing videogames, which is a billion dollar industry which last i heard had officially eclipsed the movie industry earnings wise. From housewives playing casual games on smart phones to hardcore PC gamers, people are in to gaming. And unlike music they're willing to spend money on it. People will spend thousands on consoles and games; that's a large slice of the disposable income pie right there.

Jazz is not that popular but i think the age of traditional popularity, household names etc, in pretty much any genre, is largely over. It was a blip.

Having said that, i think if promoted in the right way jazz could at least reach more of the young/alternative audience. At the end of the day jazz is a different language to what most people grew up with. What motivation does anyone have to learn a second language if they don't need it? Also, it's a fact of life that factors other than the music itself come in to play = for most people jazz is a faceless, contextless music. When we pick up an album and look at the personnel we sense the history of the players and everything that comes with it: "whoa i wonder what Dude X will sound like with Dude Y on bass prior to that period of his playing." For most people however the personnel are a list of random names that carry no weight whatsoever. I've often thought that if a listener listened to an album not as a 'jazz' album but as an experimental album from one of their favourite alt bands it would be a mind opener.

I'm 33 and starting getting in to jazz at around 25. FWIW here's what i thought pre-indoctrination:

- In general i disliked brass.

- The saxophone is the least cool instrument on the planet. In the eighties when i was growing up it seemed like every horrible pop song and cheesy sitcom theme featured a corny saxophone solo.

- As a hip hop fan, i'd often check out jazz due to enjoying songs with jazzy samples. It always felt like it was missing something without the beat. Vacant, lacking.

- Beats. I can't stress enough how used we are to hearing a strong kick snare four four beat and how wrong it feels to not have it there (in hindsight this is weird as i dug film music and other stuff that didn't have a beat).

- That 'tss t t tss t t tss' and walking bass line thing made me want to slit my wrists.

- Sometimes i'd enjoy the heads but i found solos to be completely tedious. Listening to Kind of Blue it was like a switch when the solos would start, like the carpet was being pulled out from under my ears.

- Beats. No beats. No good.

- Funny thing is i don't even remember consciously thinking that jazz was old or dead or whatever. People don't give it that much thought.

I started listening to jazz when I was ~ 31 or so.

My first thought was:

1) where the fuck are the drums? I was used to rock music.

It took a few weeks to hear the music and it was Mingus at Antibes that did it.

I then bought a zillion classic recordings and started listening to more current music including 70's and 80's Waldron, Murray, Hemphill, Lake and Rivers, etc.

I started hearing something extraordinary about hearing music that to me was without limitations and very energetic and exciting.

Seeing Trio 3 helped. Seeing Evan Parker roar on tenor with Dresser and Previte had me hooked on the "avant-garde"

[CJ Shearn]

xybert makes a GREAT point that the personnel on records (the "tree" that leads to other branches) is insignificant to most people. I have some friends who like jazz, but they like the sound and or mood, they could care less why the Freddie Hubbard/Wayne/Curtis Fuller lineup of the Jazz Messengers is significant, or why we go nuts over Miles' Second and Lost Quintets. One of my best friends has told me maybe I can help her get into jazz but she knows her tastes pretty well (a lot of pop music from all over Asia, and classical) and its unlikely she'll share a passion for it. Then there is the reality of someone else I know, really likes a lot of jazz after have been exposed to samples in hip hop, and he likes some "real" stuff(Weather Report, Herbie, Pat Metheny- although the albums I really like, such as "Tap" he tends to dislike , RTF) but often because he really loves disco also, he goes for albums in my opinion that are near the bottom of an artists' catalog like "Sit on It" by JOS, all the Mizell produced Donald Byrd stuff, their Johnny Hammond productions, a lot of Arista/GRP stuff......... we aren't the audience for those records these days, (those some here do love those for what they are)

A whole new generation loves those mid 70's and early 80's albums, in a way those of us who have straight ahead as a base just don't. I consider my tastes in jazz pretty wide, but because I find certain 70's albums or GRP albums pretty dated, some people see it as snobby, good if generic playing on many of them, which just doesn't hit me. I like the GRP albums that don't sound like typical GRP (Michael Brecker: Now You See it Now You Don't, "Greenhouse" by the Yellowjackets, "Reunion" by Gary Burton) there's a reason those albums on that label overflow used bins, IMO. Once a few listeners wanted to go further and found out there was better stuff, and they took an interest in it, or their tastes changed, the GRP stuff went out the window. Then again, the main issue is most people just want nice background music, even for the crate diggers who check out the original albums from some of those 70's BN or GRP samples, since they are way too young to remember when CD 101.9 and stations of that ilk played that stuff, they love the vibe.

Jazz is getting to a younger fans through Robert Glasper, Chris Dave, Derrick Hodge ("Live Today" is very good) Jose James, Ben Williams, but why aren't those records like Black Radio crossing over on the radio, and on what's left of music videos? maybe because still, the musical content is too deep for people who enjoy stuff like T.I. Nicki Minaj, etc....... that's nothing new though either, when I was 12 when Us3 hit big with "Cantaloop", that stuff never really crossed over to the kids into mainstream hip hop. There's some cool stuff on like, "Triumph of the Heavy" by Marcus Strickland, but most people won't want to hear it. That's OK. Most people don't wanna hear Trane, Dizzy, that's ok too.

Edited June 10, 2014 by CJ Shearn

[SwingItTrev]

You just have to look in the right places...

2000 (mostly 20-somethings) at last month's Frankie 100 Festival in NYC:

[SwingItTrev]

More evidence:

Jazz can be cool again because it's not mainstream. It can be the hip alternative. You just have to connect with them somehow. Make them dance. Make it a party.

[JohnS]

Some while ago Jazz Services in the UK commissioned a report on growing club audiences and attracting younger people. Their main conclusion was "don't mention Jazz".

[John L]

At the end of the day jazz is a different language to what most people grew up with. What motivation does anyone have to learn a second language if they don't need it?

That is a very good analogy. And if developing an appreciation for jazz used to be something like learning French, in today's world it is more like Chinese, at least for mainstream jazz. People at least used to recognize the standards from pop radio, and it was often just a matter of following how they were getting jazzed up. You might also Jitterbug a little while you were trying to do that. (Of course, Bird and Diz were already playing Chinese jazz back in the 40s.)

Jazz is also something like mathematics. Once you invest the time and effort to come to grips with it, the appeal and logic of it seems obvious. But it is hard to put yourself in the shoes of a teenager today hearing classic jazz for the first time.

Edited June 10, 2014 by John L

[BillF]

It's easy to forget that the decline in jazz audience numbers and some of the possible reasons aired here have been around for fifty years. Marc Myers has this to say in his book Why Jazz Happened about the situation in the era of the Beatles:

"By the mid-1960s, the pop-rock market was so lucrative that many record companies shifted their resources away from less profitable divisions, like jazz. In the early rock era, the youth market increasingly viewed jazz as overly sophisticated and glum, played by musicians who tended to be puzzlingly temperamental and withdrawn. Jazz's market now was found in cities, among introspective intellectuals who seemed to revel in the music's rarified and exclusionary status."

Jazz may have been smelling funny for a long time, but it's taking a heck of a time to die!

Edited June 10, 2014 by BillF

[Van Basten II]

Before announcing that this art form is going the way of the dodo you have to think that It also depends of the musicians playing some are able to relate to younger crowd, either by their way of playing or their repertoire a guy like Paal Nilssen-Love will attract a younger crowd , The Bad Plus, EST and Neil Cowley have an overwhelming young fanbase. Meldhau who has included Radihead among others in his repertoire generally attracts an hipper crowd. Same thing with Robert Glasper. In all these case mentionned I would say that the age average was a lot younger than more" traditional acts ".

[Hot Ptah]

It's easy to forget that the decline in jazz audience numbers and some of the possible reasons aired here have been around for fifty years. Marc Myers has this to say in his book Why Jazz Happened about the situation in the era of the Beatles:

"By the mid-1960s, the pop-rock market was so lucrative that many record companies shifted their resources away from less profitable divisions, like jazz. In the early rock era, the youth market increasingly viewed jazz as overly sophisticated and glum, played by musicians who tended to be puzzlingly temperamental and withdrawn. Jazz's market now was found in cities, among introspective intellectuals who seemed to revel in the music's rarified and exclusionary status."

Jazz may have been smelling funny for a long time, but it's taking a heck of a time to die!

"introspective Individuals Who Seem to Revel in the Music's Rarified and Exclusionary Status"--what a marketing slogan for an online jazz forum!