Last weekend while looking for a movie review, I came across this
article in the Wall Street Journal by Terry Teachout. Those of you who
have been kind enough to read this blog know that the business side of
music is a topic I think about and comment on from time to time. The
challenges to expanding the audience for jazz and standards are both
specific to the genre, but also reflect of the state of the music
business in general and the changing role of music in our culture. For
the sake of brevity I will just address the issues Teachout mentions in
his article. Although that's a joke because I have so much to say on
this topic, it's impossible for me to be brief!! Also, when I talk
about "jazz", I'm talking about both instrumental and vocal jazz, and I
also include traditional pop/standards in my thinking as well.
As someone who started singing standards and listening to jazz in the 1980s when it had yet to become re-emerge as a fashionable trend, I am very aware of the challenges this genre faces, because I have been living it my whole life. Most people born in 1956-57 going forward are not familiar with standards or jazz. (I use these dates, because these are the years during which Elvis Presley started appearing on national television.) When I started in the 1980s, this group consisted of people aged 30 and under. Two decades on this group is now aged 50 and under. Given this observation, data demonstrating that the jazz audience is aging, and increasingly similar to the generational demographics of other fine arts audiences, is not in the least bit surprising.
As much as I am happy to see an article about this topic in a major publication, I have some issues with this article. Teachout seems to accept the idea of jazz as "fine art," whereas I have very mixed feelings about it. Unfortunately in this country we do not place much emphasis on cultural history, so thinking of jazz as a "fine art" benefits the music somewhat. It establishes the idea that the music is worthy of respect, study, and a certain stature. Institutionalizing jazz through the types of organizations found in classical music - concert halls (Jazz at Lincoln Center, comes to mind here) and conservatories - builds the genre's legitimacy and gives it a physical presence. "Fine art" suggests a certain level of seriousness, and I believe that it is only natural for those within this genre to want to be taken seriously.
On the flip side the idea of jazz as a "fine art" only compounds the notorious insularity of both jazz musicians and jazz audiences. This trend of course gathered steam in the 1960s among jazz musicians rejecting the showmanship of an earlier era, represented by artists such as Cab Calloway. Nowadays I am no longer shocked, but I am disappointed, when I read interviews of jazz artists who openly disdain today's popular culture. It's just not the way to make new friends. I understand what it is like to be passionate about something of which most of your peers and the society at large are ignorant. I know that musicians by and large are anti-social nerds who love to practice, because I am one of them. However, I think that insularity, as a defense mechanism, is really counter-productive.
I disagree with Teachout's acceptance of jazz musicians as artists in a sophisticated art form, but not entertainers. Ultimately, audiences want to be entertained, and that's no different whether its a rock concert or a jazz concert or a classical music concert. I accept the fact that I am both an entertainer and an artist, and consider the entertainment part of what I do to be like audience outreach. I don't think that considering oneself an entertainer devalues the music. On the contrary I think that being an entertainer involves the audience more and makes them more interested in the music. I suppose that I am lucky, because my work is very accessible. What I do has a broad appeal, yet I don't feel like I am compromising my creativity. In my opinion though thinking of yourself as an artist alone, regardless of the kind of music you make, will only limit your audience, not expand it.
Returning to the topic of the music itself, I get the impression that when Teachout talks about "jazz" he is referring to the more traditional, straight-ahead forms of jazz and maybe some of the stuff considered more avant-garde. Based on my experience, I just don't think that this segment of the genre will turn the uninitiated/previously uninterested into regular audience members. Teachout justly acknowledges that the kids who were more interested in "California Girls" and "The Tracks of My Tears" than "A Love Supreme" in 1965, still probably have the same musical preferences. Coincidentally, the New York Times published an article during this past week referencing a Pew Research Center study which found that, "Every age group from 16 through 64 listens to rock 'n' roll more than any other format." As I have previously written, "It's just unreasonable to expect someone who grew up listening to rock or r&b or hip-hop or world music to readily take to bebop or retro standards."
As someone who started singing standards and listening to jazz in the 1980s when it had yet to become re-emerge as a fashionable trend, I am very aware of the challenges this genre faces, because I have been living it my whole life. Most people born in 1956-57 going forward are not familiar with standards or jazz. (I use these dates, because these are the years during which Elvis Presley started appearing on national television.) When I started in the 1980s, this group consisted of people aged 30 and under. Two decades on this group is now aged 50 and under. Given this observation, data demonstrating that the jazz audience is aging, and increasingly similar to the generational demographics of other fine arts audiences, is not in the least bit surprising.
As much as I am happy to see an article about this topic in a major publication, I have some issues with this article. Teachout seems to accept the idea of jazz as "fine art," whereas I have very mixed feelings about it. Unfortunately in this country we do not place much emphasis on cultural history, so thinking of jazz as a "fine art" benefits the music somewhat. It establishes the idea that the music is worthy of respect, study, and a certain stature. Institutionalizing jazz through the types of organizations found in classical music - concert halls (Jazz at Lincoln Center, comes to mind here) and conservatories - builds the genre's legitimacy and gives it a physical presence. "Fine art" suggests a certain level of seriousness, and I believe that it is only natural for those within this genre to want to be taken seriously.
On the flip side the idea of jazz as a "fine art" only compounds the notorious insularity of both jazz musicians and jazz audiences. This trend of course gathered steam in the 1960s among jazz musicians rejecting the showmanship of an earlier era, represented by artists such as Cab Calloway. Nowadays I am no longer shocked, but I am disappointed, when I read interviews of jazz artists who openly disdain today's popular culture. It's just not the way to make new friends. I understand what it is like to be passionate about something of which most of your peers and the society at large are ignorant. I know that musicians by and large are anti-social nerds who love to practice, because I am one of them. However, I think that insularity, as a defense mechanism, is really counter-productive.
I disagree with Teachout's acceptance of jazz musicians as artists in a sophisticated art form, but not entertainers. Ultimately, audiences want to be entertained, and that's no different whether its a rock concert or a jazz concert or a classical music concert. I accept the fact that I am both an entertainer and an artist, and consider the entertainment part of what I do to be like audience outreach. I don't think that considering oneself an entertainer devalues the music. On the contrary I think that being an entertainer involves the audience more and makes them more interested in the music. I suppose that I am lucky, because my work is very accessible. What I do has a broad appeal, yet I don't feel like I am compromising my creativity. In my opinion though thinking of yourself as an artist alone, regardless of the kind of music you make, will only limit your audience, not expand it.
Returning to the topic of the music itself, I get the impression that when Teachout talks about "jazz" he is referring to the more traditional, straight-ahead forms of jazz and maybe some of the stuff considered more avant-garde. Based on my experience, I just don't think that this segment of the genre will turn the uninitiated/previously uninterested into regular audience members. Teachout justly acknowledges that the kids who were more interested in "California Girls" and "The Tracks of My Tears" than "A Love Supreme" in 1965, still probably have the same musical preferences. Coincidentally, the New York Times published an article during this past week referencing a Pew Research Center study which found that, "Every age group from 16 through 64 listens to rock 'n' roll more than any other format." As I have previously written, "It's just unreasonable to expect someone who grew up listening to rock or r&b or hip-hop or world music to readily take to bebop or retro standards."
Based on my experience as a both a singer and a listener/audience
member, I am convinced that more younger people would be interested in
the hybrid forms of jazz played by musicians today - neo-soul jazz,
jazz ambient, jazz folk - which incorporate the kinds of music which have
been mainstream during our lifetimes. Hopefully some of the people
introduced to jazz/standards through these sub-genres will then develop
interest in the more traditional, and possibly more avant-garde, forms
of the genre. Repertoire is also critical in attracting younger
audiences, who don't know "Our Love is Here to Stay" or "Stella by
Starlight," but definitely know "Hound Dog" and "Love Me Do." I think
that if younger people were aware that musicians sang and played songs
that they know, and not just the standards that they don't know, it
would attract more people. Hopefully, while listening to the songs
that they do know, they will hear and become familiar with the
previously unfamiliar standards.
Another critical element I have cited in the past is the need for
more younger people "to be involved on the business side in every
capacity--booking managers and club owners, radio DJs and program
managers, editors and reviewers, event organizers, personal managers,
publicists, etc." Based on my experience, many people on the business
side are men, and an occasional woman, aged 50 to 70+. Needless to
say, what is cool to a 70-year-old man is usually not cool to a
35-year-old man or woman. For jazz to reach a younger audience, the
emissaries on the business side must reflect the demographics of the
younger audience. Maybe this is the wrong assumption, but I think that
younger business people would instinctively know what would appeal
to audiences of their own age. That said, there are older people on
the business side who are genuinely interested in the work of younger
artists. However, in my experience the generation gap is very keenly
felt on the business side.
Leave a comment