[Dixielandjazz] State of Jazz Music-Ted Gioia blog on Jazz.com

[Randy Fendrick]

I just read West Coast Jazz by Ted Gioia.  It is absolutely  
wonderful.  It made me go back and listen to stuff that I had for  
years but had forgotten about.  Well worth it, especially if you were  
brought up in Southern California during the 1950's
later,
rf
On May 19, 2009, at 7:20 AM, Norman Vickers wrote:

>
>
> To: DJML
>
> From: Norman Vickers, Jazz Society of Pensacola
>
>
>
> Here is a current column on Jazz.com by Ted Gioia.  For those  
> unfamiliar
> with him-he is a jazz academician and author of one of the most  
> readable, in
> my opinion, jazz history books available.  His brother Dana has just  
> stepped
> down from head of National Endowment for the Arts.
>
> For you information and comment.
>
>
>
> ( I also posted it on Musicians & Serious  Jazzfans list, a  
> discussion list
> I moderate.  This list takes a somewhat broad view of the state of  
> jazz and
> because comments come through me for editing, there is less  
> redundancy.
> Sometimes if, in the opinion of the moderator, we have essentially  
> exhausted
> the subject, the thread will be ended.  There are some members of  
> DJML also
> on the Musicians & Serious Jazzfans list.  It's easy to get on or  
> off-just
> ask)
>
> Here's Ted Gioia's post on Jazz.com
>
>
> <http://www.jazz.com/jazz-blog/2009/5/19/talking-to-myself-about-the-health-
> of-jazz-music> Talking to Myself About the State of Jazz Music
>
>
>
>  _____
>
>
>
> Almost a year ago, I was caught talking
> <http://www.jazz.com/jazz-blog/2008/5/21/conversations-with-myself>   
> to
> myself in print. It's a warning sign, huh? Maybe I should call a  
> doctor,
> because last night I started talking to myself again. I was half in  
> a dream
> and half awake, and the conversation went like this . . .
>
>
>
>  _____
>
>
>
> Is the jazz world in a state of crisis?
>
> If this isn't a crisis, I would hate to see what a real one would  
> looks
> like.
>
> Aren't you over-reacting? Economic cycles go up and down. There is  
> still
> plenty of jazz out there. Maybe more than ever before. And that new  
> Lovano
> CD really kicks . . .
>
> The crisis here is not on the supply side. It is on the demand side.  
> The
> number of musicians and CDs is increasing, but the audience is  
> shrinking.
> Reversing this trend is the single biggest challenge facing the jazz  
> world.
>
> How many jazz artists-even well-known ones-can sell ten thousand  
> copies of a
> CD? How many concert halls can book jazz acts and fill the seats?  
> Hardly a
> week goes by without news of a jazz radio station switching formats,  
> a jazz
> club closing, a jazz magazine shutting down. These are all measures  
> of a
> declining audience. And it has been shrinking faster than the GDP  
> for a
> long, long time.
>
> When you ask people about the health of the jazz scene, they tend to  
> measure
> it by the quality of the sax solos, or by how much they enjoyed the  
> last
> batch of CDs they bought. But these measures are hardly relevant, if  
> there
> is no audience to support the music.
>
> I think I understand. You're saying: if a sax plays in a forest and  
> no one
> hears it, can it still play a great solo?
>
> Huh? I don't think I understood that.
>
> Never mind. . . . Back to your comments about the audience-is this  
> situation
> really so different from the past?
>
> The problem of the shrinking audience is masked by various subsidies  
> and
> supports that didn't exist a few decades ago. If you strip those  
> away, you
> see how small the market for jazz really is.
>
> Let me cite one example. Many musicians now make a significant  
> proportion of
> their income from performing outside the US-sometimes this is more  
> than half
> of their annual earnings from gigs. There are several hundred  
> festivals in
> Europe that are crucial to the global jazz economy. Without them, a  
> lot of
> name players would no longer be able to pay their rent.
>
> Yet these festivals are heavily subsidized by governments and other
> organizations with deep pockets. These subsidies are, of course, a  
> good
> thing for the art form. But they mask the true level of the crisis.  
> The
> brutal truth is that jazz is not surviving because it has a loyal  
> audience
> of fans. It is a charity case now, relying on the kindness of  
> strangers, if
> I may quote Blanche DuBois.
>
> Nice New Orleans angle there . . .
>
> On the other hand, when a jazz festival decides that it needs to  
> make some
> money, the first thing it does . . . is get rid of the jazz. Did you  
> see the
> press release for the Montreal Jazz Festival? It announced the main  
> acts on
> the bill. Here were the names: "Jeff Beck, Harlem Gospel Choir,  
> Buddy Guy,
> Mos Def, Pink Martini, The Dears, The Orb, Burning Spear, Toots & The
> Maytals and Many More." Thanks goodness for the "many more" at the  
> end of
> the list, because there is no jazz represented in that line-up.
>
> This is not an isolated instance. Have you seen the line-up for the  
> Sonoma
> Jazz Festival? It should be called the Sonoma No-Jazz Festival. Here  
> the
> list of its headliners: "Joe Cocker, Lyle Lovett And His Large Band,  
> Ziggy
> Marley, Chris Isaak, Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, Shelby Lynne, Keb' Mo'  
> And More."
>
>
> This is a dangerous situation. As this trend continues in the  
> Americas, the
> European circuit becomes more and more important. Yet-as has been
> highlighted frequently in this column-the European festivals are
> increasingly booking European musicians. Even more surprising: the  
> recent
> Mumbai festival in India showed a pronounced tilt towards booking  
> European
> artists. We can't just blithely assume that foreign governments will
> continue to bankroll American jazz. They have their own local scenes  
> to
> support.
>
> You are saying that jazz is like treasury bonds . . . too dependent on
> foreign money?
>
> And not enough interest.
>
> Ugh! That was a bad pun, even by your low standards. Back to brass
> tacks-what would happen if the subsidies disappeared?
>
> Fifty years ago jazz could survive without subsidies. In fact, it did
> survive without subsidies. For the most part, there was no government
> support back then, no academic support, no foundation support. Yet an
> audience existed who paid all the bills for the music. Imagine how  
> much
> larger the audience must have been back in the 1950s to cover the  
> full cost
> for the art from, with more clubs, more airplay, more visibility  
> than we
> have now.
>
> And today? By my estimate, half of the jazz world would disappear  
> overnight
> if it were forced to cover its costs by its own inherent ability to  
> draw an
> audience. I hope the subsidies continue forever, and grow each year.  
> But
> let's not kid ourselves. An art form without a vibrant growing  
> audience is
> not healthy no matter how big the life support machinery surrounding  
> it.
>
> Are there any heroes in this story?
>
> Although a lot has been done to support jazz music in recent years,  
> very
> little has been done to nurture and grow the audience. Everyone just  
> assumes
> that supporting the art form means supporting the musicians. But  
> that is
> only half the equation, and actually the least important half. We  
> don't need
> more sax solos. We don't need more CDs. We need more fans to support  
> the
> fine artists who are already out there producing first rate music.
>
> Surely someone is out there building the next generation of fans.
>
> The groups that have probably done the most good during the last  
> decade-the
> alphabet soup folks like the IAJE, JALC, the NEA-are often highly
> criticized. Yet they have played a key role in audience development.  
> And now
> the IAJE is gone. Some people seem to gloat over that fact. That  
> shows you
> how shortsighted many members of the jazz community are. There are  
> probably
> others who would celebrate if JALC ran into problems. Freud called it
> thanatos, the death wish, and apparently it can afflict art forms as  
> much as
> individuals.
>
> As hard as it may be to believe, there is an influential contingent  
> in the
> jazz world that would like to keep the art form small and untainted  
> by the
> need to please an audience.
>
> Of course, you probably think jazz writers are the good guys here?
>
> I only wish that were true. Jazz critics are key factors in  
> educating the
> audience and keeping the art form healthy. But critics need to  
> realize that
> their main responsibility is to the audience. Not to their friends  
> among the
> musicians, or to other critics, whom they try to impress. How many  
> jazz
> writers today really demonstrate that commitment to the audience?
>
> A half-century ago, the critical function got corrupted. This happened
> around the time art critic Clement Greenberg found that he could  
> make his
> name and reputation by jumping on the bandwagon for Jackson Pollock.
>
> What was so wrong about that?
>
> Nothing was inherently wrong about it-at least at first. But the  
> rules of
> the game changed, and critics learned that they could enhance their
> reputations if they were the first to jump on the next new thing.
>
> Critics have to make choices. Do they write about the serious artist  
> who is
> quietly building a body of outstanding work over a period of years?  
> Or do
> they constantly jump from fad to fad, trying to pinpoint what is  
> going to be
> hot during the next six months. I would suggest that a critic  
> frequently
> must make a choice between these two goals. Either you focus  
> primarily on
> work of the highest quality, or you try to anticipate the next  
> flavor of the
> month.
>
> "Did you ever have to make up your mind," as the old song goes. Many  
> critics
> eventually decided to do the thing that enhanced their own  
> reputation the
> most. Guess which choice they made.
>
> You make it sound so bad.
>
> In truth, the jazz critics handled this dilemma better than critics  
> in other
> art forms. At least for the most part. Jazz has always prided itself  
> on
> judging music by how it sounds. But that isn't always the case in  
> other
> forms of music. I recently met a scholar who had written a paper on  
> John
> Cage, and found that it caused some controversy, because he analyzed  
> Cage's
> music on the basis of how it sounded, rather than on the basis of its
> "compositional strategies."
>
> How strange, that a music writer would get called to the carpet for  
> paying
> attention to the sound of the music. Isn't music all about how it  
> sounds?
> Yet this tells you something about the state of mind across the  
> fence in the
> world of contemporary classical music. Fortunately things never got  
> quite
> that bad on the jazz scene. The jazz critics still listen to the  
> music, for
> the most part, and are influenced by what their ears tell them when  
> they
> write their reviews. Of course, that begs the question of how much  
> they hear
> . . .
>
> Sorry to cut you off. But does it really matter what the critics say?
>
> It certainly does. When critics try to impress each other, rather than
> fulfill their responsibility to the audience, the audience feels
> shortchanged. And, eventually, the audience shrinks.
>
> How often have you bought a CD because of a critic's recommendation,  
> only to
> find that it was almost unlistenable? More often than you want to  
> admit,
> huh? If you are a dedicated fan, you might keep on buying more CDs  
> even
> after that experience. But many intelligent members of the general  
> public,
> who might have become serious jazz fans, got turned away by this  
> corruption
> of critical standards.
>
> Isn't this just a matter of taste? You talk about intelligent  
> members of the
> public who might become jazz fans. But who are these mysterious  
> people?
>
> Let's face it, the jazz audience has always had a disproportionate  
> share of
> musicians in its ranks. Just listen to the conversations of the people
> sitting at the tables around you at the jazz clubs. The chairs are  
> filled
> with guitarists, pianists, saxophonists, and other players. This is  
> a good
> thing for the art form.
>
> You listen to the people at other tables at the clubs? I thought you  
> went
> out to hear the music?
>
> The jazz audience is a smart audience. These people understand  
> music. You
> can't insult their intelligence with some jive act. And I fear it is
> precisely this group of people-with discerning ears and a good grasp  
> of
> musical structure and potentiality-who have been turned off by a  
> critical
> establishment that jumps blindly from fad to fad.
>
> You sound very pessimistic.
>
> Actually I have high hopes-over the long run. And they are based on  
> the
> amazing strength and vitality of the music itself. Jazz is honest  
> music. It
> is exciting music. It allows more scope for individuality than any  
> other
> musical genre. It offers more surprises too. I don't think it is  
> possible to
> kill it. But it would be best if we put away the knives and stopped
> stabbing. After all, it wouldn't take much to bring back an audience  
> for
> this music.
>
> What else are they gonna do with their ears? On second thought,  
> don't answer
> that . . .
>
> Me? You're the one with the bad jokes. I'm going back to sleep.
>
>
>
>  _____
>
>
>
> This blog entry posted by Ted Gioia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or change your e-mail preferences for the Dixieland  
> Jazz Mailing list, or to find the online archives, please visit:
>
> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz
>
>
>
> Dixielandjazz mailing list
> Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com