[Dixielandjazz] Growing the Jazz Audience Can't be Done; Three responses collated

[Norman Vickers]

To:  Musicians and JazzFans list and DJML

From: Norman Vickers, Jazz Society of Pensacola, Inc.  www.jazzpensacola.com

 

Dave Fanning, of Suncoast Jazz Society, Tampa Bay area; Jim Kashishian of Madrid and Steve Barbone of Philadelphia area all replied.  This may be a duplication for some of you on the DJML but for others, this communication may be only chance to see it. (They’re too  good to miss.)

Thanks for your insightful and kind responses.

 

Greetings and good wishes to all those attending the Sacramento Music Festival this Memorial Day Weekend.  Our thoughts (and some envy) are with you. (smile)

 

Norman

 

Dave Fanning wrote:

 

From: dfanjazz at aol.com [mailto:dfanjazz at aol.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 11:16 AM



 

Norm, this was/is another slant on "what's happening in jazz" or "where are we going in jazz" very interesting to read the thoughts about the subject.  My take is that we'll always have jazz in some form.  Take the new wave of swing dancing, oh my it's new and hot.  Heck, man, we did that years and years ago and grew out of it as every generation grows out of any fad.  So now swing dancing is "hot", so what!!!  Does anyone think it will continue forever?  Of course not because those that are "into" swing dancing will grow older just like my generation did and evolve into something else.  We've seen it happen in the past and will happen again.  So back to "Jazz" those of us that prevail will always have jazz someplace.  Maybe not as many places but we'll keep it alive because we want it to be alive.  True our audiences are diminishing but it's a cycle we'll endure as it happened in the past.  We've seen new bands coming on the scene here in Florida which indicates that there are those that want it to live on.  The bands may be of limited quality or know enough tunes to put on a two hour show but they are out there trying.  It's a grass roots thing but no matter it's there.

Dave  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Jim Kashishian <jim at kashprod.com>

Jim Kashisian, jazz trombonist and sound engineer in Madrid, Spain wrote:

 

Ok, I read the whole link, although I'm not a jazz educator nor do I belong to a Jazz Society.  I do live & work, however, in Europe (Madrid, Spain) where there is none of this pigeon holing of different styles, and there are plenty of people out at night to wander into any joint that has something going on.

 

So, rather than to discuss the differences between the U.S. & Europe, which we all well understand already, I would like to look closer at two bits I pulled out of the text in the link:

 

1.  "How do we make Jazz vital once again?"  

How to make it vital now?  Play it with vitality!  Ok, I'm probably playing around a bit with that word, but you get the idea.  Even a ballad can be dynamic if you really get into it.  The audience feels that vitality, and knows something is happening.  They don't need to know what, they just need to feel something is going on.  We're the ones that need to know the what of it!  When musicians play for themselves, most folks don't get it.  Play for the audience, they'll get that.

 

2.  "Most don't care about Traditional Jazz....music has simply evolved beyond it."

You can play Traditional Jazz in an evolved manner, not trying to imitate the originals, but still playing the old tunes.  Playing them with a lighter, more swinging rhythm is one way of evolving.  Get those fast tempos up!  Get the front line out of those chairs, up on their feet, playing with all their body, is another way to make sure it doesn't get interpreted as being "old" (even if the person playing is!).

 

I fully understand that we, of course, enjoy a lively audience over here that is open-minded enough to accept any style.  Our audiences don't worry about what style we are playing or even care about what it is called.  They just enjoy it as long as we play in a way that causes this enjoyment.  

 

We also HAVE an audience, as there are people out on the streets at night, walking, looking into joints & wandering by.  However, we still have to play a lively, happy music that attracts them in, & keeps them in.  This is where the vitality creeps in.  It is how a group of "older guys" playing Trad Jazz can draw a young (& older) audience.

 

The audience is just not into worrying about what it is.  Neither are we!  We have little boundaries, and even less hangups (the band is all Spanish except for myself), so magic can creep in.

 

I wonder if the teacher who wrote the article taught the kids how to enjoy their music, and to project that enjoyment out into the audience?  I'm really mentioning (hinting at) what some say is a nasty word:  "entertainment".

 

Jim Kashishian

 

Stephen G Barbone <barbonestreet at earthlink.net>

 

Clarinetist/ bandleader Steve Barbone of Philadelphia area wrote:

 

Dear Norm:

 

Two observations:

 

First, from personal experience: When I was in high school (1940s) there were NO JAZZ COURSES OR JAZZ TEACHERS. In fact, I was almost thrown out of the band in H.S. for playing Rosy MacHargue's 12th Street Rag clarinet solo in one of the individual practice rooms. Jazz was still considered a lower form of music, enjoyed by libertines and played by  deranged drug addicts. That "libertine" part is what drew me to playing jazz. Learned it on my own first by listening, then by paging my dues sitting in with various jazz musicians, then by joining a jazz band. Basically, what attracted me to jazz was the aura of wine, women and song that surrounded it. To this day when asked why I play(ed) jazz I reply; "Why to get women, of course".

 

You cannot learn that from a jazz teacher these days because that aura no longer exists.

 

Second, a personal view on where jazz has gone: The Kotatu article makes a lot of sense (at least to me) from the point where the author describes the Jazz Mafia and The Shotgun Wedding Quintet. These types of bands regularly sell out venues. The music is not jazz as you or I would define it, however it is a fusion of rock, hip hop and jazz. My view is that the music we call jazz has evolved into that type of fusion.

The audience is very similar to that which ODJB enjoyed. Kids drinking, dancing, otherwise partying and being a part of the show. As our kind of jazz became "Art" (listening) music, that audience went elsewhere.

 

IMO, Duke Ellington was right when he wrote an article that appeared in "Music Journal 1962, perhaps commissioned by Sigmund Spaeth, entitled "Where is Jazz Going." He said, in part: "Recently I was asked whether I felt jazz had moved a great distance away from its folk origins. With the present state of Rock 'n'  Roll music I don't know how anyone can even consider asking such a question. Rock 'n' Roll is the most raucous from of jazz, beyond a doubt; it maintains a link with the folk origins, and I believe that no other form of jazz has ever been accepted so enthusiastically by so many."

 

That article, along with the decline of audience for Our Kind Of Jazz, dissuaded me from going on the road with a Dixieland Band for a "guaranteed" net salary of $15,000 a year. I took a day gig instead on September 1962. In  1963 I earned $8500 in my day gig, plus $2000 taking local gigs while the guys in the band were stranded in Topeka Kansas after being screwed out of most of their "guaranteed" salary.

 

Bottom Line:

 

IMO, Jazz is a state of mind that cuts across many musical genres.

 

Cheers,

Steve Barbone

                                                                      --End--