Is jazz relevant in 2010? Absurd question, or fair one? How does one define relevance? Is it recognition by the majority of the public, or only to the true fans and musicians?
Certainly, to folks like Melvin Grier, Greg Turner, Ron Gable, Bob and Nancy Conner, Keith and Daryl Melvin, and others who are true fans and supporters, the answer is obvious. Similarly, to musicians like Mike Wade, Jeremy Pelt, Randy Villars, Wade Baker, King Reeves, Jae Sinnett, Phil DeGreg, and a host of others, this is indeed a question with an obvious answer.
And yet...every day there is evidence that jazz has lost its relevance in the general population.
One only needs to pick up a newspaper and see how many feature articles, if any, are written about jazz music and musicians.
To wit: Dateline June 6, 2010 Sunday Cincinnati Enquirer Arts and Entertainment Section.
The articles about music were as follows:
1) Bootsy Collins Funk University;
2) Classical music article about a violin player.
3) Door County Music Festival
In the "Next 7 Days" highlighted section, the music listings were as follows:
Sunday: Brad Paisley, Cincinnati Chamber Orchestra
Tuesday: LPK Acoustic Lunch Series; PNC Southern Sounds with Stagger Lee
Wednesday: Corey Smith at Bogarts; PNC Reggae Wednesday, The Ohms; Wednesdays on The
Green Clifton Cultural Arts Center SoCalyptics Steel Drum Band
Thursday: After Hours on The Square, Union Township: Naked Karate Girls; Madison Theater, Les Claypool
Friday: "Ellery", Carnagie Visual Arts Center; PNC MidPoint Indie Summer, Neon Indian, Wild Nothing, Minor Leagues, and For Algernon
Saturday: Harry Connick Jr, Riverbend; Landon Pigg, Southgate House.
This is fairly typical of the Enquirer. The vast majority of non-jazz acts are just local musicians; and yet these events are highlighted. It is very similar with the two weekly's, CityBeat and Metromix. CityBeat will occasionally highlight jazz artists at The Blue Wisp, however Metromix to my knowledge has never highlighted a jazz musician, local or national.
Why is that? Well, several factors. It goes back to perceived relevance.
I have always said, (and I believe this is a general consensus), that the only difference between the jazz musicians in Cincinnati and those in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles is the zip code. The musicians here are among the most talented in the world. Save for the classical music group here, the same cannot be said for other genres of music in Cincinnati.
The talent of the musicians certainly makes this music relevant.
The typical jazz musician in this town have finished a music school or college, (CCM, NKU or others), or have toured and played with the best musicians for years. The same cannot be said for the typical musician in this city from other genres. And yet, the other genres are routinely recognized; not jazz.
So, if its not a talent disparity, then what is the reason why jazz music in general and the local jazz musicians do not get the notoriety by the local press? Press releases and other notifications often are met with a general indifference.
(I suspect that if one of our local jazz musicians robbed a bank, then they would receive a huge amount of press, complete with the acknowledgment of the jazz musician's occupation!)
In fairness, I can't just single out Cincinnati. In Norfolk Virginia, there is no jazz to speak of on a continual basis, either live or in the press. This weekend, the Hampton "Jazz" Festival is occurring. The artists? Gladys Knight, Teena Marie, Maze, Dave Koz, Charlie Wilson (the singer), etc. etc. So there's no jazz in Virginia either.
So...what is the reason?
The press operates on the principle of perceived popularity. If the music group or venue is perceived to be popular, then that is the group or venue that will receive the notice. Conversely, if the press has the preconceived notion that the music venue or group is not popular, chances are there won't be a feature article about it.
The press cannot be faulted for this; it is their job to sell papers. You sell more papers featuring things that are perceived to be popular; or to peak interest. It doesn't matter if the John Coltrane Quartet were featured live at The Redmoor; if the perception is that there is not enough interest, or the concert is not RELEVANT, then chances are that the concert will receive no press.
On the other hand, Jimmy Buffett comes here every year; he's been doing the same show for years. Essentially redundant, old music. He routinely receives TV and newsprint coverage in abundance.
RELEVANCE. What makes jazz relevant? Well, it is America's only original art form,
originating in the African American community. While important, does this fact alone make it relevant for 2010?
Does a large audience make it relevant? Well, it's no secret that jazz in this city could be better supported; ironically I am constantly barraged with the common refrain: "you got to get the word out!" Perhaps; but part of getting the word out is having the people who attend telling other people about the music events. It would be great if I could notify all 3.5 million people in Hamilton County every week about the world class jazz we have in this town; perhaps soon it will be possible. Until then, however, the relevance of jazz begins and ends with each one of us.
Does jazz have a chance for a larger audience, and thus be "relevant" to the local community? Of course. It is a daunting task, but we have to prove relevance ourselves. We cannot depend on the local press to "get it". I will continue to send press releases/announcements, even if they are ignored. As a promoter, I must exhaust all avenues, even if those avenues are routinely met with no interest. But we all must play a part in making jazz relevant.
I firmly believe jazz is relevant today, in 2010. If you have taken the time to listen to what passes for music these days, you'll easily find that today's true jazz is one of the few genres that is actually real legitimate music. (Ironically, some of the older rock groups in interviews have bemoaned today's rock musicians as being devoid of talent. MTV creations versus real musicians so to speak.)
True jazz, not the "smooth" variety, is a vibrant living music; constantly changing and evolving. It can and will "regain" its "relevance" to the general population with exposure. So if you love this music, take the time to tell one person a week about it; encourage your friends to see live music again.
Ultimately, the fate of jazz, and it's relevance, will be determined by those of us who care.
Showing posts with label New York Jazz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Jazz. Show all posts
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
A Response To: Can Jazz Be Saved?
There have been many opinions over the past several months and years regarding the viability of today's Jazz. Just recently, in the Wall Street Journal (August 8, 2009 edition) the Journal's drama critic, Terry Teachout, asked that same question:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320303103850572.html
His conclusions were predictable; jazz needs to reach out to the youth, and it needs to be more accessible to the average listener.
All reasonable, but the $64,000 question is: How? Is it enough to have educational programs in schools, or making it more "palatable" to the general population by somehow "smoothing" it out, or making it more contemporary via rock or r&b beats?
The author makes a good point; in the days of Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, and even the hard bop era, there was more "feeling" the music rather "understanding" the music. Whether the audience understood the complexities of the music or not, they enjoyed the music because they "felt" it.
Case in point: This video clip is a cameo appearance of Duke Ellington in Jimmy Stewart's movie "Anatomy of a Murder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeKp1Mq25kc
OK, I know this is a movie. But the point is that in that era, there was a certain feeling that the music inspired. Fun.
I submit there is essentially no difference between the audiences of that era and now. The difference is in how the music is being marketed, and being performed.
There is a certain authenticity and feel to the music that the majority of today's artists, both straight ahead and contemporary, have lost. And even if the audience doesn't understand the complexities of the music, they respond to the difference.
How did today's music lose its relevance and "fun"? As I have stated in my previous blogs, there was a time-honored tradition of passing the music down from music generation to music generation, via the informal apprenticeship called the bandstand or stage. The musicians "learned" how to feel the music, not just play the music. There are literally hundreds of Jazz musicians who can play the notes, but don't feel the music; and thus have no individuality or originality. Audiences respond to that simple concept.
When the music lost the feeling, the music lost its audience.
To try to intellectualize Jazz is a noble and laudable concept; in the perceived world of "respect", the logical comparison was Classical music. In a sense, modern Classical music comparisons with Jazz makes political, and intellectual sense, but does not address the raison d'etre for the music from a historic standpoint: feeling.
In the 60's and 70's, in a certain sense, in response to the changing political and societal viewpoints of race relations in this country, respect was justifiably demanded and received for Jazz in this country. This respect was manifested by the positive comparisons with European-based elite music, Classical music. Jazz was subsequently taught in the major music schools in this country. Even today, it is a perceived badge of honor to graduate from Julliard, Berklee, or any number of institutions. The problem was and is to a certain extent, the respect for the older musicians who did not come out of the music schools was lacking by the younger established jazz musicians and public. Thus, the essential element of "feeling the music" has been lost on a whole generation of musicians. The audience has responded with their indifference.
Compounding the problem of the music's popularity, the current way of marketing the music is flawed. There was a time when the musicians would routinely tour the smaller towns and cities on a continual basis. The "Festival Concept", sponsorships, and free (no cover charge) jazz changed the dynamic for the music. The musicians routinely play in New York, Chicago, and in festivals, but rarely come to smaller venues. The economic realities are such that, buoyed by sponsorship dollars, the fees paid to artists do not accurately reflect the drawing power. Why? Well if the musicians were touring more for less money, there would be an opportunity to build an audience that would support local jazz stations. In turn, the local jazz stations would be able to play the music of these artists, so that the next time the artist tours, the demand, and therefore compensation would be better. This cannot happen in the current New York/Chicago/Europe/festival sponsorship cycle.
As a promoter, it is an extremely tough sell to convince an artist to play for less money in order for the system to work on a local level in smaller cities. Especially if there are festivals willing to pay higher fees not based on market forces, but sponsorship dollars. New York had a graphic example of this during the summer when the JVC Newport Jazz Festival was canceled. The audience by cover charges alone could not support the fees associated with the music.
It is clearly no accident that exasperated promoters of traditionally "Jazz" festivals have resorted to featuring Blues, Rock, Country, or any other musical genre other than Jazz. (Case in point, New Orleans Jazz and "Heritage" Festival).
OK, those are the problems as I see it. What are the solutions?
First of all, there has to be an acceptance that Jazz can be heard outside of a classroom. How do we do this? Those of us who love the music must take the time to expose everyone; kids and adults alike, to great Jazz music. Certainly not in an intellectually confrontational way (i.e school), but in a casual setting. There are many of today's Jazz fans who became fans by listening to their father's or mother's records that were playing in the house. No preaching about the intricacies or complexities of the music; just feeling the music. I always played Jazz in my car when my son was a passenger, (Lee Morgan, Miles, Trane) from early infancy. He is now a 15 year old Jazz fan.
When Jazz is played where people can hear it, there is a positive response. Invariably, when we have Jazz on the outdoor patio at The Cincinnati Grill, no matter who is playing, people who are walking by will invariably stop and listen. The variety of people stopping, if only for a moment, cuts across every age, and ethnic demographic. Surely the folks walking by are not all Jazz fans, but they respond to the music in their own way.
Secondly, the musicians themselves have to take an active role in preserving and nurturing the music. There has to be more to this than receiving the maximum sponsorship money per performance; in smaller cities the higher fees are not possible. The bottom line is that the musicians have to be more relevant than the latest CD. They have to appear live, at a price that is reasonable for all involved.
No one begrudges any musician for making as much as they can make, especially when compared with genres of lesser talented musicians making insane amounts of money. But there has to be a common ground; the music must be heard by a wider audience than it is now.
Third, the younger hot musicians from the established music schools need to take a page from the older musicians while they still can; they must be willing to learn how to "feel" the music, rather than just playing notes or reading charts. There must be a respect for the older musicians who have carried on the tradition outside of academia.
Bottom line: If Jazz is to continue to be a relevant musical form, it will take each one of us to make it so. Everyone, whether you are a musician or not, whether you are involved in the industry or not, can be an ambassador for the music. This will not be easy; but to chip away at the problem as outlined above will eventually lead to a solution, and new generations of Jazz fans.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320303103850572.html
His conclusions were predictable; jazz needs to reach out to the youth, and it needs to be more accessible to the average listener.
All reasonable, but the $64,000 question is: How? Is it enough to have educational programs in schools, or making it more "palatable" to the general population by somehow "smoothing" it out, or making it more contemporary via rock or r&b beats?
The author makes a good point; in the days of Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, and even the hard bop era, there was more "feeling" the music rather "understanding" the music. Whether the audience understood the complexities of the music or not, they enjoyed the music because they "felt" it.
Case in point: This video clip is a cameo appearance of Duke Ellington in Jimmy Stewart's movie "Anatomy of a Murder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeKp1Mq25kc
OK, I know this is a movie. But the point is that in that era, there was a certain feeling that the music inspired. Fun.
I submit there is essentially no difference between the audiences of that era and now. The difference is in how the music is being marketed, and being performed.
There is a certain authenticity and feel to the music that the majority of today's artists, both straight ahead and contemporary, have lost. And even if the audience doesn't understand the complexities of the music, they respond to the difference.
How did today's music lose its relevance and "fun"? As I have stated in my previous blogs, there was a time-honored tradition of passing the music down from music generation to music generation, via the informal apprenticeship called the bandstand or stage. The musicians "learned" how to feel the music, not just play the music. There are literally hundreds of Jazz musicians who can play the notes, but don't feel the music; and thus have no individuality or originality. Audiences respond to that simple concept.
When the music lost the feeling, the music lost its audience.
To try to intellectualize Jazz is a noble and laudable concept; in the perceived world of "respect", the logical comparison was Classical music. In a sense, modern Classical music comparisons with Jazz makes political, and intellectual sense, but does not address the raison d'etre for the music from a historic standpoint: feeling.
In the 60's and 70's, in a certain sense, in response to the changing political and societal viewpoints of race relations in this country, respect was justifiably demanded and received for Jazz in this country. This respect was manifested by the positive comparisons with European-based elite music, Classical music. Jazz was subsequently taught in the major music schools in this country. Even today, it is a perceived badge of honor to graduate from Julliard, Berklee, or any number of institutions. The problem was and is to a certain extent, the respect for the older musicians who did not come out of the music schools was lacking by the younger established jazz musicians and public. Thus, the essential element of "feeling the music" has been lost on a whole generation of musicians. The audience has responded with their indifference.
Compounding the problem of the music's popularity, the current way of marketing the music is flawed. There was a time when the musicians would routinely tour the smaller towns and cities on a continual basis. The "Festival Concept", sponsorships, and free (no cover charge) jazz changed the dynamic for the music. The musicians routinely play in New York, Chicago, and in festivals, but rarely come to smaller venues. The economic realities are such that, buoyed by sponsorship dollars, the fees paid to artists do not accurately reflect the drawing power. Why? Well if the musicians were touring more for less money, there would be an opportunity to build an audience that would support local jazz stations. In turn, the local jazz stations would be able to play the music of these artists, so that the next time the artist tours, the demand, and therefore compensation would be better. This cannot happen in the current New York/Chicago/Europe/festival sponsorship cycle.
As a promoter, it is an extremely tough sell to convince an artist to play for less money in order for the system to work on a local level in smaller cities. Especially if there are festivals willing to pay higher fees not based on market forces, but sponsorship dollars. New York had a graphic example of this during the summer when the JVC Newport Jazz Festival was canceled. The audience by cover charges alone could not support the fees associated with the music.
It is clearly no accident that exasperated promoters of traditionally "Jazz" festivals have resorted to featuring Blues, Rock, Country, or any other musical genre other than Jazz. (Case in point, New Orleans Jazz and "Heritage" Festival).
OK, those are the problems as I see it. What are the solutions?
First of all, there has to be an acceptance that Jazz can be heard outside of a classroom. How do we do this? Those of us who love the music must take the time to expose everyone; kids and adults alike, to great Jazz music. Certainly not in an intellectually confrontational way (i.e school), but in a casual setting. There are many of today's Jazz fans who became fans by listening to their father's or mother's records that were playing in the house. No preaching about the intricacies or complexities of the music; just feeling the music. I always played Jazz in my car when my son was a passenger, (Lee Morgan, Miles, Trane) from early infancy. He is now a 15 year old Jazz fan.
When Jazz is played where people can hear it, there is a positive response. Invariably, when we have Jazz on the outdoor patio at The Cincinnati Grill, no matter who is playing, people who are walking by will invariably stop and listen. The variety of people stopping, if only for a moment, cuts across every age, and ethnic demographic. Surely the folks walking by are not all Jazz fans, but they respond to the music in their own way.
Secondly, the musicians themselves have to take an active role in preserving and nurturing the music. There has to be more to this than receiving the maximum sponsorship money per performance; in smaller cities the higher fees are not possible. The bottom line is that the musicians have to be more relevant than the latest CD. They have to appear live, at a price that is reasonable for all involved.
No one begrudges any musician for making as much as they can make, especially when compared with genres of lesser talented musicians making insane amounts of money. But there has to be a common ground; the music must be heard by a wider audience than it is now.
Third, the younger hot musicians from the established music schools need to take a page from the older musicians while they still can; they must be willing to learn how to "feel" the music, rather than just playing notes or reading charts. There must be a respect for the older musicians who have carried on the tradition outside of academia.
Bottom line: If Jazz is to continue to be a relevant musical form, it will take each one of us to make it so. Everyone, whether you are a musician or not, whether you are involved in the industry or not, can be an ambassador for the music. This will not be easy; but to chip away at the problem as outlined above will eventually lead to a solution, and new generations of Jazz fans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)