Jazz Education And Audience Size: A Conundrum

I've always feared that jazz may be more fun to play than to listen to. It's that way for me, and I suspect for thousands who go through jazz education then spend little time or money supporting jazz afterwards.

Excellent questions from both Doug and Jim Brown. By sheer coincidence I've been pondering much the same problem lately because it looks as if I'll be teaching a Jazz History course at our local university next fall. [Fingers
crossed!] Having taught Jazz History/Appreciation at community colleges for many years and having tried to innoculate both my kids (now in their 30's &
40's) -- unscuccessfully -- with the jazz virus, I'm still somewhat at a loss as to why jazz is so ignored by young people. Here are a couple of my thoughts on the subject.

First, many of the students who attended my classes were not really there to learn about jazz. They were satisfying their Humanities requirements and thought that ,1) listening to jazz would be less distasteful than listening to Classical music or attending Art Appreciation classes, or 2) were unable to get into the Pop Music class because of scheduling difficulties. They went through the motions and dutifully did all the assignments, but I could
tell the music wasn't really touching them. By the same token, every class had a handful of students did really seem to respond to the music, but in most such cases I felt as if I were preaching to the choir. Once in a great
while I felt that someone who hadn't been previously introduced to jazz was inspired to go on and become a jazz fan, and those instances did make it all worthwhile.

Many of the music majors who might have benefited from my course (he said modestly) seemed to feel they already knew enough about the music (including even ancient players like John Coltrane) and either didn't take the class or coasted through it.

One thing I've noticed is that it ALMOST takes someone who has had some formal training in music -- even piano or clarinet lessons as a kid will do -- to really appreciate jazz. (There are some notable exceptions, but I think that's a good rule of thumb.) Otherwise, most students seemed bewildered by the flurry of notes that the jazz musicians are producing, even though I've spent the first two or three weeks of the class going over form, chord changes, etc.

Another related difficulty is due to Rock having been America's popular music for a half century now. Those of my approximate age bracket (and I know you're out there) grew up listening to the Great American Song Book and
knew many standards by heart. And so when we heard a musician working out on "All the Things You Are" we had a point of reference to go by, even if we didn't recognize the tune at first.

Bob Gordon

(Mr. Gordon is the author of "Jazz West Coast: The Los Angeles Jazz Scene of the 1950s" -DR)

How much of this jazz education includes serious study and appreciation of the great literature of our music, as opposed to learning how to play it? Are students given serious exposure to Armstrong, Ellington, Young, Mulligan, Hodges, Baker, Desmond, and Rogers? To Holiday, Vaughan, and McRae? Or is it only about the mechanics -- music theory, mastery of an instrument, and playing
in a band? If it includes a heavy dose of the former, that
education must certainly lead one to a lifetime of pleasure from the music. But if it only includes the latter, a jazz education is far more likely to lead to a lifetime of frustration from not finding work in one's chosen field.

Here's what I see as a significant part of the problem.

I'm old enough to remember when certain albums like John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme," Miles Davis's "Miles Smiles," Duke Ellington's "The Far East Suite," Herbie Hancock's "The Prisoner," and others were first released. They were regarded as instant classics, and rightly so. This happened on a fairly frequent basis for many years.

In the past 25 years, thousands of jazz albums have been released. How many can you think of that have become classics--indispensable items in any serious jazz collection? Not many, I'll bet.

Why is that? Certainly the level of musicianship in jazz has not gone down in the past 25 years; if anything, one could make a case that overall it's higher than ever. As for the level of originality, that's another thing; what trombonist Jimmy Knepper called "jazz necrophilia" has no doubt had an effect, but without much difficulty, one can point to any number of distinctive, personal voices working today.

I suggest that the medium where most of us hear the bulk of our jazz--the CD--is a culprit. Remember all those classic jazz LPs we love? How long were they? Thirty to forty minutes, generally. A typical CD is twice that length, and most musicians have not learned how to deal with that increased playing time successfully. As a result, most jazz CDs are at best half-inspired, half filler. And consumers have balked at paying $15-$20 a pop for them. When record companies are asked to lower the price of CDs, they reply with some justification that they can't: they are paying for more mechanical licenses for more tunes on a CD, and for higher production costs to cover the doubled playing time.

Also, most jazz CDs today are produced by the musicians themselves; the era of the jazz record producer is largely past. I'm not saying that every producer in the olden days was a genius--far from it--but if we look at the jazz albums we love, we'll often see the names of producers like John Hammond, Milt Gabler, Norman Granz, George Avakian, Alfred Lion, Orrin Keepnews, Bob Weinstock, Bob Thiele, Teo Macero, Creed Taylor, Manfred Eicher, and others. These are men who had genuine gifts--if in some cases just knowing when to stay out of the artist's way. But they knew how to conceive memorable projects, and they knew how to program. It's my experience that many--perhaps most--musicians, including some genuinely great ones, lack those skills. Which is another reason for so many lackluster jazz CDs in the current market.

With the current rage for downloading and the conspicuous drop in CD sales, it may be that the age of the album is drawing to a close. Downloading individual tracks gives consumers more choices about spending their music dollars, and that's a good thing. But the album as a medium of artistic expression in jazz was a great thing, and it's too bad that it seems to have died a quiet death about two
decades ago.

(Mr. Kirchner is a saxophonist, composer, arranger, band leader and author --DR)

I think you have raised an interesting question. I have been involved as an educator and 'adjudicator' at school jazz festivals on and off for over 20 years, and will direct a jazz band at an 'honors' festival at the end of the month. The kids I come into contact with are into playing and participating. Not enough of the jazz education they recieve is of the listening kind, either because of time limitations or other reasons. Their tastes are not shaped by listening to the music, but by their own participation and the advice of their directors on how to play their part or style correctly. There has to be more of an 'enrichment' element, appreciation of the music, some exposure built into the music programs of our schools.

I also think the comments about the lack of current music and musicians is right on. The only kids I know who are into the current scenes (and there are many) are the ones who plan on becoming professional musicans. They have taken private lessons and been hipped to who to listen to by their private teachers, or by some another means of exposure, like live performances, jazz magazines, the internet, or CDs their friends have. Those who get their jazz only from school are largely exposed to a little bit of big band music from the 50s and '60s- the 'modern' bands of Maynard, Woody, and new testament Basie or their contemporary equivalents. Nothing wrong with that. But- pardon the keen sense of the obvious- there are other styles and artists to listen to, and a lot of interesting current music that falls outside of the parameters of the typical school jazz band repertoire. When students are exposed to it, they are knocked out. Also, they should be checking out people closer to them in age as well as the masters. And they should be checking out MORE of the masters.

And I have to say that there is a fair amount of prejudice against popular music by a lot of music teachers, or against current popular music. It doesn't do any good, and it doesn't change anything. This tack has been going on since I was a kid, when older musicians and teachers would rail against The Beatles, Hendrix, or whoever. The only music they might have liked was Chicago or Blood,Sweat and Tears, because they had horn players. Now it is hip-hop and other current trends and styles that are the targets. What is the point? Kids like what they like. Many great young musicians grew up in the hip-hop era and have their favorites. As a 50 something I like classic rock. It doesn't diminish jazz or our involvement and commitment to it.

This is an important issue and deserving of more attention by your excellent blog!

Steve Grover

(Mr. Grover is a drummer, composer and arranger --DR)

It is an interesting question.

What's also interesting is that of that 3 percent figure, the big sellers are vocalists and smooth jazzers + Kind of Blue.

There are no important living improvising musicians who are capturing any kind of mainstream attention.

It's interesting that improvised music is of so little interest.

What does that tell us?

"Why hasn't that resulted in an expansion of the audience for jazz clubs, concerts and record sales?"

My guess, and it's just a guess, is that much of it has to do with the way jazz is taught in schools. Most of these students learn that jazz is something that happened in the past, and in fact the way to do well at these competitions is to faithfully recreate historical styles. A lot of talented high school and college band directors never program anything more adventurous than Thad Jones -- or worse, third-rate Thad Jones knock-offs. [This is not to knock Thad, of course -- I love Thad.] Many of them are completely unaware of any developments in jazz since, say, 1967, and aren't even aware of what's going on locally. They never take their students to jazz clubs or bring in local musicians to do workshops and sit in with the students. And if they do, it's almost never young musicians, players close to the students' own age. If students never find living role models, players in their twenties and thirties, then they are much less likely to develop the idea that jazz is something that is still developing in exciting ways, and is therefore music that has something relevant to say to *them*.

It's as if you were a kid taking a creative writing workshop and nobody in a position of authority was aware of any literature written in the last forty years. In fact, everyone you meet keeps implying that there *hasn't* been any worthwhile literature written in the past forty years, except for maybe slavish imitations of older writers, and the way to get ahead isn't to develop your own voice, but to turn out a convincing pastiche of the great masters. Doesn't exactly make it sound like a scene you want to be a part of, does it?

As a complete amateur who has no real connection to the Jazz scene except that I buy and listen to Jazz CDs and radio stations and attend an occassional concert/club I would like to put my two cents in here.

I am sure that these kids do grow up to buy CDs and attend Jazz concerts/clubs. However, the economics of Jazz seems to a bit off kilter. The Jazz business model, if you will, seems to be based on popular music, while its appreciation demands the sophistication of the lover of classical music. I am 47 and have been listening to Jazz for many years - more seriously over the last 10 - and I am amazed at how many artists produce CDs - and how expensive they are. I can purchase any Beethoven symphony by a lesser known orchestra for $5 or so. I can't buy a Jazz CD for less than $15 - and often it ranges up to $20. You can't price Jazz as popular music and expect it to sell.

Second, the whole club scene, while fun and great, seems to be a bit of an insider's club which makes it intimidating for a novice (especially a young one) to attend while sitting in a concert hall (formal or not) is more amenable to the outsider. On a recent trip to NY with my 18 year old son I took him to a performance of the Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra and not to a Jazz club because, (a. it was easier to get tickets and (b. I wasn't so sure he would be allowed in a club. Maybe more formal concerts and less of a club scene might work better.

Again, I am not an expert on the music or the economics of Jazz, but the model does not seem to fit the music any more. It may have worked way back when, but now - maybe Jazz should (a. Move to the concert halls more (even the smaller ones) and (b. reduce the prices on CDs.
Just some thoughts.