Assassins Get Paid REALLY Well These Days!

[BruceH]

Would we really want someone like Art Pepper as jazz's spokesperson?

It would be worth it for a hot minute, just to see and hear those first few press conferences and public service announcements.

[Tom Storer]

But the question remains: Is WM "worth" over a million a year? [...]

The point is: Compared to what other jazz musicians make, is Wynton worth 10 or 20 times as much per year?

Worth to whom and for what are the questions. He doesn't make a million dollars for playing his trumpet, or even as a bandleader. Those things are included in his activities for JALC, but he makes the big bucks for his value as program director and institutional spokesman (for that is what he really is--a spokesman for JALC, not for "jazz"). It's his PR value that he's really paid for, and the people paying him are looking at the fame, prestige, and asses-in-seats ratio of the program he "artistically" directs. To them, clearly he is worth his salary.

Jazz fans have to decide on his worth on another basis than salary.

[Hot Ptah]

Excerpt from a 2005 interview with knowledgeble good guy Marty Khan, about his book “Straight Ahead: A Comprehensive Guide to the Business of Jazz (Without Sacrificing Dignity or Artistic Integrity).” Comments on the pernicious somewhat sub rosa economic effects of Jazz@LC on other jazz artists are particularly noteworthy. I have heard similar detailed accounts from musicians-bandleaders on how the marketing of Jazz@LC ensembles and the very large fees those ensembles command have knocked the crap out of the touring scene for other artists/bands who used to be able to play the sort of college and art center venues that Khan refers to at one point. Complete text here (SR is Steve Rowland):

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=16904

SR: That's a pretty bleak picture you're painting, man.

MK: Look around. The economic environment and the music itself are in complete turmoil. No touring, no record sales, no vibrant scene, no new leadership, no innovative directions, no public visibility, no new audiences. And schools are spewing out legions of new musicians into the mix with little opportunity to express their art and get paid. It's a mess, man.

SR: But there are groups touring—and getting really well paid. How does that factor in?

MK: Sure. All-star aggregations doing tributes. The Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra and some Marsalises—don't get me started—a few other big names sucking down enormous fees. Look at the Great Depression. The general illusion is that everybody went broke. But the reality is that all that happened was a major shift in the distribution of wealth. All the money that was lost by the multitudes went into the hands of the few.

Let's just look at Tucson, for example. In the 2003/4 season, our monolith facility, The University of Arizona presented three jazz artists on their series. The Preservation Hall Jazz Band, Branford Marsalis and Wynton Marsalis—and that guy for the 7th time in the 10 years we've been here. Don't get me started! (laughter) The lowest paid of them was Branford at $17,000. The next jazz gig in town pays around $1000—if you can get it . Mostly they're door gigs or under $100 per man. No economy can thrive in such a polarized environment.

This situation is being replicated all over the country, and actually being fortified by the various funding initiatives that are primarily benefiting presenters and leaving musicians out in the cold. It's tragic.

SR: There seems to be a feeling among many of its critics that everything wrong with jazz today is Lincoln Center's fault. Is that your view?

MK: This may surprise a lot of people, but no, I don't. It's a symptom of the problem. Just like Bush isn't the problem in politics. He's a symptom of the problem. A malaise of ignorance, indifference, greed and whatnot that poisons the atmosphere and allows these damaging organisms to thrive.

When Lincoln Center was first conceiving its jazz program nearly 20 years ago, everybody was saying to me “Isn't it great? This is going to put jazz in a great position.” Yeah, bent over and spread wide. I told anyone who would listen that it would polarize funding, undermine touring and zombie-fy jazz. I said they'd find some mediocre technician to ordain as visionary and we'd all be paying for it for decades to come. And no, I don't own a crystal ball (laughter).

SR: But you don't blame them for polarizing funding, touring or making the music a museum piece?

MK: Look, I blame Bush and his cronies for destroying our economy and environment, disenfranchising most of America with their “starve the beast” philosophy of government, and making us all complicit by our tolerance of “pre-emptive” war, while making us all more vulnerable to terrorism. But I blame us for letting them do it. That's how I feel about Lincoln Center.

Musicians have allowed a man who's never gained the true respect of his fellow musicians to be sold to the public as an Ellingtonian visionary. Funders have poured millions of dollars into a boondoggle that only delivers a tiny fraction of the booty in meaningful returns. Fine Arts sponsors pay its stodgy orchestra one-night sums that could underwrite a great jazz artist's entire tour, and then force that tripe down the throats of audiences unfamiliar with the art form, who would be infinitely more enriched by listening to any Duke Ellington album than hearing the LCJO. Worst of all, jazz “advocates” point to it as some great model that proves the acceptance of the art form and an economic ideal to which other musicians and facilities should aspire.

SR: Let's examine that last statement. Couldn't an argument be made that Lincoln Center is an example of the potential for jazz?

MK: Empirical evidence says otherwise. The music is being marginalized in every walk of life. Not just in major media, but even in the industry realm. Virtually non-existent on television, even cable and satellite—Yeah, I know BET; don't get me started (laughter)—disappearing on radio, where even the few NPR stations that have been playing it are dropping or cutting programming. Invisible in mainstream magazines and sharply trivialized in music magazines. Even jazz rags are turning their focus to artists who are only marginally valid as jazz artists. The same can be said for many festivals that claim to be jazz, and are increasingly bringing more and more artists of other popular genres into their programming. The Ken Burns extravaganza didn't even cause a blip on the radar screen—except for his own CD marketing. Don't get me started here either!—and in the eyes of Public Broadcasting, Wynton is virtually portrayed as the last living jazz musician.

SR: But he draws audiences wherever he plays. The Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra sells out all over the country. Why is that?

MK: Marketing, man. They thrive on the strangling of the scene, and that's what's happening all over. Facilities draw audiences, not necessarily the artists who perform at them. In Tucson, Wynton and the various big names and all-star aggregations that almost exclusively make up today's touring jazz artists can draw 1500-2500 people at the University of Arizona, our arts monolith, at ticket prices of $24-50. Other internationally-acclaimed jazz artists playing here at $12-20 a ticket will draw as little as 60 people, at best 300-400.

This isn't just true of jazz, but all of the performing arts. The Buena Vista Social Club has played here every year for the past four or five years, selling out two or three shows each time. 5000-7500 people at $25-$60 a head. Another excellent and reputable Cuban group comes to town and draws 75 people at $10. We saw the Blind Boys of Alabama at the U of A with 2200 people in 2000. In 2002, we saw them at a beautiful, intimate hall with about 80 other audience members in a 500 seat facility.

This situation is being replicated all over the country. We recently traveled to Albuquerque to see Randy Weston in a wonderful theater. There were less than 100 people there. Two weeks later Wynton sold out 1400 seats at the same theater in two shows—and another 1400 in two shows in Santa Fe, about 60 miles away. Of those 2800 people in that single market who attended Marsalis' gig, not even 100 were interested in one of the true jazz greats? Doesn't make sense.

Funders perpetuate this situation through facility-based funding. People like Bill Cosby, Whoopi Goldberg and Willie Nelson contribute their efforts to fundraising events for Lincoln Center. These are concerned and generous individuals who think they're contributing their efforts to a worthy cause. If there was an entity in country music or society in general that was doing the equivalent damage that Lincoln Center is really doing to jazz, Willie Nelson would be in the front line of protestors.

SR: It sound like you do blame Lincoln Center.

MK: Yes, as I'd blame any predator. Any beast that must consume to feed its out-of-control imperative. But again, it's the syndrome that's really at fault not the symptom that thrives on it. Let's look at their recent fundraising campaign to build three halls in that big Columbus Circle boondoggle. $150 million dollars was raised—all to build a club in a city filled with clubs and concert facilities. Do you have any idea what $150 million dollars could do for jazz? Health care, pension funds, product distribution and marketing, establishment of artist-driven c3s and the professional training programs needed to make them work, and so forth? Even a fraction of that money could go a long way in addressing those issues.

And what does Lincoln Center do with that scratch? Real estate! I hear they're nice facilities. I mean, how nice can they be? And all these concerned funders, fans, celebrities and so forth plunk down their money to contribute to this, when there's so much need on the jazz scene? Then there's the collateral damage as other facilities try to replicate Lincoln Center, but aren't doing all that well. Just as other festival promoters emulate George Wein, but nobody has ever been able to replicate his empire. Just as no jazz musicians are going to be able to replicate Wynton's empire—as “BeatDown” Magazine recently referred to it.

But lots of mini-versions of all of the above are springing up. Little fiefdoms of exploitation, with their various spins that offer a distorted whiff of actual progress and systemic improvement.

SR: Is this only occurring in the area of live performance?

MK: No, it permeates everything. It's the American way, which until around 20-25 years ago was not prevalent in the world of fine arts and non-profit dedication.

Now the fine arts and funding world have bought in completely. Let's look at the Ken Burns mess. A filmmaker of dubious quality—pretty much exclusively a product of Public Broadcasting—and with no previous knowledge or even interest in jazz, gets millions of dollars to create the biggest film extravaganza on the history of jazz. A great opportunity for the art form, right? True recognition across the land in untapped areas, right? Huge new audiences of consumers who will buy concert tickets, fill clubs and make those CDs fly off the shelves, right?

You know what sold? Videos and DVDs of the series. Copies of the book connected with the series. CDs compiled to be marketed with the series. That's it. Not a blip on the chart for the artists portrayed, not even for Wynton, who was lionized by it while almost everybody but Pops and Duke were smeared.

Those Ken Burns Jazz—think Sherman and Atlanta when you hear that—CDs dominated the jazz charts. I contacted over 30 record stores in 15 cities to ask if people were buying any of the artists' own CDs along with the Burns compilations. The answer was always a resounding no.

Marketing, my man. Mass marketing. That's what made Burns. That's what's made Wynton. That's what we're up against. It's an empty promise of potential success to which not one in 10,000 will actually have access.

This situation involving live performances has taken place in Kansas City, with the Harriman Jewell Fine Arts series. This is a high quality subscription series of arts events, which has been around for decades. It features mostly classical music, with a few notable dance and other performances. It has included only a few jazz concerts in the past ten years, and all of them have featured a Marsalis.

Wynton and the LCJO was featured in the series about five years ago. In December, 2005, Ellis and Branford Marsalis played a duet concert in the series. Now I have received my 2007-08 brochure for the upcoming series and Wynton and the LCJO is featured again, with most tickets priced at $70.00. That is an unprecedented high price for a non-benefit jazz concert in Kansas City, where the tickets are ordinarily priced in the $20--30 range.

I was curious, so I checked the online ordering status for the Wynton/LCJO concert. It is almost sold out at the Folly Theater, even at $70.

Meanwhile, the Folly Theater presents a series of national jazz concerts every fall and spring, and does not come close to selling out. This series is priced at an average cost of $20 per ticket.

[RDK]

This situation involving live performances has taken place in Kansas City, with the Harriman Jewell Fine Arts series. This is a high quality subscription series of arts events, which has been around for decades. It features mostly classical music, with a few notable dance and other performances. It has included only a few jazz concerts in the past ten years, and all of them have featured a Marsalis.

Wynton and the LCJO was featured in the series about five years ago. In December, 2005, Ellis and Branford Marsalis played a duet concert in the series. Now I have received my 2007-08 brochure for the upcoming series and Wynton and the LCJO is featured again, with most tickets priced at $70.00. That is an unprecedented high price for a non-benefit jazz concert in Kansas City, where the tickets are ordinarily priced in the $20--30 range.

I was curious, so I checked the online ordering status for the Wynton/LCJO concert. It is almost sold out at the Folly Theater, even at $70.

Meanwhile, the Folly Theater presents a series of national jazz concerts every fall and spring, and does not come close to selling out. This series is priced at an average cost of $20 per ticket.

I agree that this is a stupid and regretable development, but I tend to blame the public as much (if not more) than the touring group itself. Face it, most people don't like jazz and even less like the "jazz scene" at clubs, bars, halls, etc. I'd much rather spend $25-30 to see an organ trio at the Jazz Bakery than $50-100 to see just about anyone at Disney Hall or UCLA's Royce, but those venues sell out a thousand seats rapidly while the clubs will be lucky to get 50 or 60 on any given night. I don't quite understand Wynton's tremendous appeal myself - I suspect it's largely because he's considered rather "safe" by the monied PBS crowd - but I have a hard time blaming him for that. Face it, we're fans of a niche musical genre - and the more "mainstream" jazz fan out there (and in this case I use the term "jazz" loosely) prefers Kenny G to Lee Konitz. You said it yourself: the Marsalises seem to appeal to the classical "fine arts" crowd that attends the Harriman series. But I wonder how many of them would attend a show at the Folly no matter what the cost? I have a hard time seeing how this is taking money away from other (better?) acts simply because the audiences that attend these concerts already seem so exclusive of one another.

[JSngry]

You said it yourself: the Marsalises seem to appeal to the classical "fine arts" crowd that attends the Harriman series. But I wonder how many of them would attend a show at the Folly no matter what the cost? I have a hard time seeing how this is taking money away from other (better?) acts simply because the audiences that attend these concerts already seem so exclusive of one another.

It's more of an indirect effect, Ray. In a lot of areas (Dallas is one of them), there's a level of promoters who are somewhat "musically neutral". That is, they really don't book events based on a mucisal "vision" or anything, they just book on perceived reputation & status. So what happens with thee people is that they see the Marsalisian model as one to be emulated for thier own endeavors, many of which are semi-well-funded & publicized. So as a result, you get all these local series/events where the "feel" & "look" of both the music & musicians is in the Marsalis "mode" just because that's what the promoters are looking to offer and hopefully capitalize on. That whole "sanctioned jazz" thing for any overflow/offshoot of the audiences that go to the "real ting" LC-type events is all about catching wwhatever money might be left over, and there is some to be had, it would appear.

Now sure, that's a case of a prexisting market having its needs met by promoters who are looking to do that instead of [resent the entirety of the music as it currently exists. But in markets lik eDallas (and I suspect many other ciities) where the jazz crowd is indeed older, more set in their ways, and more out of touch with the music's ongoing evolutions, then it become a matter of looking for more of the same to keep the product line running than it does keepin the music itself alive and healthy. Seems like every few years around here there's some new guy popping up who starts getting promoted at the various "events" and stuff, and this guy is just...so much more of the same, and all but devoid of any personality of his own (but is able to execute a huge repertoire of cliches) to varying degrees of effectiveness), and dammit, there's another 20-30 years of job security, playying music that doesn't know any better for people who don't know any better, but by god, it's JAZZ doncha' know!!!

No, this is not a direct result of anything Marsalis. But is is a distinct outgrowth of the intellectual & institutional "culture" that they have led the way in creating, and to the extent that they are still out there doing it, they're still offering moral support fo others to grab onto their way and get whatever is left over.

People say "Do it yourself!" or "Make your own way!" or "Find your own audience!" and all that. Which, hey, that's the spirit, indeed. But the reality is that for the overwhelming majority of people who want to play a different type of jazz, they still want it to be called "jazz", and they still want it to reach the "jazz audience". Been there myself. The reality is, though, that there is only so much seed capital & "institutional access (from concerts to clubs) in the "jazz world" and it is increasingly going towards the more codified, Marsalis-esque muic and culture, since it seems to be a better "investment" (no surprises, same thing tomorrow as today, etc, all the benefits of a "brand name" type of music - if it's gonna be called "jazz", then everybody knows in advance what it'll be, and hey now, ain't THAT easy!!!). This scene is not interested in music that falls outside of some fairly rigid ly set parameters, and more and more, if you want to get into the "jazz scene" to play for the "jazz audience" this is what you're up against - their way in or nothing.

You can say balme the audience instead of the business machine, but it's really more of a "the chicken or the egg?" syndrome really, especially since as more and more people come to jazz from a state of total ignorance of the music's depth and breadth and are just looking for an easily understood "perception" of "what is jazz and will I like it?", what are they going to be offered for their considered consideration, hmmmm? The chicken or the egg indeed, and eitehr way it's gonna get eaten up.

Which is why I say it again - anybody looking to do something "different" in jazz, be it to the end of "breaking boundaries" or to the other end of "taking it to the people", (or, especially, doing both). start thinking outside the jazz business box about who's gonna put the money into your system to get you started and who's gonna put the money into your pockets to keep you going. Becuase the jazz business box is pretty much in the process of becoming all about one thing and one thing only, and if your thing ain't that thing, hey - forget about it.

Is Wynton directly responsible for all of this? No. But is all of this part of his "legacy"? Yes, I believe it is, and I believe that him and his supporters view it as a good thing.