Ageing audience for jazz?

[BillF]

1) Audiences at NYC clubs are generally not that old - I see lots of people in their 20s and 30s.

2) It's not surprising to me that audiences in concert halls are older, and I would guess if you live in a place where concert halls are the main jazz venue, the apparent jazz audience would be relatively old.

Yes, the audience at Smalls looks to be in their 20s and 30s, as far as I can see from their webcam.

At the one club I go to when jazz gigs are on, the Band on the Wall in Manchester, there are a lot of people aged around thirty, but the club's normal fare is more like this:

[BillF]

4) Were audiences for jazz ever THAT young, especially after WW2? I mean, how old were the working class African Americans who listened to soul jazz and hard bop in the 50s and 60s? Or the middle-class whites that listened to west coast jazz during that period?

When I was listening to jazz in 1960 at the age of 20, the jazz audience - and it was much, much larger than today's - was my age. Sadly I often get the impression that today's jazz audiences are largely made up of those same people.

[sidewinder]

Another thing that I find interesting at most jazz shows that I see, is that the audiences are overwhelmingly white - whether it's artists as diverse as Randy Weston or Jason Moran or Wayne Shorter or Jack DeJohnette or the Cookers. Does anyone else see that, or could it be a Bay Area phenomenon?

Not just a Bay Area phenomenon. That's just what I find. The typical jazz fan at gigs in my experience is white, male, retired and middle class (has leisure time and adequate pension to fill it).

A visit to the Swanage Festival in July pretty well confirms your theory 100% (with wives). It would be interesting to see what the demographic is at that 'Love Supreme' festival down in Brighton.

Edited June 8, 2014 by sidewinder

[A Lark Ascending]

Maybe Alan Barnes and Dave O'Higgins should try a promotion like this to up their audience:

http://leadmill.co.uk/events/syd-arthur/

(Look at the bonus under the band photo)

[sidewinder]

Ha !

[BillF]

Maybe Alan Barnes and Dave O'Higgins should try a promotion like this to up their audience:

http://leadmill.co.uk/events/syd-arthur/

(Look at the bonus under the band photo)

Entry to Shag? Jazz audience is shagged out!

[ArtSalt]

I occasionally go to a couple of jazz club nights and jamming sessions in the Hague and Delft and the demographic is mixed with a fair amount of youngish students. I also see a lot of interest back in the UK with a lot of the younger mods starting to explore their 1950s roots more and starting to read the likes of Colin MacInnes, getting into Ivy style and inevitably, modern jazz. And they like it, and they want more!

From my own perpsective, I am 43 next month, my parents were baby-boomers into 60s and 70s pop, soul and rock. There wasn't a jazz album in the house, it simply wasn't in my father's musical vocabulary. But there was that jazz infused album by The Style Council Cafe Bleu which opened my musical ears and led me to Blue Note and modern jazz which I have been exploring and enjoying ever since.

So I am not pessimistic that jazz hasn't the ability to capture and retain a new audience. But as for live audiences, well, a lot of people with young families, busy careers, etc, are unlikely to have pass to attend as many gigs as they would want to. That leaves the young, free and single, and the semi or retired baby-boomers.

[king ubu]

This thread reminded me of an incident that happened somewhen in the 80ies. I was at a show at the red factory in Zurich. and this lady/girl asked me if she could ask me how old I was. She and her group had various guesses/bets outstanding on my age. and I was only in my late 30ies.

Ha ha!

They still stage great concerts there and I try and attend whenever I can! In the 80s, of course, it was the center of youth (counter-)culture and probably the only semi-official place where they could meet and hear their music without having to do so illegally/privately. Nowadays, they are a fix part of the town's cultural life (though the right/conservative politicians always try and cut subsidies, they still seem to hate, probably most of them were around in the 80s already and remain in their ideological trenches).

Some draw only a few elderly folks (and I often feel like I'm still the youngest guy, after 15 years of going there), but others draw many young people and you never can quite tell in advance which will be the case.

[AllenLowe]

If my experience with the people who run various venues is indicative, nobody takes care of business, anyway; what I mean is lack of response and followup, rudeness to the musicians themselves who seek to play the venues, poor promotional efforts, lack of presentational imagination. So this latest news may be just the sound of the pounding of very large nails into the jazz coffin.

As I pointed out elsewhere recently, back in the days when my prime contacts in the business, in trying to get work, were thugs and semi-mafioso, I was paid better and treated better than now, when musicians tend to run the show.

one example is a small venue in New Haven that I tried to book; 4 or 5 emails and no response; I was directed to someone else, who directed me back to the first person who then informed me he just had a baby and was too busy (after he had asked me for details and then disappeared); as I pointed out to him I work a full time job, have 2 kids, one disabled, a wife with cancer, I run a web site and a publishing company and a CD business, have about 3 recordings projects going on at any given time, and I compose every day; but I answer, in a timely manner, every email I get. That shut him up, though unfortunately it also ended any possibility that I might get the gig. But the hell with it, I thought; the business is bad enough without out 'friends' treating us like this,

and I honestly think this is powerfully related to the decline in audience, as this reflects not only my experience but that of virtually every other musician I know who works on my level, meaning, you've done a lot but are not well known. Most venues either go for 'names' or for people who can bring their friends in; this is no way to build and protect the music from extinction.

Edited June 8, 2014 by AllenLowe

[CJ Shearn]

It seems quite a bit of the Smalls audience are students actually, quite a few come from the New York Jazz Workshop and other music programs. Some of the jazz audience, I think, it's healthy that the new audiences checking out groups like Robert Glasper, Chris Dave, Derrick Hodge, come from less a jazz background than a hip hop one, who come to jazz via samples used by J. Dilla and others. Some of that audience, (like an acquaintance of mine for example, who likes straight ahead, but really likes mid 70's Blue Note and GRP, because he loves disco) stuff aren't as interested in classic BN or Riverside, Prestige, like our audience. Hopefully through the new stuff new fans will check out the rich and varied history. The audience still tends to be a middle aged white one, for mainstream jazz, at any gig I've gone to though.

[AllenLowe]

Smalls, btw, does it right, I will say, even though Spike and I don't get along real well.

[sidewinder]

Maybe Alan Barnes and Dave O'Higgins should try a promotion like this to up their audience:

http://leadmill.co.uk/events/syd-arthur/

(Look at the bonus under the band photo)

Entry to Shag? Jazz audience is shagged out!

[BFrank]

Maybe Alan Barnes and Dave O'Higgins should try a promotion like this to up their audience:

http://leadmill.co.uk/events/syd-arthur/

(Look at the bonus under the band photo)

BTW, Syd Arthur happens to be my favorite current rock band. Well crafted neo-prog tunes with interesting chord progressions and rhythm changes. Definitely a jazz element in there, too. I've seen them a couple of times - good shows.

[A Lark Ascending]

BTW, Syd Arthur happens to be my favorite current rock band. Well crafted neo-prog tunes with interesting chord progressions and rhythm changes. Definitely a jazz element in there, too. I've seen them a couple of times - good shows.

I think it was one of your posts that alerted me to them. Listened on Spotify to their first record. Enjoyed it. Whilst looking for some info on the band I stumbled on that Leadmill page. The Leadmill is not that far from me but at my age I'd probably get arrested if I tried to get into the nightclub.

[papsrus]

This thread reminded me of an incident that happened somewhen in the 80ies. I was at a show at the red factory in Zurich. and this lady/girl asked me if she could ask me how old I was. She and her group had various guesses/bets outstanding on my age. and I was only in my late 30ies.

She / they were hitting on you. Which is another sign you're getting old. You don't realize when women are hitting on you.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

6) Related to all these points, one of the big changes in jazz (particularly straight ahead) since 197x is the complete disconnect from popular music. I would even say that a lot of discussion by current fans of pre-197x straight ahead jazz tends to retroactively divorce it from popular music of that time.

You're definitely wrong there, Guy. Lots of jazz albums got onto the Billboard pop or R&B charts in the eighties. I've got a list of 388 by 131 artists :

2 Ahmad Jamal

5 Al Dimeola

7 Al Jarreau

1 Alex Bugnon

3 Alphonse Mouzon

1 Andre Previn

6 Angela Bofill

3 Bill Summers

2 Billy Mitchell

1 Blackbyrds

11 Bob James

1 Bobbi Humphrey

1 Bobby Broom

2 Bobby Caldwell

2 Bobby Mcferrin

1 Branford Marsalis

1 Brecker Bros

1 Charles Earland

2 Chick Corea

5 Chuck Mangione

1 Cleo Laine

1 Damon Rentie

9 Dave Grusin

2 Dave Valentin

3 David Benoit

2 David Grisman

7 David Sanborn

1 Deodato

1 Diane Reeves

1 Diane Schuur

1 Doc Severinson

1 Donald Byrd

1 Dr John

9 Earl Klugh

1 Echoes Of An Era

1 Ernie Watts

1 Fattburger

1 Frank Barber Orch

1 Fuse One

1 Gary Bartz

2 Gene Dunlap

8 George Benson

8 George Duke

6 George Howard

2 Gerald Albright

5 Gil Scott-Heron

9 Grover Washington Jr

1 Harry Connick Jr

1 Harvey Mason

1 Heath Brothers

7 Herbie Hancock

5 Hiroshima

2 Hubert Laws

1 Jaco Pastorius

5 Jazz Crusaders

5 Jean-Luc Ponty

6 Jeff Lorber

1 Jeff Tyzak

3 Joe Sample

1 John Bolivar

2 John Klemmer

3 John Mclaughlin

5 Kenny G

1 Kirk Whalum

1 L A Boppers

6 Larry Carlton

2 Larry Elgart

6 Lee Ritenour

1 Lena Horne

2 Lenny White

1 Leon Redbone

1 Locksmith

2 Lonnie Liston Smith

6 Lou Rawls

1 Madhouse

1 Maurice White

2 Maynard Ferguson

1 Mccoy Tyner

1 Members Only

5 Michael Franks

3 Miki Howard

8 Miles Davis

4 Mtume

2 Najee

5 Narada Michael Walden

2 Noel Pointer

3 Norman Connors

2 Passport

9 Pat Metheny

4 Patrice Rushen

6 Patti Austin

1 Paul Hardcastle

1 Paul Winter

6 Pieces Of A Dream

3 Quincy Jones

1 Ralph Macdonald

4 Ramsey Lewis

6 Randy Crawford

1 Ray Charles

2 Regina Belle

1 Rickie Lee Jones

2 Rippingtons

1 Robben Ford

5 Rodney Franklin

1 Ron Carter

4 Ronnie Laws

7 Roy Ayers

1 Sadao Watanabe

2 Santana

2 Sergio Mendes

11 Spyro Gyra

3 Stanley Clarke

3 Stanley Jordan

2 Stanley Turrentine

1 Stephane Grappelli

1 Sweat Band

1 Terri Lyne Carrington

1 Tim Weisberg

5 Tom Browne

2 Tom Scott

1 Tuck & Patti

1 Vince Guaraldi

1 Walter Beasley

1 Wayne Henderson

6 Weather Report

2 Webster Lewis

1 Wilbert Longmire

1 Will Downing

3 Wilton Felder

6 Wynton Marsalis

3 Yellowjackets

(I've cut stuff by the likes of Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, numbers of various artist and film soundtrack comps.)

Now you can say that there's not much jazz in so and so's work, but that's the point, I think - there WASN'T a serious disconnect between jazz and popular music in the eighties. Even in the nineties there were between 200-250 jazz albums charting. What you got was a spectrum from jazz-ish, to very hardcore jazz.

MG

[Larry Kart]

In post #14 above, I referred to the music of Stoltzel; I meant Stolzel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Heinrich_Stölzel

What I've heard so far is terrific. I'd particularly recommend this:

http://www.amazon.com/Christmas-Oratorio-Cantatas-G-H-Stolzel/dp/B00003Q083/ref=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1402278913&sr=1-4&keywords=stolzel

[BFrank]

BTW, Syd Arthur happens to be my favorite current rock band. Well crafted neo-prog tunes with interesting chord progressions and rhythm changes. Definitely a jazz element in there, too. I've seen them a couple of times - good shows.

I think it was one of your posts that alerted me to them. Listened on Spotify to their first record. Enjoyed it. Whilst looking for some info on the band I stumbled on that Leadmill page. The Leadmill is not that far from me but at my age I'd probably get arrested if I tried to get into the nightclub.

Great! The new album is even better.

Syd Arthur trivia: Raven Bush (the multi-instrumentalist) is Kate's nephew.

[John L]

Well, I am part of the audience for jazz and I am ageing...

[AllenLowe]

not me; title of my autobiography:

"Picture of Wardell Gray"

Edited June 9, 2014 by AllenLowe

[Hot Ptah]

I have to socialize with many people of different ages and from different parts of the U.S. for my work. I think that we in the jazz fanatic community may overestimate the appeal and awareness of jazz in the overall population, at all age levels.

From what I can tell, almost everyone from age 20--60 now likes either hip hop or contemporary pop country (Tim McGraw, Taylor Swift, Lady Antebellum, Kenny Chesney, that kind of stuff). Rock (in the sense of the rock music styles from the 1970s) is not that popular. Blues and folk are never mentioned. Jazz is never mentioned.

That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. When the topic of music comes up, either a discussion of hip hop or today's pop country comes up. Those are also the artists who are typically booked into the arenas and larger theater venues these days.

So the question is, how does jazz appeal to those people? I think it does not appeal to them at all. There is a huge entertainment deficit in today's jazz, which makes it very off-putting to a great many people today.

These days, people just want to have fun.

[Head Man]

not me; title of my autobiography:

"Picture of Wardell Gray"

Just don't look in the mirror too often..........

[Larry Kart]

So the question is, how does jazz appeal to those people? I think it does not appeal to them at all. There is a huge entertainment deficit in today's jazz, which makes it very off-putting to a great many people today.

These days, people just want to have fun.

I don't think that jazz doesn't appeal to "those people" because "there is a huge entertainment deficit in today's jazz." Rather, as I think you suggest, it's because the kinds of musical entertainment they prefer already amply satisfy their desires to" just ... have fun." If I'm already having lots of fun, why would I go in search of some other ways to do that?

Pondering these problems, there's always a temptation to say that jazz such as it is needs to be significantly other than it is, and then we might be OK. Not that the various ways that jazz is nowadays ought to be regarded with complacency, but my experience over the years has been that if we try to gee up the music's supposed "entertainment deficit," we then won't be OK, or that much better off, in terms of popularity, we'll just have some more music that no one will care that much about or remember after a short while. Hey, what about Windham Hill? That was supposed to be our salvation at one point.

​BTW, that is not to dismiss the important practical points that Allen Lowe made in post #34.

[Hot Ptah]

So the question is, how does jazz appeal to those people? I think it does not appeal to them at all. There is a huge entertainment deficit in today's jazz, which makes it very off-putting to a great many people today.

These days, people just want to have fun.

I don't think that jazz doesn't appeal to "those people" because "there is a huge entertainment deficit in today's jazz." Rather, as I think you suggest, it's because the kinds of musical entertainment they prefer already amply satisfy their desires to" just ... have fun." If I'm already having lots of fun, why would I go in search of some other ways to do that?

Pondering these problems, there's always a temptation to say that jazz such as it is needs to be significantly other than it is, and then we might be OK. Not that the various ways that jazz is nowadays ought to be regarded with complacency, but my experience over the years has been that if we try to gee up the music's supposed "entertainment deficit," we then won't be OK, or that much better off, in terms of popularity, we'll just have some more music that no one will care that much about or remember after a short while. Hey, what about Windham Hill? That was supposed to be our salvation at one point.

​BTW, that is not to dismiss the important practical points that Allen Lowe made in post #34.

I agree that jazz should not be watered down to try to appeal to a mass audience. However, even in my lifetime I can remember Lionel Hampton, Clark Terry, Dizzy Gillespie, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, Art Ensemble of Chicago, and Sun Ra emphasizing an entertainment aspect in their shows, or at least a lively, friendly interaction with the audience. Charles Mingus, Dexter Gordon and Carla Bley had large personalities and some people went to see them partly to hear their between song comments and just to see them.

I am not aware of anything like that today. I can't name any jazz artist who presents an entertaining, engaging or compelling onstage personality, or who makes their shows entertaining. There are no jazz artists that I can think of who would generate a comment like "oh, he or she is really cool" from a member of the general public.

[mjzee]

So the question is, how does jazz appeal to those people? I think it does not appeal to them at all. There is a huge entertainment deficit in today's jazz, which makes it very off-putting to a great many people today.

These days, people just want to have fun.

I don't think that jazz doesn't appeal to "those people" because "there is a huge entertainment deficit in today's jazz." Rather, as I think you suggest, it's because the kinds of musical entertainment they prefer already amply satisfy their desires to" just ... have fun." If I'm already having lots of fun, why would I go in search of some other ways to do that?

Pondering these problems, there's always a temptation to say that jazz such as it is needs to be significantly other than it is, and then we might be OK. Not that the various ways that jazz is nowadays ought to be regarded with complacency, but my experience over the years has been that if we try to gee up the music's supposed "entertainment deficit," we then won't be OK, or that much better off, in terms of popularity, we'll just have some more music that no one will care that much about or remember after a short while. Hey, what about Windham Hill? That was supposed to be our salvation at one point.

​BTW, that is not to dismiss the important practical points that Allen Lowe made in post #34.

I agree that jazz should not be watered down to try to appeal to a mass audience. However, even in my lifetime I can remember Lionel Hampton, Clark Terry, Dizzy Gillespie, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, Art Ensemble of Chicago, and Sun Ra emphasizing an entertainment aspect in their shows, or at least a lively, friendly interaction with the audience. Charles Mingus, Dexter Gordon and Carla Bley had large personalities and some people went to see them partly to hear their between song comments and just to see them.

I am not aware of anything like that today. I can't name any jazz artist who presents an entertaining, engaging or compelling onstage personality, or who makes their shows entertaining. There are no jazz artists that I can think of who would generate a comment like "oh, he or she is really cool" from a member of the general public.

I agree with Ptah. I think

1) Jazz got so caught up with "jazz as an art form" that "jazz as entertainment" was dismissed, as if "entertainment" itself is a dirty word. However, consider that even Frank Zappa referred to what he did as part of show business.

2) I also think that jazz, at a certain point, became too introverted, too shy. Not just in disdaining the entertainment aspect, but even in the way musicians played. As an example, consider the David Sanborn sound: thin, even notes with no vibrato. Contrast that with a Coleman Hawkins or Dexter Gordon - a big meaty sound that can easily fill a room. It's as if men shrank in the last few decades.

3) Audiences need something to connect with, or they'll be disengaged. Give them a reason why they should like this music, or a way to understand. That's why I think cover versions really help. Heck, even Albert Ayler recorded spirituals.

4) Jazz tunes need to be shorter. There are no geniuses out there who can sustain a vamp for 20 minutes, period. Give people a mix of tunes for their money; give them more song form.

I'm sure I'll be flamed for a lot of the above, but I've been saying much the same thing for over a decade, and it rings more true to me now than ever.

In fact, regarding the recent thread about the Sonny Rollins/Don Cherry band, my takeaway from that band and its aftermath is this: The music was a battle between more traditional jazz forms and "the new thing," more free-form options. Sonny considered it from both angles - you can hear the dialectic in the recordings as he's performing. But in the end, he sided with the more tuneful, traditional forms, because the new thing wasn't including the audience and their desires into the music. Sonny wanted to appeal to the people, and that explains his recordings since "Next Album." I think it's a good lesson to be learned. As Sonny says,