[reeddoubler]

I firmly believe that if more people were exposed to actual jazz music (as opposed to the pablum smooth variety) jazz would have a bigger audience. The music is suppressed in our art deprived society, it is easier to access in Europe and Japan, and as a result there is a bigger audience there for the arts in general, and jazz in particular.

 

[hakukani]

Are there any jazz artists doing a particularly good job of reaching the “TikTok generation”? I wouldn’t know because I don’t use it myself, but pose the question as the medium matters as to building and maintaining an audience over time. Seems in these modern times there is opportunity for innovators.

Although there’s some disagreement on whether she is jazz or mid-century pop, Laufey is an online sensation. Emmet Cohen’s program also reaches a younger audience.

 

[Quackhack]

Regardjng historically wider jazz interest in Japan & Europe vs the US…there’s an elephant in the room describing much of the disparity. It’s no coincidence many great American players moved to Europe mid-20th century. Certain nefarious forces impacted not only the music industry’s recording & distribution of the art form & regional employment opportunities, but also public education was lacking for youth. It extended even into my formative years as both colloquial derision as well as formal curricula exclusion.
Edit: not limited to jazz either, see history of rock & roll/race records

 

[MattiL]

Jazz festivals seem to have decent amount of audience. Individual concerts are more challenging to have sold out.

 

[etc-etc]

Off topic, but this isn't necessarily a ribbon mic issue. Ribbon mics can have huge frequency response curves, both of mine are well in excess of 20kHz....

That is right:

Are Ribbon Mics Dark or is Everything Else Hyped?

In the world of microphones, a lot of language is loosely used to describe the sound of a given model. Two of the most frequently used descriptions are “dark” and “bright” microphones. But what exactly do these terms mean?

aearibbonmics.com

 

[allenlowe]

Well, talkies were a natural evolution of silent movies. Bebop was largely about jazz musicians 'discovering' what the neo-classisists already knew, and putting it in a 'jazz' context. Yes, I'll agree, there were big audiences for those modern groups, but has the popularity stood the test of time?

no; bebop was a natural evolution from so-called "swing," and was predicted by a lot of prior players - Rudy Williams, Pete Brown, Clarence Proffit, Nat Cole, Lester Young, Coleman Hawkins - these players were already, by 1942, challenging the rhythmic assumptions of swing (as was Bird by 1942). This will offend you, but to say the beboppers were simply "discovering" what white classicists had already done is really a racist assumption, as you are assuming that players like Bud Powell, Dizzy, Bird, Benny Harris, Thelonious Monk, et al weren't smart enough to develop this on their own - sure, some had classical training, but I don't hear a lot of classical music which sounds anything like Koko, Dizzy Atmosphere, Off Minor, Reets and I - you name it. These were creative geniuses who made it all into a new music.

The "test of time?" Bebop some kind of fad? Have you listened to a Bud Powell or Al Haig or Charlie Parker or George Wallington or Fats Navarro or James Moody record recently? 60, 70, 80 year old music that leaps out at you as the Real Thing, now and forever.

 

[johnebravo]

To the overwhelming majority of people, music means singing and dancing. If they can't imagine being able to sing along, they'll possibly tolerate it if they can at least dance to it, but without either one, they're at a loss as to how to respond, and they find it largely boring. Instrumental music is such an odd-ball phenomenon to them, it gets its own Grammy category -- one that is largely an afterthought.

I've got no data to back this up, but I'd bet that probably 80-90% of the jazz audience at least took music lessons on some instrument at one time in their lives, so they can appreciate and enjoy instrumental skill in a way that most people who have never taken a whack at an instrument usually can't.

 

[saxson]

I think that young people that listen to jazz are people who strived hard to make the jazz band in high school, maybe even college, and saw how much extra work it took. After playing it, they became "listeners" until their interest faded--often when they get married and/or have kids.

 

[etc-etc]

I think that young people that listen to jazz are people who strived hard to make the jazz band in high school, maybe even college, and saw how much extra work it took. After playing it, they became "listeners" until their interest faded--often when they get married and/or have kids.

Their second wave of interest may come once kids grow up.

 

[Mgmarcus]

The audience for jazz consists mostly of people who like jazz and people who are in relationships with people who like jazz. Occasionally the audience consists of people who stumble into a bar or restaurant where they happens to be jazz being played. Some of these people are happier than others.

On a less snarky note, I do believe many people who think they don't like jazz would change their minds if they heard it played well, in person, in a good venue with a good crowd. I Hearing a jazz band in Stockholm in adolescence radically changed my life. I remember that evening more vividly than almost anything else that has happened to me. Part of what grabbed me was the enthusiasm of the audience, which was clearly feeding the performers' energy. Unfortunately, at least in NYC, hearing high-quality live jazz has become an expensive, tourist-oriented proposition. There are, of course, exceptions.

 

[mpbraendle]

The statistic below is for Germany 2023 ("I hear Jazz with great pleasure / with pleasure"), splittedd by age classes:

View attachment 169514

But Jazz is in Germany only for 6,5% the preferred music style.

Statistics based on how many that responded? (well, the digit after the comma indicates that it must be more than 100 ...)

 

[keilmer]

Statistics based on how many that responded? (well, the digit after the comma indicates that it must be more than 100 ...)

< 20.000 persons are interviewed personally per year.
The market research institute (Allensbach) is known for its expertise.

Grundlage der Daten ist eine repräsentativ angelegte Personenstichprobe (Quoten-Auswahlverfahren) bezogen auf die deutschsprachige Wohnbevölkerung ab 14 Jahre (2023: 70,080 Mio. Menschen). Befragt werden jährlich insgesamt über 20.000 Personen (2023: 23.524) in Privathaushalten am Ort der Hauptwohnung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Die Umfrage stützt sich ausschließlich auf mündlich-persönliche, nicht telefonische Interviews.

 

[mudrock.]

I think it's really hard to get away from the fact that lots of modern jazz, for better or worse, is "music for jazz musicians by jazz musicians." Does that mean its bad? Definitely not. But what doesn't help matters is that there is a bit of a technical aspect in jazz, and technical music is sometimes lost on the masses. Isn't to say this is only exclusive to jazz. I listen to shoegaze, math rock, all I think have similarities with jazz, and lots of people will listen to these things and go "*** is this?" and i always feel like gone are the days of "here's this big head at the start of the song you can hum" which also contributes to these things.

But that isn't to say its all bad. I've taken friends to see jazz stuff with me with no interest (although they are still music minded) and they've always loved it. So I think it's just a lack of exposure coupled with jazz being a musician's music it feels. I hate to make it sound so high brow. I don't consider jazz to be a high brow form of music in itself though. Certainly I doubt lots of the great musicians over the years expected it to get so high brow but i think its gotten that way because of how much we've over studied so much of jazz. Like an english class where you overanalyze a book to death.

 

[robtax@yahoo.com]

Interesting question. I consider myself part of the jazz audience. I have the good fortune to be able to support my local jazz societies, purchase vinyl and go to shows. I love listening to vinyl and usually have jazz on during the day. Jazz has a vibe to it for me that makes me want to cook a nice meal, have a glass of wine or get dressed up with my wife and have an evening.

As a player I love listening and trying to emulate. But I also accept as a player that I'm never going to be a professional and just have fun playing tunes with my friends or whatever group I can be a part of. Whether I'm sitting in a big band or a combo, I love playing it all. It's fun. And to the extent the group creates a vibe, the audience seems to love it too.

I love other music too. I grew up listening to Tejano music and played with a couple of bands in my teens. Loved being on stage...the vibe. As a teen picked up the guitar and got lost playing Slayer and Metallica covers. Still a hard core metal fan to this day. The vibe.

I am appreciative that this art form is still around to participate as much as a person wants. I can buy a horn, bass, etc and play my heart out. I can go to shows and clubs and hear it live. And I can collect vinyl and create my own vibe at home.

I think so long as musicians devote themselves to creating an experience for themselves and the audience, the art form will remain. There is still money in it and the technology today makes it much easier to distribute. I don't like all metal, R&B etc...but there is lots a like. Same with jazz. Lots I like and a lot I don't. But I'm glad it's all there for me to take in.

The jazz audience is us. Every person on this forum.

 

[JayeLID]

Although there’s some disagreement on whether she is jazz or mid-century pop, Laufey is an online sensation. Emmet Cohen’s program also reaches a younger audience.

compared to what, tho ? It's one thing to say this YT broadcaster has a lot of followers...that isn't synonymous with Jazz having a large audience overall, relatively speaking in comparison to other genres.
One might ask ar the followers and fans of those channels and people also just within the very small overall group of 'true jazz fans' already, or are they actually folks who would not have become fans if not for exposure to these channels, etc ?...I would hypothesize that it isn't as if they have somehow popularized jazz for more people....but rather those who follow for most part are just already within the subset of folks who were jazz listeners already.

 

[donwind]

These days the younger players exist in a bit of an echo chamber. They don't have the mentorship of an Ellington, Basie, Blakey, etc. Those bands focused on not just mastery of the music, but on entertaining the audience. But today the kids are playing in their college/university bands, playing to impress their teachers and impress and outplay their classmates. When they get to the real world that's really all they know. Their music is technical and "interesting," their technique is superb, but it sounds like a calculus textbook set to music (maybe a bit of hyperbole, but not much.)

I've seen at least a few new album releases where the artist offered bundles with a book of transcriptions of every solo on the new album. That tells me their target audience is other musicians.

Then you have the musicians like Jon Batiste. Technically brilliant, great composer, but his music makes you feel good, makes you want to move, is actually entertaining. I'm sure he can fall into a similar rut as his young colleagues, but for the most part he's very entertaining. You can try to write him off as "commercial," or as a "sell-out," but he's a real entertainer, which I think, should be the goal, especially if you want to get paid for your efforts.

"... but sounds like a calculus textbook..." You nailed it! As a long time music educator, I have observed the decades-long evolution of jazz into academic music. But this phenomenon is not exclusive to high school and college jazz bands. The world of "classical" music has experienced a parallel trend. Recitals by music majors are replete with contemporary compositions that stretch the limits of technique and instruments, but are difficult to listen to, and seem devoid of artistry or emotion. Apparently, there is little interest in communicating with the listener, much less actually entertaining an audience.

 

[JayeLID]

So just to chime in on a thread I was not gonna chime in on....coming from a region of the country where Jazz is NOT POPULAR to listen to....I'd observe the following about the venues and people who go out to see live Jazz here :

Venues - they are general music venues, so they also hire pop, blues, ska, Norteno, DJ's, etc....there are no "Jazz Clubs" here, per se....at best there are places which we play were we have been able to muster a regular Jazz Night, be it once a month, twice, or once a week....and that's as far as it goes.

The Audience - varies a bit. The most solid are the older generation, those who actually were around when the giants were, so who grew up with a Great American Songbook repertoire. Or had parents who grew up with it. But then given the internet and the current easy access to a variety of genres, there are young folks 20's-30's who like the music, who have it on their playlists somewhere and who are familiar with many of the most classic recordings; many times this having come about thru initially being exposed via a move/film/tv show soundtrack. Or have parents who grew up with it.

Understand this doesn't mean Coltrane or Monk or MIles or Mingus or Brecker or Kenny Garrett or whoever....there is zero familiarity with these artists and their material EXCEPT in the tiny social group which, as noted above....consists of actual jazz musicians...and their significant others. It means 'familiar' with Billie, Ella, Sinatra, maybe some Astrud Gilberto, maybe a bit of Mel Torme, etc. A fair amount of commercial success having been achieved by current artists such as Samara Joy or Jane Monheit who have really just sorta successfully (and often tastefully) 'repackaged' this sort of material to provide another avenue for folks to become exposed.

You get the pattern here ? Vocalist Jazz, not instrumental. Will they go out once in a while to listen to a local live group, and while they will sit thru a night of G.A.S.B. material...sung by a decent vocalist...they will probably leave after a set or set and a half of instrumental jazz which is bop, post-bop, neo- whatever you wanna call it. Or if they stay they'll be staying because their friends are hanging out at the bar or club and socializing, not because they are listening to the music (or even acknowledging the band).

So this ramble....I suppose just noting that for SOME places, with whatever them the venue wishes to project....will incorporate JAZZ as a live music offering...knowing there is a niche market for it, even if that market is 1/4" deep, it has a marketing element to it. But the people who would actually come out and watch...they are 90% generalists in their musical tastes and their Jazz proclivities go only as far as what many current jazz instrumentalists would consider 'trite'. So it (jazz, limited scope of sub-genre) has a value as a 'product', even here in a region where it is vastly less popular than the usual music genres.
And the majority of folks here, non players, who would describe themselves as 'jazz fans' mean it only to the degree of the GASB material...they have zero familiarity nor affinity towards the classic instrumental stuff of the 50's thru 80's.

 

[turf3]

Well, anyway, it wasn't bebop that "killed jazz", it was rock and roll and it was the passage of time.

Kids in 1954 didn't want to listen to their parents' music from the 30s. Rock and roll was new, it was transgressive, you could do your OWN dances not the tired old foxtrots of your parents. And your parents hated it just like their parents hated Benny Goodman and Chick Webb.

Now if someone wants to propose what jazz musicians should have done in the early 50s to provide a hot danceable music for teenagers that their parents would hate but was also accessible and spoke to teenage hormones and spending habits, have at it. What would that have been? Anyone? Anyone?

 

[etc-etc]

Well, anyway, it wasn't bebop that "killed jazz", it was rock and roll and it was the passage of time.

Kids in 1954 didn't want to listen to their parents' music from the 30s. Rock and roll was new, it was transgressive, you could do your OWN dances not the tired old foxtrots of your parents. And your parents hated it just like their parents hated Benny Goodman and Chick Webb.

Now if someone wants to propose what jazz musicians should have done in the early 50s to provide a hot danceable music for teenagers that their parents would hate but was also accessible and spoke to teenage hormones and spending habits, have at it. What would that have been? Anyone? Anyone?

That was rock and roll with Louis Jordan as a prime example.

 

[JayeLID]

Well, anyway, it wasn't bebop that "killed jazz", it was rock and roll and it was the passage of time.

You hold tight to this view and have repeated it here and elsewhere tons of times...but I don't agree with it all, particularly, although parts I do.

It was, partially, the fact that Jazz stopped being accessible/understandable to its previous audience which also made folks (listeners) slip away from it. To lay it all at the feet of rock and roll isn't accurate. It's a multi-faceted occurrence, but to not acknowledge that be-bop replaced certain qualities and aspects of the music which had been relatively easily consumable for a listening and DANCING audience, with something far, far less so...would be ignoring a pretty obvious reality.

Mind you, flip side is - what would jazz BE today had that not happened, artistically/creatively speaking ? Hard to imagine it without the leaps and bounds made from the late 40's thru 60's and even thru 70's-80's with advent of fusion. But that's another subject.

So I agree, did bop "kill" jazz ? No, hardly. But did it have a significant role in 'killing' it as a popular, consumable musical genre ? Yes....