Times Is Tough

Audio from today’s appearance on Soundcheck is online, with a small twist: instead of focusing strictly on the Vision Festival’s weekend marathon, the conversation covered broader economic realities for the New York jazz musician. There wasn’t a lot of time -- the show also included a 20-minute segment about the Jazz Loft Project, and a nice in-studio performance by Grant Lee Phillips -- but I think we credibly scratched at the surface.

The theme of the segment apparently derived from a line I dashed off in an email: “It’s a fantastically open time to be a jazz consumer in the city, and a borderline oppressive time to be a jazz artist (economically, not creatively).” Let’s continue this conversation, shall we? Is there any insight to be shared about that paradox? Does anyone disagree with my premise? The lines are open; leave comments below.

And while we’re on the topic: I didn’t get to mention that the Vision Festival marathon will include a moderated discussion on “The effect of the economy on life decisions of the young musician.” This Saturday, 5:30 to 7 p.m. More on that here.

  Oh, and the image above is of trumpeter Steven Bernstein, whose music was chosen to illustrate the segment. Photo by Ziga Koritnik.

Comments

[steven bernstein]

Nate-
thanks for bringing up this discussion....as u know every time I'd see you or Ben R, I'd make a point of mentioning the fact that the musicians they are "picking" in the weekend arts are often playing in a room that holds 30 people and passing the hat, and the inherent issue of an artist that is worthy of the NYT's praise, but is working in this situation while NYC's cost of living and lifestyle continues to spiral upwards...a musician's life has never been easy, I just feel the disparity is far greater now than ever.

. Again thanks for making this discussion public
steven bernstein

[Jason Parker]

Hi Steven,

Even Thelonious Monk was a marketer and a promoter at one point in his career. Before he was THE Monk, he was just another cat hustling for gigs. We all have to go through that point of our careers.

And there's nothing mutually exclusive about the two. In fact, they are so inextricably linked that to say " When you ask them to become a brand and a marketer and a promoter, pretty soon they're not a musician" to me seems very short-sighted and unrealistic.

Granted, there are many musicians that don't WANT to be marketers, and that's cool. But then they better have someone on their "team" that likes to be a marketer, or they won't work much.

It's not enough to be a great musician. There are LOTS of great musicians. We have to figure out some way to be heard...

Jason
http://oneworkingmusician.com

[Steven Walcott]

As the owner of a small independent jazz label I've seen the unique world of jazz economics up close and personal. There's plenty of blame to go around without getting into all of it.

I would like to make one macro point. I remember reading Cornel West say that the problems of black folks are the same as the problems of white folks just worse. And I think the same applies to jazz. I talk to/work with plenty of non-jazz musicians and even with bigger audiences it's a very tough road. In my humble opinion we are witnessing the victory of television over music. Watching is much more popular than listening. As a friend of mine once predicted, music is going underground.

I can not wrap up without addressing the new income streams rhetoric that has been floating out there for a while. I don't believe in the exalted status of all artists, but I can't picture Thelonious Monk silkscreening t-shirts. When you ask them to become a brand and a marketer and a promoter, pretty soon they're not a musician.
Sorry to ramble on.

[Jason Parker]

GREAT post, Scott. I concur with all of your points.

I would also like to add a thought about the NYC-centric view of jazz. Sure, NYC has always been the epicenter of the creative jazz world, and no doubt it still is. But if we are concerning ourselves with the economic realities of being a jazz musician, I would suggest that other cities are much more hospitable.

Here in Seattle there are many jazz musicians making a living doing what we love to do. Granted, many of us have diversified in the way Scott lays out. But the economic realities of living and working in Seattle and I'm sure many other tier-2 cities is so much more favorable to living the jazz life.

And frankly, while the jam sessions I've been to in NYC are great if you want to play bebop and standards at 200bpm, I find the open-ended, forward-thinking sessions in Seattle to be much more exciting, both to the players AND the audience.

I realize that NYC is the place to more easily "make your mark" on the jazz scene. But for those of us who are more concerned with making a living, the rest of the world holds much more opportunity.

Come to Seattle and see for yourself!

Cheers,
Jason
http://oneworkingmusician.com

[Truan Savage]

This paradox certainly exists, and unfortunately it's feeding itself into a worsening spiral. Because what do all these creative jazz musicians do when they can't make enough money performing? They sign up to teach members of that massive, overeager audience. So what we get is even more competition for a limited amount of money. Also, I doubt many would argue with the fact that a large portion of the jazz audience right now is comprised of these students, many of whom are unable, unwilling, and almost always not required to pay the full amount to attend a jazz concert (student discounts).

The worst part about this is that the pure existence of these jazz-education programs convince many students that they are somehow qualifying themselves to be compensated for their abilities, and that (even worse) there is an audience waiting for them.

I touch upon this briefly in my first post about the problem with John Coltrane, whose shoulders I pile some of the blame upon.

http://savagemusic.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/the-problem-with-john-coltrane-part-1-the-audience/

[Scott McDowell]

Thanks for posting, this is an interesting conversation, and I do have some rambling thoughts. I think that an old model of survival persists for the jazz musician that in general hinders his/her earning potential. (It's always somewhat humorous to see how traditional creative musicians are!) True, NYC is an awful place to live if you don't have a whole lot of money, maybe the worst place (the best place artistically, perhaps). But jazz musicians have typically been slooowwww to rejigger their job descriptions to account for the new day. In previous generations, it was possible to live cheaply in a metropolitan area, make better money playing live, receive financial support from a record company, publishing, etc.

Today an individual musician is his or her own corporation or brand. This is a terrible, horrible, no-good cliche but one that the most successful young musicians really get. The possibilities for income streams are greater and the barriers to an audience are non-existent. In the past a musician had to hope that their potential fans somehow heard about a gig and would show up at the club and maybe buy a record. Now there are a hundred ways to get that potential fan to give a musician money. They don't even have to leave the couch.

The job description has changed, though. It's no longer good enough to just play well and be artistically interesting. The job requires some marketing ability, productizing, some creativity in terms of running a business, computer skills, an open mind about what it means to be a creative musician, flexibility, the ability to write, the ability to teach, etc.

Teaching is a good example, many jazz musicians have historically been known to teach on the side. What are other related jobs that musicians are naturally good at that can be done online, for instance?

This may seem like a pain in the ass. Who really wants to be in the t-shirt business (for example). Too many things to be done that take away from creating music, and that's true. But the benefit is that it can be done mostly DIY. You no longer need a label to reach people. You no longer need to convince a writer to write about you (sorry Nate!) Manufacturing CDs or vinyl has (almost?) been replaced by clicking a mouse a few times. There's no longer a need to buy in to the old means of distribution. A musician can keep the control, and decide how the music is disseminated. There's great power and potentially money in that.

Art for Arts is a good example of a community creating its own economic infrastructure. We'll see how successful this 28 hour gig is. I'm hopeful.

(And ya know maybe NYC isn't the best place to live after all. I know one successful professional musician who lives hours away from the city, but he tours 10 months a year, so what difference does it make?)

I completely agree that it's a wonderful time to be a listener, consumer and lover of jazz/creative music. It's a golden age. Which is exactly why the great potential to make money exists!

Respectfully,
Scott

http://lovegloom.wordpress.com
http://wfmu.org/playlists/md

[Nate Chinen]

Thanks, Michael. Your point is well taken, though press coverage isn't exactly what I set out to scrutinize here.

Then again, coverage and compensation have always been linked on some level, haven't they? I've long had some thoughts on this subject -- the "invisibility" of "traditional" jazz musicians (quotes are applied for a reason here) -- and may want to explore it in a future post. It deserves its own soapbox.

I do check out Jazz Lives from time to time, by the way. Enjoyed your post on the Newport archive. Nice to read a review of that Teagarden band, 50 years after the fact. Even at the time, players like him weren't getting the ink they shoulda been.

[Michael Steinman]

You are right on both counts, but the second reality is truly depressing: the number of world-class musicians in New York playing for the tip jar. Dismissing for a moment the dispute about the aging audience, I would note that major newspapers seem interested in jazz musicians only on the obit page. Of course, if you're "cutting-edge," you might get noticed in a paragraph. But it does seem that playing a chorus of SKYLARK at ballad tempo is enough to make you magically invisible.

On my blog (JAZZ LIVES, http://www.jazzlives.wordpress.com), I'm doing my best to celebrate those jazz players who are worthy but "unfashionable," but how much effect can a blog have? Anyone want to offer suggestions on narrow or disappearing media coverage?

Michael Steinman
www.jazzlives.wordpress.com