For most kinds of jazz to survive outside of a few big metros, there's probably a need for some kind of subsidization. Every good paying job I ever had playing gypsy jazz was subsidized by somebody - that's to say, the audience did not pay us, someone else did. And like so many things that are the province of elites/academia - modern art, theatre, opera, etc - that most people don't have the slightest interest in, I think the wealthy folks running those things are perfectly happy with that. There might be something similar at work with jazz - "it's for us and let's keep it that way". Here in Charlotte, we have a stupendously well-funded private arts council that subsidizes museums, theatre groups, opera, symphony, provides free studios for certain types of visual artists and also a lot of other "art". The local folk and jazz societies probably get a bit of the leftovers. Like most organizations that provide this kind of funding, they tend to think that popular musicians and writers must always pay their own way, and pretty much anything outside of orchestral/opera/show tunes is pop - and of course, the subsidies don't do anything towards keeping the price of admission down. Maybe if we had a big music school with a jazz studies program, it'd be a bit different and they would subsidize some kind of jazz programming too. I will say this, the local jazz society brings in a pretty diverse bunch of musicians and pays them reasonably well, too. Though sadly, the audience is usually pretty small.
I guess what I 'm trying to say in my long-winded way is that because very few people outside those who practice things like opera and theatre have any interest in them, they have to be subsidized. Maybe jazz will wind up like this, too.
Most of the GJ players I know who are making money from it have no problem traveling 3-4+ hours for gigs, multiple times per week at that. And now that I've resumed doing sub work and started taking work again, it seems like the pay is usually pretty decent, like $150-$250+ for 2-4 sets...and if we get paid less, it's usually because we're getting fed and/or there's a tip jar that (usually) gets pretty filled.
Kind of a tangent here, but I honestly feel like now's a great time to be playing GJ or swing; as others have said, it's just such an accessible, joyful form of jazz you always get at least some of the crowd totally curious and engaged.
Just a semantic/cultural niggle in response to Scot's post: "Elites" and "academia" are among the words that have been kicked around so much in the culture wars (which are actually political wars) that they have become shredded at the edges and nearly emptied of useful meaning.
I offer myself as an example: Blue-collar upbringng, state-scholarship college education, doctorate (also subsidized by my labor), twenty years a teacher, twenty more as a (badly paid) journalist. Am I part of the elite because I have a Ph.D.? Of the academy because I have a terminal degree and teachng experience? Because I have loved music (classical, folk, jazz) since I was a teenager? Because I started on Shakespeare at age ten (and married a Shakespeare specialist)?
The vision of American society divided by economic class that also divides our cultural environment strikes me as useful mainly to people who find class divsions useful. Opera, theatre, and the visual arts do not belong to the elites and academics (however defined), as a visit to New York City or Chicago should demonstrate. And those arts, like jazz or folk music, might be minority tastes in raw-numbers terms, compared to the entire population, but their appeal is not limited to any particular demographic.
The question is one of economic support is interesting. I'm on the board of our local folk music society--that is, a non-profit, all-volunteer organization that puts on concerts. In fact, I write the grants that provide the cushion so that we can get through lean times and take the occasional risk. Our core audience is small and old, but our mission (which I did not invent but do articulate) is to keep live traditional music alive and accessible, and we have the great good fortune to be in a state that funds the arts via statewide and regional arts boards. Some of what gets supported is not to my taste, but that's not the point. The arts board also supports the Chamber Music Society, children's theatre, arts in the schools (helpful since art and music ed have been nearly eliminated from budgets), and miscellaneous individual artists.
The point is that sustaining a cultural environment that is not tied solely to "the market" requires supra-market intervention, and if you don't like "elites," that means the government. When I read the standard acknowledgement statement at a concert--that we are supported by a grant from our regional arts board, specifically funded by the voters of Minnesota--it always gets applause. Of course, there are probably no MAGA adherents or free-market enthusiasts in the house--mostly people of retirement age living on some combination of SS, pensions, and their savings. Like me.
The arts have always been supported by a combination of "the market" and forces beyond that mechanism, whether in the form of actual-elite patronage or state funding. Culture in general operates that way. Non-market entities are the flywheel of cultural continuity.
As a beginner in other hobbies I feel that I am part of a community, and that they are putting some effort into creating fun and engagement for me and my beginner peers.
As a beginner in jazz it feels that I am expected to buy albums, buy books, buy gear, take lessons, show up for my teacher's and his buddies' concerts, and somehow make my own fun out of it.
I played the Washington Folk Festival yesterday, subbed and sat in with Djangolaya. It was a busy and fun day, people mingling, ages from babies in strollers to seniors. Free to get in. The rumour was circling that Justin Bieber was going to make a surprise visit.
As a beginner in jazz it feels that I am expected to buy albums, buy books, buy gear, take lessons, show up for my teacher's and his buddies' concerts, and somehow make my own fun out of it.
Yeah, this part can really suck...many moons ago, my first (and last) "conservatory" teacher pushed his CD on me (which wasn't anywhere near the jazz I was into, especially back then...yet young me still bought it due to feeling pressure) and then would always push for me to go to his gigs. Turned me off so much that many years later when I started teaching, I made it a point to never discuss my gigging/recording life with students unless they directly inquired.
And yeah, it's tough to make your own fun out of it when you're just trying to break into it - lots of gatekeeping in the jazz world but especially in the more straight ahead/conservatory jazz community, imo. That's an area where I've always felt like the swing community has been more open to beginners and mid-level players, don't need to have chops and/or unlimited charisma from day 1 for other musicians to treat you like you're an actual person and still one of them.
@Gojdan forgot to add, please don't feel too discouraged about all that either and always remember if there's a bad fit with any teacher, you're under no obligation to try and make it work. I've fired teachers before when it's a poor fit...hell, I've fired students too for the same reason lol. But either way, when it comes to the "fun" part, my best advice is to always play what you want to play;along with always listening to tunes too, whether it's licks/progressions/songs/etc., playing what I want to play is how I've always kept myself engaged and inspired (especially at the low points) - of course, ymmv but try not to ever let any bad vibes over the scene get to you too much.
Comments
For most kinds of jazz to survive outside of a few big metros, there's probably a need for some kind of subsidization. Every good paying job I ever had playing gypsy jazz was subsidized by somebody - that's to say, the audience did not pay us, someone else did. And like so many things that are the province of elites/academia - modern art, theatre, opera, etc - that most people don't have the slightest interest in, I think the wealthy folks running those things are perfectly happy with that. There might be something similar at work with jazz - "it's for us and let's keep it that way". Here in Charlotte, we have a stupendously well-funded private arts council that subsidizes museums, theatre groups, opera, symphony, provides free studios for certain types of visual artists and also a lot of other "art". The local folk and jazz societies probably get a bit of the leftovers. Like most organizations that provide this kind of funding, they tend to think that popular musicians and writers must always pay their own way, and pretty much anything outside of orchestral/opera/show tunes is pop - and of course, the subsidies don't do anything towards keeping the price of admission down. Maybe if we had a big music school with a jazz studies program, it'd be a bit different and they would subsidize some kind of jazz programming too. I will say this, the local jazz society brings in a pretty diverse bunch of musicians and pays them reasonably well, too. Though sadly, the audience is usually pretty small.
I guess what I 'm trying to say in my long-winded way is that because very few people outside those who practice things like opera and theatre have any interest in them, they have to be subsidized. Maybe jazz will wind up like this, too.
Most of the GJ players I know who are making money from it have no problem traveling 3-4+ hours for gigs, multiple times per week at that. And now that I've resumed doing sub work and started taking work again, it seems like the pay is usually pretty decent, like $150-$250+ for 2-4 sets...and if we get paid less, it's usually because we're getting fed and/or there's a tip jar that (usually) gets pretty filled.
Kind of a tangent here, but I honestly feel like now's a great time to be playing GJ or swing; as others have said, it's just such an accessible, joyful form of jazz you always get at least some of the crowd totally curious and engaged.
I'm curious to hear from people in Asheville, NC. I understand there's lots of gigging, but I don't know the proportion of jazz gigs.
Just a semantic/cultural niggle in response to Scot's post: "Elites" and "academia" are among the words that have been kicked around so much in the culture wars (which are actually political wars) that they have become shredded at the edges and nearly emptied of useful meaning.
I offer myself as an example: Blue-collar upbringng, state-scholarship college education, doctorate (also subsidized by my labor), twenty years a teacher, twenty more as a (badly paid) journalist. Am I part of the elite because I have a Ph.D.? Of the academy because I have a terminal degree and teachng experience? Because I have loved music (classical, folk, jazz) since I was a teenager? Because I started on Shakespeare at age ten (and married a Shakespeare specialist)?
The vision of American society divided by economic class that also divides our cultural environment strikes me as useful mainly to people who find class divsions useful. Opera, theatre, and the visual arts do not belong to the elites and academics (however defined), as a visit to New York City or Chicago should demonstrate. And those arts, like jazz or folk music, might be minority tastes in raw-numbers terms, compared to the entire population, but their appeal is not limited to any particular demographic.
The question is one of economic support is interesting. I'm on the board of our local folk music society--that is, a non-profit, all-volunteer organization that puts on concerts. In fact, I write the grants that provide the cushion so that we can get through lean times and take the occasional risk. Our core audience is small and old, but our mission (which I did not invent but do articulate) is to keep live traditional music alive and accessible, and we have the great good fortune to be in a state that funds the arts via statewide and regional arts boards. Some of what gets supported is not to my taste, but that's not the point. The arts board also supports the Chamber Music Society, children's theatre, arts in the schools (helpful since art and music ed have been nearly eliminated from budgets), and miscellaneous individual artists.
The point is that sustaining a cultural environment that is not tied solely to "the market" requires supra-market intervention, and if you don't like "elites," that means the government. When I read the standard acknowledgement statement at a concert--that we are supported by a grant from our regional arts board, specifically funded by the voters of Minnesota--it always gets applause. Of course, there are probably no MAGA adherents or free-market enthusiasts in the house--mostly people of retirement age living on some combination of SS, pensions, and their savings. Like me.
The arts have always been supported by a combination of "the market" and forces beyond that mechanism, whether in the form of actual-elite patronage or state funding. Culture in general operates that way. Non-market entities are the flywheel of cultural continuity.
I think leaky bath theory happened to jazz.
As a beginner in other hobbies I feel that I am part of a community, and that they are putting some effort into creating fun and engagement for me and my beginner peers.
As a beginner in jazz it feels that I am expected to buy albums, buy books, buy gear, take lessons, show up for my teacher's and his buddies' concerts, and somehow make my own fun out of it.
I played the Washington Folk Festival yesterday, subbed and sat in with Djangolaya. It was a busy and fun day, people mingling, ages from babies in strollers to seniors. Free to get in. The rumour was circling that Justin Bieber was going to make a surprise visit.
As a beginner in jazz it feels that I am expected to buy albums, buy books, buy gear, take lessons, show up for my teacher's and his buddies' concerts, and somehow make my own fun out of it.
Yeah, this part can really suck...many moons ago, my first (and last) "conservatory" teacher pushed his CD on me (which wasn't anywhere near the jazz I was into, especially back then...yet young me still bought it due to feeling pressure) and then would always push for me to go to his gigs. Turned me off so much that many years later when I started teaching, I made it a point to never discuss my gigging/recording life with students unless they directly inquired.
And yeah, it's tough to make your own fun out of it when you're just trying to break into it - lots of gatekeeping in the jazz world but especially in the more straight ahead/conservatory jazz community, imo. That's an area where I've always felt like the swing community has been more open to beginners and mid-level players, don't need to have chops and/or unlimited charisma from day 1 for other musicians to treat you like you're an actual person and still one of them.
@Gojdan forgot to add, please don't feel too discouraged about all that either and always remember if there's a bad fit with any teacher, you're under no obligation to try and make it work. I've fired teachers before when it's a poor fit...hell, I've fired students too for the same reason lol. But either way, when it comes to the "fun" part, my best advice is to always play what you want to play; along with always listening to tunes too, whether it's licks/progressions/songs/etc., playing what I want to play is how I've always kept myself engaged and inspired (especially at the low points) - of course, ymmv but try not to ever let any bad vibes over the scene get to you too much.