# Why are there fewer jazz listeners than classical music listeners?



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I just noticed that around Salt Lake City, there are a lot of people who listen to classical music but hardly anyone who listens to jazz around here. Are there just fewer people who enjoy jazz during this generation? Or maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong people?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Hanging out with the wrong people.

These album sales stats don't include the last couple of years, but shows Jazz with a slight edge. If there are fewer Jazz listeners, it's not likely to be a significant amount.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/188910/us-music-album-sales-by-genre-2010/


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Jazz listening in Utah is lower for the same reasons sales of Bud Light are lower there: a substantial percentage of the population is opposed to it on ideological/moral grounds. Worldwide and US numbers are going to be different.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

This is not just a Utah phenomena, it is a US one.

In other countries, jazz is much more appreciated than the US. Northern Europe, Japan, Western Europe, for example jazz is more respected and popular. And not just more new releases of jazz standards by young musicians. Jazz seems to be more thought of as living, breathing, evolving art form, not a 'museum piece'.

Musicians that can barely fill jazz clubs in the US, play to much larger crowds in Europe.

I could pontificate for hours on why I think this is true.



bharbeke said:


> Jazz listening in Utah is lower for the same reasons sales of Bud Light are lower there: a substantial percentage of the population is opposed to it on ideological/moral grounds. Worldwide and US numbers are going to be different.


This is an interesting point.

I'll bet there is a correlation between religiosity and politics, and jazz appreciation. Especially when you get away from jazz standards and smooth jazz and get into more progressive forms and contemporary forms. I don't have any stats to back this up, however, just a small sampling of friends and acquaintances.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

bharbeke said:


> Jazz listening in Utah is lower for the same reasons sales of Bud Light are lower there: a substantial percentage of the population is opposed to it on ideological/moral grounds. Worldwide and US numbers are going to be different.


Actually it's not just a Utah thing either... I visited NYC my hometown a few years ago and no one really knew their jazz stuff there. It was easy to find classical music ads for stuff going on at Carnegie Hall. But ads for the Village Vanguard and Blue Note is relatively rare .

Moral grounds of jazz? I promise you that rock music is very prominent here  and needless to say, there are no qualms about young folks listening to those.

(Note: Bud Light is awful here in Utah. Great microbreweries for Utah including Epic Brewing. They really know how to make beer better here than in Philly.)


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Simon Moon said:


> This is not just a Utah phenomena, it is a US one.
> 
> In other countries, jazz is much more appreciated than the US. Northern Europe, Japan, Western Europe, for example jazz is more respected and popular. And not just more new releases of jazz standards by young musicians. Jazz seems to be more thought of as living, breathing, evolving art form, not a 'museum piece'.
> 
> ...


Also I'm just curious... Maybe it's due to racism? After all, jazz music has been a predominantly African-American art form, so perhaps the general public is like umm...

However, rap music is also an African-American art form and that one is way more popular however. So I can't really attribute that to racism here.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Maybe because classical music is nearly all music made until 100 years ago while jazz music is one of many genres that have been into existance for the last 100 years.

I can say I find the deminishing of the popularity of jazz music to be interesting. In the fifties jazz was the pop music of its time. TV themes from the sixties is clearly jazz oriented then it fell into obscurity.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Jazz is a nitch.
It always will be.
Just like here.
Why aren't u on a Jazz forum?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Albert7 said:


> Actually it's not just a Utah thing either... I visited NYC my hometown a few years ago and no one really knew their jazz stuff there.


No offense, but that's a heck of a generalization to make about a city with 10 million people.


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> This is not just a Utah phenomena, it is a US one.
> 
> In other countries, jazz is much more appreciated than the US. Northern Europe, Japan, Western Europe, for example jazz is more respected and popular. And not just more new releases of jazz standards by young musicians. Jazz seems to be more thought of as living, breathing, evolving art form, not a 'museum piece'.
> 
> Musicians that can barely fill jazz clubs in the US, play to much larger crowds in Europe.


The great Bill Evans bassist, Eddie Gomez, spends so much time in Japan because he is a star there. They love him. He is kind of a standard which Japanese double bassists aspire to. In the US, very few people have idea who he is. And when you hear him play bass, you'll realize how inexcusable that is.



> I'll bet there is a correlation between religiosity and politics, and jazz appreciation. Especially when you get away from jazz standards and smooth jazz and get into more progressive forms and contemporary forms. I don't have any stats to back this up, however, just a small sampling of friends and acquaintances.


Well, my bass instructor, also a good friend, is a master at both jazz and classical with many years of experience at both. His knowledge of both is seemingly bottomless. He is also a devout Polish Catholic boy with definite conservative leanings. But he's not outspoken about it and he doesn't dump on you if you hold different opinions. Once, he took me to visit these big Polish churches in Detroit despite the fact that I am pretty much an atheist. He wasn't trying to convert me but he just thought I might enjoy visiting them, which I did. Like him, I'm not militant in my views. I'm neither religious nor conservative but I allow others to differ from that. I could care less. It's how you treat people that matters.


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2015)

Albert7 said:


> Also I'm just curious... Maybe it's due to racism? After all, jazz music has been a predominantly African-American art form, so perhaps the general public is like umm...
> 
> However, rap music is also an African-American art form and that one is way more popular however. So I can't really attribute that to racism here.


Basically, jazz is a very existentialist and intellectual music. The public doesn't care for it for the same reason they consider Thomas Kinkade to be better than Max Ernst--they can understand Kinkade and can't understand Ernst.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Key words to your post, Albert: "Salt Lake City."


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2015)

Sloe said:


> Maybe because classical music is nearly all music made until 100 years ago while jazz music is one of many genres that have been into existance for the last 100 years.
> 
> I can say I find the deminishing of the popularity of jazz music to be interesting. In the fifties jazz was the pop music of its time. TV themes from the sixties is clearly jazz oriented then it fell into obscurity.


The following link may help explain it. It's from Forbes--a magazine I normally don't read for any reason.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesma...ecline-is-jeopardizing-its-national-security/

The dumber we get, the simpler and shorter we like our music. I don't see how popular music can get much shorter or simpler than it is now.

A few years ago, I posted a music quiz online. It was a mixture of older and newer music questions. I thought it was very basic but I found young people--later teens and early 20s--could not answer even half of them. Not a single American who took the quiz knew the three phases of classical music nor could name composers from any of them. European kids, however, knew them like the backs of their hands. None--American or European--could name a form of European liturgical music. Some even admitting that they didn't know what liturgical meant. It's quite sad.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

The irony of this conversation is that Salt Lake City's NBA team is the Jazz.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Albert, both Classical and Jazz are niche markets. They primarily are historical art forms. Certainly there is an audience for contemporary Jazz and contemporary Classical, but these are a niche within a niche. Xenakis, Philip Glass, Ligeti, Thomas Adès, and John Adams can't begin to match the sales of Mozart alone. What contemporary Jazz composers/performers rival Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, John Coletrane, etc...?

Classical music covers a large historical period of time from at least the year 1000 through the present. The majority of Classical music sold/performed dates from the Baroque (c. 1700) through the mid-20th century (c. 1950). That's still a 250 year period of time. The peak of Jazz dates around 1920-1970 (and that's probably pushing it). That's only a 50 year period. 

What is the audience for true "Bluegrass"? The market for "Country" music has continued to grow... but Taylor Swift, Shania Twain, and Carrie Underwood have about as much in common with the Carter Family, the Louvin Brothers, Bill Monroe, and the Stanley Brothers as contemporary R & B Artists Rihanna, Kanye West, Beyonce, etc... have in common with original Blues artists such as Son House, B.B. King, Muddy Waters, and John Lee Hooker.

The vast majority of the audience listens (almost exclusively) to that music which is heavily marketed at them. A good proportion of this same audience never even "grow up" and begin to explore music much outside what they knew as adolescents. It's like they never got beyond SpaghettiOs, Pop Tarts, and Luck Charms (which explains the success of McDonald's). Look at all the "Classic Rock" radio channels aimed at the middle-aged audience. When I was a pre-teen/teen I remember "Classic Rock" stations playing Chuck Berry, Elvis, and Little Richard. Now "Classic Rock" includes a little music from the early 1960s (mostly the Beatles and Rolling Stones) and centers on the 70s & 80s. 

To delve into Jazz, Bluegrass, Blues, Folk, Classical, etc... requires an audience willing to delve into music outside the familiar and the highly marketed. I suspect "Classical" comes with the highest cache among these niche musical genre. It bears a reputation (real or imagined) of sophistication, class... and social status. 

Honestly, while I also love to share what I love in music (and elsewhere) with others, and love to talk about music that I love with others who share my passions... I really couldn't care less what others listen to in terms of worrying about what is selling best or what genre has the smallest audience. Hell, I love opera and lieder and these are virtually niche passions within the niche market of Classical Music as a whole. :lol:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The irony of this conversation is that Salt Lake City's NBA team is the Jazz.

The "irony" is that they were too stupid to change the name when they moved from New Orleans. It's rather like moving the Steelers to Miami and keeping the same name.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Basically, jazz is a very existentialist and intellectual music.


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Albert, both Classical and Jazz are niche markets. They primarily are historical art forms. Certainly there is an audience for contemporary Jazz and contemporary Classical, but these are a niche within a niche. Xenakis, Philip Glass, Ligeti, Thomas Adès, and John Adams can't begin to match the sales of Mozart alone.


That's because Mozart's records have been on the shelves a lot longer than Xenakis or Glass or Ligeti. Give them an equal start, I'm not so sure Mozart would sell any better. Someone at work gave me a CD once that he didn't want anymore. It was called "Mozart for Your Morning Coffee" or something to that effect. That's how they have to package it these days--as muzak you put on while you get ready for work rather than as something to listen to critically because the vast majority of people simply can't listen to it critically.



> Classical music covers a large historical period of time from at least the year 1000 through the present. The majority of Classical music sold/performed dates from the Baroque (c. 1700) through the mid-20th century (c. 1950). That's still a 250 year period of time. The peak of Jazz dates around 1920-1970 (and that's probably pushing it). That's only a 50 year period.


That's because jazz is American where everything changes fast. Jazz went through at least much transformation as classical in a far shorter time span. From Buddy Bolden to Ornette Coleman would be like Bach to Stravinsky in 50 years time.



> What is the audience for true "Bluegrass"? The market for "Country" music has continued to grow... but Taylor Swift, Shania Twain, and Carrie Underwood have about as much in common with the Carter Family, the Louvin Brothers, Bill Monroe, and the Stanley Brothers as contemporary R & B Artists Rihanna, Kanye West, Beyonce, etc... have in common with original Blues artists such as Son House, B.B. King, Muddy Waters, and John Lee Hooker.


Actually R&B is a term supposedly invented by Jerry Wexler in the late 40s and would include stuff like Louis Jordan, Big Joe Turner, Roy Brown, Ray Charles, Amos Milburn, Peppermint Harris, Stick McGhee, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Johnny Otis, some of BB King's and T-Bone Walker's stuff, etc. What is called R&B today has absolutely nothing in common with real R&B.

Kids today call it New School and Old School. It isn't. That would imply a link or lineage. There is none. The stuff called R&B today has absolutely nothing whatever to do with true R&B. Bullmoose Jackson would be spinning in his grave.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Jazz is a nitch.
> It always will be.
> Just like here.
> Why aren't u on a Jazz forum?


Cool beans!  I am actually a rather active member on a jazz forum already so no worries there.

Honestly, I was wrong about people not knowing jazz in NYC. They do but the average person in the youth is like "Kenny Dorham who?" or "Who is Thad Jones?"

Jazz shouldn't be a niche product. This is a populist medium with lots of rarefied elements. In fact, some days I prefer jazz over classical music.


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Basically, jazz is a very existentialist and intellectual music.


You're confused? Okay, I'll explain it. If you think the clip you posted wasn't existential and intellectual then you don't have an understanding of bop. When a bop musician goes out onstage, he bares his soul, he lays it all out there for the world to see. It doesn't matter what tune he's playing. He plays what is in his heart at that moment. The next time he plays it, it will be different. That solo Diz played is not ever going to be repeated by him. Maybe something similar next time, maybe something entirely different. The bass is walking in total improv because true bass-walking is improv. This is something that cannot be understood except by those who have done it. The band turns to you and it's your turn to solo. At that moment it's just you alone in a spotlight with the whole universe watching. And you bare your soul to that universe to either seduce it or at least make it understand. That's the only way I can describe it.

You don't think about what you're doing while you're doing it. You just do it. While you're on a tether when you're playing behind someone else in the band, when it is your turn to fly, you cast off that tether and you go, baby, go! You soar, you swoop, you turn spirals, you just go! You don't know what you're doing but yet you do know what you're doing. Get it? You're taking the audience someplace they've never been but you've never been there either but you know how to get there. And it's the same with the band, they have to follow you too. Three days later, you play the same number but your solo is different because they mood in your heart at that moment is different.

It's like being a baseball pitcher. He's at his best when he's in a groove. He's not thinking about his mechanics, he just winds up and lets it go. When he thinks too much, he's ineffective. So with bop. When you start thinking too much what you're doing, you can't play properly, it's not jazz. And you're going to have those off days. Some nights, you're slaying. Some nights, you're just going through the motions. You can't be on all the time.

Some of the best examples I can give is listening to Bill Evans with Scott LaFaro on bass. When Scotty solos, he's just off somewhere and Bill has to push himself to keep up. Scotty will do the most incredible, off-the-wall stuff I've ever heard on the bass. And slowly, Scotty eventually spirals back to earth. He made Bill a better pianist and Bill knew it which is why he was so devastated by Scotty's death. He lost his co-pilot.

Such is the essence of bop and everything that came after it. And no other music can do that but jazz--just get up there and wing it off the top of your head. It's the most rewarding music for me and, by far, the most progressive.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Victor, you are on point with this one. I feel that jazz although intellectual and highbrow is actually a lot more casual considering that you have a bunch of guys improvising and jamming with each other. Back in the 1960's, Blue Note musicians were rather prolific like Kenny Dorham who came out with 2-5 albums within 1-2 years... these guys were complete geniuses that they could just lay down awesome albums one after another.

We don't have that anymore. Jazz is a lot more formalized and I feel that perhaps that's why less people listen to it.  Maybe but this is just a theory.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

Albert7 said:


> I am actually a rather active member on a jazz forum


I had to read this twice to be sure I wasn't hallucinating.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Kivimees said:


> I had to read this twice to be sure I wasn't hallucinating.


Nope, that's for reals too in fact.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Jazz was killed by an invasion of experts, musicologists, academics, and classifiers. Same as classical. Only genres beneath the notice of such intellectuals can survive.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Jazz was killed by an invasion of experts, musicologists, academics, and classifiers. Same as classical. Only genres beneath the notice of such intellectuals can survive.


I agree... the raw power of jazz was destroyed a lot by jazz musicologists in many ways. The just sit down and jam with each other mentality rarely happens in today's jazz scene. An exception is say Bobby Hutcherson's Enjoy the View album that came out last year. That felt more or less like a true jamming sessions from the 1960's .


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Jazz was killed by an invasion of experts, musicologists, academics, and classifiers. Same as classical. Only genres beneath the notice of such intellectuals can survive.


Classical is dead? Geez, how come no one else has noticed?

Wait! Someone did notice!

"this time when music has become almost arbitrary and composers refuse to be bound by any rules or principles, detesting the very name of school and law like death itself"

- Johann Joseph Fux, 1725

"The last really modern serious composer, in the sense that he spoke with the full authority of the cultural forces of his time, was Wagner."

- Henry Pleasants, 1955


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Classical is dead? Geez, how come no one else has noticed?
> 
> Wait! Someone did notice!
> 
> ...


I think that the art of classical music is helped a lot more by academic study because there are different rules than that of jazz in terms of how sessions are created. Jazz, because of its improvisatory nature, requires a different constraint than with classical recording sessions. Orchestras are generally harder to pin down for expensive recording studio time than say a jazz quintet getting together in someone's garage and banging out some lovely extended tunes here.

Also the same trend is what destroyed the rawness of hip hop too. Academic study is all good but once Lil Wayne got his own iconography and bought into by college professor then we know that despite my postmodern leanings that perhaps things might have gotten a tad out of hand.

Jazz stands for freedom. It's supposed to be the voice of freedom: Get out there and improvise, and take chances, and don't be a perfectionist - leave that to the classical musicians.

--Dave Brubeck


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Basically, jazz is a very existentialist and intellectual music.


Jazz music can be an intellectual experience but in some ways, that is mostly due to intellectual writing extended essays about their experiences with jazz albums.

Also don't forget that jazz sessions were prolific back in the olden days... Here is an example of just the Blue Note ones for 1955.

1955

Kenny Dorham 6 Rudy Van Gelder Studio, Hackensack, NJ, Jan. 30, 1955
Horace Silver & JM Rudy Van Gelder Studio, Hackensack, NJ, Feb. 6, 1955
Gil Melle 5 Rudy Van Gelder Studio, Hackensack, NJ, Feb. 27, 1955
Julius Watkins 6 Rudy Van Gelder Studio, Hackensack, NJ, Mar. 20, 1955
Lou Mecca 4 Rudy Van Gelder Studio, Hackensack, NJ, Mar. 25, 1955
Hank Mobley 4 Rudy Van Gelder Studio, Hackensack, NJ, Mar. 27, 1955
Kenny Dorham 9 Rudy Van Gelder Studio, Hackensack, NJ, Mar. 29, 1955
George Lewis New Orleans Stompers Rudy Van Gelder Studio, Hackensack, NJ, Apr. 8, 1955
George Lewis New Orleans Stompers Rudy Van Gelder Studio, Hackensack, NJ, Apr. 11, 1955
Herbie Nichols 3 Rudy Van Gelder Studio, Hackensack, NJ, May 6, 1955
Herbie Nichols 3 Rudy Van Gelder Studio, Hackensack, NJ, May 13, 1955
J.J. Johnson 5 Rudy Van Gelder Studio, Hackensack, NJ, June 6, 1955
Herbie Nichols 3 Rudy Van Gelder Studio, Hackensack, NJ, Aug. 1, 1955
Herbie Nichols 3 Rudy Van Gelder Studio, Hackensack, NJ, Aug. 7, 1955
JM Cafe Bohemia, NYC, 1st set, Nov. 23, 1955
JM Cafe Bohemia, NYC, 2nd set, Nov. 23, 1955
JM Cafe Bohemia, NYC, 3rd set, Nov. 23, 1955
JM Cafe Bohemia, NYC, 4th set, Nov. 23, 1955

That is crazy prolific. (Link here: http://www.jazzdisco.org/blue-note-records/discography-1955-1956/session-index/)

Now compare that to today.

2001

Stefon Harris - Jacky Terrasson 4/2 Avatar Studios, NYC, Jan. 10 & 11, 2001
Greg Osby 4 w/ String 4 Systems Two, Brooklyn, NY, Jan. 28 & 29, 2001
Jason Moran 4 Systems Two, Brooklyn, NY, Mar. 16 & 17, 2001
Stefon Harris's Group Avatar Studios, NYC, Mar. 28 & 29, 2001
Bill Charlap 3 w/ Special Guests The Hit Factory, NYC, Sep. 6-8, 2001
Thanos Mikroutsikos & Gary Burton Friend's Of Music Hall, ???, Nov. 2 & 3, 2001
Erik Truffaz 4 released 2001
Erik Truffaz Group same location, date

Definitely not as much in fact... With fewer jazz players on the circuit, this isn't surprising. It's all about numbers here. The more sessions that one has, the more likely that you are bound to get jazz classics.

The problem I now think is that jazz music as the stigma of being highbrow and refined and perhaps it is because young folks all think that jazz music (generalizing here) sounds like smooth Kenny G rather than the down and dirty Hank Mobley... However, a lot of it has to be pinned down to publications like Downbeat that don't seem to bring back that "dirty side" of jazz that would increase the appeal to a bunch of younger folks in today's world.

Also Europeans I would think have more jazz fans there than here in America during our decade. I notice that a lot of musicians playing over there and also in Asia.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The irony of this conversation is that Salt Lake City's NBA team is the Jazz.
> 
> The "irony" is that they were too stupid to change the name when they moved from New Orleans. It's rather like moving the Steelers to Miami and keeping the same name.


Even worse was when they lost in the playoffs to the Chicago Bulls back in the olden days of Karl Malone. However, we make that up for our wonderful Real soccer team . National champs there.


----------

