Who listens to jazz?

[Guest]

The Scottish Jazz Federation last month published a report, "Jazz Now! Jazz Audiences in Scotland: research and benchmarking" which looks at the current audience for live jazz and explores some possible ways of increasing it.

So, assuming you go to live jazz in Scotland, who are you?

If you're a typical audience member, you are:

• 41 years old on average
• Slightly more likely to be male than female (55% to 45%)
• Probably middle-class, although "the current jazz audience is more socio-economically diverse than other live music audiences"
• A musical omnivore

How does that compare with people's experiences elsewhere?

It includes an analysis of the jazz audience according to frequency of attendance at jazz gigs. One interesting finding in this section is that people who don't go to a lot of gigs tend to think of price as a guarantee of quality. If it's cheap, their thinking seems to be, it can't be any good.

It also contains comparisons of the jazz festival audience with the non-festival audience and of the jazz audience with that for other genres of live music (classical, folk and indie pop).

There's a lot of interesting stuff in it, too much to fit in here.

I've put a fuller summary on my own Byas'd Opinion blog and you can download the whole thing from the Scottish Jazz Federation site.

[burning dog]

Average age 41 is fairly low. Apart fromm Girl and Boy bands, MOST audiences for live music (sans dancing) would average not too far short of that. The audience at our local jazz club, especially for hard bop, is older than 41, containing 40 somethings who grew up with Courtney Pine and ex-pat Londorners of 60s plus from the classic mid 50s to 1970 London 'modern' jazz scene, with a smattering of in betweeners.

[Byas'd Opinion]

It would be interesting to see the distribution of ages, not merely the average. I suspect the 41 average age might be down to lots of 20ish students and 60ish retirees. After all, the average person has one testicle and one ovary.

[hackneyvi]

One interesting finding in this section is that people who don't go to a lot of gigs tend to think of price as a guarantee of quality. If it's cheap, their thinking seems to be, it can't be any good.

And the converse, I suppose, that it it's dear, it will be good.

I confess that I am one of the mugs who had thought this. I'm in Hackney, London and paid nearly £30 for my ticket at PizzaShed in Soho; less than half that for The Vortex in Dalston and about a third for admission to Cafe Oto. The PizzaShed concert and venue were crap; Vortex and Cafe Oto had wonderful performers and venues which were intimate, natural and welcoming.

The audience at Cafe Oto on Saturday night was about 70% people in their 20s and early 30s, I'd guess. The Dalston Vortex audience for Craig Taborn was about the same.

PizzaShed's audience for Impossible Gentlemen was full of old boots, though. Having said that, the cutlery seemed to be sturdy enough to get through to the enamel underneath without breaking the plate itself. The scrapings made a little noise now and again but nothing that was really too bad.

[Old Grumpy]

There is one major omission on the Scottish Report - there is no mention in the section on audience demographics as to what proportion were beard wearers!

I am not surprised by the findings and indeed fall into most of the majority categories highlighted in Byasd's post. I would have thought these demographics were probably applicable to most genres outwith the current popular music scene.

[hackneyvi]

There is one major omission on the Scottish Report - there is no mention in the section on audience demographics as to what proportion were beard wearers!

The bed-wetters are also disregarded. Very much the most marginal of marginal constituencies.

[Ian Thumwood]

Where these surveys fall down is by assuming that there is one jazz audience. I think it is really fractured as you will find if you go to a jazz festival where different styles of music may be on offer. It is curious how this changes with the generations. I grew up listening to a lof of big band jazz and now find that this is nowhere near as popular as it may have been 30 years ago when I got into the music. Most of the practicioners of the Swing Era have now passed on with the result that if you do hear music from the 20's /30's and 40's, it will be more jazz-orientated material whereas it used to be more Glenn Miller, Tommy Dorsey, kind of stuff. The archetypal "white" swing music has gone by the wayside and you have more chance f hearing obscure duke Ellington scores these days , I feel. This definately has a wider attraction than the "nostalgia" market. I think the interest in this music is now much more informed.

If you go to see the likes of Dr. John, the audience will be from a more rock / non-jazz background and I feel that the more Traditional elements of jazz attract people who are unlikely to go to more "serious" jazz gigs in concert halls - the opposite is also true.

Curious to see the effect of more Latin-orientated groups which attract dancers. This seems to add yet another dimension.

[burning dog]

I think an audience for Dr John would be of a similar age to the post bop audience. If people like Diana Krall and Jane Monheit are included as 'Jazz' they could, ironically considering their old fashioned material, attract a younger audience.

I agree, Ian, that the big band swing era stuff atttracts a more discerning audience these days, a regular jazz audience rather than a nostalgic one. Quite a few of our locals were hardened boppers who now take an interest in early Ellington and the old black swing orchestras.

[Serial_Apologist]

If the average age of 41 applies to the rest of the UK, I am heartened by this figure as a 65-year old with a view that those won to the music in the 80s were not to last. It bears out my experience of audiences attending places such as Cafe Oto and the Vortex, rather than the outer-city/suburban pubs around London where it is mostly 65ers+ in attendence, (youngsters these days not being seen down that dwindling phenomenon "the local", in any case) and that many younger listeners are still being won to the music by the Shabaka Hutchingses, Loop Collectives and the wonderful players we heard from Scotland the other night.

S-A

[Ian Thumwood]

It is amusing to hear the opinions of younger fans as I can see their enthusiasm for newer styles of jazz in myself 20-odd years ago. As I've said here on many occasions, the quality of jazz does seem to be getting better and I am often delighted by the originality of some of the up-and-coming players. There is alot of talent out there but the issue for me is that the press does like to overhype certain groups which become more fashionable than others which probably deserve more recognition.

Next week I will be checking out some of these younger players in person and , having read this thread, will report back to see if I note any demographic trends! I think the most obvious difference is how the repertoire is changing and old stereotypes about Neo's, tradition, fusion, swing, etc all seem open to debate. I don't think someone like Horace Silver, to take an example out of the air, would at all appeal to a younger "jazz-savvy" generation in 2011. Has anyone read the Gretchen Parlato interview on "All about jazz" this week? Fascinating to see a singer now involved in more "contemporary " jazz as typified by the much-vilified (on the BBC Jazz messageboard) David Binney as well as checking out material by the likes off Mary J Blige. All this seems to be refracted in an uncompromising jazz approach as opposed to a trade-off with pop. The divide between pop and jazz definately seems less of an issue for younger players who don't see it as a cop-out but a challenge.

For me, I can see both sides of the argument and wouldn't say that either was right or wrong - just different. Certainly, it would seem more perverse in 2011 to hear someone ape the jazz of 1960 as it would have been in 1985 when the prevailing attitude was more conservative. Even more "way out" / improvisation based bands seem willing to embrace popular culture in a way that wasn't the case 10 years ago even. I'm not surprised if this attracts a younger audience and suggest that the qualities that someone who is 25-30 might listen out for will be very different from those I would relate to and especially anyone older than myself. Maybe the Hard Bop / Modern jazz fanatics now occupy a similar territory to the Trad fans of the 1950's?

[Serial_Apologist]

But.... has popular culture moved on?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

er nix to the duffel coat, check shirt cardy and pipe ...... mohair, man mohair and madras ....

[Ian Thumwood]

SA & Calum

I think popular culture has changed - probably for the worst, especially if you consider music. However, I think there have been eras where the music may have been just as bad such a punk in the late 70's. There was a debate in the office yesterday about the gigs at Glastonbury where someone complained about Beyonce being able to play at this festival. I only saw a clip, but thought her band had more to do with music than many of the guitar-led British rock bands which seem pretty square to my ears.


Gretchen Parlato interview:-

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=39814

Jazz is probably capable of pulling a wider and more varied / niche audience now that at any time in the past. The kind of Mods v Trad debate of the 1950's seems a bit one-dimensional now when jazz can mean anything from Scott Hamilton through to music that has more in common with Techno or Folk or world music or Classical or Improv. As I said before, there are several audiences for all different kinds of jazz and th members of each audience could easily be oblivious to the member of the others.