To what extent has the larger classic jazz market hampered today's emerging players?

[xricci]

Be sure to read AAJ's archived discussion topic: "Do you think the labels' practice of re-issues has helped or hindered the musical advancement of jazz?" at http://www.allaboutjazz.com/threads/reissues.htm.

[Pharaohrock]

I don't know, but I guarantee you the big labels don't think in terms of helping or hindering the development of jazz....

[Tenorman]

I thought I would drag this one up from the mists of time.

Two markets are in existence:

1) The people who want to purchase the albums that they did not get first time around.

2) The people who buy new artists playing up-to-the-minute Jazz.

The above markets are not mutually exclusive. I certainly buy both.

A new artist will get totally lost in the thousands of re-issues sitting on the shelves in your average specialist dealer or chain store. A very rare few get money thrown at them and their names will pop up in magazines and get special promotion in shops.

The record press are not very pro-active in picking out new talent. The critics tend to play it safe and pick out names they already know

So yes the re-issues are taking money away from the new artists and swamping them in the publicity stakes, but the solution is not to reduce the level of re-issues, but to increase the awareness of the Jazz buying public about the new artists.

Come on magazines - lets have a new artist page where someone reports on a live gig and CD of a new artist every month.

[gregk]

I'll buy both if they are interesting to me; it matters little when it was recorded or originally released. I just haven't found much interesting music recorded recently that wasn't by an established artist, but then again that could be due to the lack of promotion or awareness of new artists

[Saundra Hummer]

I think that in my case it has hurt the emerging, and current artists a lot, as due to all types of circumstances I haven't been able to keep current with those that have emerged recently, and the ones that are just starting.

I, like I have said numerous times, started out with jazz live, hearing and seeing in person the greats, from the 50's and 60's and some into the 70's.

All of you know who they are and there are so many that I truly thought were just so great, that I have always wanted to have most of their recordings. I had a pretty good start at one time, but lost two collections, and since then have only replaced a tiny fraction of them. I would like to purchase more artists albums from those times, but I will probably never even come close to buying even a quarter of the ones from that time period that I would like to have, so, unless I hear something that I really think is outstanding, I will just be purchasing cuts by Charlie Parker, Zoot Simms, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Sonny Rollins, Frank Rosolino, The Lighthouse Allstars, and on, and on, play them, close my eyes, and remember the sights and the sounds, being transported back to those fabulous times. So you see my buying habits do hurt the new guys and will continue to do so.

It's up to all of you new jazz fans to support your favorites from your age, as we did ours. You'll probably feel the same way about them as we do Lester Young, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, and Miles, just to name a few that you are all the most aquainted with.

[gdogus]

This'll be fun…

First Posit: There are at least two markets for jazz: the "classic jazz" market and the "emerging" jazz market.

Second Posit: These two markets are in competition for a finite amount of (a) consumer dollars and (b) record company support.

Third Posit: The "classic" jazz market captures more consumer dollars for record companies than does the "emerging" jazz market.

Fourth Posit: The "classic" jazz market therefore receives more support from record companies than does the "emerging" jazz market.

Fifth Posit: Assuming the truth of the second posit, at least some of the finite record company support given to the "classic" jazz market is also being withheld from the "emerging" jazz market.

Query: To what extent does the "classic" jazz market receive support from record companies that would otherwise be given to the "emerging" jazz market?

Okay, that was a painstaking way or rephrasing Michael's original question, but I think it's important to lay bare some of the assumptions underlying the topic - and there are a lot of assumptions in the posited statements above. Here's an example:

Sandi doesn't buy product from emerging artists; she purchases "classic" work by Parker, Miles, Coltrane, and so forth. Does that buying behavior, in and of itself, hamper today's emerging player? Not directly, since it's pretty clear in this case that Sandi wouldn't buy the new product anyway. The "classic jazz" market doesn't necessarily suck the consumer's cash away from the emerging jazz market. Actually, by providing their classic jazz catalog, a record company captures a segment of the market that might otherwise go untapped, and may even create a group of consumers who are interested in emerging artists as well.

But, if jazz consumers behave this way in sizable numbers – buying "classic" instead of "emerging" jazz product – then the labels have that much less incentive to nurture and promote new talent. If the back catalog is what sells, why bother spending money to develop, record, and promote the new guys?

And this is where the discussion seems a little fuzzy so far: I don't think the question is about maintaining the "classic" jazz catalog, or merely keeping titles in print for consumers like Sandi to buy and enjoy. That wouldn't cost record companies a whole lot of money or resources bet against consumer interest. The question is rather about a sub-market of the "classic" market – the "reissue" market, which has labels constantly remastering, repackaging, and remarketing "classic" jazz recordings, and apparently with good consumer response. This "reissue" submarket does require recurring investment on the part of record companies, and the assumption is that at least some of those resources might otherwise be budgeted for the support of "emerging" artists.

But given the extent to which labels are engaged in reissuing "classic" material, we can assume it's a very profitable practice – that a reissue takes in a good deal more money than it costs the record company to produce. The questions that remain are: (a) whether a label's investment in reissues is made at the cost of its investment in "emerging" artists, and (b) where the profits acquired from the reissue market go – are they channeled back into the production of reissues, or diverted to the development of "emerging" artists, or whisked off to another market entirely (rock, pop, country, Hungarian folk music) … or are they not reinvested at all, but counted as "pure profit" and returned to stock holders in the form of dividends?

I've gone on entirely too long, but my point is this: from a purely economic standpoint, we can't know the extent to which the "classic" jazz market has hampered the "emerging" jazz market without auditing the record companies. Maybe the "classic" market (and particularly the "reissue" submarket) sucks company resources away from the development of emerging artists. Maybe it actually funds the "emerging" market to an extent. One record company may use (some of) its reissue profits to sustain the music's future, while another uses the same profits to improve its stock market value, or buy better health care coverage for its employees, or who knows what all.

So…anybody have access to the ledger books?

[Saundra Hummer]

I'm not really saying I won't buy current or emerging jazz albums, I would and will when I am able to hear something that really grabs me.

I have lived in a jazz desert for quite a while, there was such poor radio reception here, and there weren't really any jazz stations that I could receive on a regular basis, and television only shows the so called "Soft Jazz," so I wasn't hearing any of the new jazz that really grabbed me.

After getting a computer, I was able to start listenng again, and I was hearing a few recordings that I did like, but then my computer crashed, actually it went down twice, the first time they just replaced it with a new one, and I was able to listen to jazz once more, then the second time it crashed, we had a kid build us a new one, and for some reason, he didn't include a sound card, and we just haven't put in a new one, computer dummies you know. So we are back to the desert.

I really have been trying to replace some of the albums that I had that were taken, as I enjoyed them so much, and like I said previously, these artists had songs out that I always wanted, and couldn't afford at the time, that I am trying to get now. I do buy new, current artists, but for the most part, because of their not being any access to the new ones, I have been buying the classic jazz. Face it, it is good. I enjoy buying music by the people that I was fortunate enough to see live, up close and personal. It means a lot to me. I can remember how they all interacted, the smiles, the comments, the wonder, and it makes these recordings by these artists special to me. I am sure you have had the same experiences if you have been lucky enuogh to see someone live, it's like those are the recordings you really do want to have.

I'm not able to go out and just buy and buy, I have to be selective, but if and when I hear something that I really like, if they are new to the scene, I would buy their recordings in a second. Talent is talent after all, and a tune that I like doesn't have to be played by Charlie Parker, or anyone else from that era for me to enjoy it. I will say that the personal experiences that I had with these musicians has made their music magical for me, so a new musician has to really be impressive for me to want to purchase their music. It can happen!

[Muskrat Ramble]

I'll be anecdotal since gdogus has already taken the scientific approach :) My foray into the world of jazz over the past couple years has largely been dominated by buying reissues of the "classics" (or at least artists from the "golden age" of jazz in the 50's and 60's--some might disagree with those dates, of course!). Here are the reasons I can think of:

* name recognition: as a total newbie and now as a hardcore fan, I want to check out all the greats of the past because I figure there's probably a good reason they became the "great names." My CD buying has borne out that assumption. My Favorite Things gets reissued over and over for a good reason: it's a great album.

* easy to find (at least in brick-and-mortar stores): it's often much easier to find a reissue of Mingus Ah Um or Giant Steps or the latest RVG than something by a contemporary artist, particularly one from Europe (since I live in the States).

* cheaper: to some extent, reissues are less expensive, though there's a lot of variance there when you take things like Mosaic sets, cut-outs of OOP recent releases, etc. into account.

* gives you a foundation to "work" from: by hearing the "greatest hits" of the jazz continuum, you gain a greater appreciation for the music; you know where each album fits in the big scheme of things and can appreciate how artists have innovated or built on the past.

Of late, though, I've been moving more and more towards exploring today's jazz because the stuff I've heard so far is often at least as good, if not better, than many of the classic reissues I've bought. And you certainly get better sound quality :)

So, for me, it was initially not a question of the reissue market turning me away from buying CDs by current artists. I just wasn't too interested in the latter. That's changed, though, and now there will be some real competition for my CD-buying dollars. May the best albums win :)

To borrow from noted classical critic Norman Lebrecht, if the labels indeed want to promote their new artists (and it's unclear that they do), perhaps they should flip-flop prices: sell the reissues of the classics for $15 or whatever and the new releases for "reissue prices" of $10 or $12. Entice buyers to check out things they haven't heard of.

[Frank Mullen]

for Sandi and anyone else interested in listening to jazz on internet

Don't miss the Jim Cullum band's weekly broadcasts. Their guests span the spectrum of modern mainstream jazz. Listed under Riverwalk on the web.

[md655321]

Can't we just blame it on Wynton and call it a day?


I think the main problem isnt the reissues, but simply the amount of music that most of the major jazz artists have released. When I got into rock music, I only needed 6 Doors cds and 12 Zeppelin cds and 12 bealtes cds. It was relatively easy to work my way through history and start buying contemporary artists. With jazz, I had 40 miles, 30 coltrane, a dozen mingus etc.. before I got to Jason Moran or Dave Douglas. And those are relatively huge names. But what am I supposed to buy as a 19 year old with no understanding of jazz? The problem is, most people who like jazz dont became jazz freaks like all of us have. They are fine with the 5 or so miles davis cds and a charlie parker cd. Most casual jazz fans surely wouldnt have one coltrane and three tomasz stanko cds.

As for established jazz freaks, reissues undoubtedly competes for a limited amount of money. How many on here own all of the miles davis' box sets but only a half dozen cds from 2003? But, those boxsets make alot of money for the companies, possibly allowing them more leeway in developing artists.

End of ramble.

[Muskrat Ramble]

End of ramble.

Doh! ;)

[Traned]

The original thread seems to be predominantly in favor of re-issues, for a number of very good reasons. This second-pass also seems to be leaning heavily in favor of re-issues. Based on this feedback one could conclude, that at least from the fans perspective, re-issues are still leading the market.

The argument about limited disposable income for jazz cd's ending up being spent on the more familiar names in jazz rather than on taking a risk on someone in the "emerging" class is pretty strong. I personally spent a lot of money building depth into my cd collection. Depth within a limited range of "classical" artists.

Recently, however, I've been forcing myself to go for breadth in my collection by expanding into new, not as well known, artists. I must say the experience has been extremely rewarding. Oh, I still dust off the old gaurd quite regularly, but taking the young guns out for a spin is becoming more and more the norm rather than the exception.

Bottom line, I think there is room enough for both re-issues and new releases, the real problem is not enough growth in the jazz market as a whole. But that is probably the subject of another thread...

[clifton]

Reissues and successive remasterings are pure profit for the record companies. They paid production costs and musicians' fees decades ago. Developing and marketing emerging talent costs more money, thus reducing profits. That's why the major labels don't do it. In this sense, the reissue/remastering market keeps jazz musicians from getting major label contracts, Blue Note excepted. However, classic jazz is great music, and I'm going to continue to buy reissues although I sure don't need yet another remastering of, say, "A Love Supreme". I also buy music by today's artists, and my collection boasts CD's by Jason Moran, Matt Wilson, David S. Ware and Dave Douglas alongside Coleman Hawkins and Charlie Parker. As jazz listeners, we have every right to buy reissues. We also have a duty to search out and support today's artists, for they are also making great music. Let's reject the false dichotomy of digging the masters or digging new music. Let's be inclusive, bust our budgets, and buy it all.

[Muskrat Ramble]

Let's be inclusive, bust our budgets, and buy it all.

Like I need more temptation to do that ;)

It's of course up to people to spend how they please, but I do think the remaster/reissue game becomes highly questionable at some point. You have labels spending a lot of time reissuing classics, and it seems more than a few people buy all those subseqent reissues of discs they already own in different formats. It's one thing to buy a classic disc once, but to buy it two or three or four times seems like a waste of money and, worse, a waste of money that could have been spent on trying out a disc by a living artist.

I was just noticing, for instance, how Jackie McLean's Destination Out has been issued as a BN CONN, as part of the Moncur Mosaic Select, and is now scheduled for a Stateside RVG. And then there's the Japanese version, the original LP, etc. There are more than a few BN fanatics out there who will probably buy every version at one time or another, based on what I've seen. (Don't get me wrong, I collect lots of BNs myself, but not to the point of silliness.)

[Saundra Hummer]

I am wondering about the monies paid out to buy re-releases.

Doesn't the estate, of say the Charlie Parkers, the John Coltranes, reap some of the benefits? I would think that they would have to, unless they signed away all of their rights. I don't mind supporting the families of these men, I would think that a lot of them really deserve it for the lives and sacrifices they must have had to make as their fathers, motheres, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and wives. It couldn't have been easy for most of them. I think that perhaps all of them deserve to be compensated, if not just some of them. I'm sure this is how the musicians and singers would have wanted it.

We keep hearing about the record companies making all of the money, well, surely there are monies paid out to the family members. If not, there should be.

If they aren't getting monies from the re-releases, then they should do what the old R&B's singers and bands did, go to court, and negotiate to have that rectified.

Me, I'm paying off a huge medical bill, and I mean it's a lot, so my purchasing records so as to support a struggling musician, just isn't in the cards. Budget? What Budget? When I buy an album, it will be because I feel it is something I need for my soul. or one to put me into a party mood, ha! Then it will be my sacrifice.

[markvi]

i figured it out and my purchases were 8 to 1 in favor of current artists (32-9). i think this about sums up my buying over the past few years. when i buy a reissue i usually know what to expect, but when i buy a tim berne or some other current player i enjoy the anxiety of experiencing something unknown and can't wait to get home and listen. i also kind of like financially supporting current artists. it's a dirty job but someone has to do it or at least that's what i tell my wife.

[todda]

Originally posted by Saundra Hummer
We keep hearing about the record companies making all of the money, well, surely there are monies paid out to the family members. If not, there should be.


Highly doubtful. I don't know what the standard contract was for BN artists back in the heyday, but I doubt any of the artists own the rights to their music. Aside from a handful of artists like Ornette Coleman and Miles Davis, artists are at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to the business side of the record industry. Today's environment is probably even worse, considering suits with spreadsheets run the show. At least Blue Note had some commitment to the artist, but I doubt that commitment carried past the initial pressing.

[It Should be You]

Of all the things that can hamper emerging players, reissues would rank low, in my opinion. When we discuss reissues, what are we talking about? Is the competition from the 50s and 60s artists? Some call it a golden age. I don't know.

For me, there aren't nearly ENOUGH reissues from the 20s and 30s. You can find only about a dozen artists, maybe 50, out of hundreds!

Emerging players and listeners don't seem too interested in that, so there doesn't seem to be any competition there. When people talk about 10, 20, 30, and 40 years ago as being ancient, or, heaven forbid, their parents' music, then the music of 70 and 80 years ago can't be a threat. There will be just a small market for that. Today's artiste needn't worry if some more really old stuff come to light for those of us who enjoy it to hear and appreciate our heritage, and some raunchy kick ass jazz!

Is it going better for emerging artists in Europe? I suspect so.

[Bev Stapleton]

Originally posted by It Should be You
Today's artiste needn't worry if some more really old stuff come to light for those of us who enjoy it to hear and appreciate our heritage, and some raunchy kick ass jazz!

Is it going better for emerging artists in Europe? I suspect so.

Well, there is a large section of the jazz market in Europe which still loves the older stuff primarily (look at the success of wonderful European based labels like Classics or Hep). And plenty of people who listen mainly to contemporary but are interested in and enjoy the reissues too.

But where Europe has one advantage for 'emerging' artists is the use of your term 'heritage'. I can see that in the US jazz is more than just music - its one of America's great cultural achievements, part of the country's identity.

Now although there is a long history of jazz in Europe you don't see the term 'heritage' used in regard to it. Lots of us look back to, say the UK jazz of the 60s with nostalgia and fascination, but I don't sense any feeling of current artists needing to connect to the values of those times, something I do sense from many American jazz commentators in relation to jazz 'heritage'.

This probably makes it easier for the emerging European jazz player to kick over the traces and try something quite disconnected. If anything the imperative in Europe is to make it sound as unlike American jazz as possible!

I don't see re-issues holding back emerging players in Europe. If Verve cancelled all their reissue it would not be to hire new players! Maybe a few of the more omnivorous jazz enthusiasts would buy more new jazz records as result. But those whose interests are largely in the past (and there's nothing wrong with that!) would hardly develop a sudden interest in contemporary jazz. Most would probably just have a wail of a time playing the reissues they've got.

[jazzcritic]

Emerging artists sometimes can shoot themselves in the foot.
Unless one has a deal with a major label spending some serious promotional dollars to back your CD, you have to do some planning to get the attention of radio PDs and jazz journalists.
I've long since lost count of how many CDs have arrived in the mail, with an unknown leader, unfamiliar sideman, obviously a vanity label, and all original material. Guess which stack such a disc usually goes into?

It's my opinion, but I believe emerging artists should consider having a name guest on a track or two, and try covering at least one standard or a piece by a well-known jazz musician. It will help get this writer's attention.