Jammin’ at the Margins? Jazz as Cultural Industry – Mark Banks
The growth of the cultural and creative industries has become one of the more pronounced features of contemporary economic life. But to what extent can we understand jazz as a cultural industry? If we wanted to find out we might choose to review the range of cultural and economic policy reports that promote the vital role played by the music industry in UK plc (think the constant stream of reports emanating from the DCMS, BERR, NESTA, Arts Council etc). Yet, if we did, we’d be disappointed (but maybe not too surprised) to find that jazz barely features, either in economic or cultural terms.
At the economic level, the neglect of jazz is surprising given that in terms of production activity and audience size it ranks close comparison with an art form such as opera. However opera (not least through the receipt of generous public subsidy) has established a firmer footing as a recognisable cultural industry – contributing markedly to the creative economy of London and other metropolitan centres. Jazz is noticeably under-funded and under-promoted in comparison. Proponents of opera might argue that large opera houses and the scale of production requires investment in the way jazz does not. This has some weight. A further problem is that - notwithstanding the established venues, labels and performers - the jazz economy is informal, diffuse and difficult to measure and map, and so evaluating its economic significance is problematic (though see the excellent work done by Dave Laing and Mykaell Riley for Jazz Services [1] in this regard). The jazz economy is therefore not amenable to analysis in the same way as other (more formalised or integrated) branches of the music industry.
However the policy neglect of jazz is not just about the uncertain science of economics – but about culture. Firstly, jazz is not part of the elite ‘establishment’. Jazz - to paraphrase an idea from the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu – could be characterised as the ‘dominated fraction of the dominant taste’. This means that while it is popularly perceived to be both ‘difficult’ and ‘intellectual’ (and thus ‘beyond’ mainstream taste). Within the upper strata it occupies it is also distanced and alienated from standard or elite bourgeois taste – namely opera and European classical music. Jazz is not deemed to be as ‘worthy’ of public support as the traditional or established art forms – even though this ‘tradition’ is itself a relatively recent (and socially constructed) invention. Nor does jazz have the elite cachet that would attract prestige private sponsors.
Secondly, despite its ambivalent 'consecration', jazz is also regarded a form of popular music. As such, given the way in which popular music has become central to the creative industries narrative we would imagine that jazz be included in some policy work. But the evidence suggests this is not the case. Amidst the widespread promotion of popular music (predominantly Britpop, other UK pop, popular classics), jazz is relatively invisible. This might be an economic issue of popularity, but it also an issue of culture and the ways in which the ‘musical nation’ is selectively framed. The music industries and the wider creative industries rhetoric remain focussed on a narrow set of artists and interests, and the strong British jazz tradition is not celebrated in the emergent ‘Creative Britain’ [2] rhetoric.
Thirdly, jazz is neglected in terms of utilitarian cultural policy goals of education and inclusion. Jazz is not typically perceived as a means for ‘reaching out’ to disenfranchised youth, marginal communities or the socially excluded (unlike the way hip-hop, pop or other popular arts often are). This is not to underestimate the (growing) role played by excellent jazz educators, promotional organizations and other social institutions in attempting to raise the cultural and educative profile of jazz – and the many vital successes they have had – but to further acknowledge the ongoing uncertainty regarding the status of jazz as an instrumental vehicle for carrying aspects of national and local cultural policy.
Finally, for us, there is the issue of black British jazz. Here we have a further level of limitation, since black British jazz is a music barely explored in terms of its relationship to, firstly, the creative economy; secondly, national culture policies and, thirdly, wider policies relating to civic participation and social inclusion. Our project aims to address some of this neglect. If one constancy of the jazz policy field is that jazz is always marginal - whether considered as an elite art, a popular form, or in social utility terms - then does it follow that there is further marginality within the margins? What role does black British jazz play in ‘Creative Britain’ and the wider cultural policy arena? Watch this space.
[1] Laing, D. and Riley, M. (2006) The Value of Jazz, Jazz Services.
[2] DCMS (2008) Creative Britain: New Talents for a New Economy, DCMS, London.
At the economic level, the neglect of jazz is surprising given that in terms of production activity and audience size it ranks close comparison with an art form such as opera. However opera (not least through the receipt of generous public subsidy) has established a firmer footing as a recognisable cultural industry – contributing markedly to the creative economy of London and other metropolitan centres. Jazz is noticeably under-funded and under-promoted in comparison. Proponents of opera might argue that large opera houses and the scale of production requires investment in the way jazz does not. This has some weight. A further problem is that - notwithstanding the established venues, labels and performers - the jazz economy is informal, diffuse and difficult to measure and map, and so evaluating its economic significance is problematic (though see the excellent work done by Dave Laing and Mykaell Riley for Jazz Services [1] in this regard). The jazz economy is therefore not amenable to analysis in the same way as other (more formalised or integrated) branches of the music industry.
However the policy neglect of jazz is not just about the uncertain science of economics – but about culture. Firstly, jazz is not part of the elite ‘establishment’. Jazz - to paraphrase an idea from the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu – could be characterised as the ‘dominated fraction of the dominant taste’. This means that while it is popularly perceived to be both ‘difficult’ and ‘intellectual’ (and thus ‘beyond’ mainstream taste). Within the upper strata it occupies it is also distanced and alienated from standard or elite bourgeois taste – namely opera and European classical music. Jazz is not deemed to be as ‘worthy’ of public support as the traditional or established art forms – even though this ‘tradition’ is itself a relatively recent (and socially constructed) invention. Nor does jazz have the elite cachet that would attract prestige private sponsors.
Secondly, despite its ambivalent 'consecration', jazz is also regarded a form of popular music. As such, given the way in which popular music has become central to the creative industries narrative we would imagine that jazz be included in some policy work. But the evidence suggests this is not the case. Amidst the widespread promotion of popular music (predominantly Britpop, other UK pop, popular classics), jazz is relatively invisible. This might be an economic issue of popularity, but it also an issue of culture and the ways in which the ‘musical nation’ is selectively framed. The music industries and the wider creative industries rhetoric remain focussed on a narrow set of artists and interests, and the strong British jazz tradition is not celebrated in the emergent ‘Creative Britain’ [2] rhetoric.
Thirdly, jazz is neglected in terms of utilitarian cultural policy goals of education and inclusion. Jazz is not typically perceived as a means for ‘reaching out’ to disenfranchised youth, marginal communities or the socially excluded (unlike the way hip-hop, pop or other popular arts often are). This is not to underestimate the (growing) role played by excellent jazz educators, promotional organizations and other social institutions in attempting to raise the cultural and educative profile of jazz – and the many vital successes they have had – but to further acknowledge the ongoing uncertainty regarding the status of jazz as an instrumental vehicle for carrying aspects of national and local cultural policy.
Finally, for us, there is the issue of black British jazz. Here we have a further level of limitation, since black British jazz is a music barely explored in terms of its relationship to, firstly, the creative economy; secondly, national culture policies and, thirdly, wider policies relating to civic participation and social inclusion. Our project aims to address some of this neglect. If one constancy of the jazz policy field is that jazz is always marginal - whether considered as an elite art, a popular form, or in social utility terms - then does it follow that there is further marginality within the margins? What role does black British jazz play in ‘Creative Britain’ and the wider cultural policy arena? Watch this space.
[1] Laing, D. and Riley, M. (2006) The Value of Jazz, Jazz Services.
[2] DCMS (2008) Creative Britain: New Talents for a New Economy, DCMS, London.
posted by Jason Toynbee at
2:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home