REVIEW OF JAZZ IN ENGLAND
Jazzitoria Submission on ACE Consultative Green Paper : October 1995
(A) Jazzitoria Submission Summary
1. We welcome, in principle, the publication Review of Jazz in England Green Paper commissioned by the Arts Council of England. Study of the document, however, gives rise to serious misgivings.
The Review is stated to have been undertaken `in the context of overall jazz provision and economy .... to identify the most likely use of available funding for ... supporting and developing jazz in England.' (para 49, p.14). One of the `Aims of the report' is `to describe and analyse the current state of jazz activity in England' (para 50, p.14). We find that the Review falls short on these counts and much more. The avowed intention of presenting a report on the whole of the jazz scene has not, in fact, been carried out.
2. The error of omission strikes deep. It is regrettable that the Working Group did not see fit to adopt a working definition of the subject matter on which they were required to report. We refer to this matter further below in our comments on selected paragraphs. The Working Group should have addressed clearly the distinction between music which comes within the term "Jazz" and "music which does not"; the Review was intended to be concerned with the former, not the latter.
It follows therefore that the Working Group should have stated the confines of the music in their Review. It does not appear that the lack of precision was entirely idle. By omitting to define adequately its terms of reference, the Working Group have left edges conveniently blurred, obscuring what they have left out. As a result, bias is covered in a shroud of vagueness.
3. It is worthy of note that by doing this the Working Group have fallen into the trap which they state they were at pains to avoid. By ignoring traditional forms of jazz, which represent an important element in the music, they have themselves displayed a remarkable degree of `border mentality,' a border closed to anything apart from `modern' or `contemporary' forms and the so-called `cutting edge,' whatever that may mean. If the Arts Council of England and the Regional Arts Boards ignore differences within the jazz category the distinctive features of jazz music will not be appreciated.
4. It therefore is apparent, for whatever reason that New Orleans, Dixieland and Traditional jazz have been ignored. No representative in that field was a member of the Working Group and as a result, a partial and misleading view has been given of jazz in their report. We believe this to have been as a result of the composition of the working party. Furthermore, the Group should have been chaired by someone of recognised impartiality. We are not convinced that this was the case in view of the musical interests of its `chairperson.' We are also disturbed to learn through press channels that she indirectly finds herself with a beneficial interest in a lottery fund award through `Musicworks.' (see attach (A)). We have no quarrel with that, if it is indeed the case, but to say the least the timing is unfortunate. It may very well discredit the work of the Working Group in the mind of the general public.
B. Detailed Comments on Paragraphs
NB Paragraph reference and page numbers relevant to the Green Paper are shown in parenthesis. (Contact ACE for Green Paper).
(5) (p.4) The Jazzitoria voices a strong objection to the views expressed in this paragraph. We do not believe it to be true "in practice" that many "musicians" move freely between categories of musical expression as far as jazz is concerned. Such views look like a specious reason for not attempting to formulate a suitable definition of what the Review is suppose to be about. An analysis of entries in Jazz Services' "The Jazz Musicians Guide," 1992 edition, shows that of those who expressed interest and activity in modern jazz, less than 20 percent stated an interest also in traditional and/or New Orleans jazz. In reality, the proportion today active in both areas is likely as we continue to express, to be substantially less. Therefore by adopting such a posture the Working Group have tried to side-step what they are accusing others of, namely, a `border mentality.' Such a stance has been clearly demonstrated throughout the Paper by inadequate references to traditional forms of jazz - not perhaps surprising since there was no adequate representation in the Working Group as we have noted. The `appropriate expertise' has yet to be drawn upon; the recommendations should only benefit "all" recognised jazz forms and should not be concerned with `other areas of music'. It is after all (or should have been) a review of jazz in England !
(16) (p.6) There is certainly a need to re-define the role of Jazz Services - for a number of reasons. We maintain Jazz Services does little or nothing for New Orleans, Dixieland and Traditional jazz, as the enclosed copies of their Internet announcements indicate, and it is doubtful on past showing if they could provide anything like an adequate service. We do not agree therefore that Jazz Services has a role as `national adviser and advocate for jazz' except for those categories of jazz music which are not represented by The Jazzitoria.
(50) (p.14) `Aims of the report'. We do not believe the Green Paper to `describe and analyse the current state of jazz activity in England.' What it does deal with is certain sectional interests, confusing part of the picture with the whole. There is, for example, no reference to the publication "Jazz Guide" (attachment previously sent under separate cover) representing jazz covered by The Jazzitoria.
(60) (p.16) We believe it a serious omission not to have attempted an appropriate definition or short description of the kind of music subject to the sentiments of this Review. The reasons for not giving a `definition' are really weak and give the impression that the working party was unclear as to what was to be included in its report.
We find the omission surprising because quite serviceable definitions are to hand which would give some help and understanding to members of the public who might hope for some enlightenment from reading the document. If the Working Group did not want to attempt the task themselves they could have used (for example) J.E. Berendt's definition (1) which we believe would have served them well.
Not to give a working definition suitable for this Review does not give a good impression. Of the three statements made, in lieu, one is weak (`I just play bass,') the other two inconsequential.
This is not the only problem the working party had with definitions. In paragraph (135) there is reference to Wynton Marsalis and Sonny Rollins as `mainstream jazz musicians.' This is something of a surprise, particularly in view of the fact that George Melly is also referred to as a `mainstream artist' in para (69) (P.18). This is neither correct use of terminology nor precise enough language the public should expect from a review body appointed by the Arts Council of England.
(62) (p.16) Providing it includes traditional forms of jazz, we agree that arts funding bodies should draw on the appropriate expertise to support top class jazz initiatives.
(68) (p.18) Biased towards `modern' jazz yet again. We again make reference to "Jazz Guide" which has a 10,500 copy print run to indicate the extent of interest in traditional jazz in England.
(69) (p.18) It is important to emphasise that in the periods Litvinoff looked at, real expansion took place in the area of `traditional and dance-oriented jazz.'
(70) (p.18) Litvinoff's comments appear to ignore traditional jazz musicians: why?
(74) (p.19) The meaning of the second sentence is unclear. What does `fail to cross the income tax threshold' mean? We find it difficult to believe that "none" of the annual earnings of musicians from performances were taxable. If so, it shows a very poor state of their finances indeed.
(97) (p.23) The Jazz Musicians Guide would appear to be a classic example of the `border mentality' as it, for the most part, only contains material of sectional interest which highlights overwhelmingly the need for The Jazzitoria.
(118) (p.27) We trust that The Jazzitoria is not considered part of the `gloomy picture.' We have indicated to the ACE a considerable level of commitment and expertise. We have also indicated that we have been given indications of support from the local authority in the event of a successful Lottery application. (ref. Review Recommendation 3).
(122) (p.29) The fact that jazz festivals made up 11% of the British arts festivals and that 53% had some jazz content is a significant admission of note to us. Since these performances offered little opportunity `for the new or cutting edge' we presume the majority had a traditional jazz content!
(143) (p.73) Jazz Services does not represent, or can represent, the interests of New Orleans, Dixieland and Traditional jazz (see Internet pages). In effect there is a need for the two organisations, Jazz Services and The Jazzitoria to cater separately for each of the areas described.
(151) (p.35) We would welcome a `fuller review of jazz provision' to be undertaken and the value of Jazz Services be assessed. We strongly believe it is not able to represent "all" jazz styles and, further that its interests lie in areas other than traditional jazz. We believe it just and appropriate that a separate organisation be designated to look after the interests of New Orleans, Dixieland and Traditional jazz, to correct this deficiency.
(153) (p.36) We do not wholly agree with the Working Group's comments on Jazz Services' `information gathering and dissemination role.' We believe we are justified in pointing out that Jazz Services serves sectional interests only.
(245) (p.51) We note that no references to publications Kings Jazz Review, New Orleans Music or 60 Years of Jazz in Croydon and beyond have been made (see attachments previously sent).
(255) (p.53) `Mainstream' again. We believe the Working Group should have used the accepted definition of it (see para 69).
We agree with Recommendations 1-19 with the proviso that they are acknowledged to apply to the types of jazz that we have advocated in this submission.
Recommendation
That The Traditional Jazz Jazzitoria Limited be recognised as the supporting body for New Orleans, Dixieland and Traditional jazz, and that all the forms of the `cutting-edge' disparate types of music expressed in the Review come under the umbrella of Jazz Services.
Ian King
Chief Executive
for and on behalf of
The Traditional Jazz Jazzitoria Limited