by Patrick Jarenwattananon

In a comment left on a recent post, Portland-based bandleader Andrew Durkin (who blogs too) writes:

This is not directly related, but:

What if we assume that jazz (in some shape or form) is not going to go away? What if we assume that there will always be people who want to support it, however feebly? What if we assume that though it will most likely never be a lucrative career choice, there will always be people willing to take the economic (social?) risks involved with producing it?

Are these fair assumptions? (I haven't always thought so.)

If they are fair assumptions, why isn't it actually better for jazz, artistically speaking, if it stays small? How do we know that greater popularity among this or that audience wouldn't just dilute it and dumb it down, make us eventually and begrudgingly say, "I knew what jazz was like way back when..."? Why aren't we more interested (like, say, certain punk fans, or the denizens of certain hip little cities that seem to be drawing more and more expatriates from the overcrowded metropolises) in keeping people out of our jazz cliques, rather than selling them memberships? Or better yet, forget being exclusionary: why do we need to take a stance on this at all? Just, as you say, enjoy the music.

As a bandleader, I get the impulse toward proselytization. As a fan, I don't always.

I have a few thoughts on this for sure. But y'all first. Those advocates who would like to see more people embrace jazz don't always realize what that would mean. Who are those more people? What will their demands be, and commercially speaking, what will be the results of catering to them? And if jazz will never "die," why ought anyone care about actively growing the audience in the first place?

Somebody say something.