Still working on part 3 of the big jazz philanthropy/gig discussion, but in the meantime, here's a cheery infographic about the kinds of numbers a 21st-century musician would have to move to earn minimum wage selling albums (either physically or digitally). Needless to say, it makes me think the whole shebang is better viewed as a way to "get your stuff out there," than as a moneymaking endeavor, unless you manage to get a cut on a car commercial or something. (Fortunately, Taco Bell is hiring--be sure to tell them about your jazz theory expertise!)Speaking of digital distribution: the title track from Contextualizin' is being featured on this week's edition of the eJazzNews Sampler, along with some vintage Jaco and other great artists. Download it for FREE here.Also: in memory of the amazing Hank Jones (who passed away today after an incredibly long and productive career), WKCR, the world's greatest jazz station, is playing a marathon of his music right now. Check it out immediately!

Last week, in response to several pieces of news about large-scale, institution-centered jazz philanthropy, I wrote a post thinking about the possibility that jazz might be better served in the long run by steering money toward smaller venues and less established "stars" (Jazz stars! LOL.) Since then, people far and wide have weighed in on the issue, which is good, and exactly what I was hoping would happen.

One response was from Patrick Jarenwattananon of NPR's A Blog Supreme, who mentioned one big reason why Big Jazz is ahead in the funding game right now:

Big, central institutions, by their nature, have massive potential for outreach. They can spend money on making money, whether by hiring publicity people, financial officers or big-name performers. ... In contrast, Mom and Pop's Bar sometimes doesn't even have the wherewithal to put up a serviceable Web site with updated show listings. If you were a potential investor, sponsor or major giver, wouldn't you want to donate to a place with accountability, a proven track record and highly visible accomplishments?

No argument here (just yesterday I came across a website for a venue which didn't include the address). The small-club, unfamiliar-name approach has a lot less high-visibility appeal than Sonny Rollins at the Citibank Jazz Palace or whatever. (More about this in a moment.)

Over on Facebook, several musicians weighed in--one idea which got me thinking came from vocaphonist Lorin Benedict:

Actually, I think this idea of distributing $ to a large number of smaller gigs COULD work. And the model already exists: The Stone, [John] Zorn's NYC venue which is curated by a different musician every month. Zorn and his cohorts choose the curators, of course, so you could argue that they are stacking the deck to favor the music of their friends... fine. But with a big donor, you could make, say, 10 different Stones in NYC alone. One run by Wynton, one run by Connie Crothers, one run by Randy Brecker, one run by Afrika Bambataa... the point would be to get a host of EXTREMELY DIFFERENT and nearly unrelated people to decide who curates their own little venue each month. ... See, the thing that's great about The Stone is that Zorn has it set up (through donations and the like) so that the musicians always walk away with ALL the $ from each gig. Which could be a nice bunch of change if they pack the place, or could be NADA, like when Bleeding Vector [Lorin's band] played there :) Either way, Zorn and co. are cool with it, because they weren't expecting to make any money anyway. Now, this is a little different than your model of guaranteed $200 gigs, but it does address the problem of venues: The Stone is a hole-in-the-wall ... but that's good enough, really. The bands could then choose to charge what they want each night, and if they pack the place, fine, if not, fine. ... In all of the above, I am assuming that the real problem is venues rather than simply $ for gigs. One could argue that giving $ directly to musicians is better, but I like the above because it has a "natural selection" quality-control built in to it. And the heads of the places, if chosen well, could pick curators who would effectively cover the entire scene ... keeping in mind that each one would designate a different curator each month. Each place would be some little dive that would be completely paid for, so you'd never have to worry about packing the place. But if the musicians did enough legwork, they could make real money by charging a goodly amount and packing it.

Lorin and I talked about this some more last night at Kaleidoscope, a casual performance space which, interestingly enough, would be perfectly suited to the sort of thing described above. I think he's really on to something, although it's a different approach than the paid gig idea, which bassist Noah Schenker brought up in his comment:

Lorin, you're talking about some kinds of funded concert spaces, which would be cool. Also seriously lacking is the restaurant, bar, lounge type venues where musicians can really practice, work on standards, maybe have a meal and bring home a meaningful paycheck--and how about a decent piano while we're at it. These places now expect musicians to play for tips. Not really sure what can be done, but the "free" market ain't doin' it.

More from bassist Kurt Kotheimer:

I think both those ideas are great (smaller venues/musicians as curators) and the Stone is a perfect example of this kind of thing in action. There is one other aspect to this that I was thinking about. Think of the small venues that already exist... Q: What is the problem with these venues? A: They are empty. ... Imagine what a small fraction the promotional money and 'Seal of Approval' of a large organization like SFJAZZ would do to bring people out to 21 Grand, Blue6, the Rev, etc. Even without supporting new venues and directly paying musicians they could at the very least support what is already happening in community. ... From the little bit I have played there, this seems to be how it works in Europe. I have played at total dives for like 5 people there but the flyer for the gig has all these sponsors on it. Some of them local businesses, some of them large corporate sponsors. And because of this you can play a small gig and still have travel expenses covered and make a modest amount of money. Crazy, huh?

So, a few thoughts on this--I think the Stone model is a good one, as a way of avoiding stylistic cliques (although who chooses the choosers?), but I do think the idea of giving the bands a minimum (say, the aforementioned $200) could encourage the participation of people (like Noah, above) who might otherwise have to take a less artistically rewarding gig because it pays. Since we're still talking hypothetically, let's keep the minimum for now.  (And you could get an entire year of $200 gigs every night for $73,000, which is less than one two-hundredth the amount SFJAZZ just raised.)

Next post, I'll get into the nuts & bolts of how I might do it if I ran the universe. Stay tuned, and please feel free to join in the conversation in the comments (even if you want to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about).Is it just me, or is this seeming less and less crazy?

This morning, NPR's A Blog Supreme featured a story about a wealthy music lover who has donated $2.5 million to Drake University's jazz program, to be used for a professorship and a new facility. Confronted by that number, I started to wonder if there might be ways to spend that money which would actually benefit the music and musicians more–like subsidizing 12,500 gigs at $200, for example.

It was with those numbers ringing in my head that I saw the even more staggering news that SFJAZZ has secured a $20 million donation for a permanent center in the City. (Think about it! $20 million! I wonder whether every single jazz album sale in the past 10 years even made that much money.)

First of all, genuine congratulations to SFJAZZ on the jazz center–that really is incredible, especially in this economy, in this country, in this culture. But again, as a thought experiment here–that money would pay for ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND $200 gigs. Just imagine for a second what kind of a rejuvenation any jazz scene could get from even a smidgen of that.

Why am I harping on the $200 gig?

Because having a gig–at a club, a bar, a cafe, restaurant or whatever–has been the backbone of jazz music for a century. Having a place to play–work through your stuff, learn the ropes and try out new things, interact with other musicians and the audience–is how musicians have honed their craft and the music has grown, evolved, and flourished since the days of Buddy Bolden.

Perhaps even more importantly, it's also the primary place where audiences have gotten to know jazz–been exposed to it, responded to it, thought about it, and for some percentage, become long-term listeners, without having to pony up a lot of dough or put on a suit. And in the Bay Area, the number of places to do that–especially if you're not a big name–gets smaller every year.

Although the number of healthy jazz venues has steadily decreased since the 70s, the past few years have seen an especially ugly series of closures, with Jazz at Pearl's, the Octavia Lounge, and Anna's Jazz Island disappearing in short order. While Yoshi's and SFJAZZ continue to be successful, it is largely through single shows or short runs of non-local acts. (At a cost of significantly more than a one-drink minimum, too.) Side note: I think that's great! I enjoy going to those shows, too. But it's very different than having a vital scene of regular working bands.

(And for some perspective on that $200–I'm talking about for the whole band. Doesn't seem like much, but I can count the number of jazz gigs I've had that paid that much on my two brass-stained hands. For example: when the Contemporary Jazz Orchestra, San Francisco's long-running Monday night big band, was laid off from its last regular gig, I'm pretty sure it was earning less than $200 per night. For a 19-piece band.)

Now, I'm under no illusions that the "good old days" of jazz could or should come back–tastes change, and just because people liked a certain kind of music in the past doesn't mean their kids or grandkids will like it, or the music that evolved from it, today (and to clarify, I'm not just talking about straightahead jazz–it's scary out there for pretty much anything not involving turntables).

But just imagine for a second what kind of an amazing scene could come about if next time, our hypothetical rich jazz patron decided to skip the giant hall, and invest in some GIGS.

BUT SERIOUSLY – OK, that was fun, but let's face it–this idea is, putting it charitably (get it?), impractical. Who decides which bands and venues would get supported? What about the places (and there are many) which wouldn't want jazz even if it was free? What about the huge backlash from audiences whose patience with jazz runs out after only, say, 50,000 gigs? These are real concerns. I'm just saying that maybe the next wave of jazz philanthropy might consider whether some intelligently-infused cash might look at ways to get the music back into the nightlife that was its 100-year workshop.

UPDATE: The president of Drake University (!) responds over at A Blog Supreme.

Part two here...

ANOTHER CONTEXTUALIZIN' REVIEW: Although my CD has been out for a few months now and has slipped off the jazz charts (but how gratifying that was while it lasted!), there are still some nice reviews trickling in from time to time--for example, the following by Nick Bewsey, which appears both in this month's ICON Magazine and Bewsey's blog, Jazz in Space:

West Coast trumpeter, Ian Carey, might also be described as a short story writer because his songs are uniquely narrative in form. Carey, who in tone and spirit resembles Art Farmer, writes tunes that are inquisitive and probing--they go somewhere--and his fine band stands at the ready as Carey’s imagination and musicality leads the way. On trumpet or flugelhorn he casts a warm patina over eight original compositions and one cover, “Just Friends,” that illustrates the organic sounding rapport Carey shares with alto saxophonist Evan Francis, pianist Adam Shulman, bassist Fred Randolph and drummer Jon Arkin. ... As a composer, Carey encourages thoughtful interplay. Witness the tension between Carey and pianist Shulman on the moody “Questions” and further in, where Francis’ alto explores pathways of sound as if in a hedge maze, venturing one way then another all the while framed by the bassist and drummer. The most rewarding tune, “Leap Year” has a modern texture provided by Shulman on Fender Rhodes, and it grabs your ear with its loping, waltz-like structure. But start with the title tune, with its confident theme and front-line horns, because it exemplifies Carey’s natural ability to express ideas that percolate with emotion and by its conclusion, you’ll feel a satisfying release that leaves you anticipating the next tale he will tell.

... you can read the entire review here. Any press is great, of course, but reviews like this, where it's obvious the writer really thought about the music and responded to it honestly, are a real boost.GIG ALERT: For those of you in the Bay Area, I'll be playing this Friday, May 7 at the Orbit Room (on Market St.) with bassist Ollie Dudek and his trio, from 9:30pm to 1am. We'll be playing standards and jazz classics, and there's no cover. Come on by, have a cocktail and take in the sounds!

Hi folks--as you can see, the website has a new look (it was long overdue). Let me know if it's working for you. I'm planning on doing some more regular posting in the future (beyond announcements and self-promotion--because, let's face it, that gets boring), to share my thoughts on the jazz scene, the trumpet, what I've been listening to, etc.... RIGHT AFTER I get this self-promotion out of the way: first, I do want to mention that thanks to the great crowd that turned out for the CD release show, we've been invited back to Coda on Wednesday, June 16. I'm planning on having some new material ready to debut, so be sure to come down so you can say you were there THE NIGHT JAZZ CHANGED (or something).Also, the CD got a really nice review recently from The Jazz Page:

... the stuff that great jazz is made of, a blend of solid musicianship and writing. Carey's trumpet and fluegelhorn work has an inviting tone that can attract jazz aficianados and novices alike. The quintet is a terrific assemblage of talented players...

... you can read the whole thing here.Finally, as a reward for making it through the above promos, and as a preview for those who didn't make it to the release show, here's another tune from that night, the 5/4 harmonic maze called "Leap Year" (also available on CONTEXTUALIZIN'), featuring the talents of Evan Francis, Adam Shulman, Fred Randolph, and Jon Arkin. Enjoy!Ian Carey Quintet: Leap Year from Ian Carey on Vimeo.

I'll be doing some work on the website, so things may be a little janky for the next couple of days. Please bear with me, and in the meantime, you can keep up to date at my Facebook page.