i

Changing the Beat

A Study of the Worklife of Jazz Musicians

VOLUME III: 

RESPONDENT-DRIVEN SAMPLING

A Study by Joan Jeffri

NEA Research Division Report #43

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Dr. Billy Taylor, Chairman

David Baker Alvin Batiste

Jessie Bermudez Tom Carter

Geraldine DeHass Jon Faddis

Delfayeo Marsalis Dan Morgenstern

Jimmy Owens Patrice Rushen 

SPONSORS AND FUNDERS

The National Endowment for the Arts

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation

The Grammy Foundation

American Federation of Musicians

American Federation of Musicians Local 802

New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Foundation

The Nathan Cummings Foundation

NATIONAL

ENDOWMENT

FOR THE ARTS
ii

Project Director:

Joan Jeffri, Director, Research Center for Arts and Culture

Teachers College Columbia University

Consultants:

Dr. Douglas Heckathorn, Cornell University

Dr. Robert Greenblatt

Project coordinators:

Adina Williams

Phillip Harvey

Project researchers:

Judith Hellman

Janine Okmin

Data consultants:

Oscar Torres

Judith Rosenstein

City Coordinators:

Detroit 

Dr. Bernard Brock 

Dr. David Magidson

Center for the Study of Art and Public Policy

Wayne State University

New Orleans

Philip Dobard, Director

Graduate Program in Arts Administration

University of New Orleans

New York 

Dr. Martin Mueller, Director

Jazz and Contemporary Music Program

New School University

San Francisco 

Dr. Dee Spencer, Director of Education

SF Jazz Organization

San Francisco State University

Library of Congress info here from Executive Summary 

Cover: Copyright of Photo
iii

Introduction 1

Purpose 1

Findings 2

Survey Background and Method 3

Organization of Report 4

Chapter I. Demographics 5

Chapter II. Employment and Income 11

Chapter III. Other Issues 21

Chapter IV. Social Networks 48

Chapter V. Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations 62

Appendices 68

A. Metropolitan Areas Used in the Study 68

B. Metropolitan Areas Context 69

C. Distribution of Responses 77

D. Using the Capture-Recapture Method to Estimate 

the Number of Jazz Musicians 140

E. Resource Directory 142

Table of Contents 
iv
1

Purpose

Deemed a national treasure by the United States

Congress, jazz is a unique American art form, and its

musicians, the keepers and producers of this

treasure, are recognized the world over as America’s

cultural ambassadors. Yet artists who make a living

as jazz musicians face numerous challenges. Despite

high-profile projects and activities, such as Jazz at

Lincoln Center’s Essentially Ellington high school

band competition, the Monterey and other jazz

festivals, or the Jazz documentary by Ken Burns, jazz

music does not reach as vast an audience as other

music forms, making it challenging to maintain and

continue this treasure.

Recognizing the importance of jazz and its

artists, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)

in 2000 commissioned a study of jazz musicians in

four U.S. metropolitan areas—Detroit, New Orleans,

New York, and San Francisco. The statistical

information gathered in the study will be used to

help devise strategic ways to further the work of jazz

artists. These four cities were chosen for their

geographic diversity and their historical and current

relationships with jazz. The NEA had two purposes:

• To understand the environment for jazz in

each of the study cities by documenting both the

jazz artists and their resources and support systems.

• To develop a detailed needs assessment from

jazz artists themselves by collecting data

documenting their professional lives and most

pressing needs.

This study provided an opportunity to examine

the working lives of jazz musicians in a systematic

way and to produce quantitative and qualitative

information about the jazz community, the

professional lives of jazz musicians, and jazz’s place

in the music industry.

Jazz musician and educator Dr. Billy Taylor

formed and chaired an advisory board to guide the

project as it developed. The study also created a

focus group of artists, managers, and educators, and

numerous jazz practitioners generously gave their

time to help advise this project. The study was

conducted in two parts: a survey of musicians

belonging to the American Federation of Musicians

(AFM) and a Respondent-Driven Sampling (RDS)

survey of jazz musicians. This volume focuses on the

RDS survey of jazz musicians in three cities. The

results of the AFM survey can be found in Volume

II, which focuses on jazz musicians in all four study

cities.

This study aims to support the continuing

growth and development of jazz and the musicians

who create it. Jazz musicians as a group, however, do

not constitute an easy subject for formal study.

Indeed, the word “jazz” itself proves difficult to

define. “It cannot safely be categorized as folk,

popular or art music,” states the New Grove

Dictionary of Jazz, “though it shares aspects of all

three.” This study relied on the musicians themselves

to indicate that they played jazz music.

To study jazz musicians, it is important to

understand the idiosyncratic nature of the music. As

A.B. Spellman indicated in his introduction to the

NEA publication, American Jazz Masters Fellowships

1982-2002, jazz was “built on the discipline of

collective improvisation...which allowed for

maximum expression of the individual within the

context of the group.” The group, however, is often

an ever-changing one. Unlike classical music, with

orchestral members staying together for decades, or

even rock, where more often than not musicians

make their music as a group, jazz musicians often

look for jams or gigs as individuals rather than in

groups. Indeed, a jazz group like the Modern Jazz

Quartet is remarkable for its longevity as much as its

music.

Working as an individual musician can be more

trying financially, in many ways, than working as a

group. This seems especially true in a musical form

that, while critically acclaimed as a national treasure,

does not sell many tickets or CDs. In fact, jazz

accounts for only four percent of annual recording

sales in the United States. It can be even more

difficult for emerging jazz artists to make a living

with their music; reissues of classic jazz recordings

have consistently outsold all but the most popular

contemporary jazz artists. Even that amount is

somewhat inflated by the inclusion of pop artists in

the jazz category.

Institutional support for jazz exists but is small.

A few state and regional arts agencies and some

Introduction 
2

to a better understanding of the environment in

which jazz musicians operate. By presenting a clearer

picture of the working life of the jazz artist, this

study will help the NEA develop and fund programs

that address the concerns and challenges jazz

musicians face in creating and playing their music.

Musicians’ Response

The total of 733 responses yielded 300 in San

Francisco, 264 in New York, 110 in New Orleans and

59 in Detroit. The Detroit figures were too small to

analyze here, but a companion volume (Volume II)

reports on a parallel survey of 1,963 jazz musicians

in the musicians union in all four metro areas. Also,

in Volume I, the Executive Summary, only three

cities are analyzed: New Orleans, New York and San

Francisco.

nonprofit foundations offer grants to individual

musicians, but often at low amounts; in this study,

of the musicians who received grants, more than 90

percent received $5,000 or less. The Lila WallaceReaders Digest Fund and the Doris Duke Charitable

Foundation have shored up institutions and

endowments of jazz presenters, created networks in

the jazz community, and provided venues for jazz

performance. The National Endowment for the Arts

has assisted these organizations with some of their

programs—such as the joint program with the Doris

Duke Charitable Foundation called JazzNet, which

furthers jazz creation, presentation, and education

with 14 regional jazz presenters. This program

ended in 1996, when Congress prohibited awarding

direct grants to individual artists, except for creative

writing and honorary awards in the folk and

traditional arts and jazz. The honorary award in

jazz, the American Jazz Masters Fellowship,

specifically sponsors jazz musicians who are

established and have achieved mastery of their art.

Emerging artists have little access to such support.

The data obtained through this study are crucial

Findings

➔ The top instruments played by jazz musicians are piano/keyboard, drums, bass and voice.

➔ 51.5 percent of the respondents earned their major income as musicians in the last 12 months and

for 70 percent, this income came from work as a jazz musician in 2000.

➔ While 92.1 percent of the respondents played jazz for money during the last 12 months, 91.2 of the

respondents earned $40,000 or less as a musician in 2001. No one earned over $100,000.

➔ 63 percent have more than one job, 24 percent of those as music teachers.

➔ 79.5 percent play 10 different musical jobs per month and 41.2 percent play with more than four

different groups

➔ 37.5 percent have a college degree and another 18.3 percent have a graduate degree.

➔ 27.7 percent like the exposure from people downloading their music from the Internet; 24 percent

think they should be paid for this.

➔ 69.9 percent of these respondents do not belong to the AFM; 19.4 percent of this group belonged at

a previous time.

➔ 80.8 percent received music-related training in the city or region where they now reside. The highest

was New York (83.1 percent)

➔ 63.3 percent have health or medical coverage; this is lower than the national average of 87 percent.

➔ 33.3 percent have life insurance with a high of 43.9 percent in New York.

➔ 43 percent have retirement plans with a high of 47.6 percent in New Orleans.

➔ 73.1 percent are satisfied or very satisfied with their music at this point, but only 52.5 percent feel

their career aspirations have been realized.

➔ 80.2 percent are male; 59.8 percent are white; 27.8 percent are black.
3

SURVEY BACKGROUND AND

METHOD

How to identify jazz musicians?

There are a wide variety of interpretations as to

what constitutes a jazz artist. Stanley Crouch in

“Blues to Be Constitutional” defined jazz artists this

way:

No matter what class or sex or religion or race or

shape or height, if you can cut the mustard you should

be up there playing or singing or having your

compositions performed. (In O’Meally, R., The Jazz

Cadence of American Culture, 164-5.)

Researchers who study artists, as much as they

might enjoy it, would be hard pressed to locate and

identify them by the criterion of cutting the

mustard. And indeed, as Paul Berliner tells us in

Thinking in Jazz:

Art worlds consist not only of their most seasoned

and single-minded members, but of a large support

system made up of individuals with different interests

and varying degrees of talent and knowledge.(p. 7)

Normally, independent studies of artists rely on

information from the U.S.Census or organizational

lists. The census, while it provides systematic

information over time, has limitations on the ways it

defines artists and, thus, is often not useful for the

arts community. Neither the census nor the Current

Population Survey (Bureau of Labor Statistics) can

provide any breakdown of the broad category of

“musicians and composers.”

Organizational lists were seen as unrealistic for

the most part, since large numbers of jazz musicians

do not tend to join organizations. Additionally, jazz

musicians perform substantial work in the for-profit

sector, perhaps more than the non-profit sector, for

organizations not often willing or able to generate

lists of artists.

With the help of a focus group of jazz artists,

educators and managers, we created this set of

definitional criteria:

Do you consider yourself a jazz musician?

Did you earn more than 50 percent of your

personal income in the last six months as a jazz

musician or in jazz-related activities?

Have you been engaged in your art/jazz more

than 50 percent of the time during the last year?

Have you performed in/with a jazz band at least

10 times in the last year?

Have you performed with or without a jazz

band for pay at least 10 times during the last year?

Have you produced a documented body of work

(documented output = performances, compositions,

collaborations, arrangements, recordings) that is

considered (self or externally) jazz? 

We also asked several different definitional

questions in the body of the survey.

We used a method called respondent-driven

sampling (RDS), which was created by sociologist

Douglas Heckathorn from Cornell University to

identify hard-to-find populations. Our study sample

was composed of 733 musicians in Detroit, New

Orleans, New York and San Francisco. This method

requires a high contact pattern among participants,

and offered a modest financial incentive for jazz

musicians to recruit each other for personal, one-toone interviews. City coordinators and their staff in

the four study cities spent eight months interviewing

jazz musicians, recording their answers onto

questionnaires, and entering the data into a

specially-created computer program. Both the

questions and the survey design allowed us to learn

about the network patterns of jazz musicians and

answer questions about their social relationships

with each other.

Respondent Driven Sampling 

Respondent driven Sampling (RDS) is a new

form of chain-referral sampling developed to

overcome the biases traditionally associated with

this method. It has also served as the recruitment

mechanism for an intervention that targets active

injection drug users for HIV prevention and

services, and has been adapted to a variety of other

populations including young gay Latinos in Chicago

and Vietnam draft dodgers in Canada. This is the

first time it has been used for artists. Perhaps the

greatest benefit of this method is that instead of

reaching only the most visible, vocal, loudest artists,

RDS gets deep into the community, like the

spreading roots of a tree.

Also, RDS, by following the pattern of coupon

redemption, can discover the networking aspects of

jazz musicians—who hangs out with whom, and

whether they do so by musical type, geography,
4

stories were valued.

Traditionally in RDS studies, it takes only four

“waves” of coupons to reach deep into the

community. In this study, we found some behavior

unique to jazz musicians and to each community.

First, our assumption that jazz musicians have a

high contact pattern because they “hang out

together” is only partially true—they DO hang out

together, but as the data show, it is often by musical

style that they do so. This pattern was also revealed

in a study from the mid-1990s in France called, Les

Musiciens de Jazz en France by Philippe Coulangeon

(L’Harmattan), which showed that both geography

and differences in style tended to separate French

jazz musicians.

Second, the “lone wolf” syndrome often adopted

by jazz musicians makes them somewhat leery of

collaboration since it is such a hard scramble for

their next gig. Some of our city coordinators were

extremely inventive in this regard—-going to jazz

clubs, festivals and events, speaking about the study

at jazz gatherings, instrument and record stores, at

jazz schools and programs—and were vigilant at

reminding subjects about interview appointments,

rescheduling people who had out-of-town gigs, etc.

Third, some reacted negatively to the small payment

incentives. Fourth, coupons were sometimes lost or

forgotten, often despite the best intentions of the

musicians. But perhaps the most interesting finding

was the musicians’ deep desire to tell their stories

and to be heard.

Organization of Report

The report is organized in five sections,

presenting findings on demographics, employment

and income, a variety of professional issues, and

social networks. It also contains a summary, with

conclusions and recommendations. Appendices

include definitions and contexts for each metro area

studied, a distribution of responses, the respondent

identification form, an explanation of the method

used to estimate the number of jazz musicians and a

directory of resources for jazz musicians in each

metro area.

training, family dynasties, etc. Finally, for the first

time in artist surveys, using the capture-recapture

statistical analysis, we have been able to answer the

question “How many artists?” in three of the four

study cities. (See Appendix for the capture-recapture

method used to achieve this.)

RDS is a method based on peer recruitment. In

each of the four metropolitan areas. (See Appendix

for metro areas), a city coordinator began the study

by inviting six to eight jazz musicians to help start

the project. These musicians were well-connected in

the community, not necessarily famous or very

visible, but with many contacts since RDS depends

on a high contact pattern of the subjects studied.

Each of these musicians was interviewed in person

with questions on an identification sheet which

included the selection criteria mentioned above,

followed by a 116-question questionnaire. The

interviews took place in a friendly environment

sometimes donated by a jazz venue (in New York,

interviews were held at Sam Ash Music; in San

Francisco at SF JAZZ; in Detroit and New Orleans,

at university facilities). Following the interview, each

of these six to eight “seeds” was given four coupons

with which to recruit additional jazz musicians.

Three coupons (colored green) could be used for

any jazz musician; one of the four coupons (pink)

was to be used only for a female jazz musician. (We

took this approach because we were concerned that

too few women would be represented in the study.

Any skewing was accounted for in statistical

weighting when the data were analyzed.

Interestingly, in New York, an organization called

International Women in Jazz took advantage of this

opportunity and championed the study and its

recruitment efforts.)

We paid the initial “seeds” a modest $10 and for

each coupon the seed gave out, another $15 each

time one of the four coupons was redeemed. Any

single jazz musician had the possibility to earn a

total of $70. This limit on both coupons and

payment incentives was to avoid over-representing

one particular group of musicians to the exclusion

of others. This incentive had two purposes: first, to

recruit other musicians and, second, as an

indication to the subjects that their time and their
Where did you first get inspired by music?

*The confidence level for this survey is 95 percent with a 5 percent margin of error. Figures do not necessarily add up to 100

percent due to multiple answers and don’t know/refused. In the New Orleans metro area, the majority of respondents resided

in Orleans Parish; in Detroit in Wayne and Oakland Counties does this apply to this volume?; in San Francisco, San Francisco

and Alameda counties, followed by San Mateo, Contra Costa and San Mateo Counties; and in the New York Metro area, New

York County (includes Manhattan) and Kings County (includes Brooklyn). (See Appendix C)

**Please refer to Appendix C for the distribution of responses in New Orleans, New York and San Francisco.

5

Gender, Age, Race

Eighty percent of jazz musicians are male and

20 percent are female. The m4ean total age is 43; the

median is 42. New York musicians are a little older:

46 is the mean and 47 the median. Surprisingly, in

New Orleans 73 percent of the jazz musicians are

white.

The racial breakdown for jazz musicians in the

three cities is 60 percent white, 28 percent black, 3

percent Latino and 3 percent Asian. In New Orleans,

the findings are a bit surprising with 73 percent

white, 23 percent black, 3 percent Asian and no

Latino jazz musicians in this study. In New York, 55

percent are white, 33 percent are black, 3 percent

Latino and 1 percent Asian; and in San Francisco, 59

percent are white, 25 percent are black, 3 percent are

Latino and 4 percent are Asian.

When age is broken out by groups, both the 25-

34 age group and the 45-54 age group seem to

account for about half the musicians in total,

corresponding mostly to Gen-X-ers and Baby

Boomers.

Forty-two percent are single; 26 percent are

married. In San Francisco over half (51 percent) are

single.

Education

To help us follow the early musical development

of survey respondents, a number of questions

regarding their early education and training were

asked. When asked where they were first inspired by

music, 37 percent of total musicians said they

received their initial inspiration at home. This

reached a high of 47 percent for New York

musicians. Forty-one percent of the total

respondents received most of their encouragement

from their families. This was true of 35 percent in

New York, possibly indicating the commonality of

extended families. While 38 percent of the total

respondents received encouragement from other

musicians, 50 percent of New Orleans area

musicians did.

Chapter I. Demographics*

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 Church Percent 10.6% 18.2% 5.4% 12.4%

Number 71 20 14 37

 Community center Percent 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%

Number 2 0 0 2

 Festival Percent 1.6% 2.7% 0.8% 2.0%

Number 11 32 6

 Film Percent 0.9% 2.7% 0.0% 1.0%

Number 6 3 0 3

 Friends Percent 9.7% 11.8% 3.8% 14.1%

Number 65 13 10 42

 Home Percent 37.1% 29.1% 47.1% 31.2%
6

Number 248 32 123 93

 Internet Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 Live performance Percent 6.1% 6.4% 6.1% 6.0%

Number 41 7 16 18

 Private music teacher Percent 2.1% 1.8% 1.1% 3.0%

Number 14 2 3 9

 Radio Percent 7.9% 7.3% 7.3% 8.7%

Number 53 8 19 26

 Recordings Percent 7.5% 6.4% 9.2% 6.4%

Number 50 7 24 19

 Relatives Percent 3.0% 3.6% 0.8% 4.7%

Number 20 4 2 14

 School Percent 7.3% 8.2% 7.7% 6.7%

Number 49 9 20 20

 Television Percent 0.9% 0.0% 1.5% 0.7%

Number 6 0 4 2

 Workshop Percent 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

Number 1 0 1 0

 Other Percent 4.8% 1.8% 8.8% 2.3%

Number 32 2 23 7

Missing 5 0 3 2

total # of respondents who answered the question 669 110 261 298

What experiences provided you with early encouragement for your music?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 apprenticeship/internship Percent 3.1% 2.7% 0.8% 5.3%

Number 21 3 2 16

 Award Percent 5.6% 12.7% 1.9% 6.3%

Number 38 14 5 19

 critical review Percent 3.9% 5.5% 1.1% 5.7%

Number 26 6 3 17

 family attention Percent 41.1% 45.5% 34.8% 45.0%

Number 277 50 92 135

 financial support Percent 3.3% 3.6% 0.4% 5.7%

Number 22 4 1 17

 influence of other musicians' work Percent 37.5% 50.0% 21.6% 47.0%

Number 253 55 57 141

 my music was recorded Percent 3.1% 5.5% 0.4% 4.7%

Number 21 6 1 14
7

Teaching and mentoring are different aspects of

a musician’s education. The major motivation for

aggregate musicians who teach or have taught music

over the course of their career is the importance of

passing on their knowledge and experiences. Fifty

percent of artists recognized that mentoring is very

important to their own artistic development.

If you taught music or currently teach music during your career, what was your major motivation for

teaching?

 Mentor Percent 12.3% 18.2% 3.0% 18.3%

Number 83 20 8 55

 peer approval Percent 27.0% 29.1% 14.8% 37.0%

Number 182 32 39 111

 playing in the streets Percent 8.9% 7.3% 3.8% 14.0%

Number 60 8 10 42

 public performance Percent 22.8% 35.5% 2.7% 36.0%

Number 154 39 7 108

 sale of my music Percent 2.5% 4.5% 0.0% 4.0%

Number 17 5 0 12

 teacher(s) Percent 30.9% 42.7% 12.1% 43.0%

Number 208 47 32 129

 winning competitions(s) Percent 7.1% 15.5% 0.8% 9.7%

Number 48 17 2 29

 Other Percent 17.5% 9.1% 26.1% 13.0%

Number 118 10 69 39

total # of respondents who answered the question 674 110 264 300

Total

New

Orleans

New

York

San

Francisco

 earning money Percent 24.8% 32.7% 18.6% 27.3%

Number 167 36 49 82

 love to teach Percent 20.8% 19.1% 12.9% 28.3%

Number 140 21 34 85

 importance of passing on my knowledge and

experiences Percent 25.2% 29.1% 24.2% 24.7%

Number 170 32 64 74

 importance of leaving a legacy Percent 3.4% 3.6% 0.0% 6.3%

Number 23 4 0 19

 benefits (health insurance, etc.) Percent 1.5% 2.7% 0.8% 1.7%

Number 10 3 2 5

 facilities for making music Percent 1.8% 2.7% 0.8% 2.3%

Number 12 3 2 7

 staying in touch with people and ideas Percent 8.9% 17.3% 4.2% 10.0%

Number 60 19 11 30

 Other Percent 14.8% 5.5% 30.3% 4.7%
8

(69 percent total).

Respondents from the three cities combined

showed a good amount of differentiation in the

experiences that helped prepare them for their work

in the arts. San Francisco area artists had more

community-based arts experience than aggregate

musicians (29 percent to 18 percent) and included

more musicians who were self-taught (51 percent to

38 percent).

Respondents from the three cities combined and

the New Orleans area showed a good amount of

differentiation in the experiences that helped

prepare them for their work in the arts. New

Orleans-area artists had more community-based arts

experience than total musicians (22 percent to 18

percent) and included more musicians who were

self-taught (55 percent to 38 percent).

A large percentage of artists learned from

listening to music (75 percent total) and performing

What other experiences have you had in preparation for your work in the arts?

Number 100 6 80 14

total # of respondents who answered the question 674 110 264 300

If you have been a mentor to another musician or artist, how important is

mentoring to your ongoing artistic development?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 very important Percent 49.7% 52.4% 47.3% 51.4%

Number 245 44 107 94

 somewhat important Percent 11.2% 19.0% 7.1% 12.6%

Number 55 16 16 23

 Important Percent 20.1% 15.5% 25.2% 15.8%

Number 99 13 57 29

 not important Percent 2.8% 4.8% 2.2% 2.7%

Number 14 4 5 5

 Meaningless Percent 0.8% 1.2% 0.4% 1.1%

Number 4 1 1 2

 I have never been a mentor Percent 15.4% 7.1% 17.7% 16.4%

Number 76 6 40 30

Missing 181 26 38 117

total # of respondents who answered the question 493 84 226 183

If you have been a mentor to another musician or artist, how important is mentoring to your ongoing

artistic development?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 alternative schooling experience Percent 12.0% 19.1% 5.3% 15.3%

Number 81 21 14 46

 attending performances Percent 61.1% 72.7% 47.0% 69.3%

Number 412 80 124 208

 community-based arts experience Percent 17.7% 21.8% 2.7% 29.3%

Number 119 24 7 88

 experience as a mentor Percent 12.3% 20.9% 3.8% 16.7%

Number 83 23 10 50
9

Formal Education

Thirty-four percent of total musicians have

some college; 38 percent have a college degree; an

additional 18 percent of the total respondents have a

graduate degree.

Please indicate your highest level of formal education

 experience as an apprentice Percent 22.8% 25.5% 20.5% 24.0%

Number 154 28 54 72

 jazz workshop, clinic, master class Percent 41.5% 52.7% 27.3% 50.0%

Number 280 58 72 150

 listening to music Percent 75.1% 89.1% 66.3% 77.7%

Number 506 98 175 233

 Performing Percent 68.7% 88.2% 48.9% 79.0%

Number 463 97 129 237

 rehearsal band Percent 33.7% 42.7% 11.7% 49.7%

Number 227 47 31 149

 self-taught Percent 38.0% 54.5% 16.3% 51.0%

Number 256 60 43 153

 Other Percent 16.8% 5.5% 36.0% 4.0%

Number 113 6 95 12

total # of respondents who answered the question 674 110 264 300

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 elementary school, through grade 8 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 some high school Percent 2.4% 1.8% 1.9% 3.1%

Number 16 2 5 9

 12th grade, but did not graduate Percent 0.6% 0.0% 0.4% 1.0%

Number 4 0 1 3

 12th grade, got GED Percent 1.4% 4.6% 0.4% 1.0%

Number 9 5 1 3

 12th grade, graduated from high school Percent 5.3% 4.6% 4.2% 6.4%

Number 35 5 11 19

 some college Percent 33.5% 39.4% 30.2% 34.2%

Number 223 43 79 101

 college degree Percent 37.5% 26.6% 42.0% 37.6%

Number 250 29 110 111

 graduate degree Percent 18.3% 22.9% 21.0% 14.2%

Number 122 25 55 42

Missing 8 1 2 5

total # of respondents who answered this question 666 109 262 295
10

degree. This was very high in New York at 29

percent. Sixty-two percent of all jazz musicians

studied with private teachers, again highest in New

York at 73 percent.

Additional Educational Experiences

Nineteen percent of the musicians from the

three cities combined had conservatory or

professional school training that did not grant a

Did you receive technical or professional training in the arts?

Total

New

Orleans

New

York

San

Francisco

 in conservatory or professional school not granting a

degree Percent 19.4% 12.7% 29.2% 13.3%

Number 131 14 77 40

 certificate program in the arts Percent 6.8% 14.5% 3.8% 6.7%

Number 46 16 10 20

 private teachers Percent 62.0% 61.8% 73.1% 52.3%

Number 418 68 193 157

 did not receive technical or professional training in

the arts Percent 16.5% 9.1% 7.2% 27.3%

Number 111 10 19 82

 other Percent 10.4% 7.3% 10.2% 11.7%

Number 70 8 27 35

total # of respondents who answered this question 674 110 264 300
11

EMPLOYMENT

To assess the employment situation of jazz

musicians, a number of questions were asked to

clarify the nature of their working habits. At present,

28 percent of all musicians are employed full-time in

the music business, 27 percent are employed fulltime as freelancers in the music business, and 13

percent are part-time freelancers in the music

business. For New Orleans-area musicians, 66

percent are employed full-time in the music

business, and only 17 percent are employed full time

in New York.

Respondents play a mean of 10 different musical

jobs a month; in San Francisco the mean is seven

jobs a month.

Chapter II. Employment and Income

At present, what is your employment situation?

Total

New

Orleans

New

York

San

Francisco

 I am employed full time in the music business Percent 28.0% 65.5% 17.0% 24.0%

Number 189 72 45 72

 I am employed full-time NOT in the music business Percent 13.1% 4.5% 6.8% 21.7%

Number 88 5 18 65

 I am employed part-time in the music business Percent 6.2% 2.7% 1.5% 11.7%

Number 42 3 4 35

 I am employed full-time as a freelancer in the music

business Percent 27.3% 30.0% 49.6% 6.7%

Number 184 33 131 20

 I am employed part-time as a freelancer in the music

business Percent 12.8% 3.6% 12.9% 16.0%

Number 86 4 34 48

 I am unemployed Percent 5.2% 0.0% 1.9% 10.0%

Number 35 0 5 30

 I am retired Percent 3.3% 1.8% 2.3% 4.7%

Number 22 2 6 14

 other (other) Percent 11.0% 2.7% 10.6% 14.3%

Number 74 3 28 43

Missing

total # of respondents who answered this question

(including refusals & don't knows) 674 110 264 300

Note: These percentages add up to more than 100 percent, indicating that some respondents gave multiple

answers, possibly selecting “other” as well as a defined category.

Sixty-three percent of the total musicians have

more than one job. For New York musicians, the

figure is 80 percent; for San Francisco, 54 percent.

For the majority of musicians, music teacher was the

most cited secondary job (24 percent in New

Orleans, 35 percent in New York and only 15 percent

in San Francisco).

There seems to be a greater synergy between

music and outside employment in New Orleans and

New York. Of the total musicians who are currently

working more than one job, 55 percent believe that

their alternate employment and their music
12

their music. Forty-four percent of San Francisco

musicians, 30 percent of New Yorkers and only 18

percent in New Orleans feel that their other

employment pays to support their music.

reinforce each other. In comparison, 73 percent of

New Orleans-area musicians, and 66 percent of New

York musicians and only 37 percent of San Francisco

musicians feel that their employment reinforces

If you have other employment, which one of the following statements best describes your feelings about

the relationship between your music and your other employment at this point in your career?

Approximately how many hours per week do you spend on your music or music-related activities

(including performing, looking for work, marketing etc.)

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 My other employment pays to support my music Percent 34.1% 18.2% 30.1% 43.7%

 . Number 129 8 55 66

 My other employment and my music reinforce each

other Percent 55.3% 72.7% 66.1% 37.1%

 . Number 209 32 121 56

 My other employment and my music have no relation

to each other Percent 10.6% 9.1% 3.8% 19.2%

Number 40 4 7 29

Missing 296 66 81 149

total # of respondents who answered this question 378 44 183 151

Thirty-three percent of all musicians and 48

percent of New York-area musicians spend over 40

hours a week on their music or music-related

activities. Thirty-nine percent of the total musicians

spend between 10 or fewer hours per week on their

supplementary employment.

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 0-10 hours per week Percent 10.9% 7.5% 3.4% 18.4%

Number 67 8 8 51

 11-20 hours per week Percent 16.0% 17.8% 8.6% 21.7%

Number 99 19 20 60

 21-30 hours per week Percent 18.2% 15.9% 13.3% 23.1%

Number 112 17 31 64

 31-40 hours per week Percent 21.7% 23.4% 27.0% 16.6%

Number 134 25 63 46

 over 40 hours per week Percent 33.2% 35.5% 47.6% 20.2%

Number 205 38 111 56

Missing 57 3 31 23

total # of respondents who answered this question 617 107 233 277

INCOME

Fifty-two percent of all jazz musician

respondents earned their major income in the last

12 months as musicians, 24 percent in non-music

related occupations, another 11 percent as music

teachers and 7 percent as jazz teachers. A high of 83

percent of the New Orleans-area musicians earned

their major income in the last 12 months as

musicians. Fifty-six percent of the New York-area

musicians earned their major income in the last 12

months as musicians, 19 percent in non-music

related occupations, 8 percent as music teachers, and

7 percent as jazz teachers.
13

Thirty-six percent of the San Francisco-area

musicians earned their major income in the last 12

months as musicians, 36 percent in non-music

related occupations, 13 percent as music teachers,

and 7 percent as jazz teachers.

In a late-1990s study of 400 jazz musicians in

the Netherlands (a place often invoked for its

government subsidy of artists) researcher Teunis

IJdens found the main sources of income were

performing (35 percent) and teaching (25 percent).

Other work as a musician, including composing,

made up almost 10 percent of total income, and

other non-musical work accounted for 15 percent.

Only one out of ten jazz musicians can make a

living out of performing, teaching, and composing jazz

and improvised music. Almost half of them can make

a living as a musician (jazz and other music) while

other (non-musical) sources of income are required by

well over 50 percent of the musicians.( “Scattered and

Skewed, Artistic Work Between Market and

Organization,” p. 225).

From which occupation did you earn your major income in the last 12 months?

I am going to read a list of income ranges. Please let me know when I get to the category that describes your

total income as an individual from all sources in 2000 before taxes, including your work as a musician.

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 Musician Percent 51.5% 82.7% 56.4% 35.7%

Number 347 91 149 107

 music teacher Percent 11.1% 13.6% 8.0% 13.0%

Number 75 15 21 39

 jazz teacher Percent 6.5% 4.5% 6.8% 7.0%

Number 44 5 18 21

 arts manager or administrator Percent 1.0% 0.0% 0.8% 1.7%

Number 7 0 2 5

 other music-related occupation Percent 7.9% 4.5% 8.7% 8.3%

Number 53 5 23 25

 non-music related occupation Percent 24.2% 3.6% 18.9% 36.3%

Number 163 4 50 109

 Other Percent 10.7% 6.4% 5.3% 17.0%

Number 72 7 14 51

Missing

total # of respondents who answered this question 674 110 264 300

The extremes of income from music are evident:

as noted above, 52 percent of all musicians and 56

percent of New York-area musicians earned their

major income in the last 12 months as musicians.

Nine percent of all jazz musicians and 11

percent of New York-area jazz musicians earned over

$40,000 from their work as musicians in 2000.

Fourteen percent of all musicians and 8 percent of

New York-area jazz musicians earned $500 or less as

musicians in 2000.

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 $0- $500 Percent 7.7% 2.0% 4.9% 12.5%

Number 46 2 12 32

 $501- $3000 Percent 11.7% 5.0% 12.3% 13.7%

Number 70 5 30 35
14

Only nine percent of all jazz artists earned over six percent in San Francisco.

$40,000 in total income as musicians, with a low of

I am going to read a list of income ranges. Please let me know when I get to the category that describes your

total income from work as a musician from all sources for 2000 before taxes.

 $3001- $7000 Percent 25.2% 29.0% 23.4% 25.5%

Number 151 29 57 65

 $7001- $12,000 Percent 20.0% 26.0% 20.9% 16.9%

Number 120 26 51 43

 $12,001- $20,000 Percent 12.7% 17.0% 16.4% 7.5%

Number 76 17 40 19

 $20,001- $40,000 Percent 9.5% 11.0% 9.4% 9.0%

Number 57 11 23 23

 $40,001- $60,000 Percent 6.2% 6.0% 5.3% 7.1%

Number 37 6 13 18

 $60,001- $80,000 Percent 7.0% 4.0% 7.4% 7.8%

Number 42 4 18 20

 $80,001- $100,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 more than $100,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

Mean $16,269 $15,833 $16,660 $16,066

Median $9,501 $9,501 $9,501 $5,001

Missing 75 10 20 45

total # of respondents who answered this question 599 100 244 255

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 $0- $500 Percent 13.8% 1.9% 7.9% 24.1%

Number 85 2 20 63

 $501- $3000 Percent 16.0% 5.8% 12.3% 23.8%

Number 99 6 31 62

 $3001- $7000 Percent 13.9% 2.9% 14.2% 18.0%

Number 86 3 36 47

 $7001- $12,000 Percent 13.0% 13.6% 15.0% 10.7%

Number 80 14 38 28

 $12,001- $20,000 Percent 14.7% 25.2% 17.4% 8.0%

Number 91 26 44 21

 $20,001- $40,000 Percent 19.8% 40.8% 22.5% 8.8%

Number 122 42 57 23

 $40,001- $60,000 Percent 5.5% 7.8% 7.1% 3.1%

Number 34 8 18 8
15

For 70 percent of all and 81 percent of New

York-area musicians, musician income came from

work AS jazz musicians, in other words, not playing

weddings, bar mitzvahs and all the other musical

jobs jazz musicians do to survive.

This was true of 78 percent of New Orleans-area

musicians, 56 percent of San Francisco musicians.

 $60,001- $80,000 Percent 3.2% 1.9% 3.6% 3.4%

Number 20 2 9 9

 $80,001- $100,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 more than $100,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

Mean $15,560 $23,059 $17,962 $10,273

Median $9,501 $30,001 $16,001 $5,001

Missing 57 7 11 39

total # of respondents who answered this question 617 103 253 261

What percentage of this income came from your work as a jazz musician in 2000?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

mean 70 78 81 56

Median 90 98 100 50

std. dev. 35 30 30 38

Mode 100 100 100 100

valid cases 587 104 247 236

Missing 87 6 17 64

Respondents play a mean of 10 different musical

jobs a month; in New Orleans the mean is 17 jobs a

month.

Just over half of the RDS and union musicians

earned their major income in the last 12

months as musicians (see Volume II). Fortythree percent of union jazz musicians and 28

percent of RDS musicians are employed fulltime in the music business. And 5 percent or

less of both groups are unemployed.

For 63 percent of all musicians and 89 percent

of New Orleans area musicians, the income earned

from their work as jazz musicians covered their

music-related costs. For over three-quarters of all

musicians, costs of music-related supplies,

equipment, capital improvements, publicity and

marketing, travel and cartage, recording and

management costs, and instrument insurance are

under $2,500.

The information below includes findings from

our union survey (AFM) on jazz and non-jazz

musicians, our RDS survey, and the NEA’s 1990

census figures for musicians and composers (the

census does not separate these or distinguish

between types of music.)
16

Conversely, 4 percent of aggregate musicians and 2

percent of New Orleans area musicians earned $500

or less.

In the RDS study, the mean total household gross income in 2000 before taxes for

aggregate jazz musicians is $24,504, the median is $9,501. For New Orleans-area

musicians the mean is $23,589 and the median is $16,001.

The mean total income as an individual from ALL sources including work as a musician

in 2000 before taxes for aggregate musicians is $16,269, the median is $9,501. For New

Orleans-area musicians the mean is $15,833, the median is $9,501.

In the AFM study, the mean total household gross income in 2000 before taxes for jazz

musicians is $63,496; the median is $70,000. For non-jazz musicians the mean is

$70,493 and the median is $70,000.

The mean total income as an individual from ALL sources including work as a musician

in 2000 before taxes for jazz musicians is $49,847; the median is $50,000. For non-jazz

musicians the mean is $50,894 and the median is $50,000.

According to the 1990 census as reported by the National Endowment for the Arts, the

median earnings for all musicians and composers was $22,988 for men and $18,653 for

women. Median household income was $36,653.

In the RDS study the mean income as an individual from work AS A MUSICIAN in

2000 before taxes for aggregate jazz musicians is $15,560; the median is $9,501. For New

Orleans area musicians the mean is $23,059; the median is $17,692.

The mean AFM income as an individual from work AS A MUSICIAN in 2000 before

taxes for jazz musicians is $33,486; the median is $30,000. For non-jazz musicians the

mean is $36,516 and the median is $30,000.

Eighteen percent of aggregate and only 10

percent of New Orleans-area musicians earned over

$60,000 in total gross household income in 2000; no

musicians from any group earned over $100,000.

I am going to read a list of income ranges. Please let me know when I get to the category that describes your

total household gross income in 2000 before taxes.

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 $0- $500 Percent 4.3% 2.1% 5.0% 4.6%

Number 25 2 12 11

 $501- $3000 Percent 8.3% 2.1% 8.8% 10.4%

Number 48 2 21 25

 $3001- $7000 Percent 22.5% 21.9% 21.3% 24.1%

Number 130 21 51 58

 $7001- $12,000 Percent 15.1% 17.7% 13.3% 15.8%

Number 87 17 32 38

 $12,001- $20,000 Percent 13.3% 19.8% 14.6% 9.5%

Number 77 19 35 23

 $20,001- $40,000 Percent 10.6% 13.5% 8.8% 11.2%
17

Thirty-two percent of total area respondents

applied for a grant as a jazz or aspiring musician; the

highest percentage of applicants came from New

York with 57 percent. Nine percent or 62 jazz artists

received grants from the National Endowment for

the Arts. Forty-six of these artists came from the

New York metro area. None received foundation

grants and 2 percent received state agency grants in

2000.

$, $,

Number 61 13 21 27

 $40,001- $60,000 Percent 8.0% 12.5% 7.5% 6.6%

Number 46 12 18 16

 $60,001- $80,000 Percent 17.9% 10.4% 20.8% 17.8%

Number 103 10 50 43

 $80,001- $100,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0000

 more than $100,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0000

Mean $24,504 $23,589 $25,787 $23,592

Median $9,501 $16,001 $16,001 $9,501

Missing 97 14 24 59

total # of respondents who answered this question 577 96 240 241

If you received grants or fellowships as a jazz or aspiring musician, from what sources did you receive them?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 I never received Percent 36.5% 41.8% 20.1% 49.0%

Number 246 46 53 147

 National Endowment for the Arts Percent 9.2% 1.8% 17.4% 4.7%

Number 62 2 46 14

 other federal agency (specify agency) Percent 1.0% 0.0% 1.5% 1.0%

Number 7 0 4 3

 regional agency (specify agency) Percent 1.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.3%

Number 7 0 3 4

 state agency (specify agency) Percent 4.3% 1.8% 6.1% 3.7%

Number 29 2 16 11

 local agency (specify agency) Percent 2.7% 0.9% 4.5% 1.7%

Number 18 1 12 5

 foundation (specify foundation) Percent 3.3% 0.0% 5.3% 2.7%

Number 22 0 14 8

 educational institution (specify

institution) Percent 7.7% 7.3% 11.7% 4.3%

Number 52 8 31 13

 corporate sponsor (specify sponsor) Percent 1.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.7%

Number 7052

 Other Percent 7.3% 0.9% 16.7% 1.3%
18

received between $25,001 and $50,000. Almost all

jazz musicians received under $5,000 from music

royalties or residuals, public assistance (welfare)

and/or unemployment benefits in the year 2000.

Almost all jazz musicians received under $5,000

from music-related grants or fellowships, royalties or

residuals, public assistance (welfare) and/or

unemployment benefits in the year 2000. Of those

who applied for grants or fellowships, 3 percent

Number 49 1 44 4

Missing 428 64 211 153

total # of respondents who answered this

question (including refusals & don't knows) 674 110 264 300

How much did you receive in 2000 before taxes in each of the following areas?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 music-related grants

 a $0- $5,000 Percent 94.8% 93.2% 93.7% 96.2%

Number 452 55 192 205

 b $5,001- $10,000 Percent 1.5% 0.0% 2.0% 1.4%

Number 7 0 4 3

 c $10,001- $25,000 Percent 2.1% 3.4% 2.9% 0.9%

Number 10 2 6 2

 d $25,001- $50,000 Percent 1.5% 3.4% 1.5% 0.9%

Number 7 2 3 2

 e $50,001- $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 f over $75,000 Percent 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

Number 1 0 0 1

mean 3,412 4,195 3,549 3,063

median 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

 music-related fellowships

 a $0- $5,000 Percent 96.7% 94.5% 95.9% 98.1%

Number 441 52 187 202

 b $5,001- $10,000 Percent 1.1% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0%

Number 5 0 5 0

 c $10,001- $25,000 Percent 1.5% 3.6% 1.0% 1.5%

Number 7 2 2 3

 d $25,001- $50,000 Percent 0.7% 1.8% 0.5% 0.5%

Number 3 1 1 1

 e $50,001- $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0
19

 f over $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

mean 3,015 3,682 2,962 2,888

median 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

 music royalties/residuals

 a $0- $5,000 Percent 96.0% 94.0% 95.9% 96.6%

Number 453 63 189 201

 b $5,001- $10,000 Percent 2.8% 6.0% 2.0% 2.4%

Number 13 4 4 5

 c $10,001- $25,000 Percent 1.1% 0.0% 1.5% 1.0%

Number 5 0 3 2

 d $25,001- $50,000 Percent 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0%

Number 1 0 1 0

 e $50,001- $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 f over $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

mean 2,871 2,799 3,008 2,764

median 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

 public assistance (welfare)

 a $0- $5,000 Percent 98.0% 100.0% 97.4% 98.0%

Number 437 53 186 198

 b $5,001- $10,000 Percent 1.8% 0.0% 2.1% 2.0%

Number 8 0 4 4

 c $10,001- $25,000 Percent 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0%

Number 1 0 1 0

 d $25,001- $50,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 e $50,001- $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 f over $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

mean 2,623 2,500 2,683 2,599

median 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

 unemployment benefits

 a $0- $5,000 Percent 99.3% 98.1% 99.5% 99.5%

Number 446 53 191 202

 b $5,001- $10,000 Percent 0.4% 1.9% 0.5% 0.5%

Number 2 1 1 1
20

 c $10,001- $25,000 Percent 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 1 0 0 0

 d $25,001- $50,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 e $50,001- $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 f over $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

mean 2,556 2,593 2,526 2,525

median 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

total # of respondents who answered this

question (including refusals & don't knows) 674 110 264 300
21

PROFESSIONALISM

Selection Criteria

As described earlier, the musicians interviewed

for this study were asked to select one or more of the

following criteria to define their status as jazz

musicians. These include self-definition, a

marketplace definition (getting paid), the extent of

jazz work performed, engagement with jazz, and the

production of a documented body of work. The

criteria were determined from work with a focus

group of jazz representatives.

1. Do you consider yourself a jazz musician?

2. Did you earn more than 50 percent of your

personal income in the last six months as a

jazz musician or in jazz-related activities?

3. Have you been engaged in your art/jazz more

than 50 percent of the time during the last

year?

4. Have you performed in/with a jazz band at

least 10 times during the last year?

5. Have you performed with or without a jazz

band for pay at least 10 times during the last

year?

6. Have you produced a documented body of

work that is considered (self or externally)

jazz? (documented output = performances,

compositions, collaborations, arrangements,

recordings)

As is well known in the field itself, there are

musicians who are uncomfortable with calling

themselves “professional,” musicians who do not

play or define themselves solely by jazz, musicians

who refuse to acknowledge the term “jazz.” And

some musicians were uncomfortable being asked to

refer to themselves in these ways.

In a review of a book called Academic Instincts

(Times Literary Supplement, May 25, 2001, p. 24).

Author Marjorie Garber is quoted as saying,

Not only are (the terms “amateur” and

“professional”) mutually interconnected. Part of

their power comes from the disavowal of the close

affinity between them.... If, at the beginning of

any discipline’s self-definition, it undertakes to

Chapter III. Other Issues

Ninety-nine percent of all jazz artists play or sing jazz music.

Ninety-five percent of aggregate respondents and 92 percent in San Francisco, consider

themselves jazz musicians.

Fifty-three percent of the total jazz artists earned more than 50 percent of their personal

income in the last six months as jazz musicians or in jazz-related activities. There was a

low of 35 percent in San Francisco and a high of 92 percent in New Orleans.

Forty-eight percent of all respondents, 92 percent of New Orleans musicians and only 19

percent of New York jazz musicians were engaged in their art/jazz more than 50 percent

of the time during the last year.

Fifty-three percent of all musicians— and 98 percent of New Orleans, 17 percent of New

York and 67 percent of San Francisco musicians performed in/with a jazz band at least

10 times during the last year.

Forty-two percent of aggregate respondents; 95 percent of New Orleans and only 2

percent of New York and 58 percent of San Francisco musicians performed with or

without a jazz band for pay at least 10 times during the last year.

Forty-six percent all and 98 percent of New Orleans musicians, but only 10 percent of

New York and 57 percent of San Francisco musicians have produced a documented body

of work that is considered jazz.
22

since 99.2 percent of them play or sing jazz music.

Using the selection criteria listed above, the

following statistics help characterize the professional

lives of jazz musicians.

Due to the targeted nature of the RDS study,

most of the musicians surveyed have established a

history of performing jazz music. While 99 percent

of all musicians play or sing jazz music, of the

musicians who have never played or sung jazz

music, 37 percent play classical music and 63

percent play or sing other kinds of music.

distinguish itself from another, “false,” version of

itself, that difference is always going to come back

to haunt it....

The changing, sometimes multi-layered,

meaning of the word “professional” gives us no

common definition for the arts. Indeed, the root of

the word amateur is “to love” and most jazz

musicians would probably agree they play jazz, first

and foremost, because they love it.

Whether jazz musicians consider themselves

professional or not, they are included in this study

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 Yes Percent 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% 98.3%

Number 638 109 243 286

 No Percent 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7%

Number 5005

Missing 31 1 21 9

total # of respondents who answered this question 643 109 243 291

If no, do you play or sing any other kind of music?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 Classical Percent 37.0% 33.3% 46.2% 33.3%

Number 17 4 6 7

 other (please specify) Percent 63.0% 66.7% 53.8% 66.7%

Number 29 8 7 14

Missing 628 98 251 279

total # of respondents who answered the question 46 12 13 21

Do you ever play or sing jazz music?

Do you consider yourself a professional jazz musician?

If no, do you play or sing any other kind of music?

In fact, only 81 percent consider themselves

professional jazz musicians, with a high of 96

percent in New York.

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes Percent 81.4% 93.6% 95.7% 65.5%

Number 513 103 220 190

 no Percent 18.6% 6.4% 4.3% 34.5%

Number 117 7 10 100

missing 44 0 34 10

total # of respondents who answered the

question 630 110 230 290
23

In addition to the selection criteria, we asked the

musicians which were the top three reasons they

considered themselves professional jazz musicians.

Among all first choices, in New York and New

Orleans, making a living as a jazz musician was the

top choice; in San Francisco it was inner drive. In

New Orleans, making a living was also the second

choice, while New York and San Francisco focused

on peer recognition, which also became the highest

third choice for all.

If yes, of these statements, which do you consider the three most important reasons as they apply to you?

Choice 1 Total

New

Orleans

New

York

San

Francisco

 I make my living as a musician Percent 32.3% 40.8% 39.9% 20.8%

Number 172 40 87 45

 I receive some income from my work as a musician Percent 12.2% 0.0% 10.1% 19.9%

Number 65 0 22 43

 I intend to make my living as a musician Percent 6.0% 4.1% 1.8% 11.1%

Number 32 4 4 24

 I belong to a musicians’ association Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 I belong to a musicians’ union or guild Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 I have been formally educated in music Percent 2.6% 2.0% 1.8% 3.7%

Number 14 2 4 8

 I am recognized by my peers as an musician Percent 11.1% 14.3% 8.7% 12.0%

Number 59 14 19 26

 I consider myself to be a musician Percent 6.6% 9.2% 7.8% 4.2%

Number 35 9 17 9

 I spend a considerable amount of time working as a

musician Percent 1.7% 1.0% 2.8% 0.9%

Number 9 1 6 2

 I have a special talent Percent 4.5% 6.1% 3.2% 5.1%

Number 24 6 7 11

 I have an inner drive to make music Percent 16.0% 21.4% 8.3% 21.3%

Number 85 21 18 46

 I receive some public recognition for my music Percent 2.3% 0.0% 5.5% 0.0%

Number 12 0 12 0

 Other Percent 4.7% 1.0% 10.1% 0.9%

Number 25 1 22 2

Missing 142 12 46 84

total # of respondents who answered the question 532 98 218 216

Choice 2 Total

New

Orleans

New

York

San

Francisco

 I make my living as a musician Percent 10.5% 18.8% 11.1% 6.2%

Number 54 18 23 13
24

 I receive some income from my work as a musician Percent 7.2% 11.5% 4.3% 8.1%

Number 37 11 9 17

 I intend to make my living as a musician Percent 5.3% 5.2% 3.4% 7.2%

Number 27 5 7 15

 I belong to a musicians’ association Percent 1.2% 3.1% 0.0% 1.4%

Number 6 3 0 3

 I belong to a musicians’ union or guild Percent 2.0% 6.3% 1.0% 1.0%

Number 10 6 2 2

 I have been formally educated in music Percent 8.2% 10.4% 4.8% 10.5%

Number 42 10 10 22

 I am recognized by my peers as an musician Percent 25.2% 12.5% 28.5% 27.8%

Number 129 12 59 58

 I consider myself to be a musician Percent 11.9% 5.2% 5.8% 21.1%

Number 61 5 12 44

 I spend a considerable amount of time working as a

musician Percent 4.5% 5.2% 3.4% 5.3%

Number 23 5 7 11

 I have a special talent Percent 5.5% 8.3% 6.3% 3.3%

Number 28 8 13 7

 I have an inner drive to make music Percent 8.6% 13.5% 9.7% 5.3%

Number 44 13 20 11

 I receive some public recognition for my music Percent 4.7% 0.0% 9.7% 1.9%

Number 24 0 20 4

 Other Percent 5.3% 0.0% 12.1% 1.0%

Number 27 0 25 2

Missing 162 14 57 91

total # of respondents who answered the question 512 96 207 209

Choice 3 Total

New

Orleans

New

York

San

Francisco

 I make my living as a musician Percent 6.4% 9.3% 6.2% 5.4%

Number 32 9 12 11

 I receive some income from my work as a musician Percent 3.6% 2.1% 2.1% 5.9%

Number 18 2 4 12

 I intend to make my living as a musician Percent 5.2% 5.2% 3.1% 7.3%

Number 26 5 6 15

 I belong to a musicians’ association Percent 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5%

Number 3 0 0 3

 I belong to a musicians’ union or guild Percent 3.2% 7.2% 1.5% 2.9%

Number 16 7 3 6

 I have been formally educated in music Percent 8.7% 10.3% 5.6% 10.7%

Number 43 10 11 22
25

Have you played jazz for money during the last 12 months?

 I am recognized by my peers as an musician Percent 21.5% 26.8% 24.1% 16.6%

Number 107 26 47 34

 I consider myself to be a musician Percent 8.0% 7.2% 8.2% 8.3%

Number 40 7 16 17

 I spend a considerable amount of time working as a

musician Percent 5.6% 8.2% 5.1% 4.9%

Number 28 8 10 10

 I have a special talent Percent 4.8% 6.2% 4.6% 4.4%

Number 24 6 9 9

 I have an inner drive to make music Percent 14.7% 5.2% 10.3% 23.4%

Number 73 5 20 48

 I receive some public recognition for my music Percent 9.9% 7.2% 16.4% 4.9%

Number 49 7 32 10

 Other Percent 7.6% 5.2% 12.8% 3.9%

Number 38 5 25 8

Missing 177 13 69 95

total # of respondents who answered the question 497 97 195 205

Ninety-two percent of the aggregate jazz

respondents and 100 percent of the New Orleans

respondents played jazz for money in the six months

prior to the survey. The average number of jobs per

month for New Orleans musicians totaled 17, which

was higher than the aggregate average of 10 jobs a

month. Of these musicians, 41 percent of the artists

from the three test cities combined and 64 percent

of the New Orleans-area musicians play with four or

more different groups. Eighty percent of all

respondents regularly play with a specific group of

musicians.

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 Male Percent 80.2% 83.6% 73.7% 84.5%

Number 534 92 191 251

 Female Percent 19.8% 16.4% 26.3% 15.5%

Number 132 18 68 46

Missing 8 0 5 3

total # of respondents who answered this question 666 110 259 297

If you currently play with a group, how many different groups do you play with?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 None Percent 8.7% 6.4% 8.4% 9.9%

Number 53 7 20 26

 One Percent 11.6% 3.7% 13.4% 13.3%

Number 71 4 32 35

 Two Percent 16.0% 6.4% 17.6% 18.6%

Number 98 7 42 49

If you currently play with a group, how many different groups do you play with?
26

a week practicing and five hours a week writing

music.

Thirty-three percent (and 48 percent in New

York) spend over 40 hours a week on music or

music-related activities, including performing,

looking for work, and marketing. Seventy-three

percent (and 88 percent in New York) spend over 20

hours a week on this.

Jazz musicians spend an average of three hours

Approximately how many different musical jobs do you play a month?

 Three Percent 22.4% 19.3% 25.5% 20.9%

Number 137 21 61 55

 four or more Percent 41.2% 64.2% 35.1% 37.3%

Number 252 70 84 98

missing 63 1 25 37

total # of respondents who answered this question 611 109 239 263

Do you work regularly with a specific group of musicians?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 79.5% 89.1% 76.8% 78.3%

Number 524 98 199 227

 no Percent 20.5% 10.9% 23.2% 21.7%

Number 135 12 60 63

missing 15 0 5 10

total # of respondents who answered the question 659 110 259 290

Do you work regularly with a specific group of musicians?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

mean 10 17 9 7

median 8 16 7 5

std. dev. 8 9 7 6

mode 20 20 4 2

valid cases 620 109 250 261

missing 54 1 14 39

Over a third of jazz musicians spend over 40

hours per week on music-related activities.

Almost half of New York musicians spend this

same time.

About how many hours per day do you spend practicing music?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

mean 3 33 3

median 2 2 2 2

std. dev. 4 3 4 5

mode 2 2 2 2

valid cases 590 103 209 278

missing 84 7 55 22
27

The study queried musicians on what guided

their decision to make music. The most popular

factor that prompted respondents from the three

cities combined and the New Orleans area to pursue

music was an inner drive to make music. Twentynine percent of musicians chose this as their most

important factor.

How many hours per week do you spend writing music?

If you were to isolate the one most important factor prompting you to pursue music, what would it be?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

mean 5 664

median 3 3 4 2

std. dev. 7 10 7 6

mode 0 0 2 0

valid cases 503 89 159 255

missing 171 21 105 45

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 diversion from daily routine Percent 1.7% 1.9% 1.6% 1.8%

Number 11 24 5

 family tradition Percent 4.7% 8.4% 4.0% 3.9%

Number 30 9 10 11

 higher calling/sense of purpose Percent 15.1% 15.9% 7.9% 21.4%

Number 97 17 20 60

 inner drive to make music Percent 28.9% 38.3% 19.0% 34.2%

Number 185 41 48 96

 lifestyle Percent 1.6% 0.9% 3.2% 0.4%

Number 10 1 8 1

 love of the process Percent 6.4% 4.7% 4.0% 9.3%

Number 41 5 10 26

 personal expression Percent 8.4% 10.3% 7.9% 8.2%

Number 54 11 20 23

 problem solving Percent 0.5% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0%

Number 3030

 recognition of my special talent Percent 4.8% 3.7% 6.7% 3.6%

Number 31 4 17 10

 source of great personal satisfaction Percent 12.9% 11.2% 15.4% 11.4%

Number 83 12 39 32

 source of income Percent 0.5% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0%

Number 3030

 other Percent 13.7% 4.7% 28.1% 4.3%

Number 88 5 71 12

missing 33 3 11 19

total # of respondents who answered the question 641 107 253 281
28

artist, scholarships, recommendations from teachers,

joining the musicians union, to “just playing.”

The percentages of respondents in New Orleans

and San Francisco feel generally that their talent has

been recognized locally (46 percent total; 67 percent

in New Orleans, 57 percent in San Francisco), while

those in New Orleans and New York feel their talent

has been recognized internationally (35 percent

aggregate; 52 percent in New Orleans and 50 percent

in New York).

Recognition and Grants and

Fellowships

For 43 percent of all jazz musicians, their first

professional recognition was their first paid job. This

was considerably lower in New York (32 percent).

Seventeen percent chose to fill in the blank for

“other” to this question and responses varied from “I

passed an audition” to high school and community

recognition, festivals, writing a song for a major

Through what venue did your first professional recognition occur?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 award or honor Percent 7.5% 12.0% 3.2% 9.6%

Number 46 13 8 25

 feature article Percent 5.8% 6.5% 7.7% 3.8%

Number 36 7 19 10

 first paid job Percent 42.7% 54.6% 31.5% 48.5%

Number 263 59 78 126

 grant Percent 0.5% 0.0% 0.4% 0.8%

Number 3 0 1 2

 job with a known band Percent 13.0% 13.0% 9.7% 16.2%

Number 80 14 24 42

 played with a major artist Percent 10.9% 5.6% 17.7% 6.5%

Number 67 6 44 17

 winning a competition Percent 2.4% 2.8% 0.8% 3.8%

Number 15 3 2 10

 other (please specify) Percent 17.2% 5.6% 29.0% 10.8%

Number 106 6 72 28

missing 58 2 16 40

total # of respondents who answered this question 616 108 248 260

Has your talent been recognized. . .

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 locally Percent 46.3% 67.3% 25.0% 57.3%

Number 312 74 66 172

 nationally Percent 19.1% 41.8% 17.8% 12.0%

Number 129 46 47 36

 internationally Percent 35.3% 51.8% 49.6% 16.7%

Number 238 57 131 50

 talent not recognized Percent 9.8% 2.7% 6.1% 15.7%

Has your talent been recognized. . .
29

Almost three quarters of all jazz musicians are

satisfied or very satisfied with their music at this

point.

How satisfied are you with your music at this point?

Do you hold a copyright in some artistic work of your own creation?

Number 66 3 16 47

 other (please specify) Percent 5.5% 0.0% 11.4% 2.3%

Number 37 0 30 7

total # of respondents who answered this question 674 110 264 300

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 very satisfied Percent 16.1% 19.4% 16.3% 14.8%

Number 102 21 39 42

 satisfied Percent 57.0% 59.3% 56.7% 56.3%

Number 360 64 136 160

 dissatisfied Percent 24.2% 19.4% 24.2% 26.1%

Number 153 21 58 74

 very dissatisfied Percent 2.7% 1.9% 2.9% 2.8%

Number 17 2 7 8

missing 42 2 24 16

total # of respondents who answered this question 632 108 240 284

Copyright Protection and Airplay

Questions about protecting one’s work through

copyright, having adequate representation, and

being affiliated with a union, a performing rights

society, or a jazz-related organization elicited mixed

responses.

Sixty-two percent of the respondents hold

copyright in some artistic work of their own

creation (compositions, books, etc) and 22 percent

of them have given their copyright to a recording

company. Thirty percent of all the musicians have

had their work recorded by a professional recording

company (27 percent for New Orleans area

musicians and 43 for New York musicians), but New

Orleans musicians show a greater propensity to

record their own work. Sixty-four percent of New

Orleans-area musicians have recorded their own

work, a full 8 percentage points more than aggregate

musicians, 56 percent of whom have done so.

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 60.2% 60.7% 73.0% 47.6%

Number 388 65 192 131

 no Percent 37.5% 37.4% 24.7% 49.8%

Number 242 40 65 137

 don't know Percent 2.3% 1.9% 2.3% 2.5%

15 2 6 7

missing 29 3 1 25

total # of respondents who answered this question 645 107 263 275
30

• radio stations featuring local artists, some of

which contact the artists

• college radio stations

• work with orchestras, chamber music groups

• playing on different artists’ records, in movies,

commercials, theater companies

• record companies, advertising agencies

• live performance broadcasts 

For 70 percent of aggregate jazz musicians and

82 percent of New Orleans-area jazz musicians, their

music has received airplay. Almost no one paid to

get airplay and 19 percent of all musicians had help

from a promotional person. The musicians’

comments offered us insight into this, explaining

many different routes to airplay including:

Have you ever given your copyright to a recording company?

Has your work ever been recorded?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 22.1% 24.1% 25.9% 17.3%

Number 114 21 57 36

 no Percent 74.0% 75.9% 68.2% 79.3%

Number 381 66 150 165

 don't know Percent 3.9% 0.0% 5.9% 3.4%

Number 20 0 13 7

missing 159 23 44 92

total # of respondents who answered this question 515 87 220 208

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes, by me Percent 56.4% 64.2% 46.3% 62.9%

Number 359 68 118 173

 yes, by a professional recording company Percent 29.7% 27.4% 42.7% 18.5%

Number 189 29 109 51

 no Percent 10.2% 7.5% 6.3% 14.9%

Number 65 8 16 41

 other (please specify) Percent 3.6% 0.9% 4.7% 3.6%

Number 23 1 12 10

missing 38 4 9 25

total # of respondents who answered this

question (including refusals & don't knows) 636 106 255 275

Has your music received airplay?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes Percent 70.4% 82.4% 82.2% 55.0%

Number 450 89 208 153

 no Percent 29.6% 17.6% 17.8% 45.0%

Number 189 19 45 125
31

Forty-seven percent of all jazz musicians and a

high of 64 percent of New Orleans-area jazz

musicians have played music that was broadcast over

the Internet. Sixteen percent of the total and 10

percent New Orleans-area jazz musicians object

when their music is downloaded without payment—

much lower than the 53 percent of union jazz

musicians—and 24 percent of all respondents think

they should be paid for this. Twenty-eight percent of

all respondents say they do not mind their music

being downloaded and 28 percent like the exposure.

Have you played music that was broadcast over the Internet?

missing 35 2 11 22

total # of respondents who answered this question 639 108 253 278

If yes, how did you get this airplay?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 had help from a promotional person Percent 19.4% 34.5% 11.4% 21.0%

Number 131 38 30 63

 sent recordings out myself Percent 19.7% 27.3% 18.9% 17.7%

Number 133 30 50 53

 paid to get airplay Percent 2.4% 4.5% 1.5% 2.3%

Number 16 5 4 7

 knew some of the disc jockeys Percent 18.1% 33.6% 13.6% 16.3%

Number 122 37 36 49

 knew producer Percent 8.5% 14.5% 4.2% 10.0%

Number 57 16 11 30

 other Percent 27.3% 16.4% 47.3% 13.7%

Number 184 18 125 41

total # of respondents who answered this

question (including refusals & don't knows) 674 110 264 300

If yes, how did you get this airplay?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 47.2% 63.6% 54.2% 34.2%

Number 296 68 136 92

 no Percent 40.2% 18.7% 34.7% 53.9%

Number 252 20 87 145

 don't know Percent 12.6% 17.8% 11.2% 11.9%

Number 79 19 28 32

missing 47 3 13 31

total # of respondents who answered this question 627 107 251 269
32

work. Of those who stated that they had

representation, half identified themselves as their

primary representatives.

Only 24 percent of jazz musicians and 13

percent of the San Francisco-area respondents have

steady managers, agents or representatives for their

Do you currently have a steady manager, agent or representative for your work?

If yes, how do you feel about people downloading this music without paying for your work?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 I do not mind Percent 18.1% 25.0% 9.8% 22.7%

Number 75 22 16 37

 like the exposure Percent 27.7% 27.3% 23.8% 31.9%

Number 115 24 39 52

 object Percent 16.6% 10.2% 29.3% 7.4%

Number 69 9 48 12

 think I should be paid Percent 24.1% 22.7% 32.3% 16.6%

Number 100 20 53 27

 no opinion Percent 13.5% 14.8% 4.9% 21.5%

Number 56 13 8 35

missing 259 22 100 137

total # of respondents who answered

this question (including refusals & don't

knows) 415 88 164 163

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 23.5% 33.0% 31.0% 12.9%

Number 152 36 80 36

 no Percent 76.5% 67.0% 69.0% 87.1%

Number 494 73 178 243

missing 28 1 6 21

total # of respondents who answered this question 646 109 258 279

Thirty percent of aggregate and 51 percent of

New Orleans, 40 percent of New York, and 13

percent of San Francisco-area respondents belong to

the American Federation of Musicians. (Louisiana is

a right-to-work state.) Of the respondents who are

not currently AFM members, 29 percent of all and

43 percent of New Orleans-area jazz musicians

previously belonged to the union. Reasons for not

joining the AFM varied: 15 percent of total

respondents believe that belonging to the union will

not increase their work opportunities, while 17

percent feel that the AFM does not represent the

interests of jazz musicians. Additionally, 89 percent

do not belong to any other union.

Forty-three percent of all jazz musicians are

members of a performing rights society (ASCAP,

BMI, SESAC). Seventeen percent of the respondents

from the three cities combined are members of a

jazz-related organization such as the International

Association of Jazz Education.
33

Do you belong to the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) union?

If no, did you belong at a previous time?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes Percent 30.1% 51.4% 39.9% 13.0%

Number 197 55 105 37

 no Percent 69.9% 48.6% 60.1% 87.0%

Number 458 52 158 248

missing 19 3 1 15

total # of respondents who answered this

question 655 107 263 285

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 29.4% 42.6% 40.4% 19.3%

Number 121 20 59 42

 no Percent 70.6% 57.4% 59.6% 80.7%

Number 290 27 87 176

missing 263 63 118 82

total # of respondents who answered this question 411 47 146 218

If you do not belong to the AFM, why not?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 does not represent the interests of jazz

musicians valid % 17.4% 15.5% 23.9% 12.3%

frequency 117 17 63 37

 does not provide enough benefits valid % 12.2% 12.7% 15.5% 9.0%

frequency 82 14 41 27

 too expensive valid % 9.1% 8.2% 9.1% 9.3%

frequency 61 9 24 28

 too difficult to join valid % 1.6% 0.9% 0.4% 3.0%

frequency 111 19

 will not help me get work valid % 14.5% 20.9% 7.6% 18.3%

frequency 98 23 20 55

 will prevent me from getting work valid % 2.1% 3.6% 1.1% 2.3%

frequency 14 4 3 7

 all of the above valid % 6.4% 9.1% 0.8% 10.3%

frequency 43 10 2 31

 other valid % 24.3% 9.1% 25.4% 29.0%

frequency 164 10 67 87

total # of respondents who answered the question 674 110 264 300

If you do not belong to the AFM, why not?
34

percent use the Internet, with 33 percent using the

Internet to do research, and 27 percent using it to

promote their music.

Forty-six percent of all musicians use electronic

media in the creation of their music, 49 percent use

this media in the production of their music and 64

Do you use electronic media in the creation of your music?

Do you use electronic media in the production of your music?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 45.7% 44.9% 44.2% 47.3%

Number 295 48 115 132

 no Percent 54.3% 55.1% 55.8% 52.7%

Number 351 59 145 147

missing 28 3 4 21

total # of respondents who answered this question 646 107 260 279

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 49.4% 53.8% 33.9% 61.5%

Number 307 56 83 168

 no Percent 40.4% 42.3% 51.8% 29.3%

Number 251 44 127 80

missing 52 6 19 27

total # of respondents who answered this question 622 104 245 273

Do you use the Internet for your music?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 63.7% 55.2% 86.9% 46.6%

Number 362 53 192 117

 no Percent 36.3% 44.8% 13.1% 53.4%

Number 206 43 29 134

missing 106 14 43 49

total # of respondents who answered this question 568 96 221 251

How do you use it?

Do you use the Internet for your music?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 to communicate with people in the industry Percent 49.0% 39.1% 76.9% 28.0%

Number 330 43 203 84

 to compose music Percent 6.7% 8.2% 4.5% 8.0%

Number 45 9 12 24

 to copy music Percent 9.5% 17.3% 3.0% 12.3%

Number 64 19 8 37

 to disseminate music Percent 7.4% 10.0% 4.5% 9.0%
35

Retirement, Life and Health Coverage

For routine health care 23 percent of the total

respondents go to private physicians, 33 percent go

to an HMO. Roughly one-third of all respondents

have received injuries from occupational hazards in

their music-related work (for example, carpal tunnel

syndrome, hearing problems, etc.).

Number 50 11 12 27

 to listen to music Percent 20.9% 23.6% 19.7% 21.0%

Number 141 26 52 63

 to promote music Percent 27.3% 25.5% 41.3% 15.7%

Number 184 28 109 47

 to do research Percent 32.6% 32.7% 36.4% 29.3%

Number 220 36 96 88

 to sell music Percent 15.9% 23.6% 20.5% 9.0%

Number 107 26 54 27

total # of respondents who answered this

question (including refusals & don't knows) 674 110 264 300

Where do you go to obtain routine health care?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 private physician Percent 23.0% 25.5% 22.3% 22.7%

Number 155 28 59 68

 HMO (health maintenance organization) or PPO Percent 33.1% 26.4% 28.0% 40.0%

Number 223 29 74 120

 clinic Percent 7.9% 15.5% 5.7% 7.0%

Number 53 17 15 21

 hospital outpatient department Percent 3.6% 1.8% 3.4% 4.3%

Number 24 2 9 13

 emergency room Percent 2.2% 2.7% 0.4% 3.7%

Number 15 3 1 11

 I do not obtain routine health care Percent 25.2% 20.9% 27.3% 25.0%

Number 170 23 72 75

 arts-related medical facility (please specify) Percent 4.2% 15.5% 2.3% 1.7%

Number 28 17 6 5

 other Percent 7.3% 4.5% 9.1% 6.7%

Number 49 5 24 20

total # of respondents who answered this

question (including refusals & don't knows) 674 110 264 300
36

economy has undoubtedly brought this figure,

which was climbing, down again).

Nine percent of all jazz musicians have disability

coverage for loss of income; 11 percent have some

other group insurance policy and 13 percent have

some other kind of health insurance. These include:

Medicare, the military, national health care from

other countries, and the American Association of

Retired Persons.

Sixty-three percent of the musicians have some

health or medical coverage, 43 percent of them

receive insurance from an HMO, 16 percent from a

PPO, 13 percent from a personal policy through a

private insurance company (some respondents have

more than one type of coverage). This compares to

1999 figures cited by the New York Times on

September 29, 2000 (p. A16) citing 84.5 percent of

Americans with health insurance (The change in the

Do you have health or medical coverage?

Have occupational hazards in your music-related work caused you any injuries?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes valid % 31.5% 37.4% 36.4% 24.8%

frequency 200 40 91 69

 no valid % 68.5% 62.6% 63.6% 75.2%

Frequency 435 67 159 209

missing 39 3 14 22

total # of respondents who answered this question 635 107 250 278

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 63.3% 58.3% 58.7% 69.2%

Number 398 63 142 193

 no Percent 36.7% 41.7% 41.3% 30.8%

Number 231 45 100 86

missing 45 2 22 21

total # of respondents who answered this question 629 108 242 279

If yes, which type do you have?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 HMO Percent 43.1% 42.9% 35.3% 49.2%

Number 175 27 53 95

 PPO Percent 16.0% 17.5% 8.7% 21.2%

Number 65 11 13 41

 personal policy through private insurance company Percent 13.1% 12.7% 16.7% 10.4%

Number 53 8 25 20

 disability coverage for loss of income Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0000

 group insurance policy through arts/arts service

organization Percent 4.4% 7.9% 4.0% 3.6%

Number 18 5 6 7

 other group insurance policy Percent 7.6% 7.9% 8.0% 7.3%

If yes, which type do you have?
37

Forty percent of the respondents obtained their

health coverage themselves. Nine percent coverage

through their mates. Thirty-six percent obtained this

coverage through their employers. Only 4 percent

obtained their coverage through their musicians’

union.

How was this health coverage obtained?

Number 31 5 12 14

 other Percent 15.8% 11.1% 27.3% 8.3%

Number 64 7 41 16

missing 268 47 114 107

total # of respondents who answered this question

(including refusals & don't knows) 406 63 150 193

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 self Percent 40.3% 54.1% 42.7% 34.1%

Number 145 33 50 62

 mate Percent 8.9% 8.2% 6.0% 11.0%

Number 32 5 7 20

 employer Percent 36.1% 26.2% 34.2% 40.7%

Number 130 16 40 74

 my musicians' union Percent 4.2% 1.6% 6.0% 3.8%

Number 15 1 7 7

 mate's union or employer Percent 6.4% 6.6% 11.1% 3.3%

Number 23 4 13 6

 private company Percent 4.2% 3.3% 0.0% 7.1%

Number 15 2 0 13

missing 314 49 147 118

total # of respondents who answered this

question (including refusals & don't knows) frequency 360 61 117 182

The chart below represents the answers to the

questions, “Who pays for this insurance and what

percentage do they pay?” Please note that since there

is obviously a combination of payment sources,

figures do not always add up to 100 percent.

WHO PAYS

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

Self 25% 28% 24% 26%

Mate 3% 5% 2% 4%

Employer 16% 11% 14% 19%

Musicians' union 2% 1% 4% 1%

Mate’s union or employer 3% 1% 6% 1%

Private company 1% 0% .4% 1%

Arts/arts service

organization

0% 0% 0% 1%

Other 6% 5% 10% 4%
38

Policy Reach Them?,” reports that, of the 16 million

uninsured workers in the United States, those most

likely to lack health insurance include workers in

small firms, low-wage earners, part-time workers

and those employed for a short tenure. Many

musicians fit into these categories.

Thirty-three percent of all respondents have life

insurance. Sixty-one percent obtained it themselves;

for 25 percent, life insurance was obtained through

employers and for 3 percent, they obtained it

through their musicians’ union. Seventy percent pay

for this life insurance themselves; for 21 percent,

employers help pay for this, and, for 2 percent, of

their musicians’ union does.

These charts tell us that approximately a quarter

of all jazz musicians pay for their health insurance

mostly themselves with under one-fifth getting

payments from their employers. Fewer than two

percent receive payment for health insurance by the

musicians’ union. For the small percentage for

whom the union does pay, it covers about threequarters of the cost. By contrast, in the Research

Center for Arts and Culture study Information on

Artists, actors received some payment for health

insurance from the Actors’ Equity Association.

A September 2001 report by the Urban Institute

(http://www.urbaninstitute.org/) ,”Workers Without

Health Insurance: Who Are They and How Can

Do you have life insurance?

How was this insurance obtained?

PERCENTAGE THEY PAY

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

Self 78% 80% 83% 74%

Mate 65% 54% 54% 73%

Employer 86% 81% 90% 85%

Musician’s union 74% 80% 73% 75%

Mate’s union or employer 96% 100% 100% 73%

Private company 97% 0% 100% 96%

Arts/arts service

organization

100% 0% 0% 100%

Other 95% 100% 96% 93%

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes Percent 33.3% 43.9% 31.8% 30.6%

Number 213 47 83 83

 no Percent 66.7% 56.1% 68.2% 69.4%

Number 426 60 178 188

missing 35 3 3 29

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 self Percent 61.3% 81.3% 67.2% 46.0%

Number 122 39 43 40

 mate Percent 4.0% 2.1% 0.0% 8.0%

Number 8 1 0 7

 employer Percent 25.1% 6.3% 23.4% 36.8%

Number 50 3 15 32

 my musicians' union Percent 2.5% 0.0% 4.7% 2.3%

Number 5 0 3 2

 mate's union or employer Percent 3.0% 4.2% 4.7% 1.1%
39

Forty-three percent of aggregate have at least

one retirement plan. Twenty-two percent obtained it

themselves; 8 percent obtained this through the

musicians’ union; an employer pays for 23 percent;

and the musicians’ union pays for 8 percent.

Do you have at least one retirement plan?

If yes, how was the retirement plan obtained?

Number 6 2 3 1

 private company Percent 4.0% 6.3% 0.0% 5.7%

Number 8 3 0 5

missing 475 62 200 213

total # of respondents who answered this question 199 48 64 87

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 43.0% 47.6% 44.0% 40.4%

Number 272 49 113 110

 no Percent 57.0% 52.4% 56.0% 59.6%

Number 360 54 144 162

missing 42 7 7 28

total # of respondents who answered this question 632 103 257 272

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 self Percent 21.5% 22.7% 26.5% 16.7%

Number 145 25 70 50

 employer Percent 15.9% 14.5% 9.8% 21.7%

Number 107 16 26 65

 my musicians' union Percent 7.9% 16.4% 9.5% 3.3%

Number 53 18 25 10

 arts/arts service organization (specify

organization) Percent 0.6% 0.0% 0.4% 1.0%

Number 4 0 1 3

 other Percent 2.5% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3%

Number 17 3 7 7

total # of respondents who answered this question 674 110 264 300

Who pays for this retirement plan?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 self Percent 63.6% 79.2% 63.4% 56.9%

Number 171 38 71 62

 mate Percent 2.6% 2.1% 0.9% 4.6%

Number 7 1 1 5

 employer Percent 23.4% 10.4% 17.9% 34.9%

Number 63 5 20 38

Who pays for this retirement plan?
40

even higher response than the RCAC’s other studies,

81 percent of the jazz survey respondents (compared

to 62 percent in our other studies) received musicrelated training in the area or region.

Migration and Touring

As in all other studies of the Research Center,

artists seem to have a greater allegiance to their

homesites, especially in relation to training. With an

How many years have you lived in the country of your current residence?

 my musicians' union Percent 7.8% 8.3% 15.2% 0.0%

Number 21 4 17 0

 arts service organization (specify organization) Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 other Percent 2.6% 0.0% 2.7% 3.7%

Number 7 0 3 4

missing 405 62 152 191

total # of respondents who answered this question 269 48 112 109

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 under 1 year Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 2-3 years Percent 1.2% 1.8% 1.2% 1.0%

Number 8 2 3 3

 4-5 years Percent 1.4% 1.8% 0.8% 1.7%

Number 9 2 2 5

 6-10 years Percent 2.4% 3.7% 2.3% 2.1%

Number 16 4 6 6

 more than 10 years Percent 94.2% 89.9% 95.8% 94.4%

Number 616 98 248 270

mean 3 17 5 73

median 2 16 5 100

missing 20 1 5 14

total # of respondents who answered this question 654 109 259 286

Did you receive any music-related training in this city or region?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 80.8% 73.8% 83.1% 81.4%

Number 514 79 207 228

 no Percent 19.2% 26.2% 16.9% 18.6%

Number 122 28 42 52

missing 38 3 15 20

total # of respondents who answered this question 636 107 249 280

Did you receive any music-related training in this city or region?
41

Musicians are famous for touring, and these

respondents are no exception, with almost a third

(33 percent) working or performing away from their

main residences between one and five times in the

previous 12 months.

Approximately how many times during the last 12 months did you work or perform away from home?

What is your primary instrument?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 zero Percent 14.6% 7.5% 7.6% 25.6%

Number 79 8 17 54

 1-5 times Percent 32.8% 35.8% 23.3% 41.2%

Number 177 38 52 87

 6-15 times Percent 21.9% 20.8% 26.5% 17.5%

Number 118 22 59 37

 16-30 times Percent 14.6% 13.2% 21.5% 8.1%

Number 79 14 48 17

 over 30 times Percent 16.1% 22.6% 21.1% 7.6%

Number 87 24 47 16

missing 134 4 41 89

total # of respondents who answered this question 540 106 223 211

Jazz Styles and Instruments

While the piano and the drums are the

instruments of choice for the aggregate respondents,

the bass and the guitar are most popular in the New

Orleans area. In New York, piano, voice and

saxophone are the top choices, and in San Francisco,

piano, drums and bass.

Jazz musicians play in many styles and our

respondents are no exception. In New Orleans, the

ones mentioned most frequently are traditional,

swing, rhythm and blues, and bop; in New York,

traditional, avant-garde, free jazz and bop; in San

Francisco, bop, traditional, Latin, swing and blues.

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 Alto sax Percent 6.1% 4.5% 7.2% 5.7%

Number 41 5 19 17

 Banjo Percent 0.7% 3.6% 0.0% 0.3%

Number 5 4 0 1

 Baritone sax Percent 0.6% 1.8% 0.4% 0.3%

Number 4 2 1 1

 Bass Percent 11.4% 13.6% 11.0% 11.0%

Number 77 15 29 33

 Bass clarinet Percent 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

Number 1 0 1 0

 Cello Percent 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

Number 1 0 1 0

 Clarinet Percent 1.9% 5.5% 1.9% 0.7%

Number 13 6 5 2

 Cornet Percent 0.9% 3.6% 0.0% 0.7%
all; 38 percent in New Orleans) was the most

important quality for being a jazz musician, a

number of the respondents chose the ‘Other’

category. Although the responses musicians gave in

the ‘Other” category for questions about both

qualities and goals were much like the choices

42

Future Goals and Qualities needed for

a Career in Jazz

Musicians were asked about the three most

important qualities someone needs who wishes to

pursue a career in jazz. While talent (22 percent for

Number 6 4 0 2

 Drums Percent 12.5% 10.9% 11.0% 14.3%

Number 84 12 29 43

 Effects ( washboard, whistles, etc.) Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 Flugelhorn Percent 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

Number 3 0 0 3

 Flute Percent 1.6% 0.0% 2.7% 1.3%

Number 11 074

 Guitar Percent 9.1% 11.8% 4.9% 11.7%

Number 61 13 13 35

 Harmonica Percent 0.3% 0.9% 0.0% 0.3%

Number 2 1 0 1

 Percussion Percent 1.3% 0.9% 1.5% 1.3%

Number 9 1 4 4

 Piano/ keyboard Percent 14.4% 10.9% 15.2% 15.0%

Number 97 12 40 45

 Saxophone Percent 11.1% 9.1% 12.5% 10.7%

Number 75 10 33 32

 Trombone Percent 4.5% 1.8% 4.9% 5.0%

Number 30 2 13 15

 Trumpet Percent 6.8% 7.3% 6.1% 7.3%

Number 46 8 16 22

 Tuba Percent 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3%

Number 2 0 1 1

 Vibraphone Percent 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

Number 1 0 1 0

 Violin Percent 1.2% 1.8% 1.1% 1.0%

Number 8 2 3 3

 Voice Percent 11.3% 10.0% 14.4% 9.0%

Number 76 11 38 27

 Xylophone Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 other (please specify) Percent 3.1% 1.8% 3.8% 3.0%

Number 21 2 10 9

missing 0 0 0 0

total # of respondents who answered the question 674 110 264 300
43

presented to them in the questionnaire, clearly this

was a question where they did not wish to be placed

in pre-determined categories. Some of their

comments for the most important quality for being

In your opinion, what are the three most important qualities someone needs who wishes to pursue a career

in jazz?

Choice 1 Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 business savvy Percent 10.8% 7.1% 4.8% 16.9%

Number 62 7 10 45

 connections Percent 7.5% 6.1% 0.5% 13.5%

Number 43 6 1 36

 curiosity Percent 3.3% 3.0% 0.5% 5.6%

Number 19 3 1 15

 energy Percent 3.5% 5.1% 0.5% 5.2%

Number 20 5 1 14

 intelligence Percent 3.1% 5.1% 0.0% 4.9%

Number 18 5 0 13

 luck Percent 0.3% 1.0% 0.0% 0.4%

Number 2 1 0 1

 perception Percent 1.4% 1.0% 0.0% 2.6%

Number 8 1 0 7

 performing ability Percent 12.2% 19.2% 4.8% 15.4%

Number 70 19 10 41

 physical stamina Percent 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 1.9%

Number 8 0 3 5

 talent Percent 22.2% 38.4% 11.0% 25.1%

Number 128 38 23 67

 technique Percent 1.0% 2.0% 0.5% 1.1%

Number 6 2 1 3

 other Percent 33.3% 12.1% 76.2% 7.5%

Number 192 12 160 20

missing 98 11 54 33

total # of respondents who answered this question 576 99 210 267

Choice 2 Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 business savvy Percent 7.7% 12.1% 9.2% 4.9%

Number 42 12 17 13

 connections Percent 9.1% 12.1% 1.1% 13.7%

a jazz musician were: Creativity, drive, musicality,

faith, confidence, punctuality, appearance,

dedication, versatility, Overall Good Attitude.
44

Number 50 12 2 36

 curiosity Percent 2.0% 1.0% 1.6% 2.7%

Number 11 13 7

 energy Percent 5.7% 3.0% 1.1% 9.9%

Number 31 3 2 26

 intelligence Percent 7.1% 10.1% 1.6% 9.9%

Number 39 10 3 26

 luck Percent 4.4% 3.0% 1.1% 7.2%

Number 24 3 2 19

 perception Percent 2.2% 4.0% 0.5% 2.7%

Number 12 4 1 7

 performing ability Percent 14.3% 25.3% 4.3% 17.1%

Number 78 25 8 45

 physical stamina Percent 1.6% 0.0% 1.1% 2.7%

Number 9 0 2 7

 talent Percent 15.7% 21.2% 7.0% 19.8%

Number 86 21 13 52

 technique Percent 4.4% 5.1% 0.5% 6.8%

Number 24 5 1 18

 other Percent 25.8% 3.0% 70.8% 2.7%

Number 141 3 131 7

missing 127 11 79 37

total # of respondents who answered this question 547 99 185 263

Choice 3 Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 business savvy Percent 11.3% 12.4% 12.2% 10.4%

Number 57 12 18 27

 connections Percent 7.2% 4.1% 4.1% 10.0%

Number 36 4 6 26

 curiosity Percent 2.4% 2.1% 1.4% 3.1%

Number 12 2 2 8

 energy Percent 5.8% 8.2% 0.7% 7.7%

Number 29 8 1 20

 intelligence Percent 5.0% 7.2% 0.7% 6.6%

Number 25 7 1 17

 luck Percent 7.6% 10.3% 4.8% 8.1%

Number 38 10 7 21

 perception Percent 3.4% 9.3% 0.0% 3.1%

Number 17 9 0 8

 performing ability Percent 11.3% 16.5% 5.4% 12.7%
45

Reaching a higher level of artistic expression/

achievement (27 percent) was the most important

goal for the next five years,.

Number 57 16 8 33

 physical stamina Percent 2.6% 4.1% 0.0% 3.5%

Number 13 4 0 9

 talent Percent 15.5% 15.5% 10.9% 18.1%

Number 78 15 0 47

 technique Percent 5.6% 7.2% 0.0% 8.1%

Number 28 7 16 21

 other Percent 22.5% 3.1% 59.9% 8.5%

Number 113 3 88 22

missing 171 13 117 41

total # of respondents who answered this question 503 97 147 259

What are your three most important goals for the next five years as a musician?

Choice 1 Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 develop artistic competence Percent 11.8% 11.9% 1.5% 19.8%

Number 67 12 3 52

 get a record deal Percent 10.5% 5.9% 17.5% 6.8%

Number 60 6 36 18

 lead my own groups Percent 9.1% 7.9% 9.7% 9.1%

Number 52 8 20 24

 make a living from my music Percent 11.2% 14.9% 6.8% 13.3%

Number 64 15 14 35

 make money from my music Percent 3.5% 3.0% 3.4% 3.8%

Number 20 3 7 10

 obtain critical reviews Percent 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1%

Number 3 0 0 3

 participate in major concerts Percent 4.0% 3.0% 5.8% 3.0%

Number 23 3 12 8

 play with well-known groups Percent 2.3% 2.0% 2.4% 2.3%

Number 13 2 5 6

 reach higher level of artistic expression/

achievement Percent 26.8% 46.5% 12.6% 30.4%

Number 153 47 26 80

 spend more time on music Percent 4.0% 3.0% 3.4% 4.9%

Number 23 3 7 13

 win recognition/award Percent 1.2% 1.0% 2.9% 0.0%

Number 7 1 6 0
46

 other Percent 14.9% 1.0% 34.0% 5.3%

Number 85 1 70 14

missing 104 9 58 37

total # of respondents who answered this question 570 101 206 263

Choice 2 Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 develop artistic competence Percent 6.2% 7.1% 2.8% 8.1%

Number 33 7 5 21

 get a record deal Percent 7.1% 5.1% 12.4% 4.3%

Number 38 5 22 11

 lead my own groups Percent 9.2% 10.1% 6.2% 10.9%

Number 49 10 11 28

 make a living from my music Percent 10.7% 11.1% 8.4% 12.0%

Number 57 11 15 31

 make money from my music Percent 4.9% 3.0% 3.9% 6.2%

Number 26 3 7 16

 obtain critical reviews Percent 2.1% 4.0% 1.7% 1.6%

Number 114 3 4

 participate in major concerts Percent 6.9% 12.1% 5.6% 5.8%

Number 37 12 10 15

 play with well-known groups Percent 7.9% 9.1% 5.6% 8.9%

Number 42 9 10 23

 reach higher level of artistic

expression/achievement Percent 19.1% 18.2% 8.4% 26.7%

Number 102 18 15 69

 spend more time on music Percent 9.3% 16.2% 1.1% 12.4%

Number 50 16 2 32

 win recognition/award Percent 2.8% 2.0% 4.5% 1.9%

Number 15 2 8 5

 other Percent 14.0% 2.0% 39.3% 1.2%

Number 75 2 70 3

missing 139 11 86 42

total # of respondents who answered this question 535 99 178 258

Choice 3 Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 develop artistic competence Percent 4.3% 6.3% 1.4% 5.3%

Number 21 6 2 13

 get a record deal Percent 6.8% 8.4% 7.6% 5.7%

Number 33 8 11 14

 lead my own groups Percent 7.2% 6.3% 9.7% 6.1%

Number 35 6 14 15
47

 make a living from my music Percent 8.7% 8.4% 7.6% 9.4%

Number 42 8 11 23

 make money from my music Percent 6.0% 6.3% 5.6% 6.1%

Number 29 6 8 15

 obtain critical reviews Percent 0.8% 2.1% 0.0% 0.8%

Number 4 2 0 2

 participate in major concerts Percent 8.7% 6.3% 13.2% 6.9%

Number 42 6 19 17

 play with well-known groups Percent 8.9% 12.6% 5.6% 9.4%

Number 43 12 8 23

 reach higher level of artistic

expression/achievement Percent 13.6% 11.6% 6.9% 18.4%

Number 66 11 10 45

 spend more time on music Percent 13.4% 13.7% 6.9% 17.1%

Number 65 13 10 42

 win recognition/award Percent 7.9% 10.5% 3.5% 9.4%

Number 38 10 5 23

 other Percent 13.6% 7.4% 31.9% 5.3%

Number 66 7 46 13

missing 190 15 120 55

total # of respondents who answered this question 484 95 144 245
48

are important for understanding community

dynamics. For example, when cross-group ties are

sparse, the potential for conflict is great. Inequality

also affects affiliation patterns. Some communities

are highly stratified, with most interactions

occurring among those of equal income, social

status, and education. Others are more egalitarian,

with abundant cross-status ties. Therefore, social

networks may both reflect patterns of social

inequality and determine the manner in which it is

structured.

Some social ties are based on similarity. This

tendency of similar persons to form social bonds

was described by Galton more than a century ago

and is termed homophily. Other bonds are based not

on similarity but on difference. This is heterophily.

Though opposites, homophily and heterophily can

coexist. For example, musicians may form bonds

based on the style of music in which they both

specialize (homophily) while also forming groups

with musicians who play different instruments

(heterophily). Studying affiliation patterns provides

a means for understanding both social

differentiation (i.e., separate but equal) and social

inequality (i.e., separate and unequal).

This chapter focuses on affiliation patterns

revealed by our study of jazz musicians in two

metropolitan areas, New York City and San

Francisco. The study initially included New Orleans

and Detroit as well, but owing to delays in the

beginning of the study, less data on network

structures were gathered from those two cities. The

aims were to determine the organizing principles of

the community of jazz musicians, including an

assessment of the extent to which these differ from

those of other social groups.

Creating an Appropriate Study Sample 

The Respondent-Driven Sampling Method 

This is the first time respondent-driven

sampling (RDS) has been used to study artists. The

recognition of this sampling method’s potential as a

means for studying artists grew out of a symposium

supported by the Princeton University Center for

BY DOUGLAS D. HECKATHORN

AND JOAN JEFFRI

Social Networks of Jazz Musicians

The structure of a community is defined by

affiliation patterns—that is, the social relationships

that link members of the community. These

relationships vary in strength, from the

extraordinarily strong bonds within families to the

weaker links connecting friends and acquaintances.

In combination, these relationships define the

community’s social network. Such relationships are

reciprocal: your family members consider you a

family member, and your friends and acquaintances

consider you a friend or acquaintance. Merely

knowing about people, such as Hollywood

celebrities or political personalities, does not make

them a part of the social network, however. Rather,

social networks are created by the social

relationships that bind together families and

communities.

Social relationships serve as conduits through

which resources flow. These take many forms, from

assistance when help is needed to the exchange of

pleasantries during informal interaction. For policy

makers as well as scholars and observers, one

indication of the resources potentially available to an

individual is the number of others to whom that

individual is linked. This defines the size of the

individual’s personal network, and it serves as an

indicator of social status. An indication of the

cohesiveness of a community is the density of social

ties within that network. The mean personal

network size of community members also serves as

an indicator of social capital.

Social relationships can be structured in many

different ways. Some communities are divided into

independent and isolated racial or ethnic groups. In

Robert Putnam’s terms, these are communities based

on bonding social capital—that is, group solidarity

based on dense within-group social ties. Other

communities are more integrated, with abundant

cross-group ties—in Putnam’s terms, communities

with bridging social capital. These structural features

Chapter IV. Social Networks of Jazz Musicians
49

Arts and Cultural Policy, the Columbia University

Teachers College Research Center for Arts and

Culture, and the National Endowment for the Arts

Research Division. Previously, the RDS method had

been used to study “hidden populations,” so-called

because 1) no list of population members is

available from which samples can be drawn, making

the size, location, and boundaries of the population

unknown, 2) members have privacy concerns and

create informal networks that outsiders find hard to

penetrate, and 3) the population is small relative to

the general population. (Please see Poetics 28(4),

“Finding the Beat: Using Respondent-Driven

Sampling to Study Jazz Musicians,” by Douglas

Heckathorn and Joan Jeffri, for more detail). For

nearly a decade RDS has been used as part of AIDSprevention projects to find injection drug users and

other groups at risk of HIV infection. The initial

applications were in several small cities in

Connecticut. Its use has now expanded to most

major U.S. cities, as well as Amsterdam, Marseilles,

Russia, Vietnam, Thailand, and China. RDS has also

been employed to study other groups, including

Vietnam War–era draft resisters who left the United

States for Canada and urban Native Americans. The

advantages of the RDS method become apparent

when it is compared with the more traditional ways

hidden populations have been studied.

General population surveys: A very large sample

would be required to ensure that even a small

number of jazz musicians were included. For

example, based on population estimates calculated

as part of this project (see the appendix), in San

Francisco more than 350 individuals would have to

be contacted to locate one jazz musician, and in

New York more than 550 would have to be

contacted. General population surveys are also

unable to reach those with unstable living

arrangements (several families living in one

apartment even though one name appears on the

lease, for example). Finally, data from the U.S.

Census are limited and do not separate jazz

musicians from other types of musicians or

composers.

Location sampling: Identifying locations where

members of the desired population can be found

and then deploying interviewers requires that the

population cluster in large, public places. For a

group such as jazz musicians, this precludes a

representative sample, because not all jazz musicians

attend jazz clubs and festivals.

Institutional samples: Using institutions such as

artists’ unions is the traditional method for studying

artist populations. However, jazz musicians lack a

consistent institutional affiliation. In New York fewer

than one-quarter of jazz musicians are members of

the American Federation of Musicians (AFM), and

in San Francisco the figure is less than 10 percent.

Furthermore, the two groups are significantly

different. Compared with nonunion members,

union members have substantially higher incomes

(51 percent more income in New York, 17.2 percent

more in San Francisco), are much older (6.6 years

older in New York, 10.3 years older in San

Francisco), and have higher levels of professional

activity. Therefore, a sample drawn from union

members would overrepresent the most experienced

and accomplished members of the jazz musician

community at the expense of those who are

beginning their careers or whose work has received

less recognition.

Chain-referral sampling: A small number of

initial subjects, called seeds, are identified and asked

to refer researchers to other members of the

population; the sample expands during subsequent

referrals or recruitment waves. This has traditionally

been viewed as a form of convenience sampling

about which no claims of representativeness can be

made because the initial subjects from a hidden

population cannot be selected randomly, and other

biases are added as the sample expands from wave to

wave. For example, individuals who know many

other people (i.e., those with larger networks) tend

to be oversampled because the number of

recruitment paths leading to them is greater.

The perception of chain-referral methods

changed with the advent of a new class of sampling

methods termed adaptive/link-tracing designs.

Whereas in traditional approaches, the sampling

plan is fixed before sampling begins, in adaptive

sampling, the plan changes as information

accumulates during the sampling process. These

approaches are more computationally demanding

than traditional methods, but they are also generally

more efficient, especially for sampling clustered

populations.

Respondent-driven sampling is a form of chain

referral sampling that extends this emerging body of
50

including estimates of the variability of these

estimates. (Please see Social Problems 49,

“Respondent-Driven Sampling II: Deriving

Statistically Valid Population Estimates from

Samples of Hidden Populations,” by Douglas

Heckathorn for a description of the procedures

employed for calculating estimates of population

size and homophily.)

theory. RDS was designed using a statistical theory

of the chain-referral sampling process to restructure

this process to eliminate biases resulting from the

choice of initial subjects, and to weight the sample

to compensate for the effects of differences in

network sizes and other remaining sources of bias.

In this way, RDS produces statistically valid

estimates of population size and network

characteristics from samples of hidden populations,

Figure 1: Recruitment Network for jazz musicians in New York. 

Figure 1 shows the largest single recruitment

chain from our study of New York jazz musicians. It

began when a black female bass player recruited a

white female keyboard player, a white female singer,

and a female alto saxophone player of “other” race

or ethnicity. Over the course of 10 waves, the chain

expanded from the single seed to include more than

100 respondents. As is apparent, this chain

penetrated deeply into the New York jazz musician

network. It also has considerable geographic range:

the seed lived near Times Square, the first-wave

recruits were separated by 3.5 miles, and the distance

increased to 40 miles for wave two and 55 miles for

wave three. Thus distant parts of the metropolitan

area were reached after only a few waves.

Conditions for RDS 

For RDS to work effectively, the population

under study must be linked by a contact pattern:

members of the community under study must know

one another. Jazz musicians fulfill this requirement

because they generally perform together and develop

their skills working together, so even those who do

 

 

KEY Primary Instrument 13 guitar

1 alto sax 14 harmonica

Race/Ethnicity 2 banjo 15 percussion 

W White 3 baritone sax 16 piano / keyboard

B Black 4 bass 17 saxophone 

H Hispanic 5 bass clarinet 18 trombone

O Other 6 cello 19 trumpet

7 clarinet 2 0 tuba 

Gender 8 cornet 21 vibraphone

M Male 9 drums 22 violin

F Female 10 effects 23 voice 

 11 flugelhorn 24 xylophone 

 12 flute 25 other

WF

23 

BM

25 

WF

23 

WM 

17 HM

18 

BF2

3 WF

23 

BF1

6 

OM

16 HF

23 

BF

23 

BM

4 WF

23 

BM

15 

OF

1 

WF

16 

WF

23 

BF

16 

WM

17 BM

4 

OF

4 

WF

23 

WF

25 

BM

9 BF

23 

WM 

13

WF WM 

16

WM 

17

WF

17 

WF

1 

WM 

18

WF

12 

BM

9 

BM

17 

BF

4 

BM

7

WM 

16

BM

4 

BF

23 

WF

12

WF

23 

OM

9 

OF

23 

HM 

19 

WM

4

OM

23 BM

18 

HM

9 BM

15 

BM

4 

BM

16 

WF

23 

WM

19

WF

23 

WF

18 

WM

16

OF

23 

BM

16 

BM

23 

BM

9 

BM

16 

OM 

4 

OM 

4 

WF

12 

WM 

17

WM 

17 

WM 

9

WM 

7

0F 

23 

WM 

18

BM

3 BM

16 

OM

16 

BM

18 

WM

16 

OM

18 

BM

16 WF

23 

WM

9 BM

23 

BF

16 

WF

23 

BM

1 

WM

4

WM

17

WM

16 WF

23 

WM

22 WM

4

BM

1 

OM

17 

BM

4 

WM

13 WF

12 

BM

9 

BM

13 

BM

18 

BM

9 

WM

22 OM

16 

BF

4 

BM

9 

OM

13 WF

16 

WF

16 

WF

1

WF

23 

BF

23 

WF

23 

WF

22 

WM 

16

WF

23 

WM 

23

WM 

25

WM 

17

OM

19 
51

not join unions or attend jazz festivals are

nonetheless linked to the jazz musician community

through their relationships with other musicians.

The RDS method requires enlisting the help of

the musicians themselves and therefore involves

them directly in the study. Since the method is based

on a peer-referral system, motivating peer

recruitment is critical. In this study each jazz

musician who was interviewed was given four

coupons to pass along to fellow jazz musicians

whom she recruited for interviews; the recruiter was

given $10 for being interviewed, plus $15 each for

up to four recruits who showed up to be

interviewed.

Advantages of RDS 

In addition to targeting a more representative

group of jazz musicians than traditional methods

allow, RDS is a community-based method that

requires jazz musicians to refer one another. This

prevents the sample from becoming filled with the

most marketable, famous, or visible jazz musicians

or only those who join particular organizations.

A comparison of the findings of jazz musicians

in the RDS study with those of the AFM union

study revealed major differences. For example, as

noted above, the income of union jazz musicians is

vastly different from that of musicians in the RDS

sample. This information has policy implications

and can help the jazz community decide where to

invest future attention and resources.

The RDS method allows us to analyze the social

networks of jazz musicians—that is, who hangs out

with whom, including the degree to which this

depends on ethnicity, musical style, or other factors.

Also, by using a method of analysis based on

capture-recapture in comparing the AFM and RDS

responses, we have been able to project the actual

size of the jazz universe in three of the study cities.

The AFM union survey told us what proportion of

union members were jazz musicians in each city.

Combined with information on the total number of

union members in each city (New Orleans = 1,014,

New York = 10,499; San Francisco = 2,217), this

allowed us to estimate the number of union

members who were jazz musicians. Finally, the RDS

survey told us what proportion of all jazz musicians

in each city were union members. We then

calculated the estimated size of the jazz universe in

these cities as follows:

New Orleans = 1,723 jazz musicians

New York = 33,003 jazz musicians 

San Francisco = 18,733 jazz musicians 

These numbers tell us that a large proportion of

jazz musicians are not members of the union and

reinforces the appropriateness of using the RDS

method to locate these musicians (see appendix).

Implementation Issues and Challenges 

To begin to understand the differences as 

well as the commonalities among jazz musician

communities, we initiated the study in four

metropolitan areas: New York, San Francisco, New

Orleans, and Detroit. City coordinators were chosen

in each city to run the project locally. Six to eight

well-connected jazz musicians—the seeds—were

invited to start the process by being interviewed.

During the interviews they were told in detail about

the project and enlisted to distribute four coupons.

Because we were concerned that not enough

female jazz musicians would be recruited, three

coupons could be given to any jazz musician, but

one had to be given only to a female jazz musician.

(Any skewing was accounted for statistically after the

data were analyzed.) 

Delay in timetable: Because of procedures in the

government, the timetable for the study was delayed

by several months, putting some of our city

coordinators at a disadvantage. Detroit, in particular,

had already hired its staff yet could not start on

time, so when the study began, some resources were

depleted. The September 11 disaster caused further

delays. These factors substantially reduced the

resources and time available for the study.

Contact pattern and use of coupons: In most RDS

studies done to date, it takes only four waves of

recruitment to reach deep into the community.

When the community lacks cohesion, however,

recruitment chains have difficulty crossing group

boundaries; so more waves may be required. This

was a special problem in Detroit, where jazz venues

have been declining for a number of years; the jazz

community is locally strong but very fragmented

into jazz old-timers, established jazz artists, women

jazz artists, and young emerging jazz artists.

Although some people might appear in more than
52

took an average of one to one and one-half hours

each).

Management of the project: The four city

coordinators were brought to New York for an

intensive two-day training session to learn the

method, master the necessary computer programs,

ask questions, and begin to use each other as

resources. Several conference calls were held

throughout the study period to share information

and get peer support and advice.

The project was management-heavy, partly

because this was a first-time methodology for artists,

but also because it required separate checking

accounts and tracking for coupons, constant

scheduling and rescheduling of interviews, and

substantial outreach. It was also an expensive study

for the arts. The cost per musician was $25, with a

target of 1,200 musicians for all four cities.

Responses: The initial plan for the study was to

interview 300 jazz musicians in each metropolitan

area. Because of the delay in starting the study and

the time and resource constraints, only 59 responses

were obtained in Detroit—not enough for analysis.

(Information on Detroit musicians who are

members of the AFM appears in Changing the Beat,

Volume II.) In New Orleans, only 110 jazz musicians

were interviewed—again, an insufficient number.

The following report on jazz musician networks is

therefore based on interviews with 264 New York

jazz musicians and 300 San Francisco jazz

musicians. Musicians from all cities were also

interviewed by phone in the AFM union study.

Differentiation and Stratification 

in Jazz Musician Networks

Network size has been intensively studied

because it serves as an indicator for individual

characteristics, including social status, prestige, and

integration into the community. Therefore,

examining clustering by network size provides a

sense of the overall structure of that community.

Respondents were divided into three groups

based on network sizes. Average network sizes were

much larger in New York, averaging 223.8, than in

San Francisco, where they averaged 65.8. The ranges

were also divergent. In New York, the middle half of

respondents had network sizes between 100 and 300.

The corresponding figure for San Francisco was 20

one category, there was little communication among

the four groups, and jazz musicians neglected to

pass out coupons, especially across groups.

Scheduling Interviews: Given the demands on

musicians’ time, scheduling interviews proved

challenging. Some city coordinators enlisted the help

of jazz musicians in “talking up” the study. In San

Francisco, the city coordinator found that many

individuals needed further explanation about how

studies are conducted and the rationale for the RDS

method, so she hired jazz artists as public relations

representatives to go out into the jazz community

and promote the study. She and her staff also

promoted the study personally at jazz clubs, bars,

and festivals. In New York, several presentations

were made to jazz groups to inform them of the

study and ask for their help. We found that

community acceptance was important for a peerrecruitment method to be effective.

In each city, an interview venue was chosen that

would be accessible to jazz musicians, but in all

cities (and especially Detroit), musicians often lived

as much as one or even two hours away. Often,

transportation was a problem. Although

interviewers were flexible and went to locations

where jazz musicians congregate, this was more

difficult in Detroit, where there are fewer such

locations; weather, poor transportation, and a

difficult economy were further complications. In

addition, musicians would book appointments for

interviews and then cancel three, four, even five

times, or simply not show up, despite phone call

reminders from city coordinators. Therefore, jazz

musicians are a population for which arranging

face-to-face interviews is especially challenging.

Incentives: The financial incentives were

extremely modest. For his own interview and the

redeemed coupons of musicians he recruited, a jazz

musician could make $70: $10 for his interview and

$15 for each of his four recruits. Most earned less,

however; our total cost per musician interviewed

was $25, consisting of $10 for the interview and $15

for that musician’s recruiter. The incentives were

nevertheless important as a token of appreciation. In

Detroit, the money was appreciated. In San

Francisco, some musicians said the money wouldn’t

even pay for gas and donated it back to the study. In

New York, some complained that we should have

paid union minimum for their time (the interviews
53

to 90. Therefore, different breakpoints were used to

differentiate network sizes. A small network was

defined as 200 or fewer in New York, and 20 or fewer

in San Francisco. A large network was defined as 300

or more in New York, and 50 or more in San

Francisco.

The measure for network clustering, homophily,

is defined as follows. The homophily index is

positive when social relationships within the group

are favored. For example, it is 100 percent if all ties

are within the group (clustering is maximal), and 50

percent if half the ties are formed within the group,

and the other half are formed through random

mixing (that is, ties form as though group

membership does not matter). A positive index

value indicates that the group is cohesive. Factors

such as race, ethnicity, education, income, and age

generally serve as important sources of cohesion. In

this study we determine the extent to which this is

also the case for jazz musicians.

The homophily index is zero for categories that

are socially irrelevant, such as whether one was born

in an odd or an even month. With respect to such

categories, social ties are formed exclusively through

random mixing. Therefore, zero index values serve

to identify factors that the community does not

consider relevant.

The homophily index is negative if ties tend to

form with those outside rather than inside the

group, such as sexual relationships among

heterosexuals. The index is –100 percent if all ties

are outside the category—that is, if there are no

within-group ties.

The analyses of clustering by network size reveal

that network size strongly affects affiliation. (See

Table I.) In New York, those with the largest

networks are the most homophilous, forming

networks as though 23 percent of the time they form

a tie to another large-network person, and the rest of

the time they form ties through random mixing.

The medium-network persons are less homophilous.

Musicians in the large group with the smallest

networks have strong heterophily, forming ties as

though 48 percent of the time they form a tie

outside their group, and the rest of the time they

form ties randomly. Thus, those with smaller

networks do not associate primarily with one

another, but rather form ties to those with larger

networks.

Table I: Affiliation by Network Size

New York San Francisco

Homophily

(percent)

Mean

Network

Size

Population

(percent)

Homophily

(percent)

Mean

Network

Size

Population

(percent)

Network

Size

Small –48.1 73 63.6 –31.1 13 74.6

Medium 15.2 214 29.8 14.4 37 21.1

Large 23.1 511 6.6 35.4 162 4.4

The same pattern exists in San Francisco. Even

though average network sizes are much smaller than

in New York, the pattern of relationships based on

relative network sizes is strikingly similar. Those

with small networks are strongly heterophilous,

those with medium networks are mildly

homophilous, and those with large networks are

more strongly homophilous.

A more refined examination of the community

structure involves examining not merely each

group’s strength of affiliation to itself (i.e.,

homophily) but also each group’s strength of

affiliation to each other group. In essence, the

affiliation index is a measure of social distance that

varies from 100 percent (maximally close) to –100

percent (maximally distant). (See Table II.)
54

group. The most significant difference is that in San

Francisco, the small-network group affiliates more

strongly with the large- than with the mediumnetwork group, indicating that the least well

connected San Francisco musicians may have greater

access to those who are very well connected.

Nevertheless, the difference—only about 6

percent—is not large and cannot outweigh the very

strong negative affiliation (–63 percent) of the largenetwork group to the small-network group.

These patterns of affiliations suggest that the

overall network structure of these jazz musician

communities resembles a tree: leaves represent those

with small networks, branches represent those with

middle-size networks, and the trunk represents

those with large networks. Leaves are seldom

connected either directly to one another or to the

tree’s trunk; rather, the branches serve as the

intermediaries both between leaves and from the

leaves to the trunk system. So too are musicians with

small networks seldom connected either directly to

one anther or to those with large networks, but

instead are most strongly connected to those with

medium networks. This reflects a core-periphery

structure, in which an elite that is densely networked

with itself is linked to peripheral actors who are less

well connected. The term used to describe an actor

in the periphery is sycophant, and this is a structure

that reflects social inequality.

In contrast to a caste system, in which crossstatus ties are infrequent, the core-periphery

structure has a more egalitarian character, because

lower-status members affiliate with higher-status

members. However, it also has an elitist structure,

because the highest-status members are insulated

from contact with the lowest-status members.

Therefore, it can be described as moderately

egalitarian. In comparison with many other sectors

In New York, though the small-network group is

strongly negatively affiliated to itself (–48.1 percent),

it has a substantial positive affiliation to the middlenetwork group (31.3 percent). That is, it has formed

ties with the middle-network group as though 31.3

percent of the time it formed a tie to that group, and

the other 68.7 percent of the time it formed a tie

through random mixing. The small-network group

also has a modest but positive affiliation to the

large-network group (9.3 percent). Thus, those with

small networks form ties as though their principal

orientation is toward the middle-network group.

The middle-network group has a different

affiliation pattern. It affiliates most strongly toward

the large-network group (24.5 percent) and more

weakly to itself (15.2 percent), and it is strongly

negatively affiliated toward those with small

networks (–52.9 percent). Thus, the affiliation

between the small- and middle-network groups is

inconsistent: positive from the small- to middlenetwork groups, and negative in the opposite

direction. This may reflect a process in which poorly

connected musicians seek ties with those who are

better connected but avoid others who are poorly

connected and seldom succeed in forming ties to

well-connected peers. The middle-network group

exhibits a similar orientation toward the largenetwork group but is more successful in forming ties

to this group. Finally, the large-network group has a

substantial self-affiliation (23 percent), with a nearzero affiliation to the middle group (5.4 percent),

and a strong negative affiliation toward the smallnetwork group.

Affiliation patterns in San Francisco are again

similar. All three groups have negative affiliations

toward the small-network group, and the mediumand large-network groups affiliate more strongly

with the large- than with the medium-network

Table II: Affiliation Index by Network Size

Recipient of Tie by Network Size

New York San Francisco

Source of Tie by Network

Size Small Medium Large Small Medium Large

Small –48.1 31.1 9.3 –31.14 9.77 16.25

Medium –52.9 15.2 24.5 –52.34 14.36 29.02

Large –39.9 5.4 23.1 –62.96 16.68 35.4
55

of U.S. society, this represents an unusual degree of

egalitarianism and suggests that the reputation for

egalitarianism of jazz musicians may not be

undeserved.

Affiliation by Demographic Factors

Overall in U.S. society, level of education is

strongly correlated with social status and income, so

it serves as an important determinant of affiliation

patterns. This is not the case in the New York City

jazz musician community, however. Although

college graduates account for 65.8 percent of this

community, and noncollege graduates 34.2 percent,

education was found to have no significant effect on

affiliations. (See Table III.) That is, the homophily

levels for college graduates and nongraduates are

–3.9 percent and 4.7 percent, respectively. This

means that college graduates form their social

networks as though 3.9 percent of the time they seek

out a noncollege graduate, and the other 96.1

percent they form a tie irrespective of education

level. Thus education has almost no effect on

affiliation. Similarly, nongraduates form networks as

though 4.7 percent of the time they form a tie to

another noncollege graduate, and the other 95.3

percent of the time, they form a tie irrespective of

education. For both groups, then, level of education

is virtually irrelevant.

Table III: Affiliation by Demographic Terms

New York San Francisco

Homophily

(percent)

Network

Size

Population

(percent

Homophily

(percent)

Network

Size

Population

 (percent)

Level of

Education

College Graduate –3.9 219 65.8 22.5 78 40

Nongraduate 4.7 232 34.2 –11.6 52 60

Race

White 26.9 234 58.1 –13.3 53 63.6

Black 19.9 211 33 26.5 85 23.1

Other –16.6 209 8.9 7.0 90 13.3

Gender

Male 31.3 223 58.3 –0.1 66 85.9

Female 34 232 41.7 –33.6 66 14.1

Age

18–34 14.8 147 18.7 –16.4 35 75.8

35 or older 49.5 248 81.3 43.7 94 24.2

In San Francisco the pattern is different. College

graduates are moderately homophilous, at 22.5

percent, and noncollege graduates are heterophilous,

at –11.6 percent, so they differentially form ties with

those whose education level is higher. This

contradicts the customary pattern in which

associations tend to form among those with equal

levels of education. Compared with network size,

however, education is not a substantial determinant

of affiliation in the jazz musician community.
56

percent, than in New York, and the “other” group

has a mild homophily of 6.9 percent.

When affiliation by race and ethnicity is

examined, the contrast between New York and San

Francisco becomes more apparent. (See Table IV.)

Racial and ethnic boundaries between blacks and

whites have been maintained in New York; with each

group having positive affiliation toward itself

(homophily) and negative affiliation toward the

other. In contrast, boundaries for whites have

dissolved in San Francisco, with whites having

negative self-affiliation and mildly positive affiliation

toward other groups.

For the analysis of affiliation by race and

ethnicity, respondents were divided into three

categories: non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black,

and “other,” including Hispanics, Asian Americans,

Native Americans, and other groups. Hispanics were

not treated as a separate category because of their

small numbers—only 2.8 in New York and 4.1

percent in San Francisco. In New York, race and

ethnicity have a substantial effect on affiliation, with

homophily levels of 26.9 percent for whites, 19.9

percent for blacks, and –16.6 percent for the small

“other” category. In contrast, in San Francisco,

whites are heterophilous, at –13.3 percent, while

blacks are somewhat more homophilous, at 26.5

Table IV: Affiliation Index by Race y

Recipient of Tie by Race

New York San Francisco

Source of Tie by

Race

White Black Other White Black Other

White 26.9 –31.6 –9.3 –13.3 1.9 8.1

Black –25.2 19.9 1.4 –35 26.5 2.2

Other 11.6 10.2 –16.6 –8.7 2.4 6.9

Race- and ethnicity-based homophily is lower

among jazz musicians than among other

populations that have been studied using RDS. For

example, in a study of network structure in several

small cities in Connecticut, homophily levels for

whites varied from 27 percent to 37 percent, with a

median of 36 percent, and for blacks they varied

from 30 percent to 50 percent. Therefore, despite the

presence of a moderate level of race-based

homophily for some groups in some cities, the

overall results support the view that jazz musicians

are a racially inclusive group.

Like race, gender has complex effects on

affiliations among jazz musicians. In New York,

homophily levels are 33.9 percent for female

musicians and 31.2 percent for male musicians. In

contrast, in San Francisco, females are heterophilous,

at –33.6 percent, but males have near-zero

homophily, at 0.1 percent. Therefore, whereas in

New York there are independent male and female

music scenes, in San Francisco females interact

indirectly, through males. This suggests that female

jazz musicians have higher status in New York, a

factor that may be related to their proportion within

the community, 41.7 percent in New York versus

only 14.1 percent in San Francisco.

Age is also a significant factor affecting

affiliation among jazz musicians. In New York, the

homophily of musicians aged 18 to 34 is 14.8

percent, and that of musicians 35 or older is a

very substantial 49.5 percent, so both groups are

homophilous. This is consistent with a cohort

structure, in which individuals associate with

those of similar age. The homophily of older

musicians is greater, so older musicians exclude

younger ones to a rather substantial degree,

whereas younger musicians are more inclusive of

older musicians.

The pattern is different in San Francisco, where

the homophily of older musicians is comparable to

that in New York but younger musicians have

negative homophily: they tend to interact indirectly

through older musicians. This imbalance results, in

part, because older musicians tend to have 69
57

percent larger networks in New York, and 169

percent larger networks in San Francisco. The larger

networks of older musicians reflect their greater

professional experience and recognition. Therefore,

whereas the age network in New York corresponds

to a cohort structure, in San Francisco it fits a coreperiphery structure, with younger musicians in the

subordinate position. Thus the social position of

both women and younger musicians is better in

New York.

Income and Affiliation

Income is a variable that generally has powerful

effects on affiliation patterns, with individuals

associating primarily with those within their own

income category. However, among jazz musicians

the pattern is different. First, consider income

derived from music, including performing or

teaching. Respondents were divided into two income

groups, based on whether they earned less or more

than $12,000 from music. (See Table V.)

Table V: Affiliation by Financial Factors y

New York City San Francisco

Homophily

(percent)

Network

Size

Population

(percent)

Homophily

(percent)

Network

Size

Population

(percent)

Income from Music

$0–$12,000 –4.5 159 63 –15 46 86.7

$12,001 or more 39.9 284 37 27.5 126 13.3

Personal Income from All

Sources

$0–$30,000 –7.2 193 65.1 –4 53 76.2

$30,001 or more 19.4 272 34.9 37.4 87 23.8

Household Income

$0–$30,000 –2.6 184 55.3 –4.5 49 70.7

$30,001 or more 25.6 255 44.7 26.7 73 29.3

In both cities, the pattern is similar. Consistent

with expectations, homophily for the higher-income

group ($12,001 or more in earnings from music) is

substantial and positive: 39.9 percent in New York,

and 27.5 percent in San Francisco. However,

contrary to the usual pattern, the lower-income

group is not homophilous; instead, it is mildly

heterophilous: –4.5 percent in New York, and –15

percent in San Francisco. Therefore, the lowerincome group orients not toward its own members

but rather to the higher-income group.

The failure of lower-income jazz musicians to

form a cohesive group may reflect unfulfilled

aspirations. For example, in New York, an estimated

73 percent reported they were satisfied or somewhat

satisfied with their music, and only 3 percent were

not satisfied. In contrast, fulfillment of career

aspirations was lower: 47 percent said that their

aspirations had been satisfied or somewhat satisfied,

and fully 48 percent said they had not been satisfied.

This reflects the low average income for jazz

musicians. For example, in New York City, the mean

personal income for jazz musicians in the RDS

sample is $17,400 for college graduates and $10,000

for noncollege graduates; and in San Francisco the

corresponding figures are $15,800 and $9,700. In

contrast, according to the 2000 census, the mean

personal income for those with bachelor’s degrees is

$51,600, and for high school graduates, $24,300.

Personal incomes among jazz musicians are
58

8.6 percent in New York, and 7.3 percent in San

Francisco, reported personal incomes in excess of

$60,000. Therefore, as with other artist groups,

choice of jazz as a career often involves considerable

financial sacrifice.

Affiliation and Professional Activity

Affiliations are also affected by the form and

level of professional activity. (See Table VI.) 

comparable to those of members of the general

population with far lower levels of education. For

example, on average, those in the general population

with less than a ninth-grade education earn more

($18,400) than do jazz musicians who are college

graduates in either New York or San Francisco.

Furthermore, fewer than 10 percent of collegeeducated jazz musicians earn as much as the average

college graduate. Only a minority of respondents,

Table VI: Affiliation by Professional Activity

New York San Francisco

Homophily

(percent)

Network

Size

Population

(percent)

Homophily

(percent)

Network

Size

Population

(percent)

Possessing a Recognized

Body of Work

Yes 18.2 140 18.7 36.4 76 45.9

No 50.1 232 81.3 3.1 50 54.1

Music-Related Travel

Yes 41.3 231 80.1 43.8 89 39

No 3.1 140 19.9 –21.4 37 61

Union Member (AFM)

Yes 35.2 298 22.3 11.0 113 8.1

No –3 175 77.7 –6.2 58 91.9

When respondents in New York were asked

whether they had produced a recognized body of

work, about one in five (18.7 percent) answered in

the affirmative, and this group exhibited modest

homophily. Those who said no exhibited stronger

homophily, 50.1 percent. This may reflect

competition to establish ties to the small number of

musicians whose work has been recognized, thereby

producing exclusion homophily. In contrast, in San

Francisco nearly one-half (45.9 percent) reported

having produced a recognized body of work. This

group of recognized musicians was homophilous, at

36.4 percent. The nonrecognized group had nearzero homophily, perhaps reflecting greater success in

establishing ties to those in the recognized group.

Affiliation is also affected by music-related

travel. Homophily among travelers is 41.3 percent in

New York and 43.8 percent in San Francisco,

suggesting that traveling provides the opportunity to

form social bonds.

Finally, union membership is a basis for

affiliation. In New York, where union membership is

more common (22.3 percent), union members

exhibit considerable homophily, 35.2 percent,

whereas nonunion members exhibit none, –3

percent. This may reflect the higher degree of

professional activity of union members. It may also

reflect other factors associated with union

membership. For example, none of the New York

respondents aged 18–24 were union members, and

only 21 percent of those aged 25–34 were union

members, but union membership climbed to 41
59

percent for those 35–44, 47 percent for those 45–54,

41 percent for those 55–64, and 67 percent for those

over 65. Therefore, affiliation by union membership

may reflect, in part, affiliation by age. Union

members also have substantially larger networks,

which, as we have seen, also affects affiliation. Union

membership had weaker effects on affiliation in San

Francisco, where union membership is less common.

Affiliation by Style of Music and

Principal Instrument

The effect of style of music on affiliation

patterns is substantial, though in general slightly

weaker than factors associated with professional

activity. We present results for the six most popular

of the 21 styles of music identified in the

questionnaire. (See Table VII.) Those who play in a

style are consistently more homophilous than those

who do not because playing in a style is a basis for

affiliation, whereas those who do not play in the

style are a heterogeneous mix of those playing in

other styles. In San Francisco, homophily by musical

style varies from 8.7 percent for those who play funk

to 38 percent for those who play bop.

Table VII: Affiliation by Style of Music (Yes = Plays in Style)

New York City San Francisco

Homophily

(percent)

Network

Size

Population

(percent)

Homophily

(percent)

Network

Size

Population

(percent)

Bop

Yes 19.3 244 15.9 38 77 45.4

No 9.6 218 84.1 –0.8 47 54.6

Cool

Yes 15.6 286 3.1 31.7 75 39.3

No –0.3 221 96.9 12.5 59 60.7

Mainstream

Yes 25.1 270 18.9 13.3 92 19.9

No 4.5 212 81.1 –14.6 50 80.1

Swing

Yes 16 255 6.7 17.1 77 32.1

No 1.8 218 93.3 –9.1 53 67.9

Funk

Yes 19.8 263 5 8.7 71 35.3

No 4.2 220 95 –2.7 62 64.7

Fusion

Yes 13.6 333 3.6 21.4 76 28.3

No –1.2 217 96.4 1 61 71.7
60

weak. Indeed, all three groups are heterophilous,

though to varying degrees, from –4.8 percent for

drummers to –61.4 percent for keyboard players in

San Francisco. Bass players are strongly

heterophilous in both cities. Conversely, because

singers and saxophone players commonly perform

together, one would expect them to be more

homophilous, and indeed both groups are

homophilous in both cities, with the exception of

singers in San Francisco, who are mildly

heterophilous. It is also notable that nonsingers are

homophilous in both cities, perhaps indicating the

presence of an independent instrumental music

scene.

The percentage who play in each style is greater

in San Francisco than in New York: San Francisco

musicians are less specialized, playing in an average

of 7.1 styles, compared with 2.3 styles for New York

musicians. Therefore, the level of specialization by

style is greater in New York.

Affiliation can also be based on a musician’s

principal instrument (See Table VIII). In fact,

principal instrument sometimes has greater effects

on affiliation than does style, as measured by

homophily. The patterns are explicable. Because

usually only one person in an ensemble plays

keyboards, bass, or drums, to the extent that

associations are based on performing together, one

would expect these musicians’ associations to be

Table VIII: Affiliation by Principal Instrument (Yes = Plays Instrument)

New York City San Francisco

Homophily

(percent)

Network

Size

Population

(percent)

Homophily

(percent)

Network

Size

Population

(percent)

Voice

Yes 31.7 201 28.7 –8.9 51 11

No 39.8 228 71.3 22.9 67 89

Saxophone

Yes 6.6 220 14.3 16.4 122 5.1

No 8.3 224 85.7 –3.9 59 94.9

Keyboards

Yes –5.6 248 13.6 –61.4 64 8.6

No –2.2 219 86.4 –0.3 66 91.4

Bass

Yes –35.1 248 11.4 –57.5 88 9.4

No –2.2 221 88.6 –4.8 63 90.6

Drums

Yes –48 217 7.1 –4.8 66 10.5

No 0 225 92.9 0.3 66 89.5
61

Conclusion

This analysis reveals the complexity of the social

structure of the community of jazz musicians. It

examines stratification by connections within the

community (network size), level of professional

activity, and financial stability. This population lacks

the powerful stratification based on income and

education that is found elsewhere in U.S. society.

The structure of associations is also affected by

strictly musical factors, such as musical style, in a

complex manner that varies from style to style.

What the RDS method shows, or perhaps

underscores, is the egalitarianism of jazz musicians:

they are a racially inclusive group for whom

affiliation patterns are strongly affected by travel and

touring and union membership, and less affected by

education and income levels. One final conclusion

should be emphasized: the strength of connections

among jazz musicians reveals that this is a

community of considerable cohesion.
62

“Playing...the fastest ride in town.”

...greatest satisfaction, a NY jazz musician

Great performance, great compositions,

regaining one’s health after a music injury, playing

with extremely competent musicians selling their

work, “recognizing one’s musical plight,” getting

paid, making a living from jazz, and playing the

music they love were all things that greatly satisfied

the musicians. One said the greatest satisfaction was

whenever “the music is able to travel out of your

body”, another, “giving back to young musicians.”

One musician commented that “My music is where

God lives in me.”

Another musician hoped the survey will “help

the children in New Orleans inner city schools get

workable instruments and good teachers.”

“Either you’re a young lion 

or an 85-year old legend.”

Not only are jazz greats dying off, the lack of

jazz in the schools contributes to decreased opportunities in the field. The apprenticeship system that

once fed new blood into jazz is also virtually dead.

“First thing, and you can write this down, tell

them to quit stallin’ and give us the money and

exposure we need.”

For the last two questions on the survey we

asked musicians to describe their greatest

disappointments and satisfactions in their careers. In

some locations, this was the beginning of a much

longer conversation and these comments humanize

the data. A handful of these remarks appear below

and while they cannot do justice to the breadth of

comments, they give a hint of the challenges and

frustrations jazz musicians face on a daily basis and

throughout a lifetime. A summary of the musicians’

recommendations appears at the end.

““No money” and “good music”

...greatest satisfaction and greatest disappointment

Not selling, not playing and poor or no

management are common problems, but another

obstacle is overcoming the assumption that jazz

musicians are “smokers, drinkers and druggies.” The

lack of affordable rehearsal space (NYC) and the lack

of benefits—health insurance and coverage, life

insurance, retirement plans, even when musicians are

employed in jobs like university teaching—changing

politics of music and “living in the balance between

optimism and fear” are some common conditions.

One musician said that her greatest disappointment

is that by the time she’s earned enough money as a

musician to have children, she may be too old to pick

them up. Musicians also regretted not starting their

careers earlier and disliked being categorized as “only

a musician” as well as not getting paid (“being 46

years old and still broke”).

Artists mentioned racial discrimination, a topic

of intense interest in this diverse field, as well as

gender-based discrimination, something one female

artist called “babe-ism.” Forty-six percent of the jazz

musicians said they had been discriminated against

when seeking employment as a jazz musician —the

major reason they gave was race (46 percent)

followed by “other” (28 percent and then gender (19

percent). There seems to be a lack of interest in

American culture to hear jazz music, and especially a

concern over the fading of tradition in jazz.

Artists are continually frustrated by a lack of

control over their own artistic destinies.

Chapter V. Summary, Conclusions 

and Recommendations

➔ Over half the RDS jazz musicians earned

their livelihoods in the last 12 months as

musicians. This was highest in New

Orleans at 83 percent.

➔ Eighty percent of the RDS musicians are

white males.

➔ Thirty-eight percent of RDS musicians

have college degrees and another 18 have

graduate degrees; 62 percent study with

private teachers.
63

Grants and the grassroots

More equity and attention to less visible jazz

musicians, and a feeling that “you can’t get a grant

unless you’ve already had one” has produced

dissatisfaction with the grant-giving world. More

funding for public concerts and a requirement for

artists who get public funding to engage with the

public, not hide away and “work anonymously,” is

something some funders like the New York

Foundation for the Arts have stood behind for years.

One musician said, “We need to quit the genius

grant sanctification and make smaller grants more

widespread.” Another asked for money for “concept

development,” not just the final product.

Models like the CETA Program in the 1970s and

Chamber Music America’s jazz ensemble grants were

invoked as ways to get money to the grassroots.

CMA’s grants also allowed artists to get health

insurance. Access to such insurance might be one

benefit the NEA or other funding agencies may offer

when they confer grants.

“The instruments don’t stand up 

and play themselves.”

...RDS study jazz musician

Restoration of NEA grants to individual artists

is mandatory for the health of artists’ futures.

Government backing for big initiatives for artists,

such as health insurance and education would help

foster both an appropriate attitude towards the arts

in this country, and a more livable environment for

artists.

In addition to grants

For some time funding agencies have looked at

ways of helping individual artists beyond the grant

or cash gift or award. The New Orleans Jazz &

Heritage Foundation sponsors a Musicians’ Housing

Initiative which, in cooperation with two savings

banks, assists home buyers with closing costs (up to

$2,500) and helps to get the artist certified by the

city of New Orleans. The program also arranges for

a homeowner training course to assist musicians in

renovating or building their own homes.

An Internet-based resource that lists grants,

services and opportunities for jazz musicians in a

comprehensive way would provide additional help.

Grant-giving organizations may create subsidies

for presenters who book a diverse array of music

and who have rotating curators to ensure equity.

Travel subsidies can help musicians get their work

out to other places. The creation of a national

network of smaller venues could foster exchange

between communities.

Artists versus Institutions

In a 1999 Dutch study, Teunis IJdens discusses

the difficult financial environment for jazz

musicians and how that has implications for

government support and other subsidy:

Artistic work, as done by jazz musicians, cabaret

artists and other performing artists outside the

restricted area of heavily subsidized institutions

lourdes in the cultural field, is clearly burdened

with financial risks. In precarious and flexible

markets for occasional labor such as these, the

community of performances and short-term

contracts may be easily broken. The risks of

stumbling on shorter or longer spells of no work

and no income have to be met by individual

artists, but also by society (or by the industry)

which pays for unemployment benefits and social

welfare benefits. This holds especially for artists

who have absolved an (expensive)formal training

at an institution of higher education in the arts,

an investment, which is hard to legitimize if

returns are below zero. (“Scattered and skewed:

Artistic work between market and organization, p.

229.)

Networks

While the jazz profession spawns many

relationships by word-of-mouth, it can be quite

difficult to find work as a musician in another city

due to the lack of national networks and band

leaders who have already filled their slates. In a 1976

study of 112 professional trumpet playing members

of Nashville’s Local 257 of the American Federation

of Musicians, sociologists Richard A. Peterson and

Howard G. White found that only four of these

players garnered almost all the work, “thus earning

upward of $100,000 a year, while none outside the

top five earned over $15,000 from professional
64

scale, but many cannot get enough work being

union members, so multiple non-union jobs at a

lower scale may yield them more money. On the one

hand, musicians advocate the union stepping in to

stop low-paying jobs; on the other. they worry that

electronic media will replace live musicians as a

result of union intervention.

While the union has both hard and soft referral

systems for jazz musicians, in some cities bookings

are hard to come by and an artist on a normal career

trajectory may saturate his market fairly quickly. In

San Francisco, local 6 acts as a booking agent for

musicians, trying to find them union-paying gigs.

In some cities, the union has suffered from

musicians using their city’s union local to gain

access to a higher-paying one in a city such as New

York and then quitting their original local. It is

somewhat unusual for a worker to be a member of

two union locals at the same time; this can have the

effect of depleting the original local’’s membership

ranks.

There was a call for revitalization of the union,

especially those policies that would allow jazz

musicians to get pensions. And, while 89 percent of

jazz musicians in the AFM survey had health

insurance, few obtained it through the union.

Market saturation

Available work depends partly on the critical

mass of musicians, and also by the attitude towards

those musicians’ local growth. There is also a feeling

that a musician coming to New Orleans, for

example, takes three years to break in and then is

able to secure premium jobs. After about seven

years, however, the market is saturated, and he gets

replaced by someone else.

Education

This leads to a common discussion in the jazz

community about standards. If, as Peterson and

White (and others) claim, frequent employment as a

jazz musician has more to do with factors that are

not musical, there is a concomitant confusion about

standards for musical quality. Additionally, since

formal music education has eroded in the public

school system, there is concern that the field is not

aspiring to standards for the future. Clearly, with 62

trumpet playing.” (From Art and Society, “The

Simplex Located in Art Worlds,”) Peterson and

White found that many studio musician groups

develop an interpersonal association among

themselves (the ‘simplex’ of their title) and that

entrepreneurs coordinate the linked craft

arrangements under which they operate.

Aside from technical competence, the authors

state, social reliability, craftsmanlike bearing, and a

willingness to do work that is technically illegal

(technologically manipulating sound so that the

work of a few musicians sounds like an orchestra,

for example) are all characteristics or perhaps

prerequisites for being in that working musician

camp.

In a number of our interviews, we noted the

jazz musician’s lone wolf syndrome, which seems

like a bit of an anomaly since jazz musicians often

hang out together, jam, and form their own highly

sociable social networks. Yet often they feel they

must “go it alone,” especially since so much work is

through personal recommendation (or personal

favors).

All this indicates a difficulty for certain

newcomers to penetrate particular jazz groups—

Peterson and White describe both rookies

(mentored by a more established player, the rookie

plays, but never outplays, his peers, and waits his

turn to enter the group more permanently) and

rivals (those who go above musicians’ heads to

convince agents and clubs that they are better than

more well-heeled performers).

The short-term nature of jazz work (32 percent

of our jazz respondents played with more than 16

different groups a month) and the monopoly of

work by a few players (and not necessarily the most

competent ones) make any linear career path

extremely difficult.

The Musicians’ Union

The American Federation of Musicians, like all

protective collective bargaining agencies, seeks to

protect its members. There are a number of areas of

ambivalence from the jazz musicians we surveyed,

some of which are similar to all performing arts

unions, especially the issue of supply and demand

and pay scale. Jazz musicians who play non-union

don’t have the union as an advocate for a higher pay
65

percent studying with private teachers, jazz

musicians continue to pursue their musical

education and training. Nevertheless, standards

without certification are difficult.

The musicians promoted education, not just in

the schools, but of the audience. More programs to

educate audiences about the music will give the

experience more meaning and more stature.

In schools, jazz education could take place not

only in the classroom, but through in-school

workshops, concerts every week, and constant

exposure. Wynton Marsalis’s jazz curriculum for the

schools is a major start but he believes in education,

education and education.

Mentoring

Apprenticeships and mentoring are very

important in the jazz field. The loss of the NEA

study grant had a huge effect on this. Jam sessions,

places for jazz to explode spontaneously, are critical

to its growth.

More vehicles and money for mentoring and

apprentices are crucial.

Affordable rehearsal space

Space is at a premium in large urban centers. A

model like the Wein dance building in New York

City which provides dance rehearsal space on a

rotating basis is a good one for jazz.

Audience Development

For the most part, development of the jazz

audience has been left to individuals in lesserfunded institutions or commercial concerns who

take the initiative upon themselves. There are no

coordinated audience development programs from

the recording industry, jazz educational institutions,

jazz venues or other facets of the jazz community.

While these initiatives would be most effective on a

local level, both national and local attention to this

challenge are warranted.

The view by some musicians who work in

avant-garde, experimental work was that these

musicians need to engage more with their public;

some musicians who play less experimental work

argue the opposite—that their audience attends a

concert for prestige reasons, but not to listen.

“Get jazz out of the basement.”

Venues

Especially in New York, musicians say they lose

money performing there, and make more on the

road. More economically viable gigs could help this

situation.

Time and again, musicians, even those who

thought the music itself was thriving, complained of

fewer and fewer places to play. They also wanted

more inviting performance spaces, in contrast to

bars, clubs, and basements. Expansion of venues to

community centers, hospitals and other public

venues and more attention by the media would get

the word out.

“No one’s trying to get rich; we’re trying to survive

while doing something valuable for our culture.”

Status of the Artist

Particularly from artists who play in Europe,

there was a plea for a “Status of the Artist” recognition

category by the government, which exists in

countries like France and Canada, so that artists can

receive social and other benefits when out of work.

Health and Medical Coverage and

Prevention

While 63 percent of responding jazz musicians

have some health or medical coverage, this is much

lower than the 89 percent of jazz musicians in our

union survey. Almost a third of the respondents

have suffered injuries from occupational hazards in

their music-related work (for example, carpal tunnel

syndrome and hearing problems).

Sixty-three percent of these musicians have

health coverage (much lower than the 89

percent of musicians in the union survey) and

the musicians’ union pays for 13 percent of

this; only 3 percent obtained life insurance

through their musicians’ union. Eight percent

obtained retirement plans through the

musicians’ union and, for 8 percent, the union

pays for this.
66

JAZZ MUSICIAN RESPONDENT

SUGGESTIONS

Basics

Affordable rehearsal space

Access to affordable health and medical care

Grassroots performance opportunities

Revitalization of the union, especially those policies

that would allow jazz musicians to get pensions

More emergency relief agencies, like the Musicians

Emergency Fund, for musicians who have fallen prey

to illness and age

Education and Audience Development

Education of schoolchildren and communities,

mentoring and apprenticeships to help pass on the

legacy of jazz

Programs to help jazz musicians learn to manage

their own careers

AFM sponsorship of school gigs to bring jazz to

younger audiences

Coordinated audience development programs from

the recording industry, jazz educational institutions,

jazz venues, and other facets of the jazz community

Creation of local arts newspapers run by artists,

where musicians could place free ads, and develop

audiences and awareness

Philanthropy

Restoration of grant awards to the individual jazz

artists from the NEA

Grants going toward grassroots efforts: models like

the CETA Program in the 1970s and Chamber Music

America’s jazz ensemble grants were invoked as ways

to get money to the grassroots

Money for “concept development,” not just final

product

Grants to make records and to cover promotional

costs

More foundations like Music Cares, dedicated to

promoting the future of the music

Beyond grants: helping individual artists beyond the

While there are a number of performing arts

medicine clinics around the U.S. (and one that

specifically targets jazz musicians in Louisiana)

frequently musicians do not like to admit health

problems received on the job for fear of the effect on

future employment. There are some emergency relief

agencies like Music Cares and the Musicians

Emergency Fund that offer financial support to

musicians who have fallen prey to illness. These

agencies have proven themselves to be invaluable to

a number of artists who have used their services to

weather emergency conditions and more are needed.

A report by the Urban Institute for the W. K.

KELLOGG Foundation in 2001, “Workers Without

Health Insurance: Who Are They and How Can

Policy Reach Them?”, gives a detailed picture of the

more than 16 million uninsured workers. Among

the most likely to lack health insurance are workers

in small firms, service workers, low-wage workers,

part time and short-tenure workers and workers

who live in low-income housing, all categories into

which many jazz and other artists fit. The report

compares the merits of two vehicles to expand

coverage: tax credits or public programs.

(http://www.communityvoices.org)

The Business of Music

Quoting Ornette Coleman, one artist said,

“There’s music, and then there’s the music business.”

The dearth of programs helping artists to help

themselves in terms of management skills is a

problem.

Some artists do not think of their work on a

career track; careers, in fact, are a fairly modern

phenomenon—in the 1930s and 1940s people just

played music. Some feel they’ve been “kept out of

the market” and overlooked for younger talent.

Additionally, trepidation at using computers and

other tools of the trade disadvantages older

musicians.

Programs in music schools teaching jazz

musicians about the business side of their career

would help them survive tough competition.
67

grant or cash gift or award. (The New Orleans Jazz

& Heritage Foundation has the Musicians Housing

Initiative, which assists musicians in their efforts to

become homeowners)

Business

A nonprofit independent music distribution

company for artists’ recordings

Standardized club fees, with cost-of-living

adjustments

Tax breaks for performing in public for free or in

nursing homes, prisons, or hospitals

Creation of local arts newspapers where musicians

could place free ads and develop audiences

Subsidies for presenters to encourage diverse

programming

More Internet-based resources for jazz musicians

National network of venues, including a circuit of

smaller places across the country for community

exchange
68

New Jersey

Essex County

Morris County

Sussex County

Union County

Warren County

Middlesex County

Somerset County

Monmouth County

Bergen County

Passaic County

Hudson County

Connecticut

Darien (Town)

Greenwich (Town)

New Canaan (Town)

Norwalk (City)

Stamford (City)

Weston (Town)

Westport (Town)

Wilton (Town)

SAN FRANCISCO METROPOLITAN AREA

Portions of San Francisco- Oakland- San Jose- Santa

Rosa- Vallejo/Fairfield/Napa surveyed

Oakland

Alameda County

Contra Costa County

San Francisco

Marin County

San Francisco County

San Mateo County

San Jose

Santa Clara County

Santa Rosa

Sonoma County

Vallejo- Fairfield- Napa

Napa County

Solano County

DETROIT METROPOLITAN AREA* 

Detroit- Ann Arbor- Flint

Ann Arbor

Lenawee County

Livingston County

Washtenaw County

Detroit

Lapeer County

Macomb County

Monroe County

Oakland County

St. Clair County

Wayne County

Flint

NEW ORLEANS METROPOLITAN AREA

Jefferson Parish

Orleans Parish

Plaquemines Parish

St. Bernard Parish

St. Charles Parish

St. James Parish

St. John the Baptist Parish

St. Tammany Parish

NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA

Portions of New York State- New Jersey- Connecticut

surveyed

New York State

Bronx County

Kings County

New York County

Putnam County

Queens County

Richmond County

Rockland County

Westchester County

Nassau County

Suffolk County

Orange County

1

Appendix A. Counties/Parishes 

in Four Metro Areas

1 *Even though RDS does not cover statistical information in Detroit, we have included information on counties, context and

resources.
69

In order to implement policies and programs

from the data gathered on jazz musicians, it is

important to understand the context in which these

musicians live. This section presents some brief

background of venues, distribution mechanisms,

education, supporters and funders, and media

outlets in each metro area. An additional section

provides actual resources in each location where jazz

musicians can go for assistance.*

There are literally hundreds of jazz related

venues that showcase this music all over the United

States. Festivals, nightclubs, community centers,

churches and national performing arts organizations

all offer musicians the opportunity to be heard.

Long a key part of the lore and personal experience

of every jazz musician, young or old, is the

mentoring of master to apprentice and the oral

transmission of musical artistry and knowledge

formally and informally, through these venues and

through inventions of their own. Resilience is key.

The description that follows only touches on the

fabric of the geographic locations that produces,

displays, advertises, sells and supports these

musicians. It does not pretend to illuminate the deep

and substantial history of the players or the places.

While jazz exists largely in the for-profit sector,

within the past decade there have been two major

grantmaking initiatives devoted to jazz that have had

major national significance: The Lila WallaceReader’s Digest $24 million National Jazz Network

and the $6.7 million Doris Duke Charitable

Foundation jazz initiative. The National Jazz

Network and affiliated programs was launched in

1990 after a year-long study of jazz in the United

States conducted by the New England Foundation

for the Arts and the now defunct National Jazz

Service Organization. The study resulted in the

funding of jazz presenters and programming

administered by regional arts agencies, the

Smithsonian’s traveling jazz exhibitions, and jazz

programming at National Public Radio. The

programs continued until 1998 when the foundation

decided to move away from discipline specific

funding.

Associations that work to track the progress of

the jazz form are dominated nationally by the

International Association of Jazz Education (IAJE),

The National Association of Recording Arts and

Sciences (NARAS), The Recording Industry

Association of America (RIAA), Broadcast Music,

Inc. (BMI), and the American Society of Composers,

Authors and Publishers (ASCAP).

There are a number of organizations that

endeavor to meet the less ostensible needs of the

national jazz community. These include The

American Federation of Jazz Societies (AFJS), which

acts as a kind of watchdog organization. It monitors

Washington legislation and current societal trends

that affect the jazz community.

National media coverage for jazz is spearheaded

by the following organizations: National Public

Radio (NPR), Public Broadcasting Service, Inc.,

Americans for the Arts and Black Entertainment

Television (BET). National Public Radio is arguably

the key national provider of jazz programming.

Among the jazz-oriented programs produced by

NPR are Jazz Profiles hosted by Nancy Wilson,

JazzSet with Dee Dee Bridgewater and Marian

McPartland’s Piano Jazz.

DETROIT 

Though the Detroit jazz scene has seen a sharp

decline in popularity since the 1970s, many

members of the jazz community compare today’s

offering of venues to that of the 1950s. Instead of

large scale concerts in many different venues, only a

few major venues remain and the majority of jazz is

performed by small groups in restaurants and small

clubs. Few clubs are able to obtain big name

performers, therefore most headliners appear at the

Ford-Detroit Festival or at Detroit Symphony

Orchestra Hall. Ann Arbor is home to a few highquality jazz venues but there is not enough of a

demand to support multiple site performances on

one evening. While there has been hardship, the

Detroit metro area fortunately boasts a number of

venues that still draw a good crowd and keep the

area jazz scene alive. Among these venues are the

above-mentioned Ford-Detroit Jazz Festival, Detroit

Symphony Orchestra Hall, University Music Society,

SereNegeti Ballroom, Baker’s Keyboard Lounge and

*Appendix B. Metropolitan Areas Context
70

Additionally, the Detroit School District Jazz

Education Program oversees jazz programs in 10

area high schools.

Wayne State University has a separate jazz

division within its Department of Music. The

University of Michigan School of Music houses the

Department of Jazz and Improvisational Studies and

offers Bachelor of Fine Arts degrees in Jazz, and

Contemporary Improvisation and Jazz Studies. The

Education Department at the Detroit Symphony

Orchestra sponsors the Ameritech Jazz Youth

Initiative, a program that provides instructional

classes, jam sessions and lectures with legendary jazz

artists for students and local musicians.

Most of the current mentors in Detroit are

musicians in their 60s, most of them the direct

successors of the original architects of the area jazz

scene. Marcus Belgrave, who serves on the faculty of

Wayne State University, is regularly cited as an

integral member of the Detroit-area jazz

community. Belgrave has repeatedly leveraged his

national contacts to bring out-of-town artists to area

venues. Donald Walden has also established himself

as an important source of mentoring through his

dual role as University of Michigan Jazz Studies

professor and record label owner. Musician and

educator James Tatum plays a similar role by

spearheading the James Tatum Foundation for the

Arts, a foundation dedicated to the development of

young musicians. Other important figures include

pianists Harold McKinney and Dr. Teddy Harris,

and drummer Roy Brooks.

The Ford Motor Company Fund is extremely

active in area philanthropy with a great portion of

its giving earmarked for the arts, culture and

education. In its effort to communicate the

importance of jazz music, Ford sponsors the FordDetroit Jazz Festival, the largest free-admission jazz

festival in the United States.

Detroit Jazz Online links to the Web pages of

local musicians, has an online CD store, and

publishes jazz-related articles. The feature most

helpful to local musicians, however, is the “Need a

Musician” musician request center, which helps area

artists find work in the local region.

The major jazz-oriented publications in the

region are the SEMJA Update, JAM Newsletter, Jazz

Quarterly, and the jazz calendar and listings of the

Detroit Metro Times.

Bomac’s Lounge.

The Ford-Detroit Jazz Festival, produced by

Music Hall Detroit, is the largest free jazz festival in

the country. Formerly known as the Ford-Montreux

Jazz Festival, it is held every Labor Day weekend, the

festival attracts around 750,000 people a year. The

festival typically features 20 nationally recognized

headliners and places a great deal of emphasis on

local artists as well. Along with area professional

musicians, the festival includes performances by

high school and college groups.

The SereNgeti Ballroom holds concerts

produced by the presenting organization, the

Jazznetwork. The concerts generally feature big

headliners but a local big band takes the stage once a

month and educational workshops are held every

Thursday night. Baker’s Keyboard Lounge has been

in operation since 1934. It has hosted jazz giants

such as Miles Davis, John Coltrane and Cab

Calloway, and now features both local and nationally

known artists. The venue is not unionized so both

union and non-union artists perform there and both

verbal and written contracts are used.

Jazz specialty stores are scarce in the Detroit

area and the large chains that carry jazz selections

such as Sam Goody, Borders Books and Music and

the Detroit-area chain Harmony House do not offer

a large stock. The independent record store Street

Corner Music is a major player in the area jazz scene

due to its efforts at promoting local and national

recording artists.

The only record labels that deal exclusively with

jazz are labels that musicians themselves have

formed for the sole purpose of recording their work.

AACE is owned by drummer Francisco Mora, Jazz

Workshop was started by University of Michigan

professor Donald Walden, and saxophonist Wendel

Harrison operates Wenha. School Kids, a label

affiliated with the record store of the same name,

went bankrupt and thus ended the only operating

non-musician-owned label in the Detroit area.

There are a number of formal jazz education

programs in the Detroit metropolitan area. Wayne

State University, Eastern Michigan University,

Oakland University, the University of Michigan, the

Jazz Network Foundation Education Programs, the

Education Department of Detroit Symphony

Orchestra and the Southeastern Michigan Jazz

Association all offer jazz- related programs.
71

The two major jazz-oriented radio programs in

the Detroit metro area are WDET FM 101.9 and

WEMU FM 89.1. WDET FM 101.9 is the local NPR

affiliate of Wayne State University.

The Jazz Alliance of Michigan was created to

provide for the growth of Michigan’s jazz

community. The Alliance’s Web site contains a list of

media resources for jazz, including publications,

radio and newspapers, links to recording studios,

sound equipment/engineers, venues for jazz, and

links to musicians.

NEW ORLEANS 

New Orleans is known for its music festivals and

the Jazz & Heritage Festival is the grandest of the

choices the city has to offer. The New Orleans

community recognizes the many benefits of this

popular event and the business community joins

ranks with the public sector to ensure the festival’s

success. Jazz specific nightclubs aren’t as plentiful as

one would expect in the New Orleans area. Of the

four major sites, Snug Harbor is the most respected

and well received. Ellis Marsalis regularly performs

at Snug Harbor with new talent from the area jazz

community. The other area mainstays are the Funky

Butt, Sweet Lorraine’s and Tipitina’s, which has

gravitated toward presenting more R&B-oriented

acts at its three locations. Other venues that present

jazz acts are the New Orleans Convention Center,

the Mahalia Jackson Theater for the Performing

Arts, the Masonic Temple Theater, Theater 13,

Orpheum Theatre, the Sandbar and the local

universities.

There are currently over 200 record labels

operating in the city of New Orleans. Of those

labels, only a handful are considered true players in

the jazz market. The best known of these labels are

All for One Records (AFO), Basin Street Records,

Louisiana Red Hot Records, and STR Digital

Records, all of which are independents.

The New Orleans metropolitan area is home to

over 100 record stores with the largest of these stores

coming in clusters. Barnes and Noble and Borders

Books and Records are both located in

unincorporated Jefferson Parish, an area 15 minutes

outside of New Orleans, while Tower Records and

Virgin Megastore stand within blocks of each other

in the French Quarter.

Many of the post-secondary institutions in the

New Orleans metropolitan area have developed solid

reputations for their music departments. The

University of New Orleans, Southern University,

Loyola University and Tulane University all have

music education programs that have distinguished

themselves in some manner. The Jazz Studies

Division within the Department of Music at The

University of New Orleans is led by legendary jazz

mentor Ellis Marsalis and is widely considered to be

one of the best university jazz programs in the

country. Similarly, Southern University’s Division of

Visual and Performing Arts is the professional home

of reed master Alvin Batiste, who has mentored

many of today’s leading jazz artists. Loyola

University’s jazz program is considered a close

second to that of the University of New Orleans.

Loyola has an esteemed music business program

that is directed in part by STR record label chief

Sanford Hinderlie and features Dr. Scott

Fredrickson, the recent appointee of the Conrad N.

Hilton Eminent Scholar in Music Industry Studies

award. Although Tulane University offers a jazz

studies program through its Department of Music at

Newcomb College, the school has received its

greatest acclaim from the jazz community for its

music library and archive. The William Ransom

Hogan Jazz Archive is curated by music historian

and musician Dr. Bruce B. Raeburn. The archive

contains material as diverse as transcribed oral

histories, historical manuscripts and sheet music,

and local union 174-496 records. The archive

attracts roughly 2,200 users a year and is primarily

funded through a “Friends of the Hogan Jazz

Archive” membership fund.

The New Orleans Center for the Creative Arts is

a New Orleans area performing arts high school

with a jazz division developed by Ellis Marsalis.

New Orleans has a healthy tradition of

mentoring that traces back to Louis Armstrong’s

work in developing young jazz artists. Today’s

mentors include Ellis Marsalis, patriarch of the

world famous Marsalis dynasty, Doc Pullian, Alvin

Batiste, the late Danny Barker and Jerry Brock. Aside

from the Marsalis dynasty, other family dynasties

include the Batistes and the Jordans.

The New Orleans jazz community receives a

good deal of financial support due in large part to a

concentrated effort on the part of local and national
72

traditions and keep the New Orleans jazz legacy

alive but, for many, jazz is tied to a nostalgia for a

day long past.

NEW YORK1

The New York metro area, and its other four

boroughs and tri-state (New York-New JerseyConnecticut) region, has the greatest concentration

of premiere jazz venues in the United States. It also

has a plethora of lower echelon venues, which may

present jazz irregularly, but remain significant to the

larger picture of potential employment for

musicians who identify themselves with “jazz.” New

York City’s venues range from Jazz at Lincoln

Center, the world’s leading not-for-profit

institutional producer of jazz concerts, dances,

lectures, films, multi-arts collaborations and

educational initiatives, to historic commercial

nightclubs such as the Village Vanguard. There are

innumerable larger and smaller, better and lesserknown, established or fleeting, jazz-dedicated or

jazz-tolerant stages.

Jazz at Lincoln Center presented 450 jazzoriented events in the 2000-2001season alone, and

plans to expand programming further upon moving

into an innovative multi-use building under

construction at Columbus Circle, scheduled for

completion by the end of 2003. Led by artistic

director Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center

promotes a canon founded on the work of such

artists as Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington,

concentrating as well on early New Orleans jazz,

black swing traditions of the 1930s and ‘40s, bebop

and post-bop modernism, and Latin jazz; it also

presents a variety of traditional and modern jazz

sub-genres. Jazz at Lincoln Center often features

artists challenging jazz conventions in smaller

settings and/or auxiliary events.

Carnegie Hall, unlike Jazz at Lincoln Center, is

not a jazz producer-presenter, although it may be

New York City’s most famous concert facility. The

concert hall’s staff has worked in conjunction with

Fleet Bank to produce the Neighborhood Concert

series, has held jazz workshops for teachers, and the

agencies to preserve the romanticized history of the

port city. Local agencies include the Louisiana Music

Commission, the New Orleans Jazz Centennial, and

the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Foundation.

The state and national agencies that work to

support the New Orleans area jazz community are

the Preservation Resource Center of New Orleans,

the New Orleans Jazz National Resource Park, and

the Louisiana Division of the Arts. New Orleans

talent agencies and work referral agencies are Jazz

Film & Video, the Louisiana Department of Labor/

Louisiana Job Service and Summer Stage. Union

Local 174-496 supports New Orleans-area musicians

with a number of services including legal assistance

and health care.

Jazz and other forms of local music are

commonly used for the purpose of tourism in New

Orleans. The national tourism commercial for New

Orleans, “Come Join the Parade,” features a relative

of the New Orleans-based group The Neville

Brothers seated at a bar while jazz is playing. In

addition, there are 10 advertising agencies in the

area that specialize in music.

The two top major jazz and jazz-related music

stations in the area are WWOZ 90.7 FM and

WWNO 89.9 FM. WWOZ 90.7 is a listener

supported and volunteer-operated station that

reaches the entire New Orleans metro area and

beyond. The station offers award winning

programming that includes jazz, blues, Cajun,

zydeco, gospel, Brazilian and Caribbean music on its

play list. In addition to the awards the station has

garnered, WWOZ 90.7 was named “Best Medium

Market Jazz Station of the Year” by the Gavin

Report, the major radio-industry programming

magazine.

Since jazz and other local music traditions are

integral to the image of New Orleans, it is of the first

priority that the city is able to cultivate an audience

for its musicians. However, with tourism being the

biggest crutch for an ailing economy, much of the

city’s audience development efforts are not centered

on area residents or concerned with fostering new

generations of local musicians. There are still storied

mentors and institutions that carry on local

1 This section of this report was prepared with the help of the four City Coordinators and Project Coordinator, Phillip Harvey. In

New York, contributors include Howard Mandel (primary author), Martin Mueller. Bethany Ryker, James Browne, Wendy

Oxenhorn, Reverend Dale Lind, Natasha Jackson and Jeff Levinson.
73

facility has hosted jazz concerts initiated by

independent, outside producers. George Wein is the

most prominent among these producers, active

internationally though based in New York City. His

Festival Productions is responsible for the annual

JVC Jazz Festival, Saratoga Jazz Festival, Verizon Jazz

Festival, and the Newport Jazz Festival (which he

founded in 1954); Festival Productions also

produces the Carnegie Hall Jazz Orchestra, led by

trumpeter Jon Faddis, which presented four

evening-long programs at Carnegie Hall during

2000-2001.

Jazzmobile, Inc., founded in 1964 by Dr. Billy

Taylor to “provide arts education programs of the

highest quality via workshops, master classes, lecture

demonstrations, arts enrichment programs, outdoor

summer mobile concerts, special indoor concerts

and special projects,” is a not-for-profit organization

without a performance home base, estimating

outreach to over 250,000 people in and around New

York City’s boroughs, with approximately 600 artists

participating annually. Jazz at Flushing Town Hall, in

Flushing, Queens, is a relatively new not-for-profit

institution presenting high quality mainstream jazz

in an active schedule of events at an outer-borough

(non-Manhattan) cultural center. 651 Arts is a notfor-profit organization staging jazz events on an

occasional basis at Brooklyn Academy of Music and

BAM’s Majestic Theater. Henry Street Settlement is a

smaller yet well-established, not-for-profit jazz

performance and education center on Manhattan’s

lower east side. New Jersey Performing Arts Center

(Newark) is a newly built major concert hall, hosting

a regular season of jazz and world-music

performances. John Harms Center is another New

Jersey concert venue that serves as a rental for

outside producers presenting some jazz.

Other not-for-profit arts institutions presenting

jazz on various regular schedules include the Jazz

Gallery, the Kitchen Center for Music Video and

Dance, Aaron Davis Hall at City College of New

York, the Studio Museum of Harlem, the

Guggenheim Museum, and the Tillis Center on the

C.W. Post campus of Long Island University.

Not-for-profit jazz festivals and series in New

York City parks and public spaces include the Vision

Festival (two weeks of concerts curated by a

volunteer artist-musician-choreographer board); the

Charlie Parker Jazz Festival (two afternoon-long free

bebop concerts, in Harlem and East Village

Manhattan public parks); the City-produced Central

Park Summerstage series; the free Brooklyn Prospect

Park Bandshell series; free Lincoln Center Out of

Doors concerts and Midsummer’s Night Swing

(plaza dancing, some tickets sold); and the Music

Under New York program in the subways,

administered by the Metropolitan Transportation

Authority.

Profit-oriented or privately-subsidized festivals

include the Verizon Music Festival, J&R Music World

Jazz Festival, the Caramoor Jazz Festival

(Westchester County), the Cape May Jazz Festival,

the New Jersey Jazz Society festival (mostly

traditional jazz) in Stanhope, NJ, the Blues Cruise

(concerts on boats on the Hudson River), and Mark

Morganelli’s series of jazz concerts — usually

promoted under the banner JazzForum Arts —

mostly in suburban New York City and surrounding

towns.

Saint Peter’s Church has been recognized by the

Lutheran Synod of New York since 1956 for its jazz

ministry, including presentation of jazz in a spiritual

setting. St. Peters helped found International

Women in Jazz, a 200-member organization

presenting monthly concerts and occasional

workshops.

Of New York City’s famed nightclub scene: The

Blue Note opened in New York in 1981 and has

franchise outlets in Japan. The Village Vanguard was

established in 1935 by Max Gordon, late husband of

current owner Lorraine Gordon, and has been

renowned for booking jazz giants since the 1950s.

The Knitting Factory has presented jazz amid a

range of cutting edge (“downtown”) music for more

than a decade, currently at a bustling three-stage and

multi-media performance/recording facility with

multiple bars (it also has a restaurant-performance

center branch in Los Angeles). Iridium and Birdland

are major midtown Manhattan jazz clubs, with

week-long schedules presenting first rank jazz

musicians.

The Musician’s Union Local 802 is a source of

information on some aspects of venue-related

activities. An important distinction exists between

venues that offer “steady” as opposed to “occasional”

employment for jazz musicians. Corporate functions

such as noontime summer plaza concerts, and

uncounted “club dates,” private parties, weddings,
74

The New Jersey Performing Arts Center also

supports young people’s jazz programs, including

Jazz For Teens, an annual 10-week seminar for

musicians and singers learning jazz.

Several professional firms offer an array of

support services to jazz musicians but it should be

noted that most professional support services

represent an overhead cost to jazz musicians, and

the majority of them do not employ a professional

support staff.

The New York State Council on the Arts

(NYSCA) is one of the best-funded of all states arts

agencies and has given both direct and indirect

support to jazz-related projects. Recent recipients

include Jazzmobile, Jazz at Lincoln Center, Sixteen as

One, Inc. (Vanguard Jazz Orchestra) and the 92nd

Street YMHA, among others.

However, in comparison with the situation 10

years ago, there are at present few fellowships

awarded directly to jazz musicians — either from

NYSCA, the New York Foundation for the Arts

(NYFA), Meet the Composer, the Rockefeller

Foundation, the Lila Wallace/Readers Digest

Foundation or the National Endowment for the Arts

(NEA). An important fellowship program available

to jazz musicians directly in 2000-2001 was a onetime award of financial assistance and career

development consultation from the Doris Duke

Foundation to some two dozen musicians,

administered by Chamber Music America.

Lack of public and/or private funding has not

stopped musicians themselves from banding

together to improve their prospects and raise their

profiles in a crowded, competitive market, or address

urgent, immediate needs. The Musicians Union

(Local 802) has both MAP — Musician’s Assistance

Program, for union members in dire emergencies —

and MPTF, the Music Performer’s Trust Fund, which

matches 50/50 funds from qualified (mostly social

service) organizations hiring jazz musicians. The

Association for the Advancement of Creative

Musicians (AACM) is a not-for-profit musicians’

organization of approximately 200 members,

founded in Chicago in 1964, with an active New

York City chapter since the mid-1980s. Art Attack!, a

Website run by Margaret Davis, provides a breadth

of information about work, housing, insurance, food

and other necessities to anyone who finds it online.

The Jazz Foundation of America, run from offices at

performances in hospitals, retirement centers, parks,

libraries, community centers and churches also serve

to employ jazz-identified musicians.

New York City (specifically, Manhattan) is the

site of major offices for all five of the world’s major

recording companies (Japan’s Sony, Germany’s

BMG, France’s Universal Music Group, America’s

Warner Bros., the UK’s Capitol/EMI), and the city

has a number of subsidiary labels that specialize in

signing jazz musicians. The creative and receptive

energy of the community of musicians and listeners

most deeply involved with jazz has also given rise,

out of vague necessity, to at least a dozen smaller,

independent record labels. There are uncounted

artist-owned and -operated labels, too. New York

City is also a longtime center of music businesses

including but not limited to music publishing,

artists’ services (such as licensing organizations

ASCAP and BMI), copyist work, record retailers,

instrument repair shops and retailers.

An incredible concentration of institutions of

higher education and status as the jazz capital of the

world make New York City the mecca for those

seeking an education in jazz. The New School

University employs 72 jazz artists as

educators/mentors in a bachelor’s degree model

intended to pass down oral and playing traditions to

students, preparing them for the technical, artistic

and professional demands of a performance career

in jazz. The program’s part-time faculty are

unionized through Local 802, American Federation

of Musicians, a unique and unprecedented example

of collective rights organizing on behalf of

musicians in education.

The Manhattan School of Music offers a jazz

curriculum that focuses on the students as

performers, composers and educators in the presentday jazz market. The Juilliard School, in conjunction

with Jazz at Lincoln Center, has established an Artist

Diploma jazz education program that will feature a

broad jazz and classical music-based curriculum.

Young artists are also supported through the

important work of the major cultural institutions

that specialize in the preservation of jazz. Jazz at

Lincoln Center is a leader in presenting numerous

programs for young people, including the Essentially

Ellington High School Jazz Band Competition and

Festival, and in creating a Jazz for Young People

Curriculum, which will be distributed nationally.
75

the Musicians’ Union Local 802, is a private not-forprofit providing emergency care, including housing,

health and dental care and career counseling to

musicians in crisis.

WBGO-FM is the area’s lone 24-hour radio

station featuring straight-ahead jazz programming,

though there is also extensive jazz broadcasting on

WKCR-FM (Columbia University), WFMU-FM

(Jersey City, NJ), WHRT (Hartford, CT) and

National Public Radio broadcasts heard on WNYCFM and AM (NYC), among other affiliates. There is

also CD101.9-FM, a popular, commercially

supported 24-hour “jazz lite” station.

SAN FRANCISCO 

In addition to the nationally recognized SF Jazz

presenting organization, the San Francisco area is

home to a plethora of venues for jazz. These outlets

run the gamut from restaurants and festivals to

street fairs and churches. Yoshi’s, a nationally known

jazz venue, pulls double duty as a highly regarded

Japanese restaurant and sushi bar and soundstage

for local and big-name jazz musicians.

The Monterey Jazz Festival is one of the largest

jazz- based festivals in existence. It features over 600

artists who perform at seven different venues across

the Bay Area. Programming for the festival is

characterized by a variety of jazz styles and idioms

from local and internationally well known artists

The Church of St. John Coltrane is an African

Orthodox Church that incorporates jazz into its

Sunday worship services and recognizes saxophone

legend John Coltrane as a saint. The church features

a five-piece house band that sets the liturgy to

selections from Coltrane’s musical canon.

The Kuumba Jazz Center is a non-profit

presenting organization that has been hosting

weekly jazz performances for 25 years. It operates its

own venue and offers big name performers on

Monday nights and local musicians on Friday

nights. In addition, the center operates music

workshops and a camp for young people and rents

its space to other community cultural organizations.

The San Francisco Bay Area is home to a variety

of small and independent record labels, several of

which specialize in jazz. Of the independent labels

that deal primarily with the jazz idiom, Noir Records

and Concord Records are the most active. In

addition to ubiquitous retail giants Tower Records,

Virgin Megastore and Borders Books and Music, the

San Francisco area is home to a number of jazz

specialty stores. Many of these specialty stores sell

new and classic releases as well as collectible vinyl. A

few work with major distributors and some carry

the work of local artists on a consignment basis. Of

the independent specialty stores, Berigan’s, The Jazz

Quarter, and the SF Jazz store are the most

prominent. Berigan’s deals mainly with record

companies that buy from major distributors and

then sell to small record stores. The store is a strong

supporter of local artists. Charles Hamilton directs

the highly regarded Berkeley High School Jazz

Program, which has established itself as a valuable

resource for the continuation of the jazz legacy. At

the university level, San Francisco State University

boasts a strong reputation for attracting up-andcoming musicians. The JazzSchool is a community

school that was founded by its current director,

Susan Muscarella. Course offerings are intended for

students of all ages, levels of expertise and

instrument preference. There are also a number of

individuals who are regarded as important resources

for the jazz community. These mentors include

Professor Bill Bell, John Handy, Earl Watkins, Ed

Kelly, E.W. Wainwright, Khalil, Yancey Taylor, Jules

Broussard, Eddie Marshall and Harley White.

Some of the major funders who are active in the

San Francisco area are the California Arts Council,

See’s Candy, the Infiniti Division of Nissan North

America, Tower Records and the San Francisco

Traditional Jazz Foundation. Another important

support entity for the jazz community in Northern

California is The David and Lucile Packard

Foundation. Created in 1964 by David Packard and

Lucile Salter Packard, the Foundation supports

performing and visual arts institutions along with its

many other philanthropic concerns.

Due in large part to its proximity to Silicon

Valley, San Francisco area musicians are unusually

savvy in regard to the creation and maintenance of

jazz -related Web sites and online publications.

Eighty-five percent of local musicians, including

students in jazz studies programs, have personal

Web sites. Additionally, nearly every jazz-oriented

venue and festival has a Web site. In addition to the

online publication Jazzwest.com, Jazz Now and the

Palo Alto Jazz Alliance Newsletter are area-based
76

cable television channel BET-on-Jazz is available to

viewers in the Bay Area as well.

SF Jazz presents a film series entitled Jazz on

Film during the San Francisco Jazz Festival and the

SF Jazz spring season. The series features archival

footage of legendary performers, concerts and events

that have contributed to the development of the

music.

publications that cater to a jazz audience. Radio

station KCSM FM 91.1 is the major jazz radio

station in the San Francisco metropolitan area,

having received this designation due to the fact that

it is the only station that has a 24-hour jazz format.

Other stations that feature jazz in their playlists

include KPFA, KUSF, KKSF, and KBLX. KKSF and

KBLX concentrate on appealing to the

contemporary jazz market. The nationally broadcast
77

Appendix C

1. Do you ever play or sing jazz music?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% 98.3%

Number 638 109 243 286

 no Percent 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7%

Number 5 0 0 5

missing 31 1 21 9

total # of respondents who answered this question 643 109 243 291

2. If no, do you play or sing any other kind of music

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 classical Percent 37.0% 33.3% 46.2% 33.3%

Number 17 4 6 7

 other (please specify) Percent 63.0% 66.7% 53.8% 66.7%

Number 29 8 7 14

missing 628 98 251 279

total # of respondents who answered the question 46 12 13 21

3. What is your primary instrument?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 alto sax Percent 6.1% 4.5% 7.2% 5.7%

Number 41 5 19 17

 banjo Percent 0.7% 3.6% 0.0% 0.3%

Number 5 4 0 1

 baritone sax Percent 0.6% 1.8% 0.4% 0.3%

Number 4 2 1 1

 bass Percent 11.4% 13.6% 11.0% 11.0%

Number 77 15 29 33

 bass clarinet Percent 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

Number 1 0 1 0

 cello Percent 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

Number 1 0 1 0

 clarinet Percent 1.9% 5.5% 1.9% 0.7%

Number 13 6 5 2

 cornet Percent 0.9% 3.6% 0.0% 0.7%

Number 6 4 0 2

 drums Percent 12.5% 10.9% 11.0% 14.3%

Number 84 12 29 43

 effects ( washboard, whistles, etc.) Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 flugelhorn Percent 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

Number 3 0 0 3
78

 flute Percent 1.6% 0.0% 2.7% 1.3%

Number 11 074

 guitar Percent 9.1% 11.8% 4.9% 11.7%

Number 61 13 13 35

 harmonica Percent 0.3% 0.9% 0.0% 0.3%

Number 2 1 0 1

 percussion Percent 1.3% 0.9% 1.5% 1.3%

Number 9 1 4 4

 piano/ keyboard Percent 14.4% 10.9% 15.2% 15.0%

Number 97 12 40 45

 saxophone Percent 11.1% 9.1% 12.5% 10.7%

Number 75 10 33 32

 trombone Percent 4.5% 1.8% 4.9% 5.0%

Number 30 2 13 15

 trumpet Percent 6.8% 7.3% 6.1% 7.3%

Number 46 8 16 22

 tuba Percent 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3%

Number 2 0 1 1

 vibraphone Percent 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

Number 1 0 1 0

 violin Percent 1.2% 1.8% 1.1% 1.0%

Number 8 2 3 3

 voice Percent 11.3% 10.0% 14.4% 9.0%

Number 76 11 38 27

 xylophone Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 other (please specify) Percent 3.1% 1.8% 3.8% 3.0%

Number 21 2 10 9

missing 0 0 0 0

total # of respondents who answered the question 674 110 264 300

4. In what style do you play this instrument?*

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 avant-garde Percent 30.0% 27.3% 25.0% 35.3%

Number 202 30 66 106

 acid jazz Percent 15.7% 18.2% 2.7% 26.3%

Number 106 20 7 79

 blues Percent 35.5% 52.7% 9.5% 52.0%

Number 239 58 25 156

 boogie-woogie/honky-tonk Percent 9.3% 20.9% 2.3% 11.3%

Number 63 23 6 34

 bop Percent 44.4% 50.9% 22.3% 61.3%

Number 299 56 59 184

 contemporary Percent 33.7% 46.4% 15.5% 45.0%

Number 227 51 41 135
79

 cool Percent 26.3% 34.5% 4.2% 42.7%

Number 177 38 11 128

 free jazz Percent 34.6% 37.3% 25.0% 42.0%

Number 233 41 66 126

 funk Percent 32.9% 54.5% 8.0% 47.0%

Number 222 60 21 141

 fusion Percent 22.4% 32.7% 6.8% 32.3%

Number 151 36 18 97

 hard bop Percent 29.4% 30.9% 8.7% 47.0%

Number 198 34 23 141

 Latin Percent 36.5% 43.6% 11.7% 55.7%

Number 246 48 31 167

 mainstream Percent 31.0% 40.0% 20.5% 37.0%

Number 209 44 54 111

 regional style (please specify) Percent 11.1% 34.5% 6.8% 6.3%

Number 75 38 18 19

 rhythm and blues Percent 27.6% 51.8% 6.1% 37.7%

Number 186 57 16 113

 scat Percent 8.2% 8.2% 2.3% 13.3%

Number 55 9 6 40

 ragtime/stride piano Percent 6.5% 10.9% 3.0% 8.0%

Number 44 12 8 24

 swing Percent 39.5% 64.5% 14.8% 52.0%

Number 266 71 39 156

 traditional Percent 40.1% 65.5% 35.2% 35.0%

Number 270 72 93 105

 world music Percent 18.7% 16.4% 9.8% 27.3%

Number 126 18 26 82

 other (please specify) Percent 30.6% 15.5% 52.7% 16.7%

Number 206 17 139 50

total # of respondents who answered the question 110 264 300

5. What other instruments do you also play?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 alto sax Percent 7.7% 12.7% 4.2% 9.0%

Number 52 14 11 27

 banjo Percent 1.6% 3.6% 0.8% 1.7%

Number 114 25

 baritone sax Percent 5.6% 8.2% 2.3% 7.7%

Number 38 9 6 23

 bass Percent 10.7% 10.0% 6.8% 14.3%

Number 72 11 18 43

 bass clarinet Percent 4.0% 6.4% 3.8% 3.3%

Number 27 7 10 10

 cello Percent 1.6% 3.6% 0.8% 1.7%
80

Number 114 25

 clarinet Percent 9.1% 10.9% 11.7% 6.0%

Number 61 12 31 18

 cornet Percent 2.5% 3.6% 0.0% 4.3%

Number 17 4 0 13

 drums Percent 10.4% 10.0% 7.2% 13.3%

Number 70 11 19 40

 effects ( washboard, whistles, etc.) Percent 2.4% 3.6% 0.8% 3.3%

Number 16 4 2 10

 flugelhorn Percent 3.6% 2.7% 2.3% 5.0%

Number 24 3 6 15

 flute Percent 11.9% 10.9% 16.7% 8.0%

Number 80 12 44 24

 guitar Percent 14.5% 15.5% 6.8% 21.0%

Number 98 17 18 63

 harmonica Percent 3.0% 3.6% 1.1% 4.3%

Number 20 4 3 13

 percussion Percent 12.3% 14.5% 9.8% 13.7%

Number 83 16 26 41

 piano/ keyboard Percent 33.5% 35.5% 30.3% 35.7%

Number 226 39 80 107

 saxophone Percent 6.4% 9.1% 5.3% 6.3%

Number 43 10 14 19

 trombone Percent 3.0% 2.7% 2.3% 3.7%

Number 20 3 6 11

 trumpet Percent 4.2% 2.7% 2.7% 6.0%

Number 28 3 7 18

 tuba Percent 2.1% 3.6% 2.3% 1.3%

Number 14 4 6 4

 vibraphone Percent 2.2% 2.7% 1.5% 2.7%

Number 15 3 4 8

 violin Percent 0.7% 1.8% 0.8% 0.3%

Number 5 2 2 1

 voice Percent 10.8% 10.0% 9.1% 12.7%

Number 73 11 24 38

 xylophone Percent 0.7% 0.9% 0.0% 1.3%

Number 5 1 0 4

 other (please specify) Percent 14.1% 9.1% 22.7% 8.3%

Number 95 10 60 25

total # of respondents who answered the question 674 110 264 300
81

6. How many jazz musicians do you know by name in this metro area who also know you?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

mean 134 108 224 66

median 100 100 150 30

std. dev. 150 86 176 93

mode 100 100 100 100

valid cases 623 104 243 276

missing 51 6 21 24

7. Of these jazz musicians you know by name in this metro area who also know you, how many are:

Total

New

Orleans

New

York

San

Francisco

25 years or younger

mean 31 44 38 20

median 15 20 20 10

std. dev. 78 153 47 50

mode 10 20 10 5

valid cases 549 94 219 236

missing 125 16 45 64

Women

mean 25 10 46 11

median 10 8 25 5

std. dev. 49 13 65 30

mode 5 5 10 5

valid cases 585 96 241 248

missing 89 14 23 52

American Indian or Alaska Native

mean 2 12 1

median 0 0 0 0

std. dev. 4 1 5 4

mode 0 0 0 0

valid cases 225 46 79 100

missing 449 64 185 200

Asian

mean 11 4 18 5

median 5 3 10 3

std. dev. 18 4 24 7

mode 10 2 10 2

valid cases 494 74 227 193

missing 180 36 37 107

Black or African American

mean

median 64 50 107 28

std. dev. 30 40 60 10

mode 1 104 35 132 72

mode 2 50 50 100 5
82

valid cases 580 93 235 252

missing 94 17 29 48

Hispanic or Latino

mean 22 8 35 13

median 10 5 20 5

std. dev. 43 7 57 23

mode 5 10 5 5

valid cases 471 72 221 178

missing 203 38 43 122

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

mean 2 11 2

median 0 0 0 1

std. dev. 4 5 3 3

mode 0 0 0 0

valid cases 192 38 56 98

missing 482 72 208 202

White

mean 67 60 106 33

median 37 40 63 16

std. dev. 105 136 111 66

mode 1 50 50 50 10

mode 2

valid cases 568 91 232 245

missing 106 19 32 55

total # of respondents who answered this question 674 110 264 300

8. If you consider yourself a jazz musician, do you also play or sing at non-jazz events?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 100.0% 100.0% 92.1% 100.0%

Number 508 108 116 274

 no Percent 0.0% 0.0% 7.9% 0.0%

Number 166 2 10 26

missing 166 2 138 26

total # of respondents who answered the question 508 108 264 274

9. If yes, what kind

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 bar mitzvahs Percent 13.6% 20.9% 5.3% 18.3%

Number 92 23 14 55

 Broadway Percent 11.4% 18.2% 5.7% 14.0%

Number 77 20 15 42

 cafes/restaurants Percent 54.2% 67.3% 40.2% 61.7%

Number 365 74 106 185

 celebrations Percent 34.9% 50.0% 7.6% 53.3%
83

Number 235 55 20 160

 church events Percent 32.0% 58.2% 16.3% 36.3%

Number 216 64 43 109

 clubs Percent 53.7% 75.5% 33.0% 64.0%

Number 362 83 87 192

 concerts Percent 48.1% 75.5% 29.9% 54.0%

Number 324 83 79 162

 educational workshops Percent 29.8% 51.8% 11.7% 37.7%

Number 201 57 31 113

 family events Percent 24.0% 40.0% 2.7% 37.0%

Number 162 44 7 111

 festivals Percent 39.5% 70.9% 17.4% 47.3%

Number 266 78 46 142

 funerals Percent 17.1% 43.6% 4.9% 18.0%

Number 115 48 13 54

 industrials Percent 13.1% 22.7% 6.8% 15.0%

Number 88 25 18 45

 parties Percent 47.5% 76.4% 24.6% 57.0%

Number 320 84 65 171

 private functions (benefits, corporate) Percent 47.2% 75.5% 23.9% 57.3%

Number 318 83 63 172

 promotional events/showcases Percent 23.4% 45.5% 4.9% 31.7%

Number 158 50 13 95

 record deals Percent 13.9% 40.0% 2.3% 14.7%

Number 94 44 6 44

 movies Percent 12.0% 26.4% 3.4% 14.3%

Number 81 29 9 43

 theatres Percent 18.1% 30.9% 8.3% 22.0%

Number 122 34 22 66

 weddings Percent 43.3% 76.4% 15.5% 55.7%

Number 292 84 41 167

 other (please specify) Percent 27.2% 10.0% 54.5% 9.3%

Number 183 11 144 28

total # of respondents who answered the question 110 264 300

10. How many hours per day do you spend practicing music?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

mean 3 33 3

median 2 2 2 2

std. dev. 4 3 4 5

mode 2 2 2 2

valid cases 590 103 209 278

missing 84 7 55 22
84

11. How many hours per week do you spend writing music?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

mean 5 664

median 3 3 4 2

std. dev. 7 10 7 6

mode 0 0 2 0

valid cases 503 89 159 255

missing 171 21 105 45

12. From which occupation did you earn your major income in the last 12 months?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 musician Percent 51.5% 82.7% 56.4% 35.7%

Number 347 91 149 107

 music teacher Percent 11.1% 13.6% 8.0% 13.0%

Number 75 15 21 39

 jazz teacher Percent 6.5% 4.5% 6.8% 7.0%

Number 44 5 18 21

 arts manager or administrator Percent 1.0% 0.0% 0.8% 1.7%

Number 7025

 other music-related occupation Percent 7.9% 4.5% 8.7% 8.3%

Number 53 5 23 25

 non-music related occupation Percent 24.2% 3.6% 18.9% 36.3%

Number 163 4 50 109

 other Percent 10.7% 6.4% 5.3% 17.0%

Number 72 7 14 51

total # of respondents who answered this question 674 110 264 300

13. At present, what is your employment situation?

Total

New

Orleans

New

York

San

Francisco

 I am employed full time in the music business Percent 28.0% 65.5% 17.0% 24.0%

Number 189 72 45 72

 I am employed full-time NOT in the music business Percent 13.1% 4.5% 6.8% 21.7%

Number 88 5 18 65

 I am employed part-time in the music business Percent 6.2% 2.7% 1.5% 11.7%

Number 42 3 4 35

 I am employed full-time as a freelancer in the music

business Percent 27.3% 30.0% 49.6% 6.7%

Number 184 33 131 20

 I am employed part-time as a freelancer in the music

business Percent 12.8% 3.6% 12.9% 16.0%

Number 86 4 34 48
85

 I am unemployed Percent 5.2% 0.0% 1.9% 10.0%

Number 35 0 5 30

 I am retired Percent 3.3% 1.8% 2.3% 4.7%

Number 22 2 6 14

 other (other) Percent 11.0% 2.7% 10.6% 14.3%

Number 74 3 28 43

total # of respondents who answered this question

(including refusals & don't knows) 674 110 264 300

14. Do you work regularly with a specific group of musicians?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 79.5% 89.1% 76.8% 78.3%

Number 524 98 199 227

 no Percent 20.5% 10.9% 23.2% 21.7%

Number 135 12 60 63

missing 15 0 5 10

total # of respondents who answered the question 659 110 259 290

15. Approximately how many different musical jobs do you play a month?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

mean 10 17 9 7

median 8 16 7 5

std. dev. 8 9 7 6

mode 20 20 4 2

valid cases 620 109 250 261

missing 54 1 14 39

16. What percentage of your income comes from your music?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 none Percent 8.1% 0.0% 2.3% 16.3%

Number 53 0 6 47

 25% or less Percent 24.3% 6.4% 21.9% 33.3%

Number 159 7 56 96

 between 26% and 50% Percent 11.9% 6.4% 13.3% 12.8%

Number 78 7 34 37

 between 51% and 75% Percent 8.7% 10.1% 6.6% 10.1%

Number 57 11 17 29

 between 76% and 99% Percent 10.6% 19.3% 8.6% 9.0%
86

Number 69 21 22 26

 100% Percent 36.3% 57.8% 47.3% 18.4%

Number 237 63 121 53

missing 21 1 8 12

total # of respondents who answered this question 653 109 256 288

17. Do you have more than one job?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes Percent 63.0% 49.5% 80.3% 53.5%

Number 391 52 188 151

 no Percent 37.0% 50.5% 19.7% 46.5%

Number 230 53 46 131

missing 53 5 30 18

total # of respondents who answered the

question 621 105 234 282

18. If yes, what are the other jobs?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 musician Percent 39.8% 19.1% 65.5% 24.7%

Number 268 21 173 74

 music teacher Percent 24.0% 21.8% 35.2% 15.0%

Number 162 24 93 45

 jazz teacher Percent 14.1% 7.3% 20.1% 11.3%

Number 95 8 53 34

 arts manager or administrator Percent 1.3% 2.7% 1.1% 1.0%

Number 9333

 other music-related occupation Percent 14.2% 13.6% 23.1% 6.7%

Number 96 15 61 20

 non-music related occupation Percent 16.0% 9.1% 21.2% 14.0%

Number 108 10 56 42

 other Percent 5.9% 3.6% 3.0% 9.3%

Number 40 4 8 28

missing

total # of respondents who answered this question 674 110 264 300

19. If you have other employment, which one of the following statements best describes your feelings

about the relationship between your music and your other employment at this point in your career.

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes Percent 63.0% 49.5% 80.3% 53.5%

Number 391 52 188 151

 no Percent 37.0% 50.5% 19.7% 46.5%
87

Number 230 53 46 131

missing 53 5 30 18

total # of respondents who answered the

question 621 105 234 282

20. Approximately how many hours per week do you spend on your music or music-related activities

(including performing, looking for work, marketing etc.)

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 0-10 hours per week valid % 10.9% 7.5% 3.4% 18.4%

frequency 67 8 8 51

 11-20 hours per week valid % 16.0% 17.8% 8.6% 21.7%

frequency 99 19 20 60

 21-30 hours per week valid % 18.2% 15.9% 13.3% 23.1%

frequency 112 17 31 64

 31-40 hours per week valid % 21.7% 23.4% 27.0% 16.6%

frequency 134 25 63 46

 over 40 hours per week valid % 33.2% 35.5% 47.6% 20.2%

frequency 205 38 111 56

missing 57 3 31 23

total # of respondents who answered this question 617 107 233 277

21. Approximately how many hours per week do you spend in your other or supplementary employment?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 0-10 hours per week Percent 38.3% 59.7% 31.8% 36.3%

Number 165 37 41 87

 11-20 hours per week Percent 15.3% 12.9% 19.4% 13.8%

Number 66 8 25 33

 21-30 hours per week Percent 17.4% 9.7% 21.7% 17.1%

Number 75 6 28 41

 31-40 hours per week Percent 17.4% 11.3% 19.4% 17.9%

Number 75 7 25 43

 over 40 hours per week Percent 11.6% 6.5% 7.8% 15.0%

Number 50 4 10 36

missing 243 48 135 60

total # of respondents who answered this question 431 62 129 240

22. Where did you first get inspired by music?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 church Percent 10.6% 18.2% 5.4% 12.4%

Number 71 20 14 37
88

 community center Percent 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%

Number 2 0 0 2

 festival Percent 1.6% 2.7% 0.8% 2.0%

Number 11 326

 film Percent 0.9% 2.7% 0.0% 1.0%

Number 6 3 0 3

 friends Percent 9.7% 11.8% 3.8% 14.1%

Number 65 13 10 42

 home Percent 37.1% 29.1% 47.1% 31.2%

Number 248 32 123 93

 Internet Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 live performance Percent 6.1% 6.4% 6.1% 6.0%

Number 41 7 16 18

 private music teacher Percent 2.1% 1.8% 1.1% 3.0%

Number 14 2 3 9

 radio Percent 7.9% 7.3% 7.3% 8.7%

Number 53 8 19 26

 recordings Percent 7.5% 6.4% 9.2% 6.4%

Number 50 7 24 19

 relatives Percent 3.0% 3.6% 0.8% 4.7%

Number 20 4 2 14

 school Percent 7.3% 8.2% 7.7% 6.7%

Number 49 9 20 20

 television Percent 0.9% 0.0% 1.5% 0.7%

Number 6 0 4 2

 workshop Percent 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

Number 1 0 1 0

 other Percent 4.8% 1.8% 8.8% 2.3%

Number 32 2 23 7

missing 5 0 3 2

total # of respondents who answered the question 669 110 261 298

23. What experiences provided you with early encouragement for your music?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 apprenticeship/internship Percent 3.1% 2.7% 0.8% 5.3%

Number 21 3 2 16

 award Percent 5.6% 12.7% 1.9% 6.3%

Number 38 14 5 19
89

 critical review Percent 3.9% 5.5% 1.1% 5.7%

Number 26 6 3 17

 family attention Percent 41.1% 45.5% 34.8% 45.0%

Number 277 50 92 135

 financial support Percent 3.3% 3.6% 0.4% 5.7%

Number 22 4 1 17

 influence of other musicians' work Percent 37.5% 50.0% 21.6% 47.0%

Number 253 55 57 141

 my music was recorded Percent 3.1% 5.5% 0.4% 4.7%

Number 21 6 1 14

 mentor Percent 12.3% 18.2% 3.0% 18.3%

Number 83 20 8 55

 peer approval Percent 27.0% 29.1% 14.8% 37.0%

Number 182 32 39 111

 playing in the streets Percent 8.9% 7.3% 3.8% 14.0%

Number 60 8 10 42

 public performance Percent 22.8% 35.5% 2.7% 36.0%

Number 154 39 7 108

 sale of my music Percent 2.5% 4.5% 0.0% 4.0%

Number 17 5 0 12

 teacher(s) Percent 30.9% 42.7% 12.1% 43.0%

Number 208 47 32 129

 winning competitions(s) Percent 7.1% 15.5% 0.8% 9.7%

Number 48 17 2 29

 other Percent 17.5% 9.1% 26.1% 13.0%

Number 118 10 69 39

missing

total # of respondents who answered the question 674 110 264 300

24. If you taught music or currently teach music during your career, what was your major motivation for

teaching?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 earning money Percent 24.8% 32.7% 18.6% 27.3%

Number 167 36 49 82

 love to teach Percent 20.8% 19.1% 12.9% 28.3%

Number 140 21 34 85

 importance of passing on my knowledge and

experiences Percent 25.2% 29.1% 24.2% 24.7%

Number 170 32 64 74

 importance of leaving a legacy Percent 3.4% 3.6% 0.0% 6.3%

Number 23 4 0 19
90

 benefits (health insurance, etc.) Percent 1.5% 2.7% 0.8% 1.7%

Number 10 3 2 5

 facilities ofr making music Percent 1.8% 2.7% 0.8% 2.3%

Number 12 3 2 7

 staying in touch with people and ideas Percent 8.9% 17.3% 4.2% 10.0%

Number 60 19 11 30

 other Percent 14.8% 5.5% 30.3% 4.7%

Number 100 6 80 14

total # of respondents who answered the question 674 110 264 300

25. If you have been a mentor to another musician or artist, how important is mentoring to your ongoing

artistic development?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 very important Percent 49.7% 52.4% 47.3% 51.4%

Number 245 44 107 94

 somewhat important Percent 11.2% 19.0% 7.1% 12.6%

Number 55 16 16 23

 important Percent 20.1% 15.5% 25.2% 15.8%

Number 99 13 57 29

 not important Percent 2.8% 4.8% 2.2% 2.7%

Number 14 4 5 5

 meaningless Percent 0.8% 1.2% 0.4% 1.1%

Number 4 1 1 2

 I have never been a mentor Percent 15.4% 7.1% 17.7% 16.4%

Number 76 6 40 30

missing 181 26 38 117

total # of respondents who answered the question 493 84 226 183

26. Please indicate your highest level of formal education

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 elementary school, through grade 8 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 some high school Percent 2.4% 1.8% 1.9% 3.1%

Number 16 2 5 9

 12th grade, but did not graduate Percent 0.6% 0.0% 0.4% 1.0%

Number 4 0 1 3

 12th grade, got GED Percent 1.4% 4.6% 0.4% 1.0%

Number 9 5 1 3

 12th grade, graduated from high school Percent 5.3% 4.6% 4.2% 6.4%

Number 35 5 11 19
91

 some college Percent 33.5% 39.4% 30.2% 34.2%

Number 223 43 79 101

 college degree Percent 37.5% 26.6% 42.0% 37.6%

Number 250 29 110 111

 graduate degree Percent 18.3% 22.9% 21.0% 14.2%

Number 122 25 55 42

missing 8 1 2 5

total # of respondents who answered this question 666 109 262 295

27. If you have college, graduate school or conservatory experience, what institutions have you attended?

28. What is your highest formal degree?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 AA Percent 9.8% 3.1% 1.9% 18.4%

Number 41 2 3 36

 BA Percent 43.6% 28.1% 49.4% 43.9%

Number 183 18 79 86

 BFA Percent 2.6% 1.6% 4.4% 1.5%

Number 11 173

 BS Percent 5.7% 6.3% 4.4% 6.6%

Number 24 4 7 13

 MA Percent 13.6% 12.5% 20.6% 8.2%

Number 57 8 33 16

 MFA Percent 1.4% 3.1% 1.9% 0.5%

Number 6231

 MS Percent 1.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.5%

Number 4 0 1 3

 EdD Percent 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

Number 1 0 0 1

 PhD Percent 2.6% 1.6% 3.8% 2.0%

Number 11 164

 other Percent 19.5% 43.8% 13.1% 16.8%

Number 82 28 21 33

missing 254 46 104 104

total # of respondents who answered this question 420 64 160 196
92

29. Was this degree. . .

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 in jazz? Percent 18.8% 33.3% 21.4% 11.6%

Number 79 21 36 22

 in music? Percent 32.8% 33.3% 39.3% 26.8%

Number 138 21 66 51

 other Percent 48.5% 33.3% 39.3% 61.6%

Number 204 21 66 117

missing 253 47 96 110

total # of respondents who answered this question 421 63 168 190

30. Did you receive technical or professional training in the arts?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 in conservatory or professional school not

granting a degree Percent 19.4% 12.7% 29.2% 13.3%

Number 131 14 77 40

 certificate program in the arts Percent 6.8% 14.5% 3.8% 6.7%

Number 46 16 10 20

 private teachers Percent 62.0% 61.8% 73.1% 52.3%

Number 418 68 193 157

 did not receive technical or professional training

in the arts Percent 16.5% 9.1% 7.2% 27.3%

Number 111 10 19 82

 other Percent 10.4% 7.3% 10.2% 11.7%

Number 70 8 27 35

total # of respondents who answered this question 674 110 264 300

31. What other experiences have you had in preparation for your work in the arts?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 alternative schooling experience Percent 12.0% 19.1% 5.3% 15.3%

Number 81 21 14 46

 attending performances Percent 61.1% 72.7% 47.0% 69.3%

Number 412 80 124 208

 community-based arts experience Percent 17.7% 21.8% 2.7% 29.3%

Number 119 24 7 88

 experience as a mentor Percent 12.3% 20.9% 3.8% 16.7%

Number 83 23 10 50

 experience as an apprentice Percent 22.8% 25.5% 20.5% 24.0%

Number 154 28 54 72

 jazz workshop, clinic, master class Percent 41.5% 52.7% 27.3% 50.0%
93

Number 280 58 72 150

 listening to music Percent 75.1% 89.1% 66.3% 77.7%

Number 506 98 175 233

 performing Percent 68.7% 88.2% 48.9% 79.0%

Number 463 97 129 237

 rehearsal band Percent 33.7% 42.7% 11.7% 49.7%

Number 227 47 31 149

 self-taught Percent 38.0% 54.5% 16.3% 51.0%

Number 256 60 43 153

 other Percent 16.8% 5.5% 36.0% 4.0%

Number 113 6 95 12

total # of respondents who answered the question 674 110 264 300

32. At what age did you begin playing your first instrument?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

mean 9 9 9 10

median 9 9 9 9

std. dev. 4 3 4 5

mode 10 10 9 8

valid cases 661 109 259 293

missing 13 1 5 7

33. Do you consider yourself a professional jazz musician?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 81.4% 93.6% 95.7% 65.5%

Number 513 103 220 190

 no Percent 18.6% 6.4% 4.3% 34.5%

Number 117 7 10 100

missing 44 0 34 10

total # of respondents who answered the question 630 110 230 290

34. If yes, of these statements, which do you consider the three most important reasons as they apply to you?

Choice 1 Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 I make my living as a musician Percent 32.3% 40.8% 39.9% 20.8%

Number 172 40 87 45

 I receive some income from my work as a musician Percent 12.2% 0.0% 10.1% 19.9%

Number 65 0 22 43

 I intend to make my living as a musician Percent 6.0% 4.1% 1.8% 11.1%

Number 32 4 4 24
94

 I belong to a musicians association Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 I belong to a musicians union or guild Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 I have been formally educated in music Percent 2.6% 2.0% 1.8% 3.7%

Number 14 2 4 8

 I am recognized by my peers as an musician Percent 11.1% 14.3% 8.7% 12.0%

Number 59 14 19 26

 I consider myself to be a musician Percent 6.6% 9.2% 7.8% 4.2%

Number 35 9 17 9

 I spend a considerable amount of time working as a

musician Percent 1.7% 1.0% 2.8% 0.9%

Number 9 1 6 2

 I have a special talent Percent 4.5% 6.1% 3.2% 5.1%

Number 24 6 7 11

 I have an inner drive to make music Percent 16.0% 21.4% 8.3% 21.3%

Number 85 21 18 46

 I receive some public recognition for my music Percent 2.3% 0.0% 5.5% 0.0%

Number 12 0 12 0

 other Percent 4.7% 1.0% 10.1% 0.9%

Number 25 1 22 2

missing 142 12 46 84

total # of respondents who answered the question 532 98 218 216

Choice 2 Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 I make my living as a musician Percent 10.5% 18.8% 11.1% 6.2%

Number 54 18 23 13

 I receive some income from my work as a musician Percent 7.2% 11.5% 4.3% 8.1%

Number 37 11 9 17

 I intend to make my living as a musician Percent 5.3% 5.2% 3.4% 7.2%

Number 27 5 7 15

 I belong to a musicians association Percent 1.2% 3.1% 0.0% 1.4%

Number 6 3 0 3

 I belong to a musicians union or guild Percent 2.0% 6.3% 1.0% 1.0%

Number 10 6 2 2

 I have been formally educated in music Percent 8.2% 10.4% 4.8% 10.5%

Number 42 10 10 22

 I am recognized by my peers as an musician Percent 25.2% 12.5% 28.5% 27.8%

Number 129 12 59 58

 I consider myself to be a musician Percent 11.9% 5.2% 5.8% 21.1%

Number 61 5 12 44
95

 I spend a considerable amount of time working as a

musician Percent 4.5% 5.2% 3.4% 5.3%

Number 23 5 7 11

 I have a special talent Percent 5.5% 8.3% 6.3% 3.3%

Number 28 8 13 7

 I have an inner drive to make music Percent 8.6% 13.5% 9.7% 5.3%

Number 44 13 20 11

 I receive some public recognition for my music Percent 4.7% 0.0% 9.7% 1.9%

Number 24 0 20 4

 other Percent 5.3% 0.0% 12.1% 1.0%

Number 27 0 25 2

missing 162 14 57 91

total # of respondents who answered the question 512 96 207 209

Choice 3 Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 I make my living as a musician Percent 6.4% 9.3% 6.2% 5.4%

Number 32 9 12 11

 I receive some income from my work as a musician Percent 3.6% 2.1% 2.1% 5.9%

Number 18 2 4 12

 I intend to make my living as a musician Percent 5.2% 5.2% 3.1% 7.3%

Number 26 5 6 15

 I belong to a musicians association Percent 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5%

Number 3 0 0 3

 I belong to a musicians union or guild Percent 3.2% 7.2% 1.5% 2.9%

Number 16 7 3 6

 I have been formally educated in music Percent 8.7% 10.3% 5.6% 10.7%

Number 43 10 11 22

 I am recognized by my peers as an musician Percent 21.5% 26.8% 24.1% 16.6%

Number 107 26 47 34

 I consider myself to be a musician Percent 8.0% 7.2% 8.2% 8.3%

Number 40 7 16 17

 I spend a considerable amount of time working as a

musician Percent 5.6% 8.2% 5.1% 4.9%

Number 28 8 10 10

 I have a special talent Percent 4.8% 6.2% 4.6% 4.4%

Number 24 6 9 9

 I have an inner drive to make music Percent 14.7% 5.2% 10.3% 23.4%

Number 73 5 20 48

 I receive some public recognition for my music Percent 9.9% 7.2% 16.4% 4.9%

Number 49 7 32 10

 other Percent 7.6% 5.2% 12.8% 3.9%

Number 38 5 25 8
96

missing 177 13 69 95

total # of respondents who answered the question 497 97 195 205

35. How do you prepare yourself to be a better musician?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 attend performances Percent 50.0% 68.2% 15.5% 73.7%

Number 337 75 41 221

 attend workshops Percent 33.2% 38.2% 10.2% 51.7%

Number 224 42 27 155

 learn from my environment Percent 39.6% 59.1% 8.3% 60.0%

Number 267 65 22 180

 listen to music Percent 68.2% 81.8% 51.1% 78.3%

Number 460 90 135 235

 play music with other people Percent 62.0% 86.4% 33.0% 78.7%

Number 418 95 87 236

 practice on my own Percent 68.5% 76.4% 50.4% 81.7%

Number 462 84 133 245

 read Percent 38.7% 47.3% 14.8% 56.7%

Number 261 52 39 170

 read scores Percent 16.5% 22.7% 4.9% 24.3%

Number 111 25 13 73

 self teaching Percent 35.6% 49.1% 4.2% 58.3%

Number 240 54 11 175

 spirituality Percent 32.8% 46.4% 13.6% 44.7%

Number 221 51 36 134

 study music Percent 47.5% 55.5% 28.4% 61.3%

Number 320 61 75 184

 work with a mentor Percent 16.5% 24.5% 4.2% 24.3%

Number 111 27 11 73

 other Percent 24.0% 7.3% 49.6% 7.7%

Number 162 8 131 23

total # of respondents who answered the question 674 110 264 300

36. If members of the household where you grew up were supportive of your explorations in music, which

member was the most supportive?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 diversion from daily routine Percent 1.7% 1.9% 1.6% 1.8%

Number 11245

 family tradition Percent 4.7% 8.4% 4.0% 3.9%

Number 30 9 10 11
97

 higher calling/sense of purpose Percent 15.1% 15.9% 7.9% 21.4%

Number 97 17 20 60

 inner drive to make music Percent 28.9% 38.3% 19.0% 34.2%

Number 185 41 48 96

 life style Percent 1.6% 0.9% 3.2% 0.4%

Number 10 1 8 1

 love of the process Percent 6.4% 4.7% 4.0% 9.3%

Number 41 5 10 26

 personal expression Percent 8.4% 10.3% 7.9% 8.2%

Number 54 11 20 23

 problem solving Percent 0.5% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0%

Number 3 0 3 0

 recognition of my special talent Percent 4.8% 3.7% 6.7% 3.6%

Number 31 4 17 10

 source of great personal satisfaction Percent 12.9% 11.2% 15.4% 11.4%

Number 83 12 39 32

 source of income Percent 0.5% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0%

Number 3 0 3 0

 other Percent 13.7% 4.7% 28.1% 4.3%

Number 88 5 71 12

missing 33 3 11 19

total # of respondents who answered the question 641 107 253 281

37. Do you hold a copyright in some artistic work of your own creation?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 60.2% 60.7% 73.0% 47.6%

Number 388 65 192 131

 no Percent 37.5% 37.4% 24.7% 49.8%

Number 242 40 65 137

 don't know Percent 2.3% 1.9% 2.3% 2.5%

15 2 6 7

missing 29 3 1 25

total # of respondents who answered this question 645 107 263 275

38. Have you ever given your copyright to a recording company?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 22.1% 24.1% 25.9% 17.3%

Number 114 21 57 36

 no Percent 74.0% 75.9% 68.2% 79.3%

Number 381 66 150 165
98

 don't know Percent 3.9% 0.0% 5.9% 3.4%

Number 20 0 13 7

missing 159 23 44 92

total # of respondents who answered this question 515 87 220 208

39. Has your work ever been recorded?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes, by me Percent 56.4% 64.2% 46.3% 62.9%

Number 359 68 118 173

 yes, by a professional recording company Percent 29.7% 27.4% 42.7% 18.5%

Number 189 29 109 51

 no Percent 10.2% 7.5% 6.3% 14.9%

Number 65 8 16 41

 other (please specify) Percent 3.6% 0.9% 4.7% 3.6%

Number 23 1 12 10

missing 38 4 9 25

total # of respondents who answered this

question (including refusals & don't knows) 636 106 255 275

40. How has this work been marketed/distributed?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 advertised in publications Percent 19.4% 30.9% 20.1% 14.7%

Number 131 34 53 44

 marketed on the internet Percent 23.7% 30.9% 26.9% 18.3%

Number 160 34 71 55

 sold from my performance site Percent 31.8% 48.2% 35.6% 22.3%

Number 214 53 94 67

 given away to prospective employers Percent 24.0% 30.9% 8.7% 35.0%

Number 162 34 23 105

 all of the above Percent 17.2% 40.9% 9.1% 15.7%

Number 116 45 24 47

 other Percent 28.2% 10.0% 48.1% 17.3%

Number 190 11 127 52

total # of respondents who answered this question 674 110 264 300
99

41. Do you have a Web site?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 36.5% 35.5% 45.3% 29.0%

Number 239 39 117 83

 no Percent 63.5% 64.5% 54.7% 71.0%

Number 415 71 141 203

missing 20 0 6 14

total # of respondents who answered this question 654 110 258 286

42. Has your music received airplay?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes Percent 70.4% 82.4% 82.2% 55.0%

Number 450 89 208 153

 no Percent 29.6% 17.6% 17.8% 45.0%

Number 189 19 45 125

missing 35 2 11 22

total # of respondents who answered this question 639 108 253 278

43. If yes, in what media?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 cable television Percent 18.1% 30.0% 14.8% 16.7%

Number 122 33 39 50

 film Percent 15.3% 23.6% 13.3% 14.0%

Number 103 26 35 42

 radio Percent 62.6% 77.3% 75.8% 45.7%

Number 422 85 200 137

 stage Percent 12.5% 26.4% 6.8% 12.3%

Number 84 29 18 37

 television Percent 3.9% 2.7% 3.4% 4.7%

Number 26 3 9 14

 other Percent 3.9% 2.7% 3.4% 4.7%

Number 26 3 9 14

total # of respondents who

answered this question

(including refusals & don't

knows) 674 110 264 300
100

44. If yes, how did you get this airplay?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 had help from a promotional person Percent 19.4% 34.5% 11.4% 21.0%

Number 131 38 30 63

 sent recordings out myself Percent 19.7% 27.3% 18.9% 17.7%

Number 133 30 50 53

 paid to get airplay Percent 2.4% 4.5% 1.5% 2.3%

Number 16 5 4 7

 knew some of the disc jockeys Percent 18.1% 33.6% 13.6% 16.3%

Number 122 37 36 49

 knew producer Percent 8.5% 14.5% 4.2% 10.0%

Number 57 16 11 30

 Other Percent 27.3% 16.4% 47.3% 13.7%

Number 184 18 125 41

total # of respondents who answered this

question (including refusals & don't knows) 674 110 264 300

45. Have you played music that was broadcast over the Internet?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 47.2% 63.6% 54.2% 34.2%

Number 296 68 136 92

 no Percent 40.2% 18.7% 34.7% 53.9%

Number 252 20 87 145

 don't know Percent 12.6% 17.8% 11.2% 11.9%

Number 79 19 28 32

missing 47 3 13 31

total # of respondents who answered this question 627 107 251 269

46. If yes, how do you feel about people downloading this music without paying for your work?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 I do not mind Percent 18.1% 25.0% 9.8% 22.7%

Number 75 22 16 37

 like the exposure Percent 27.7% 27.3% 23.8% 31.9%

Number 115 24 39 52

 object Percent 16.6% 10.2% 29.3% 7.4%

Number 69 9 48 12

 think I should be paid Percent 24.1% 22.7% 32.3% 16.6%
101

Number 100 20 53 27

 no opinion Percent 13.5% 14.8% 4.9% 21.5%

Number 56 13 8 35

missing 259 22 100 137

total # of respondents who answered

this question (including refusals & don't

knows) 415 88 164 163

47. Do you currently have a steady manager, agent or representative for your work?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 23.5% 33.0% 31.0% 12.9%

Number 152 36 80 36

 no Percent 76.5% 67.0% 69.0% 87.1%

Number 494 73 178 243

missing 28 1 6 21

total # of respondents who answered this question 646 109 258 279

48. If yes, who is it?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 self Percent 50.3% 51.4% 55.6% 39.0%

Number 80 19 45 16

 spouse Percent 2.5% 0.0% 3.7% 2.4%

Number 4 0 3 1

 relative Percent 1.3% 2.7% 0.0% 2.4%

Number 2 1 0 1

 booking agent Percent 20.8% 32.4% 13.6% 24.4%

Number 33 12 11 10

 manager Percent 12.6% 10.8% 13.6% 12.2%

Number 20 4 11 5

 friend Percent 3.8% 0.0% 4.9% 4.9%

Number 6 0 4 2

 other Percent 8.8% 2.7% 8.6% 14.6%

Number 14 1 7 6

missing 515 73 183 259

total # of respondents who answered the question 159 37 81 41
102

49. If yes, how has s/he helped or hindered your career?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 I am my own manager Percent 11.9% 19.1% 15.9% 5.7%

Number 80 21 42 17

 helped me get work Percent 9.9% 18.2% 9.5% 7.3%

Number 67 20 25 22

 hindered me from getting work Percent 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

Number 1 0 1 0

 helped me get media exposure Percent 5.6% 12.7% 4.2% 4.3%

Number 38 14 11 13

 hindered me from getting media exposure Percent 0.4% 0.9% 0.4% 0.3%

Number 3 1 1 1

 helped determine career direction Percent 1.8% 4.5% 0.4% 2.0%

Number 12 5 1 6

 hindered career direction Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 negotiated contracts/deals Percent 5.0% 11.8% 2.3% 5.0%

Number 34 13 6 15

 hindered contracts/deals Percent 0.3% 0.9% 0.4% 0.0%

Number 2 1 1 0

 helped in conflict resolution Percent 1.9% 4.5% 0.4% 2.3%

Number 13 5 1 7

 hindered conflict resolution Percent 0.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 1 1 0 0

 helped obtain organizational support Percent 2.7% 4.5% 1.1% 3.3%

Number 18 5 3 10

 hindered obtaining organizational support Percent 0.3% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 2 2 0 0

 helped advise career Percent 3.0% 9.1% 0.8% 2.7%

Number 20 10 2 8

 little/no career advice Percent 1.2% 1.8% 0.8% 1.3%

Number 8 2 2 4

missing

total # of respondents who answered the question 674 110 264 300

50. Do you belong to the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) union?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes Percent 30.1% 51.4% 39.9% 13.0%

Number 197 55 105 37
103

 no Percent 69.9% 48.6% 60.1% 87.0%

Number 458 52 158 248

missing 19 3 1 15

total # of respondents who answered this

question 655 107 263 285

51. If no, did you belong at a previous time?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 29.4% 42.6% 40.4% 19.3%

Number 121 20 59 42

 no Percent 70.6% 57.4% 59.6% 80.7%

Number 290 27 87 176

missing 263 63 118 82

total # of respondents who answered this question 411 47 146 218

52. If you do not belong to the AFM, why not?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 does not represent the interests of jazz

musicians Percent 17.4% 15.5% 23.9% 12.3%

Number 117 17 63 37

 does not provide enough benefits Percent 12.2% 12.7% 15.5% 9.0%

Number 82 14 41 27

 too expensive Percent 9.1% 8.2% 9.1% 9.3%

Number 61 9 24 28

 too difficult to join Percent 1.6% 0.9% 0.4% 3.0%

Number 11 1 19

 will not help me get work Percent 14.5% 20.9% 7.6% 18.3%

Number 98 23 20 55

 will prevent me from getting work Percent 2.1% 3.6% 1.1% 2.3%

Number 14 4 3 7

 all of the above Percent 6.4% 9.1% 0.8% 10.3%

Number 43 10 2 31

 other Percent 24.3% 9.1% 25.4% 29.0%

Number 164 10 67 87

total # of respondents who answered the question 674 110 264 300

53. Do you belong to any other unions?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes valid % 10.2% 1.0% 13.7% 11.5%

frequency 54 1 22 31

 no valid % 89.8% 99.0% 86.3% 88.5%
104

frequency 478 100 139 239

missing 142 9 103 30

total # of respondents who answered this question 532 101 161 270

54. If yes, please list:

55. Are you a member of a performing rights society (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC)?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 43.4% 46.2% 62.6% 24.5%

Number 278 49 161 68

 no Percent 56.6% 53.8% 37.4% 75.5%

Number 363 57 96 210

missing 33 4 7 22

total # of respondents who answered this question 641 106 257 278

56. Are you a member of any other jazz-related organization (IAJE, JAF)?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 17.3% 9.2% 25.7% 13.4%

Number 101 9 56 36

 no Percent 82.7% 90.8% 74.3% 86.6%

Number 484 89 162 233

missing 89 12 46 31

total # of respondents who answered this question 585 98 218 269

57. If yes, please specify:

58. Do you have at least one credit card (not a debit card)?

Total NO NY SF

 yes Percent 78.3% 80.9% 78.4% 77.2%

Number 512 89 203 220

 no Percent 21.7% 19.1% 21.6% 22.8%

Number 142 21 56 65

missing 20 0 5 15

total # of respondents who answered this question 654 110 259 285

New Orleans New York San Francisco
105

59. Have you ever applied as an individual for a bank loan, a line of credit, or a mortgage?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 bank loan Percent 38.3% 60.5% 29.3% 40.5%

Number 212 46 72 94

 line of credit Percent 40.8% 60.0% 19.8% 57.0%

Number 223 45 48 130

 mortgage Percent 30.8% 51.3% 21.9% 33.3%

Number 168 40 53 75

total # of respondents who answered this question 603 131 173 299

60. Did you ever have an application turned down?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 bank loan Percent 23.4% 25.4% 24.7% 22.0%

Number 83 18 23 42

 line of credit Percent 31.3% 28.2% 26.4% 34.2%

Number 108 20 19 69

 mortgage Percent 12.4% 14.7% 16.0% 9.9%

Number 39 10 12 17

total # of respondents who answered this question 230 48 54 128

61. Do you feel you have been discriminated against when seeking employment as a jazz musician?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 45.7% 45.3% 66.7% 27.0%

Number 283 48 162 73

 no Percent 54.3% 54.7% 33.3% 73.0%

Number 336 58 81 197

missing 55 4 21 30

total # of respondents who answered this question 619 106 243 270

62. If yes, what was the major reason?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 age Percent 13.0% 14.0% 8.6% 21.9%

Number 37 7 14 16

 gender Percent 18.6% 20.0% 18.5% 17.8%

Number 53 10 30 13

 nationality Percent 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1%

Number 3 0 0 3

 race Percent 38.9% 56.0% 36.4% 32.9%

Number 111 28 59 24
106

 other Percent 28.4% 10.0% 36.4% 23.3%

Number 81 5 59 17

missing 389 60 102 227

total # of respondents who answered this question 285 50 162 73

63. Do you use electric media in the creation of your music?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 45.7% 44.9% 44.2% 47.3%

Number 295 48 115 132

 no Percent 54.3% 55.1% 55.8% 52.7%

Number 351 59 145 147

missing 28 3 4 21

total # of respondents who answered this question 646 107 260 279

64. Do you use electronic media in the production of your music?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes valid % 49.4% 53.8% 33.9% 61.5%

frequency 307 56 83 168

 no valid % 40.4% 42.3% 51.8% 29.3%

frequency 251 44 127 80

missing 52 6 19 27

total # of respondents who answered this question 622 104 245 273

65. Do you own or regularly use a computer?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes valid % 80.3% 75.9% 83.9% 78.7%

frequency 523 82 219 222

 no valid % 19.7% 24.1% 16.1% 21.3%

frequency 128 26 42 60

missing 23 2 3 18

total # of respondents who answered this question 651 108 261 282

66. How many hours a week do you use it in relation to your music?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 1-5 hours Percent 50.4% 50.0% 41.8% 59.1%

Number 256 40 89 127

 6-10 hours Percent 23.2% 18.8% 32.4% 15.8%

Number 118 15 69 34

 11-20 hours Percent 17.3% 21.3% 17.8% 15.3%
107

Number 88 17 38 33

 21-40 hours Percent 6.3% 7.5% 4.7% 7.4%

Number 32 6 10 16

 more than 40 hours Percent 2.8% 2.5% 3.3% 2.3%

Number 14 2 7 5

missing 166 30 51 85

total # of respondents who answered this question 508 80 213 215

67. Do you use the Internet for your music?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes Percent 63.7% 55.2% 86.9% 46.6%

Number 362 53 192 117

 no Percent 36.3% 44.8% 13.1% 53.4%

Number 206 43 29 134

missing 106 14 43 49

total # of respondents who answered this question 568 96 221 251

68. How do you use it?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 to communicate with people in the industry Percent 49.0% 39.1% 76.9% 28.0%

Number 330 43 203 84

 to compose music Percent 6.7% 8.2% 4.5% 8.0%

Number 45 9 12 24

 to copy music Percent 9.5% 17.3% 3.0% 12.3%

Number 64 19 8 37

 to disseminate music Percent 7.4% 10.0% 4.5% 9.0%

Number 50 11 12 27

 to listen to music Percent 20.9% 23.6% 19.7% 21.0%

Number 141 26 52 63

 to promote music Percent 27.3% 25.5% 41.3% 15.7%

Number 184 28 109 47

 to do research Percent 32.6% 32.7% 36.4% 29.3%

Number 220 36 96 88

 to sell music Percent 15.9% 23.6% 20.5% 9.0%

Number 107 26 54 27

total # of respondents who answered this

question (including refusals & don't knows) 674 110 264 300
108

69. For how many years have you lived in the country of your current residence?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 under 1 year Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 2-3 years Percent 1.2% 1.8% 1.2% 1.0%

Number 8 2 3 3

 4-5 years Percent 1.4% 1.8% 0.8% 1.7%

Number 9 2 2 5

 6-10 years Percent 2.4% 3.7% 2.3% 2.1%

Number 16 4 6 6

 more than 10 years Percent 94.2% 89.9% 95.8% 94.4%

Number 616 98 248 270

mean 3 17 5 73

median 2 16 5 100

missing 20 1 5 14

total # of respondents who answered this question 654 109 259 286

70. Did you receive any music-related training in the city or region?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 80.8% 73.8% 83.1% 81.4%

Number 514 79 207 228

 no Percent 19.2% 26.2% 16.9% 18.6%

Number 122 28 42 52

missing 38 3 15 20

total # of respondents who answered this question 636 107 249 280

71. What is your most important reason for staying in this area to live and/or work?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 personal ties valid % 21.4% 31.5% 3.9% 33.5%

frequency 138 34 10 94

 support systems for my music valid % 12.0% 19.4% 2.7% 17.4%

frequency 77 21 7 49

 family members valid % 5.7% 5.6% 2.4% 8.9%

frequency 37 6 6 25

 born here valid % 5.3% 4.6% 6.7% 4.3%

frequency 34 5 17 12

 non music-related employment valid % 2.0% 0.9% 0.4% 3.9%

frequency 13 1 1 11

 good place to perform valid % 6.5% 20.4% 2.0% 5.3%
109

frequency 42 22 5 15

 educational opportunities valid % 1.9% 0.9% 0.4% 3.6%

frequency 12 1 1 10

 available work space valid % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

frequency 0 0 0 0

 affordable work space valid % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

frequency 0 0 0 0

 available living space valid % 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4%

frequency 2 0 1 1

 affordable living space valid % 0.9% 2.8% 0.8% 0.4%

frequency 6 3 2 1

 access to equipment and supplies valid % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

frequency 0 0 0 0

 access to management expertise valid % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

frequency 0 0 0 0

 cultural activity valid % 6.4% 4.6% 5.1% 8.2%

frequency 41 5 13 23

 environmental quality valid % 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5%

frequency 7 0 0 7

 media responsiveness valid % 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%

frequency 1 0 0 1

 network of peers valid % 5.6% 3.7% 5.1% 6.8%

frequency 36 4 13 19

 mentors valid % 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

frequency 1 0 1 0

 teachers valid % 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%

frequency 2 0 0 2

 group members valid % 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4%

frequency 2 0 1 1

 other valid % 30.0% 5.6% 69.4% 3.6%

frequency 193 6 177 10

missing 30 2 9 19

total # of respondents who answered this question 644 108 255 281

72. Does your music-related work require you to travel?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes Percent 73.7% 87.3% 84.9% 58.6%

Number 462 96 203 163

 no Percent 26.3% 12.7% 15.1% 41.4%
110

Number 165 14 36 115

missing 47 0 25 22

total # of respondents who answered this

question 627 110 239 278

73. If yes, approximately what portion of the year are you away from home?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 Fewer than 2 weeks Percent 33.1% 19.8% 27.8% 47.9%

Number 161 19 62 80

 2-4 weeks Percent 24.7% 28.1% 19.3% 29.9%

Number 120 27 43 50

 1-3 months Percent 28.2% 32.3% 33.2% 19.2%

Number 137 31 74 32

 over 3 months Percent 14.0% 19.8% 19.7% 3.0%

Number 68 19 44 5

missing 188 14 41 133

total # of respondents who answered this question 486 96 223 167

74. Approximately how many times during the last 12 months did you work or perform away from home?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 zero Percent 14.6% 7.5% 7.6% 25.6%

Number 79 8 17 54

 1-5 times Percent 32.8% 35.8% 23.3% 41.2%

Number 177 38 52 87

 6-15 times Percent 21.9% 20.8% 26.5% 17.5%

Number 118 22 59 37

 16-30 times Percent 14.6% 13.2% 21.5% 8.1%

Number 79 14 48 17

 over 30 times Percent 16.1% 22.6% 21.1% 7.6%

Number 87 24 47 16

missing 134 4 41 89

total # of respondents who answered this question 540 106 223 211

75. EXCLUDING operational costs of your work space, please list approximate ANNUAL COSTS for the

following music-related work expenses:

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 music-related supplies/services (sheet music, etc.)

 a $0- $500 Percent 68.9% 65.7% 67.5% 71.5%

Number 416 65 168 183

 b $501- $2500 Percent 26.3% 29.3% 29.3% 22.3%
111

Number 159 29 73 57

 c $2501- $5000 Percent 3.5% 4.0% 2.0% 4.7%

Number 21 4 5 12

 d $5001- $7500 Percent 0.7% 1.0% 0.0% 1.2%

Number 4 1 0 3

 e over $7500 Percent 0.7% 0.0% 1.2% 0.4%

Number 4 0 3 1

 2 equipment

 a $0- $500 Percent 27.8% 23.8% 19.4% 37.9%

Number 169 24 49 96

 b $501- $2500 Percent 58.0% 56.4% 68.8% 47.8%

Number 352 57 174 121

 c $2501- $5000 Percent 10.2% 10.9% 10.3% 9.9%

Number 62 11 26 25

 d $5001- $7500 Percent 2.1% 4.0% 1.2% 2.4%

Number 13 4 3 6

 e over $7500 Percent 1.8% 5.0% 0.4% 2.0%

Number 11 5 15

 3 capital improvements

 a $0- $500 Percent 76.5% 63.5% 84.9% 72.3%

Number 416 54 203 159

 b $501- $2500 Percent 15.8% 24.7% 9.2% 19.5%

Number 86 21 22 43

 c $2501- $5000 Percent 4.8% 9.4% 3.3% 4.5%

Number 26 8 8 10

 d $5001- $7500 Percent 1.5% 0.0% 1.7% 1.8%

Number 8 0 4 4

 e over $7500 Percent 1.5% 2.4% 0.8% 1.8%

Number 8 2 2 4

 4 training/maintaining music

 a $0- $500 Percent 75.9% 70.6% 82.8% 70.8%

Number 432 60 202 170

 b $501- $2500 Percent 19.5% 25.9% 11.1% 25.8%

Number 111 22 27 62

 c $2501- $5000 Percent 3.3% 2.4% 4.1% 2.9%

Number 19 2 10 7

 d $5001- $7500 Percent 0.5% 1.2% 0.4% 0.4%

Number 3 1 1 1

 e over $7500 Percent 0.7% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0%

Number 4 0 4 0
112

 5 publicity/marketing

 a $0- $500 Percent 68.9% 64.8% 63.5% 76.2%

Number 385 59 153 173

 b $501- $2500 Percent 23.4% 24.2% 26.6% 19.8%

Number 131 22 64 45

 c $2501- $5000 Percent 5.9% 8.8% 7.5% 3.1%

Number 33 8 18 7

 d $5001- $7500 Percent 0.9% 1.1% 1.2% 0.4%

Number 5 1 3 1

 e over $7500 Percent 0.9% 1.1% 1.2% 0.4%

Number 5 1 3 1

 6 travel/cartage

 a $0- $500 Percent 47.2% 43.6% 36.9% 59.7%

Number 271 41 92 138

 b $501- $2500 Percent 39.4% 39.4% 44.2% 34.2%

Number 226 37 110 79

 c $2501- $5000 Percent 10.5% 11.7% 15.3% 4.8%

Number 60 11 38 11

 d $5001- $7500 Percent 1.4% 2.1% 2.0% 0.4%

Number 8 2 5 1

 e over $7500 Percent 1.6% 3.2% 1.6% 0.9%

Number 9 3 4 2

 7 recording costs

 a $0- $500 Percent 55.1% 42.0% 50.8% 64.8%

Number 310 37 126 147

 b $501- $2500 Percent 25.6% 38.6% 23.4% 22.9%

Number 144 34 58 52

 c $2501- $5000 Percent 11.2% 9.1% 16.5% 6.2%

Number 63 8 41 14

 d $5001- $7500 Percent 4.1% 5.7% 4.0% 3.5%

Number 23 5 10 8

 e over $7500 Percent 4.1% 4.5% 5.2% 2.6%

Number 23 4 13 6

 8 management costs

 a $0- $500 Percent 89.7% 77.9% 91.3% 92.3%

Number 471 60 219 192

 b $501- $2500 Percent 6.7% 15.6% 5.4% 4.8%

Number 35 12 13 10

 c $2501- $5000 Percent 1.7% 3.9% 1.3% 1.4%

Number 9333
113

 d $5001- $7500 Percent 0.8% 0.0% 0.8% 1.0%

Number 4 0 2 2

 e over $7500 Percent 1.1% 2.6% 1.3% 0.5%

Number 6 2 3 1

 9 musical instrument insurance

 a $0- $500 Percent 92.1% 84.0% 95.8% 90.9%

Number 490 63 228 199

 b $501- $2500 Percent 7.1% 13.3% 3.8% 8.7%

Number 38 10 9 19

 c $2501- $5000 Percent 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

Number 1 0 0 1

 d $5001- $7500 Percent 0.4% 1.3% 0.4% 0.0%

Number 2 1 1 0

 e over $7500 Percent 0.2% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 1 1 0 0

 10 other

 a $0- $500 Percent 65.6% 66.7% 70.9% 57.4%

Number 233 18 141 74

 b $501- $2500 Percent 26.2% 22.2% 21.1% 34.9%

Number 93 6 42 45

 c $2501- $5000 Percent 6.8% 7.4% 6.5% 7.0%

Number 24 2 13 9

 d $5001- $7500 Percent 0.3% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 1 1 0 0

 e over $7500 Percent 1.1% 0.0% 1.5% 0.8%

Number 4 0 3 1

total # of respondents who answered this

question (including refusals & don't knows) 674 110 264 300

76. Where do you go to obtain routine health care?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 private physician Percent 23.0% 25.5% 22.3% 22.7%

Number 155 28 59 68

 HMO (health maintenance organization) or PPO Percent 33.1% 26.4% 28.0% 40.0%

Number 223 29 74 120

 clinic Percent 7.9% 15.5% 5.7% 7.0%

Number 53 17 15 21

 hospital outpatient department Percent 3.6% 1.8% 3.4% 4.3%
114

pp p

Number 24 2 9 13

 emergency room Percent 2.2% 2.7% 0.4% 3.7%

Number 15 3 1 11

 I do not obtain routine health care Percent 25.2% 20.9% 27.3% 25.0%

Number 170 23 72 75

 arts-related medical facility (please specify) Percent 4.2% 15.5% 2.3% 1.7%

Number 28 17 6 5

 other Percent 7.3% 4.5% 9.1% 6.7%

Number 49 5 24 20

total # of respondents who answered this

question (including refusals & don't knows) 674 110 264 300

77. Have occupational hazards in your music-related work caused you any injuries?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes Percent 31.5% 37.4% 36.4% 24.8%

Number 200 40 91 69

 no Percent 68.5% 62.6% 63.6% 75.2%

Number 435 67 159 209

missing 39 3 14 22

total # of respondents who answered this

question 635 107 250 278

78. If yes, how frequently has this occurred in the last five years?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 fewer than 3 times Percent 40.3% 42.9% 38.8% 40.5%

Number 81 18 33 30

 3 or more times Percent 22.9% 26.2% 27.1% 16.2%

Number 46 11 23 12

 ongoing condition Percent 36.8% 31.0% 34.1% 43.2%

Number 74 13 29 32

missing 473 68 179 226

total # of respondents who answered this question 201 42 85 74

79. Do you engage in preventive medical care in relation to your music-related work? (counseling, injury

prevention, etc.)?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes Percent 40.1% 35.2% 47.1% 35.9%

Number 248 37 113 98

 no Percent 59.9% 64.8% 52.9% 64.1%
115

Number 370 68 127 175

missing 56 5 24 27

total # of respondents who answered this

question 618 105 240 273

80. Do you have health or medical coverage?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes Percent 63.3% 58.3% 58.7% 69.2%

Number 398 63 142 193

 no Percent 36.7% 41.7% 41.3% 30.8%

Number 231 45 100 86

missing 45 2 22 21

total # of respondents who answered this

question 629 108 242 279

81. If yes, which type do you have?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 HMO Percent 43.1% 42.9% 35.3% 49.2%

Number 175 27 53 95

 PPO Percent 16.0% 17.5% 8.7% 21.2%

Number 65 11 13 41

 personal policy through private insurance

company Percent 13.1% 12.7% 16.7% 10.4%

Number 53 8 25 20

 disability coverage for loss of income Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 group insurance policy through arts/arts service

organization Percent 4.4% 7.9% 4.0% 3.6%

Number 18 5 6 7

 other group insurance policy Percent 7.6% 7.9% 8.0% 7.3%

Number 31 5 12 14

 other Percent 15.8% 11.1% 27.3% 8.3%

Number 64 7 41 16

missing 268 47 114 107

total # of respondents who answered this question

(including refusals & don't knows) 406 63 150 193

82. How was this health coverage obtained?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 self Percent 40.3% 54.1% 42.7% 34.1%

Number 145 33 50 62
116

 mate Percent 8.9% 8.2% 6.0% 11.0%

Number 32 5 7 20

 employer Percent 36.1% 26.2% 34.2% 40.7%

Number 130 16 40 74

 my musicians' union Percent 4.2% 1.6% 6.0% 3.8%

Number 15 1 7 7

 mate's union or employer Percent 6.4% 6.6% 11.1% 3.3%

Number 23 4 13 6

 private company Percent 4.2% 3.3% 0.0% 7.1%

Number 15 2 0 13

missing 314 49 147 118

total # of respondents who answered this

question (including refusals & don't knows) 360 61 117 182

83a Who pays for this coverage?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 self Percent 170 31 62 77

Number 25.2% 28.2% 23.5% 25.7%

 mate Percent 22 5 4 13

Number 3.3% 4.5% 1.5% 4.3%

 employer Percent 107 12 37 58

Number 15.9% 10.9% 14.0% 19.3%

 employer under contract Percent

Number 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

 my musicians' union (specify union) Percent 13 1 10 2

Number 1.9% 0.9% 3.8% 0.7%

 mate's union or employer Percent 19 1 15 3

Number 2.8% 0.9% 5.7% 1.0%

 private company Percent 5 0 1 4

Number 0.7% 0.0% 0.4% 1.3%

 arts/arts service organization (specify

organization) Percent 2 0 0 2

Number 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%

 other Percent 43 5 25 13

Number 6.4% 4.5% 9.5% 4.3%

total # of respondents who answered this question

(including refusals & don't knows) 674 110 264 300
117

83b. What percentage do they pay?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 self

mean 78 80 83 74

median 100 100 100 100

std. dev. 34 34 31 37

mode 100 100 100 100

valid cases 170 31 62 77

missing 504 79 202 223

 mate

mean 65 54 54 73

median 64 50 59 100

std. dev. 35 45 34 33

mode 100 10 10 100

valid cases 22 5 4 13

missing 652 105 260 287

 employer

mean 86 81 90 85

median 95 90 100 90

std. dev. 20 20 20 19

mode 100 100 100 100

valid cases 107 12 37 58

missing 567 98 227 242

 my musicians' union (specify union)

mean 74 80 73 75

median 80 80 80 75

std. dev. 27 0 29 35

mode 100 80 100 50

valid cases 13 1 10 2

missing 661 109 254 298

 mate's union or employer

mean 96 100 100 73

median 100 100 100 80

std. dev. 14 0 0 31

mode 100 100 100 40

valid cases 19 1 15 3

missing 655 109 249 297

 private company

mean 97 0 100 96
118

median 100 0 100 100

std. dev. 7 0 0 8

mode 100 0 100 100

valid cases 5 0 1 4

missing 669 110 263 296

 arts/arts service organization (specify

organization)

mean 100 0 0 100

median 100 0 0 100

std. dev. 0 0 0 0

mode 100 0 0 100

valid cases 2 0 0 2

missing 672 110 264 298

 other

mean 95 100 96 93

median 100 100 100 100

std. dev. 17 0 15 23

mode 100 100 100 100

valid cases 43 5 25 13

missing 631 105 239 287

84. Do you have life insurance?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes valid % 33.3% 43.9% 31.8% 30.6%

frequency 213 47 83 83

 no valid % 66.7% 56.1% 68.2% 69.4%

frequency 426 60 178 188

missing 35 3 3 29

total # of respondents who answered this

question 639 107 261 271

85. How was the insurance obtained?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 self Percent 61.3% 81.3% 67.2% 46.0%

Number 122 39 43 40

 Mate Percent 4.0% 2.1% 0.0% 8.0%

Number 8 1 0 7

 employer Percent 25.1% 6.3% 23.4% 36.8%

Number 50 3 15 32

 my musicians' union Percent 2.5% 0.0% 4.7% 2.3%

Number 5 0 3 2
119

 mate's union or employer Percent 3.0% 4.2% 4.7% 1.1%

Number 6 2 3 1

 private company Percent 4.0% 6.3% 0.0% 5.7%

Number 8 3 0 5

missing 475 62 200 213

total # of respondents who answered this question 199 48 64 87

86. Who pays for this coverage?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 self Percent 70.1% 85.4% 71.0% 60.9%

Number 138 41 44 53

 mate Percent 3.0% 2.1% 0.0% 5.7%

Number 6 1 0 5

 employer Percent 21.3% 6.3% 24.2% 27.6%

Number 42 3 15 24

 my musicians' union Percent 1.5% 0.0% 3.2% 1.1%

Number 3 0 2 1

 mate's union or employer Percent 2.5% 6.3% 1.6% 1.1%

Number 5 3 1 1

 private company Percent 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4%

Number 3 0 0 3

 arts/arts service organization Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 other Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

missing 477 62 202 213

total # of respondents who answered this question 197 48 62 87

87. Do you have at least one retirement plan?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 43.0% 47.6% 44.0% 40.4%

Number 272 49 113 110

 no Percent 57.0% 52.4% 56.0% 59.6%

Number 360 54 144 162

missing 42 7 7 28

total # of respondents who answered this question 632 103 257 272
120

88. If yes, how obtained?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 self Percent 21.5% 22.7% 26.5% 16.7%

Number 145 25 70 50

 employer Percent 15.9% 14.5% 9.8% 21.7%

Number 107 16 26 65

 my musicians' union Percent 7.9% 16.4% 9.5% 3.3%

Number 53 18 25 10

 arts/arts service organization (specify

organization) Percent 0.6% 0.0% 0.4% 1.0%

Number 4 0 1 3

 other Percent 2.5% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3%

Number 17 3 7 7

total # of respondents who answered this question 674 110 264 300

89. Is this a personal or an employee retirement plan?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 personal Percent 56.5% 59.2% 77.3% 34.5%

Number 152 29 85 38

 employee Percent 29.0% 22.4% 20.0% 40.9%

Number 78 11 22 45

 both Percent 14.5% 18.4% 2.7% 24.5%

Number 39 9 3 27

missing 405 61 154 190

total # of respondents who answered this question 269 49 110 110

90. Who pays for this retirement plan?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 self valid % 63.6% 79.2% 63.4% 56.9%

frequency 171 38 71 62

 mate valid % 2.6% 2.1% 0.9% 4.6%

frequency 7 1 1 5

 employer valid % 23.4% 10.4% 17.9% 34.9%

frequency 63 5 20 38

 my musicians' union valid % 7.8% 8.3% 15.2% 0.0%

frequency 21 4 17 0

 arts service organization (specify

organization) valid % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

frequency 0000

 other valid % 2.6% 0.0% 2.7% 3.7%

frequency 7 0 3 4
121

missing 405 62 152 191

total # of respondents who answered this question 269 48 112 109

91. Have you made provisions for your death (will, burial plan, etc. )

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 17.3% 21.6% 16.7% 16.2%

Number 104 22 42 40

 no Percent 82.7% 78.4% 83.3% 83.8%

Number 497 80 210 207

missing 73 8 12 53

total # of respondents who answered this question 601 102 252 247

92. At what age did you achieve your first professional recognition?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

mean 96 0 21 1

median 100 0 20 1

std. dev. 14 0 8 0

mode 100 0 19 1

valid cases 19 0 253 206

missing 655 110 11 94

93. Through what venue did this professional recognition occur?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 award or honor Percent 7.5% 12.0% 3.2% 9.6%

Number 46 13 8 25

 feature article Percent 5.8% 6.5% 7.7% 3.8%

Number 36 7 19 10

 first paid job Percent 42.7% 54.6% 31.5% 48.5%

Number 263 59 78 126

 grant Percent 0.5% 0.0% 0.4% 0.8%

Number 3 0 1 2

 job with a known band Percent 13.0% 13.0% 9.7% 16.2%

Number 80 14 24 42

 played with a major artist Percent 10.9% 5.6% 17.7% 6.5%

Number 67 6 44 17

 winning a competition Percent 2.4% 2.8% 0.8% 3.8%

Number 15 3 2 10

 other (please specify) Percent 17.2% 5.6% 29.0% 10.8%
122

Number 106 6 72 28

missing 58 2 16 40

total # of respondents who answered this question 616 108 248 260

94. Has your talent been recognized?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 locally Percent 46.3% 67.3% 25.0% 57.3%

Number 312 74 66 172

 nationally Percent 19.1% 41.8% 17.8% 12.0%

Number 129 46 47 36

 internationally Percent 35.3% 51.8% 49.6% 16.7%

Number 238 57 131 50

 talent not recognized Percent 9.8% 2.7% 6.1% 15.7%

Number 66 3 16 47

 other (please specify) Percent 5.5% 0.0% 11.4% 2.3%

Number 37 0 30 7

total # of respondents who answered this question 674 110 264 300

95. If yes, how?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 newspaper articles Percent 43.3% 64.5% 48.1% 31.3%

Number 292 71 127 94

 magazine articles Percent 33.8% 50.0% 50.8% 13.0%

Number 228 55 134 39

 television coverage Percent 26.0% 41.8% 28.0% 18.3%

Number 175 46 74 55

 radio coverage Percent 43.9% 55.5% 59.8% 25.7%

Number 296 61 158 77

 record with the major record label Percent 17.5% 28.2% 23.9% 8.0%

Number 118 31 63 24

 perform widely Percent 62.3% 70.9% 75.8% 47.3%

Number 420 78 200 142

 other (please specify) Percent 17.4% 3.6% 27.7% 13.3%

Number 117 4 73 40

total # of respondents who answered this question 674 110 264 300
123

96. How satisfied are you with your music at this point?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 very satisfied Percent 16.1% 19.4% 16.3% 14.8%

Number 102 21 39 42

 satisfied Percent 57.0% 59.3% 56.7% 56.3%

Number 360 64 136 160

 dissatisfied Percent 24.2% 19.4% 24.2% 26.1%

Number 153 21 58 74

 very dissatisfied Percent 2.7% 1.9% 2.9% 2.8%

Number 17 2 7 8

missing 42 2 24 16

total # of respondents who answered this question 632 108 240 284

97. Do you feel that up to this point your career aspirations have been realized?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 15.3% 23.1% 17.1% 10.9%

Number 97 25 41 31

 somewhat yes Percent 37.2% 48.1% 28.3% 40.5%

Number 235 52 68 115

 somewhat no Percent 10.8% 17.6% 7.5% 10.9%

Number 68 19 18 31

 no Percent 36.7% 11.1% 47.1% 37.7%

Number 232 12 113 107

missing 42 2 24 16

total # of respondents who answered this question 632 108 240 284

98. If no, what is the major area that has not been fulfilled according to your expectations?

99. Have you applied for a grant or fellowship as a jazz or aspiring jazz musician?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes Percent 31.8% 12.1% 56.9% 16.3%

Number 207 13 148 46

 no Percent 68.2% 87.9% 43.1% 83.7%

Number 443 94 112 237

missing 24 3 4 17

total # of respondents who answered this

question 650 107 260 283
124

100. How much did you receive in 2000 before taxes in each of the following areas?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 music-related grants

 a $0- $5,000 Percent 94.8% 93.2% 93.7% 96.2%

Number 452 55 192 205

 b $5,001- $10,000 Percent 1.5% 0.0% 2.0% 1.4%

Number 7 0 4 3

 c $10,001- $25,000 Percent 2.1% 3.4% 2.9% 0.9%

Number 10 2 6 2

 d $25,001- $50,000 Percent 1.5% 3.4% 1.5% 0.9%

Number 7 2 3 2

 e $50,001- $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 f over $75,000 Percent 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

Number 1 0 0 1

mean 3,412 4,195 3,549 3,063

median 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

 music-related fellowships

 a $0- $5,000 Percent 96.7% 94.5% 95.9% 98.1%

Number 441 52 187 202

 b $5,001- $10,000 Percent 1.1% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0%

Number 5 0 5 0

 c $10,001- $25,000 Percent 1.5% 3.6% 1.0% 1.5%

Number 7 2 2 3

 d $25,001- $50,000 Percent 0.7% 1.8% 0.5% 0.5%

Number 3 1 1 1

 e $50,001- $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 f over $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

mean 3,015 3,682 2,962 2,888

median 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

 music royalties/residuals

 a $0- $5,000 Percent 96.0% 94.0% 95.9% 96.6%

Number 453 63 189 201

 b $5,001- $10,000 Percent 2.8% 6.0% 2.0% 2.4%

Number 13 4 4 5

 c $10,001- $25,000 Percent 1.1% 0.0% 1.5% 1.0%

Number 5 0 3 2
125

 d $25,001- $50,000 Percent 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0%

Number 1 0 1 0

 e $50,001- $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 f over $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

mean 2,871 2,799 3,008 2,764

median 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

 public assistance (welfare)

 a $0- $5,000 Percent 98.0% 100.0% 97.4% 98.0%

Number 437 53 186 198

 b $5,001- $10,000 Percent 1.8% 0.0% 2.1% 2.0%

Number 8 0 4 4

 c $10,001- $25,000 Percent 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0%

Number 1 0 1 0

 d $25,001- $50,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 e $50,001- $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 f over $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

mean 2,623 2,500 2,683 2,599

median 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

 unemployment benefits

 a $0- $5,000 Percent 99.3% 98.1% 99.5% 99.5%

Number 446 53 191 202

 b $5,001- $10,000 Percent 0.4% 1.9% 0.5% 0.5%

Number 2 1 1 1

 c $10,001- $25,000 Percent 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 1 0 0 0

 d $25,001- $50,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 e $50,001- $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 f over $75,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

mean 2,556 2,593 2,526 2,525

median 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

total # of respondents who answered this

question (including refusals & don't knows) 674 110 264 300
126

101. If you received grants or fellowships as a jazz or aspiring musician, from what sources did you receive

them?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 I never received Percent 36.5% 41.8% 20.1% 49.0%

Number 246 46 53 147

 National Endowment for the Arts Percent 9.2% 1.8% 17.4% 4.7%

Number 62 2 46 14

 other federal agency (specify agency) Percent 1.0% 0.0% 1.5% 1.0%

Number 7 0 4 3

 regional agency (specify agency) Percent 1.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.3%

Number 7 0 3 4

 state agency (specify agency) Percent 4.3% 1.8% 6.1% 3.7%

Number 29 2 16 11

 local agency (specify agency) Percent 2.7% 0.9% 4.5% 1.7%

Number 18 1 12 5

 foundation (specify foundation) Percent 3.3% 0.0% 5.3% 2.7%

Number 22 0 14 8

 educational institution (specify

institution) Percent 7.7% 7.3% 11.7% 4.3%

Number 52 8 31 13

 corporate sponsor (specify sponsor) Percent 1.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.7%

Number 7052

 other Percent 7.3% 0.9% 16.7% 1.3%

Number 49 1 44 4

missing 428 64 211 153

total # of respondents who answered this

question (including refusals & don't knows) 674 110 264 300

102. I am going to read a list of income ranges. Please let me know when I get to the category that describes

your total income from work as musician from all sources for 2000 before taxes.

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 $0- $500 Percent 13.8% 1.9% 7.9% 24.1%

Number 85 2 20 63

 $501- $3000 Percent 16.0% 5.8% 12.3% 23.8%

Number 99 6 31 62

 $3001- $7000 Percent 13.9% 2.9% 14.2% 18.0%

Number 86 3 36 47

 $7001- $12,000 Percent 13.0% 13.6% 15.0% 10.7%

Number 80 14 38 28
127

 $12,001- $20,000 Percent 14.7% 25.2% 17.4% 8.0%

Number 91 26 44 21

 $20,001- $40,000 Percent 19.8% 40.8% 22.5% 8.8%

Number 122 42 57 23

 $40,001- $60,000 Percent 5.5% 7.8% 7.1% 3.1%

Number 34 8 18 8

 $60,001- $80,000 Percent 3.2% 1.9% 3.6% 3.4%

Number 20 2 9 9

 $80,001- $100,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 more than $100,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

mean $15,560 $23,059 $17,962 $10,273

median $9,501 $30,001 $16,001 $5,001

missing 57 7 11 39

total # of respondents who answered this question 617 103 253 261

103. Did this money cover your music-related costs in 2000?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 yes Percent 62.5% 89.1% 65.3% 48.6%

Number 373 90 164 119

 no Percent 37.5% 10.9% 34.7% 51.4%

Number 224 11 87 126

missing 77 9 13 55

total # of respondents who answered this

question 597 101 251 245

104. What percentage of this income came from your work as a jazz musician in 2000?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

mean 70 78 81 56

median 90 98 100 50

std. dev. 35 30 30 38

mode 100 100 100 100

valid cases 587 104 247 236

missing 87 6 17 64

106 I i d li f i Pl l k h I
128

105. I am going to read a list of income ranges. Please let me know when I get to the category that describes

your total income as an individual from all sources in 2000 before taxes including your 

work as a musician.

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 $0- $500 Percent 7.7% 2.0% 4.9% 12.5%

Number 46 2 12 32

 $501- $3000 Percent 11.7% 5.0% 12.3% 13.7%

Number 70 5 30 35

 $3001- $7000 Percent 25.2% 29.0% 23.4% 25.5%

Number 151 29 57 65

 $7001- $12,000 Percent 20.0% 26.0% 20.9% 16.9%

Number 120 26 51 43

 $12,001- $20,000 Percent 12.7% 17.0% 16.4% 7.5%

Number 76 17 40 19

 $20,001- $40,000 Percent 9.5% 11.0% 9.4% 9.0%

Number 57 11 23 23

 $40,001- $60,000 Percent 6.2% 6.0% 5.3% 7.1%

Number 37 6 13 18

 $60,001- $80,000 Percent 7.0% 4.0% 7.4% 7.8%

Number 42 4 18 20

 $80,001- $100,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 more than $100,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

mean $16,269 $15,833 $16,660 $16,066

median $9,501 $9,501 $9,501 $5,001

missing 75 10 20 45

total # of respondents who answered this question 599 100 244 255

106. I am going to read a list of income ranges. Please let me know when I get to the category that describes

your total household gross income in 2000 before taxes.

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 $0- $500 Percent 4.3% 2.1% 5.0% 4.6%

Number 25 2 12 11

 $501- $3000 Percent 8.3% 2.1% 8.8% 10.4%

Number 48 2 21 25

 $3001- $7000 Percent 22.5% 21.9% 21.3% 24.1%

Number 130 21 51 58

 $7001- $12,000 Percent 15.1% 17.7% 13.3% 15.8%

Number 87 17 32 38
129

 $12,001- $20,000 Percent 13.3% 19.8% 14.6% 9.5%

Number 77 19 35 23

 $20,001- $40,000 Percent 10.6% 13.5% 8.8% 11.2%

Number 61 13 21 27

 $40,001- $60,000 Percent 8.0% 12.5% 7.5% 6.6%

Number 46 12 18 16

 $60,001- $80,000 Percent 17.9% 10.4% 20.8% 17.8%

Number 103 10 50 43

 $80,001- $100,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 more than $100,000 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

mean $24,504 $23,589 $25,787 $23,592

median $9,501 $16,001 $16,001 $9,501

missing 97 14 24 59

total # of respondents who answered this question 577 96 240 241

107. What is the number of dependents you and your household are responsible for (include yourself

as one)?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 1 (self only) Percent 64.2% 51.0% 66.3% 67.4%

Number 395 52 169 174

 2 Percent 20.2% 29.4% 20.8% 15.9%

Number 124 30 53 41

 3-4 Percent 14.3% 17.6% 11.8% 15.5%

Number 88 18 30 40

 5-7 Percent 1.1% 2.0% 0.8% 1.2%

Number 7 2 2 3

 8-10 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

 more than 10 Percent 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

Number 1 0 1 0

mean 44 17

median 4 4 1 5

missing 59 8 9 42

total # of respondents who answered this question 615 102 255 258
130

108. What is your current marital status?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 single, never married Percent 41.8% 31.8% 36.0% 51.1%

Number 266 35 90 141

 living with significant other Percent 7.9% 6.4% 10.0% 6.5%

Number 50 7 25 18

 married Percent 25.6% 35.5% 25.2% 22.1%

Number 163 39 63 61

 separated Percent 3.5% 3.6% 4.4% 2.5%

Number 22 4 11 7

 divorced Percent 17.8% 21.8% 21.2% 13.0%

Number 113 24 53 36

 widowed Percent 0.9% 0.9% 1.2% 0.7%

Number 6 1 3 2

 living with parents and/or siblings Percent 1.7% 0.0% 0.8% 3.3%

Number 11 02 9

 other Percent 0.8% 0.0% 1.2% 0.7%

Number 5 0 3 2

missing 38 0 14 24

total # of respondents who answered this question 636 110 250 276

109. Have you played jazz for money during the last 12 months?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 yes Percent 92.1% 100.0% 96.5% 85.5%

Number 563 109 218 236

 no Percent 7.9% 0.0% 3.5% 14.5%

Number 48 0 8 40

missing 63 1 38 24

total # of respondents who answered this question 611 0 226 276

110. If you currently play with a group, how many different groups do you play with?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 none Percent 8.7% 6.4% 8.4% 9.9%

Number 53 7 20 26

 one Percent 11.6% 3.7% 13.4% 13.3%

Number 71 4 32 35

 two Percent 16.0% 6.4% 17.6% 18.6%

Number 98 7 42 49

 three Percent 22.4% 19.3% 25.5% 20.9%
131

Number 137 21 61 55

 four or more Percent 41.2% 64.2% 35.1% 37.3%

Number 252 70 84 98

missing 63 1 25 37

total # of respondents who answered this question 611 109 239 263

111. How large is each, including yourself?

Total New Orleans New York San Francisco

 first group mean 6 65 6

median 4 5 4 4

std. dev. 6 8 4 6

mode 4 4 4 4

valid cases 546 98 226 222

missing 128 12 38 78

 second group mean 6 66 7

median 4 5 4 5

std. dev. 6 3 4 7

mode 4 4 4 4

valid cases 470 90 189 191

missing 204 20 75 109

 third group mean 6 56 7

median 5 5 4 5

std. dev. 7 3 4 10

mode 4 5 4 4

valid cases 368 82 147 139

missing 306 28 117 161

 fourth group mean 7 77 8

median 5 6 5 5

std. dev. 7 5 5 9

mode 4 4 4 4

valid cases 233 59 85 89

missing 441 51 179 211

112. In your opinion, what are the three most important qualities someone needs to pursue a career in jazz?

Choice 1 Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 business savvy Percent 10.8% 7.1% 4.8% 16.9%

Number 62 7 10 45

 connections Percent 7.5% 6.1% 0.5% 13.5%

Number 43 6 1 36
132

 curiosity Percent 3.3% 3.0% 0.5% 5.6%

Number 19 3 1 15

 energy Percent 3.5% 5.1% 0.5% 5.2%

Number 20 5 1 14

 intelligence Percent 3.1% 5.1% 0.0% 4.9%

Number 18 5 0 13

 luck Percent 0.3% 1.0% 0.0% 0.4%

Number 2 1 0 1

 perception Percent 1.4% 1.0% 0.0% 2.6%

Number 8 1 0 7

 performing ability Percent 12.2% 19.2% 4.8% 15.4%

Number 70 19 10 41

 physical stamina Percent 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 1.9%

Number 8 0 3 5

 talent Percent 22.2% 38.4% 11.0% 25.1%

Number 128 38 23 67

 technique Percent 1.0% 2.0% 0.5% 1.1%

Number 6 2 1 3

 other Percent 33.3% 12.1% 76.2% 7.5%

Number 192 12 160 20

missing 98 11 54 33

total # of respondents who answered this question 576 99 210 267

Choice 2 Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 business savvy Percent 7.7% 12.1% 9.2% 4.9%

Number 42 12 17 13

 connections Percent 9.1% 12.1% 1.1% 13.7%

Number 50 12 2 36

 curiosity Percent 2.0% 1.0% 1.6% 2.7%

Number 11 13 7

 energy Percent 5.7% 3.0% 1.1% 9.9%

Number 31 3 2 26

 intelligence Percent 7.1% 10.1% 1.6% 9.9%

Number 39 10 3 26

 luck Percent 4.4% 3.0% 1.1% 7.2%

Number 24 3 2 19

 perception Percent 2.2% 4.0% 0.5% 2.7%

Number 12 4 1 7

 performing ability Percent 14.3% 25.3% 4.3% 17.1%

Number 78 25 8 45
133

 physical stamina Percent 1.6% 0.0% 1.1% 2.7%

Number 9 0 2 7

 talent Percent 15.7% 21.2% 7.0% 19.8%

Number 86 21 13 52

 technique Percent 4.4% 5.1% 0.5% 6.8%

Number 24 5 1 18

 other Percent 25.8% 3.0% 70.8% 2.7%

Number 141 3 131 7

missing 127 11 79 37

total # of respondents who answered this question 547 99 185 263

Choice 3 Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 business savvy Percent 11.3% 12.4% 12.2% 10.4%

Number 57 12 18 27

 connections Percent 7.2% 4.1% 4.1% 10.0%

Number 36 4 6 26

 curiosity Percent 2.4% 2.1% 1.4% 3.1%

Number 12 2 2 8

 energy Percent 5.8% 8.2% 0.7% 7.7%

Number 29 8 1 20

 intelligence Percent 5.0% 7.2% 0.7% 6.6%

Number 25 7 1 17

 luck Percent 7.6% 10.3% 4.8% 8.1%

Number 38 10 7 21

 perception Percent 3.4% 9.3% 0.0% 3.1%

Number 17 9 0 8

 performing ability Percent 11.3% 16.5% 5.4% 12.7%

Number 57 16 8 33

 physical stamina Percent 2.6% 4.1% 0.0% 3.5%

Number 13 4 0 9

 talent Percent 15.5% 15.5% 10.9% 18.1%

Number 78 15 0 47

 technique Percent 5.6% 7.2% 0.0% 8.1%

Number 28 7 16 21

 other Percent 22.5% 3.1% 59.9% 8.5%

Number 113 3 88 22

missing 171 13 117 41

total # of respondents who answered this question 503 97 147 259
134

113. What are your three most important goals for the next five years as a musician?

Choice 1 Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 develop artistic competence Percent 11.8% 11.9% 1.5% 19.8%

Number 67 12 3 52

 get a record deal Percent 10.5% 5.9% 17.5% 6.8%

Number 60 6 36 18

 lead my own groups Percent 9.1% 7.9% 9.7% 9.1%

Number 52 8 20 24

 make a living from my music Percent 11.2% 14.9% 6.8% 13.3%

Number 64 15 14 35

 make money from my music Percent 3.5% 3.0% 3.4% 3.8%

Number 20 3 7 10

 obtain critical reviews Percent 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1%

Number 3 0 0 3

 participate in major concerts Percent 4.0% 3.0% 5.8% 3.0%

Number 23 3 12 8

 play with well-known groups Percent 2.3% 2.0% 2.4% 2.3%

Number 13 2 5 6

 reach higher level of artistic expression/

achievement Percent 26.8% 46.5% 12.6% 30.4%

Number 153 47 26 80

 spend more time on music Percent 4.0% 3.0% 3.4% 4.9%

Number 23 3 7 13

 win recognition/award Percent 1.2% 1.0% 2.9% 0.0%

Number 7 1 6 0

 other Percent 14.9% 1.0% 34.0% 5.3%

Number 85 1 70 14

missing 104 9 58 37

total # of respondents who answered this question 570 101 206 263

Choice 2 Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 develop artistic competence Percent 6.2% 7.1% 2.8% 8.1%

Number 33 7 5 21

 get a record deal Percent 7.1% 5.1% 12.4% 4.3%

Number 38 5 22 11

 lead my own groups Percent 9.2% 10.1% 6.2% 10.9%

Number 49 10 11 28

 make a living from my music Percent 10.7% 11.1% 8.4% 12.0%

Number 57 11 15 31

 make money from my music Percent 4.9% 3.0% 3.9% 6.2%
135

Number 26 3 7 16

 obtain critical reviews Percent 2.1% 4.0% 1.7% 1.6%

Number 114 3 4

 participate in major concerts Percent 6.9% 12.1% 5.6% 5.8%

Number 37 12 10 15

 play with well-known groups Percent 7.9% 9.1% 5.6% 8.9%

Number 42 9 10 23

 reach higher level of artistic

expression/achievement Percent 19.1% 18.2% 8.4% 26.7%

Number 102 18 15 69

 spend more time on music Percent 9.3% 16.2% 1.1% 12.4%

Number 50 16 2 32

 win recognition/award Percent 2.8% 2.0% 4.5% 1.9%

Number 15 2 8 5

 other Percent 14.0% 2.0% 39.3% 1.2%

Number 75 2 70 3

missing 139 11 86 42

total # of respondents who answered this question 535 99 178 258

Choice 3 Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 develop artistic competence Percent 4.3% 6.3% 1.4% 5.3%

Number 21 6 2 13

 get a record deal Percent 6.8% 8.4% 7.6% 5.7%

Number 33 8 11 14

 lead my own groups Percent 7.2% 6.3% 9.7% 6.1%

Number 35 6 14 15

 make a living from my music Percent 8.7% 8.4% 7.6% 9.4%

Number 42 8 11 23

 make money from my music Percent 6.0% 6.3% 5.6% 6.1%

Number 29 6 8 15

 obtain critical reviews Percent 0.8% 2.1% 0.0% 0.8%

Number 4 2 0 2

 participate in major concerts Percent 8.7% 6.3% 13.2% 6.9%

Number 42 6 19 17

 play with well-known groups Percent 8.9% 12.6% 5.6% 9.4%

Number 43 12 8 23

 reach higher level of artistic

expression/achievement Percent 13.6% 11.6% 6.9% 18.4%

Number 66 11 10 45

 spend more time on music Percent 13.4% 13.7% 6.9% 17.1%

Number 65 13 10 42

 win recognition/award Percent 7.9% 10.5% 3.5% 9.4%
136

Number 38 10 5 23

 other Percent 13.6% 7.4% 31.9% 5.3%

Number 66 7 46 13

missing 190 15 120 55

total # of respondents who answered this question 484 95 144 245

114. What is your gender?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 male Percent 80.2% 83.6% 73.7% 84.5%

Number 534 92 191 251

 female Percent 19.8% 16.4% 26.3% 15.5%

Number 132 18 68 46

missing 8 0 5 3

total # of respondents who answered this question 666 110 259 297

115. What is your race?

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 White Percent 59.8% 73.1% 54.8% 59.4%

Number 389 79 142 168

 Black or African American Percent 27.8% 23.1% 32.8% 25.1%

Number 181 25 85 71

 Hispanic or Latino Percent 2.6% 0.0% 3.1% 3.2%

Number 17 0 8 9

 American Indian or Alaska Native Percent 2.2% 0.0% 2.3% 2.8%

Number 14 0 6 8

 Asian Percent 2.6% 2.8% 1.2% 3.9%

Number 17 3 3 11

 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

000 0

 other 4.9% 0.9% 5.8% 5.7%

32 1 15 16

missing 24 2 5 17

total # of respondents who answered this question 650 108 259 283
137

Selection Criteria

Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 AI Do you consider yourself a jazz musician?

 Yes Percent 94.7% 97.3% 96.2% 92.3%

Number 638 107 254 277

No Percent 5.3% 2.7% 3.8% 7.7%

Number 36 3 10 23

Total 674 110 264 300

 A2 Did you earn more than 50 percent of your personal income in the last six months as a jazz musician or in jazz related act activities?

 Yes Percent 53.3% 91.8% 57.6% 35.3%

Number 359 101 152 106

No Percent 46.7% 8.2% 42.4% 64.7%

Number 315 9 112 194

Total 674 110 264 300

 A3 Have you been engaged in your art/jazz more than 50 percent of the time during the last year?

 Yes Percent 47.8% 91.8% 18.6% 57.3%

Number 322 101 49 172

No Percent 52.2% 8.2% 81.4% 42.7%

Number 352 9 215 128

Total 674 110 264 300

 A4 Have you performed in/with a jazz band at least 10 times in the last year?

 Yes Percent 52.7% 98.2% 17.4% 67.0%

Number 355 108 46 201

No Percent 47.3% 1.8% 82.6% 33.0%

Number 319 2 218 99

Total 674 110 264 300

 A5 Have you performed with or without a jazz band for pay at least 10 times during the last year?

 Yes Percent 42.1% 94.5% 2.3% 58.0%

Number 284 104 6 174

No Percent 57.9% 5.5% 97.7% 42.0%

Number 390 6 258 126

Total 674 110 264 300

 A6 Have you produced a documented body of work that is considered jazz?

Yes Percent 45.5% 98.2% 10.2% 57.3%

Number 307 108 27 172

No Percent 54.5% 1.8% 89.8% 42.7%

Number 367 2 237 128

Total 674 110 264 300
138

Network Questions — BI Who gave you the coupon?

Total New Orleans New York San

Francisco

 A jazz musician? Percent 73.0% 61.8% 70.1% 79.7%

Number 492 68 185 239

 A current employer? Percent 3.1% 9.1% 3.0% 1.0%

Number 21 10 8 3

 A former employer? Percent 1.5% 6.4% 0.8% 0.3%

Number 10 7 2 1

 A potential employer? Percent 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%

Number 2 0 0 2

 Your husband or wife? Percent 1.0% 2.7% 1.1% 0.3%

Number 7 3 3 1

 Your significant other? Percent 0.3% 0.9% 0.0% 0.3%

Number 2 1 0 1

 A friend? Percent 19.3% 32.7% 19.7% 14.0%

Number 130 36 52 42

 An acquaintance? Percent 1.9% 0.0% 3.0% 1.7%

Number 13 0 8 5

 A stranger? Percent 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3%

Number 10 0 0 10

 Other Percent 2.1% 0.0% 2.7% 2.3%

Number 14 0 7 7

 N/A - respondent did not have a coupon Percent 2.8% 98.2% 96.2% 97.0%

Number 19 108 254 291

 DK/refused Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 0 0 0 0

total # of respondents who answered this question 674 110 264 300

Age by groups Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 18-24 Percent 8.1% 7.4% 2.3% 14.5%

Number 50 8 6 36

 25-34 Percent 26.6% 33.3% 20.2% 30.5%

Number 165 36 53 76

 35-44 Percent 19.4% 22.2% 22.4% 14.9%

Number 120 24 59 37

 45-54 Percent 25.6% 23.1% 28.5% 23.7%

Number 159 25 75 59

 55-64 Percent 13.4% 7.4% 18.6% 10.4%

Number 83 8 49 26

 65+ Percent 6.9% 6.5% 8.0% 6.0%
139

Number 43 7 21 15

missing 54 2 1 51

total # of respondents who answered this question 620 108 263 249

Age by generations Total

New

Orleans New York

San

Francisco

 Gen Y (18-23) Percent 6.3% 4.6% 1.9% 11.6%

Number 39 5 5 29

 Gen X (24-36) Percent 30.6% 36.1% 24.3% 34.9%

Number 190 39 64 87

 Boomerang (37-42) Percent 12.7% 15.7% 13.7% 10.4%

Number 79 17 36 26

 Boomers (43-56) Percent 33.7% 29.6% 38.4% 30.5%

Number 209 32 101 76

 Silent Generation (57-72) Percent 14.0% 11.1% 18.3% 10.8%

Number 87 12 48 27

 New Deal (73+) Percent 2.6% 2.8% 3.4% 1.6%

Number 16 3 9 4

missing 54 2 1 51

total # of respondents who answered this question 620 108 263 249

How many people refused to take a coupon?

Total New Orleans New York

San

Francisco

None Percent 97.9% 100.0% 94.7% 100.0%

Number 660 110 250 300

More than one Percent 2.1% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0%

Number 14 0 14 0

total # of respondents who answered this question 674 110 264 300
Using the Capture–Recapture Method to Estimate

the Number of Jazz Musicians

The capture-recapture method is used to estimate

the number of jazz artists by comparing the overlap

between the union and RDS-identified jazz artists.

Specifically, in order to calculate the universe of jazz

musicians in each city, the number of jazz artists

identified in the union study (capture) is divided by

the proportion of jazz artists who are determined to

be union members based on the RDS survey results

(recapture). The steps taken to estimate the number

of jazz musicians in each metro area are described

below:

New York 

Capture:

The proportion of New York area musician union

members who identified themselves as jazz

musicians (in response to the union member

survey) is .701 (415/592).

The number of musician union members in the

New York metropolitan area, according to union

records, is 10,499.

Therefore, the estimated number of union jazz

musicians is 7,360 (10,499 x .701).

Recapture:

The proportion of all New York jazz musicians who

are union members is estimated based on the RDS

sample using the following formula for Pa, the

proportion of union members:

Pa = (Sba * Nb)/(Sba * Nb + Sab * Na)

Na is the mean network size of union members =

298.2

Nb is the mean network size of nonunion members

= 175.2

Sab is the proportion of nonunion members

recruited by union members = .512

Sba is the proportion of union members recruited

by nonunion members = .252

Which yields Pa = .22301

Therefore, based on the estimate of both the number

of New York union jazz musicians (7,360) and the

estimate of the portion of all New York jazz

musicians who are union members (.223), the size

of the New York jazz musician universe is estimated

using the following formula:

7,360/.223 = 33,003

San Francisco 

Capture:

The proportion of San Francisco area musician

union members who identified themselves as jazz

musicians (in response to the union member

survey) is .681.

The number of musician union members in the San

Francisco metropolitan area, according to union

records is 2,217.

Therefore, the estimated number of union jazz

musicians is 1,509 (2,217 x .681).

Recapture:

The proportion of all San Francisco jazz musicians

who are union members is estimated based on the

RDS sample using the following formula for Pa, the

proportion of union members:

Pa = (Sba * Nb)/(Sba * Nb + Sab * Na)

Pa = .0806

Therefore, based on the estimate of both the number

of San Francisco union jazz musicians (1,509) and

the estimate of the portion of all San Francisco jazz

musicians who are union members (.0806), the size

of the San Francisco jazz musician universe is

estimated using the following formula:

1,509/.0806 = 18,733

New Orleans 

Capture:

The proportion of New Orleans area musician

union members who identified themselves as jazz

musicians (in response to the union member

survey) is .873.

140

Appendix D
141

musicians who are union members (.514), the size

of the New Orleans jazz musician universe is

estimated using the following formula:

885/.514 =1,723

The number of documented referrals in New

Orleans was too small for a meaningful analysis of

referral patterns. Therefore, it was not possible to

use the equation to compute the proportion of

union members in New Orleans (i.e., no data for

the terms Sab and Sba). Therefore, the proportion

of union members in the RDS sample (i.e., .514)

was used instead.

The number of musician union members in the

New Orleans metropolitan area, according to union

records, is 1,014.

Therefore, the estimated number of union jazz

musicians is 885 (1,014 x .873).

Recapture:

The proportion of all New Orleans jazz musicians

who are union members is estimated based on the

RDS sample as .514. *

Therefore, based on the estimate of both the number

of New Orleans union jazz musicians (885) and the

estimate of the portion of all New Orleans jazz
FOUNDATIONS

National

Arkansas Jazz Heritage Foundation

P.O. Box 251187

Little Rock, AR 72225-1187

(P) 501.663.5264 (F) 501.225.2133

info@arjazz.org

www.arjazz.org

Arts Alive Foundation

P.O. Box 1746

Beverly Hills, CA 90213-1746

(P) 310.276.5951

Beyond Baroque Foundation

681 Venice Blvd.

P.O. Box 806

Venice, CA 90291

(P) 213.822.3006

www.beyondbaroque.org

Butch Berman Charitable Music Foundation

4500 Kirkwood Drive

Lincoln, NE 68516

(P) 402.476.3112 (F) 402.483.6939

Centrum Foundation

P.O. Box 1158

Port Townsend, WA 98368

(P) 360.385.3102 (F) 360.385.2470

Grammy Foundation

3402 Pico Boulevard

Santa Monica, CA 90405

(P) 310.392.3777

grammyfoundation@grammy.com

www.grammy.com/academy/foundation/index.html

Herb Alpert Foundation

1414 Sixth St.

Santa Monica, CA 90401

(P) 310.393.8500

Jazz Heritage Foundation

P.O. Box 19070

Los Angeles, CA 90019

(P) 213.649.2722

Music For Hope Foundation

1351 S. Riverview

Gardenville, NV 89410

775.265.4372 (F) 775.265.4512

www.musicforhope.org

Mid Atlantic Arts Foundation

22 Light St., Suite 330

Baltimore, MD 21202

410.539.6656 (F) 410.837.5517

info@midatlanticarts.org

www.midatlanticarts.org

National Foundation for Advancement In The Arts

800.970.ARTS

www.ARTSawards.org

National Music Foundation

2457A South Hiawassee Rd., Suite 244

Orlando, FL 32835

(P) 1.800.USA.MUSIC

info@usamusic.org

www.nmc.org

New England Foundation For The Arts

266 Summer St. 2nd Fl.

Boston, MA 02210-1216

617.951.0010 (F) 617.951.0016

www.neta.org

The Vail Jazz Foundation, Inc.

P.O. Box 3035

Vail,. CO 81658

(P) 970.479.6146 (F) 970.477.0866

vjf@vailjazz.org

www.vailjazz.org

Detroit

James Tatum Foundation for the Arts

PO Box 32240

Detroit, MI 48232

(P) 313.255.9015

jtfa@detroit.net

142

Appendix E. Resource Directory
143

American Pianists Association

4600 Sunset Ave.

Indianapolis, IN 46208

(P) 317.940.9945 (F) 317.940.9010

apainfo@americanpianists.org

www.americanpianists.org

Boston Jazz Society

P.O. Box 178

Boston, MA 02134

(P) 617.445.2811 (F) 617.445.2811

Cultural Alliance Of Greater Washington

410 Eighth St., NW, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20004

(P) 202.638.2406

Fort Worth Jazz Society

P.O. Box 14533

Fort Worth, TX 76119-3120

Friends of the Arts

P.O. Box 702

Locust Valley, NY 11560

(P) 516.922.0061 (F) 516.922.0770

artsfriend@aol.com

International Association for Jazz Education

2803 Claflin Road, P.O. Box 724

Manhattan, KS 66505-0724

785.776.8744 (F) 785.776.6190

www.iaje.org

Jazz Club of Sarasota, Inc.

330 S. Pineapple Ave., Ste. 111

Sarasota, FL 34236

(P) 813.366.1552

mail@jazzclubsarasota.com

www.jazzclubsarasota.com

Meet the Composer

2112 Broadway, Suite 505

New York, NY 10023

(P) 212.787.3601 (F) 212.787.3745

lklein@meetthecomposer.org

www.meetthecomposer.org

Mid American Arts Alliance

912 Baltimore Ave., Suite 700

Kansas City, MO 64105

816.421.1388 (F) 816.421.3918 

New Orleans

New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Foundation

1205 N. Rampart St.

New Orleans, LA 70116

(P) 504.522.4786

www.nojhf.org

New York

Jazz Foundation of America

322 W. 48th Street

New York, NY 10036

(P) 800.532.5267/ 212.245.3999

jazzfoundation@rcn.com

www.jazzfoundation.org

Music For Youth Foundation

130 E. 59th Street, Suite 844

New York, NY 10022

(P) 212.836.1320 (F) 212.836.1820

www.musicforyouth.org

Music Performance Trust Funds

MPTF 1501 Broadway

New York, NY 10036

(P) 212.391.3950

www.mptf.org

VH1 Save The Music Foundation

1515 Broadway

New York, NY 10036

(P) 212.846.5364 (F) 212.846.1827

laurie.schopp@vh1staff.com

www.vh1.com

ASSOCIATIONS

National

American Federation of Jazz Societies

P.O. Box 84063

Phoenix, AZ 85071-4063

info@jazzfederation.com

www.jazzfederation.com

American Composers Alliance

73 Spring St. Rm. 505

New York, NY 10023

(P) 212.362.8900 (F) 212.925.6798

info@composers.com

www.composers.com
National Association Of Composers

P.O. Box 49652

Barrington Station

Los Angeles, CA 90049

(P) 310.541.8213 (F) 310.373.3244

nacusa@music-usa.org

www.music-usa.org/nacusa

National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences

(NARAS)

3402 Pico Boulevard

Santa Monica, CA 90405

(P) 310.392.3777 (F) 310.392.9262

National Association of School Music Dealers

(NASMD)

4020 McEwen, Ste. 105

Dallas, TX 75244-5019

National Jazz Service Organization

P.O. Box 50152

Washington, DC 20004-0152

Pennsylvania Performing Arts On Tour

1811 Chestnut Street, Suite 301

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(P) 215.496.9424 (F) 215.496.9585

Potomac River Jazz Club

5537 Belle Pond Dr.

Centreville, VA 22020

(P) 703.698.PRJC

prjcweb@prjc.org

www.prjc.org

Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)

1330 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20036

202.775.0101 (F) 202.775.7253

www.riaa.com

Sedona Jazz on the Rocks

P.O. Box 889

Sedona, AZ 86339-0089

(P) 520.282.1985

lori@sedonajazz.com

www.sedonajazz.com

Southern Arts Federation

181 14th St., Ste. 400

Atlanta, GA 30309-7603

(P) 404.874.7244 (F) 404.873.2148

josephg@southarts.org

www.southarts.org

Tucson Jazz Society

P.O. Box 1069

Tucson, AZ 85702-1069

(P) 520.903.1265 (F) 520.903.1266

tjsmail@tucsonjazz.org

www.tucsonjazz.org

Western Jazz Presenters Network

P.O. Box 3162

LaJolla, CA 92038

(P) 858.454.5872 

World Music Association

P.O. Box 37725

Honolulu, HI 96837

(P) 808.941.9974 (F) 808.943.0224

Detroit

Southeastern Michigan Jazz Association

2385 W. Huron River Drive

Ann Arbor, MI 48103-2241

(P) 734.662.8514

semja@semja.org

www.semja.org

New Orleans

Jazz Centennial Celebration

628 Frenchman St.

New Orleans, LA 70116

(P) 504.835.5277

jazzcentennial@aol.com

www.louisianamusic.org

Louisiana Division of the Arts

P.O. Box 44247

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

225.342.8180 (F) 225.342.8173

arts@crt.state.la.us

www.crt.state.la.us/arts

New York

American Society of Composers, Authors &

Publishers (ASCAP)

ASCAP Building

One Lincoln Plaza

New York, NY 10023

(P) 212.621.6000/ 800.95.ASCAP 

info@ascap.com

www.ascap.com

144
145

American Music Therapy Association

8455 Colesville Road, Suite 1000

Silver Spring, MD 20910

(P) 301.589.3300 (F) 301.589.5175

www.musictherapy.org

Services: Application of music therapy for medical

use

Cleveland Clinic Foundation

Medical Center for the Performing Arts

9500 Euclid Ave.

Cleveland, OH 44106

(P) 216.444.3903

www.clevelandclinic.org

Services: Performing Arts Medicine

Colorado Lawyers for the Arts

P.O. Box 48148

Denver, CO 80204

(P) 303.722.7994

cola@artstozoo.org

Services: Legal Representation

Georgia Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts

Bureau of Cultural Affairs

675 Ponce de Leon Ave.

Atlanta, GA 30308

(P) 404.873.3911

www.gvla.org

International Arts Medicine Association

19 S. 22nd St.

Philadelphia, PA 19103

http://members-aol.com/iamoaorg

Services: Medical Services

Lawyers for the Creative Arts

213 W. Institute Pl., Suite 401

Chicago, IL 60610

(P) 312.649.4111 (F) 312.944.2195

wrattner@law-arts.org

www.law-arts.org

Services: Legal Representation

Music Cares Foundation

3402 Pico Boulevard

Santa Monica, CA 90405

(P) East: 1.877.303.6962 

Central: 1.877.626.2748 

West: 1.800.687.4227 

www.grammy.com/academy/musiccares/index.html

Services: Emergency Relief Funds

Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI)

320 W. 57th Street

New York, NY 10019

(P) 212.586.2000 (F) 212.262.2824

jazz@bmi.com

http://bmi.com

Chamber Music America

305 Seventh Ave., 5th Floor

New York, NY 10001-6008

(P) 212.242.2022

info@chamber-music.org

www.chamber-music.org

International Women in Jazz

C.S. 9030

Hicksville, NY 11802-9030

www.internationalwomeninjazz.com

San Francisco

San Jose Jazz Society

P.O. Box 1770

San Jose, CA 95109-1770

(P) 408.288.7557 (F) 408.288.7598

jazzmaster@sanjosejazz.org

www.sanjosejazz.org

SUPPORT SERVICE

ORGANIZATIONS

National

ACIS/ Encore Tours

19 Bay State Road

Boston, MA 02215

(P) 1.877.460.3801 (F) 1.617.236.8623

encoretours@acis.com

www.encoretours.com

Services: Customizing tours for performing artists

Acoustics First

2247 Tomlyn Street

Richmond, VA 23230-3334

(P) 888.765.2900 (F) 804.342.1107

www.acousticsfirst.com

Services: Noise control solutions
National Center On Arts And Aging

National Council on the Aging

600 Maryland Ave., SW, West Wing 100

Washington DC 20024

(P) 202.479.1200

www.center-for-creative-aging.org

Services: Counseling, Publications

Ocean St. Lawyers for the Arts

P.O. Box 19

Saunderstown, RI 02874-0019

dspatt@artslaw.org

www.artslaw.org

Support Services Alliance (SSA)

P.O. Box 130

Schoharie, NY 12157

(P) 518.295.7966

comments@ssainfo.com

www.ssainfo.com

Services: Financial and Medical Services

Texas Accountants and Lawyers for the Arts

1540 Sul Ross

Houston, TX 77006

(P) 713.526.4876 (F) 713.526.1299

info@talarts.org

www.talarts.org

Services: Legal Representation and Accounting

Services

Washington Lawyers for the Arts

1634 Eleventh Ave.

Seattle, WA 98122

(P) 206.328.7053 (F) 206.568.3306

Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts

815 15th St. NW

Washington DC 20005

(F) 202.393.4444

legalservices@thewala.org

www.thewala.org

Services: Legal Representation

Detroit

Legal Aid & Defender Association Of Detroit

645 Griswold St., Suite 2400

Detroit, MI 48226-4201

(P) 313.964.4111 (F) 313.964.1932

www.mlan.net/ladal/

Services: Legal Services

New Orleans

Arts Council Of New Orleans

225 Baronne St. Suite 1712

New Orleans, LA 70112-1712

(P) 504.523.1465 (F) 504.529.2430

www.louisiana-arts.com

Services: Bookkeeping, Planning-Budgeting,

Financial Aid, Career Counseling

Louisiana Volunteer Lawyers For The Arts

1010 Common St., Suite 1500

New Orleans, LA 70112

(P) 504.581.9444

Services: Legal Representation

New Orleans Speech and Hearing Organization

New Orleans Musicians Clinic

(P) 504.412.1111

www.nojhf.org

Services: Medical Services

New York

Doctors For Artists

105 W. 78th St.

New York, NY 10024

(P) 212.496.5172

Services: Medical Services

Institute For The Performing Artist

Postgraduate Center For Mental Health

124 E. 28th St.

New York, NY 10016

(P) 212.689.7700 ext. 290, 291

Services: Mental Health Services

Miller Health Care Institute For Performing Artists

St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital Center

425 W. 59th St.

New York, NY 10019

(P) 212.523.6200

www.ifpam.org

Services: Medical Services, Performing Arts

Medicine

Musicians Emergency Fund, Inc.

16 E. 64th St.

New York, NY 10021

(P) 212.578.2450

Services: Emergency Funds

146
147

San Francisco

California Lawyers For The Arts

Fort Mason Center

San Francisco, CA 94123

(P) 415.775.7200

cla@calawyersforthearts.org

www.calawyersforthearts.org

Services: Legal Representation, Contracts,

Copyright, Taxation

Kuumba Jazz Center

320-2 Cedar Street

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

831.427.2227 (F) 831.427.3342

kuumbwa@cruzio.com

www.kuumbwajazz.com

Services: Presenting and Educational services

Rhythmic Concepts, Inc.

765 61st Street

Oakland, CA 94609

(P) 510.287.8880

Pentacle

104 Franklin St.

New York, NY 10013-2910

(P) 212.226.2000

www.pentacle.org

Services: Financial Services

Performing Arts Center For Health

357 W. 55th St.

New York, NY 10019

(P) 212.247.1650

Services: Medical Services, Dental Services

Volunteer Lawyers For The Arts

1285 Ave. of the Americas, 3rd floor

New York, NY 10019

(P) 212.977.9273

Services: Legal Representation
148