Volume I: Executive Summary

NATIONAL

ENDOWMENT

FOR THE ARTS

by the Research Center for Arts and Culture under a cooperative agreement

with the National Endowment for the Arts and the San Francisco Study Center

BEAT

Changing the 

A Study of the Worklife of Jazz Musicians

COMMUNITY GRAPHICS

S A N F R A N C IS C O S T U D Y

C E N TE R

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
Changing the Beat

A Study of the Worklife of Jazz Musicians

A Study by Joan Jeffri

Editing Team: Bonnie Nichols, Don Ball, Geoff Link, and John Burks

NEA Research Division Report #43

VOLUME I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NATIONAL

ENDOWMENT

FOR THE ARTS

C

OMMUNITY GRAPHICS

S

A N

F R A N C IS C O S T U D Y

C E

N T E R
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Jeffri, Joan.

Changing the beat : a study of the work life of jazz musicians / by Joan

Jeffri.

p. cm. — (Research Division Report; #43)

1. Jazz musicians—United States—Social conditions—Statistics. 2. Jazz musicians—United States—Economic conditions—Statistics. I. Title. II. Research

Division Report (National Endowment for the Arts. Research Division); 43.

ML3795.J44 2003

781.65’023’73—dc21 2002154633

CIP

MN

Cover:

Musician Barry Harris

Photograph © 2002

Steven Exum

Under cooperative agreement DCA99-03 between the National

Endowment for the Arts and the San Francisco Study Center

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

San Francisco State University

Director of Education, SFJazz Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 4

Survey Background 6

Synopsis 7

Demographics 7

Employment and 

Income-Related Findings 8

Retirement Plans and

Health-Care Coverage 10

Recognition and

Grants and Fellowships 10

Copyrights and Airplay 11

Migration and Touring 11

Playing in Bands 11

Jazz Styles and Instruments 11

Future Goals and Qualities

Needed for a Career in Jazz 12

Comments from

Survey Participants 12

Appendix A: Metropolitan

Areas Used in Study 14

Appendix B: Using the CaptureRecapture Method to Estimate

the Number of Jazz Musicians 16
Introduction

Deemed a national treasure by the UnitedStates 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, when viewed as an occupation, making a

living as a jazz musician can be very difficult.

Despite high-profile 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 fare as well

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—to enhance the quality of statistical

information, which 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 the place of jazz in the music industry.

An advisory board was formed and chaired

by jazz musician and educator Dr. Billy Taylor

to advise the project as it developed. A focus

group of artists, managers, and educators also

was created, 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 (the surveys are explained in

more detail in the Survey Background section;

the full AFM and RDS studies are available in

separate volumes).

This study is designed to address a longstanding question: How best to support the

continuing growth and development of jazz

and the musicians who create it? Jazz musicians as a group do not constitute an easy subject for formal study. Indeed, for decades it has

been difficult simply to define the word “jazz”

itself. “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, what made a

jazz group like the Modern Jazz Quartet so

remarkable was its longevity as well 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 instruments don’t stand up

and play themselves.”

—RDS study jazz musician

4 Changing the Beat
Changing the Beat 5

the United States. It can be even more difficult

for emerging jazz artists; 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. 

Clearly, the jazz life, for all its artistic

rewards, can be difficult. Many jazz musicians

are woefully underpaid—almost 66 percent

earned less than $7,000 in 2000 for their

work as jazz musicians in the San Francisco

area, according to the RDS study—especially

relative to the level of higher education that

they have attained. The study also showed

that while a respectable percentage of union

members had retirement plans and health

coverage, more than half of the musicians

surveyed through RDS had no retirement

plans or no health coverage. 

Institutional support for jazz exists but is

small. A few state and regional arts agencies

and some 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 Wallace-Readers Digest

Fund and the Doris Duke Charitable Trust 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 a joint program with

the Doris Duke Charitable Trust called JazzNet,

which furthers jazz creation, presentation, and

education with 14 regional jazz presenters—

but since 1996 has been prohibited by

Congress from 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, is specifically for jazz musicians who are established and

have achieved mastery of their art, not for

emerging artists.

The data obtained through this study are

crucial 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.

This report acknowledges Richard Orend,

whose life was cut short just as he engaged in

this study.
Survey Background

I

n an occupational sense, jazz musicians are

difficult to identify. While national-based surveys such as the Current Population Survey,

conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, are used

to estimate the labor force by occupation, the

occupation categories are not detailed enough

to distinguish jazz musicians from the larger

classification of Arts, Design, Entertainment,

and Media Occupations, or even from the

more specific category of Musicians and

Composers. In addition, the national-based surveys do not cover detailed questions/subjects

germane to the study of jazz musicians.

Given these shortcomings, the National

Endowment for the Arts and the Research

Center for Arts and Culture partnered with the

David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the

Grammy Foundation, the American Federation

of Musicians, the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Foundation, and the Nathan Cummings

Foundation to study and report findings on

jazz musicians. Since a national-based survey

was beyond the means of the NEA and its partners, the study was restricted to four metropolitan areas1: New York, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Detroit.2

In each of the areas, there were two surveys

used to conduct the study. The first was a conventional random sample of musicians belonging to the American Federation of Musicians

(AFM). The second component was Respondent-Driven Sampling (RDS), which was developed to capture “hidden populations” and is

based on a chain-referral sampling method.

Using the RDS, initially selected jazz musicians

referred other jazz musicians to the interviewer. The referred jazz musicians, in turn,

referred others, and so on, until waves of

these referrals and interviews produced statistically sound sample sizes.3 The RDS component was necessary because many jazz musicians do not belong to the AFM union or other

institutions that could be used to locate and

identify them. In addition, jazz musicians tend

to have many social networks with other jazz

musicians, making RDS particularly appropriate

in tapping this hidden population.

In addition to the complexities associated

with identifying an appropriate sample of jazz

musicians to survey, the occupation in-and-of

itself is not easily defined. Anecdotally, musicians have stated that they cannot always play

professionally the music they prefer. In other

words, they take the gig (i.e., job) offered to

them, regardless of whether the job is to play

jazz or other types of music, such as pop. Consequently, this study broadly defined jazz musicians as the respondents

that answered yes to the

question, “Do you ever play

or sing jazz music?”

This study made possible,

for the first time, estimates of

the number of jazz musicians

in each of the metro areas.

Using a “Capture-Recapture”

method,4 and the results from the AFM and

RDS surveys, the following estimates of jazz

musicians were generated: 1,723 in the New

Orleans area; 33,003 in New York; and 18,733

in San Francisco. After standardizing the three

locations for population, San Francisco had the

largest concentration, 2.8 jazz musicians for

every 1,000 people in the area. This number

was 1.5 times higher than the concentration in

New York, which was 1.8 jazz musicians per

1,000 people, and more than twice the concentration reported in New Orleans. The chart

above summarizes these results.

Metro Area

New Orleans

New York

San Francisco

Estimated Number

of Jazz Musicians

1,723

33,003

18,733

Population in 2000

1,337,726

18,441,155

6,783,760

Number of Jazz Musicians

Per 1,000 People

1.3

1.8

2.8

1See Appendix A for definitions and background descriptions of the metropolitan areas used.

2Survey results from the RDS were below statistical standards in Detroit, and therefore excluded from this summary report. Data

for Detroit based on the results of the union survey are described in a separate volume on the union survey results.

3For more information, see “Finding the Beat: Using Respondent-Driven Sampling to Study Jazz Musicians,” by Douglas D.

Heckathorn and Joan Jeffri. Published in Poetics, Vol. 28, No. 4. February 2001. 4See Appendix B for an explanation of Capture-Recapture.

6 Changing the Beat

Estimated Number of Jazz Musicians in Each of the Three Areas
Changing the Beat 7

Synopsis

The two surveys used in the study tended toproduce a dichotomy of results. For example,

union-based respondents were older, more likely

to be white, more likely to be male, and earned

higher incomes than their RDS counterparts.

AFM musicians were also more likely to be

employed full-time, have health-care coverage,

and enjoy national recognition. Findings among

the three geographic areas resulted in a degree

of difference as well. Compared to New Orleans

and San Francisco, more jazz musicians in the

New York area, for example, were employed

full-time. New York jazz musicians also tended

to earn higher incomes, were nationally and internationally recognized, and toured more often

throughout the year.

The sections that follow summarize some

of the most salient findings of the study of

jazz musicians. They cover descriptive statistics on demographics, education, employment and income, and other factors such as

health-care coverage, recognition, and professional goals for the future. The appendices

define the geographic areas covered by the

surveys and provide background information

on each city, and describe the capture-recapture estimation method.

Demographics

Age, Gender, and Marital Status

I

n comparing the two sources, union musicians

were older, more likely to be male, and, for

the most part, married. By contrast, RDS

respondents were younger, showed higher percentages of women, and were more likely to

be single/never married or divorced. For example, the average age of union jazz musicians

was 52 years, considerably older than the typical RDS respondent, whose average age was

43. Moreover, almost 31 percent of the jazz

musicians identified by the RDS survey were

Generation X (ages 24–36 in 2000).

In addition, most jazz musicians were men.

In 2000, 47 percent of the entire labor force

was composed of women. However, among

union jazz musicians surveyed, only 15.6 percent were women. Of the three areas surveyed, San Francisco had the largest proportion of female AFM jazz musicians (22 percent); New Orleans had the smallest percentage (11.3). Somewhat higher proportions of

women were found among RDS respondents.5

Across all three areas surveyed, almost 20 percent were women, with New York recording

the highest share of 26 percent, and San Francisco showing the lowest percentage of female

jazz musicians at 15.5 percent.

About 60 percent of union jazz musicians

were married, and only 21.5 percent were single

(specifically, never married). By contrast, only

25.6 percent of RDS respondents were married,

with the highest proportion, almost 42 percent,

being single. More RDS respondents were divorced—almost 18 percent, versus the 10.4 percent of divorced union jazz musicians.

Race

The racial distribution of jazz musicians6

tended to vary among the geographic areas

and sources (i.e., AFM vs. RDS). Relative to the

racial distribution of the New Orleans area, for

example, there was a heavier concentration of

white jazz musicians. In 2000, 60.8 percent of

the area’s population over age 18 was white;

34.2 percent was black or African American.

However, the union-based source reported

that 66.5 percent of jazz musicians were white

and 25.4 percent were black. The RDS source

showed 73.1 percent of jazz musicians were

white, while only 23.1 percent were African

American. Relative to the racial profile of the

New Orleans general population, both AFM

and RDS sources indicate disproportionately

more white jazz musicians. 

AFM and RDS results differed for the New

York and San Francisco areas. Using union-based

estimates, the white and black proportions of

jazz musicians in both areas tended to parallel

the racial breakouts of the areas’ populations.

5The higher proportion of women found in New York may reflect more enthusiastic recruiting by women in this area.

6Race categories were listed as American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific

Islander, White, or Other. However, only estimates for Black or African American and White categories are reported in this

summary the larger New York CMSA covered by this study. See Appendix A for geographic definitions.
For example, in the New York area, the unionbased estimate of the proportion of black jazz

musicians was 17.3 percent—fairly close to the

proportion of the area’s black population, which

was 16 percent in 2000. Similarly, in San

Francisco, 6.9 percent of the area’s population

was black, and, according to the union-based survey, 8.9 percent of the area’s jazz musicians were

black.

However, the RDS estimates point to heavier

concentrations of black musicians in both the

New York and San Francisco areas. For example, the RDS reported that 32.8 percent of New

York-area jazz musicians were black—almost

17 percentage points greater than the share of

the area’s black population. The RDS also

showed more than a quarter (25.1 percent) of

San Francisco’s jazz musicians were black—3.6

times larger than the proportion of the area’s

African-American population. The table above

summarizes these results.

Education

This study suggests that jazz musicians are

well educated. Nearly 45 percent of those identified by the AFM survey held bachelor’s degrees

or higher (e.g., master’s or doctorate), a relatively large share compared to the 24.4 percent of

the U.S. population over age 25 with this level

of education. Comparable patterns were also

found in the three geographic

areas. For example, 42.7 percent

of New Orleans’ union-based

jazz musicians held bachelor’s or

higher-level degrees. In New

York and San Francisco, the percentages were 43.5 and 49.4,

respectively.

Jazz musicians associated with

the RDS survey were also well

educated. Over all three areas,

44.6 percent held bachelor’s or

higher-level degrees—with jazz

musicians in the New York area

recording the highest share of

about 52 percent.

Though jazz musicians reported by this study

were better educated than the overall U.S. population, the musicians in New York and New Orleans were also better educated than the general populations in these two areas. For example,

about 30 percent of the population over age 25

in the New York City primary metropolitan statistical area (PMSA)7 had bachelor’s or higherlevel degrees. In New Orleans, it was 22.7 percent. However, San Francisco’s high levels of college-trained jazz musicians largely mirrored the

well-educated population in that area. In 2000,

45 percent of the San Francisco PMSA’s8 population over 25 had bachelor’s or higher-level degrees, fairly close to the results for the area’s

jazz musicians (AFM 49 percent; RDS 43 percent).

Employment and

Income-Related Findings

Employment

Of the AFM jazz musicians surveyed, not onesaid he or she was unemployed, and 85 per-

“Some things work out right at

the last minute, but I never feel

economically secure.”

—RDS study jazz musician

7Defined as Bronx, Kings, New York, Putnam, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, and Westchester counties. This New York PMSA

is only a part of the larger New York CMSA covered by this study. See Appendix A for geographic definitions. 8Defined as Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Again, only a part of the larger CMSA used in this study.

Race %

Percentage

White

Percentage

Black

Percentage

White

Percentage

Black

Percentage

White

Percentage

Black

New Orleans Area

66.5

25.4

73.1

23.1

60.8

34.2

New York Area

71.3

17.3

54.8

32.8

66.3

16.0

San Francisco Area

80.2

8.9

59.4

25.1

61.2

6.9

Source

AFM-Based

RDS-Based

Population

over 18*

*Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Counts of persons over age 18 reporting one race.

Race Ratios of Jazz Musicians in Each Area

8 Changing the Beat
Changing the Beat 9

cent reported being employed full-time as

either employees (i.e., on a payroll) or as

freelancers. Among the three areas, however,

job prospects appeared better

in New York. For example, relatively few New York unionbased jazz musicians worked

part-time in the music business

(8.4 percent), while higher levels of part-time work were recorded in New Orleans (17.7

percent) and San Francisco

(18.1 percent). In New York,

67.6 percent of AFM jazz

musicians earned 100 percent

of their incomes from music.

The proportions earning all of

their income from music were

lower in New Orleans (40.7

percent) and San Francisco

(47.0 percent).

By comparison, only 55.3 percent of the RDS-identified jazz

musicians reported working

full-time in the music business,

either as employees or self-employed (i.e., freelancers). New York-based jazz musicians from the

RDS group again fared better. For example, 14.4

percent worked part-time, including freelancing,

while 27.7 percent worked part-time in the San

Francisco area. In addition, 47.3 percent in New

York earned 100 percent of their incomes from

music, while only 18.4 percent of RDS-associated

jazz musicians in San Francisco did.

Income

As part of this study, respondents were read a

list of income ranges and asked to identify the

range that described their total incomes from

working as musicians. There were 10 income

groups, ranging from category (1) of $0–$500, to

category (10) of more than $100,000. Among

AFM respondents, 62 percent reported earning

less than $40,001. Moreover, the mode (i.e., most

popular response), which was reported by 26.2

percent of AFM respondents, was income of

$20,001–$40,000.9 This range was the most popular response in all three geographic areas, even

in New Orleans, where the cost of living is presumably lower.10 In New York, for instance, the

percentage reporting income of $20,001–$40,000

was 28.3 percent; in San Francisco it was 19.6

percent; and in New Orleans it was 26.7 percent.

The $20,001–$40,000 income range was also

the most popular response by RDS-identified

jazz musicians. Aggregating all three areas,

almost 20 percent reported earning this income range from working as musicians. On the

whole, however, RDS musicians earned lower

incomes than their AFM counterparts. A large

majority, about 91 percent, earned less than

$40,001. In particular, RDS jazz musicians in the

San Francisco area earned the lowest incomes—almost 66 percent earned less than

$7,000 in 2000 for their work as jazz musicians.

The chart above summarizes the income ranges

reported by both AFM and RDS jazz musicians.

Income from Working as Musicians

Aggregate of Three Metro Areas

AFM Jazz Musicians

RDS Jazz Musicians

Number of Musicians

$501–

$3,000

$0–

$500

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 $3,001–

$7,000

$7,001–

$12,000

$12,001–

$20,000

$20,001–

$40,000

$40,001–

$60,000

$60,001–

$80,000

$80,001–

$100,000

>$100,000

9Income ranges do not permit the calculation of an arithmetic mean or median income figure. The midpoint of the mode

income range ($20,001–$40,000) is $30,000. Although we don’t have any data on the distribution of respondents’ incomes within

this range, if the incomes were evenly distributed (same number above as below $30,000), $30,000 would also be the median.

10No official “cost of living” estimates are provided by U.S. government statistical agencies. Short of this, average annual consumer expenditures, collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, may be useful in gauging this information. Between 1999 and

2000, for instance, the BLS estimated average annual expenditures of $46,277 in the New York area and $55,040 in the San

Francisco metro area. Due to its relative small size, no estimate is available for the New Orleans metropolitan statistical area.

However, average consumer expenditures were $34,102 in the South Region, which includes New Orleans.
Beyond determining that AFM-based jazz musicians earned more than the RDS respondents, it

shows that jazz musicians from both sources

earned less than expected relative to their high

levels of education. For example, the National

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that

the average male with a bachelor’s degree

earned $52,985 in 1999. It was $66,243 for men

with higher-level degrees.11 In addition, the

Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that average

weekly earnings for workers in professional specialty occupations, a broad category covering occupations requiring higher levels of schooling,

were $854 in 2001.12 Assuming 50 workweeks in

a year, this amounts to $42,700.

Both the NCES and Census Bureau figures are

national in perspective, and do not reflect the

geographic differences inherent in this study of

jazz musicians. In a broad interpretation, however, we would expect workers to earn more in

New York and San Francisco. Since the respondents from both AFM and RDS sources typically

earned incomes below the U.S.–based amounts

reported by NCES and the Census Bureau, it

seems that jazz musicians are undercompensated relative to their educational attainment.

Retirement Plans and

Health-Care Coverage

I

n aggregate, 77.6 percent of AFM jazz musicians reported that they have at least one retirement plan. This high ratio was found in all

three areas surveyed: 77.8 percent in New Orleans, 76 percent in New York, and 82.3 percent

in San Francisco. More than half, 55 percent,

obtained retirement plans themselves and 41

percent acquired them through the union. This

breakout was also consistent among the three

areas. Most AFM jazz musicians also reported

that they had health coverage—81.9 percent in

New Orleans, 89.5 percent in New York, and

91.1 percent in San Francisco. In most cases, the

jazz musicians obtained this coverage themselves (38.8 percent in among all three areas) or

through employers (31.1 percent totaled for all

three areas).

Among RDS respondents, 57 percent, more

than half, did not have a retirement plan. Of

those that did, 21.5 percent obtained these

plans themselves. An additional 15.9 percent

got them from employers. RDS-identified jazz

musicians were also less likely to have health

insurance. Compared to the 88 percent coverage rate for AFM respondents, only 43.1 percent of the jazz musicians identified through

the RDS reported having health or medical

coverage.

Recognition and Grants

and Fellowships

Both AFM and RDS respondents reportedthat their first paid jobs in jazz marked

their earliest form of professional recognition. However, AFM jazz musicians reported

higher levels of recognition—almost 94 percent said that they were recognized locally,

versus 46 percent of the RDS respondents.

More than 62 percent of the union-based

respondents said they were recognized nationally, and 56 percent said they enjoyed

international recognition. This was particularly true of AFM jazz musicians in New York,

where 72 percent reported national recognition, and almost 66 percent said they were

valued internationally. By comparison, only 19

percent of RDS-identified jazz musicians reported that they were nationally recognized

for their talent.

Of the 11 percent of AFM respondents who

received grants or fellowships as jazz or aspiring musicians, the vast majority, more than 90

“When you have something like

dental problems you get stressed,

because it can affect your playing

and your bank account.”

—RDS study jazz musician

11The National Center for Education Statistics does not routinely report total earnings for both men and women. The comparable figures for women with bachelor’s and higher-level degrees were $37,993 and $48,097, respectively. For more information, see the Digest of Education Statistics. 12Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, Median Usual Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Wage and Salary

Workers, 2001,

10 Changing the Beat
Changing the Beat 11

percent, received amounts of $5,000 or less.

Considerably more RDS respondents received

grants and fellowships—36.5 percent. However, as with their AFM counterparts, more

than 90 percent of these grants and awards

were $5,000 or under.

Copyrights and Airplay

Large percentages of both AFM and RDSrespondents held copyrights in artistic works

of their own creations. Among the union-based

jazz musicians, almost 60 percent held copyrights, with New York reporting the highest

rate of 68.5 percent. Similar results were found

among RDS-identified jazz musicians—totaling

results for all three geographic areas, almost 61

percent held copyrights. New York again

reported the highest share of 73 percent.

Most jazz musicians surveyed by this study

also had their music played on the air (e.g.,

radio, television, etc.). Nearly 83 percent of

AFM jazz musicians had their music played on

the air, and these high percentages were fairly

consistent across all three areas. Moreover, 44

percent of the union-identified respondents

had their music broadcast over the Internet. In

the New York area, 50 percent reported having

Internet broadcasts. About 70 percent of the

RDS respondents had airplay of their music.

Higher rates were reported in both New

Orleans (82.4 percent) and New York (82.2 percent), while fewer RDS-associated jazz musicians in San Francisco had their music played

on the air (55 percent). Even more RDS jazz

musicians, 47.2 percent, had their music broadcast over the Internet.

Migration and Touring

Both AFM and RDS jazz musicians tended tolive in the same county or parish for more

than 10 years. For example, 76 percent of AFM

jazz musicians surveyed in New Orleans lived in

the same parish for more than 10 years. The

proportions in New York and San Francisco

were comparable—68 and 72 percent, respectively. RDS jazz musicians were even less mobile: almost all—94 percent—lived in the same

county or parish for more than 10 years. These

high rates were consistent across all three RDS

geographic areas surveyed.

Though the jazz musicians surveyed tended

not to migrate during the past 10 years, sizable proportions did perform away from their

home locations. Among AFM respondents, 28

percent performed away from home over 30

times in the previous year. In the New York

area, more than a third toured this much. RDS

musicians tended to travel for performances

less frequently. When asked how many times

they worked/performed away from home in

the last 12 months, the most popular response

(32.8 percent) was one to five times.

Playing in Bands

The jazz study indicates that most jazz musicians play with multiple groups—42.3 percent of AFM respondents reported playing

with more than four different bands, and RDS

results were similar (41.2 percent). Playing with

multiple groups can be problematic. Musicians

may not stay in a group long enough for it to

grow into a solid band, and moving from

group to group and gig to gig can make linear

career development difficult. 

Jazz Styles and

Instruments

The jazz study respondents reported thatthey played a wide variety of jazz styles.

From a list of 20 different types of jazz music,

“traditional” was among the most popular.

About 72 percent of AFM jazz musicians

played this kind of music, while 40 percent of

RDS musicians performed traditional jazz.

Other standard responses included “swing”

(76 percent of AFM and about 40 percent of

RDS), “blues” (68 percent of AFM and 35 percent of RDS), and “bop” (41 percent of AFM

“You can’t lie with a musical

instrument ...”

—RDS study jazz musician
and 44 percent of RDS). The study also suggests some geographic variation in jazz styles.

For example, traditional jazz was more popular in New Orleans (85 percent of AFM and

nearly 66 percent of RDS), while “avantgarde” was more prevalent among AFM jazz

musicians in New York and RDS respondents

in San Francisco (35.3 percent).

The respondents were also asked to list their

primary instruments. Among AFM jazz musicians, popular responses were piano (16.3 percent), trumpet (almost 10 percent), and drums

(9 percent). Similar results were also reported

for RDS participants, in that piano (33.5 percent) and drums (10.4 percent) were commonly

cited primary instruments. However, there

were more RDS vocalists—10.8 percent listed

voice as their primary instrument.

Future Goals and

Qualities Needed for a

Career in Jazz

When presented with 11 possible careergoals for the next five years, both AFM

and RDS jazz musicians reported that achieving

a higher level of artistic expression was the

most important. Almost 11 percent of AFM musicians reported this as a chief goal, as did 27

percent of RDS participants. Making a living

from their music and getting record deals were

also important to the respondents—particularly

among union jazz musicians, who ranked these

goals second and third, respectively. More RDS

participants considered leading their own group

as an important goal—9.1 percent versus 1.4

percent of AFM respondents.

Jazz study respondents were also given a list

of 11 possible qualities needed for pursuing

careers in jazz. Far and away, both AFM and

RDS jazz musicians listed talent as the most important quality—23.1 percent of AFM respondents gave this answer, and 22.2 percent of

RDS participants did. RDS respondents also listed performing ability and business savvy as

needed traits. However, these responses were

not uniform across the three geographic areas.

For example, almost 17 percent of the San

Francisco RDS musicians said business savvy was

important, while only 4.8 percent of those in

New York thought this was needed. Similarly,

RDS jazz musicians in both New Orleans and

San Francisco considered performing ability as a

needed quality for jazz musicians (19.2 percent

and 15.4 percent, respectively), while, again,

only 4.8 percent of those in New York agreed

with this. Among AFM respondents, business

savvy and performance ability did not rank

high as qualities needed for careers in jazz.

Comments from

Survey Participants 

I

nterviewers spoke with approximately 2,700

jazz musicians during the course of this study.

Some of these interviews lasted 20 minutes on

the phone; others turned into two-hour, faceto-face conversations. During the interviews,

musicians were asked to offer suggestions for

ensuring the survival of jazz and for improving

the ability of musicians to work in the jazz

field. Similar ideas kept emerging, and many

of the same points were brought out in all of

the cities.

As the box on the opposite page indicates,

some of the suggestions related to the musicians’ general well-being, such as having access

to affordable health insurance and medical

care, pensions, and emergency relief funds for

musicians who are ill or aging. The interviewees also saw education as an important component in the preservation of jazz, from education of schoolchildren through classes and

performances to education of musicians in

business practices to help them manage their

own careers. Changes in the business aspects

of jazz were offered as well, from more grant

money from foundations and the National

Endowment for the Arts for recordings, performances, and concept development to standardized club fees, tax breaks for free public

performances, and more Internet-based resources for jazz musicians.

“This is the music that 

gives people hope when 

there is no hope.”

—RDS study jazz musician

12 Changing the Beat
Changing the Beat 13

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

where musicians could place free ads,

run by artists, and develop audiences

and awareness

Philanthropy

•Restoration of grant awards to 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 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-ofliving 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

JAZZ MUSICIAN RESPONDENT SUGGESTIONS
Appendix A: Metropolitan

Areas Used in Study

The geographic locations covered by the studywere the New Orleans, New York, San Francisco, and Detroit13 metro areas. A metropolitan

area is generally defined as a core area containing a large population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core. In

most cases, the core is a central city, and the adjacent communities are generally counties, or parishes in the case of Louisiana. The New York and

San Francisco metro areas used in the jazz study

are Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas

(CMSAs), which occur when two or more metros

are integrated with each other.

The following defines the metro areas used

in this study of jazz musicians and includes

brief background descriptions of each city’s

relationship to jazz.

NEW ORLEANS

New Orleans MSA:

Jefferson Parish

Orleans Parish

Plaquemines Parish

St. Bernard Parish

St. Charles Parish

St. James Parish

St. John the Baptist Parish

St. Tammany Parish

New Orleans is regarded as the birthplace of

jazz, and continues to attract large numbers of

tourists and visitors to various jazz clubs and festivals in the city. Though there are many venues

for appreciation of New Orleans–style music today, only a handful are jazz-specific, such as Snug

Harbor and Sweet Lorraine’s. The New Orleans

Jazz & Heritage Foundation is a major presence

in the jazz community. The nonprofit corporation

promotes and preserves music, arts, and culture

indigenous to the New Orleans area. The largest

effort of the foundation is its annual Jazz & Heritage Festival, which runs over ten days during

the spring, bringing tens of thousands of jazz

lovers to the city each year.

More than 200 record labels operate in the

city, though only a handful are primarily jazz-oriented, such as independent labels All for One

Records and Basin Street Records. Many post-secondary institutions in the metropolitan area have

developed solid reputations for their jazz programs, such as the University of New Orleans,

whose jazz studies division is led by legendary

jazz mentor and patriarch Ellis Marsalis. 

NEW YORK

New York, Northern New Jersey,

Long Island CMSA

New York PMSA:

Bronx County

Kings County

New York County

Queens County

Richmond County

Rockland County

Westchester County

Nassau-Suffolk PMSA:

Nassau County

Suffolk County

Newburgh PMSA, part:

Orange County

Jersey City PMSA:

Hudson County

Newark PMSA:

Essex County

Morris County

Sussex County

Union County

Warren County

Stanford-Norwalk PMSA:

Darien Town

Greenwich Town

New Canaan Town

Norwalk City

Stanford City

Weston Town

Westport Town

Wilton Town

Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon PMSA, part:

Middlesex County

Somerset County

Bergen-Passaic PMSA:

Bergen County

Passaic County

Monmouth-Ocean PMSA, part:

Monmouth County

New York became a jazz center during the

1920s and has essentially remained one up to the

present. Considered the birthplace of the bebop

revolution in jazz, New York is today not associated with any one jazz form, but with all varia13Figures for the Detroit area are not included in this summary, but are reported in the AFM volume of this study.

14 Changing the Beat
Changing the Beat 15

tions. The metro area has the greatest concentration of premiere jazz venues in the United States,

ranging from Jazz at Lincoln Center—the world’s

leading nonprofit institutional producer of jazz

events—to historic commercial nightclubs, such

as the Village Vanguard. It also has a plethora of

lower-echelon venues, such as the Knitting Factory, which may present jazz irregularly but remain significant to the larger picture of employment for jazz musicians.

Manhattan is the site of major offices for all

five of the world’s major recording companies,

and the city as a whole has a number of subsidiary labels specializing in jazz. In addition, a large

array of institutions of higher learning make New

York a destination for those seeking an education

in jazz. Outside of the jazz education programs of

Carnegie Hall and Jazz at Lincoln Center, the New

School University employs 72 jazz artists as educators in a bachelor’s degree in jazz and the Manhattan School of Music offers a jazz curriculum.

SAN FRANCISCO

San Francisco CMSA

Oakland PMSA:

Alameda County

Contra Costa County

San Francisco PMSA:

Marin County

San Francisco County

San Mateo County

San Jose PMSA:

Santa Clara County

Santa Rosa PMSA:

Sonoma County

Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa PMSA:

Napa County

Solano County

San Francisco became known as a jazz city primarily in the 1950s, as the place where what became known as the “West Coast” style of jazz

started, including experimentations such as Beatinflected jazz and poetry. During the past two decades, San Francisco and northern California have

become recognized as an important area for jazz

artists, due to their commitment to presentation

of the arts. In addition to the nationally respected

SF Jazz Festival, the San Francisco metro area is

home to many venues for jazz, running the gamut from restaurants such as Yoshi’s to festivals

such as SFJazz and the Monterey Jazz Festival to

street festivals and churches such as the Church of

St. John Coltrane—an African Orthodox Church

incorporating jazz into Sunday worship services.

The San Francisco Bay area is home to a variety of small and independent record labels, several of which specialize in jazz, such as Noir Records and Concord Records. Many educational

institutions offer a jazz-oriented curriculum,

such as JazzSchool, a community school that

offers classes in instruction and music business

to students of all ages.

DETROIT

Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint CMSA

Ann Arbor MSA:

Lenawee County

Livingston County

Washtenaw County

Detroit MSA:

Lapeer County

Macomb County

Monroe County

Oakland County

St. Clair County

Wayne County

Flint MSA:

not included

Detroit was, at one time, home to some of the

biggest names in jazz. Some—such as Donald

Byrd, Betty Carter, and Tommy Flanagan—grew

up there, learning their art; others—such as Joe

Henderson and Gerald Wilson—moved there to

become part of the scene. But productive as Detroit has been, the city has proven unstable as a

jazz center since the 1970s. Detroit has come to

serve more as a spawning ground for musicians,

who then move to more profitable locations like

New York City, rather than a place talented players can count on as a reliable economic base.

However, it still hosts the largest free jazz festival in the country, the Ford-Detroit Jazz Festival,

every Labor Day weekend, attracting approximately 750,000 people.

Although the days of Detroit having one of

the best public school music programs in the

country are past, the Detroit School District Jazz

Education Program oversees jazz programs in ten

area high schools. Additionally, there are a good

number of formal jazz education programs in

the Detroit metro area through institutions such

as Wayne State University, the University of Michigan, Eastern Michigan University, and the Jazz

Network Foundation Education Programs.
Appendix B: Using the

Capture-Recapture Method

to Estimate the Number of

Jazz Musicians

The capture-recapture method estimates thenumber 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 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 survey) is .873.

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 .514.14

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 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

14The 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 that city (i.e., no data for the terms Sab and Sba).

The proportion of union members in the RDS sample (i.e., .514) was used instead.

16 Changing the Beat

A Study of the Worklife of Jazz Musicians

Changing the Beat

For more information, please contact:

Research Center for Arts and Culture

Teachers College Columbia University

525 West 120 Street, Box 78

New York, NY 10027

Tel: 212 678 8184

Fax: 212 678 8084

Rcac@columbia.edu

or

National Endowment for the Arts

Research Division

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20506-0001

Tel: 202 682 5400

www.arts.gov

NEA Research Division Report #43