Well, yes, but as any suffering parent of a budding musician can tell you, horns and drums can be played rather loudly, too. Just as regulation may not have been as entirely mindless as Chevigny suggests, so also its effect on jazz may not have been as great as first thought. The hardships faced by musicians largely reflect the reality that even in New York, jazz does not attract a lucrative, mass following. But in a way, that's the point. Regulation can be a drain on any business enterprise, but it's the small operator or marginal industries that are most vulnerable.
Regulation matters most at the margins, and jazz is perennially marginal.
While jazz may not resonate with the masses, it does enjoy a certain cachet among elites. Jazz is a safe commodity. The victory over the licensing system does not represent the triumph of fringe or countercultural behavior over an entrenched status quo, but rather the embrace of jazz by the privileged and powerful. Fingerprinting jazz performers and requiring them to have cabaret cards, for example, ended not in response to mass demonstrations, but by order of a sympathetic mayor, John Lindsay. Similarly, having a jazz aficionado as mayor was a key to the city's ultimate capitulation after the musicians' union prevailed in court.