ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, STRUCTURE and BUSINESS PRACTICES OF CONTEMPORARY JAZZ COLLECTIVES IN THE UK...
108
1 ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, STRUCTURE and BUSINESS PRACTICES OF CONTEMPORARY JAZZ COLLECTIVES IN THE UK MUSIC INDUSTRY by Ipek Foster This Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the LONDON COLLEGE OF MUSIC in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in UNIVERSITY OF WEST LONDON Dissertation supervisor: Andy East (MA distinction), HNC Music Industry Management and Artist Development © 2014 Ipek Foster ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Transcript of ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, STRUCTURE and BUSINESS PRACTICES OF CONTEMPORARY JAZZ COLLECTIVES IN THE UK...
1
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, STRUCTURE and BUSINESS
PRACTICES OF CONTEMPORARY JAZZ COLLECTIVES
IN THE UK MUSIC INDUSTRY
by
Ipek Foster
This Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
LONDON COLLEGE OF MUSIC
in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
UNIVERSITY OF WEST LONDON
Dissertation supervisor:
Andy East (MA distinction), HNC
Music Industry Management and Artist Development
© 2014
Ipek Foster
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
2
DECLARATION
I have read and understood the University of West London's plagiarism statement
in the Student Handbook. I understand that plagiarism is a serious examination
offence, an allegation of which can result in action being taken under the University's
misconduct regulations.
I declare that the content of this submission is my own work. Where other people's
work has been used (either from a printed source, internet or any other source), this
has been carefully acknowledged and referenced in accordance with departmental
requirements.
3
ABSTRACT
This dissertation examines the organisational culture, structure and business
practices of contemporary jazz collectives founded in the UK from the 1980s
onwards. The study examines the rationale behind forming jazz collectives, their
objective and activities. The analysis aims to answer whether these jazz collectives
are efficient organisations for their member jazz musicians to cope with problems
and create opportunities in the music industry whilst providing them an
environment to sustain their artistic creativity. The study also features an
introductory discussion on the concept of collectivism and provides a very brief
historical background to jazz and former collectives in jazz music.
Keywords: jazz collectives; jazz history; free jazz; artist organisations; music
industry; music business.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Working with F-IRE Collective inspired me deeply, and thanks to the experience
and knowledge I gained through my work at there, I found sufficient curiosity,
confidence and motivation to research a subject that I dedicated myself for a long
time. I would like to specially thank to Barak Schmool (F-IRE) for sharing all his
precious wisdom and experience throughout this period. Equally, to Peter Slavid for
his valuable advice, and all members of F-IRE Collective, Loop Collective,
LIMA/Fusebox, E17jazz, Chaos Collective, Way Out West and Efpi for sharing
their valuable thoughts and feelings about their collectives. Without their generous
participation, it would not be possible to carry out this research.
Many thanks to Tony Dundley-Evans, Peter Bacon, and Jon Newey, as their
views immensely helped me understand the interaction between collectives and
other parties in the music industry.
I am grateful to my supervisor Andy East, lecturers Megg Nicol and Jason Brady
for their excellent teaching and encouragement throughout the whole MA course.
Finally, I would like to thank to my husband, Tomas Foster, for all the cups of
coffee he made with love for me day and night; with great dedication, love and
encouragement.
5
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this study to my mother and father, who have given me
the greatest love, care and support in every part of my life.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration ................................................................................................................2 Abstract ......................................................................................................................3
Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................4 Dedication .................................................................................................................5 Table of Contents .......................................................................................................6 List of Appendices ......................................................................................................7
Introduction ...............................................................................................................8
CHAPTER 1
CONCEPT OF COLLECTIVISM and COLLECTIVE ACTION IN JAZZ MUSIC
1. Concept of Collectivism in Arts ...................................................................10 2. Glance At History of Jazz and Collective Rationale ...................................12
2.1. United States ......................................................................................13 2.2. Europe ................................................................................................17 2.3. United Kingdom .................................................................................19
CHAPTER 2
CONTEMPORARY JAZZ COLLECTIVES IN THE UK
1. Rationale ......................................................................................................22 2. Mission, Vision and Objectives ....................................................................28 3. Collective Activities .....................................................................................32 4. Finance: Income and Expenditure Flow .....................................................40 5. Organisational Structure and Administration Practices .............................42
CHAPTER 3
SWOT ANALYSIS OF CONTEMPORARY JAZZ COLLECTIVES IN THE UK
1. The SWOT Analysis ......................................................................................49 2. Strengths .......................................................................................................51 3. Weaknesses ...................................................................................................57 4. Opportunities ................................................................................................63 5. Threats ..........................................................................................................65
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS 70
References ................................................................................................................77
Bibliography ............................................................................................................81
Appendices ...............................................................................................................83
7
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. - Glossary of Abbreviations ...............................................................83
Appendix B. - List of Collectives Examined in the Study ......................................84
Appendix C. - F-IRE - The Big Picture Diagram ....................................................85
Appendix D. - F-IRE - Education Venn Diagram ...................................................86
Appendix E. - Template Cash Flow Model for Jazz Collectives in the UK.............87
Appendix F. - Contemporary Jazz Collectives in the UK Members Survey 2014...88
Interviews
Appendix G.1 - Interview with Barak Schmool (Founder of F-IRE Collective) ......110
Appendix G.2 - Interview with Jim Hart (Co-founder of Loop Collective) ..............116
Appendix G.3 - Interview with Chris Sharkey (Founder of LIMA/Fusebox) ...........120
Appendix G.4 - Interview with Carlos Lopez-Real (Co-founder of E17jazz)...........124
Appendix G.5 - Interview with Tom Millar (Chair of Way Out West).....................128
Appendix G.6 - Interview with Peter Bacon (Freelance jazz journalist)...................132
Appendix G.7 - Interview with Jon Newey (Journalist, Editor of Jazzwise).............135
Appendix G.8 - Interview with Tony Dudley-Evans (Promoter, Jazz Adviser)........137
8
INTRODUCTION
This dissertation examines the organisational culture, structure and business
practices of contemporary jazz collectives founded in the UK from the 1980s
onwards. The analysis will aim to answer the question whether these jazz
collectives are still efficient organisations for their member jazz musicians to cope
with problems and create opportunities in the music industry whilst providing them
an environment to sustain their artistic creativity. The study also features an
introductory discussion on the concept of collectivism and provides brief historical
background to former collectives in jazz music.
This research tries to extend Wall and Barber’s valuable article ‘The collective
organization of Contemporary Jazz Musicians in the UK’ (Wall T. And Barber S.,
2011), which they have made the case that collectives have become the primary
organising principle, by examining the conditions under which jazz is created as
live music among young musicians, how they organise their creative lives and
achieve their objectives collectively. Wall and Barber’s study is focused in three
major UK cities, Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester; whereas, this research takes
a broader examination of jazz collectives in the UK by including more collectives
to the study, particularly by those based in London.
It is important to understand the idea of collective prior to any further analysis of
collective organisations. What is an artist collective? What do collective action and
the concept of collectivism mean for jazz musicians? The dissertation aims to put
together an accurate definition of collectivism in arts by taking the views of
musicians from various collectives currently active in the UK into account.
9
The study approaches to the subject from social, cultural and economic
directions. The historical background of collectives within these aspects provides
an insight on the reasons of forming these organisations, how musicians founded,
operated and developed them. Closer look to former collectives through this
historical review helps identify the structure and practices of contemporary jazz
collectives today; compare their problems, weaknesses; as well as opportunities and
benefits that their members come across to.
Methodology
The brief analysis of the current state of jazz as a niche genre in British music
market enables a more rational explanation of why jazz musicians struggle that
today and why they need to follow an institutionalised collective model to pursue
their artistic careers. To provide a detailed examination of the structure of these
collectives and their activities, the researcher benefited from interviews with
founders of contemporary jazz collectives, and professionals from various fields of
the music industry. Not only views of members of jazz collectives, but also of other
music business professionals, such as journalists, promoters, record label managers,
who liaise with these collectives are equally important and included in this
research.
Due to the limited academically accredited secondary resources on the subject,
the study greatly benefited from primary sources such as memoirs and comments of
collective members and founders. Being the first post-1980s jazz collective in the
UK, F-IRE Collective’s rich archive in particular, helped the researcher understand
a solid organisational model of a collective.
10
In addition, a substantial amount of statistical data was also retrieved from an
online survey consisting of 57 questions answered by 40 members of all major jazz
collectives in the UK.1 The data obtained from the survey portrays the
demographics of members, socio-economical and educational background, current
financial state, perception of music business for creative musicians, problems they
are facing in the music industry, reasons to become members of collectives, and the
opportunities that the collectives offer to them. The results shed light on the
motives of members, their relationship with collectives, as well as the
organisational culture and structure of collectives and their position within the
British music industry.
In the light of data obtained, primarily from the survey, the study features a
SWOT analysis. The analysis identifies and compares the collectives’ strengths
with weaknesses, and opportunities with threats. The overall outcome of SWOT
analysis leads up to the conclusion whether contemporary jazz collectives are
effective community organisations for jazz musicians.
CHAPTER 1
CONCEPT OF COLLECTIVISM and COLLECTIVE ACTION IN JAZZ MUSIC
1. CONCEPT OF COLLECTIVISM IN ARTS
Collectivism is one of the phenomenal concepts of arts and culture, which has
been used to define the organised action of various political, social, cultural and
economic movements of artists against dominant trends and powers. Collectivism
describes the organisational principle of cooperative entities known as ‘collectives’,
1 The total number of current members from those jazz collectives took part in this research is 73. The
participation to the survey is 40 out of 73 (54.79%).
11
which is formed by individuals who are motivated by common issues, to carry out
activities as a group.
From the aspect of aesthetics, there are some descriptions of collectivism in arts,
which confines it to political discourses. Asavei (2014) agrees that there are many
historical connotations and definitions of collectivism in relation to art production,
reception and dissemination because the nature of collective art practice is
changeable and the diverse artistic collectives across various political contexts and
cultural divides are initiated by different or even conflicting aims and motivations.2
Throughout the history of jazz and today, collectives have regularly engaged
with social, cultural and economic interests. As suggested by Jonez (2009), the
formation of music collectives is historically predicated on some socio-economic
rationale as seen in earlier African-American artists who sought greater agency in
the national economic discourse formed collectives. Compared to political, social
and cultural motives, it is especially the economic struggle has always been the core
of collectivist action. Asavei (2014) also agrees that in many cases the impetus for
founding collectives is overcoming the challenging economic situation of arts
industry. She draws attention to how collectives develop their own mechanisms of
art production and distribution as a strategy of communal resistance to hegemonic
domination of the globalized mainstream art world.
2 Contradictorily, Asavei’s description of collectivism quickly connects it with political art and states that
collectivism signifies the production, reception, and distribution of politically engaged art, which does not
stand for a single artist’s voice. The concept of collectivism in arts may refer to art movements advocated
by a group of artists following a certain style, or politically engaged art produced collectively by artists–
and so in jazz; however this is not always necessary. Although these motives have often find meaning in
various political thoughts, it would be difficult to say that collectivism in arts refers only political purposes
or to produce politically engaged art. Asavei, M.-A. (2014) Encyclopedia of Aesthetics, 2nd. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
12
There are also occasions that collectivism only appears as a concept of artistic
collaboration, primarily aiming to organise projects to develop artistic quality and
creativity. Artistically engaged collectivism concentrates on the art itself and the
uniting values of collectivism function as motivation for inspiration.
However, the spectrum of motives that could feed collectivism can be complex.
Regardless of whether they are aiming to achieve political, social, cultural or
economic goals, collectivism represents the ‘united voice’ or ‘collective identity’.
In line with the conclusion of Asavei (2014), it is not the manifesto of the collective
action, its mission or objectives; but it is the principles of collectivism that lie in the
core of this sociological concept. Collectivism connotes a sense of togetherness,
multitude, solidarity, and political-critical engagement, which challenges or
changes certain ideas of authorship, ownership, economy of pleasure, aesthetic
object and aesthetic experience.
What does collectivism mean for jazz collectives and how do they carry out
collective action? The following section will glance through the history of jazz and
identify the jazz collectives and their understanding of collectivism by looking at
their formation reasons, structure and activities.
2. GLANCE AT HISTORY OF JAZZ AND COLLECTIVE RATIONALE
The creation of music collectives is historically based on social, cultural and
economic causes. They were initially the creation of creative African-American
artists flourished in the United States during times of poverty and racial
segregation. Musicians came together and got organised to take position against the
discriminatory music business and create their own opportunities to survive under
13
these difficult conditions. Their journey to artistic freedom and American artists
oversees, mainly Europe in search of new audiences eager for music that stretched
beyond the conventions of the day (Hopkins, 2007). Collectivist approach amongst
jazz musicians has eventually spread Europe and influenced the creative
movements and idealism of jazz in the UK, which shaped today contemporary jazz
collectives in the country.
United States
The formation of music collectives is historically predicated on some socio-
economic rationale. Operating in the marginalised field of jazz, where sheer
economic survival often garners praise and admiration, it was Chicago’s
Association for the Advancement of Creative Musicians (AACM) stands as a
symbol of the community’s hard knows, dues-paying credo (Radano, 1992). In
order to understand today’s contemporary jazz collectives in the UK, we need to
look into AACM’s aims, structure and organisational practices.
AACM is the very first acknowledged jazz collective formed in history and sets
as the most important example of an organisation founded and operated by
musicians themselves. Born into the chaotic racial segregation environment,
poverty and other odds of ‘ghetto life’, it was the art of jazz that led the creative
African-Americans to find alternative ways of continue making their music and
sustain their artistry. Pioneered by Richard Muhal Abrams, AACM first formed as a
rehearsal group in 1961 and grew into a more comprehensive organization aiming
to help black jazz musicians to promote and present their own music, which could
not be heard through established commercial channels. It rapidly developed into a
social force serving the deprived, ignored and discriminated black community
14
during the civil rights movement in 1960s (Carr et al., 1987). The success and
longevity of AACM as a collective were due to its strong sense of community,
which provided and represented something even bigger than jazz.3 According to
Radano (1992), The community-inspired ideals became a fundamental motivation
for music. The collective provided a place for musicians to congregate and learn
from each other, feel encouraged, purposeful and committed.4
AACM was (and still is) an association founded by and for the advancement of
creative musicians, and its collectivist mechanisms aimed to create new
opportunities form them and overcome all sorts of problems that musicians were
facing. Nevertheless, in terms of self-realisation of the African-American
community, their fight for recognition, equality and freedom during the liberal
movements, AACM also set a strong example of social and political collectivism.
In his masterpiece book ‘A power stronger than itself: the AACM and American
Experimental Music’, George E. Lewis (2008) stated that the Collective developed
strategies for individual and collective self- production and promotion that both
reframed the artist/business relationship and challenged racialised limitations on
venues and infrastructure. In this context, the AACM as a self-sufficient
organisation intended to show how the disadvantaged and the marginalised can
3 Black churches, religion and African traditions were amongst those aspects, which have provided
grounds for self-actualisation and institutionalising group perception and community operations. Such
organisations succeeded in reinforcing the sense of solidarity and group sentiment among the black
community, given their visibility and status within the community.
4 The AACM can be considered an anomaly among ‘mainstream’ jazz practices due to its relationships
with the avant-garde movement and its insistence on engaging the classical music tradition in a direct,
often confrontational, manner Tanaka, R. (2011) George Lewis and the AACM: Bringing Oratorical
Musics into the Literary World. [online], Available from: [Accessed 26/04/2014].
15
gather and control their own strategies for political and economic freedom, thereby
shaping their own future.
So, as opposed to these problems, what did AACM offer? What were the key
points that defined their vision and mission? As outlined in its charter (Shoemaker,
2005), AACM’s founding members agreed on nine fundamental purposes:
i) To cultivate young musicians and to create music of a high artistic
level through programs designed to magnify creative music,
ii) To create an atmosphere conducive to artistic endeavours for the
artistically inclined,
iii) To conduct free training for disadvantaged city youth,
iv) To encourage sources of employment for musicians,
v) To set an example of high moral standards for musicians and to uplift
the image of creative musicians,
vi) To increase respect between creative musicians and musical trades
persons,
vii) To uphold the tradition of cultured musicians handed down from the
past,
viii) To stimulate spiritual growth in musicians,
ix) To assist other complementary charitable organizations.
Trudel and Shoemaker summarise AACM’s aims in the light of these principles:
They aimed to create a place where we could sponsor each other in
concerts of our original compositions, provide a training program for
young aspiring musicians in the community; reach out to other people
and other cities and have exchange programs (Trudel M. And Bill
Shoemaker B., 2005).
According to Lewis (2008), it encouraged differences in viewpoint, aesthetics,
ideology, spirituality, and methodologies; and the promulgation of new cooperative,
rather than competitive, relationships between artists. More importantly, AACM
succeeded to stand on its own feet and became the first artist-led organisation in
popular music to define the ‘artist-business relationship’ within a self-determined
and self-sufficient model. ACCM developed a method for musicians in which to
16
survive by planting the idea of self-production, self-promotion, self-distribution,
self-owned recording companies, and so on.
The Jazz Composers Orchestra Association Inc. (JCOA) in New York (1964),
the Art Ensemble of Chicago (AEC) (1969), and later on the M-Base Collective
(1984) were amongst many important ensembles and leading musicians have either
emerged from or strongly influenced by the AACM in the following years.5
AEC which was an ensemble founded in 1969 by musicians emerged from the
AACM, was one of the most radically exemplified the collective conception of the
AACM as a whole. AEC especially played an important role in introducing the
collective ideas to European jazz scene (Sanders, 2004).
Equally, Jazz Composers Orchestra Association Inc. (JCOA) was established as
a non-profit organisation in 1966 as a tax-exempt cooperative organisation, which
meant to advance the interests of New York's avant-garde jazz musicians by
promoting and producing performances apart from the jazz club and booking
establishment. The significant step that was taken by JCOA is that they also
founded its own record label, known as JCOA Records, to release recordings of the
Orchestra and its members. Furthermore, they have managed to start their own
distribution under the name New Music Distribution Service (NMDS) in 1972, as
an outgrowth of the JCOA, Its aim was to support those who produced their own
recordings but could not get them distributed. Starting with 19 independent labels,
the company began distributing recordings of experimental music in all genres
(Kozinn, 1990).
5 The Jazz Composers Orchestra Association Inc. (JCOA) was originally founded as Jazz Composer’s
Guild by Bill Dixon in 1964, later changed its name to Jazz Composer’s Guild Orchestra, the name
derived from its big band in 1965, and finally established as a non-profit organisation was established in
1966, the Jazz Composers Orchestra Association Inc. (JCOA).
17
Steve Coleman was the next generation free jazz musician from Chicago who
was immensely influenced by the fundamental ideas of AACM and other former
collectives. He founded his own creative collective M-base (Macro-basic array of
structured extemporization) around 1984, based on his own artistic approach to free
jazz (which at some points differs from the earlier collective practices) and
collectivism. According to Iyer (1996), Coleman hoped to save the spirit of this
musical micro community (as it is today), independent of the music business
remain. He defended the idea of self-management and self-sufficiency for artists by
promoting the business activities of musicians. Coleman’s vision is to maintain a
balance between activities through these established channels on the one hand, and
less economically viable, grass-roots channels on the other. He frequently worked
through the established industry channels (major record companies, booking
agents) to try to reach a wider audience; his own name and status are what make
these efforts possible.
Europe
The free jazz movement spanned across Europe in the sixties. In this decade,
despite the disadvantageous political, social and economic circumstances of the
post-war era and diplomatic difficulties due to Cold War, the visits and residencies
of AACM and AEC in the continent had started the ideological interaction and
musical collaboration between these collectives and European jazz musicians. AEC
members moved to Paris, which in 1969 had a flourishing jazz scene and was a
haven for black African-American musicians (Carr et al., 2004). As Lewis also
emphasised, this was the opportunity to take the AACM’s message to Paris. The
Baden-Baden Free Jazz Meetings of the late 1960s and early 1970s were amongst
collaborations that established American and European artists to interact with each
18
other. They shared important characteristics, goals and acknowledged musical
antecedents, despite European conservativeness against the dictating American
model of aesthetics and artistic practice (Lewis, 2004). Fordham describes this
period of blend:
The innovations of American free-improvisers like Ornette Coleman,
John Coltrane and Cecil Taylor were encouraging like-minded free-
fall experimenters all over Europe, not only to develop their own
methods, but also alternative infrastructures to challenge the
dominance of established jazz promoters and record labels. Some of
the newcomers were closer to the jazz tradition than others, but they
were all plugging into an expanding network of kindred spirits – as
well as to increasingly open-minded public arts-funding provisions –
all over the continent as the 1970s dawned (Fordham, 2011).
From the late-1960s onward, European jazz musicians began to look to their
own cultural tradition. The first steps were tentative, but by the mid-1970s they had
become giant strides (Fordham, 2011). In 1969, the establishment of two German
record labels, Free Music Production (FMP) and Edition of Contemporary Music
(ECM), was the milestone in European jazz history and jazz music market. Both
labels focused in free improvisation and free jazz by European musicians.
According to Cooke (1997), ECM was one of the most enduring successes born
into this new wave of independence within the free jazz. From the business point of
view, ECM’s success is attributed to Eicher’s vision of a music in which aesthetic
concerns take priority over commercial expectations, as well as his contribution to
the stark production quality that became known as the ‘ECM sound’(answers.com,
19
2014).6 Particularly, his efforts to approach and sign American artists he had
observed supporting established jazz acts played an important role of the
development of jazz market in Europe in 1970s and onwards.
United Kingdom
The arrivals in London of the Original Dixieland Jazz Band (ODJB) and the (all-
black) Southern Syncopated Orchestra in the first decade of twentieth century were
central inspirations for an aspirant community of musicians and fans in Britain and
launched our own ‘jazz age’ (Fieldhouse, 2013). According to Godbolt (1989), it
was in the 1950s that British jazz musicians could actually earn some sort of a
living playing jazz beyond session musicianship and live jam sessions. There was
also to be a flood of records on both major and independent labels. The genre was
thriving thanks to the foundation of BBC, Melody Maker magazine in 1926,
followed by the incorporation of HMV in 1945 and NME in 1952. However, the
Musician’s Union ban which prevented American musicians appearing in Britain
prevented the expansion of British jazz market. The Musicians’ Union ban was
lifted in 1956 and both traditional jazz and bop grew steadily in stature in the 1950s
before a new and younger generation of musicians finally placed the UK firmly on
the global jazz map in the midst of the growing stylistic indeterminacy of the post-
fusion in 1980s (Cooke, 1997).
Despite its short lifespan, the foundation of National Federation of Jazz
Organisations of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (NFJO) was one of the most
6 The ECM sound made it the first jazz label since the famed Blue Note label in the 1960s to be regarded
by jazz fans as a guarantee of readily identifiable musical and production quality. answers.com (2014)
Manfred Eicher. Musician Profiles Contemporary Musicians. http://www.answers.com [Accessed
14/03/2014]
20
important events in British jazz, since this was the very first example of an
organised enterprise aimed to be active in the promotion of concerts on a non-
sectarian and non-profit-making basis (Godbolt, 1989).
Undoubtedly, the major change in music history came in 1960s with the birth of
rock music. From 1963 however, the revolutions of the Rock generation – the most
profound about-turn in the history of twentieth-century popular music - began their
long-term attack on jazz as a youth culture (Fieldhouse, 2013). As music business
investments shifted into rock n’ roll, the jazz market was pushed away from the
popular music scene and shrunk significantly. Bands including the Beatles and
Rolling Stones rapidly became the focus of popular music as the decade progressed
and many jazz clubs quickly transferred their affections to new trends. Godbolt
(1989) also holds this view. According to him, even after the death of Beatlemania,
rock was left in its wake. Jazz recovered to an extent, and the bands survived
continued to work steadily, albeit not the enormous crowds they had known in
fifties.
Private or public support through funding had become a necessity. The Arts
Council maintained its position as a strong supporter of jazz commissions for
important artists in need of financial subsidy amid the rock revolution. In 1969, The
Jazz Centre Society (JCS) was founded as a national centre for jazz development,
and remained active until 1984.7 Other promotional groups including Scotland’s
‘Platform Jazz’ were formed in the 1970s to increase opportunities to both to hear
and play jazz (Fieldhouse, 2013). Two important organisations were also born
7 The JCS's involvement in all areas of national jazz activity (including promotion) continues today under
the aegis of Jazz Services.
21
towards the late eighties: The Association of British Jazz Musicians (ABJM) was
founded in 1987 and the National Jazz Archive (NJA) in 1988.
Within the 1980s, British jazz took a new shape, which inherited and revived the
original causes of AACM. The need and sense of collectivism evoked again, by a
new generation of black British musicians helped to re-energise the UK jazz scene.
Jazz, from a collective aspect, returned to its roots in this decade. In 1984, ‘Abibi
Jazz Arts’ was formed with the intention of helping the members of British black
community to take more interest in jazz, and one year later, their workshops led to
creation of the first collective formed in the post-1960s era called ‘Jazz Warriors’.
The collective’s foundation was based on artistic, socio-political (race-oriented) and
economic rationale, and their mission was to celebrate black British musicianship
and shake up the restricted world of British jazz (Courtney Pine Official Website,
2014).8
Although Nicholson (1990) described the 1980s as a period for ‘modern
resurgence’ for jazz, the genre could not catch the success it had in the first half of
the century. Adorno (Adorno and Bernstein, 2001) repeatedly claimed jazz is part
of popular culture and mainstream (considering the very early years of twentieth
century), yet the tide had turned. The dominance of pop and rock genres in the
music industry pushed jazz (as well as folk and other traditional genres) away from
the mainstream and marginalised it in the music industry.
8 The racial inequalities and discrimination were also present in Britain until the resolution of the 1960s.
Although they were not active in politics, there were plenty of committed musicians supporting the civil
rights and hold a protest stance.
22
Although several public organisations, non-profit institutions and support groups
began flourishing, it was not until Jazz Warriors that an artist-led organisation
operating collectively appeared in Britain. After 1980s, jazz has continued to
develop itself in the creative path, and musicians re-invented new ways of
collective thought and action for various aims that they have inherited from the
earlier collectives and organisations shaped the collectivist approach.
The following sections will take a closer look at those UK jazz collectives,
which are currently active at the time of this research and try to identify their
organisational structure, administrative practices, activities and finances.
CHAPTER 2
CONTEMPORARY JAZZ COLLECTIVES IN THE UK
1. The Rationale
The comeback of UK jazz collectives began in the mid-1990s, providing a
modern model of collective action whose principles are mostly driven from the
earlier collectives but with an up to date approach to the needs of today's jazz
musicians in the music industry. It was F-IRE Collective that was first founded in
1994 by its mind master Barak Schmool and fellow musicians that sparked a new
era in collectivism in jazz. Since then, F-IRE widely influenced and encouraged
other jazz musicians to form similar collectives in London as well as the rest of the
country. Today, F-IRE, Loop, E17jazz, Way Out West, Chaos Collectives in
London, LIMA/Fusebox in Leeds, and Efpi which operates as a collective record
label in Manchester, are amongst the leading contemporary collectives in the UK.
Compared to earlier collectives, it would be a naive approach to expect today’s
contemporary jazz collectives to hold the exact mission, vision and objectives as
23
they used to do. In global and national scale, social, political and economic trends
have changed. New technologies, social media and marketing habits of music
consumers have transformed the whole of the music industry greatly in every
aspect. All these changes remodelled collective organisations as well as how they
operate. Whilst racial and ethnic conflicts in the society have been resolved greatly
in the modern western democracies, following the dominance of popular genres like
pop and rock music, marginalised jazz in the music industry, making it far less
profitable and attractive for investment. Major players in the music industry are
unenthusiastic about investing in artists from a genre where sales are low and profit
margin is very narrow. As a result, jazz employment began to decline from 1950s
onwards, due to competition from mainstream genres, loss of venues and the rise of
vinyl and DJs (Mcandrew; Widdop; Stevenson, 2013). Jazz music has eventually
become the smallest (official) genre of global music industry and widely regarded
as a niche market. Below, the tables 1 and 2 show the low ranking of jazz music in
sales amongst other genres.
24
Table 1: Global recorded-music retail sales, by genre, 2012 (Music & Copyright's Blog, 2013)
Table 2: Global recorded-music retail sales, by genre, 2011, 2012 (Music & Copyright's Blog,
2013).
25
Table 3: Global recorded-music retail sales, by genre, 2000. 2008 and 2009 (Music & Copyright's
Blog, 2010).
In addition, the beginning of globalisation in the music industry in the mid-
1990s (which is the period when contemporary jazz collectives began evolving) and
its resultant commodification and homogenisation of popular product – caused
unprecedented pressures on emergent jazz musicians to take control of their own
destiny in the marketplace (Jonez, 2009). This pressure continued to rise towards
the end of the century and the beginning of the new millennium, negatively
affecting the whole of the music industry during its struggle to deal with falling
revenues amid the digital revolution and piracy.9
The economic depression of jazz as a genre certainly effects the earnings of jazz
musicians. Looking at the Riley and Laing (2008) study, they concluded that in
2004, the majority of jazz musicians continued to be paid less than the national
9
The estimated annual turnover of the jazz sector of the UK music industry decreased slightly from
£86.77m to £85.05m between 2005 and 2008. The fall in value was due entirely to the ongoing decline of
CD sales, which affected all genres of music. There were (mostly small) increases in revenues in all
other areas of jazz Jazz Services (2010) The Value of Jazz in Britain II. [online], Available from:
<http://www.jazzservices.org.uk/index.php/jazz-services-resources-reports/item/download/62>
[Accessed 14/06/2014].
26
average wage of £22,24810
. If musicians were paid at the national minimum wage,
according to Riley and Laing's figures, half of them were not working enough hours
in the week at music to receive that figure (Brown, 2014). The responses from
current and former collective members to ‘Contemporary Jazz Collectives Survey
2014’ (Foster, 2014a) also agree with Riley and Laing’s findings. Responses
indicate a slight increase in the overall gross income of musicians; however the
gross income from music activities remain in £5K – £25K range, which is less than
the national minimum wage (Table 4). This could explain why jazz musicians
taking more non-music related activities to support themselves. According to the
survey, 75 per cent of jazz musicians associated with collectives hold a secondary
occupation besides professional musicianship (Foster, 2014a).
Table 4: Comparison of Approximate Gross Annual Personal Income (gross) and Annual Personal
Income only from Music Activities (Foster, 2014a)
10
The national average wage for 2008 was estimated at £28,210 Brown, S. (2014) The Economics of
Jazz 2008 - The Musicians' Perspective. [online], Available from:
<http://www.sandybrownjazz.co.uk/forumeconmusicians.html> [Accessed 18/06/2014].
27
Kubacki and Croft’s research (2005) supports this case by noting that there is a
wide gap between the expectations of creative musicians who prioritise artistry over
other earnings and the organisations, which employ them and fund their work. As
institutionalised communities, today jazz collectives remain the strongest
alternative to fill this gap.
There is a mutual agreement amongst jazz musicians and professionals
interviewed that the current jazz scene is in fact very vibrant and healthy, though
financially it continues to struggle. Peter Bacon (Bacon, 2014), the jazz journalist,
and Tony Dudley-Evans (Dudley Evans, 2014), the promoter and programme
adviser to the Cheltenham Jazz Festival, draw attention to the fact that jazz is
thriving in terms of quality, creativity and range of diversity of style as more and
more talented young musicians keep emerging to the market from conservatoires
and music academies. However, there are not sufficient venues and promoters to
expose them to public.
According to Schmool, the collective act is natural, similar to the way that the
pygmy cannot live alone in the forest:
The only way to survive in a hostile environment is collectivism. It is
history of humankind. You do not see a single Eskimo. When you are
secure, you can lose it to a collective identity without feeling
compromised. If there are no promoters, investing in our music, then
musicians themselves has become to be their own promoters
(Schmool, 2014).
In this context, collectives can be seen as defence mechanism against the
dominant powers in the music industry. Jazz musicians acknowledged that jazz
music could be demanding genre, not only in terms of artistic capability but also
businesswise. Insufficient numbers of music professionals and companies showing
interest in creative jazz, forces musicians to take care of their own artistic lives in a
professional manner by chasing opportunities and self-promotion. Consequently,
28
jazz musicians who are passionate about their creativity, artistic quality and
freedom developed alternative ways to produce, promote and develop their music
whilst sustaining their artistry and creativity.
2. Mission, Vision and Objectives
The changing economics of jazz music, it has become a natural urge for jazz
musicians to act collaboratively in order to create their own opportunities in order
to sustain their artistic creativity and freedom that are not widely available to them
in the music industry. The modern collectives today exemplify artist-led
organisations that were born as this way. The co-founder of Loop Collective (Loop
Collective, 2014a) and Tom Millar (Millar, 2014), the chairman of WOW, both
described the term collective as a collaborative force of a group of musicians who
have a shared outlook and goal; who work together to realise range of activities
which are bigger than what one musician can do. So, what is the common ground
that these musicians have to come together and fight against the odds of the music
industry?
Highly influenced by Steve Coleman’s principles at M-base and practices of
Hask Collective in France, Barak Schmool, founder of F-IRE, constructs the
concept of collectivism on two pillars: thought and action:
A collective thought grounds an ideology, a movement, or a school of
thought of learning and creating together. It was Steve Coleman who
explained it to us. When F-IRE started, it was about collective
learning. That was the first idea. What it became later, the younger
members of F-IRE, as Timeline, we went to Paris. There, we met
Hask Collective and we saw exactly what they are doing.11
They were
sitting in the room, and doing envelopes, flyers, organising festivals,
all together. We saw them all in action. They were a collective of
thought and action (Schmool, 2014).
11
Hask Collective was founded by Benoit Delbecq, a former student of Mal Waldron, Alan Silva, Muhal
Richard Abrams (AACM) and Steve Coleman (M-base), to help revitalize the Paris creative music scene.
29
Like the pygmy example, collectives are in fact, simple economic structures that
are purely based on collective workforce primarily for economic reasons. Yet, it is
creativity and artistic quality and development lie in the heart of collectives.
F-IRE’s mission statement puts forward that it is all too frequent that grand designs
of integrating communities fall by the wayside in deference to financial pressures,
within F-IRE it is the policy that the expression comes first and is created for its
social importance, not for income (F-IRE Collective, 2009).
It is worth to mention that jazz collectives are not confined to their own sphere.
They often inherit responsibility for the community and its cultural development.
F-IRE’s mission statement claims that integrating the community is also an aim of
their work by creating a shared performance environment where professionals,
students and teachers all participate. Schmool has realised something that many
jazz musicians insist upon forgetting: jazz is an urban art form with a social
message, thus it must reflect our urban life. According to him, to play jazz is to
intermingle with one's social landscape. To make music is to put the music into the
community and the community into the music (Atzmon, 2005). Such approach
makes it possible to naturally break down the barriers recently erected between
performers and audience – and offers to the community the language created by the
artists as a mode for collective communication relevant to their shared lives (F-IRE
Collective, 2009). According to Carlos Lopez-Real (2014), the co-founder of
E17Jazz Collective, E17jazz was born as a form of local community, thanks to the
potential that existed in the fact that there were a relatively high number of jazz
musicians in a very small local area, Walthamstow, most of whom already knew
each other, and trying to create a ‘mutually-stimulating buzz’. Sharkey, the founder
30
of LIMA/Fusebox, share the same view and defines it as the artist’s responsibility
to fulfil a social function:
We also see that our actions have a community side of it. It is
something like the responsibility of presenting this art form to the
community, make it heard and seen. Personally, keeping the music alive
in the town that we live in is also important. It is about not letting go.
We are playing in front of an audience, fulfilling a social function. The
society should include this type of art. Maybe there is a little bit politics
in there too. It is maybe a kind of artistic responsibility (Sharkey, 2014).
Like any organisation, for collectives, the successful establishment and
achievements do not happen over the night. It requires regular commitment and
stability to benefit from the advantages of collective power. Therefore, the
envisaged future of jazz collectives lie in its longevity to maintain self-sufficient
collective platforms, establish bonds that are needed to support and sustain artists'
creative lives, by organising activities and providing opportunities to share the
knowledge and experience between the musicians, other organisations and the
community.
Collectives aim to endure and develop artistic lives of creative musicians is to
provide its members those opportunities that they are unable to get on their own,
but how can collectives move from motive to action? In 2004, the board of
F-IRE agreed on a set of objectives, which was outlined clear and broad enough to
become a prototype to other artist-led organisations. Evidently influenced by
AACM’s nine agenda points, F-IRE objectives clearly reflect their framework
(Schmool, 2014):
- develop a brand and build reputation,
- get press attention,
- create and chase opportunities to rehearse and perform,
- access audiences and expand them,
31
- keep control of our recorded music,
- Make sure arts function beyond purely economic reasons,
- Share knowledge and opportunities; educate.
Loop is the second collective founded in 2005 following F-IRE. Amidst
challenging circumstances for contemporary music making, they have created a
network of shared resources to promote their original music. Their aims are (Loop
Collective, 2014b):
- Encourage new musical work from its members,
- Expand the reach of the collective's music to new audiences in the UK
and abroad,
- Promote artistic collaborations with other musicians from the UK and
abroad,
- Continue to produce its critically acclaimed annual festivals in major
venues,
- Expand the substantial Loop Records catalogue with new recordings.
Whilst the broad principles and rationale for collective action widely apply to all
contemporary collectives, their objectives and activities can be different depending
on the conditions of the local scene and the needs of musicians. Equally, the
justifications given by jazz musicians for undertaking collective activities in various
locations can vary significantly. As Barber and Wall (2011) mentioned in their
study, despite their differences, the collectives exist to solve a central problem: how
can the participants create a production culture which allows them to work
regularly, locally, and in a manner which meets their goal of creative work
unencumbered by economic and cultural assumptions about the accessibility of
music.
32
3. Collective Activities
As discussed in the previous chapter, current jazz collectives were built upon a
common rationale. Their mission, vision and objectives are similar, but as Wall and
Barber (2011) also agree, they also have strikingly different goals and practices.
They often wear different hats depending on their objectives set in accordance with
their reason.
During the early years of F-IRE, founding members tried to see the big picture
and what could be achieved collectively. A diagram (Appendix C: F-IRE - The Big
Picture Diagram) was prepared to show the scope of activities that members
thought the collective should focus on. Their perspective displayed the ‘big
picture’, in other words, the whole complex structure that a collective could ever
become.
Given the economics of jazz music and on-going problems with the scene,
manifestly, collective activities of current contemporary jazz collectives in the UK
tend to focus on three main areas: live performances, recording and education.
Live performances
There are limited numbers of venues interested in non-mainstream music, even
less for those interested in this type of jazz. This makes the live circuit for creative
jazz very competitive around the UK. Schmool (2014) once said ‘if there are no
promoters, then we need to become their own promoters’. Nearly all collectives
examined in this study had their primary objective set to finding more performance
opportunities. Collective members seek or create these opportunities collaboratively
in order to share, develop and showcase their projects. These activities mainly
33
consist of running regular performances programmed at residencies, one-off
concerts at local venues, annual events like festivals or special events that collective
members are commissioned to. Achievements in live performances is key for
collectives to expand their audience, develop their brand name and get press
attention. Fusebox, the new extension of LIMA, engages in musical activities in
Leeds, featuring some of the great Leeds-based improvisers associated with LIMA,
new and established talent from within the Leeds music scene and beyond as well
as major national and international guests. Additionally, F-IRE and Loop
Collectives organizes their own reputable annual festivals every year. E17jazz
particularly aims to run nights in the Walthamstow area, whereas Chaos Collective
showcases the work of improvisers and composers in the UK and provide a
platform for creations that challenge mainstream conventions. WOW members all
come to the forefront in full force within weekly gigs, as each collective member
presents collaborations of their work with guest stars from today's jazz scene.
Some collectives also have their own unique ensembles that members
commission collectively and perform on stage. F-IRE Large Ensemble, Chaos
Orchestra, WOW All-Star Band perform occasionally and reflect the true artistic
spirit of collective creativity on stage.
Recording
Like venues, there are very few idealist independent record labels like Edition,
Dune Records, and Babel Label in the UK willing to invest in a sub-genre like
contemporary jazz whose audience is very limited and sales figures are very low.
The majority of jazz labels (56%) have been founded since 1990 and less than 10
per cent before 1970. Half of the labels responding to the survey had income of less
34
than £10,000 and one-third reported turnover of less than £5,000 in 2008. Labels
were asked about the biggest-selling title in their catalogue. More than half the
labels (54%) reported that sales of their best-seller were 500 units or less. Less than
one-fifth of labels had a title that sold over 4,000 units in the twelve-month period
(Jazz Services, 2010). Many creative jazz artists have no choice, but to produce
their albums and market them on their own. Yet, they usually need a representative
to get their albums distributed in physical and digital formats.
Collectives like F-IRE Loop and Chaos developed facilities, established
relationships with other partners to help their members release and distribute their
self-produced albums. Efpi exemplifies a complete artist-led record label model,
which solely concentrates on recordings. Based in Manchester, Efpi defines itself as
both an independent record label and an umbrella organisation working to promote
the activities of an emerging generation of musicians working across all areas of
contemporary jazz, improvised and experimental music. Their income is based on
funds generated largely from music sales and donations (Efpi, 2014).
The most important principle of both F-IRE and Loop record labels is, the label
artists are able to benefit from worldwide distribution whilst retaining full
ownership of their recordings.12
This has been a long-time discussion in the music
industry that whether artists could retain their copyrights once record labels
recouped their costs. The common practice is that labels ask for a small fee towards
and very advantageous royalty rates, whilst keeping full copyrights of the product.
Artists associated with collective record labels widely agree that this is the fairest
approach, and anything else would simply be described as unnecessary exploitation
12
F-IRE Label and Loop Label are officially registered as F-IRE Recorded Music Limited and Loop Label
respectively.
35
of artists and their works (Foster, 2014a). This is evident by the increasing demand
by other artists outside of collectives, approaching to collective labels to release
their own albums. Efpi and F-IRE Labels has extended their services beyond their
members, and began providing record release and distribution opportunity to those
local and international artists looking for a record label to release their self-
produced albums.
Collectives lacking record labels follow the activities of F-IRE, Loop and Efpi
labels closely. However, feelings about starting a record label as a part of their own
collectives vary. Some collectives like WOW prefer to concentrate on their main
activities, whereas there are few collectives like LIMA look positive to the idea of
having a record label.
Education
Collectives provide an excellent environment for teaching and learning.
According to Schmool (2014), collective learning is the birthplace of collective
action and it is vital for the development and longevity of collectives by sharing the
experience with fellow artists and providing younger musicians learning
opportunities. Lopez-Real (2014) and Sharkey (2014) hold a similar view.
According to him, education activities, like workshops are important to maintain
the bonds with the community. Unlike other activities, income from education
activities like workshops have secure income, which makes such activities
financially viable for collectives.13
79 per cent of the jazz musicians associated with
collectives who participated the recent survey studied music at a higher education
13
The common practice is, collectives organise workshops and receive registration fees from the
participants upfront.
36
institution, holding academic degree and have sufficient knowledge and experience
to teach others; while 77 per cent of them have music teaching as their secondary
occupation (Foster, 2014a). F-IRE, Loop, LIMA/Fusebox and Chaos Collectives
have education as a part of their collective activities; whereas WOW and Efpi
prefer to remain in their primary activity field to maximise the outcome from their
collective commitment. Millar (2014) explains: ‘We do not have education
activities like workshops. As we are all educators, we do it individually, but that is
not the focus of our collective’. The responses of members to the survey agree with
Millar’s views. Only a quarter of members thinks that being a collective member
helps getting more education opportunities, whereas 38 per cent remains neutral,
and 27 per cent disagrees it (Foster, 2014a). Efpi share the same principle as their
scope of activity limited to recording.
There are also other various collective activities. Some of these activities can be
also regarded as routine duties including but not limited to updating the social
media profiles and websites, preparing and sending out newsletters to subscribers,
general planning and organisation of events.
Overall, members stated in the survey that they are able to run at least one or two
major music projects per year thanks to the opportunities provided in their
collectives (Table 5).
37
Table 5: Number of major projects achieved by members per year during their membership. (Foster, 2014a)
Press
Social media may be leading the daily communication today, but the jazz press
in the UK although being small, is still key for jazz musicians to access the right
audience. Venues and promoters do not always efficiently publicise events, and PR
services provided by professional PR companies are often not affordable.
Collectives developed ideas to overcome this difficulty and eventually built up their
in-house press to carry out PR campaigns on their own collectively, preparing press
releases and contacting journalists to make sure their events are listed in jazz music
media.
38
Networking
Contemporary jazz collectives in the UK are, although not frequently, in touch
with each other. In October 2010, a short conference was organised for UK
collectives, associations, and other artist-led organisations. The plan had been put
together by F-IRE, LOOP and LIMA and it aimed to share best practice, discuss
common issues and explore ways of increasing co-operation between the groups
(F-IRE Collective, 2008).
Outside the UK, an initiative called Zoom! Led by French jazz collective Yolk,
and created a platform for European collectives to collaborate. Including F-IRE and
later Loop from the UK, Zoom! Project was designed to be a collective of
collectives, built on musical affinity, aiming to build natural musical bridges
between each other, creating more opportunities for bands to play abroad and
record labels to be promoted (F-IRE Collective, 2008).14
A double compilation CD
and a featuring concert series in London organised by F-IRE were fruits of Zoom!.
Unfortunately, the project stopped its progress and died out.
Publishing
The collective members who participated in the survey expressed their belief
that artists should keep their copyrights and creative control of their works (Foster,
2014a). Besides establishing record labels, founding a publishing company was
amongst the ideas first discussed by F-IRE; however, none of the contemporary
collectives have managed to create one so far (Appendix C: F-IRE - The Big
Picture Diagram).
14
El Gallo Rojo (Italy), F-IRE (GB) ; Fiasko (Finland), ILK (Denmark), Jazzwerkstatt (Austria), Mâäk's
Spirit (Belgium), Octurn (Belgium), Umlaut Records (Germany), Yolk (France) were amongst collectives
participated in Zoom! project. Unfortunately, Zoom! Project’s objective to create a network across Europe
has failed when the platform has become indefinitely dormant.
39
Overall, concentration of activities varies amongst collectives. Members who
responded to the survey rated their collective’s activities in different areas. The
result suggests that fixing and organising live performances, and funding
applications are the most active areas amongst collectives. It is followed by
education and record label activities. Whilst members agree their collectives are
fairly active in social media, press and publicity, they responses showed low
interest in music industry news and developments, and insufficient effort on
expanding their fanbase (Table 6).
Table 6: Efficiency of Collective Activities (Foster, 2014a)
On the other hand, the survey revealed that the top three areas that members
think their collectives should focus most on are live performance opportunities,
funding and expanding fanbase. While improvements on following and sharing
music industry news, education, and record label, are somehow necessary;
marketing, press and visibility in the music industry, which were voted as less
active fields of collectives in the survey, are not much required to be improved.
40
4. Finance: Income and Expenditure Flow
As a principle, collectives are non-profit organisations. They have limited
resources and therefore their expenditure and income structure is not complicated.
F-IRE sets one of the complex structures amongst collectives. A template cash flow
modelled by the author for jazz collectives in the UK is based on F-IRE
Collective’s financial structure (Appendix E: Template Cash Flow Model For Jazz
Collectives in the UK). The chart suggests that there are four income sources:
funding, performance fees paid from venues or promoters, contributions from
members or subsidies from record label's income. Against income, expenditures are
paid towards either project costs, such as artist fees, project management, and other
expenses like travel, PA hire, print and design, PR work, so forth.
Grants received from public bodies are the greatest lump of income amongst all.
They are given to collectives for certain projects, and supposed to be spent
completely. While members can apply for funds individually under their
collective’s name, collectives themselves decide democratically to make
applications for collective activities. Which activities have priority over others for
funding applications? In the survey, members were asked to rank the activities that
need funding. The results indicate that funding collectively organised events like
festivals, nights, other performance organisations are the top priority for funding. It
is followed by touring support for a collective project, education activities and
lastly record label activities (Table 7).
41
Table 7: Priority of activities for funding (Foster, 2014a)
There are also occasions that money can be saved from other sources and be
allocated to running costs and future expenditures. Seldom, members contribute to
some expenses when there is insufficient budget to cover some important needs.
Collective record labels, as long as they have sufficient income, can be supportive
to subsidize collectives on rare occasions. In addition, according to the collective
members participated in the survey, the financial future of collectives may lie in
new sources other than public funds, such as crowdfunding or other similar
innovative ways (Foster, 2014a).
On the expenditure side, those collectives registered as companies, or
community organisations, there are legal responsibilities to take care of, such as
submission of annual return, and company accounts to Companies House and
HMRC, and maybe some subscriptions and memberships to be renewed regularly.
42
These combined with other running costs and overheads like stationary, postage
and administration.
Often an appointed member voluntarily handles these tasks on behalf of the
collective. Rarely, as F-IRE has, there can be a separate administrator paid for this
role.
5. Organisational Structure and Administration Practices
Legal status of collectives
Collectives find themselves in a position that they would need to be a registered
status and hold a bank account in order to be eligible to funding provided by
funding organisations. Although charity and community organisation statuses are
applicable, incorporating collectives as limited companies seem to be the preferred
method of current collectives. F-IRE, Loop and Chaos Collectives are all registered
as private companies limited by guarantee, with no share capital.15
LIMA was a
loose framework with a prolific output, but lacked the formal structure to get public
funding, manage a record label or pursue marketing campaigns outside of the local
scene (Wall and Barber, 2011). Equally, WOW, Efpi and E17Jazz are not registered
and have no legal status.
15 - F-IRE COLLECTIVE LIMITED is a PRI/LTD BY GUAR/NSC (Private, limited by guarantee, no share
capital) registered in United Kingdom with the Company reg. no 05274474. Its current trading status is
"live". It was registered 2004-11-01. It has declared SIC or NACE codes as "90020 - Support activities to
performing arts". It has seven directors and 1 secretary.
- LOOP COLLECTIVE LIMITED is a PRI/LTD BY GUAR/NSC (Private, limited by guarantee, no share
capital) registered in United Kingdom with the Company reg. no 08179009. Its current trading status is
"live". It was registered 2012-08-14. It has declared SIC or NACE codes as "90010 - Performing arts". It
has four directors.
- CHAOS COLLECTIVE LTD is a Private Limited Company registered in United Kingdom with the
Company reg. no 08110579. Its current trading status is "dissolved". It was registered 2012-06-19. It has
one director. Www.Kompany.Co.Uk (2014), Company Profiles, Official Register Reports & Credit
Reports Available at https://www.kompany.co.uk (Accessed:08/07/2014)
43
Once registered as a company, collectives are responsible for submitting their
financial accounts and annual returns to both HMRC and Companies House. Such
legal requirement adds liability for those members who were assigned as company
directors. Whilst some collectives prefer to make all members directors as they do
at F-IRE, others like Chaos Collective, have its founder as the sole director
(www.kompany.co.uk, 2014).
Members
Musicians usually join collectives by invitation upon recommendation. Barak
Schmool (2014) strongly rejects that collectives are privilege clubs, but he
emphasizes that it is important to be selective when it comes to accepting members
to collectives, as it is vital to ensure quality and protect the collective’s reputation.
The aim is to bring together the musicians who share the same vision and are
willing to contribute to collective action.
The motives of establishing a collective has been discussed widely in earlier
chapters. What about the members? How does their profile look like? What are
their expectations? The recent survey carried out by the author contains responses
from 40 current and former members from various collectives, and gives insight
about their background, expectations, general thoughts and feelings.
In the 2008 research by Jazz Services, 17 per cent of those returning the
questionnaire were female, and the age profile of jazz musicians has remained
heavily skewed towards the middle-aged and elderly.(Jazz Services, 2010). In the
recent survey, members were also asked their gender and age. As seen in Table 8,
only about a quarter of respondents are female, that it agrees with the general
44
gender range of jazz musicians in the UK. However, the age of member musicians
in collectives intensifies between age 25 and 44 (Table 9).
According to the survey (Foster, 2014a), compromising 44 per cent of responses,
it is the developing artists aged between 25-29 joined jazz collectives. Also,
musicians who joined a collective after the age 30 (29%) are greater than those
joined at an age younger than age 25 (26%) (Table 10).16
Could this be due to
musicians not having heard of collectives during the early stages of their career
when they do not know the scene well yet? Responses indicate the most common
way of musicians to be informed about collectives is through word of mouth
referral from another musician (44%), followed by recommendations taken at an
academic environment (9%), and events and performances (6%) (Table 11). This
shows that young musicians become aware of collectives and their activities as they
begin interacting in the scene with other musicians and develop their careers.
16
29 per cent is the combined figure of those aged between 30-39 (23.53%), and 40 plus (5.88%).
Table 8: Gender Range of Collective Members
(Foster, 2014a) Table 9: Age range of Collective Members
(Foster, 2014a)
45
Table 10: Member’s Age of Joining a Collective (Foster, 2014a)
Table 11: How members first heard about collectives (Foster, 2014a)
It is the members who influence and shape collectives, but what were their
expectations from being a part of collective in the first place? Members were asked
why they joined a collective. ‘Opportunity to work with fellow musician friends’
option received the highest response rate of all choices. The second biggest
expectation is live performance opportunities, which is followed by funding
46
opportunities and benefiting from the collective’s reputation. Creative development
and networking are also strong expectations for members joining to the collectives.
Participating in education (teaching and learning) opportunities, album production,
release and distribution, and getting music business support and advice seem to be
less important expectations, as they are low-ranked by the members (Foster,
2014a).
Administration
Jazz collectives are traditionally artist-run organisations. Members are
committed to run the collective collaboratively on a voluntary basis, without being
paid for the time they put in administration. Each collective has its own unique
organisational structure and internal communication style, but they also share
similar administrative practices. While in some collectives members’ participation
in the administration is minimum, in others, members share certain responsibilities.
WOW and E17Jazz Collectives share distinctive managerial duties clearly amongst
its members. At WOW, members follow a professional approach and share
administration and event management roles. Their chairperson, who serves for two-
year term, has given the responsibility to act like a supervisor to check on others’
efficiency. Millar explains:
We share duties and everyone puts effort. Everyone has a job. We
discuss and warn each other during the meetings when things go
wrong, or people do not do their job. (Millar, 2014).
At E17Jazz, members are assigned specific tasks to handle the administration of
the collective. They exemplify a model of tasks handled in collectives. The roles
assigned include bookings, funding applications, mail-lists, listings and press, audio
recordings, promo material distribution, education projects, secretary, online media,
47
and treasury (E17jazz, 2014). F-IRE Collective on the other hand, has a more vague
administrative structure. Members take charge of projects and lead them either in
turns or on a voluntary basis. Any random administration is taken care of by Barak
Schmool, the founder of the collective. Nonetheless, a good organisational planning
does not guarantee successful management. Efficient commitment from
collaborators is vital too. Sharkey draws attention to the difficulties with the
administration:
To get organised is the most challenging part of it. Musicians are very
difficult personalities when it comes to doing administration tasks. It
is like herding cats. Nobody wants to do anything! All musicians only
want to play. At the meetings, great, interesting ideas come out from
everyone. If you get them on a good day, they say they will do many
things. However, when it comes to action, we do nothing (Sharkey,
2014).
The survey (Foster, 2014a) also aimed to measure how many members
participate in administration and have an active role. According to the survey
responses, 55 per cent of collective members stated that they have an active role in
administration (Table 12). 64 per cent of them think their collective have well-
structured administration and well-defined roles (Table 13).
Table 12: Active role in administration (Foster,
2014a) Table 13: Well-structured administration and
well-defined leading roles (Foster, 2014a)
48
Collectives are egalitarian organisations without hierarchy. They are democratic
platforms for musicians to express and discuss ideas freely, and then act
collectively for a common aim. Survey results state that collectives have democratic
decision-making, as 82 per cent of members agree that their collective is
democratic.
Table 14: The Level of Member’s Engagement
in the collective throughout their membership
period (Foster, 2014a)
Table 15: Democratic Decision-making at the
Collective (Foster, 2014a)
Schmool states that collective practices are in harmony with the collaborative
nature of this particular art form:
Good art is not made collectively but individually. There is an
understanding that members all help each other to realise one’s vision.
The music allows everyone ‘collectively’ express and contribute to
music, and take different roles to realise that individual’s vision
(Schmool, 2014).
49
Collectives are not meant to be a place for egoism and competition; as the
opposite would be against the idea of the cooperative nature of collectivism.
CHAPTER 3
SWOT ANALYSIS OF CONTEMPORARY JAZZ COLLECTIVES IN THE UK
1. The SWOT Analysis
‘United we stand, divided we fall’
This famous quote could be the shortest way to summarise the ideology lies
beneath collectives. It is the power of unity, the benefits and opportunities that
collectives provide to its members, and what make them desirable for others. Jazz
musicians, who are members of jazz collectives, benefit from these organisations
both collectively and individually. On the other hand, running a collective and
sustain its longevity is not easy. There are issues related to organisational structure
and administrative practices of collectives, which make these artist-led
organisations difficult to operate. Besides, jazz (creative jazz in particular) is
heavily dependent on public support today and economic problems result in
opportunities shrunk further and make the jazz scene more challenging and
competitive. For non-profit organisations like jazz collectives to continue, the
positive and negative factors, both internal and external, are expected to be at least
in balance. Is this the case with the contemporary jazz collectives in the UK? Are
they sustainably advantageous? The SWOT analysis in this chapter, looks closely
into advantages and disadvantages of collectives, try to examine this balance, by
identifying and comparing the strengths and opportunities against weaknesses and
threats. Based on the collective aims and activities, and in the light of the responses
to the ‘Collective Members Survey 2014’ (Appendix F: Contemporary Jazz
50
Collectives in the UK - Members Survey) and interviews with the collective
founders, the SWOT chart below suggests a general model most applicable to all
collectives:
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
- The brand and strong reputation
- Negotiation power
- Shared administration duties and
responsibilities
- Access to funding
- Share of knowledge and connections
- Platform to develop artistic
interaction and skills
- Motivating and inspiring
environment
- Strong artistic and creative vision
- Sharing PA and Rehearsal spaces
- Having a record label
- Administration problems and
inconsistent voluntary commitment
- Weak music business vision and
knowledge
- Insufficient interaction between
members
- Small audiences, fans
- Inefficient use of social media
- Limited cash flow, little or no profit
for investment
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
- Expanding to other creative genres
- New funding possibilities
- Efficient use of online music
platforms and social media
- Partnerships with other collectives in
and outside of the UK
- Participating in music industry events
- Government policies and cuts on
public funds for arts
- Diminishing numbers of venues
- Shrinking media coverage
- Dominant corporations controlling the
scene
Table 16: SWOT Chart
51
2. Strengths of Jazz Collectives
Reputation
Contemporary jazz collectives in the UK today consist of very talented
professional musicians and represent distinctively creative, innovative and high
quality jazz music. The collective, in fact, are new brands that develop in time by
the commitment of all these individually talented members. If achieved, good
reputation is the greatest strength of collectives. Therefore, protecting and
developing the brand have always been amongst their top priorities.
The value created collectively is bigger than the total value created by artists
individually. Achievements of members are also the success of the collective as a
whole. Would not such attitude conflict with the competitive nature of a small
scene with very limited opportunities like jazz? Schmool clarifies:
The answer stands out in relation to the core principles of
collectivism. It is like a lot fish swimming in the same pool. The food
is scarce but we all need to survive together to continue. Every one of
us is struggling with same problems. There is no point of stealing
from each other (Schmool, 2014).
Schmool also emphasizes that there are no rivalries between collectives, since
founders and members of collectives followed F-IRE were mostly Schmool’s ex-
students, or friends:
I have shared F-IRE’s ideas with them so many times, and I believe,
me as their tutor, and F-IRE influenced and encouraged them to create
their own collectives. I do not feel bad about it. On the contrary. I am
proud of it. Because I know we need them and it will be good for the
scene. Good for all of us. It is important to see the big picture
(Schmool, 2014).
The positive effect reflects on other members, and helps develop the collective
brand, as well as the scene.
52
Although reputation is an abstract concept, collective members experience its
advantages in their professional lives. Does being a collective member help musicians
access more opportunities? According to members it does. 72 per cent of members
participated in the survey agree that it helps them to get more live performance
opportunities, 67 per cent think they get more press coverage (Figures 17, 18).
Table 17: Whether collectives provide more live
performance opportunities to their members.
(Foster, 2014a)
Table 18: Whether collectives provide more live
performance opportunities to their members. (Foster,
2014a)
Members are also expected to promote the collective’s name whenever is possible
to improve their visibility.
Negotiation Power
Established collectives with good reputation also help members have stronger
bargaining power than they were out of collective and alone. For collective activities,
such as door-split deal gigs, collectives are able to set favourable terms in agreements.
53
Also, owing to Collectives’ long-term relations with other businesses, there is the
possibility of reducing costs for services or items that many individual members
cannot get on their own (Schmool, 2014).
Share of knowledge and learning
Members of jazz collectives are musicians who obtained music degrees from higher
level institutions like universities, music colleges or conservatoires. However, the
survey shows that 64 per cent of the members who studied music have not received
any music business course or similar training (Foster, 2014a). In collectives, especially
young and inexperienced musicians have the chance to learn about music business
from experienced musicians. They also have the opportunity to discuss with each other
any legal and financial deal that they are entering into.
Besides knowledge and experience, there are more to share in collectives. Members
also share their artistic and music business contacts, borrow each other’s PA and
access rehearsal or recording facilities whenever available.
Platform to develop artistic interaction and skills
Members are also able to share knowledge and learn music from each other.
Responses to the survey indicate that the second most important reason for musicians
joining collectives is to be able to work with fellow musician friends; whereas
musical, instrumental or creative development ranked way lower (Foster, 2014a). This
result may suggest that musicians think collectives are suitable platforms where they
share their artistic vision and collaborate with each other, rather than education
organisations. In general, 61 per cent of members feel better and more confident by
being a member of a jazz collective. Besides, 73 per cent of respondents find their
collective inspiring; however only 52 per cent find it motivating (Tables 19, 20).
54
Table 19: Whether members agree their collectives
motivate and inspire them. (Foster, 2014a)
Table 20: Whether collectives make members feel
confident and give positive feeling. (Foster, 2014a)
Shared administration duties and responsibilities
Collectives are loose non-profit organisations that are administrated by its own
members. Power of teamwork and solidarity is the fundamental principle of all
collectives, thus members are expected to contribute voluntarily and share tasks to run
the collective and its projects. Sharing the workload and liabilities helps reduce the
time and cost of administration, and keeps the collective active and alive as long as it
works efficiently in practice. However, most of the collectives experience problems
with administration and often struggle keeping the collective management in good
harmony.
Access to funding
Collectives are amongst those organisations that mastermind activities and apply
for public grants. Their artistic vision, community objectives, organised establishment
55
and previous achievements are strong assets that help collectives access funding. Jazz
Services Limited reports that as in 2005, by far the greatest amount of funding for jazz
in 2008 came from public sector and ‘third sector’ (charities) bodies. Arts Council’s
support for jazz is split between funding for promoters and development organisations,
funding for specific events, mainly festivals, and support for performing organisations.
Several bodies in the ‘third sector’ of the economy – charities and not-for-profit
organisations like PRS Foundation, the Jerwood Foundation, the Musicians
Benevolent Fund (MBF) and Jazz Services continue to support British jazz and are
main source of grants for jazz collectives (Jazz Services, 2010).
Established collectives with good reputation and feasible projects are more likely to
succeed with their grant applications. It is also a great strength for members as well.
Survey results regarding funding states that 64 per cent of all members who applied
for grants and became successful with their applications think their collective
membership played a role in their application’s success (Tables 21, 22).
56
Table 21: Successful grant applications (Foster, 2014a) Table 22: Collective’s role in receiving grants (Foster,
2014a)
Record Labels
Having a record label is a great advantage for collectives. Due to lack of interest
and investment from independent and major record labels, free jazz musicians often
have no other choice but to self-release their albums. F-IRE, Loop, Chaos Collectives
and Efpi have record labels that they represent self-produced recordings of their
members, and other fellow musicians outside of the collectives. The survey reveals the
motives of members releasing their albums on collective labels. The responses show
that artistic freedom and collective’s reputation are the top ranking answers, followed
by the copyright ownership, and staying within the collective community (Table 23).
Despite collective labels do not finance the productions, 62 per cent of them agree that
57
the collective record label has provided more opportunities and revenues streams for
their album than they could get if they had self-released their albums. (Foster, 2014a).
Table 23: Reasons to release an album on a collective’s Record Label (Foster, 2014a)
3. Weaknesses of Jazz Collectives
Administration problems and commitment
As described earlier thoroughly, collectives are artist-led organisations where
members handle all sorts of administration. Yet, the efficiency of this administration
model is arguable. Jazz musicians are not necessarily music business professionals.
Their priority is to produce music and sustain their artistic lives. On the other hand,
collectives are umbrella organisations and may wear different hats. Most of their
activities require high levels of administration, music industry and business
knowledge. Collectives aim to be professional organisations with efficient
organisational structure and administration. However the survey indicates that only
58
half of members are actively involved in managing the collective, and one third of
respondents do not think their collectives are well structured in terms of administration
and roles (Foster, 2014a).17
There is a common approach amongst jazz collective
members that they should stay as artists, and not turn into businesspersons. Could such
mentality mean weak business vision and lead to inefficiency for collectives? Jazz
musicians are not very fond of spending their time on administrating their professional
lives. They are more interested in their artistry, preferring to invest their time on
practising and composing. Their reluctance in business affairs and management
matters, lack interest or inexperience in music business, and responsibilities of day-to-
day administration often prevent collectives operate irregularly.
There is a significant number of members who do not feel strong about the
efficiency of artist-led administration. 21 per cent of members think collectives are
fairly administrated, against 33 per cent think they are administrated well (Table 24).
Despite that, surprisingly, 49 per cent of members responded to the survey agree that
collectives would run more efficiently if administrated by music industry professionals
, whilst only 5 per cent disagree it (Table 25).18
17
55 per cent of members stated in the survey that they have an active role in their collective’s
administration. 36 per cent of members think their collectives is not well-structured and the administrative
roles are not well-defined. Foster, I. (2014a) Contemporary Jazz Collectives in the UK - Members
Survey. Limited, K. S., [Online]. Available (Accessed: 04/2014)..
18 Regarding figures 24 and 25, ppercentages in the text were recalculated after ‘not-applicable’ option
was omitted.
59
Table 24: How effective artist-administrated collectives
are according to members. (Foster, 2014a)
Table 25: Whether members agree collectives would be
more effected if administrated by music industry
professionals. (Foster, 2014a)
Insufficient interaction between members
Collectives do not have offices, and their internal communication heavily rely on e-
mailing. Infrequent communication between members affects collectives’ efficiency
negatively. Although whole administration and correspondences are carried out online,
face-to-face gatherings are important to keep healthy communication. Answers
showed that half of the collectives participated in the survey gather at least once in
every six months. Whereas 35 per cent of them meet only once a year, and 13 per cent
never hold meetings (Foster, 2014a). As members meet less often, it may get difficult
to be aware of collective’s state and activities. For instance, nearly half of collective
60
members do not have any information about collective’s or its record label’s financial
state19
(Foster, 2014a).
Weak music business vision and knowledge
Sharing knowledge and benefiting from each other’s experiences are amongst the
strengths of collectives. However, it is vital to keep the knowledge up to date and
follow what is happening outside of the collective. The collective action aims to access
the opportunities out there and it is vital to follow up the news and developments in
the music industry. Such awareness would help collectives not only identify
opportunities but also threats that would affect their efficiency and sustainability.
Members were asked to look at themselves and disclose their thoughts about how well
they follow music scene. The answers show that 77 per cent of collective members
think they (as a collective) follow the news and developments in the UK jazz scene
and are aware of activities of other collectives. Only 6 per cent do not. However, more
members believe that collectives are weaker in following the news and developments
in the global music industry. As seen in table 26 and 27 below, 23 per cent think
collectives do not follow global music industry news. Results indicate that collectives
need more awareness of global and local music industry.
19 Financial knowledge refers to last year’s turnover.
61
Table 26: Collectives’ Knowledge and awareness of
collectives of global music industry (Foster, 2014a)
Table 27: Knowledge and awareness of collectives of
the UK jazz scene and other collectives (Foster, 2014a)
Restricted genre (jazz) and limited fanbase
Due to historical circumstances and developments in music and the music industry,
creative jazz has become a niche genre. Collectives have the urge to reach out new
audiences and expand their fanbase. Although there is a certain amount of effort to
increase collectives’ visibility and expand their network, collectives are still struggling
to find alternative routes to get more exposure and access their audience. Responses to
the survey indicate that collective members are not fully aware whether their
collectives are effective in expanding network and visibility; however, opinions tend
to be positive.
Equally, the effects of the changing dynamics of music industry on collectives such
as digitalisation and social media are still unknown to members, as answers reflect that
whether such effects exist or not, has not been clearly known to collectives yet (Table
28, 29).
62
Table 28: Music Industry Knowledge and Awareness of
Collectives (Foster, 2014a)
Table 29: Music Industry Knowledge and Awareness of
Collectives (Foster, 2014a)
Inefficient social media use
Collective action also applies to using social media collaboratively to promote
projects. 69 per cent of the members agree that collectives help publicise their projects
by via its online channels on social media (Foster, 2014a). Yet, social media marketing
and running online campaigns are not as easy as they seem. They require time and
organised commitment, and lack of regular administration power prevents collectives
to use social media effectively. The number of members who disagree that collectives
effectively use social media and other online marketing tools for collective’s publicity
(32%) is slightly greater than those who agree (29%); whereas 39 per cent of
participants preferred to remain neutral (Table 16).
63
Table 30: Efficient use of social media or other online marketing tools for publicity (Foster, 2014a)
Limited cash flow, little or no profit for investment
Most of the collectives are registered as companies, however in practice they are
just loose organisations with no lack capital investment. When there is no capital
investment, there is no financial liability or immediate reward for members. Thus, in
the long term, musicians may lose interest in contributing voluntarily. On the other
hand, non-profit status of collectives can be regarded as a weakness, due to slow cash
flow and difficulties to make profit from grants and projects to invest for future
activities, whilst saving sufficient income for fixed costs.
4. Opportunities of Jazz Collectives
Expanding to other creative genres
Collectives were born into jazz. Today, although they still widely associate
themselves with jazz music and that is how they are known, contemporary jazz
64
collectives in the UK are widely open to any creative act with quality in composition,
performance and recording. There are many occasions that artists from other genres
have the opportunity to get associated with jazz collectives or their record labels.
Expanding to other genres may help jazz collectives reach other creative musicians
and more importantly access further audiences. New members, ideas and connections
would bring along new opportunities to collectives.
Efficient use of online music platforms and social media
The traditional ways of marketing and publicity have lost their validity since
internet and social media took over media communication. Collectives, due to their
collaborative nature, have the potential to create the chain reaction successfully
amongst those social media users. Furthermore, compared to traditional printed
publicity materials, collectives can run online campaigns on leading social media
platforms with more flexibility and at no cost. By learning and applying the right
online marketing strategies efficiently, collectives can have the opportunity to share
the news easily and speedily with their fans.
Partnerships with other collectives in and outside of the UK
Collectives are the combined power of disadvantageous jazz musicians. What
would happen if collectives came together to collaborate with each other? Could they
become even a bigger power? Although F-IRE and Loop collectives’ attempts to unify
UK collectives in the UK have not yet come to a result, there is a strong motivation for
such projects. Equally, outside the UK, especially within the EU, there are
opportunities to collaborate with European collectives. Although it requires even
further commitment from members of all these collectives, such alliances would
represent a higher image and be able to access opportunities in wider territories.
65
Participating in music industry events
Non-mainstream should not mean a state of isolation. Music industry focuses on
major genres, which are profitable like pop and rock; but jazz should not lose its
connection with the commercial world of music. Collectives can grasp more
opportunities by increasing their visibility in the music industry and make new
business contacts. Their artistic vision and creativity would be in demand as long as
they are introduced to the industry. Participating in music industry events would
increase collectives’ chances to make new business contacts. New connections and
exposure can lead collectives to fields they have not explored, such as publishing; and
open new revenue channels.
5. Threats against Jazz Collectives
Government policies and cuts on public funds for arts
Collectives are small loose organisations with very specific needs and objectives.
Their aim is to sustain themselves collectively, yet most of the time it is not possible
without public funding. Public funds are the most important income streams that keep
collectives alive. According to Bacon (2014), in the UK jazz is still seen as a popular
music form like pop or rock, which should support itself rather than an artistic form
which deserves a good measure of public and corporate funding like classical and
contemporary music. Due to the recent economic recession, from 2011 onwards, the
funding cuts announced by the government seriously effected Arts Council’s budget20
.
20 On 26 October 2010 Arts Council announced that arts organisations would be given an equal cut
which has been kept to 6.9% for 2011/12. The overall cut to the whole budget available for the regular
funding of organisations is 14.9% in real terms by 2014/2015. Arts Council England (2010) Further
Information on Our Funding Decisions. [online], Available from:
<http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/doc/further_information_funding_decisions_271010.doc>
[Accessed 23/07/2014].
66
The shortage of funds effected collectives directly. Schmool (2014) emphasized that
F-IRE, at the edge of becoming dormant, did not receive any grants in the last three
years, and would not be expecting to have support any sooner. Following that, Arts
Council England has announced a further 1.17% cut to its budget in 2014/15 and a
1.13% cut in 2015/16 (Smith, 2013).
There is not much positive about the current financial support opportunities, as
public funding cuts seem to continue, threatening jazz collectives in the near future.
Peter Bacon (2014) and Dudley-Evans (2014) share the view that the ongoing
problems in the jazz scene are due to financial support, which is nowhere as generous
in the UK as it is in Europe. Dudley-Evans suggests that if jazz in the UK had as much
funding as exists in some other European countries, it would be the leading scene in
Europe surpassing those in Norway and Denmark.
Diminishing numbers of venues
Live performance is the leading activity of all collectives and the most important
revenue stream for all jazz musicians along with public funding. Any reason that
would prevent venues and promoters book live jazz music is a serious threat for
collectives. The Licensing Act, which came fully into force in 2006, resulted in a
substantial fall in pub gigs (from 26% to 19%) and rise in jazz club promotions (from
15% to 22%) (Jazz Services, 2010). According to Jazz Services’ analysis, it was due to
the effects of and made it more difficult and costly for smaller venues such as pubs to
offer live music. As a result, the total attendances at jazz gigs and concerts have fallen
in the three years between 2005 and 2008 (Jazz Services, 2010). Overall, there has
been a wide concern with the regulations associated with public entertainment
licensing have made it nearly impossible for some venues to continue staging music.
Finally, with the Live Music Act 2012, Act the Department of Culture, Media and
67
Sport (DCMS) recognised these difficulties and amended the Act by proposing the
licensing to be exempt for venues with an audience capacity of 200 or less.21
Equally,
lack of venues increases competition and decreases the bargaining power of musicians.
Lower fees, door deals with less advantageous splits become more dictating in the live
scene.
Shrinking media coverage
Jazz coverage in national press, radio stations and television have shrunk over the
years since the dominance of pop and rock music began in 1960s. The type of music
represented by collectives has to fight for media attention today. Especially, BBC’s
programming policy both on television and radio, has immense importance for niche
genres like jazz.
BBC national radio's jazz output is confined to Radio 2 and Radio 3. Nevertheless,
Radio 3 remains at heart a classical music station. Jazz Services reports two shocking
findings in their research.22
First, the share of airtime on Radio 3 for classical music is
88 per cent as compared to jazz with 3 per cent. Outside of these two stations, jazz
broadcasts were much more infrequent. With the demise of Jazz FM in 2005, or rather
21 Consultation on a proposal to use a Legislative Reform Order to make changes to Entertainment
Licensing proposed to A performance of live amplified music in alcohol licensed premises or in a
workplace will not require specific permission where the entertainment takes place between 08:00-23:00
and the audience consists of up to 500 people, instead of the present audience ceiling is 200 people.
Dcms (2014) Consultation on a proposal to use a Legislative Reform Order to make changes to
Entertainment Licensing Summary of responses [online], Available from:
<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/328487/Entertainment_Li
censing_Consultation_response.pdf> [Accessed 23/07/2014].
22 Stated in the separate research by Stuart Nicholson, Emma Kendon and Chris Hodgkins for Jazz
Services Limited.
68
its transformation into Smooth FM, no commercial national AM or FM station was
geared towards jazz music (Table 31) (Jazz Services, 2010) .23
Table 31: Comparative total combined coverage for classical, jazz and world music on national and
Local TVs and radio channels. (Riley and Laing, 2008)
In the scramble for editorial territory, jazz now rarely gets dedicated space.
Depending on the individual newspaper, jazz was often linked with world music or
tacked on as an afterthought to a rock and pop section, with a very limited coverage
(Riley and Laing, 2008). With the exception of The Guardian, daily papers gave
classical music at least three times as many column inches than they gave to jazz. The
gap was even wider in the Sunday papers, which gave a weekly average of 270 inches
to classical against only 27 for jazz, a ratio of 10 to 1 (Jazz Services, 2010).
23 This was unlike the classical world, where Classic FM continued to thrive. Despite protests from the
jazz community, in 2008, regulator Ofcom accepted a request from Guardian Media Group, Smooth
FM‟s owners, for the station to be released from its commitment to broadcast 45 hours of jazz per week.
Smooth FM‟s playlist was now dominated by 'easy listening' - mainstream pop drawn from the last 50
years. Jazz Services (2010) The Value of Jazz in Britain II. [online], Available from:
<http://www.jazzservices.org.uk/index.php/jazz-services-resources-reports/item/download/62>
[Accessed 14/06/2014].
69
Riley and Laing’s findings (2008) show how serious threat of media policies on
jazz for non-mainstream jazz acts. The disproportional coverage of classical music
compared to jazz simply proves jazz is being dismissed from media and facing the risk
of losing connections with jazz audience via printed and visual media.
Dominant corporations controlling the scene
There is a wide concern from some collectives that jazz scene is widely controlled
by for-profit organisations, whom also take big portions of public funding. Recently,
public funds Jazz Services, the UK's foremost charitable organisation for the national
jazz scene, offering support, funding, information, advice and more, had their Arts
Council funding axed for 2014-18 period, whilst grants given to some commercial
companies remained same. How public grants distributed by Arts Council, caused
controversy amongst British jazz scene. (London Jazz News Blog, 2014). Doubtlessly,
large corporations are important, as their ability to bring resources, years of training
and expertise together and present great work at a larger scale is are vital for healthy
arts ecology. However, on the other side, these companies or large organisations act
like gatekeepers, and hold access to resource and opportunities. The process by which
it has decided who gets this opportunity or that resource is often opaque at best. To be
clear, only a handful of the biggest names in British music get regular performances.
Despite all the weaknesses and threats, the survey showed that the collective
members feel positive about their collectives and collectivism in general. 94 per cent
of the collective members participated in the survey think that being a jazz collective
member helped having better or more opportunities in the music industry and
developing their careers further. Furthermore, 74 per cent believe that it had an impact
on their career and they would be happy to continue being a collective member in the
70
future. Overall, 84 per cent agree that jazz collectives, collective record labels or
similar community organisations would help niche genre artists to survive in
competitive music industry (Foster, 2014a).
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS
The general theoretical literature including historical resources on British jazz have
very little to provide a detailed analysis of jazz collectives. The primary purpose of
this study was to identify the rationale, organisational structure and practices of those
contemporary jazz collectives active at the time of this research. Within the Jazz
Collectives - Members Survey 2014 (Foster, 2014a), collected responses from 40
participants who are members of collectives, and retrieved new data on demographics
of collective members and their motives for joining collectives, how they benefit from
these organisations, and their thoughts about the future of collectives.
Following that, the study has also sought to know whether jazz collectives are
effective and sustainable organisations. The SWOT analysis, which was made up of
the assessment of the data obtained from the Survey, identified the strengths and
weaknesses of jazz collectives within the conditions of the current state of jazz genre.
The study had the following findings regarding the organisational culture, structure
and business practices of contemporary jazz collectives in the music industry:
The meaning and rationale
Collective action is a natural and social reflex, as jazz musicians have found it
inevitable to unite against the problems and common disadvantageous conditions of
the jazz scene. In this context, collectives are a support mechanism for jazz musicians
71
built on the notion of solidarity and democratic participation. Their ultimate aim is to
sustain and develop artistic lives of creative musicians by providing its members
opportunities that they are unable to get on their own.
Orientation
Very similar to earlier collectives, contemporary jazz collectives in the UK have
also used their own collaborative power and resources to represent, administrate and
promote themselves in order to sustain their artistic lives, freedom and control over
their work. As briefly examined in the first and second chapters of the study, jazz
history has recorded examples of artist-led organisations, which were born out of
political, social, and economic struggles, and their artistic motivations.
Historically, collective action in jazz music has taken shape in three different forms,
which can be categorised as follows: artistically oriented collectivism, socio-politically
oriented collectivism, and economically oriented collectivism. Although these traits
are intertwined ideologically, the aims and objectives of contemporary jazz collectives
show less socio-political influence in practice. The motives for the incorporations of
contemporary jazz collectives in the UK are heavily based on artistic and economic
reasons; whilst their non-politicized bond with community continue.
Historical Connection
Historical overview of earlier jazz collectives and their manifestos reflected that
contemporary jazz collectives have been influenced by former collectives. Although
the social, economic and political conditions affecting the music industry are different
today than they were in the past, modern collectives and artist-led jazz organisations
formed before 1980s have very similar objectives. Particularly AACM, M-base and
Hask Collective have been taken as models by later collectives. F-IRE Collective, the
72
first contemporary jazz collective founded in the UK after 1980s, also inspired and led
the path for younger musicians forming their own collectives.
Effectiveness
The study looked into responses given by members and views of interviewees to
identify the advantages and disadvantages of the jazz collectives, in order to determine
whether they are efficient and sustainable organisations. On the positive side, it is
clear that collectives help artists maintain their creative lives by providing a platform
where they can collectively from a ‘strength in numbers’ perspective, as Jon Newey,
the editor of Jazzwise (2014) defined it. The research results showed that the
fundamental ideology of artistic collectivism is stronger amongst members. The
opportunity to work with fellow musicians in the collective is a stronger motive for
joining collectives than economic opportunities. Amongst economic expectations,
such as access to more live performances and funding are the leading factors attracting
musicians to get involved in these artist-led organisations.
Collectives also function beyond economic reasons. Reputation has been
considered as the most valuable asset of collectives. The research revealed that being a
collective member helps musicians to get more press attention, gigs and funding.
Collective knowledge is another key asset of these organisations. Besides the
exchange of artistic inspiration, the circulation of various music business and
management knowledge between members has vital importance. 80 per cent of
collective members have studied music at higher education level, and 78 per cent of
them have not been taught any courses about music business management and artist
development (Foster, 2014a). This highlights the fact that music industry education is
widely missing from music departments’ curriculum. Collectives can play a role to fill
73
this gap by encouraging established artists share their expertise with younger and
inexperienced musicians in the collective. Would that knowledge be correct and up to
date? Would it be applicable? The accuracy of knowledge in circulation in the
collectives is unknown. Perhaps, a further research could be carried out to measure the
accuracy of collective members’ music business knowledge. Such attempt could also
raise a debate whether such knowledge is available and accessible to jazz musicians.
On the negative side, contemporary jazz collectives in the UK suffer both internal
and external problems. Internally, administration appears to be the greatest challenge
for collectives. Although many members think their collectives were administrated
well, it was the founders and leading active members who raised their concerns
regarding this matter during the interviews. Expressed concerns indicated that almost
all collectives are having difficulty to keep members actively involved in the
administration, and carry out the responsibilities and tasks assigned to them. This
situation was especially evident with LIMA and Chaos Collective’s disappearance
from the scene. Paradoxically, self-management and collective administration have
been both the reason for collectives live and die.
Why is it difficult to maintain collective participation? It is about motivation for
voluntary action for speculative awards. Collectives’ are loose organisations whose
longevity greatly depends on their members’ voluntary commitment and availability of
public funds. Most musicians are reluctant to spend their free time on administration,
and it becomes even less motivating when commercial outcome is speculative.
Diminished opportunities mean serious economic struggle most of the jazz musicians
have to find a second job, mostly in the education sector. This may have an indirect
effect on voluntary activities. Yet, sustaining collectives becomes a tough challenge
without all members willing to put effort and take active part in administration.
74
Therefore, voluntary participation based on extrinsic motives is more likely to
jeopardise the efficiency of collective action. Survey results showed that collective
members could welcome a new model and establish economically sustainable and
efficient administration by assigning a music business professional on contractual
basis. Without transforming the collective into profit-driven businesses, such model
could help musicians organise themselves and keep control without feeling
compromised.
External weaknesses or disadvantages such as public arts policies and regulations
are difficult to overcome, because they are controlled by governing bodies. However,
It could bring effective results if collectives, either alone or together, as a consortium
of collectives in the UK, take part in lobbying to inform and influence public arts
policy makers, BBC, Musicians’ Union and jazz-related organisations. Collectives are,
in this way, could function as representative bodies for jazz musicians. Such stance
would probably be the widest example of economic, artistic and political collectivism
leading a music genre as a whole.
Future
Non-mainstream jazz musicians are aware of limitations and restrictions of the
scene, particularly in the live music sector, media coverage and public grants available
to creative jazz. By fixing the internal weaknesses and adapting new practices, it is
possible for jazz collectives to develop themselves into a further level without
becoming profit-driven organisations. It may be difficult and could take time for
established collectives to leave their old-school habits behind, and step out of their
comfort zone. Nevertheless, jazz musicians are natural-born innovators, and they could
75
benefit from their creativity and experimentalist approach to seek unconventional
ways to overcome business-related obstacles.
From the artistic point of view, jazz music in the UK is healthy and vibrant.
Increasing numbers of talented creative musicians are striving for visibility and
success. Collectives should benefit from youth and their energy to transfer this whole
power into a genre-wide synergy. Although collective environment is not compulsory
for musicianship and artistic development, most of the musicians who are members of
jazz collectives acknowledge that being part of a collective provided them
opportunities, and had a positive impact on their careers. Most of the current collective
members are happy to continue with their commitment, and also recommend other
musicians to join or form one. This shows clearly that the ideology of collectivism and
the spirit of solidarity remain strong in the jazz community.
Although practicalities make collectives’ survival very challenging, these artist-led
organisations have been proven successful in many ways, which is evident, by their
accomplishments so far. It is a predictable fact that as long as they receive financial
support and further acknowledgement in the music industry, contemporary jazz
collectives in the UK would be able to continue as self-sustaining organisations,
beneficial to creative musicians in the jazz scene and the community.
Recommendations for further study
Collectives are not the only place for jazz musicians unite and act together. They
are involved in different institutions other than collectives to raise awareness and
organise activities. Further study is recommended to expand results by examining
many other non-profit jazz organisations in the UK at national and regional level such
76
as National Youth Jazz Orchestra, Jazz North, Scottish Jazz Federation, Jazz Umbrella
and others, which were not included in this study.
Inspired by the American pioneers, the diverse European expressions of jazz, have
found ideal conditions to develop in Europe and have improved with their own
cultural identities (Europe Jazz Network, 2004). Future studies might also look for a
comparative analysis between the contemporary jazz collectives in the UK and
European jazz collectives, and extend this research to understand the similarities and
differences between them.
It is also possible to look into this subject at micro level and examine one of the
influential collectives since its beginning. A further research approaching the subject
from this perspective could reveal comprehensive information on internal structure of
collectives, administration strategies, financial planning, artistic and social interaction
between members and with the community.
The second chapter of this study drew attention to earlier collectives, particularly
AACM, who have been regarded as the origins of jazz collective ideology and action.
A similar comparative study of the contemporary jazz collectives in the UK and earlier
collectives formed in the first half of twentieth century would be useful to identify the
on-going problems, common objectives and practices, that would determine the how
jazz collectives were evolved. Such research could also contribute to more confined
subjects outside of music like culture, race and gender studies.
Collective action in arts is not unique to musicians. Artists working in other art
forms also incorporate collectives. As a separate study in aesthetics, the concept of
collectivism in jazz can be discussed further on the comparison of its meaning in other
arts.
77
REFERENCES
Adorno, T. W. & Bernstein, J. M. (2001) The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture: Routledge.
Answers.com (2014) Manfred Eicher. Musician Profiles Contemporary Musicians.
Arts Council England (2010) Further Information on Our Funding Decisions. [online],
Available from: <http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/doc/further_
information_funding_decisions_271010.doc> [Accessed: 23/07/2014].
Asavei, M.-A. (2014) Encyclopedia of Aesthetics, 2nd. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Atzmon, G. (2005) How Jazz Got Hot Again. [online], Available from:
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandjazzmusic/3647173/How-jazz-got-
hot-again.html> [Accessed: 29/03/2014].
Bacon, P. (2014) Interview on Contemporary Jazz Collectives in the UK. Interviewed
by Ipek Foster on 09/04/2014, London.
Brown, S. (2014) The Economics of Jazz 2008 - The Musicians' Perspective. [online],
Available from: <http://www.sandybrownjazz.co.uk/forumeconmusicians.html>
[Accessed: 18/06/2014].
Carr, I., Fairweather, D. & Priestley, B. (1987) Jazz: The Essential Companion, London: Grafton Books.
Carr, I., Fairweather, D., Priestley, B. & Alexander, C. (2004) The Rough Guide to Jazz: Rough Guides.
Cooke, M. (1997) The Chronicle of Jazz, London: Thames & Hudson.
Courtney Pine Official Website (2014), Jazz Warriors Afropeans Available at
http://www.courtneypine.co.uk/Afropeans [Accessed: 01/05/2014]
DCMS (2014) Consultation on a proposal to use a Legislative Reform Order to make
changes to Entertainment Licensing Summary of responses [online], Available from:
<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32848
7/Entertainment_Licensing_Consultation_response.pdf> [Accessed: 23/07/2014].
Dudley Evans, T. (2014) Interview on Contemporary Jazz Collectives in the UK. Interviewed by Ipek Foster on 23/04/2014, London.
78
E17Jazz (2014), E17jazz Official Website Available at http://e17jazz.com/about/
[Accessed:30/06/2014]
Efpi (2014), About EFPI Available at http://efpirecords.com/about-efpi/
[Accessed:27/06/2014]
Europe Jazz Network (2004), EJN Manifesto Available at http://www.europejazz.net/
ejn-manifesto [Accessed: 14/08/2014]
F-IRE Collective (2008) ZOOM! launch European Jazz Collective + Double compilation CD. London F-IRE collective,
F-IRE Collective (2009) The Mission, London: F-IRE Collective Limited.
Fieldhouse, S. (2013) The Story of British Jazz. [online], Available from:
<http://www.nationaljazzarchive.co.uk/media/uploads/tbldata_image/0/201304170844
45.pdf> [Accessed: 01/05/2014].
Fordham, J. (2011), "50 great moments in jazz: Jan Garbarek, ECM Records and the
70s European renaissance". The Guardian.
Foster, I. (2014a) Contemporary Jazz Collectives in the UK - Members Survey. Limited, K. S., [Online]. Available [Accessed: 04/2014].
Foster, I. (2014b) Template Cash Flow Model For Jazz Collectives In The UK. London Ipek Foster, Flow Chart.
Godbolt, J. (1989) A History of Jazz in Britain: 1950 - 70: Quartet Books, Limited.
Hopkins, M. (2007) Jazz Collectives: All for One. [online], Available from:
<http://jazztimes.com/articles/18696-jazz-collectives-all-for-one> [Accessed:
25/10/2013].
Iyer, V. (1996) Steve Coleman, M-Base, and Music Collectivism. [online], Available
from: <http://archive.cnmat.berkeley.edu/~vijay/toc.html> [Accessed: 29/04/2014].
Jazz Services (2010) The Value of Jazz in Britain II. [online], Available from:
<http://www.jazzservices.org.uk/index.php/jazz-services-resources-
reports/item/download/62> [Accessed: 14/06/2014].
Jonez, L. (2009) Music Collectives as Composition. Matt Steckler[online],Available
at: http://mattsteckler.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/art-of-collective-as-compositional.html
[Accessed: 20/01/2009]
79
Kozinn, A. (1990) New-Music Record Distributor Is Closing. [online], Available
from: <http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/12/arts/new-music-record-distributor-is-
closing.html> [Accessed: 27/04/2014].
Kubacki, K. & Croft, R. (2005) Paying the piper: a study of musicians and the music
business. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 10, (4)
p225-237.
Lewis, G. E. (2004) Gittin’ To Know Y’all: Improvised Music, Interculturalism, and
the Racial Imagination. Critical Studies in Improvisation / Études critiques en improvisation,, 1, (1) p.
Lewis, G. E. (2008) A Power Stronger Than Itself: The AACM and American Experimental Music: University of Chicago Press.
London Jazz News Blog (2014) Arts Council Announces 2015-18 Funding. Jazz
Services Axed. [online], Available from: <http://www.londonjazznews.com/2014/
07/news-arts-council-announces-2015-18.html> [Accessed: 10/08/2014].
Loop Collective (2014a) Interview on UK Jazz Collectives and Loop Collective. Interviewed by Ipek Foster on 13/06/2014, London.
Loop Collective (2014b), Loop Collective Available at http://www.loopcollective.org
(Accessed:27/06/2014)
Lopez-Real, C. (2014) Interview on UK Jazz Collectives and E17jazz. Interviewed by
Ipek Foster on 17/06/2014, London.
Mcandrew; Widdop; Stevenson (2013) On Jazz Worlds. In (eds.). INSNA Conference. Universitaet Hamburg, Institute for Social Change, University of Manchester.
Millar, T. (2014) Interview on UK Jazz Collectives and Way Out West. Interviewed by
Ipek Foster on 09/04/2014, London.
Music & Copyright's Blog (2010) Pop is still king of the world’s music genres.
[online], Available from: <http://musicandcopyright.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/pop-
is-still-king-of-the-world%E2%80%99s-music-genres/> [Accessed: 16/06/2014].
Music & Copyright's Blog (2013) Rock and dance burst the pop music bubble.
[online], Available from: <http://musicandcopyright.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/pop-
to-the-rescue-of-the-music-industry/> [Accessed: 16/06/2014].
80
Newey, J. (2014) Interview on Contemporary Jazz Collectives in the UK. Interviewed
by Ipek Foster on 08/05/2014, London.
Nicholson, S. (1990) Jazz: the 1980s resurgence: Da Capo Press.
Radano, R. M. (1992) Jazzin' the Classics: The AACM's Challenge to Mainstream
Aesthetics. Black Music Research Journal, 12, (1) p79-95.
Riley M and Laing D (2008) Jazz in the Media: A comparative review of media
coverage of jazz, classical & world music. [online], Available from:
<http://www.jazzservices.org.uk/index.php/british-jazz-history/item/download/72>
[Accessed: 23/06/2014].
Sanders, S. (2004) After 32 years, Art Ensemble of Chicago Returns to Mandel Hall to
play its ‘Great Black Music, Ancient to Future. The University of Chicago Chronicle, 23, (15) p.
Schmool, B. (2014) Interview on UK Jazz Collectives and F-IRE Collective. Interviewed by Ipek Foster on 01/06/2014, London.
Sharkey, C. (2014) Interview on UK Jazz Collectives and LIMA/Fusebox. Interviewed
by Ipek Foster on 09/05/2014, London.
Shoemaker, B. (2005) Power Greater Than Itself: Celebrating the AACM in Guelph.
[online], Available from: <http://pointofdeparture.org/archives/PoD-3/PoD-
3_PowerGreater1.html> [Accessed: 15/11/2013].
Smith, A. (2013) Arts Council England announces more funding cuts in 2014.
[online], Available from: <http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2013/12/arts-council-
england-announces-funding-cuts-2014/> [Accessed: 24/07/2014].
Tanaka, R. (2011) George Lewis and the AACM: Bringing Oratorical Musics into the
Literary World. [online], Available from: [Accessed: 26/04/2014].
Trudel M. And Bill Shoemaker B. (eds.) (2005) Power Greater Than Itself: Celebrating the AACM in Guelph. Macdonald Stewart Art Centre, Ontario, Canada,
Bill Shoemaker.
Wall T. And Barber S. (2011) The Collective Organization of Contemporary Jazz
Musicians in the UK. Jazz Research Journal, 5.1/5.2, 89-112.
www.kompany.oo.uk (2014), Company Profiles, Official Register Reports & Credit Reports Available at https://www.kompany.co.uk [Accessed: 08/07/2014]
81
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adler, P. S. & Chen, C. X. (2011) Combining creativity and control: Understanding
individual motivation in large-scale collaborative creativity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36, (2) p63-85.
Atkins, E. T. (2003) Jazz Planet: University Press of Mississippi.
Bradley, L. (2013) Sounds Like London: 100 Years of Black Music in the Capital: Profile.
Breakingnews Ireland Online (2009) Musicians unite to fight for artists and fans.
BreakingNews.ie [online], Available from: <http://ezproxy.uwl.ac.uk/login?
url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756311930?accountid=14769> [Accessed:
16/05/2014]
Briskin, A. E., S. Ott, J. Callanan, T. (2009) The Power of Collective Wisdom and the Trap of Collective Folly: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.
Carr, I. (1973) Music Outside: Contemporary Jazz in Britain: Latimer New
Dimensions.
Carr, I. (2004) Group Theory. Jazzwise. London, MA Business & Leisure Limited.
Castle, C. (2009) 'Collective' Confusion. Billboard, 121, (4) p4-4.
Cooke, M. & Horn, D. (2003) The Cambridge Companion to Jazz: Cambridge
University Press.
Fordham, J. (1993) Jazz: D. Kindersley.
Gioia, T. (2011) The History of Jazz: Oxford University Press, USA.
Godbolt, J. (2010) A History of Jazz in Britain: 1919 - 1950: Northway Publications.
Harris, S. (2005) Without FIRE. Jazzwise. London, MA Business & Leisure Limited.
Khan, M. (2004) Musicians Working Together. Straight Ahead: A Comprehensive Guide To The Business of Jazz (Without Sacrificing Dignity or Artistic Integrity).p326-
335. Outward Vision Books.
Khan, M. (2012) One For All…All For All: Collective Action. Outward Visions, Inc.
[online],Available at: http://www.outwardvisions.com/blogs/collective-action/
[Accessed:16/07/2014]
Koivunen, N. (2009) Collective expertise: Ways of organizing expert work in
collective settings. Journal of Management and Organization, 15, (2) p258-276.
Le Gendre, K. (2010) Sonic Ritual. Jazzwise. London, MA Business & Leisure
Limited.
82
Lee, C. W. & Lingo, E. L. (2011) The “Got Art?” paradox: Questioning the value of
art in collective action. Poetics, 39, (4) p316-335.
Lopes, P. D. (2002) The Rise of a Jazz Art World: Cambridge University Press.
Mandel, H. (1999) Future jazz: Oxford University Press.
Mcandrew; Widdop; Stevenson (2013) On Jazz Worlds. In (eds.). INSNA Conference. Universitaet Hamburg, Institute for Social Change, University of Manchester.
Mcdonald, M. T. (2009) Notes on the creative process of artist collectives. In (eds.).
Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition. Berkeley,
California, USA, ACM.
Moore, H. (2007) Inside British Jazz: Crossing Borders of Race, Nation and Class:
Ashgate Pub.
Nelson, H. (1995) Duo helms MCA black music 'collective'. Billboard, 107, (20) p10-10.
Ouellette, D. (2006) Jazz Notes. Billboard, 118, (50) p42-42.
Sanders, S. (2004) After 32 years, Art Ensemble of Chicago Returns to Mandel Hall to
play its ‘Great Black Music, Ancient to Future. The University of Chicago Chronicle, 23, (15) p.
Segers Et Al, K., Schramme, A. & Devriendt, R. (2010) Do Artists Benefit from Arts
Policy? The Position of Performing Artists in Flanders (2001–2008). Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society, 40, (1) p58-75.
Shore, R. (2010) Man on a Mission. Jazzwise. London, MA Business & Leisure
Limited.
Siebert, S. (2007) "Music is spiritual. The music business is not." (Van Morrison) or
minimum prices in music charts are incompatible with article 81 of the EC Treaty.
European competition law review, 28, (11) p601.
Spicer, D. (2008a) Fanning the Flame. Jazzwise. London, MA Business & Leisure
Limited.
Spicer, D. (2008b) Northern Exposure. Jazzwise. London, MA Business & Leisure
Limited.
Tanaka, R. (2011) George Lewis and the AACM: Bringing Oratorical Musics into the
Literary World. [online], Available from: [Accessed: 26/04/2014].
Trudel M. And Bill Shoemaker B. (eds.) (2005) Power Greater Than Itself: Celebrating the AACM in Guelph. Macdonald Stewart Art Centre, Ontario, Canada,
Bill Shoemaker.
Wickes, J. (1999) Innovations in British Jazz: Soundworld.
83
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACM: Association for the Advancement of Creative Musicians
AEC: Art Ensemble of Chicago
AECO: Art Ensemble of Chicago Orchestra
DCMS: Department of Culture, Media and Sport
ECM (Records): Edition of Contemporary Music
F-IRE: Fellowship for Integrated Rhythmic Expression
FMP: Free Music Production
JCOA: Jazz Composers Orchestra Association Inc.
JCS: The Jazz Centre Society
LIMA: Leeds Improvised Music Association
M-BASE: Macro-Basic Array of Structured Extemporization
NFJO: National Federation of Jazz Organisations of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland24
NMDS: New Music Distribution Service
ODJB: Original Dixieland Jazz Band
WOW: Way out West
24
Later, shortened to National Jazz Federation.
84
APPENDIX B
LIST OF COLLECTIVES EXAMINED IN THE STUDY
Chaos Collective, London (20)
25
E17 Jazz, London (8)
Efpi, Manchester (2)
F-IRE Collective, London (11)
LIMA/Fusebox, Leeds (6)
Loop Collective, London (9)
Way Out West, London (16)
25
Figures in brackets state the total number of current members the collectives have.
85
APPENDIX C
F-IRE – THE BIG PICTURE DIAGRAM (2004)
F-IRE
SET UP…
…board
…constitution
…structure
…admin space?
CONTACTABILITY
(internal communications
network)
personal affairs
(e.g. PRS/MCPS/PPL)
WEBSITE…
RECORD COMPANY
…production help …studio partnerships …advertising? …international possibilities …direct marketing …download strategy …stickers …pressing machine? …mobile shop
REPRESENTATION…
…collective management
…agents
…the 10%
PRESS…
PR …
… flyers / social networks
SALES and ACCOUNTS
GIG NETWORKS…
…London
…UK
…Europe
RESIDENCY /
FESTIVALS
… jazz
café…vibe…vortex…
ryans?…spitz…cargo…
Arts Depot
F-IRE FESTIVAL 05…
(New Rhythmic Frontiers)
FUTURE PROJECTS…
…the 10 yr plan?
PARTNERS &
NETWORKS…
…venues
…city
…international
partners
EDUCATION…
…weekly classes
…weekend courses
…f-ire summer schools
…vortex jazz foundation
…junior big band
…jam
…dance connections
FUNDING…
Arts Council
PRSF
British Council?
PUBLISHING CO… ?
86
APPENDIX D
F-IRE - EDUCATION VENN DIAGRAM
degree course
community
classes
teacher
training teacher
research
schools teachers’ bands
practice sessions/
accompaniment
opportunities
performance opportunities
kid’s bands
arts management /
admin pro bands
87
AP
PE
ND
IX E
TE
MP
LA
TE
CA
SH
FL
OW
MO
DE
L F
OR
JA
ZZ
CO
LL
EC
TIV
ES
IN
TH
E U
K (
Fost
er, 2014b
)
+ £
+ £
+ £
+ £
+ £
+ £
+ £
+ £
- £
- £
- £
- £
- £
- £
- £
- £
CO
LL
EC
TIV
E
RE
CO
RD
LA
BE
L
ME
MB
ER
S
Mem
ber
s’
contr
ibuti
ons
Inco
me
from
educa
tion p
roje
cts
Fundin
g B
odie
s
(Art
s C
ounci
l, P
RS
F...)
Alb
um
Sal
es
from
Dis
trib
uto
r
Alb
um
Sal
es f
rom
oth
er s
ourc
es
(jaz
zCD
s, w
ebsi
te, at
gig
s,...)
Alb
um
Rel
ease
Adm
inis
trat
ion F
ees
Sub
sid
y f
rom
Lab
el’s
pro
fit
Ven
ues
/ P
rom
ote
rs
Fee
s p
aid t
o o
ther
musi
cian
s
com
mis
sioned
Pay
men
ts t
o 3
rd p
arti
es
(pre
ss/P
R c
om
pan
ies,
pri
nt,
des
ign...)
Pro
ject
ex
pen
ses
(Lo
gis
tics
, P
A, fo
od,
trav
el...)
Op
erat
ing C
ost
s
(adm
inis
trat
or,
acc
ounti
ng,
oth
er l
egal
cost
s)
Op
erat
ing C
ost
s
(adm
inis
trat
or,
acc
ounti
ng,
oth
er l
egal
cost
s)
Fee
s p
aid t
o o
ther
mem
ber
s
Ro
yal
ty p
aym
ents
to
mem
ber
s
Ro
yal
ty p
aym
ents
to
non-m
emb
er a
rtis
ts o
n t
he
lab
el
Sub
sidie
s to
Coll
ecti
ve
- £
88
APPENDIX F
UK CONTEMPORARY JAZZ COLLECTIVES - MEMBERS SURVEY 2014
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, STRUCTURE and BUSINESS PRACTICES OF
CONTEMPORARY JAZZ COLLECTIVES
IN THE UK MUSIC INDUSTRY
by
Ipek Foster
RESEARCH SURVEY
This survey serves to a post-graduate level research which is carried out within
London College of Music, University of West London. Any information retrieved
from this survey will be solely used for academic purposes and will not be shared with
third parties, except academic institutions and their staff.
The survey targets musicians who are (or were) members of contemporary jazz
collectives in the United Kingdom. It aims to obtain data about their socio-economical
and educational background, current financial state, perception of music business for
creative musicians, problems they are facing in the music industry, reasons to become
members of collectives, and the opportunities that the collectives offer to them.
Overall, it will help to understand the motives of members, their relationship with
collectives, as well as the organisational culture and structure of collectives and their
position within the British music industry.
INSTRUCTIONS
This survey consists of 57 questions and takes about 15-20 minutes to complete.
Please answer objectively as many questions as you can to provide the most accurate
information possible. If you are an ex-member of a collective, then please think of the
period you were a member, and answer the questions accordingly.
Your identity will be kept confidential.
Thank you.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 1/20
Results for: CONTEMPORARY JAZZ COLLECTIVES IN THE UK Record No: 1
Responses Percentage
Yes
40 100.0%
No
0 0.0%
I read and fully understood the information given above. I agree to participate in this survey.
Responses Percentage
Female
8 20.5%
Male
31 79.5%
What is your gender?
Responses Percentage
18-24
2 5.1%
25-34
14 35.9%
35-44
17 43.6%
45 or older
6 15.4%
What is your age?
Responses Percentage
Professional Musician
37 94.9%
Music Business Professional (Promoter, Agent, Manager...etc.)
0 0.0%
Arts, Culture and Entertainment Industries (excluding music)
1 2.6%
Other
1 2.6%
Which of the following best describes your PRIMARY occupation?
1.
2.
3.
4.
MEMBERS SURVEY 2014
APPENDIX F
89
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 2/20
Responses Percentage
I don't have one - N/A (Not Applicable)
5 12.8%
Professional Musician
1 2.6%
Music Teacher/Tutor/Professor
30 76.9%
Music Business Professional (Promoter, Agent, Manager...etc.)
0 0.0%
Arts, Culture and Entertainment Industries (excluding music)
0 0.0%
Other
3 7.7%
If you have one, which of the following best describes your SECONDARY occupation?
Responses Percentage
South West
0 0.0%
South East
2 5.1%
London
26 66.7%
East of England
0 0.0%
Yorkshire and the Humber
2 5.1%
West Midlands
0 0.0%
East Midlands
0 0.0%
North West
3 7.7%
North East
0 0.0%
Northern Ireland
0 0.0%
Outside of the UK
6 15.4%
Where do you reside?
5.
6.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 3/20
Responses Percentage
South West
0 0.0%
South East
1 2.6%
London
25 64.1%
East of England
0 0.0%
Yorkshire and the Humber
1 2.6%
West Midlands
0 0.0%
East Midlands
0 0.0%
North West
2 5.1%
North East
0 0.0%
Northern Ireland
0 0.0%
Outside of the UK
10 25.6%
Where do you mostly carry out your music activities?
Responses Percentage
£0-£5,000
0 0.0%
£5,000-£10,000
6 15.4%
£10,000-£15,000
5 12.8%
£15,000-£20,000
12 30.8%
£20,000-£25,000
6 15.4%
£25,000-£50,000
9 23.1%
£50,000-£75,000
1 2.6%
£75,000-£100,000
0 0.0%
£100,000 and up
0 0.0%
What is your approximate annual (gross) personal income?
7.
8.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 4/20
Responses Percentage
less than £1000
1 2.6%
£1000-£5,000
0 0.0%
£0-£5,000
2 5.1%
£5,000-£10,000
9 23.1%
£10,000-£15,000
5 12.8%
£15,000-£20,000
8 20.5%
£20,000-£25,000
9 23.1%
£25,000-£50,000
5 12.8%
£50,000-£75,000
0 0.0%
£75,000-£100,000
0 0.0%
£100,000 and up
0 0.0%
What is your approximate annual (gross) personal income ONLY from your music activities?
Responses Percentage
Yes - I studied music at a university
11 28.2%
Yes - I studied music at a conservatoire / music college
20 51.3%
Yes - I studied music at another higher education
0 0.0%
Yes - I am taught by a private tutor / private institution (non-academic)
0 0.0%
No
8 20.5%
Did you study music at higher education level? If you did, where? If you studied at more than one kind
of institution, then please choose the most recent one.
Responses Percentage
Yes
7 17.9%
No
25 64.1%
Not Applicable (N/A) [[mark this one if you answered the above question 'NO']]
7 17.9%
If you have studied music, have you been taught any 'music business / music industry / artist
management' courses at your institution?
9.
10.
11.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 5/20
Responses Percentage
F-IRE Collective (London)
14 41.2%
Loop Collective (London)
5 14.7%
E17 Jazz (London)
3 8.8%
SE Collective (London)
2 5.9%
Chaos Collective (London)
1 2.9%
Tomorrow's Warriors / Dune Records - (London)
0 0.0%
Way Out West (London)
5 14.7%
Cobweb (Birmingham)
0 0.0%
Jazz Umbrella (Birmingham)
0 0.0%
EFPI (Manchester)
2 5.9%
LIMA (Leeds)
2 5.9%
Jazz North (Leeds)
0 0.0%
Jazz Northeast
0 0.0%
Which jazz collective are (were) you member of?
Responses Percentage
18-24
9 26.5%
25-29
15 44.1%
30-39
8 23.5%
40 and older
2 5.9%
At what age did you join your collective?
Responses Percentage
less than a year
0 0.0%
1-3 years
8 23.5%
3-5 years
7 20.6%
+5 years
19 55.9%
About how long have (had) you been a member of this jazz collective?
12.
13.
14.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 6/20
Responses Percentage
Word-of-mouth referral from another musician
16 47.1%
Word-of-mouth referral from academic environment (music school, conservatoire, tutor, lecturer...etc.)
3 8.8%
Word-of-mouth referral from friend/family/employees (non-music related)
0 0.0%
Word-of-mouth referral from music business professionals (promoter, agent, venues, producer...etc.)
0 0.0%
Events and performances (i.e: during a festival or a venue performance)
2 5.9%
Press (newspaper/magazine) article
0 0.0%
Online search (i.e., Google, Yahoo, Bing...)
0 0.0%
Social media (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, forums...)
0 0.0%
Online forum/discussion board
0 0.0%
None above. I am already the founder of a jazz collective
13 38.2%
How did you first hear about your jazz collective?15.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 7/20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ResponsesWeighted
Average
Networking7
(20.59%)
1
(2.94%)
5
(14.71%)
7
(20.59%)
6
(17.65%)
6
(17.65%)
0
(0.00%)
1
(2.94%)
1
(2.94%)34 3.97 / 9
Live
performance
opportunities
8
(23.53%)
13
(38.24%)
5
(14.71%)
3
(8.82%)
1
(2.94%)
2
(5.88%)
2
(5.88%)
0
(0.00%)
0
(0.00%)34 2.71 / 9
Funding
opportunities
0
(0.00%)
0
(0.00%)
7
(20.59%)
5
(14.71%)
7
(20.59%)
4
(11.76%)
9
(26.47%)
0
(0.00%)
2
(5.88%)34 5.32 / 9
Benefiting
from the
Collective's
reputation
1
(2.94%)
1
(2.94%)
7
(20.59%)
12
(35.29%)
8
(23.53%)
2
(5.88%)
0
(0.00%)
0
(0.00%)
3
(8.82%)34 4.44 / 9
Music
business
support and
advice
0
(0.00%)
0
(0.00%)
0
(0.00%)
0
(0.00%)
5
(14.71%)
6
(17.65%)
6
(17.65%)
9
(26.47%)
8
(23.53%)34 7.26 / 9
Musical /
instrumental /
creative
development
in music
6
(17.65%)
8
(23.53%)
5
(14.71%)
1
(2.94%)
3
(8.82%)
5
(14.71%)
3
(8.82%)
1
(2.94%)
2
(5.88%)34 3.91 / 9
Benefiting
from
education
opportunities
(ie:
participating in
workshops as
tutor or
student)
0
(0.00%)
0
(0.00%)
1
(2.94%)
1
(2.94%)
2
(5.88%)
3
(8.82%)
13
(38.24%)
7
(20.59%)
7
(20.59%)34 7.21 / 9
Album
production,
release and
distribution
opportunities
2
(5.88%)
2
(5.88%)
0
(0.00%)
3
(8.82%)
2
(5.88%)
4
(11.76%)
0
(0.00%)
16
(47.06%)
5
(14.71%)34 6.62 / 9
Opportunity to
work with
fellow
musician
friends
10
(29.41%)
9
(26.47%)
4
(11.76%)
2
(5.88%)
0
(0.00%)
2
(5.88%)
1
(2.94%)
0
(0.00%)
6
(17.65%)34 3.56 / 9
5.00 / 9
What were the reasons for you to join a jazz collective? Please put the following items in order of
importance. (Top = most important; Bottom = least important.)
(1) (9)
16.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 8/20
Responses Percentage
Never
4 12.1%
Once a week
0 0.0%
Once a month
9 27.3%
once every three months
4 12.1%
once every six months
4 12.1%
once a year
12 36.4%
How often do you come together with other members to discuss about the Collective's managerial
issues and collective activities?
Responses Percentage
Yes
18 54.5%
No
15 45.5%
Do you have an active role in Collective's administration?
Responses Percentage
Yes
21 63.6%
No
12 36.4%
Do think your Collective is well-structured in terms of administration and leading roles?
1
Poor
2
Fair
3
Neutral
4
Good
5
Excellent
6
N/A (Not Applicable)Responses
Weighted
Average
0
(0.00%)
7
(21.21%)
8
(24.24%)
11
(33.33%)
0
(0.00%)
7
(21.21%)33 3.15 / 5
3.15 / 5
Is your collective administrated by its members only? If yes, how successfully is it administrated? (If it
is not administrated by its members, select 'not applicable' option and continue the survey.)
17.
18.
19.
20.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 9/20
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
6
N/A (Not Applicable)Responses
Weighted
Average
0
(0.00%)
2
(6.06%)
7
(21.21%)
10
(30.30%)
9
(27.27%)
5
(15.15%)33 4.24 / 6
4.24 / 6
Do you agree that your collective would be better administrated than it is at the moment if day-to-day
administration was carried out by either a paid or volunteer music business professional rather than the
member musicians themselves? (and you would be willing to collectively contribute for such service.)
(If it is already administrated by a paid or volunteer non-musician professional, select 'not applicable'
option and continue the survey.)
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly AgreeResponses
Weighted
Average
1
(3.03%)
1
(3.03%)
4
(12.12%)
17
(51.52%)
10
(30.30%)33 4.03 / 5
4.03 / 5
As a member, do you agree that your Collective follows a democratic process when making important
decisions?
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly AgreeResponses
Weighted
Average
motivation1
(3.03%)
3
(9.09%)
12
(36.36%)
15
(45.45%)
2
(6.06%)33 3.42 / 5
inspiration1
(3.03%)
3
(9.09%)
5
(15.15%)
20
(60.61%)
4
(12.12%)33 3.70 / 5
3.56 / 5
Does your Collective motivate and inspire your creativity and artistry?
1
Strongly Agree
2
Agree
3
Neutral
4
Disagree
5
Strongly DisagreeResponses
Weighted
Average
8
(24.24%)
12
(36.36%)
8
(24.24%)
4
(12.12%)
1
(3.03%)33 2.33 / 5
2.33 / 5
Do you think being a part of Collective gives you confidence, courage and positive feeling?
21.
22.
23.
24.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 10/20
1
Much Less
2
Less
3
Neutral
4
More
5
Much MoreResponses
Weighted
Average
2
(6.06%)
8
(24.24%)
10
(30.30%)
9
(27.27%)
4
(12.12%)33 3.15 / 5
3.15 / 5
Do you feel yourself more or less engaged over the period of time you have been in the Collective?
Responses Percentage
Yes.
15 45.5%
No.
18 54.5%
Do you know how much profit/loss your Collective (excluding the record label) made last year from its
activities?
Responses Percentage
No
26 81.3%
Yes
6 18.8%
Are there any facilities within the Collective where you could access freely to practice, record, do
workshops..etc? (ie. rehearsal space)
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly AgreeResponses
Weighted
Average
0
(0.00%)
1
(3.13%)
8
(25.00%)
15
(46.88%)
8
(25.00%)32 3.94 / 5
3.94 / 5
Do you think being a collective member helped you to get more gigs?
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly AgreeResponses
Weighted
Average
0
(0.00%)
2
(6.25%)
8
(25.00%)
14
(43.75%)
8
(25.00%)32 3.88 / 5
3.88 / 5
Do you think you received more press attention oweing to your collective membership?
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 11/20
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly AgreeResponses
Weighted
Average
0
(0.00%)
2
(6.25%)
8
(25.00%)
15
(46.88%)
7
(21.88%)32 3.84 / 5
3.84 / 5
Do you think your collective helped you promote yourself/your band/your projects by publicising these
via its online channels on social media or other online marketing tools like newsletters..etc?
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
6
N/A (not applicable)Responses
Weighted
Average
1
(3.13%)
6
(18.75%)
12
(37.50%)
7
(21.88%)
1
(3.13%)
5
(15.63%)32 3.50 / 6
3.50 / 6
Do you think your collective provided you sufficient opportunities to exercise your teaching skills? (If
you don't teach, please select 'not applicable' and continue the survey.)
1 2 3 4 5 ResponsesWeighted
Average
Organising live events / fixing gigs2
(6.25%)
2
(6.25%)
11
(34.38%)
10
(31.25%)
7
(21.88%)32 3.56 / 5
Funding applications4
(12.50%)
5
(15.63%)
10
(31.25%)
10
(31.25%)
3
(9.38%)32 3.09 / 5
Following and sharing music industry news11
(36.67%)
8
(26.67%)
10
(33.33%)
0
(0.00%)
1
(3.33%)30 2.07 / 5
Educational activities for musical / instrumental / creative
development
9
(28.13%)
5
(15.63%)
7
(21.88%)
8
(25.00%)
3
(9.38%)32 2.72 / 5
Record label activities (album releases, production,
distribution..)
9
(29.03%)
2
(6.45%)
7
(22.58%)
9
(29.03%)
4
(12.90%)31 2.90 / 5
Expanding fanbase5
(15.63%)
12
(37.50%)
12
(37.50%)
2
(6.25%)
1
(3.13%)32 2.44 / 5
Publicity and marketing on social media4
(12.50%)
11
(34.38%)
15
(46.88%)
2
(6.25%)
0
(0.00%)32 2.47 / 5
Press5
(15.63%)
13
(40.63%)
10
(31.25%)
4
(12.50%)
0
(0.00%)32 2.41 / 5
Visibility in the music industry6
(18.75%)
8
(25.00%)
14
(43.75%)
4
(12.50%)
0
(0.00%)32 2.50 / 5
2.69 / 5
How active do you think your Collective is? Please rate the following options.
(1=least active, 5=most active)
30.
31.
32.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 12/20
Responses Percentage
None
5 16.1%
1-2
20 64.5%
3-5
4 12.9%
5-10
1 3.2%
10+
1 3.2%
How many of your major music or music business projects* have become real via the Collective per
year approximately? *creation of a new band/project, event organisation, touring, residency, album
production...etc.
Responses Percentage
Yes
22 71.0%
No
0 0.0%
I have never applied to one.
9 29.0%
During your Collective membership, have any of your personal grant/funding applications become
successful?
1
Very Unlikely
2
Unlikely
3
Neutral
4
Likely
5
Very Likely
6
N/A (Not Applicable)Responses
Weighted
Average
2
(6.45%)
1
(3.23%)
5
(16.13%)
10
(32.26%)
4
(12.90%)
9
(29.03%)31 4.29 / 6
4.29 / 6
If you had one or more successful grant/funding applications, how much do you think being a collective
member played a role its success? (Select 'not applicable' if you haven't had any successful
grant/funding applications.)
33.
34.
35.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 13/20
1 2 3 4 ResponsesWeighted
Average
Touring (of a collective project)13
(41.94%)
11
(35.48%)
6
(19.35%)
1
(3.23%)31 1.84 / 4
Event Organisation (ie. festivals)15
(48.39%)
13
(41.94%)
3
(9.68%)
0
(0.00%)31 1.61 / 4
Education activities (ie.workshops)2
(6.45%)
5
(16.13%)
17
(54.84%)
7
(22.58%)31 2.94 / 4
Record Label activities (album recording and production...)1
(3.23%)
2
(6.45%)
5
(16.13%)
23
(74.19%)31 3.61 / 4
2.50 / 4
With regards to funding applications that are made by your Collective, which field do you think has
more priority? Please put the following options in order. (Top = most important; Bottom = least
important.)
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly AgreeResponses
Weighted
Average
1
(3.23%)
6
(19.35%)
11
(35.48%)
13
(41.94%)
0
(0.00%)31 3.16 / 5
3.16 / 5
Do you think your Collective and its members follow the news and developments in the global music
industry?
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly AgreeResponses
Weighted
Average
0
(0.00%)
2
(6.45%)
5
(16.13%)
18
(58.06%)
6
(19.35%)31 3.90 / 5
3.90 / 5
Do you think your Collective and its members follow the news and developments in the UK jazz scene
and aware of activities by other Collectives?
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly AgreeResponses
Weighted
Average
2
(6.45%)
4
(12.90%)
14
(45.16%)
11
(35.48%)
0
(0.00%)31 3.10 / 5
3.10 / 5
Do you think your Collective and its members collectively try expand the music business network and
increase the visibility of the Collective in the industry?
(1) (4)
36.
37.
38.
39.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 14/20
1
Very Ineffective
2
Ineffective
3
Neutral
4
Effective
5
Very EffectiveResponses
Weighted
Average
0
(0.00%)
5
(16.13%)
16
(51.61%)
10
(32.26%)
0
(0.00%)31 3.16 / 5
3.16 / 5
How much do you think changes in music industry in line with digital transformation and the increasing
impact of internet within the social media, have been effective to make it easier to promote the
Collective and its activities?
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly AgreeResponses
Weighted
Average
0
(0.00%)
10
(32.26%)
12
(38.71%)
9
(29.03%)
0
(0.00%)31 2.97 / 5
2.97 / 5
How effectively do you think your collective is using social media or other online marketing tools like
newsletters,.etc for publicity?
40.
41.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 15/20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ResponsesWeighted
Average
Organising live
events / fixing
gigs
12
(38.71%)
2
(6.45%)
3
(9.68%)
1
(3.23%)
4
(12.90%)
3
(9.68%)
2
(6.45%)
2
(6.45%)
2
(6.45%)31 3.71 / 9
Funding
applications
3
(9.68%)
9
(29.03%)
4
(12.90%)
2
(6.45%)
3
(9.68%)
3
(9.68%)
4
(12.90%)
1
(3.23%)
2
(6.45%)31 4.13 / 9
Following and
sharing music
industry news
0
(0.00%)
1
(3.23%)
9
(29.03%)
1
(3.23%)
4
(12.90%)
4
(12.90%)
7
(22.58%)
4
(12.90%)
1
(3.23%)31 5.39 / 9
Educational
activities for
musical /
instrumental /
creative
development
1
(3.23%)
0
(0.00%)
0
(0.00%)
10
(32.26%)
2
(6.45%)
4
(12.90%)
1
(3.23%)
5
(16.13%)
8
(25.81%)31 6.26 / 9
Record label
activities
(album
releases,
production,
distribution..)
1
(3.23%)
0
(0.00%)
1
(3.23%)
1
(3.23%)
12
(38.71%)
2
(6.45%)
3
(9.68%)
5
(16.13%)
6
(19.35%)31 6.29 / 9
Expanding
fanbase
4
(12.90%)
12
(38.71%)
1
(3.23%)
2
(6.45%)
0
(0.00%)
10
(32.26%)
1
(3.23%)
0
(0.00%)
1
(3.23%)31 3.71 / 9
Publicity and
marketing on
social media
6
(19.35%)
0
(0.00%)
7
(22.58%)
2
(6.45%)
4
(12.90%)
0
(0.00%)
10
(32.26%)
0
(0.00%)
2
(6.45%)31 4.61 / 9
Press0
(0.00%)
4
(12.90%)
4
(12.90%)
6
(19.35%)
2
(6.45%)
4
(12.90%)
1
(3.23%)
10
(32.26%)
0
(0.00%)31 5.32 / 9
Visibility in the
music industry
(networking)
4
(12.90%)
3
(9.68%)
2
(6.45%)
6
(19.35%)
0
(0.00%)
1
(3.23%)
2
(6.45%)
4
(12.90%)
9
(29.03%)31 5.58 / 9
5.00 / 9
What do you think the areas are in your Collective that needs to be improved? Please order the
following options. (Top = most important; Bottom = least important.)
Responses Percentage
Yes
21 67.7%
No
10 32.3%
Does your Collective have a record label?
(1) (9)
42.
43.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 16/20
Responses Percentage
Financial support towards album production
1 4.8%
Collective's brand (reputation)
14 66.7%
High royalty rates for artists (ie: general indie label standard royalty deal is %50-%50)
7 33.3%
Access to Collective's free facilities (for production)
3 14.3%
Free/affordable press and PR support
3 14.3%
Artistic Freedom
14 66.7%
Copyright Ownership of the album
12 57.1%
Safety feeling for getting into a fair deal
4 19.0%
To stay within the collective community
11 52.4%
N/A (Not Applicable)
5 23.8%
If you have ever released any albums on your Collective's record label, what were the main reasons
for it? Please select ANY that applies. (If you haven't released any albums on your Collective's record
label, select 'not applicable' option and continue the survey.)
1 2 3 4 5 ResponsesWeighted
Average
General Administration7
(33.33%)
1
(4.76%)
5
(23.81%)
8
(38.10%)
0
(0.00%)21 2.67 / 5
Liaision with the distribution company6
(28.57%)
0
(0.00%)
5
(23.81%)
5
(23.81%)
5
(23.81%)21 3.14 / 5
Providing legal, technical support8
(38.10%)
3
(14.29%)
4
(19.05%)
5
(23.81%)
1
(4.76%)21 2.43 / 5
Solving the problems arose within the release8
(38.10%)
1
(4.76%)
6
(28.57%)
6
(28.57%)
0
(0.00%)21 2.48 / 5
Dealing with statements5
(23.81%)
4
(19.05%)
7
(33.33%)
3
(14.29%)
2
(9.52%)21 2.67 / 5
Royalty payments5
(23.81%)
1
(4.76%)
8
(38.10%)
3
(14.29%)
4
(19.05%)21 3.00 / 5
N/A (Not Applicable)1
(11.11%)
0
(0.00%)
0
(0.00%)
0
(0.00%)
8
(88.89%)9 4.56 / 5
2.85 / 5
How successfully do you think the record label dealt with your album? Please rate the following. (If you
haven't released any albums on your Collective's record label, ONLY rank 'not applicable' option and
continue the survey.) (1=least successful, 5=most successful)
44.
45.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 17/20
1
Very Unlikely
2
Unlikely
3
Neutral
4
Likely
5
Very Likely
6
N/A (not applicable)Responses
Weighted
Average
1
(4.76%)
1
(4.76%)
2
(9.52%)
9
(42.86%)
4
(19.05%)
4
(19.05%)21 3.82 / 5
3.82 / 5
Do you think the Collective's record label has provided more opportunities / revenue streams for your
album(s) than you could get if you had self-released your album? (If you haven't released any albums
on your Collective's record label, select 'not applicable' option and continue the survey.)
Responses Percentage
Probably yes.
15 71.4%
Probably no.
3 14.3%
Not applicable (N/A)
3 14.3%
If it wasn't via the Collective's record label, do you think you would be still able to release your album
and have it commercially distributed somehow? (If you haven't released any albums on your
Collective's record label, select 'not applicable' option and continue the survey.)
Responses Percentage
Financial support towards album production
8 38.1%
Collective's brand (reputation)
6 28.6%
High royalty rates for artists (fyi: general indie label deal is %50-%50)
0 0.0%
Access to Collective's free facilities (for production)
0 0.0%
Free/affordable press and PR support
3 14.3%
Artistic Freedom
3 14.3%
Copyright Ownership of the album
1 4.8%
Safety feeling for getting into a fair deal
0 0.0%
To stay within the collective community
1 4.8%
N/A (Not Applicable - I haven't released any albums on another label)
11 52.4%
If you have ever preferred and released any albums on another label rather than on your Collective's
record label, what were the main reasons for it? Please select ANY that applies. (If you haven't
released any albums on another label, select 'not applicable' option and continue the survey.)
47.
48.
46.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 18/20
Responses Percentage
Yes.
7 33.3%
No.
12 57.1%
Not applicable (N/A)
2 9.5%
Do you know how much was the turnover (total of gross sales) of your Collective's record label last
year?
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Agree
4
Strongly AgreeResponses
Weighted
Average
1
(3.23%)
1
(3.23%)
20
(64.52%)
9
(29.03%)31 3.19 / 4
3.19 / 4
Overall, do you agree that being a member of a jazz collective helped you to have better/more
opportunities in music industry and develop your career further?
Responses Percentage
Yes, my Collective had impact on my career path.
23 74.2%
No, my Collective didn't have any effect on my career path.
8 25.8%
Would your career path be different if you hadn't joined your Collective?
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree ResponsesWeighted
Average
2
(6.45%)
6
(19.35%)
8
(25.81%)
14
(45.16%)
1
(3.23%)31 3.19 / 5
3.19 / 5
Do you think other Collective members' successes and failures indirectly effected your career?
Responses Percentage
Yes.
23 74.2%
Maybe.
4 12.9%
No.
4 12.9%
Are you planning to continue being a Collective member?
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 19/20
1
Very Unlikely
2
Unlikely
3
Neutral
4
Likely
5
Very LikelyResponses
Weighted
Average
1
(3.23%)
0
(0.00%)
3
(9.68%)
14
(45.16%)
13
(41.94%)31 4.23 / 5
4.23 / 5
Would you recommend other musicians to join a music collective or form one?
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly AgreeResponses
Weighted
Average
4
(12.90%)
11
(35.48%)
11
(35.48%)
5
(16.13%)
0
(0.00%)31 2.55 / 5
2.55 / 5
Do you think collectives and their record labels..etc. should transform from non-profit communities into
more professional, profit driven business-like organisations?
1 2 3 4 5 ResponsesWeighted
Average
Public-funds4
(12.90%)
3
(9.68%)
9
(29.03%)
8
(25.81%)
7
(22.58%)31 3.35 / 5
Private sponsorships8
(26.67%)
7
(23.33%)
6
(20.00%)
6
(20.00%)
3
(10.00%)30 2.63 / 5
Crowdfunding2
(6.45%)
11
(35.48%)
9
(29.03%)
5
(16.13%)
4
(12.90%)31 2.94 / 5
Members' contribution5
(16.13%)
9
(29.03%)
11
(35.48%)
4
(12.90%)
2
(6.45%)31 2.65 / 5
Record Label's sales income15
(48.39%)
3
(9.68%)
8
(25.81%)
4
(12.90%)
1
(3.23%)31 2.13 / 5
Other6
(31.58%)
1
(5.26%)
5
(26.32%)
3
(15.79%)
4
(21.05%)19 2.89 / 5
2.76 / 5
Where do you think the financial future of collectives lie in? Please rank the following options according
to their potential outcome. (Top = most potential outcome; Bottom = least potential outcome.)
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly AgreeResponses
Weighted
Average
1
(3.23%)
7
(22.58%)
16
(51.61%)
5
(16.13%)
2
(6.45%)31 3.00 / 5
3.00 / 5
Do you think collectives are necessary for the artistic/creative development of jazz musicians?
(5) (1)
55.
56.
54.
57.
8/15/2014 KwikSurveys: Free online survey & questionnaire tool
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/app/item-liveresults.asp#/ 20/20
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly AgreeResponses
Weighted
Average
1
(3.23%)
0
(0.00%)
4
(12.90%)
21
(67.74%)
5
(16.13%)31 3.94 / 5
3.94 / 5
Do you think jazz collectives, collective record labels, or similiar community organisations would help
niche genre artists to survive in competitive music industry?
58.
108
