Content uploaded by Diogo L. Pinheiro
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Diogo L. Pinheiro on Jun 29, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Timothy J. Dowd
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Timothy J. Dowd on Nov 08, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
ALL THAT JAZZ:
THE SUCCESS OF JAZZ MUSICIANS IN
THREE METROPOLITAN AREAS
Diogo L. Pinheiro & Timothy J. Dowd
This article appeared in the following publication:
Pinheiro, Diogo L. and Timothy J. Dowd. 2009. “All That Jazz: The Success of Jazz
Musicians in Three Metropolitan Areas.” Poetics 37: 490-506.
Abstract
We draw on a survey of jazz musicians to examine their economic success (annual
amount of money earned through music) and critical success (national recognition of
their talent). In doing so, we bring together literatures that are not normally in dialogue –
one addressing generalism and the careers of creative personnel and the other addressing
the circulation of capitals (e.g., cultural capital) in fields of cultural production. We find,
among other things, that aesthetic generalism (being conversant in a wide range of
genres) has a positive impact on both earnings and national recognition – with veteran
musicians particularly benefitting from the relationship between aesthetic generalism and
critical success. Those musicians with much social capital (e.g., number of local
musicians known by name) and much human capital (years of musical experience) enjoy
heightened economic, but not critical, success. Technical generalism (playing a wide
range of musical instruments) has no bearing on economic success but has a negative
impact on critical success – particularly for veteran jazz musicians. We discuss how such
findings demonstrate the analytical utility of heeding the resources and “signaled
competencies” that creative personnel have for negotiating fields of cultural production.
2
1. Introduction
The careers of creative personnel are marked by a common pattern: relatively few
obtain ongoing success, while many enjoy fleeting (if any) success. This is especially true
for those who work on a freelance basis, where their careers unfold across temporary
projects and / or contracts rather than as permanent employees within organizations (see
Menger, 1999). Of the 442 soundtrack composers involved in Hollywood films released
from 1964 to 1976, 9% of these freelancers composed nearly half of the 1,355
soundtracks while 57% created only a single soundtrack (Faulkner 1983). Of the more
than 32,000 actors involved in films released from 1992 to 1994, only 30% of these
freelancers were involved in a second film (Zuckerman, Kim, Ukanwa, and von
Rittmann, 2003). This pattern is not limited to field of motion pictures, as it plays out in
various ways in such fields as literature (Anheier, Gerhards and Romo, 1995) and the
visual arts (Giuffre, 1999).
When considering two types of success – economic versus critical – the common
pattern becomes more complex. Economic and critical success can co-occur for some
creative personnel – as Faulkner (1983) and Uzzi and Spiro (2005) find for freelance
composers – but not for all. Bourdieu (1993) points to “restricted” fields of cultural
production that stress art for art’s sake and, in the process, elevate aesthetic concerns at
the expense of business concerns. In such fields, financially successful artists are
sometimes branded “sell outs” while critically successful artists who push boundaries and
redefine the field may struggle financially. This inversion of critical success with
commercial success is a hallmark in fields of “independent” music and film
(Hesmondhalgh, 1998; Zuckerman and Kim, 2003). Within fields of cultural production
3
that are clearly oriented to business concerns – what Bourdieu labels “large-scale”
production – economic success does not always lead to critical success or vice versa.
Indeed, a common argument is that the major firms which dominate such fields are
ultimately focused on the bottom-line – thus favoring works and personnel that generate
substantial sales rather than creative breakthroughs (Dowd, 2004). Small wonder that
those films and albums that attain blockbuster sales are sometimes hampered in garnering
subsequent critical acclaim (Allen and Lincoln, 2004; Schmutz, 2005). It remains an
empirical question, then, whether economic and critical success operate in similar or
dissimilar fashion.
Why does success, both economic and critical, flow to some creative personnel
and elude others? The resources that creative personnel possess could play a role in this,
with success accruing to those who have extensive expertise, experience and/or
connections. The ability of creative personnel to signal competence to key gatekeepers –
such as employers and critics – could also play a role. Indeed, success may stream
towards those personnel that gatekeepers deem to be accomplished and away from those t
deemed as lacking in some real or imagined fashion.
This paper examines the impact of such resources and signaling on the success of
jazz musicians in and around three U.S. cities. We do so by bringing into dialogue two
literatures that are not normally paired. The first is a small, but insightful, literature that
addresses how creative personnel negotiate the challenges of working in a few genres,
“specialization,” versus working in many genres, “generalism” (Faulkner, 1983;
Zuckerman, et al., 2003). While its contributors acknowledge a range of factors at play,
they emphasize that, in certain fields of cultural production, employers evaluate creative
4
personnel in an ad hoc fashion – relying on their “track records” of past work rather than
evaluating systematically the abilities of such personnel, as these abilities may not be
readily observable. Specialization initially offers a way for creative personnel to signal
competence to potential employers – thereby offering a pathway to early success. On the
other hand, specialization across the years can limit success – as veterans who deal only
in a few genres may be seen as incapable of doing anything else, particularly when
compared to veteran generalists. The second is the expansive literature inspired by
Bourdieu’s (1986, 1993) seminal work on fields of cultural production. Its proponents
view creative personnel as engaged in a competitive struggle made dynamic by the
circulation of particular resources – such as economic capital (financial resources), social
capital (relational resources, such as membership in networks and organizations) and
cultural capital (symbolic resources, such as familiarity with high culture). The success of
creative personnel, in this view, results from the combination of capitals that they
respectively possess and deploy within a given field (see Anheier, Gerhards, and Romo,
1995).
Inspired by these literatures, we turn to a survey conducted by the Research
Center for the Arts and Culture (RCAC) at Columbia University. Under commission
from the National Endowment of the Arts, the RCAC contacted jazz musicians in New
Orleans, New York, and San Francisco. The resulting survey is unique in terms of its
coverage: it captures hundreds of musicians who vary greatly in their respective levels of
training, pursuits and success (Jeffri, 2003b).
We proceed analytically in the following fashion. First, we discuss the arguments
offered by Faulkner (1983) and Zuckerman et al. (2003) and then suggest how portions of
5
them may be applied to the realm of jazz. This includes distinguishing between the
aesthetic generalism of jazz musicians (the varied range of genres that they address) and
their technical generalism (the varied range of instruments that they employ). Second, we
turn to work that engages the scholarship of Pierre Bourdieu. This allows us to situate the
success of jazz musicians amidst a broad range of factors. Consequently, when examining
the impact of generalism on success, we simultaneously consider the human, social, and
cultural capitals respectively accrued by jazz musicians of various races and genders, as
well as the particular locations in which these musicians operate. Finally, when offering
regression analyses, we use measures of generalism that take into account the “clumping”
of certain genres and instruments – where some easily go together due to overlapping
historical trajectories (e.g., blues and rhythm and blues) or due to comparable
performance techniques (e.g., alto and tenor saxophone).
2. Success and specialization versus generalism
2.1. The motion picture field
Faulkner, Zuckerman, and colleagues offer comparable arguments that are
temporal in nature – ones that consider the ongoing careers of actors and soundtrack
composers in the field of motion pictures. This comparability is not surprising given that
Zuckerman (2005; Zuckerman et al., 2003) explicitly builds on Faulkner’s (1983) work.
Two general points bear mention. First, their arguments are not simply about the
individual attributes of creative personnel (e.g., track records) but, instead, are about
linking those attributes to the broader context in which these creative personnel operate.
This context includes the widely shared classifications in which creative personnel find
6
themselves – particularly the classifications of genre (e.g., action films, comedy). This
context also includes the professional relationships (e.g., pairing of actors with directors)
that enable creative personnel to develop experience and expertise within (if not across)
these extant classifications. Second, these arguments do not apply to all fields of cultural
production but only to those in which formal credentials and systematic evaluation do not
typically figure in hiring decisions – such as the field of motion pictures.
Specialization clearly has its benefits for actors and soundtrack composers
(Faulkner, 1983; Zuckerman et al., 2003). It fosters strong collaborative ties when
creative personnel working in similar genres come together on repeated occasions – such
as those actors and directors involved in low-budget horror films. These ties, in turn,
facilitate the securing of future employment within these same genres via familiarity and
recommendations. On-going specialization allows motion picture personnel to bolster
their position. By working repeatedly in the same few genres, not only do they gain
visibility, they arguably enhance their repertoire of capabilities and knowledge (i.e.,
human capital) and thus augment their appeal to future employers. This final benefit is
particularly important because it resonates with societal-wide prescriptions to hone
specialized expertise – prescriptions that can be traced back to Adam Smith (1965
[1776]) and that are common in contemporary academia and business (Dobbin, Sutton,
Meyer, and Scott, 1993; Leahy 2007).
Specialization has its drawbacks, however, for actors and soundtrack composers.
It may become, in Faulkner’s (1983) terminology, a “trap.” This can result from
employer preferences. When qualifications and skills are not readily measurable,
employers rely on the past work of creative personnel as a metric for hiring. This often
7
devolves into “typecasting” – where employers limit these personnel to a one or a few
genres based on what these personnel have done rather than what they can do.
Consequently, a number of veterans tell Faulkner (1983) and Zuckerman et al. (2003) of
the frustration and alienation that flow from an inability to take their careers in new
directions.
By trucking in many genres, creative personnel can expand the types of jobs for
which they are considered. Yet there are sizable barriers to becoming a generalist
(Faulkner, 1983; Zuckerman et al., 2003). For those who have enjoyed a modicum of
success as specialists, they must somehow escape the typecasting that traps so many.
Furthermore, as they move beyond their area of specialization, actors and soundtrack
composers are leaving behind those collaborative ties that served them well in the past
and led to “bread and butter” jobs – regular work that is especially enticing given the
economic vagaries of the film industry. Finally, from the perspective of an employer
looking to fill a specific need, an emergent generalist with a weak track record in a
particular genre looks like someone who is inexperienced. “[Generalists] face the threat
of being confused with the unskilled, thus becoming ‘non-entities’ in the sense of not
being recognized as fit for any job, and having an weak attachment to the labor market”
(Zuckerman, 2005: 173). In other words, potential generalists must overcome the label of
“jack-of all trades, master of none.”
Some do succeed in becoming generalists, thereby enjoying the benefits that
accompany this breadth. The transition to generalists is especially important for motion
picture personnel who are veterans. Employers and colleagues expect those with years of
experience to be accomplished – that is, adept at multiple genres. Consequently, they
8
likely view veterans who are less accomplished to be operating at the limit of their
capabilities. Small wonder that veteran actors who specialize in a few genres are less
liable to find subsequent work than are novice specialists. In contrast to veteran
specialists, veteran generalists are in a position to be selective about future work –
choosing those projects that bring them into contact with highly productive collaborators.
Their selectivity partly results from the far-flung networks that generalists enjoy by virtue
of their varied activities – with information and opportunities moving along these
connections. It also results from the heightened visibility of working across multiple
areas (Faulkner, 1983; Zuckerman et al., 2003).
2.2. The jazz field
We take inspiration from the arguments of Faulkner (1983) and Zuckerman et al.
(2003), particularly in light of scholarship on jazz musicians. At the most basic level, this
scholarship suggests that freelance jazz musicians often (but not always) secure
employment through an informal process (e.g., referrals) rather than a formal evaluation
of musical skills and credentials (Berliner, 1994; Dempsey, 2008; MacLeod 1993). Track
records may likewise serve as important signals for employment in the field of jazz –
possibly leading to a musical “typecasting.” This scholarship also reveals that generalism
matters for jazz musicians in two distinctive ways – one that resonates with Faulkner and
Zuckerman’s research, which we call “aesthetic generalism,” and one that moves beyond
their arguments, which we call “technical generalism.”
Previous research shows that familiarity with a wide range of musical genres
(aesthetic generalism) offers economic benefits to freelance and jazz musicians (Berliner,
9
1994; Dempsey, 2008; Faulkner, 1985; MacLeod, 1993). Given that genres tend to have
distinctive patrons, audiences, and venues (Lena and Peterson, 2008) – and given that
jazz has experienced a proliferation of genres from within (e.g., be-bop) and beyond (e.g.,
rock, hip-hop) (Dempsey, 2008; Lopes, 2002; Schuller, 1986) – musicians who exhibit
stylistic dexterity should fare well with job opportunities. Aesthetic generalism will likely
spur critical success, as well. Research on other fields of cultural production shows that
well-regarded and well-situated artists often span genres (Anheier and Gerhards, 1991;
Giuffre, 1999, 2001; Rao, Monin and Durand, 2005), while jazz scholarship shows that
celebrated musicians often ushered in new genres and / or blurred boundaries between
genres (DeVeaux, 1997; Lopes, 2002; Radano, 1993).
Previous scholarship also suggests that familiarity with a wide range of
instruments (technical generalism) will work against the economic and critical success of
jazz musicians. Certain musical fields inspire a tight linkage between musicians and their
respective instruments – such as classical music, whereby command of and devotion to
one instrument is commonplace and rewarded (Alford and Szanto, 1996; Bijsterveld and
Schulp, 2004). The jazz field likewise places emphasis on expertise for a single
instrument or for instruments that require similar skills (e.g., alto and tenor saxophone).
On the one hand, jazz musicians note that the selection and subsequent mastery of a
particular instrument shapes how one approaches music in general (Berliner, 1994;
Curran, 1996; Gibson, 2006; MacDonald and Wilson, 2005; Monson, 1996). On the other
hand, it takes much time and effort to develop sufficient expertise in a single instrument,
let alone in a grouping of disparate instruments. As one musician described to Berliner
(1994: 115), “‘I played and practiced the guitar constantly five hours a day. At one point,
10
I went down to the Jersey shore and locked myself in a room for a month.’” We suspect
that technical generalism (rather than aesthetic generalism) is what will draw the “jack of
all trades, master of none” designation – especially if employers gravitate toward jazz
musicians with accomplished instrumental skills (i.e., economic success). Moreover, the
pantheon of jazz (i.e., critical success) is populated more by virtuosos on single
instruments than those who pursue a wide range of instruments.
Jazz musicians thus provide an interesting case for examining the varieties of
generalism and success. These musicians operate in a well-established field with
numerous genres that range from the relatively simple and popular, such as traditional or
cool jazz, to the complex and esoteric, such as avant-garde or free jazz (Berliner, 1994;
Dempsey, 2008; Lena and Peterson, 2008; Lopes, 2002). In fact, the RCAC survey tracks
the engagement of jazz musicians in more than twenty genres. Thus, jazz musicians have
clear potential for engaging in aesthetic generalism. Moreover, scholarly work on the
amateur phase shows that would-be jazz musicians grapple with both cognitive and
corporal issues while gaining mastery. That is, they learn to think in terms of genre, and
they acquire the physical technique to play their instruments (Berliner, 1994; Curran,
1996; Sudnow, 1978). Even for professional jazz musicians, familiarity with genres and
development of instrumental technique (“chops”) continue to be prominent foci across
their careers (Berliner 1994; Dempsey 2008). Finally, as is true for the motion pictures
field (Baumann 2001), jazz is not limited to commercial entertainment; it too has enjoyed
aesthetic mobility, whereby some of its works are widely deemed to be “art” (Lopes,
2002). Hence, economic and critical success may each be concerns for jazz musicians.
11
In drawing inspiration from research on the motion picture field, we make two
caveats. Given the cross-sectional nature of the survey that we analyze, we are unable to
capture the temporal aspects that lie at the heart of Faulkner (1983) and Zuckerman’s
(2005) arguments. Nevertheless, it remains useful to see how various levels of generalism
matter for jazz musicians at a particular point in time. Likewise, we concede that
“technical generalism” departs from their arguments to the extent that such physical skills
require years of careful practice that can precede employment and, as a result, may lack
an analogue in the motion picture field. Consequently, we would not be surprised if this
type of generalism is more germane for the jazz field than the motion picture field.
3. Success and capitals
Of course, other factors could likewise shape the success of creative personnel.
We have already mentioned one such alternative – human capital. People who possess
extensive training and experience should do relatively well in a given field. However,
Zuckerman and colleagues (2003) are not completely convinced by this argument. If
experience is so highly valued, then employment opportunities should flow towards older
(rather than novice) film actors who are specialists. Instead, they find that work
opportunities flows away from these experienced actors. Mindful of this, we consider the
impact of human capital.
Other alternative factors spring from work associated with Pierre Bourdieu –
including that which takes issues with his theory and empirics. We do not offer an
extended discussion of either Bourdieu’s scholarship or those who respond with
12
correctives. Instead, we sketch several factors that could also spur or inhibit success
among creative personnel.
The concept of “field” is central to Bourdieu’s (1986, 1991, 1993) theoretical
framework. It is often the given field – rather than society as a whole – that provides its
participants with particular logics by which to operate. What is deemed desirable in one
field (e.g., financial success in fields of large-scale cultural production) can be very
distinct from what is deemed desirable in another (e.g., artistic integrity in fields of
restricted cultural production). Despite the potentially divergent logics of various fields,
they are alike in two important ways. First, fields are sites of competitive struggle in
which relatively few dominate, receiving a disproportionate share of resources and
opportunities. Second, this competitive struggle is made dynamic by the circulation of
particular currencies. Just as one can use cash and coin to secure opportunities and
position within many fields, Bourdieu notes that social capital is likewise a currency that
can be exchanged for such positive outcomes. “Who you know” can matter very much
for success. Likewise, he notes that prestigious types of knowledge – such as familiarity
with high culture – can both signal one’s advantaged position in a given field and open up
opportunities for maintaining that position. “What you know” can have tremendous
implications for success. Position in a given field thus results from a combination of
capitals that one possesses and deploys. We thus consider the three types of capital that
the RCAC survey allows – human, social and cultural capital.
While Bourdieu alludes to additional factors that may shape the circulation of
capitals, other scholars bring such factors to the fore. For instance, McCall (1992) argues
that gender is not secondary to various forms of capital but, instead, is a pervasive
13
division that shapes both positioning within fields and the logics by which field
participants operate. Her argument resonates with research that shows the breadth
displayed by females in fields of consumption. Some research finds that female students
possess more cultural capital than their male counterparts and that they convert this
symbolic resource to educational success more than males (DiMaggio, 1982; Dumais,
2002). McCall’s argument also jibes with research demonstrating the challenges that
constrict women’s involvement in fields of cultural production (Bielby and Bielby, 1996;
Dowd, Liddle, and Blyler, 2005). Such challenges include pervasive assumptions that
women are not as adept as men at playing musical instruments. The legacy of these
assumptions is an array of musical fields that continues to place women at a disadvantage
– steering them away from particular instruments, from employment opportunities, and
from critical success (Allmendinger and Hackman, 1995; Clawson, 1999; DeNora, 2002;
Schmutz, 2009). We examine, then, whether male jazz musicians are more successful
than female musicians.
Annette Lareau (2002; Lareau & Horvat 1999) and others deal with another
fundamental factor – investigating race and its relationship to cultural capital in the U.S.
Some of this research shows the breadth displayed by high-status African Americans in
both past and present fields of consumption. Simultaneously situated in what Karyn Lacy
(2007) calls the “black world” and “white world,” these individuals possess symbolic
resources that serve as currency in each world – including, but not limited to, traditional
notions of high culture (DiMaggio and Ostrower, 1990; Fleming and Roses, 2007;
Higginbotham, 1993). Yet, in fields of cultural production, African Americans have
historically faced a narrow range of opportunities due to blatant and subtle racism. In the
14
field of early jazz, for instance, economic and critical considerations were intentionally
diverted from black to white musicians (Dowd, 2003; Lopes, 2002; Phillips and Owens,
2004). While the situation in music fields has improved since those early days (Dowd and
Blyler, 2002; Negus, 1999), it remains to be seen whether African American musicians
still face particular hurdles to success in the field of jazz. However, given long-standing
associations of jazz with African American (Lopes, 2002), both employers and critics of
the present may actually favor black musicians over white musicians – thereby
paralleling the situation in Chicago blues clubs, whereby black musicians garner more
opportunities than their white counterparts (Grazian, 2004).
Finally, a stream of research complicates Bourdieu’s arguments (sometimes
intentionally) by reminding us that fields are located in physical spaces that can contain
their own respective configurations – with such spaces including clubs (Thornton, 1999),
neighborhoods (Blasisus and Friedrichs, 2008), cities (Prieur, Rosenlund and Skjott-
Larsen, 2008), regions (Lamont, 1992), and nations (Katz-Gerro 2002). What passes for
various capitals – as well as the logic of a given field – is ultimately rooted in place.
Affluent businessmen in Indianapolis tend to have different ideas about what constitutes
symbolic resources than their counterparts in New York City (Lamont, 1992). This
emphasis on place strikes a chord with much scholarship that, though not always cast in
Bourdieuian terms, brings together musical consumption and production (see Bennett
2004). Such scholars examine how creators and fans cobble together local musical
traditions that connect to broader fields but are nevertheless unique in some regards.
Hence, Chicago is where the blues live and parts of England are hot spots for dance
music (Grazian, 2004; Hesmondhalgh, 1998).
15
Jazz is likewise placed-based and sprawls across many U.S. cities – wherein
idiosyncratic combinations of neighborhoods, venues and resources shape the
opportunities afforded to jazz musicians (see Becker, 2004). The RCAC Survey
addresses three such cities. New Orleans is noted for being the birthplace of jazz, and city
officials promote its jazz scene aggressively for purposes of tourism and commerce. It is
likewise home to a notable jazz festival and the French Quarter that houses renowned
jazz venues, as well as universities that tap into the jazz tradition (Jeffri, 2003a; Miller,
2009). New York City contains the world’s largest jazz community – complete with an
extensive network of musicians, a vibrant nightlife of clubs and bars, and a confluence of
educational music programs (Berliner, 1994; Jeffri, 2003a). San Francisco benefits from a
healthy supply of venues, as well as the nearby Monterey Jazz Festival, but it lacks the
tradition of New Orleans and the scope of New York City’s jazz scene (Jeffri, 2003a).
Consequently, we expect that New Orleans and New York – by dint of their respective
jazz scenes – are more conducive to success than is San Francisco.
4. Data and methods
The RCAC survey makes visible a group of creative personnel. Heckathorn and
Jeffri (2001: 308) note,
Jazz musicians fall into the category of “hidden populations” in that (1) no
sampling frame exists, so the size and boundaries of the population are unknown,
(2) there are strong privacy concerns…because of the tight but informal networks
which outsiders find hard to penetrate, and (3) the population constitutes a small
proportion of the general population.
They reveal the “hidden” by relying on respondent-driven sampling (RDS) – a
sophisticated technique using referrals from known musicians to locate other (oftentimes
16
“unknown”) musicians. By employing multiple waves of recommendations – as well as
statistical weighting – this RDS technique can adjust for biases that are common in
simple chain-referrals (e.g., survey respondents recommending other respondents who are
like themselves and / or part of their own social network). A detailed discussion of these
adjustment techniques is found in Heckathorn and Jeffri (2001). Suffice it to say that this
technique leads to a sample that is representative of jazz musicians in New Orleans, New
York and San Francisco. The data are not without limitations. Most notably, we are
dealing with a cross-section of jazz musicians and might miss some time-dependent
aspects of relationships we are about to explore.
4.1. Dependent variables
We measure success in these three metro areas primarily by way of two
dependent variables – income earned from music by survey respondents in the year 2000
(economic success) and acknowledgement that the respondent’s talent “has been
recognized…nationally” (critical success). The income variable ranges across 8
categories: $0-500; $501-3000; $3001-7000; $7001-12,000; $12,001-20,000; $20,001-
40,000; $40,001-60,000; and $60,001+. We code this economic success variable as the
logged midpoint of each of the first 7 categories – with the log of $100,000 serving as the
midpoint for the 8th category. By logging this variable, we take care of any skewness
present in the data. Given the underlying continuous nature of this variable, we model it
with OLS regression. The critical success survey question, however, is not continuous. It
takes either the value of “0” (no national recognition) or “1” (national recognition). Given
the dichotomous nature of this dependent variable, we model it with logistic regression.
17
The descriptive statistics reveal that both financial and critical success elude most
musicians in this sample (see Appendix A in the online materials for descriptives on all
the variables). Note that we explicitly explore the connections between these two
outcomes by regressing one upon the other as a control variable – investigating whether
these types of success are interchangeable.
4.2. Independent variables
The RCAC survey gauges involvement in both genres and instruments in a
dichotomous fashion – assessing whether or not a musician is active in a particular
category (“yes” vs. “no”) rather than the extent of that activity (see Appendix B in the
online materials for the listing of genres and instruments). We could measure generalism
by simply counting the number of genres / instruments played by each jazz musician, but
that leads to difficulties. A simple counting of instruments yields identical scores for
those musicians who play both the trumpet and flugelhorn and those who play trumpet
and guitar (i.e., two instruments that “clump” together vs. two that do not). This would
mask sizable differences in skills, as the former pairing relies on nearly identical
techniques for brass instruments (e.g., how sound is created via the mouth and tongue;
see Sandoval 1995), whereas the latter involves techniques that share little to no overlap
and, sometimes, even rely on dissimilar types of musical notation (see Walser 1993 on
guitar notation). A simple counting of genres is likewise problematic. Jazz musicians who
are active in both ragtime and boogie-woogie would have the same score as those active
in ragtime and avant-garde (two genres that “clump” vs. two that do not). We would
mistakenly treat as comparable those musicians engaged in old genres with relatively
18
traditional approaches to rhythm and harmony (ragtime and boogie-woogie; see Schuller
1986) and those engaged in two genres that encompass both the traditional (ragtime) and
a radically different approach to rhythm and harmony (avant-garde; see Radano 1993).
We avoid these problems by addressing the range of genres / instruments in which
individual musicians engage. Like Phillips and Owens (2004), we rely on the data to
stipulate what constitutes a narrow or wide range of genres / instruments. This takes
several steps. First, we obtain Jaccard similarity coefficients for each and every pair of
genres / instruments in the survey – such as a coefficient for the pairing of alto and tenor
saxophones and another for the pairing of alto saxophone and guitar. These similarity
coefficients address the aggregate level – detailing the extent to which each combination
is proximate (“clumpy”) for all musicians in the survey. Second, we rely on “1 minus the
Jaccard coefficient” to get at dissimilarity – thereby taking the inverse of this similarity
coefficient and, in turn, highlighting those combinations that are wide-ranging at the
aggregate level (“not clumpy”). Third, we then document all pairs of genres / instruments
that each musician in the sample utilizes. That is, we focus here on individual data.
Finally, for each particular pair of genres / instruments pursued by a particular musician,
we then sum corresponding “1 - Jaccard coefficient” score. The following formula
summarizes these steps:
ΣPij*βij, where
P is the ij pair of genres (instruments) played by the musician and
β is “1-Jaccard similarity coefficient” for that pair.
The resulting generalism measures tell us the extent to which each individual
musician is active in a wide range of genres / instruments – with low scores indicating
“specialization” and high scores noting “generalism.” As the descriptive statistics show,
19
the potential for extensive generalism is realized by some of the musicians in the survey –
but most fall well short of this potential (see Appendix A in the online materials).
Our measures of human capital are straightforward. The measure of experience is
the number of years elapsed since each respondent first began playing musical
instrument(s)s. We interact this measure with the generalism measures, thereby assessing
Faulkner and Zuckerman’s arguments that it has different effects on novices than on
veterans. We draw upon a categorical variable to gauge the education level of
respondents.
We use two measures to gauge social capital. One gets at informal networks by
tapping the number of musicians in the metro area that the respondent knows by name.
The range of this measure shows the vast connections that some musicians enjoy (see
Appendix A of the online materials). We also consider a formal one – membership in the
American Federation of Musicians. This union represents the interests of instrumentalists
in the US and Canada – and 30% of the sample – and has taken actions that sometime
have major implications for musician careers (Dowd 2004; Dowd & Blyler 2002).
Regarding cultural capital, we go with measures that roughly capture the early
transmission of cultural capital from parent to child – one that is central to Bourdieu’s
theory (Aschaffenburg & Maas 1997). Thus, we use two dichotomous variables to
measure whether musical involvement was, encouraged, on the one hand, by early family
attention and, on the other hand, by early financial support.
The treatment of Bourdieu-inspired factors is also straightforward. We rely on
self-reported information to assess the gender and race of musicians – comparing men to
women and comparing African Americans and other ethnicities / races to whites. In terms
20
of place, we compare musicians in New Orleans and New York City to those in San
Francisco.
We also employ various control variables to assess additional factors that may or
may not shape the success of jazz musicians: the age of the respondents (in years),
whether they have marketed their work (yes vs. no), and whether they use the Internet for
their music (yes vs. no). . Finally, we control for the “centrality” of a particular musical
instrument or genre. Put simply, playing the least common instruments or genres in the
sample (cello and ragtime, respectively) may yield different opportunities than playing
the most common instruments or genres (piano and bop). To account for such centrality,
we first calculate the share of the sample that plays particular instruments / genres in a
given metropolitan area. Then, we construct two variables that tap the average share of
the sample that play the same instrument(s) and genre(s) as each individual respondent in
a given metropolitan area (for further elaboration, see Appendix C in the online
materials).
5. Results
We now turn to the regression analyses. Given that correlations between the
various independent and control variables never exceed .44 (with most correlations less
than .20), we are confident that multicollinearity is not a problem (see Appendix A in
online materials).
[Table 1 about here]
Table 1 presents the results for economic success. Equation (1) starts with the
Bourdieuian-inspired factors that shape the circulation of capitals in a given field. Place
21
has substantial effects: musicians working in either New Orleans or New York earn more
income than those working in San Francisco. These place effects remain significant in all
of the models follow. Gender somewhat matters as well: male musicians earn more
money than female musicians; this effect eventually becomes insignificant in the
presence of control variables (see Equation [6]). Meanwhile, race has no apparent effect
on financial success. African Americans and members of other races / ethnicities do not
fare any better or worse than whites in the jazz field. We ran another regression that only
compared African-Americans to all other races and ethnicities, which also led to
insignificant effects.
Equations (2) through (4) explore the net effects of human, social and cultural
capital respectively, with Equations (7) and (8) considering them simultaneously. In these
final models, two types of human capital have positive effects on musician earnings
(private instruction and musical experience) and one type of cultural capital (early family
encouragement in music) has a positive effect that disappears in Equation (8). One form
of human capital negatively impinges on the earnings of jazz musicians (conservatory
training). Social capital has palpable effects that persist in all the models: the number of
informal connection to other musicians is a highly significant predictor of financial
success, as is formal membership in the American Federation of Musicians.
Equation (5) shows the net effect of generalism. As expected, aesthetic
generalism has a highly significant effect on financial success. However, technical
generalism fails to attain significance. While we are cautious in interpreting a non-
finding, it is revealing that aesthetic and technical generalism are not comparable in their
respective impacts.
22
Equation (6) brings together the range of factors found in the previous models.
Aesthetic generalism continues to have a highly significant impact upon financial success
– as do variables representing the various capitals and place. We also include control
variables in this model. Financial success is augmented both by having one’s work
marketed and by using the Internet for one’s music. We also see that critical success – in
the form of “national recognition” – has no bearing upon financial success, thus showing
that these two outcomes are distinct rather than overlapping.
Equations (7) and (8) include interactions between experience and eclecticism,
but those are not significant. Thus, the positive impact of aesthetic generalism plays out
similarly for both novice and veteran jazz musicians. Moreover, as Equation (8) reveals,
its impact remains even when controlling for the centrality of genres and instruments that
jazz musicians play in their respective cities, which are insignificant.
[Table 2 about here]
Table 2 presents results for critical success and continues the logic of presentation
found in the previous table. All of the models reveal, once again, that place has an impact
on success: those musicians working in New Orleans or New York are more likely to
attain critical success that those working in San Francisco. While race remains
insignificant for success, as in the previous analysis, we now also see that gender is
always insignificant when the success in question is critical rather than financial.
Equations (10) through (12) show that the various capitals have no significant
impact on the critical success of jazz musicians. While informal and formal connections
within a given locale matter for earnings (Table 1), such connections – regardless of how
extensive they are – do not translate into critical success at the national level. These non-
23
findings are even more striking when considering that aesthetic generalism retains its
positive effect on success (see Equations [14] through [16]). Centrality measures are
consistently insignificant. Meanwhile, as we suspected, technical generalism has a
negative effect on critical success. Thus, the critical constituencies for jazz apparently
respect those musicians with involvement in diverse and varied genres but prefer that
musicians show restraint in technical skills by perfecting the performance of one or a few
instruments rather than dabbling in a broad range. These generalism findings persist in
the final models (see Equations [15] and [16]). In these models, having one’s work
marketed again leads to success – this time in critical terms – but usage of the Internet
has no impact. Meanwhile, mirroring the previous results in Table 1: one type of success
(here, economic) does not predict another (critical).
[Table 3 about here]
[Table 4 about here]
Equation (16) reveals that the interactions between generalism and experience are
significant. Tables 3 and 4 include the expected coefficient for eclecticism at different
levels of experience. At low levels of experience, neither aesthetic nor technical
eclecticism has an impact on national recognition outcomes. As experience increases,
technical generalism acquires a significant negative impact on the likelihood of having
one’s talent nationally recognized. To be more precise, technical generalism is
insignificant at the 5% level for those with about 24 years or less of experience (which is
slightly less than the average 25.6 years of experience), and it has an increasingly
negative effect for more experienced musicians. For musicians who are one standard
deviation above the mean experience (around 30 years of experience), technical
24
generalism has an odds ratio coefficient of 0.9. This reinforces the classic economic
view: specialization has a strong impact that increases with time – suggesting that in the
realm of musical instruments what matters is neither generalism nor movie industry-style
typecasting, but Adam Smith-styled specialization. With regards to the realm of genres,
however, the more experience one has the more positive is the impact of aesthetic
generalism. Although this result comes from cross-sectional data, it does resonate with
the Faulkner and Zuckerman arguments: among inexperienced musicians, aesthetic
generalism has a negative, but insignificant, impact on critical recognition, as it is
difficult to differentiate between the eclectic and the incompetent. As experience
increases, however, so too does the positive impact of being conversant in a wide range
of genres, with the coefficient becoming statistically significant at the 5% level around
the 25 year mark.
6. Conclusions
Relatively few musicians in the survey enjoyed much success. Only 28% of
respondents earned $20,000 or more from their music in the year 2000, and merely 19%
of them had ever received national recognition for their musical efforts.
We turned to two literatures to situate that pattern. One emphasizes the resources
that creative personnel have at their disposal – the various forms of capital that are,
apparently, well understood if not measurable. After all, the very notion of cultural
capital rests on the recognition of its merit and currency by both those who are
advantaged and disadvantaged in a given field. That said, the logic behind the exchange
of these capitals, and hence the positioning of creative personnel, can vary from field to
25
field. The other literature emphasizes the “signaling” that creative personnel do, as
indicated by how generalized or specialized their track record is. This matters because
certain fields of cultural production lack clear metrics – as creative skills are not well
understood and / or easily measured. Therein, the ability to signal skills in a shorthand
fashion arguably matters as much as their actual possession. We also turned to
scholarship on jazz and musicians. Our reading of it suggested that two types of
generalism matter – aesthetic and technical – as do two types of success – economic and
critical.
We found generalism and success play out in multiple fashions – with aesthetic
generalism having the most robust effects. Jazz musicians who are conversant in a wide
range of genres enjoy heightened earnings at the local level and greater odds of critical
success at the national level. Furthermore, veteran musicians especially benefitted from
the positive effect of aesthetic generalism on national recognition. Technical generalism
matters only for critical, and not economic, success – having a negative effect on the odds
of national recognition, which grows more pronounced among veteran musicians. We
interpret this as “signaling” in action – but we realize this may also reflect the particular
logic of the jazz field, whereby, for instance, aesthetic generalism is valued in a fashion
akin to cultural omnivorousness (van Eijck, 2001).
The logic of the jazz field comes into focus when considering the effect of various
capitals – especially given its particular emphasis on family support, mentorship, and
affiliation (Berliner 1994; Dempsey 2008; Sudnow 1978). When raised in a family that
encourages its young to explore music, those musicians enjoy increased economic
success relative to those lacking such cultural capital. Musicians receiving lessons from
26
private teachers are also those who enjoyed heightened salaries (human capital). Those
who are formally connected to the musicians’ union and those who are informally
connected to a sprawling network of musical friends (social capital) make more money
than their isolated counterparts, as do those who market their work or use the Internet for
musical purposes. However, a notable segment of jazz musicians has some ambivalence
about the merits of higher education instruction in jazz – particularly because of what
they see as its cerebral and dry approach to such a corporal and lively musical genre
(Berliner 1994; Dempsey 2008; MacLeod 1993). We find here that jazz musicians with
conservatory training face dampened earnings in these three cities.
Interestingly enough, the effects of these various capitals only apply to economic
success; none of them lead to the critical success of jazz musicians. In the latter type of
success, it is generalism that is crucial. Thus, these well-understood resources work well
when converting one type of capital (e.g., cultural) into economic capital. In the pursuit
of the slightly more ephemeral critical success, it is the signaling via track record – both
positively via aesthetic generalism and negatively via technical generalism that matter.
Such findings show not only the utility of bringing the above two literatures together but
they also call for further exploration of their overlap.
Acknowledgement
We thank Michaël Berghman, Dan Cornfield, Koen van Eijck, Kathy Giuffre, Larry
Isaacs, Jenn Lena and Pete Peterson for the helpful feedback. We also thank the
anonymous reviewers and the editors, Susan Janssen and Marc Verboord, for sharing
insights that improved this paper.
27
Appendix: Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online
version, at doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2009.09.007.
References
Alford, R.R., Szanto, A., 1996. Orpheus wounded. Theory and Society 25, 1-44.
Allen, M.P., Lincoln, A.E., 2004. Critical discourse and the cultural consecration of
American films. Social Forces 82, 871-894.
Allmendinger, J., Hackman, R.J., 1995. The more the better? Social Forces 74, 423-460.
Anheier, H.K., Gerhards, J., 1991. The acknowledgement of literary influence.
Sociological Forum 6, 137-156.
Anheier, H.K., Gerhards, J., Romo, F.P., 1995. Forms of capital and social structure in
cultural fields. American Journal of Sociology 100, 859-903.
Aschaffenburg, K., Maas, I., 1997. Cultural and educational careers. American
Sociological Review 62, 573-587.
Baumann, S., 2001. Intellectualization and art world development. American
Sociological Review 66, 404-426.
Becker, H., 2004. Jazz places. In: Bennett, A., Peterson, R.A. (Eds.), Music Scenes.
Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, TN, pp. 17-27.
Bennett, A., 2004. Consolidating the music scenes perspective. Poetics 32, 223-234.
Berliner, P.F., 1994. Thinking in Jazz. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bielby, D.D., Bielby, W.T., 1996. Women and men in film. Gender & Society 10, 248-
270.
Bijsterveld, K., Schulp, M., 2004. Breaking into a world of perfection. Social Studies of
Science 34, 649-674.
Blasisus, J., Friedrichs, J., 2008. Lifestyles in distressed neighborhoods. Poetics 36, 24-
44.
28
Bourdieu, P., 1986. The forms of capital. In: Richards, J.G. (Ed.), Handbook of Theory
and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood, New York, pp.
241-258.
Bourdieu, P., 1991. Genesis and structure of the religious field. Comparative Social
Research 13, 1-43.
Bourdieu, P., 1993. The Field of Cultural Production. Columbia University Press, New
York.
Clawson, M.A., 1999. When women play the bass. Gender & Society 13, 193-210.
Curran, G.M., 1996. From “swinging hard” to ”rocking out.” Symbolic Interaction 19,
37-60.
Dempsey, N.P., 2008. Hook-ups and train wrecks. Symbolic Interaction 31, 57-75.
DeNora, T., 2002. Music into action. Poetics 30, 19-33.
DeVeaux, S., 1997. The Birth of Bebop. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
DiMaggio, P., 1982. Cultural capital and school success. American Sociological Review
47, 189-201.
DiMaggio, P., Ostrower, F., 1990. Participation in the arts by black and white Americans.
Social Forces 68, 753-778.
Dumais, S.A., 2002. Cultural capital, gender, and school success. Sociology of Education
75, 44–68.
Dobbin, F., Sutton, J.R., Meyer, J.W., Scott, W.R., 1993. Equal opportunity law and the
construction of internal labor markets. American Journal of Sociology 99, 396-427.
Dowd, T.J., 2003. Structural power and the construction of markets. Comparative Social
Research 21, 21:147–201.
Dowd, T.J., 2004. Concentration and diversity revisited. Social Forces 82, 1411–1455.
Dowd, T.J., Blyler, M., 2002. Charting race. Poetics 30, 87-110.
Dowd, T.J., Liddle, K., Blyler, M. 2005. Charting gender. Research in the Sociology of
Organizations 23, 81-123.
Eijck, Koen van. 2001. Social differentiation in musical taste patterns. Social Forces 79,
1163-118.
29
Faulkner, R., 1983. Music on Demand. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ.
Faulkner, Robert. 1985. Hollywood Studio Musicians. University Press of America,
Lanham, MD.
Fleming, C.M., Roses, L.E., 2007. Black cultural capitalists. Poetics 35, 368-387.
Gibson, W., 2006. Material culture and embodied actions. Sociological Review 54, 171-
187.
Giuffre, K.A., 1999. Sandpiles of opportunity. Social Forces 77, 815-832.
Giuffre, K.A., 2001. Mental maps. Sociological Inquiry 71, 381-393.
Grazian, D., 2004. The production of popular music as a confidence game. Qualitative
Sociology 27, 137–158.
Heckathorn, D.D., Jeffri, J. 2001. Finding the beat. Poetics 28, 307-329.
Hesmondhalgh, D., 1998. The British dance music industry. British Journal of Sociology
49, 234-251.
Higginbotham, E.B., 1993. Righteous Discontent. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Jeffri, J., 2003a. Changing the Beat. NEA Research Division Report #43. Washington,
DC.
Jeffri, J., 2003b. Jazz musicians. Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society 33, 40-51.
Katz-Gerro, T., 2002. Highbrow cultural consumption and class distinction in Italy,
Israel, West Germany, Sweden, and the United States. Social Forces 81, 207-229.
Lacy, K., 2007. Blue-Chip Black. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lamont, M., 1992. Money, Morals, & Manners. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lareau, A., 2002. Invisible inequality. American Sociological Review 67, 747-776.
Lareau, A., Horvat, E.M., 1999. Moments of social inclusion and exclusion. Sociology of
Education 72, 37-53.
Leahy, E., 2007. Not by productivity alone. American Sociological Review 72, 533-561.
Lena, J.C., Peterson, R.A., 2008. Classification as culture. American Sociological Review
73, 697-718.
30
Lopes, P.D., 2002. The Rise of the Jazz Art World. Cambridge University Press, New
York.
MacDonald, R., Wilson, G., 2005. Musical identities of professional jazz musicians.
Psychology of Music 33, 395-417.
MacLeod, B.A., 1993. Club Date Musicians. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
McCall, L., 1992. Does gender fit? Theory and Society 21, 837-867.
Menger, P-M., 1999. Artistic labor markets and careers. Annual Review of Sociology 25,
541-574.
Miller, M., 2009. Bounce: Rap Music and the Social Production of Place in New Orleans.
Unpublished Dissertation. American Studies, Emory University.
Monson, I., 1996. Saying Something. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Negus, K., 1999. Music Genres and Corporate Cultures. Routledge, London.
Phillips, D. J., Owens, D.A., 2004. Incumbents, innovation, and competence. Poetics 32,
281-295.
Prieur, A., Rosenlund, L., Skjott-Larsen, J., 2008. Cultural capital today. Poetics 36, 45-
71.
Radano, R.M., 1993. New Musical Figurations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Rao, H., Monin, P., Durand, R., 2005. Border crossing. American Sociological Review
70, 968-991.
Sandoval, A., 1995. Playing Techniques and Performance Studies for Trumpet. Hal
Leonard.
Schmutz, V., 2005. Retrospective cultural consecration in popular music. American
Behavioral Scientist 48, 1510-1523.
Schmutz, V., 2009. Social and symbolic boundaries in newspaper coverage of music,
1955-2005. Poetics 37, 298-314.
Schuller, G., 1986. Early jazz. Oxford University Press, New York.
Smith, A., 1965 [1776]. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Modern Library, New York.
Sudnow, D., 1978. Ways of the Hand. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
31
Thornton, S., 1996. Club Culture. Wesleyan University Press, Hanover, NH.
Uzzi, B., Spiro, J., 2005. Collaboration and creativity. American Journal of Sociology
111, 447-504.
Walser, R., 1993. Running with the Devil. Wesleyan University Press, Hanover, NH.
Zuckerman, E.W., 2005. Typecasting and generalism in firm and market. Research in the
Sociology of Organizations 23, 171-214.
Zuckerman, E.W, Kim, T-Y., 2003. The critical trade-off. Industrial and Corporate
Change 12, 27-67.
Zuckerman, E.W., Kim, T-Y., Ukanwa, K., von Rittmann, J. 2003. Robust identities or
nonentities? American Journal of Sociology 108, 1018-1074.
Diogo L. Pinheiro is a Ph.D. candidate at Emory University. He specializes in economic
sociology and the sociology of culture. His research focuses on the cultural aspects of
markets, focusing specifically on how sensemaking by individuals and organizations are
shaped by macro-social factors. His dissertation is on the creation and performance of
Country Risk Ratings.
Timothy J. Dowd is associate professor of sociology at Emory University and was
Erasmus Chair for the Humanities at Erasmus University Rotterdam (2007-2008). He
specializes in cultural sociology, with much of his research focusing on such issues as the
construction of the orchestral canon in the U.S., the extent of diversity in popular music,
the careers of musicians, and the state of music sociology.
32
Table 1: OLS logistic regression estimates for income earned by individual
musicians in three metropolitan areas
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Talent Nationally Recognized
(Critical Success)
0.0275
0.0426
0.0349
(0.153)
(0.154)
(0.155)
New York SMSA
1.165*
**
1.063*
**
0.585***
1.211*
**
1.341***
0.432**
0.436**
0.496**
(0.147)
(0.152)
(0.151)
(0.149)
(0.155)
(0.173)
(0.173)
(0.195)
New Orleans SMSA
1.676*
**
1.618*
**
1.309***
1.665*
**
1.671***
0.955***
0.967***
1.033***
(0.187)
(0.187)
(0.178)
(0.188)
(0.186)
(0.182)
(0.182)
(0.187)
Male
0.361*
*
0.408*
*
0.310**
0.393*
*
0.309*
0.175
0.183
0.193
(0.167)
(0.168)
(0.153)
(0.167)
(0.166)
(0.156)
(0.156)
(0.157)
African American
0.104
0.0703
/0.101
0.0820
0.0520
/0.112
/0.132
/0.108
(0.155)
(0.155)
(0.143)
(0.155)
(0.155)
(0.147)
(0.148)
(0.151)
Other Race / Ethnicity
0.0126
0.0024
1
0.0797
0.0345
0.00113
/0.0119
/0.00527
0.0122
(0.207)
(0.205)
(0.187)
(0.206)
(0.205)
(0.184)
(0.184)
(0.185)
Conservatory Training
/0.102
/0.383**
/0.373**
/0.340**
(0.168)
(0.154)
(0.154)
(0.157)
Certificate Program
/0.0574
/0.0783
/0.100
/0.0989
(0.130)
(0.115)
(0.116)
(0.118)
Private Teachers
0.0735
0.0856**
0.0837*
0.0904**
(0.0463
)
(0.0425)
(0.0427)
(0.0431)
Educational Attainment
0.127*
*
/0.0331
/0.0327
/0.0343
(0.0613
(0.0613)
(0.0612)
(0.0629)
33
)
Musical Experience
0.0498
***
0.0453***
0.0598***
0.0580***
(0.0147
)
(0.0140)
(0.0169)
(0.0171)
Number of Musicians Known in
Metro Area
0.00269**
*
0.00215**
*
0.00213**
*
0.00214***
(0.000457)
(0.000465)
(0.000465)
(0.000474)
AFM Member
0.895***
0.859***
0.854***
0.876***
(0.143)
(0.142)
(0.142)
(0.144)
Early Family Encouragement
0.364*
**
0.197
0.202*
0.200
(0.134)
(0.122)
(0.123)
(0.124)
Early Financial Support
0.0624
/0.297
/0.353
/0.343
(0.414)
(0.378)
(0.379)
(0.380)
Technical Generalism
/0.00265
0.00826
0.0299
0.0235
(0.00758)
(0.00812)
(0.0670)
(0.0677)
Aesthetic Generalism
0.00911*
**
0.00602**
0.0282*
0.0295**
(0.00268)
(0.00245)
(0.0148)
(0.0149)
Age
0.0575
0.0544
0.0483
(0.0502)
(0.0503)
(0.0508)
Work marketed
0.487***
0.484***
0.456***
(0.161)
(0.161)
(0.163)
Uses internet
0.472***
0.480***
0.492***
(0.130)
(0.130)
(0.131)
Aesthetic Generalism *
Experience
/0.000843
/0.000882
(0.000558)
(0.000560)
Technical Generalism *
Experience
/0.000898
/0.000564
34
(0.00275)
(0.00278)
Average Genre Centrality
0.326
(0.595)
Average Instrument Centrality
0.928
(0.624)
Constant
7.703*
**
5.507*
**
7.468***
7.510*
**
7.544***
6.097***
5.721***
5.367***
(0.183)
(0.569)
(0.171)
(0.195)
(0.189)
(0.568)
(0.616)
(0.703)
Observations
529
518
503
529
529
467
467
460
R-squared
0.171
0.205
0.328
0.183
0.189
0.394
0.398
0.402
Unstandardized coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. *p <.05,**p < .01; 1-tailed tests.
35
Table 2: Logistic regression estimates for national recognition enjoyed by individual
musicians in three metropolitan areas
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
Income earned as a musician
(Economic Success)
1.029
1.030
1.026
(0.114)
(0.116)
(0.117)
New York SMSA
1.620*
1.802**
1.724*
1.734**
2.228***
3.237***
3.472***
2.585**
(0.435)
(0.520)
(0.525)
(0.477)
(0.654)
(1.318)
(1.463)
(1.220)
New Orleans SMSA
5.589***
6.344***
5.121***
5.695***
6.004***
5.446***
5.952***
5.879***
(1.639)
(1.950)
(1.612)
(1.685)
(1.824)
(2.157)
(2.442)
(2.448)
Male
0.757
0.880
0.712
0.780
0.728
0.807
0.790
0.790
(0.201)
(0.250)
(0.193)
(0.209)
(0.199)
(0.264)
(0.260)
(0.263)
African American
1.184
1.311
1.208
1.154
1.120
1.090
1.154
1.106
(0.300)
(0.344)
(0.318)
(0.293)
(0.290)
(0.342)
(0.366)
(0.356)
Other Race / Ethnicity
1.359
1.446
1.465
1.384
1.360
1.987*
1.985*
1.921*
(0.478)
(0.522)
(0.523)
(0.489)
(0.487)
(0.775)
(0.780)
(0.761)
Conservatory Training
0.695
0.791
0.726
0.726
(0.219)
(0.277)
(0.257)
(0.260)
Certificate Program
1.035
0.888
0.943
0.954
(0.212)
(0.212)
(0.229)
(0.232)
Private Teachers
0.929
0.914
0.912
0.916
(0.0743)
(0.0848)
(0.0856)
(0.0870)
Educational Attainment
1.173
1.265*
1.235
1.221
(0.128)
(0.178)
(0.174)
(0.175)
Musical Experience
1.015
1.031
1.040
1.049
(0.0278)
(0.0334)
(0.0421)
(0.0436)
Number of Musicians Known
in Metro Area
0.999
0.998*
0.998
0.998
36
(0.000915)
(0.00108)
(0.00109)
(0.00109)
AFM Member
1.282
1.378
1.333
1.283
(0.329)
(0.421)
(0.410)
(0.399)
Early Family Encouragement
1.343
1.497
1.535
1.528
(0.300)
(0.396)
(0.410)
(0.412)
Early Financial Support
1.470
0.802
1.035
1.020
(0.902)
(0.714)
(0.929)
(0.919)
Technical Generalism
0.948**
0.920**
1.718**
1.742**
(0.0253)
(0.0319)
(0.407)
(0.414)
Aesthetic Generalism
1.017***
1.015***
0.942*
0.940*
(0.00437)
(0.00511)
(0.0328)
(0.0333)
Age
1.172
1.181
1.182
(0.129)
(0.131)
(0.132)
Work marketed
2.448***
2.386***
2.180**
(0.768)
(0.758)
(0.704)
Internet Use
0.896
0.899
0.931
(0.256)
(0.262)
(0.273)
Aesthetic Generalism *
Experience
1.003**
1.003**
(0.00130)
(0.00132)
Technical Generalism *
Experience
0.976**
0.975***
(0.00954)
(0.00956)
Average Genre Centrality
0.272
(0.355)
Average Instrument
Centrality
0.202
(0.275)
Constant
0.151***
0.0334***
0.166***
0.125***
0.117***
0.00464***
0.00416***
0.0104**
37
(0.0473)
(0.0355)
(0.0542)
(0.0431)
(0.0395)
(0.00724)
(0.00690)
(0.0190)
Observations
572
557
532
572
572
467
467
460
Pseudo R-Squared
0.0669
0.0839
0.0686
0.0707
0.0976
0.150
0.167
0.167
Odds-ratios with z-test in parentheses. *p <.05,**p < .01; 1-tailed tests
38
Table 3. Coefficient and 95% confidence interval for aesthetic generalism in the
critical success models:
Experience value
Coefficient (odds ratio)
Confidence interval
Mean – 1 standard dev.
.9995315
.982241 1.017126
Mean
1.012382
1.001223 1.023666
Mean + 1 standard dev.
1.025398
1.010858 1.040147
TABLE 4: Coefficient and 95% confidence interval for technical generalism in the
national recognition models:
Experience value
Coefficient (odds ratio)
Confidence interval
Mean – 1 standard dev.
1.013829
.9362269 1.097863
mean
.9052946
.8463425 .968353
Mean + 1 standard dev.
.8083793
.7086964 .9220833
