Regarding the former, the amount of jazz programming on NPR stations seems to be shrinking;  as federal funding (via the National Endowment for the Arts) shrinks, stations become more reliant on listener's pledges or corporate sponsorship, and therefore the programming mix becomes more market-driven.  News and discussion shows seem to be claiming more broadcast hours at the expense of jazz.

Regarding the latter, lets take a look at how jazz programming on public stations has evolved over the past decade or so.  The end of the 90s - as compared to the 80s - is a far more corporate environment for music in the USA. A decade ago, radio stations let listeners decide what touched their hearts; DJs had their own personalities. You'd pick a DJ the way you picked a friend;  one liked Miles Davis, another liked David Sanborn, a third liked Michael Brecker.

Much has changed. Today you'll hear the monotony of drum machines; today you'll hear the same 20 tunes played over and again; today the choices are severely restricted and, as a result, the musical culture lacks the rich variety we once enjoyed.  Corporate control is hampering that creativity and limiting the outlets. As with many other types of businesses in America, more radio stations today tend to be owned by larger holding companies, rather than being independently owned, operated, and programmed. Programming decisions are made on the basis of what will secure the largest possible market share, and therefore, advertising revenue.  While I will readily acknowledge that it takes money to operate a radio station, and the station owners have a right to a return on their investment, it seems that fewer and fewer stations exist which are dedicated primarily to preserving and promoting music as art for its own sake.

If you travel across the country, you will soon discover that you can scan the radio dial and find a "smooth jazz" station.  And chances are, you'll hear exactly the same songs played on each station.  What's the reason for all of this remarkable synergy and uniformity?  It's simply that most stations no longer make their own programming decisions;  they subscribe to a format that has been developed for them by a company called Broadcast Architecture.

Broadcast Architecture is an organization who’s sole purpose is to spoon feed the public what they have "scientifically" proven to be music that gets high ratings for radio programmers and their respective stations around the United States of America. And it's not limited to jazz.  They decide the fate of a recording based on a scale from one to one hundred. They then select the music that scores a 70 or higher and begin to construct a list which is then sold to the radio station/programmer.   Any music that does not appear on the list is forbidden air time by the programmer and thus never heard on radio. This scientific study process is called Market Testing.

It's used in testing all kinds of products such as household cleaners, packaged food products, and restaurant menus. This is a reasonable approach when it comes to consumer commodities.  But it seems as though music is now being treated as a commodity as well, rather than as an art form.  It used to be that very knowledgeable and creative DJs had the latitude to play a wide variety of music and turn us on to new artists, new albums, and new sounds.  Today's DJs have been creatively handcuffed, and the only qualifications for the position seem to be the ability to read a playlist and inject some personality into their patter.

This entire process, designed and implemented by Broadcast Architecture, seems cold and heartless, considering that music has so many variables and presses so many emotional buttons.  Besides, music is meant to soothe or passionately excite someone in a totally different way than floor cleaner can!

This unemotional process of elimination by a committee ends up serving the radio listener a low calorie listening diet, thus creating a situation where the listeners of these "Wave," "Quiet Storm," or "Smooth Jazz" stations are subjected to this bleak format and fall prey to the whims of Broadcast Architecture.   Listeners become musically anorexic and their minds become creatively atrophied.   Worse, it is producing a generation of people for whom "jazz" means nothing more than Kenny G, Richard Elliot, Boney James, Rick Braun, etc.

I rarely listen to my local "smooth jazz" station anymore, because a larger and larger percentage of the playlist is now comprised of music that can't be considered any kind of jazz, by any stretch of the imagination!  Artists such as the Police, Bonnie Raitt, the Doobie Brothers, and Annie Lennox (to name only a few) are certainly good musicians who produce worthwhile music, but I seriously doubt that any of them would consider themselves as jazz musicians.  Much of what is on today's smooth jazz playlists fits better into the R&B, pop, soft rock, and new age genres.   Again, I don't mean to criticize the music, but I object in principle to it being called "jazz," and when I tune into an allegedly jazz radio station, I want to hear jazz!

So, there's the problem, as I see it.  But what's the solution?   I have a few to propose that I will offer in next month's column.  I would also like to hear some potential solutions from readers;  I'll print a sampling of the responses I receive.  Please send your thoughts to me at jazz_fanatic@hotmail.com, on or before Friday, September 24, 1999.

(Parts of this column were taken from an article written by a well known jazz musician and producer for a jazz magazine in Italy.  I have withheld his name at his request, since he depends on the hope of getting his music heard on the radio for his livelihood and fears retribution.)