Bob,

My point with the “exclusionary” terminology was really trying to find out if kids are being brought into the jazz fold in order to keep the music alive. Out of curiosity I googled “jazz child prodigy” and found this article:

http://ronanguil.blogspot.com/2010/07/jazz-has-never-been-big-on-child.html

It starts out with this: “Jazz has never been big on child prodigies. Unlike classical music, there have been very few bona-fide child prodigies in the music, or at least ones who made a genuine impact. Classical music has had its fair share of them, and several have successfully made the transition into adult performers of note.”

Bluegrass has several of its own “child prodigies”, but I’ll limit it to 3 people roughly 10 to 30 years apart that are deserving of the term. Mark O’Connor, Chris Thile and Sierra Hull. These 3 people have and still are making an impact on the genre. (Sierra is 21, Chris is 32 and Mark is 51.)

But a musical genre can’t rely on “prodigies” to keep it alive and thriving. But I do believe it’s an indicator of whether or not people are nurturing the kids musical efforts and welcoming them into their fold. That’s why I used the term “exclusionary”.

In a lot of bluegrass jam sessions when the “big dogs” are playing and they notice a wide eyed kid watching and clutching an instrument case, one of the musicians will ask the kid “can you play that thing?” You’ll usually get some variation of “I can play Sally Goodin”. The “big dogs” then turn into the backup band and give the kid a chance to play, even if the kids not a prodigy. The kid goes home and practices like hell because he/she wants to play some more.

It keeps the music alive.

Is there anything like this happening in the jazz world?

Bob
................................
http://soundcloud.com/bobcflatpicke/music-in-the-mountains