Who is Jazz?

            Coming into this course, I had a pretty clearly defined idea of what jazz and it’s history was to me. I was completely and utterly wrong. My skewed view may have come from me being a relatively sheltered child. While most jazz musicians experienced a mixing of peoples and cultures when they were younger, I got a very binary view of the world. There was my culture, and ‘their’ culture. Not to say that I view cultures separate to mine as inferior only that they were not at the forefront of my development.  

            Before this class, I, just like Miles’ teacher at Julliard, thought that “black people played the blues was because they were poor and had to pick cotton. So they were sad and that's where the blues came from, their sadness” (Miles, 59). I didn’t think that white people, or anyone outside of the American south in particular, wanted anything to do with jazz or the blues. Obviously this was a very inconsistent perspective on Jazz history and culture.      

            As we learned over this quarter, jazz was the product of many cultures. French, Mexican, and African just to name a few. Jazz was a brand new aesthetic brought about by a collaboration of cultures spurred on by the rise in technology; had it not been for the advent of the steamboat, New Orleans’s Jazz would not have evolved the way it did. One reason people play the blues is steam, not cotton.

            Not only was jazz a union of cultures in the American south, but it spread far and wide throughout America. New Orleans, Chicago, New York, as well as Kansas City and California left lasting impressions on the history of jazz. The audience of jazz spread far beyond these cities as well. The radio made sure that every corner of America has their jazz fix.

            Prior to this course, I believed that jazz and its history were entirely black. Once again though my assumption proved flase. Through out the course, we have seen people of many races play crucial roles in jazz. The Eighth Regimental Mexican Band who changed the face of New Orleans forever, the white jazz bands in Chicago who emulated their black predecessors to make the first jazz recordings, and the white executives who presided over the spread of jazz as an American craze collectively break the all-black paradigm I had prescribed to the history of jazz.

            The error in my assumptions and notions of jazz and its history can be summed up in a single question: Who is Jazz? Ten weeks ago, I would have very foolishly said that jazz was something that poor, black people from the south played; a creation of racism and slavery. Above, I tried to briefly outline the truth: Jazz was created and consumed by people of all colors and cultures, rich and poor, across the globe.

            Art and culture are tied tightly to the people and cultures that create them. Thus, to truly understand jazz, we must understand who made it, and who continues to make it. Before this class, my limited understanding of jazz, its history and its culture did not allow me to enjoy nor analyze jazz as an aesthetic. Now, because of this course, I have a better understanding of who, and consequently what, jazz is.

Comment: Jacob Weverka

A Violent Kind of Genius

            According to Kelley, the single biggest influence on Monk’s early development was his time spent in the Columbus Hill Neighborhood Center.  While this center allowed kids to take athletics, art and trade classes, it also became the center of social activity for kids on the West Side. This social activity gave the kids in San Juan Hill a sense of community in the face of the violence that plagued the neighborhood.

            This sense of tight-knit community not only affected Monk in the center, but also at home. In the early 1900’s, just before Monk’s arrival, San Juan Hill had a mass exodus to Harlem. This migration brought a mixture of other peoples onto the Hill. The subsequent mixing of cultures influenced Monk’s childhood as he learned music from the Caribbeans and West Indians that lived in his building. “With the music cuisine, dialect and manners of the Caribbean and the American South everywhere in the West 60’s, virtually every kid became sort of a cultural hybrid. Thelonius absorbed Caribbean music” (Thelonius Monk, p.23).

            San Juan Hill also boasted the biggest collection of Black musicians before the Harlem Renaissance. This within the strong community of the Hill brought music and culture to the forefront of Monk’s formative years. His mother “did what she could to introduce her children to the city’s rich cultural life” including bringing a piano into their apartment which Monk immediately learned to play (Thelonious Monk, p.22).

            This is what people mean when they say that jazz is New York. Jazz and art is the product of individuals like Monk, but these individuals are the product of the unique culture that is New York City. The same can be said for the music and art coming out of other tight-knit communities like Leimert Park.

            Both Leimert Park and San Juan Hill are known to be violent places to live. San Juan Hill was known to be one of the most violent neighborhoods in Manhattan. Police expected “at least one small riot on the Hill…each week” (Theolonius Monk, p. 17). This culminated in a ‘race war’ that happened in 1905. Leimert Park in South Central Los Angeles was the site of the Race Riots following the exoneration of the police offers accused of beating Rodney King after a routine traffic stop.

            Leimert Park had other things in common with San Juan Hill during the rise of their artistic production. They had community centers that displayed art, such as 5^th Street Dicks Coffee House and The World Stage. They also have a strong cohesive sense of community that allows them to overcome the violence of their locality. This mutual connectedness was exhibited during the Rodney King riots when a museum of African Artifacts was in danger of burning down and people were rushed to move all the pieces across the street until the danger subsided. Not a single piece of art was stolen that day because, like the people of San Juan Hill, the art and culture was tied to their sense of community. This made the art coming out of Leimert Park more powerful and influential.

            People are products of their communities, but not always in the same vein. Violence, Drugs, and Gangs can draw one person in and force another person to move far away. Similarly, jazz musicians and their community are intertwined. Whether they grew up there, or merely performed there, each community has an impact on the style and mood of a musician’s jazz. To me, there is an inseparable causal relationship between an artist and their community, and jazz is no exception to this rule.

Comment: Neel Sabnis

Race and Swing in the 1930's

            Swing, more than just a style of jazz, was a distinct and influential period in the history of jazz music, as well as American history. This evolution of jazz occurred at an interesting crossroads; it was both on the edge of technologic innovation, while simultaneously on an economic precipice. Swing was beginning in pre-depression America, during the rise of the radio and was then shaped during the biggest economic downturn in the nation’s history. These factors in composite, lead to competition that brought race to forefront of jazz dialogue in the 1930’s.

            Radio, while being an amazing invention for the dissemination of music to most Americans, was a troubling dawn for musicians. Radio became the main mode of music listening for most Americans. “A single band could now entertain countless listeners through the magic of radio” (Gioia, The History of Jazz, p.127). It was this shift in the consumption of music that led to a mini-depression within the jazz community.  “As wages declined and musician unemployment rose, a dozen players could be hired for relatively little” (Gioia, p.128). This downturn lead to the big band style that ultimately became swing music.

            In the 1930’s, a few choice musicians were fulfilling the nation’s supply of jazz music. In this dynamic, the worst thing for jazz would be a mass influx of musician. This is exactly what the recession brought. Just as black musicians in the early 1900’s, more and more white people saw the music industry as a means to escape the lower, working class (Stewart). This forced blacks and whites to compete for the same gigs, putting them at odds and creating a conflict that was soon made about race.

            “Once again, as in other forms of labor, a vicious system keeps the Negro and white in competition, while the inevitable exploiters take advantage of their rivalry” (Swing Changes, p.64). The ‘vicious system’ was a collection of white individuals, mostly agents and radio producers that kept the black musicians and white musicians at odds. The black musicians were seen as superior in their performance of the music, the white musicians superior in all other aspects. This allowed white musicians to have great access to the newly developing middle class white youth market (Stewart).

            These factors molded jazz into an issue of race, and the way information was diffused hardly mitigated this. It was “a small coterie of young white men, typically from a privileged social backgrounds, exercised enormous influence in shaping America’s understanding of the swing phenomenon” (Swing Changes, p.52). It is hard for a group of young white men, in an increasingly tense depression-era America, to be unbiased while speaking on the issue of race. But not all in the white jazz community saw swing as a black versus white struggle.  Swing critic John Hammond said that, “’only by unity between Negros and whites will they be able to survive’” (Swing Changes, p.61).  Hammond believed that this competition between white and black musicians was allowing those who had the means of cultural production to profit from their struggle, while keeping the musicians down.

            Swing was not, and is not, inherently race dividing. Swings temporal proximity to the advent of radio and the great depression brought about a unique set of circumstances that had black and white musicians in competition for jobs, which radio was slowly making unwarranted. This competition was covered by a hardly unbiased, mostly white, press core, which exacerbated the issue of race. I believe, had swing somehow occurred 10 years either side of the 1930’s, race would not have been as prevalent in it’s literature.

Comment: Ethan Mendoza

Chicago: Jazz Center of 1920's

           1920’s Chicago had a unique mix of social, racial, and economic climates that made it a very influential city in the history of jazz, I believe more so than New York.  Many artists, such as Louis Armstrong, played stints in both cities, but Chicago proved to be the most persuasive in the perpetuation and evolution of the jazz style, brought about by the economic, social, and racial attitudes of the Windy City.

            This influence began after World War I when a huge migration of blacks from the south occurred. The boom of mass production plants in Chicago catalyzed this exodus. The sheer volume of this relocation allowed for the proliferation of black culture in the north. Nightclubs like Royal Gardens and the Elite Club allowed black musicians like Armstrong, and Jelly Roll Morton to practice, hone, and display the craft that they learned in the New Orleans style. New York, on the other hand, did not share Chicago’s lenient racial policies. “Classy nightclubs on Chicago’s South Side never had a “for whites only” policy as Harlem’s Cotton Club did.” (An Autobiography of Black Jazz, p. 41)

            “It was in the small, ‘gutbucket’ cabarets in Harlem that the young musicians were able to exercise the skills in jazz-making which they were rapidly acquiring.” (The Best of Jazz, p. 102). The opposite was happening in Chicago. Jazz was spreading among and outside of the black community. The white musicians in Chicago, whether by imitation, appropriation or both, aided in the spread of jazz throughout American culture; “white musicians by the dozen would come out nightly, after they finished their one a.m. gigs at the big downtown clubs and hotels, to hear the new jazz being played at the Lincoln Gardens.” (An Autobiography of Black Jazz, p. 66).

            Chicago also influenced jazz in a negative way. The same clubs that allowed the spread and proliferation on jazz throughout Chicago inhibited the spread beyond its borders. The mobsters who ran these clubs, like Al Capone, did not take kindly to these jazz musicians taking employment elsewhere. “’My brother Al [Capone] and I decided we’re going to keep you boys working regularly, but you can’t work for nobody but us’”(An Autobiography of Jazz, p. 39) was a familiar contract to the jazz musicians of 1920’s Chicago.  

            Along with Louis Armstrong, Chicago jazz had many other notable alumni, namely King Oliver, Bix Beiderbecke (although his mature years were spent in New York), and the Austin High Gang, These artists, while different in background, training, and disposition, all spent formative artistic years in Chicago.

            Arguably the epitome of Chicago Jazz, Louis Armstrong’s Hot Five and Hot Seven recordings, were “very much in the mold of the earlier New Orleans’ ensemble.” “Surely no other body of work in the jazz idiom has been so loved and admired as the results of those celebrated sessions” (Gioia, The History of Jazz, p. 58, 57). While there are notable differences between early New Orleans jazz and this Chicago productions, the similarities in structure and style are too many to say that Chicago represents a clear, distinct new style of jazz.

            As influential as Chicago was, I argue that the “Chicago Style” of jazz is merely an evolution or extension of the New Orleans style. The features that were seen in the jazz coming out of Chicago, a prominent soloist and complex ensemble, are strikingly similar to the characteristics of New Orleans Jazz (Stewart).  The maturation of the musicians, as well as the influence of Chicago’s culture, lead to a slight stylistic change that some interpret as a completely new style. This is merely a progression of the relatively young New Orleans jazz.

Comment: Dalton Klock

New Orleans: Birthplace of Jazz

            New Orleans was uniquely poised to be the birthplace of Jazz because of its “fall from grace” in the middle of the 19^th century. The boom of the New Orleans economy brought about by steamboat trade precipitated a mixing of cultures that would formulate the precursors to Jazz; blues, ragtime, etc. With the advent of the railroad, New Orleans’ status as a trade hub diminished and its economy deflated quickly, with the help of corrupt politicians. Add to this the cities geographic misplacement below sea level, and the corresponding floods brought about mortality rate one and a half times any other American city. (Gioia, 27-29).

            Without New Orleans’ unique geographic position in the Mississippi river delta, the steamboat trade would not have flourished and New Orleans would not have seen the amount of trade from countries in the Caribbean or South America. It was this mixing of cultures that gave rise to the unique music style of jazz. This matchless style of Jazz was the product of a distinctive set of racial and class laws. With the Latin Code forming a creole “middle class”, there came about a jazz style that stressed ensemble interaction with a soloist leader that gave meaning to the entire band (Stewart). This was also a consequence of New Orleans being a city; a place of mass culture while also promoting individualistic expression.

            Gioia discusses and links both New Orleans’ economic crash and its “quasi-mythic history” as a French penal colony to the rise of debauchery that subsequently lead to a prolific prostitution business within the city. Alongside these brothels existed dance halls and clubs, which thrived on the new, hot music of jazz. Paired with the cities constant thirst for music, during fish fries, lawn parties, and even funerals (Gioia, 30), its loose moral culture was the perfect breeding ground for a new music style that would become jazz.

            I would say the Mexican immigrants made a vital contribution to New Orleans jazz. Not only did they introduce new instruments, such as woodwinds and the saxophone, and influence the style of the fore fathers of jazz, but they also deeply changed the face of New Orleans itself. For example, saxophonist Florencio Ramos started the New Orleans musicians union (Johnson, 229). This kind of culture mixing made New Orleans a rare cosmopolitan center of America. This selection of multicultural influences was crucial to the advent of jazz. Without the influence of Mexico, jazz would not be the same music style it was and is today.

            Of all the causes discussed by Gioia, I maintain that the main reason jazz came to fruition in New Orleans was its economic boom following the steamboat trade. Without the steamboat trade, New Orleans would not have become the cultural hub that it did. This economic boom led to the Exposition of 1884, which brought the Mexican influence, as well as many others, to New Orleans (Johnson, 225). Even after its economic fall, the influences of trade rippled through New Orleans culture, playing a crucial role in the formation of jazz.

Comment: Sam Karlin