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
