My Perceptions About Jazz

Jazz is more than just music; it is its own culture. I have been interested in and listening to jazz for the past four and a half years, and played jazz for the past three years. Even though I listened to, and played jazz on a regular basis, I actually knew very little about what it really is. I had played music written by most of the musicians we discussed, and knew all of the different styles, New Orleans, Chicago, ragtime, stride piano, blues, et cetera. Even though I knew the musicians, styles, and sounds, I now understand that I did not actually know much about jazz.

I had never actually thought about jazz as anything other than music, never realized that the culture and history behind jazz was what really drove the music. This class has shown me that not only is culture important to jazz, jazz is actually inseparable from the cultures that developed it. Stride piano would never have developed in the way it did if it was not for rent parties in Harlem. Chicago jazz would not have emerged if it was not for the mobsters who controlled the city. Swing only became popular because people wanted something they could dance to during and after the depression. None of the styles I know and love would have emerged or developed if it was not for the culture behind them.

Taking History of Jazz also taught me a lot about the individual musicians. Before taking the class, I knew what the musicians played, but I didn’t know anything about them as people. Knowing what the musicians lived through added new depth to the music. I had no idea that Miles Davis was from a successful family, or that he had a strong education from both Julliard and from the streets, through Bird and Gillespie. Knowing about his background helped me understand his style, and his ability to reinvent bebop, and create his own styles. Knowing about Thelonious Monk’s mental disabilities helped explain the unique chord progressions and dissonance that he was able to use in ways that no one else ever could. I knew that these musicians were geniuses, and I knew how they played, but before this class I would never have guessed why.

I thought I knew something about jazz before I took this class, but I did not actually know jazz, I just knew the notes and rhythms. Learning about the cultures behind each style of jazz helped me understand why jazz is the way it is. Before I took this class, different styles of jazz were simply people playing in different ways. Now I understand that they were playing for different people and different reasons, which led to the creation of these different styles. Knowing the lives of the musicians helped me understand the angle they came from with the music, and enabled me to fully appreciate the music on a different level. When I listen to Duke Ellington, I can now see racial tensions, and the showmanship needed for the Cotton Club in the music, whereas before I heard nothing but notes and rhythms. My newly acquired knowledge about the history of jazz has changed the way that I listen to my music and enabled me to enjoy jazz on a level that I had never expected to before.

Alternative Masculinity in the 1950's

During the 1950’s most of America lived in a state of normalcy, and standard life styles. It was “the age of the grey flannel suit, suburbia, and other sterile forces” (Mailer 1957). However, even in this age of standardized suburban lifestyles, there were still those who went against the social norm. Perhaps the best examples of people who go against society’s norms in the 50’s are jazz musicians such as Charlie Parker and Thelonious Monk. According to Mailer these jazz musicians offered an alternative model of masculinity in these times.

In order to understand Mailers statement we need to first understand what he means by masculinity. In “The White Negro” Mailer elaborates about how those who go against society are hipsters, and they are only interested in themselves and bodily pleasures. He says that hipsters seek love as “as the search for an orgasm more apocalyptic than the one which preceded it” and later says that “jazz is orgasm” (Mailer 1957). This leads to the impression that Mailer sees jazz musicians as a major part of the hipster community. When Mailer talks about a new masculinity in the country, he is talking about these hipsters who go against the social norms.

Charlie Parker Is the embodiment of everything that Mailer describes when he talks about hipsters. Charlie Parker was a heroin addict, who abused women and used them for his pleasure. In Mile Davis’ autobiography, Miles describes how Charlie Parker received oral sex in the back seat of a taxi while eating chicken and high on heroin, even though Miles was in the seat next to him (Miles 1989). Not only did Charlie Parker go against social norms in his methods of indulging himself, he also went against social norms when it came to music. Charlie Parker both lived his life, and played his music how he wanted, not how society told him to, and because of this he became an icon of independence and gave rise to this new type of masculinity in the 50’s.

On the other hand, Thelonious Monk went very strongly against the social norms in his music, but not as much so in his social life. Thelonious Monk helped create bebop, and filled his music with disjoint rhythms, and dissonant chords. His music was unique and became on icon of change and the hip movement, even though Monk himself did not base himself around physical pleasures in the way that Mailer says hipsters live.

Monk and Parker did exhibit the new masculinity that Mailer describes in “The White Negro”, Monk through his music and Parker through both his music and his life. Because of their lifestyles and music they became icons to much of America after World War Two. However, it should be noted that this is nothing new for jazz. When jazz first started, it was played in brothels and jazz has always thrived in areas where social vice ran rampart (Storyville, Chicago and Kansas City while under mob control). If anyone was to go against social norms, and live a life based around physical pleasure, it would be expected for that person to be part of the jazz scene. So yes Charlie Parker and Thelonious Monk were social icons, and they did live their lives in contrast with social norms, but when one considers the background of jazz, it would be more surprising if jazz musicians and followers went along with the social norms of this time than against them. The new masculinity that jazz musicians embodied was more of a property of jazz than of the musicians.

Jazz in the 30’s: The Rise of Racial Tension

There have always been racial tensions in the world of jazz. There was racial tension between the creoles and blacks in New Orleans, tension in Chicago from the mob bosses controlling the lives of the musicians, and racial tension in New York from the segregation in the clubs. However, even though there was racial tension throughout the history of jazz, it was never a serious issue until the 1930’s. There were three major reasons for the increase of racial tensions in jazz: the high unemployment due to the depression, the increase in the number of white musicians as jazz became main stream, and new technology that changed the way the people listened to music.

Since coming to America, blacks had been treated as inferior to whites. They started as slaves, and even after gaining their freedom, were never really given equal rights. In spite of not having equal rights, after being freed the living conditions of African Americans in America was slowly increasing (or at least remaining constant), so they did not see a need to complain. Even if they did not have the opportunities of the white counterparts, at least they were free, were able to get some jobs, and had the right to vote; a significant improvement over slavery.

This changed after World War 1. During World War 1 the economy in the U.S. exploded, especially in the north. This led to a mass migration of blacks to the north where they were able to improve the quality of their lives. The problem is that after WWI when the depression hit there were no longer extra jobs available in the north, so white people took most of the jobs back from the blacks. As the economy collapsed, blacks lost most of the jobs that were previously available to them. This felt like a step down to them, which led to increased racial tensions.

Jazz also became much more main stream in the 1930’s. According to Gioia “if jazz ever enjoyed a golden age this would be it…Never again would popular music be so jazzy or jazz music be so popular”. This increase in popularity (possibly along with the simpler style of swing) led to the rise of more white jazz musicians, such as Benny Goodman and Glenn Miller, and white critics, such as John Hammond. Although white jazz musicians had been around for quite a while (The Original Dixieland Jazz Band), the rise in prominence of white musicians in a previously African American style contributed to racial tensions.

The final reason for the increase in racial tensions in the 1930’s was the development of new ways to listen to jazz. In the 30’s live jazz declined, and most jazz was either heard on the radio or over records. For the most part, white people had better access to both radio shows and record companies, and because of this they had an easier time in the jazz industry. Since it was harder for blacks to get on the radio, the number of black jazz musicians declined. Many popular black musicians (such as Billie Holiday) were only able to become popular with the help of John Hammond, and musicians such as Duke Ellington suffered because of his criticisms. The ability of white men to control which black musicians were heard/successful caused tensions between the races. There had been racial tension since the start of jazz; it just became a more prominent issue due an evolving society that was going through a depression, the rise in its popularity, and new the new technology of the 30’s.

New York: The Center of Jazz on the 20’s

In the 1920’s the development of jazz took place in two different cities: Chicago and New York. Even though jazz was prominent in both of these cities, most of the development in jazz occurred in New York. This is mostly because of the variety of jazz, both in style and types of gigs, in New York, as opposed to the fairly monotonous (style-wise) Chicago. What was so special about New York jazz was that there was no specific style. It was the diversities of style that made New York important in the development of jazz, and because of this, no one band or individual can represent New York jazz.

Style in Chicago was not limited by the musicians, but rather by the men they worked for. In “The Jazz Slave Masters” Travis, D. J. talks about how Al Capone had complete control over the musicians in Chicago, saying “Capone said ‘Lucky, don’t forget. Take this hundred dollar tip and go play my favorite song’”, and “the three of us jumped into my little Ford and headed back to Chicago. The mob, through intimidation and organization, had things so well-regulated we could not even change jobs’”. This shows that even though musicians in Chicago had their livelihood protected, they were not able to choose what or where they wanted to play. This inability to choose what they wanted to play severely inhibited the development of jazz in Chicago. This lead to Chicago jazz remaining mostly solo-based and upbeat, without evolution, which is why New York was more important for jazz in the 20’s.

Even though New York also had a strong mob influence, in New York there were several different jazz scenes for the music to develop. In Chicago, the mobsters controlled the entire jazz scene, but in New York jazz developed in black clubs, white clubs, and underground parties. This led to the creation of several different styles of jazz in New York. Stride Piano developed in the underground “rent parties” with players such as Willie the Lion Smith, and a new cutthroat, boisterous style. Willie the Lion Smith “epitomized a new breed of jazz player” and he made his reputation “in backrooms and private gatherings” (Gioia pg. 98). In these backrooms, players would compete against each other for the ‘crown’ or title as the best pianist around.

On the other hand, players such Duke Ellington and Fletcher Henderson were instrumental in the development of big band jazz, with its large ensembles and group focus. Duke Ellington played at the Cotton Club; it was “The Carnegie Hall for those who could not perform at Carnegie Hall” (Gioia pg. 125). His audience was white only, but it gave him the most prestige and the most opportunities of any job available. Gioia even says that Fletcher received his inspiration for developing big band jazz “not from New Orleans or Chicago jazz” but rather from the “music and dance that was sweeping New York”.

There was also a large variety of education in New York, which may have helped lead to this variety. Duke Ellington was middle class and received a formal education and said himself that he was “pampered and pampered, and spoiled rotten” (Gioia pg. 118). On the other hand, Willie the Lion Smith came from a less successful family, and even joined the military for a time (allaboutjazz.com).

The differences in education, venues, line-ups, and playing styles that can be found in New York made it the most important city for jazz. The differences in styles in the 20’s would eventually lead to the development of new styles, such as swing, and a larger focus on big bands, having an effect that Chicago never will. Even though Chicago had the players and talent, it did not have the diversity, or the influence of New York.

New Orleans and the Roots of Jazz

New Orleans is the birthplace of many great American innovations, but I am only going to talk about one of them: jazz. Jazz was able to develop and flourish in New Orleans for many reasons, but the most important reason for jazz’s success specifically in New Orleans was the racial diversity. Specifically, it was the tolerance that came from this diversity. Sure, people in New Orleans still had slaves, and they defiantly were not going to give people of color equal rights, but they gave them a little bit more freedom and respect, which is all that was needed. In most of the country, if a white man had a half-black child, social stigma would force him to deny all claims to the child, but in New Orleans this was not the case. In New Orleans creoles were given a much higher social standing. In New Orleans they understood that even slaves needed to enjoy themselves once in a while, and they were given access to Congo Square.

It is great that New Orleans had more ethnic diversity, and that this let them appreciate other races more, but what does this have to do with jazz? Couldn’t jazz have developed even without the help of Caucasian slave owners? No, it couldn’t. This is because jazz is not a purely African form of music. Jazz started as both blues and ragtime, and evolved and merged into what it is today. Ragtime in particular is strongly based off of more traditional European music. Jazz could never have formed without European influences on African music. This, combined with American innovation, is jazz.

This still does not fully explain how European and African musical traditions were able to mix in New Orleans. It actually happened due to the raising in status of the black man when slavery was abolished, and the corresponding fall from grace of the Creole. Creoles used to consider themselves as superior to their full-African counter parts, but by the end of the 19^th century the rest of the city did not seem them this way. They had maintained strong European roots and traditions, and they were now on the same level as the recently freed slaves. This forced interaction between the two groups, and lead to the European culture/music of the creoles and the African culture/music from the slaves to mix, and influence each other. If it was not for this forced mixing of cultures, and for the comparative freedom that slaves had in New Orleans before this (Congo Square), jazz would not have developed in the way that it did. This is why the melting-pot of cultures that is New Orleans is the mother of jazz.