More than one way of looking at it

"It was something new for me, hard to understand" (Davis, 228). Before this class I saw jazz as a modicum of music, entertainment, and artistry. I saw its history as that of a group of historically discriminated against people coming together to create something amazing from the ashes of a horrific situation. In some ways these ideas have been reinforced for me, but in at least one way- my view has changed drastically. Throughout the course, it has been hinted at that there were many issues at play besides that of racial mistreatment and the consequences it wrought. The quote that begins this commentary is the last sentence in a paragraph from the Miles Davis Autobiography. The first sentence of that same paragraph, however, betrays a very different meaning. "We had our verbal arguments just like all couples have, but that was the first time I had hit her - though it wouldn't be the last" (Davis, 228). Before this class, I assumed that jazz and its history had its most major focus in racial prejudice and what resulted from it. This passage shows a different aspect though- it gives a story of misogyny and mistreatment of women that demonstrates another less known, though just as prevalent type of discrimination pervading jazz throughout its history.

            This prejudice spanned from its beginnings to this day. Women were rarely allowed into the jazz world and when they were, they were extremely limited. Despite making some of the largest contributions, such as Billie Holiday helping to make jazz more acceptable to mass culture and Josephine Baker introducing the tenets of jazz to an international audience, they were continually mistreated and misrepresented. Josephine Baker, for an example, was limited in America to comedy and ugliness because she was neither particularly pretty or light-skinned (Stewart), despite any talents she may have had. When she had become an international star from her dancing in France, it was not for talent but rather for the eroticism she evoked. "Baker’s success in the 1920s was predicated on her appropriation of other, more negative images of Black women" (Stewart). Simply put, the way for a woman to gain success in the jazz world was to either become a caricature or allow oneself to be objectified and eroticized.

            Beyond the ways in which female stars of jazz were portrayed, women that were even on the periphery of the jazz world were mistreated. When many male jazz musicians escaped to Paris for the freedom they were offered there (Shack, 44), they would often take on new lovers while away from their wives. Miles Davis, who admittedly abused his wife, used his music as a justification for doing so (Davis, 228). Interestingly, as jazz progressed through time to be more accepting and accepted, to be more artistic, it also progressed to be less misogynistic. Thelonious Monk is an excellent example of someone who moved away from typical mistreatment of women in the jazz world. He respected his wife (Stewart). Though as Miles Davis shows, not all of the misogyny went away with time. One of the major issues I found in the Miles Davis Autobiography was that despite being one of the best musicians in the jazz world, he openly condoned abusing his wife. This act of sexual discrimination is not alone in the history of jazz, and it was not something I was aware of prior to this course. Though I still see jazz as a beautiful form of artistry and the result of a well-known tragic history and culture, I now also see another, hidden, tragic history concealed beneath it. 

Commented on Neel Sabnis

Art and Community

"With a diversity of people [come] a diversity of cultures" (Kelley, 18). Growing up in a place that offers a large variety of different people, experiences, arts, and cultures is a significant attribute that has helped to build up many of the greatest musicians. But it is not enough to merely have a diversity of cultures to draw from, there also has to be a sense that this diversity is available to the people within it. There has to be a sense of connectedness- a sense of community. A community binds together by transcending race and class (Stewart) and coming together to create new and wonderful things, fostering the talents of those who reside within it.

            Kelley claims that Monk's genius as a musician is related to the community of San Juan Hill and the availability of music and support that existed there. Besides being a place that had "the largest concentration of black musicians in the city" (Kelley, p.19), it was also a place where "every household had an instrument" (Kelley, p.20). It was the sort of place that was open to talent and helped to developed it. It was also a symbiotic relationship in that the community supported the creation of artists and the artists supported the creation of community- a phenomenon that was also witnessed in Leimert Park. Monk's abilities were nurtured by his community, and he then used his art to create community (Stewart).

            Monk would have had very little music in his life if not for the caring of others. When he was a child, a woman gave his family a piano (Kelley, 24), and without this acquisition there is no way to know if Monk's genius as a pianist would have every had the capacity to come out. When his father left, he was "raised by... New York City" (Kelley, 24). Jazz is New York, then, in the sense that jazz helped to create the smaller communities within the city, and these smaller communities nurtured the jazz artists who would later help to define the city.

            This relationship of jazz to the community is very much the same in Leimert Park as in what Kelley outlines. In the documentary of Leimert Park, they talked about how music makes a community come together, binds people together and makes a place feel like home. They talked about how jazz music, art, and poetry have the power to heal people and bring them together in even the worst of circumstances. In these ways, art and community are bound together inextricably. Just as Kelley showed how this relationship is created by a reciprocal need to continue onwards, Leimert Park shows this same aspect.

            I think that the relationship between art and community in which jazz musicians grow up and perform is this interdependence that they have on one another. It seems as though it would be very difficult for one to come to exist without the presence of the other. From the beginnings of jazz in New Orleans, art was created by a community of people coming together to make it happen. And this art, once made, helped to strengthen the community and bring them closer together.

Commented on Jason Ortenberg

Race in the 1930's

"The conditions and prospects faced by African-American and white big bands had never been equivalent, and as swing became profitable business, the disparity between the two groups increased" (Stowe, p.122). Swing was a major shift musically in that it changed the style of jazz. But it also had larger cultural ramifications, as it had previously been a predominantly black art form being produced for a predominantly white audience. Then, in the 1930's, the Great Depression came to the stage and people became more desperate to survive, which made white musicians much more prevalent in this avenue of business. This led to a period of heightened competition between black and white bands in the arena of swing, as negative economic circumstances tend to exacerbate racial tensions (Stewart). These tensions in swing came to be from a combination of factors, such as the economy it came from, the market it created, and the critics who judged it.  

            Those who were the critics of jazz were usually "young white men, typically from privileged social backgrounds [and who] exercised enormous influence in shaping America's understanding of the swing phenomenon" (Stowe, p.52). These white critics became the judges of what was good or bad in jazz, what was better or worse for jazz, and who was superior or inferior at producing it.  Black artists were forced to be the representatives for their entire ethnicity, while white artists were allowed to roam free. Some white band leaders even admitted that their bands were not as good as black bands. They did not have the need to be as good, since their white audiences did not demand it of them (Stewart). Still, some of the critics of this period were fair and were critical of all, judging on talent rather than race- but this did not change the fact that these arbiters themselves were almost exclusively white.

            Race became a much more pressing issue when swing went national in the market. Being white meant that one could obtain the best gigs, recording contracts, booking agents, and festival spots (Stewart). Being white meant that one had more opportunity. The market may have hated everyone in the 1930's due to the economy, but it hated white people the least. "The bulk of swing was controlled by... large corporate booking offices" (Stowe, p.104) who were all run by white agents. And they were, of course, predisposed to prefer booking white musicians. Though some black musicians could pierce through the veil of discrimination underlying everything in the time period, there were  many "systematic causes of racial inequality in the swing industry" (Stowe, p.64). However, swing was also something of a disruptive force in society in that it threw many of the previous ideas of race into disarray.

            Alain Locke made a claim that race is not biological, but rather the definition of one's relationship to power. If this is race, then black musicians where clearly in the disadvantaged group. The more opportunities abounded for white bands to play to white audiences, the easier it became to marginalize black bands.  Swing was something of a racial competition between black and white musicians (Stewart). Despite being a fundamentally black art form (Stowe, p.54), whites were the ones who got to take advantage of the liberties that it granted.

Commented on Leah Bleich

New York in the 1920's

"As in so many other aspects of the history of jazz, the intermingling of musical genres played a critical role in shaping a new idiom, and New York served as the crucible in which this fusion of styles took place" (Gioia, 100). In the 1920's, New York was the most important city to jazz. Though Chicago had much to offer jazz in the way of talent, opportunity, and culture, much of this was limited to the streets of Chicago in a way that did not occur in New York. New York was able to provide jazz with a stage to show that jazz was more than music: it was also song, dance, acting, tapping, and the visual narrative of Black life (Stewart). This led New York to have an astounding influence on shaping what we know as jazz.

            Economic opportunities abounded in the 1920's, creating a large market place for anything and everything, but especially for the fine arts. New York, being a large city hub, was able to access this opportunity for jazz with larger venues and more of them, coupled with a burgeoning audience of people ready and willing to embrace the new music. The major center of this was Harlem. Not everyone welcomed this new emergence in the culture, however, which created a split between the part of Harlem the contained the jazz and the part of 'literary aspirations' (Gioia, 91). Despite the manner in which jazz was created or consumed elsewhere, in New York, a racial disparity existed between the almost always black performers and the predominantly white audience members. Contradictions abounded, but the opportunities that jazz musicians acquired from them are what made jazz in New York what it was.

            Performing at places like the Roseland and the Cotton Club, with predominantly white audiences, changed the way the music was done. However, there were also small cabarets in Harlem where the young musicians could exercise their new skills in jazz (Lyttleton, 102) before moving into the larger arenas. It became less about the individual soloists and more about the group as an entity. This helped to create a new building block of jazz in the form of the section (Gioia, 106). It also assisted in generating big band music. Fletcher Henderson and James P. Johnson were two of the people who benefited from this immensely: they were unlike their predecessors in New Orleans and Chicago, they were well educated, classically trained, and willing to acclimate to a  new audience and a new world. They helped in formulating this new jazz in New York, which was much more performative and therefore much more available for mainstream consumption. Henderson is an excellent example of this new style- he managed an Orchestra Organization, and was the consummate professional big band instrumentalist (Stewart).

            New York had "a different paradigm- more arranged, more harmonically sophisticated" (Gioia, 105) and more inviting for a new array of musicians as well as being more intriguing to an audience outside the city. Henderson, who originally came to New York for work as a chemist, saw this availability of music and jumped into the fray. He helped define the big band sound through the popular currents of the fine arts already existent in the city (Gioia, 102). He was one of the facilitators in the creation of this new brand of jazz. Henderson was one of the pioneers of jazz who helped to make it what it was, and still is to this day. He could not have done it without the opportunity offered to him by this new home of jazz: New York.

Commented on Dalton Klock