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