Blog #3: Race During the Swing Era

            During the 1930s, jazz became less of a creative art form and more of an economic game. Specifically, this game was a competition between white musicians and black musicians, each fighting for the “financial rewards and cultural respect for mastery of this art form” as Professor Stewart asserts in his “Swing Change” PowerPoint. This competition led to race becoming more explicit in this “Swing Era”.

Jazz music discovered its position in the “mainstream of popular culture” and became an “economic boondoggle” (Professor Stewart). In the previous years, the most talented jazz musician was the most successful; however, during the 1930s, being talented was not enough; a strong acumen in business was equally as pivotal. This was partially due to the fact that the Great Depression was occurring at this time and so economic stability was commonly sought after; however, also was the fact that white musicians and black musicians were equally prevalent and so to be more successful than an opposing musician, one required this business knowledge to be publicly advertised. As a result, the musician would become more popular than others and become more successful as well. This led to race becoming more explicit because, in the past, blacks relied heavily on their talent to be successful, but now they needed to conform to a more business outlook (in which the white musicians had more knowledge) rather than relying solely on talent and creativity. Race was not as important now.

Duke Ellington is a strong example of a black musician who converted to a more business approach by “hiring an agent to mainstream his music” (Professor Stewart). Like Duke Ellington, black musicians became open to “criticism and comments by those who represent[ed] the white audience” that became the majority of listeners (Professor Stewart). This is because, previously, both white and black musicians lacked a high culture of respect as Professor Stewart claims. Black jazz musicians were not considered a part of the Harlem Renaissance by the intellectuals while white musicians were criticized for playing music with black origins. However, the high culture for white and black musicians arrived when Benny Goodman played the Carnegie Hall in 1938 with his black band mates. This “social miscegenation” that Professor Stewart refers to was an integrating factor of jazz into the high culture of whites and blacks, bringing about more racial acceptance.

            The fundamental source of advertisement (for the musicians) and entertainment (for the public) during this time was the radio. One of the most significant aspects of the radio was the fact that it was racially unsegregated, meaning that the listener could not decipher between the differences of a white band and a black band. As a result, the only substantial importance was the sound of the music, not the race of the musicians. Consequently, white and black musicians were equal; they received identical praise regarding respect and popularity. This similar representation through the radio caused race to be more explicit since race was not an issue on the radio. White musicians earned their acclaim when it was deserved as well as black musicians; race no longer affected such opinions, though critics, being majority white, were more critical toward black musicians. Race was more explicit as both were being critiqued by whites and blacks alike though, because of the radio, race was not as defining as the ability of the musician. Also, the criticism of the audience was simply constructive for musicians to favour to their audience’s desires.

            In essence, race became more explicit in the 1930s because it became more obsolete. Jazz became more of an economic pathway as opposed to its previous creative form which caused the more knowledgeable business musician to become popular and successful; race was not an issue. Also, the radio allowed blacks to cross a segregated obstacle, further causing racial difference to become less important. Moreover, the majority white audiences offered criticism so that musicians (white and black alike) could improve. 

Blog#2: Chicago or New York?

           Chicago? Or New York? Just which city was more important to jazz in the 1920s? In contrast to the New York style of jazz, jazz in Chicago became almost a revolution; it became a way of life. Gioia states that, during Chicago’s jazz emergence, “almost anything in fashion would, sooner or later, be classified as jazz” and that no matter how jazz was defined before, whether it was “black jazz, white jazz, hot jazz, sweet jazz, New Orleans jazz, Dixieland jazz”, it would all fuse together and become “Chicago jazz” (77,75).

Chicago jazz focused on improvisation and the creative skills of a musician which allowed for soloists to arise and prosper, such as Louis Armstrong. Armstrong’s virtuoso abilities were unmatched and paved the way for the future of Chicago jazz and jazz in the world as a form of individualistic expression. Rather than weaving lines together, Chicago jazz players would often “battle for supremacy” giving this style of jazz a certain “restless energy” as it diverged from the New Orleans style of jazz that combined blues and ragtime (Gioia 75). In opposition to New York’s primary emphasis on the piano, Chicago jazz concentrated on the brass instruments such as the trumpet and saxophone. Techniques used in Chicago jazz such as the drummer’s “bomb” and ensemble’s “break” both provided the soloist space to accentuate his improvisation and separate from the group and speak through his instrument. Furthermore, distinct to Chicago jazz from New York jazz is the emotional and relatable qualities it expressed; Chicago jazz connected to the audience. It is noted that Louis Armstrong “captured the imagination of both jazz devotees and the general public” which is central to Chicago jazz; there’s a connection to the individual soul of the audience (Gioia 66). Bakhtin suggests that, “the third party is a constitutive aspect of the whole utterance, who, under deeper analysis, can be revealed in it.” In Chicago jazz, the targeted audience is key and jazz musicians had to adapt to the “changing demands of audiences” (Gioia 77). The audience, or third party that Bakhtin is referring to, is fundamental to the Chicago style of jazz.

The audience of Chicago jazz consisted of all races and all classes. In New York, jazz was primarily enjoyed by the lower class blacks and ignored by the Harlem Renaissance intellectuals; in Chicago, however, jazz was a unifying aspect for all citizens of Chicago. A middle class black community emerged from the economic prosperity that Chicago experienced (during its industrial expansion) which created a more balanced society. People of all races began to enjoy more social and recreational activities, dance being one of the most prominent. Jazz, symbolizing individualistic expression and encompassing a vital aliveness and “get-down” quality, was influenced by this increasing popularity of dance and became a pivotal aspect for the dance scene in accordance to its responsive nature. For jazz musicians, Chicago offered a “vibrant local jazz scene” and represented “financial security” due to the everlasting demand for music to dance to and to listen (Gioia 76).

Overall, Chicago jazz was a “timeless style of performance”; people could play it, people could listen to it, people could watch it, people could dance to it, people could live by it (Gioia 74). Chicago jazz was simply not just the “music of a time and place” but, as previously stated, a way of life (Gioia 74). It was all due to Chicago being a center for individualistic expression and its social, economic, and racial conditions. In essence, Chicago was more important to jazz than New York in the 1920s.