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.