Soldiers on the Battlefields of War and Style

As Jazz (capitalized to represent the cultural machine, rather than the genre) moved into the Swing Era of the 1930's and 40's, discussions of race became more and more commonplace. Race has, of course, always been involved in the music's evolution–racial tensions were at the heart of the blues, and stride piano grew out of a social landscape that definitively differentiated black urban culture from white–but until this era it was often brushed aside or under the table. From a modern perspective, blacks may have dominated the musical scene since the "race record" took hold, but for many years the conversation of race was simply not on the table. I think that there are two reasons for this:

First off, black America was getting a much stronger political grip. During and after World War I, blacks began to experience the world much more than they ever had since the Emancipation. Blacks who served as soldiers soon realized the freedom available to them. Shack says it best: "The philosophy of war entailed a double meaning for black soldiers: freedom abroad; freedom at home...This philosophy was to repeat itself, instilling patriotism in black soldiers responding to the call to arms a generation later"(Shack). Throughout the 1920's and 30's, Paris became a popular destination for black jazz musicians because it offered escape from (or at least reduction of) discrimination. This was huge. Throughout these two decades, the black cause for equality grew stronger because of this real example of an attainable standard. What had previously been accepted as a sad but true status quo was shot down because of the black exposure to equality in Europe. It is easy to see how black political efforts must have increased: the European example fueled desire, and this desire sparked more dialogues. By the 1930's, the norm was no longer hopeless inequity, but rather a growing battlefield of rights.

Once the wars got the ball rolling, it was the work of individuals on the home front that made the difference. But it was not necessarily black activists who brought up the conversations about race–often it was the work of critics. One such critic, John Hammond, serves as a perfect example of how people on either side of the racial divide could have sparked racial dialogue in Jazz. Hammond, a critic and producer, was an influential voice in the Jazz sphere, sometimes driving hundreds of miles in a night to follow the ever-shifting center of Jazz culture. But on top of that, he was a political radical who campaigned and lobbied for numerous causes, as evidenced in Swing Changes: "By 1941 Hammond had had also joined the National Committee for People's Rights; he was a sponsor of the American Council on Soviet Relations and of Russian War Relief, Inc.; he was a guest of honor at the American Peace Mobilization Testimonial Dinner for Vito Marcantonio and at the Fourth American Writers' Congress and Congress of the Artists' Front to Win the War..."(Swing Changes, 62). Hammond saw political involvement as a necessity for responsible Americans. This had two effects. First, by seeing race relations as a political reality rather than an idealistic battleground, Hammond dedicated himself to a variety of discussions on race. Being an influential figure in the Jazz world, his actions prompted others to do the same. Second, his opinions on the necessity of political activism prompted him to "call out" any artists who did not take some political stand for their side of this political issue–in 1935 he published an article that criticized Duke Ellington's apparent apathy toward race issues. Nobody who was anybody could escape the debate with critics like Hammond regulating their involvement.

In conclusion, it's easy to see how the heightened racial dialogue of the Swing Era came about through both large-scale social phenomena as well as the work of some powerful individuals. But in a much larger sense, I believe this effect occurred simply because black culture and music needed time to develop and ascend. Even if there had been no world wars or political critics, the issue of race relations would have entered into Jazz discussions, albeit much later and much less excitingly.


Commented on Connor Way's blog.

Post 2–War in the North: Chicago vs New York

With the 1917 closing of New Orleans' Storyville, referred to by its residents as "The District", the American black diaspora was absolutely undeniable. The stubborn were finally evicted and spread north to join the rest of the Great Migration. Their destinations were all the northern cities with thriving industries and demand for cheap labor, but of those destinations two would be remembered as thriving jazz centers: Chicago, IL and New York City, NY. The beginnings of this diaspora introduced variation in black culture to extents that had never been seen in the homogeneous South, and these differences remained true between these two jazz playgrounds. However, in my opinion, one city reigned strongest throughout the 1920's: Chicago.
Chicago jazz's origins in struggle highlight some of its strengths. When migrating blacks arrived in Chicago expecting a land of new opportunities, they soon realized that this industrial and economic gold mine was not without dark, dangerous turns. As we saw in "The City" and "You Are Going To Be More Than Me," the black urban lifestyle, though free of Jim Crow laws and the blatant racism of the south, was wrought with new economic struggles and the paradoxical isolation that comes with living in a dense population. Coupled with long, intense hours of backbreaking labor, this existence provided a perfect environment for a new style of blues, grown out of southern tradition but hardened and darkened by the complexities of urban life. This dark turn, while detrimental to the people living it, advanced the art itself by putting raw emotion and meaning behind the notes that cut deep enough to be remembered long into the future. Contrasted with the more dance-oriented playing of New York, I think the blues influence of Chicago reigns superior because of this emotional quality that all blacks could relate to.
The atmosphere of the typical Chicago jazz venue helped it along as well. Chicago was dominated by a club scene, where alcohol (then illegal) flowed as fast as breath through a cornet. These clubs were truly a two-edged sword to the blacks performers: while a contract at the Lincoln Gardens or the Cotton Club guaranteed employment and popularity, it also limited mobility. Mobs flocked these clubs, attracted by the potential to violate prohibition, and often seized control of musicians through manipulating contracts. However, at the same time this allowed much more exposure for black artists. Though many white artists "stole" music from blacks, as we saw in "You Are Going To Be More Than Me" (one white musician actually sent her maid to copy a song from Alberta Hunter), this did, in the end, result in collaborative efforts on both sides of the racial divide. And though it was not a consensual collaboration that benefitted both sides, the argument here is about which city was more influential to jazz, not which was more benevolent to musicians. The club scene allowed musicians of all types and all skill levels to view the jazz sphere from an intimate distance. This differed somewhat from the Harlem style of collaboration. Most music was danceable, with emphasis on raggy-sounding stride piano, and was usually played at rent parties and neighborhood gatherings. But the attitude was different. These parties sought to block out negative emotions rather than embrace them, and spatial limitations of small apartments limited their reach. In the end, the Chicago club scene provided a much wider-reaching playground that fostered a more inclusive developmental environment.
This Chicago style can be heard through many great artists. Some, like Louis Armstrong, moved around often, so one must be careful to take into account time as well as name when listening for geographical influence. But it's fairly safe to say that the duo of King Oliver and Louis Armstrong exemplified the Chicago style in their collaborations as the Creole Jazz Band. There, they brought their familiarity with southern blues to the table and created some wonderful recordings that truly exemplify the style of Chicago jazz. In fact, any of the musicians popular in the club scene would do just fine: Duke Ellington, Earl Hines, and George Dixon exemplify this style as well. Finally, the later hit song of McKenzie and Codon's Chicagoans "Nobody's Sweetheart" shows the influence of the 1920's style a few years down the road. Recorded in 1927, its sound shows how the members of the band had been affected by earlier innovators in Chicago through a bit of musical analysis. One can clearly see the trademark techniques of various older artists in the play style of the new band.
It's this sort of anecdote that shows just how influential the Chicago style was in making the jazz we know now. In short, it was the perfect blend of circumstance, collaboration, and exposure that puts Chicago's influence above that of New York in 1920's jazz.

Commented on Colleen McGee.