Assumptions before and after this course

                I thought this would be an interesting course to take as I have played the alto saxophone since the fifth grade. I joined my middle school jazz band in seventh grade, and ended up playing jazz all throughout high school. That being said, I had a very rough knowledge as to where this style of music I had played for six years actually came from at the beginning of this course. I knew of some modern artists, I knew of many saxophone legends from Bird to Eric Marienthal, I knew jazz had something to do with New Orleans, but I didn’t know why or how jazz first emerged and developed into the form I was familiar with. I walked into the first lecture thinking that the class would probably focus on jazz in the 1920s to the 1930s with Bird and Gillespie, since that was what I knew the most about. Looking back, I had no idea how complex and intricate the development of jazz was.

                As a jazz player, I was familiar with the fundamental concepts of the art, such as call and response, improvisation, syncopation, and other techniques. I had figured that these concepts were always an essential part of jazz and never put much thought into where they came from. From this course, I learned that many of these techniques were developed apart from each other and only came together when jazz began to gain more popularity. I did not know that call and response dated way back to the late 1800s with the slave trade in New Orleans. The work songs slaves would sing featured this technique and would eventually lead to the development of the blues. From the blues came even more concepts known in jazz today, and was one of the first types of music to feature vocalists singing with “jazz” instruments in the background. Another fundamental I was very familiar with was improvisation. I figured that, since improv is such a big part of jazz that it was just inherent to jazz. Little did I know that much of the early forms of jazz, from ragtime to blues to swing, were scripted and featured very little room for soloing. From lecture I learned that improv was heavily developed in New York in the early 1900s as a way for stride pianists, such as James P. Johnson and Willie “The Lion” Smith, to maintain interest in their music. If these pianists didn’t react and come up with new, exciting material on the spot during their “cutting contests” at rent parties, people would lose interest in their playing and they would lose money. I had no idea that improv developed out of necessity for musicians to stay “in” with their listeners. These and many other fundamentals of jazz I took for granted for six years finally began to show their importance to the development of jazz through this class.

                This class also broadened my grasp on who contributed to the development of jazz. I had naively thought jazz gained popularity from only a few musicians, namely Bird and Gillespie with their creation of bebop. I did not realize that jazz began in New Orleans, spread to Chicago and New York, then to the rest of the country because of the large community of jazz musicians and listeners that promoted jazz over the course of many, many years. Sure, I knew names like Miles Davis, Louis Armstrong, and Thelonious Monk, but I couldn’t fathom how much each contributed to the development of jazz. There was so much I didn’t know – Armstrong’s trek through the “big three” cities in jazz and his creation of swing, King Oliver’s influence on all other jazz bands during his time, Duke Ellington’s contributions to jazz despite the controversial race tensions he was presented with…

                Coming in to this class, I thought I knew a decent amount about the history of jazz. Through this class, I discovered how wrong I was and learned not only the roots of jazz, but the social, economic, and historical conditions that influenced the way in which jazz was developed. I finally received some context for some of the big names I had heard before and found out what each musician had to offer to jazz during their time. I am really glad I decided to take this class and feel that I now have a much better understanding of the history of jazz than I had at the beginning of the course.

Monk - Transcending Traditional Politics

                The life of a black person living in Harlem in the early twentieth century was not an especially easy one. In order to provide her children with the opportunity for a better life, Barbara Monk boldly left her husband and moved to San Juan in 1922 with her three children. During this time, racial tensions not only between whites and blacks, but also between Southern and Caribbean blacks, were largely prevalent in day to day life. Kelley states that “San Juan Hill’s reputation as a violent community was as strong as ever by the time the Monks settled there” (Kelley, 19). Despite these unsettling tensions, Thelonious Monk worked with the hand he was dealt, made the best of his surroundings, and tried to celebrate the art of music by disassociating his music with politics.

                When Monk was around eleven years old, his family acquired a free piano and, not wanting to let it go to waste, learned how to play. As he got older, Monk noticed the racial tensions around him and noted that “besides fighting the ofays, you had to fight each other. You go in the next block and you’re in another country” (Kelley, 19). In his high school years, Monk joined the Columbus Hill Neighborhood Center, the “true center of social life for black youth in the neighborhood” (Kelley, 28). Monk and his sister enthusiastically participated in different activities at the center, which helped to develop Monk both as a person and a musician. The center and other venues in his hometown would actively hold competitions for music, encouraging the local youth to take an interest in music. This was an opportune environment for Monk to grow up in. The community around him promoted and nurtured art. This idea of celebrating the beauty of art and music, rather than its political implications, stuck with Monk and can be seen in his philosophies later in life.

                Monk’s thoughts on the correlation between music and racial politics were recorded in an interview with jazz critic Frank Brown. Monk stated that “my music is not a social comment on discrimination or poverty or the like. I would have written the same way even if I had not been a Negro” (Kelley, 249). Here Monk expresses his views of music as an art form, rather than a collage of political statements. Monk had a tendency to disassociate being white or black with racial issues that would pop up in his life. When a friend of his expressed that he was sick of whites calling him “boy,” Monk responded that it “ain’t no drag, Larry, ‘cause everybody wants to be young” (Kelley, 417). Monk took race out of the equation with his friend, and simplified the racial issue to a matter of age envy. His ignorance of race came up again in 1951 when he was arrested and had his cabaret card pulled by the NYPD. Monk was driving with his friends Nica and Rouse when they stopped at a hotel in Delaware, where the Jim Crow laws still prevailed, to get a glass of water. The hotel owner’s wife felt threatened by Monk’s presence and called the cops, who promptly arrived and ordered Monk to exit his car. Monk stubbornly refused and ended up being beaten by the cops and taken to jail. Even in court, Monk refused to acknowledge authority and tried to do the opposite of what anyone told him to do. Rouse recalled that “if they told him to sit down, he stood up, if they told him to say something, he said nothing” (Kelley, 254). Even though Monk understood that he was in a bad area for blacks, he refused to give in simply because the whites thought they could assert authority over blacks. This is a prime example of Monk’s unwillingness to acknowledge political tensions between whites and blacks. He simply wanted to live life and make music for all to enjoy, regardless of color.

                Monk grew up in a community that nurtured and rewarded art, and tried to do the same with his musical career. He didn’t put much thought into the racial tensions he grew up with and tried to give his music to the community to enjoy. Even when he was arrested for simply stopping in area that didn’t take kindly to blacks, Monk tried to transcend traditional racial politics by not conforming to popular opinion. Monk was one of the few musicians who made music simply for enjoyment with no monetary or political motives in mind, even though the Civil Right movement was blossoming around him. 

Racial Barriers in Jazz

     Ever since the first outbreaks of the jazz form in New Orleans in the late 1800s, race had always been an underlying issue. In New Orleans, there was a tension between both slaves and their masters and between blacks and Creoles. In Chicago, there was a clear divide between the black southern side and the mostly white northern side. In New York, there were two Harlems with two very different racial compositions. Although there had always been this racial tension since jazz was created, it was never really explicitly talked about and never became a prominent national issue. However, as America entered the 1930s and the economy began to fall, the racial implications that came with jazz gained much publicity as jazz became more widespread.

     By the 1930s, jazz had spread throughout most of the nation due to the invention of the radio and the development of popular jazz magazines such as “Down Beat” magazine. People could now listen to jazz from the comfort of their home, rather than go out to a club. While good news for the jazz industry as a whole, many musicians suffered from this new “convenience.” As less people were going out to clubs, competition for air-time on the radio became fierce. Instead of having many different bands to choose from, a very few number of bands dominated the radio. Blacks were typically thought to have the edge over whites in jazz, but by 1935, some people could no longer distinguish between white and black bands. As a result, competition between whites and blacks become even more serious, and presented new racial issues.

     As jazz gained popularity from the radio, more and more critics began to analyze jazz. Race in jazz had been looked over in the past, but with the industry growing, these critics finally had to address it. One such critic, John Hammond, was one of the most prominent writers who looked at the correlation between race and jazz. Hammond was associated with the Vanderbilts and had acquired a large trust fund at a young age. He later became a jazz enthusiast and used his money to promote lesser known musicians he would encounter in night clubs, such as Benny Goodman, Billie Holiday, Count Basie, and many others. Hammond was also an advocate of racial equality, and asserted that “only by unity between Negros and whites will they be able to survive and flourish” (Swing Changes, 61). Hammond pushed for one of the first instances of integrating jazz when he hired a black pianist, Teddy Wilson, to play in Benny Goodman’s band. Down Beat magazine praised Hammond’s actions and wrote an article saying “that regardless of race, creed or color we are all Americans, and that as Americans we are all free and equal” (Swing Changes, 75). Not only did Hammond push for integration of jazz bands, but he also criticized those who did nothing to stop it. Duke Ellington, who played at the whites-only “Cotton Club,” became Hammond’s biggest target. Hammond said that Duke had “shut his eyes to the abuses being heaped upon his race and his original class.” While some think jazz is just a form of entertainment, it is clear that it was much more than that. Jazz had begun to make people question the racial barriers in society and to think about integration.

     While race had always been an underlying issue in jazz, it can be clearly seen why the issue became explicitly written and talked about during the swing era in the 1930s. More critics meant more chances for someone to finally bring up the obvious segregation of jazz bands. Since the issue was finally being talked about, the first steps towards fixing them could finally be taken. As people tried to bring equality to the music industry, other groups started to push for equal rights in society as well. While jazz did not single-handedly bring about the beginnings of the civil rights movement, it certainly did help people begin to think about racial barriers and how to break them.

New York, Big Band, and Swing

     In many ways, jazz is like a language. Sure, it is a form of music and a way to entertain city folk, but I believe it to be much more of a dialogue with the listeners rather than simply entertainment. The musicians tell a story, the listeners provide feedback, and the musicians respond by adjusting and inventing new ways to communicate certain emotions to the listener, much like language. If we look at the development of jazz during the 1920s in both Chicago and New York, I believe that New York was a larger contributor to the overall development of jazz than Chicago, even though Chicago had many things to offer.

     Thinking of Chicago, bands such as King Oliver with Louis Armstrong and the Austin High Gang come to mind. These bands focused primarily on the soloist and, as a result, were composed of a limited number of people and were generally localized to certain clubs (King Oliver at the Lincoln Gardens, for example). This approach, however, can only take you so far in jazz. In New York, names such as James P. Johnson, Fats Waller, Willie “The Lion” Smith, Duke Ellington, Fletcher Henderson, Don Redman, Paul Whiteman, Lester Young, Coleman Hawkins, and many more were becoming widespread. As a result, there was much competition to be had, and in jazz, competition means you have to develop new techniques and styles to stay on top.

     One such form of competition that arose was stride piano cutting contests. In the early 20^th century, Harlem was primarily white. Over time, Harlem split into two. There was the original Harlem in mid-Manhattan with middle- to upper-class, and then the new Harlem that was “becoming a slum” (Giola, p.94). With the great migration in the 1910s came an overwhelming black population to the lower class Harlem. As such, a vast majority of tenants could not afford rent and held “rent parties,” which featured a night of jazz and partying for those who paid the door price. Jazz began to flourish in the ghetto Harlem and stride piano became the forefront of the style. Johnson, Waller, and Smith were among the top competitors of “cutting contests,” in which the piano players would trade choruses and “battle” via solos. These were friendly competitions and allowed both players and listeners to hear new techniques and observe new styles emerge. This friendly competition was not as widely available in Chicago as in New York, and is one of the reasons I believe jazz gained much publicity in the 1920s.

     Another factor in New York’s dominance over Chicago in its importance to jazz is the emergence of the big band and swing in New York. Fletcher Henderson was one advocate of the new big band style, and “drew primary inspiration not from New Orleans and Chicago jazz, but from these currents of popular music and dance that were sweeping New York in those years” (Giola, p.107). Even though Chicago did have an influence on New York musicians, New York had developed its own jazz culture, separate from Chicago. One aspect of this culture was the divergence from focusing on the “soloist” and a move towards the “section.” Henderson, in part with arranger Don Redman, added more players to the band and developed four distinct sections – the saxophone, trombone, trumpet, and rhythm sections. This new, more “full” sound was the perfect environment for the development of swing when Henderson recruited Louis Armstrong in 1924. Armstrong brought the idea of swing to the band and helped push a new style of jazz into the mainstream. Other large contributors to these new styles included Duke Ellington and his constant need to obtain a “hotter” sound and Paul Whiteman’s efforts to make jazz much more accessible to the public. In fact, Whiteman wrote a piece, “Rhapsody in Blue,” that adapted jazz to an orchestra that had no soloists. This is a prime example of the ways jazz was being applied to various ensembles and shows how New York’s musicians were concentrated on developing the jazz style in their own way and to make jazz readily available to the public in many different forms.

     While Chicago’s contributions to jazz were large, I believe New York played the primary role in shaping the jazz style into its own, new language. With the conversion from jazz combos focusing on soloists to big bands playing swing came widespread publicity for jazz.  The social, economic, and racial conditions in Harlem presented the perfect atmosphere for the cultivation of jazz that cannot be matched anywhere else in the US. However, as with any language, jazz was still developing and will continue to do so through present day.