The Swing Era

It is thought by many that Fletcher Henderson’s band with Louis Armstrong was perhaps the first orchestra to really “swing.” Henderson really possessed the supreme ability and talent to produce swing in the 1920s, but because he was black-skinned in a segregated white world, there was limited access to work. This “race” issue had always been a discourse in American history, but it was during the “Swing Era” that race became explicit due to factors of interracial competition, the need for validity of jazz as music form, the bad economy, and the physical time frame.

            Beginning with the time frame—the “Swing Era” took place during 1930s, following the Great Depression and preceding the first World War. The Great Depression took a huge toll on the economy and the overall standard of living. Record sales dropped ninety-percent in a mere five years, and “record labels that focused on black music…were hit especially hard” (Gioia, 127). The radio was becoming the new Because of this fact, there was extreme competition between black and white jazz performers, who vied for both cultural respect and the monetary and professional rewards. So, the musicians were now playing not just a creative game, but an economic game as well.

            At the beginning of this time period, both black and white jazz musicians lacked high cultural respect, as jazz was not then seen as a legitimate art, or as “classy” (class lecture 2/14/13). Because of this, there was pressure for inclusion, even in a society that was segregated. Jazz was great for this though, because it by now had morphed into a dance-style of music, and dance applied to all races! Race was still a huge issue during these times, yet while there were definitely segregated clubs, such as the Cotton Club, there were non-segregated places that popped up as well—such as the Savoy. Here, the dialogic nature between the music performer and the dancers was apparent. The dancing drew diverse audiences, of all different skin colors. It started “social miscegenation”—i.e. the interbreeding of those of different racial types—because dance involves touch, and being personal, which directly relates to sex and sexual tension created via dancing (class lecture 2/14/13). The jazz and henceforth dancing was beginning to break down America’s segregation. 

            However, as great as dancing was for starting to break down racial barriers during the thirties, there were always racial issues still popping up. One such issue was the tension between the black jazz performer, Duke Ellington, and white jazz critic, John Hammond. John Hammond excessively criticized Ellington “for his racial insensitivity to the troubles of ‘his people’” (class lecture 2/14/13). However, this situation is ironic in a couple ways. For one, it was Ellington who played by the (white-man’s) rules and hired an agent to promote him, and he performed as a “black performer” in the segregated club called the Cotton Club (class 2/14/13). These were aggressive moves that he made, versus say Fletcher Henderson, who simply did not pursue a further career due to a segregation society, that allowed him to become famous and successful. However, these race issues were still very significant, and due to them, he also had to sacrifice a lot for the fame. These sacrifices Ellington made left a “racial residue” in his mouth, according to Professor Stewart, that can be seen through his song titles like “Black Beauty” and “Solitude” (class 2/12 and 2/14). So, we can see that this still was an internal and personal concern to Ellington, and additionally, “Hammond’s criticism is ironic, given that Ellington’s music of the 1930s was explicitly and self-consciously concern with African-American cultural expression” (Swing Changes 51). The titles mentioned prior perfectly example this. Racial issues were no longer swept into the background—they were being addressed front and center.

            The Swing Era of the 1930s fell at a poor economic time in the country. Especially with the struggles and competition that resulted, along with the already and strongly present segregation, musicians had a tough go during this time period. Whether is was race issues working on being solved, like through non-segregated dance halls and social miscegenation, or race issues highlighted in a negative way, like with Ellington and Hammond, the race issues were explicit. They were in-your-face as never before. It was hard because it was basically a catch-22 for African Americans—they could become famous in a “white man’s world” which meant playing by certain rules and being criticized, or do what they could as a black performer, but probably not go as far because of limited opportunity. Race affected everything. Because of this, these factors all contribute to race being explicit in the 1930s as never before. 

Chicago Jazz

Chicago Jazz

            In class, we have been discussing the dialogic interaction between community and jazz musicians. This give-and-take between community and performer transformed jazz, and made it “America’s language” (Lecture 2/5/13). Applying the Bakhtin theory to jazz, we can see that jazz is a conversation between the performer and the listener. The reason jazz flourished in Chicago during this time period is due to the community, technology, and “dialogue” that ensued. While both cities are important, Chicago is most important during this time period because the style it creates then influences all later jazz—including that in New York.

            Chicago was a melting pot of culture where any and all nationalities could be found in their respective blocks throughout the city. While this is also true of New York, racial communities were a heavier factor in Chicago jazz—black people were mainly all located on the South side, where many jazz clubs popped up, versus whites on the North. While there is the stigma that only white people influenced jazz during the 1920’s, this is simply not the case. In fact, “the finest African American musicians from New Orleans and elsewhere…had already gravitated to Chicago by the mid-1920s” (Gioia, 71). People were coming to Chicago due to money. There were more opportunities to record and to perform in a big city in the North like Chicago and the pay was much better than in New Orleans (Gioia, 73).

In fact, there was dialogue that was happening between the blacks and whites. Because of the segregation of neighborhoods in Chicago, this meant that jazz clubs were segregated as well. However, while blacks were not welcome to go to nice “white” hotels or bars where white jazz musicians played, these white jazz musicians were free to walk into the black clubs to listen and take from the music being played there. This is the concept of white appropriation—taking and incorporating black musical elements into their own music: so, black influence even reached the more white or white-influenced jazz performers of the time, such as the all-white Austin High School Gang. As Gioia says well, “Black jazz, white jazz, hot jazz, sweet jazz, New Orleans jazz, Dixie jazz: no matter what you call it or how you define it, it all became part of Chicago jazz during these formative years” (Gioia, 71). There were an enormous variation of jazz styles at that point and they all converged in one city, Chicago, which is why is most important to jazz during this time.

            Chicago jazz is extremely important because it was the original and dominant jazz in Chicago that later influenced New York (Gioia, 69). “Chicago style” was many different types of playing, appropriation, and innovation coming together. Applying Bakhtin, dialogue via dance halls contributed immensely to this because this was occurring during a time of great industrialization, and combined with the appropriation occurring within these halls, jazz was molded by both blacks and whites. Many greats were in Chicago during this time period that contributed greatly to its style—“Armstrong, Hines, Morton, Oliver, Noone, Dodds” as well as white performers like the Austin High Gang (Gioia, 71). They created a Chicago style that differed from other jazz with its “certain restless energy [that] begins to reverberate in the music” (Gioia, 71). It had a great vital aliveness—from “cheeky attitude on the horn” to “the shuffle rhythm, which conveyed the feel of double time” to the break when the band held back for the soloist to step forward “to proclaim a hot phrase” (Gioia, 72). It is important to recognize one of the most important components of Chicago jazz—the solo. And there is one man who best represents the culture, community, and “solo” of Chicago jazz.

           Louis Armstrong is the epitome as well as founder of Chicago jazz as we think of it, especially with the emphasis on solos and improvisation that he created and perfected. When Armstrong first entered a recording studio in Chicago in the 1920s, he established himself “as the dominant jazz instrumentalist of his generation, perhaps of all time” (Gioia, 57). And Armstrong deserves this recognition as he had a key role in “transforming the focus of jazz from the ensemble to the soloist” (57). But additionally, it was just his creative, musical genius that allowed him to mold and shape jazz. He had “advanced melodic ideas [that] simply did not exist in jazz before” (Gioia, 57). Gioia even goes on to say that “Armstrong’s improvisational style must have been a revelation to other players of that era” (57). Armstrong’s innovation led to the innovative style of Chicago, and he was the leader in that transition. It is through Armstrong that not only ‘Chicago jazz’ was created as a style, but that he molded the “Jazz Age” as well.

            With the help of Armstrong and many others, Chicago definitely had its own style in the 1920s. Socially, the segregation of blacks and whites and accompaniment therefore of white appropriation contributed to style in interesting ways. Financially, the economic times and situation was better in the North as well, which drew a crowd of talented, hopeful musicians who populated the jazz halls. Combining a time of industrialization with all of these factors, “no town or city in the forty-eight states had the talents or the spirit to generate the kind of jazz that caused toe-tapping rhythm to course through the veins and arteries of Chicago, ‘the city with the big shoulders’” (Travis, 75). If it were not for Chicago and all of the factors it contributed during the 1920s, jazz as we know it today would not be the same, and for this reason I believe it to be more important than New York’s influences, simply because it came first and laid down the foundations for later jazz.