The Personality of Jazz
When one hears the word “Harlem”, “Renaissance” often
follows. It was the time of the new
Negro, the time when blacks in New York’s Harlem were advancing art and
creating community. Poetry, fiction,
visual arts and music flourished in the hands of a new people, their minds
burgeoning more than their population.
Yet Harlem had another side, hidden behind the hype and hysteria. “This second Harlem was one of harsh
economics, low salaries and looming rent payments” (Gioia, 90). This other Harlem, however, had jazz.
Along with the “looming rent payments” came common
ground. The people living in Harlem
shared the need to pay the rent. It is
from this need that rent parties were born.
And what could be better than making money while you party? “They would crowd a hundred or more people
into a seven room railroad flat, and the walls would bulge”, remembers Willie
“The Lion” Smith, a fine stride pianist and a guest of honor at these parties
(Gioia, 90). It is these rent parties
that epitomize New York jazz, a music created by a dialogue between the
performer and the audience that became so fluid the line dividing musician and
listener disappeared, birthing a single entity of modernist creation.
This disappearance of division provides a key distinction
between the jazz surfacing in New York and the jazz previously developed in
Chicago. There were no rent parties in
Chicago. To see jazz performed, one had
to attend a venue. These clubs, such as
the Grand Terrace, were often run by gangsters.
“The mob”, recalls trumpeter and saxophonist George Dixon, “through
intimidation and organization, had things so well-regulated we couldn’t even
change jobs” (Travis, 42). This
corruption created a different environment in Chicago. Jazz was not a means of “getting down”, but
rather a resource to be controlled, commoditized and exploited. The sense of community and comradery is
absent when compared to New York.
The community in Harlem created a catalyst that propelled
jazz to larger audiences and new territories.
The instrument that allowed this to happen was the piano and the style
was “stride”. This style of playing came
after rag, creating a bridge to the “swing” that was to come. James P. Johnson was the arch-virtuoso
“tickler” of Harlem. Lippy remembers
taking Johnson to houses at three or four in the morning where it was “[him],
or maybe Fats [Waller] who sat down to warm up the piano [until] James took
over. Then you got the real invention—magic,
sheer magic” (Johnson Article). Johnson
created a sound and style of his own, drawing from “ring-shouts”, European Art
Music traditions and rag (Lecture, 1/29).
It was virtuosic, pleasing to hear and largely focused on
improvisation. These three elements are
key in its development because they propelled a long-loved American tradition
into the forefront of jazz: competition.
And “pressure creates diamonds” (Tyner).
With this new music, the musician had to be more than merely a
performer; he had to be a personality.
Willie “The Lion” Smith was the epitome of personality and a
fine product of competition. “A
gladiator at heart”, Ellington called him (Gioia, 93). Smith built his reputation in “backrooms and
private gatherings…asserting his supremacy” (Gioia, 93). Smith and many others competed for time on
the keys at Harlem rent parties (Gioia, 94).
This competition allowed “stride” to evolve and, more importantly,
spread. It moved from rent parties to
theater shows and finally to Paris. The
New York-born concept of “the entertainer” projected jazz through a much wider
lens. Jazz became lass of a music and
more of a culture: a culture of conflict, competition and community, a culture
as diverse as the world that birthed it, yet homogeneous enough to remain
distinct. Jazz had become a culture
prepared to appeal to the masses.
I thoroughly enjoyed your detailed account of specific factors unique to New York's jazz including the rent parties and the musical techniques found there. I also found your integration of references within your text to be fluid and effective. With regards to musical technique and distinct economic opportunities, as discussed in class today, are there any factors unique to Chicago that cannot be disputed as easily? I personally held the same view towards New York over Chicago, but interestingly I touched on some very different components in the same categories. Great job!
ReplyDelete