Racism in Jazz
Jazzkid83
I want info on Racism in Jazz. I am doing a report and need information.
You can e-mail me with info or how to get info.
Thanks
Jazz...@aol.com
Michael Fitzgerald
On 31 Dec 1996 22:27:02 GMT, jazz...@aol.com (Jazzkid83) wrote:
>I want info on Racism in Jazz. I am doing a report and need information.
>You can e-mail me with info or how to get info.
Well, very recently we discussed the subject of Ira Gitler and I
mentioned a very significant article that appeared in down beat
magazine in March, 1962 titled "Racial Prejudice In Jazz". I think
this would be a cornerstone of any discussion of the subject.
Please contact me with your address and I will mail a copy.
Mike
James Work
Check with Winton Marsalis.
On 31 Dec 1996 22:27:02 GMT, jazz...@aol.com (Jazzkid83) wrote:
>I want info on Racism in Jazz. I am doing a report and need information.
>You can e-mail me with info or how to get info.
>Thanks
>Jazz...@aol.com
BellerMB
On 31 Dec 1996 22:27:02 GMT, jazz...@aol.com (Jazzkid83) writes:
>I want info on Racism in Jazz. I am doing a report and need information.
>You can e-mail me with info or how to get info.
>Thanks
>Jazz...@aol.com
There is a decent book on these issues by Gene Lees titled: "Cats of Any
Color: Jazz, Black and White" that's out on paperback now. More stoires
and examples of how racism pervaded (pervades) the world of jazz.
~Mike Beller
bell...@aol.com
Matthew C Weiner
BellerMB (bell...@aol.com) wrote:
I don't know about the bulk of the book, which I understand concerns
anti-black racism (historically). But I found the notorious
concluding piece, on alleged anti-white "racism," to be
quite shoddy and hysterical. (The first half, actually; I
didn't get through the whoel thing.) Just one example: Lees
states that the claim that "jazz is black music" is racist.
See some of Ken McCarthy's posts on the first free jazz
thread for an explanation of why jazz can be called black
music. Or think of it this way: what about the claim that
klezmer is Jewish music, or that tango is Argentinian music?
Aside from this piece, the book may be fine; just a recommendation
for a grain of salt.
Matt
Richard Wright
JazzTimes magazine also had an issue out a few years ago with the
cover "Racism In Jazz." It wasn't all it was cracked up to look like.
It focused on the present day situation of racism in jazz and didn't
give much of a historical overview.
From what I can tell there isn't much serious information out there
in the literary world about racism in jazz. I've heard about the Gene
Lees' book myself and I backed away from it for the reasons you've
mentioned. I think you're best bet is to read some of the books on
individual African-American jazz greats. There will be individuals
recalling incidents of racism that they experienced. I'm sure
(although I haven't read any myself) that any book on Miles or Duke
Ellington, Billie Holiday or Louis Armstrong will have valuable
insights...
If you find anything useful, email me (tran...@msn.com). I'm always
looking for stuff on the topic.
Richard Wright
Scott Alexander
- The book Wait Until Dark, Jazz and the Underworld, 1880-1940 by Ronald L. Douglas, contains a lot of info on racism.
- Library of Congress No. 79-92849
- 1980 Bowling Green University Popular Press
ECR Jr
On 2 Jan 97 21:22:14 -0800 <00001f95...@msn.com> wrote,
>From what I can tell there isn't much serious information out there
>in the literary world about racism in jazz. I've heard about the Gene
>Lees' book myself and I backed away from it for the reasons you've
>mentioned. I think you're best bet is to read some of the books on
>individual African-American jazz greats. There will be individuals
>recalling incidents of racism that they experienced. I'm sure
>(although I haven't read any myself) that any book on Miles or Duke
>Ellington, Billie Holiday or Louis Armstrong will have valuable
>insights...
In this regard, the original poster might want to check Art Taylor's book,
"Notes and Tones". This is a series of interviews of black musicians by a
black musician and the responses that Taylor elicits are quite frank on
the subject of racism. In fact, some of the comments are very different
from what the same musicians said at other times to other interviewers.
Note, though, that the book is not about racism. This is a recurring
theme but it is not the only concern of the author or his subjects.
Similarly, the best jazz biographies can be very revealing on this
subject. But I agree that most of the writing that purports to be
specifically about race in jazz is poor.
Ed Rhodes
Genie Baker
In article <00001f95...@msn.com>,
Richard Wright <Tran...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>From what I can tell there isn't much serious information out there
When the topic was raised several months ago, Andrew Homzy mentioned
an article by Ingrid Mons... shoot... I almost certainly have her last
name wrong... entitled "The Tragedy of Young White Hipness" that sounded
very interesting. It was recently published (1996, I think) in a journal
whose acronym is JAMS. She's a young music professor whose focus is
ethnomusicology, as I remember.
Sorry I'm so hazy about the details. I meant to look up the article,
still have it on my mind, but haven't made the trek to music school yet.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Baker gba...@umich.edu
christopher john smith
In article <5ajbbb$2...@thighmaster.admin.lsa.umich.edu>,
Genie Baker <gba...@econ.lsa.umich.edu> wrote:
>In article <00001f95...@msn.com>,
>Richard Wright <Tran...@msn.com> wrote:
> When the topic was raised several months ago, Andrew Homzy mentioned
>an article by Ingrid Mons... shoot... I almost certainly have her last
>name wrong... entitled "The Tragedy of Young White Hipness" that sounded
>very interesting. It was recently published (1996, I think) in a journal
>whose acronym is JAMS. She's a young music professor whose focus is
>ethnomusicology, as I remember.
Ingrid Monson. The journal is "Journal of the American Musicological Society."
Monson is a jazz trumpeter (student of Woody Shaw), a full professor somewhere,
maybe Washington University, and a musicological specialist in the semiotics
(behaviors and symbolism) of Black American musical performance. VERY
impressive lady.
--
Chris Smith - Lecturer in World Music; Producer: "One World" WFIU 103.7FM
Musician: Altramar medieval music ensemble; Amandla (African jazz);
The B.O.M.B. Ensemble (Baroque music). Martial Artist: Shaolin Kung Fu.
(WWW) http://www.indiana.edu/~smithcj (p) 812/856-4107; (f) 812/855-0729
Kenz William
Michael Fitzgerald (fitz...@eclipse.net) wrote:
: On 31 Dec 1996 22:27:02 GMT, jazz...@aol.com (Jazzkid83) wrote:
: >I want info on Racism in Jazz. I am doing a report and need information.
: >You can e-mail me with info or how to get info.
Try reading Valerie Wilmer's "As Serious as Your Life". Some good info is there.
The most recent Coda contains an article on Albert Mangelsdorf, with some asides on
racism.
Anthony Braxton's Tri-Axium Writings has all sorts of information on racism in
jazz.
Read a bio on Lester Young for examples of racism, including his experience in the
army. Or books on or by Miles Davis - lots of anecdotes and info.
Do a study on why Jazz Journal International covers almost always feature a white
musician (only a suggestion, I'm sure they have their reasons...).
Or, why is Kenny G still considered a top jazz artist in the US (just saw a talk
show in which this is exactly how he was billed)?
Bill
--
William G. Kenz
Library - Documents Dept.
1104 S. 7th. Ave.
Moorhead State University
Moorhead, MN 56563
ke...@mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu
skip elliott bowman
Kenz William (ke...@news.msus.edu) wrote:
: Michael Fitzgerald (fitz...@eclipse.net) wrote:
: : On 31 Dec 1996 22:27:02 GMT, jazz...@aol.com (Jazzkid83) wrote:
: : >I want info on Racism in Jazz. I am doing a report and need information.
: : >You can e-mail me with info or how to get info.
: Try reading Valerie Wilmer's "As Serious as Your Life".
Why not just ask a working musician?
Skip "Been There" Elliott Bowman
Ken McCarthy
I second this recommendation. Be prepared though. If you're
going to ask someone about their pain you've should be ready
to listen and listen fully.
The topic puzzles me a bit though. Racism *in* jazz? In my
experience, the world of accomplished jazz musicians is one of the
*least* racist ones you'll find in the west. Maybe
you mean racism in America as experienced by jazz
musicians.
If you take Mr. Bowman's advice, you will have more
than enough material to complete your paper - or
a book - or an encyclopedia for that matter.
Here's a story to get you started. To follow a thread
elsewhere, a young black cellist was advised - quite
rightly from a practical point of view - that if he
ever expected to actually play in public and for a
living, he had better learn a "black" instrument.
He took the advice, but reports are that the musician,
Charles Mingus, never got over the grief of realizing
he'd been born into a world where his color would dictate
his opportunities as an artist.
GKornfield
In the Mosaic last mailing, there is a reference to a Curtis Fuller/Bob
Brookmeyer session that was nixed because Brookmeyer was white.
Read Miles Davis's autobiography for his comments on hiring white
musicians. Miles was not happy Bill Evans hired 2 white musicians. There
was also resistance to his hiring of Bill Evans.
In Jazz Masters of the '50's, I remember a comment from Cecil Taylor who
said something like, white musicians can only "cop a feel" of whatever is
felt. (As listeners, I believe that is what we are always trying)
There was also a magazine article in one of the prominent jazz magazines
in the last 2 years on the subject. Good luck!
GKornfield
Another interesting reference is Kenny Clarke's biography.
John Grabowski
In <5ah218$7...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> mcw...@pitt.edu (Matthew C
Weiner) writes:
>
>BellerMB (bell...@aol.com) wrote:
>: On 31 Dec 1996 22:27:02 GMT, jazz...@aol.com (Jazzkid83) writes:
>
>: >I want info on Racism in Jazz. I am doing a report and need
information.
>
>: >You can e-mail me with info or how to get info.
>: >Jazz...@aol.com
>
>: There is a decent book on these issues by Gene Lees titled: "Cats of
Any
>: Color: Jazz, Black and White" that's out on paperback now. More
stoires
>: and examples of how racism pervaded (pervades) the world of jazz.
>
>I don't know about the bulk of the book, which I understand concerns
>anti-black racism (historically). But I found the notorious
>concluding piece, on alleged anti-white "racism," to be
>quite shoddy and hysterical. (The first half, actually; I
>didn't get through the whoel thing.) Just one example: Lees
>states that the claim that "jazz is black music" is racist.
>See some of Ken McCarthy's posts on the first free jazz
>thread for an explanation of why jazz can be called black
>music. Or think of it this way: what about the claim that
>klezmer is Jewish music, or that tango is Argentinian music?
>Aside from this piece, the book may be fine; just a recommendation
>for a grain of salt.
>
>Matt
Not to start a flame war here, but the difference is that in the very
early days of jazz whites were making major contributions too, to the
point that it's very hard to tell with certainty who contributed what
now. Memory fails me at the moment, but it was either Duke or Fletcher
who at one point had to be taught what jazz was and how to play it when
it was the public vogue of the '20s, as he himself did not know because
it presumably wasn't played in his circles. Later of course whites
largely branched off into more commercial aspects of the music while
blacks were largely not able to, but in the early days Creoles, whites,
blacks and many people of unknown origin contributed to the music that
eventually became "jazz."
John
John Grabowski
it presumably wasn't played in his circles. Later of course many
whites largely branched off into more commercial aspects of the music
(though not as many as would be commonly believed!) while blacks were
largely not able to in quite the same way, but in the early days
Ken McCarthy
John Grabowski (joh...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> Not to start a flame war here, but the difference is that in the very
> early days of jazz whites were making major contributions too, to the
> point that it's very hard to tell with certainty who contributed what
> now. Memory fails me at the moment, but it was either Duke or Fletcher
> who at one point had to be taught what jazz was and how to play it when
> it was the public vogue of the '20s, as he himself did not know because
> it presumably wasn't played in his circles. Later of course many
> whites largely branched off into more commercial aspects of the music
> (though not as many as would be commonly believed!) while blacks were
> largely not able to in quite the same way, but in the early days
> Creoles, whites, blacks and many people of unknown origin contributed
> to the music that eventually became "jazz."
No one in their right mind can dispute that jazz has been enriched
and advanced mightly by white musicians right back to the
early recorded years in New Orleans. If you read Duke
Ellington's autobiography "Music is My Mistress" (a
*great* read), he says this over and over again.
One thing about "racism". It is very much an "ism", like
communism or socialism. It's a cultural product, the result
of indoctrination. Yes, people are wary of others who are
different from them. That's human nature and that's why
education and art are so valuable because they help
people cros those ignorant boundries. Certain individuals
because of their life experience develop a hatred of
another race, but this cannot rightly be called "racism"
in the strict sense of the word. It's a personal psychological
problem.
"Race - ism" is when the leading institutions of a society
delare as policy that one race is superior to another
and it is therefore acceptable to deny the "inferior"
race access to education, employment opportunities,
access to the professions, political power etc.
By this definition, the US was very much an
openly racist country, much in the same way
South Africa was until very recently. Theoretically,
neither country is racist today at least from a policy
point of view though how long it will take to
clean the poison from the system is unclear.
In the case of individuals like Miles Davis, this
is a case of someone who was psychologically
damaged by living in a racist society. Until the
invention of "racism", first to justify the slave trade,
then to justify turning sovereign nations into
weak, dependent "colonies", healthy, sane individuals,
white or black, did not go out of their way to organize
themselves against people who had different skin colors.
If you doubt this, look at European culture before the
slave trade hit big. Classic example, Othello by
Shakespeare. The tragic hero, a black man who was
accomplished, respected, powerful in European
society based on his qualities brought down,
by *personal* failings, not the failings of his
*race.* You can't make "inferior" people into
tragic heroes, that's the whole point of
classical tragedy, its' an otherwise great man with a
personal failing that brings him down.
The reason I hammer this distinction is that
if you think of racism as an inevitable part of
the human condition, it makes it impossible to erradicate.
*Discomfort* around people who look, or speak, or
act differently is *not* racism. It's part of
people a human being. We can, and do,get
over it. It's called growing up. Having a *permanent* philosophy
that presorts the value and goodnesss of people by
race is a form of mental illness which has its
roots into societal conditioning
Walter Davis
In article <5ah218$7...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
mcw...@pitt.edu (Matthew C Weiner) wrote:
>: There is a decent book on these issues by Gene Lees titled: "Cats of
Any
>: Color: Jazz, Black and White" that's out on paperback now. More
stoires
>: and examples of how racism pervaded (pervades) the world of jazz.
>
>I don't know about the bulk of the book, which I understand concerns
>anti-black racism (historically). But I found the notorious
>concluding piece, on alleged anti-white "racism," to be
>quite shoddy and hysterical.
I tend to agree with Matthew's characterization of this chapter in
Lees's book, especially with the "shoddy" characterization. (I also see
it as an over-reaction, but I'm not sure I'd say it's hysterical)
Unfortunately in this chapter, Lees makes the same illogical jumps,
misreadings of quotes, overemphasis on particular quotes while
de-emphasizing others that he (rightly IMHO) accuses others of making.
However, the rest of the book is splendid, and is not the polemical
treatment that one might expect after reading the last chapter. These
are interviews with musicians where the musicians are largely allowed to
talk for themselves. The issue of race does come up frequently, but is
not even the over-riding concern of the interviews. Racism against
blacks, Native Americans, and whites are all addressed. My favorite is
the interview with Dominique DeLerma, a musicologist, which in a few
pages calls into question enough jazz myths as to make most of us casual
fans/historians wonder how much we know.
-walt
Walter Davis walter...@unc.edu or
Department of Sociology and wdavi...@mhs.unc.edu
Health Data Analyst at the ph: (919) 962-1019
Institute for Research in Social Science fax: (919) 962-4777
UNC - Chapel Hill
John Grabowski
In <emediaE3...@netcom.com> eme...@netcom.com (Ken McCarthy)
writes:
>In the case of individuals like Miles Davis, this
>is a case of someone who was psychologically
>damaged by living in a racist society. Until the
>invention of "racism", first to justify the slave trade,
>then to justify turning sovereign nations into
>weak, dependent "colonies", healthy, sane individuals,
>white or black, did not go out of their way to organize
>themselves against people who had different skin colors.
Really? Have you read the Bible?
>If you doubt this, look at European culture before the
>slave trade hit big.
Which slave trade? Black? There were other enslaved groups before
Africans.
>Classic example, Othello by
>Shakespeare. The tragic hero, a black man who was
>accomplished, respected, powerful in European
>society based on his qualities brought down,
>by *personal* failings, not the failings of his
>*race.* You can't make "inferior" people into
>tragic heroes, that's the whole point of
>classical tragedy, its' an otherwise great man with a
>personal failing that brings him down.
Othello is one example. Because you've found that one, that does not
mean others of a different sort don't/didn't exist.
>The reason I hammer this distinction is that
>if you think of racism as an inevitable part of
>the human condition, it makes it impossible to erradicate.
It may not be an inevitable part of the human condition (impossible to
prove in any case) but it existed before Africans were enslaved, and it
continues to exist today (non-Africans are enslaved in parts of the
world. Also, Africans have enslaved and continue in some areas to
enslave their own people.)
>*Discomfort* around people who look, or speak, or
>act differently is *not* racism.
No, it's xenophobia. Different issue, though related, but I don't
believe anyone on this group said they were the same.
> It's part of
>people a human being. We can, and do,get
>over it.
Not always, unfortuantely.
John
Ken McCarthy
Responses to >responses to my >>previous post
> >healthy, sane individuals,
> >white or black, did not go out of their way to organize
> >themselves against people who had different skin colors.
> Really? Have you read the Bible?
Parts of it. Where is there a description of *skin color*
as being a reason to reduce a people to slavery? Lots
of poor people working in servitude though. Agreed.
> >If you doubt this, look at European culture before the
> >slave trade hit big.
> Which slave trade? Black? There were other enslaved groups before
> Africans.
The slave trade that started literally with Columbus.
Bringing Africans to America work work in first in sugar
cane fields and later cotton fields.
You are absolutely right that slavery has existed a long
time. The Romans traded in white skinned, blue eyed
slaves from the British Isles for example.
The slave trade which brought Africans to the America
was different in a few very important respects:
1. Slaves under most other circumstances were integrated
into normal life. They could own property, receive
educations, and even marry into the owners family and
inherit his property.
A lot of slavery was simply work with payment being
food, clothing, shelter, etc. Not a bad deal in the
ancient world. In fact, a fair numner of Europeans
made it to the Americas under very similar conditions.
Indentured servants. They were "slaves" too,
but: 1) there was a limit to their term and 2) no one
put any "effort" into proving that Irish or Scots
or poor Englishman were somehow "naturally" inferior
and therefore deserved the permanent status of slave
and the other horrors that accompanied the Altantic
slave trade.
You became a servant if you were poor or lost at
war. There was not the idea that a certain group
because of their skin color where born to be slaves.
That is mainly a European invention and no doubt some
psychos of the time found "proof" in the Bible
that is was OK. There was lots of "scientifc" proof
bandied about as well esp in the 19th century.
The Nazis followed this tradition. In fact, Hitler
is reported to have been shocked and disappointed
that the elites in Britain did not "get" his program
for Europe. Not to single Britain out. Henry Ford's
legendary anti-semite-*ism* which he wrote about
and promoted was not a trivial encouragement
to the group hatred disease the Nazis promoted.
Anyway, lots of stories through history of people in
servitude rising through the ranks by cleverness and skill.
Occasional good hearted American slave owners did the free slaves,
but it was not the norm. Anyway, in many states there
was no such status as a "free" black man. An unowned
black person could be seized and sold simply because
of the color of his skin. This is not the way
slavery worked before the Atlanic trade.
2. The scale of the Atlantic slave trade
dwarfs anything we know about from history.
3. The incredibly cruel treatment of Africans
beginning with the deadly conditions on the ships,
the brutal labor, and the systemic banning of
all individuality and culture does not match with
slavery/servitude as it has been practiced elsewhere.
There may be cases, but not the norm.
> >Classic example, Othello by
> >Shakespeare. The tragic hero, a black man who was
> >accomplished, respected, powerful in European
> >society based on his qualities brought down,
> >by *personal* failings, not the failings of his
> >*race.* You can't make "inferior" people into
> >tragic heroes, that's the whole point of
> >classical tragedy, its' an otherwise great man with a
> >personal failing that brings him down.
> Othello is one example. Because you've found that one, that does not
> mean others of a different sort don't/didn't exist.
You imply I had to stretch to find *one* example. I know this
is hard to swallow for people who assume we are an improvement
over the ancients. On the issue of race, the evidence
is overwhelming we are not.
Read Herodutus. Lots of casual mentions of "ethiopians"
the generic term for Africans. No disparagement or
reports of the same. In fact, the common assumption
of Greek historians of antiquity was that Egypt
was orginally a colonial extension of "Ethiopians"
whose homeland was the *interior* of Africa. Indeed
*current* *mainstream* archeological research confirms
this.
This gets problematic for the anti-black brigade
because Egypt was an extremely popular destination
for the intelligent people of classical Greece.
Pythagorus spent 21 years studying on the
African continent. Aristotles own teacher
Eudoxus studied in Egypt before teaching
in Greece as did Euclid. Isocrates and Plato
were totally conversant with Egyptian
culture. And as Herodutus mentions there were
Egyptian royalty based in southern Greece and
"the names of nearly all the gods came
to Greece from Egypt."
Normally, we like to take the Greeks seriously,
but on this point, starting around 1830, this
aspect of the history of western civilization
has been toned down significantly. Egypt's
been recast as a place of "superstition
and magic".Strange way to regard the
builders of the pyramids.Did they levitate
the stones and divine the plans during a seance?
And somehow Egypt is *not* African even though
Egypt is on the African contintent and classical
historians and modern European and American
scholars agree an important root source of
the culture of ancient Egpyt (there were
surely others) was black Africa. Truly
amazing!
In this country, I only see mention
of these facts during Black History month and
usually only from black Americans. Eventually,
the science will reach the masses, but
keep this in mind, these facts were
accepted and acceptable from classical
times right up to the early 19th century.
The change in history of the 19th c was not based
on new scientific findings or re-readings
of the literature of the ancient world.
It was based on the need to build the
case that is was somehow "natural"
to pack people aboard ships in inhuman
conditions, sail them across the Atlantic,
work them like animals, and deny them any
hope of improving themselves.
I'm not proposing that this is the
only cruelty every rained down on one
group by another, but the scale of the
operation makes it singular in human history.
Skin color as the "reason", also unique
> >The reason I hammer this distinction is that
> >if you think of racism as an inevitable part of
> >the human condition, it makes it impossible to erradicate.
> It may not be an inevitable part of the human condition (impossible to
> prove in any case) but it existed before Africans were enslaved, and it
> continues to exist today (non-Africans are enslaved in parts of the
> world. Also, Africans have enslaved and continue in some areas to
> enslave their own people.)
I believe you are mixing issues. Servitude? Sure existed
everywhere, maybe since the beginning of time. All
over the place, on every continent in varying degree.
Exists now. Any grad students reading this?
Slavery? Of the kind practiced in the Atlantic trade,
with the slave systematically degraded and no hope
of freedom or advancement. Yes it still exists
far too widely. Pakistan, the oil states, instances
in the US crop up from time to time (domestic workers
whose passports are taken by their employers) and
in Europe, Japan, and southeast asia among sex workers
though no where near the scale it was practiced in the
18th and 19th century. No race is singled out.
And it is certainly not endorsed and justified
by clergymen, "scientists", and politicians.
It is recognized universally as a crime
in black Africa too (one exception, of course,
certain oil states where the
US not too long ago sent its young people to die fight)
So yeah. It is being done. The
people, black and white, who are doing it to whoever
are called "criminals."
Racism? It's the "ism" that made it possible for the
good people of Europe and America turn the other
way while slavery of the most brutual sort was
turned into a massive industry and black Africans
were targeted because "nature decreed it."
People are constantly mixing up xenophobia with
racism. It's important because xenophobia appears to be
part of the human conditon, until overcome by
education and personal maturity. Racism, of the
kind we are talking about when we talk about the
nature of racism tham effects jazz, is a social
contruct whose creation and function can be pinpointed
in time - and I do believe the sickness can be cured,
but I feel it's only possible if the cause is recognized.
The timeline is up to the societies involved. Societies
are moved by ideas.
My opinion.
I'm the Interneted part of the world tomorrow for
about a month so I won't be posting on this again.
A relief I'm sure to many :-)
Ken McCarthy
Ken McCarthy (eme...@netcom.com) wrote:
> I'm the Interneted part of the world tomorrow for
> about a month so I won't be posting on this again.
> A relief I'm sure to many :-)
That should read: "I'm leaving the Interneted part
of the world..."
Frank Lepkowski
Walter Davis <wda...@irss.unc.edu> wrote:
: I tend to agree with Matthew's characterization of this chapter in
: Lees's book, especially with the "shoddy" characterization. (I also see
: it as an over-reaction, but I'm not sure I'd say it's hysterical)
: Unfortunately in this chapter, Lees makes the same illogical jumps,
: misreadings of quotes, overemphasis on particular quotes while
: de-emphasizing others that he (rightly IMHO) accuses others of making.
Well, Walt, at least you read the whole thing, and not just half of it
before giving it up, as Matthew Weiner did. (Perhaps at least finishing a
piece of writing before calling it "shoddy" would be a way to avoid
shoddiness oneself). Just curious, in what respect is Lees article
"shoddy"? Where is his evidence suspect, his leaps illogical? Which
quotes does he misread? I'd rather not see such an important essay
stigmatized by half-readings, and without citing some evidence.
Presumably Lees, personally involved in the jazz world for quite some time
has considerable direct knowledge of his sources, which would seem to
oblige those who would dismiss his "polemic" to come up with some reasons
beyond general dismissal.
--
Frank Lepkowski Office: 810-370-2497
Associate Professor FAX: 810-370-2458
Kresge Library e-mail: lepk...@oakland.edu
Oakland University
Rochester, MI 48309-4401
Jeff Volkman
On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Ken McCarthy wrote:
> Responses to >responses to my >>previous post
> > Which slave trade? Black? There were other enslaved groups before
> > Africans.
>
> The slave trade that started literally with Columbus.
> Bringing Africans to America work work in first in sugar
> cane fields and later cotton fields.
>
> You are absolutely right that slavery has existed a long
> time. The Romans traded in white skinned, blue eyed
> slaves from the British Isles for example.
Slavery was also widely practiced among African races before the Romans
and Europeans entered the picture.
-Jeff
Walter Davis
In article <emediaE3...@netcom.com>,
eme...@netcom.com (Ken McCarthy) wrote:
>One thing about "racism". It is very much an "ism", like
>communism or socialism. It's a cultural product, the result
>of indoctrination.
Aaaarrgghh!! This is a misunderstanding of the suffix "ism" which means
"belief" or theory and is not, per se, the product of "indoctrination"
and has nothing whatsoever to do with social institutions/social
structure. Solipsism, ethnocentrism, theism, egoism, utilitarianism,
existentialism, and on and on. Socialism and communism are economic
theories. That these were usurped by totalitarian governments as
propaganda is a bit beside the point in terms of what they mean. And
although Marx's theories were a product of German culture, they most
certainly weren't a product of indoctrination and are quite unrelated
to the Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese, etc. cultures. This new
meaning that has been imparted to "ism" arises from new definitions of
terms like sexism and racism, and that may be perfectly convenient but
should not be mistaken for the origin of such words nor for their
historical meaning.
>
>"Race - ism" is when the leading institutions of a society
>delare as policy that one race is superior to another
>and it is therefore acceptable to deny the "inferior"
>race access to education, employment opportunities,
>access to the professions, political power etc.
>
Not by any dictionary I've ever seen (and I just checked one from 1993).
What you describe is more accurately referred to as "institutionalized
racism." "Racism" is a _belief_ in the superiority of one race over
another. It can also mean racial prejudice and discrimination, although
there is no mention of institutions in that definition either.
Matthew C Weiner
You are right to ask for examples. I will be happy to supply more
of them as soon as I can secure a copy of the book and bring it
together with an Internet account. (Saying that the claim
that jazz is black music is racism is, IMO, one example of shoddy
thought. Sorry that sentence is so convoluted.)
As for the implication that *I* was shoddy in not finishing
the article before evaluating it, you don't have to eat the
whole egg to know it's rotten. If Lees didn't provide footnotes
to his sources in the first half, I don't think he was likely
to do it in the second half. I made clear what I had read and
that my opinions didn't apply to the rest of the book. Even
if the second half of the article is well argued and well
documented, anyone who reads it will have swallowed a lot
of bad stuff in the first half... but I'll have to wait
to give you examples.
Matt
Frank Lepkowski (lepk...@oakland.edu) wrote:
William Sakovich
In article <5aoqra$d5$5...@newz.oit.unc.edu>,
wda...@irss.unc.edu (Walter Davis) wrote:
> My favorite is the interview with Dominique DeLerma, a musicologist,
> which in a few pages calls into question enough jazz myths as to
> make most of us casual fans/historians wonder how much we know.
For those of us living in places where the book is unlikely to be
available, what sort of jazz myths are these? Sounds like fun.
- Bill Sakovich (sako...@gol.com)
Gerrit Stolte
wda...@irss.unc.edu (Walter Davis) wrote:
>In article <emediaE3...@netcom.com>,
> eme...@netcom.com (Ken McCarthy) wrote:
>>One thing about "racism". It is very much an "ism", like
>>communism or socialism. It's a cultural product, the result
>>of indoctrination.
>Aaaarrgghh!! This is a misunderstanding of the suffix "ism" which means
>"belief" or theory and is not, per se, the product of "indoctrination"
>and has nothing whatsoever to do with social institutions/social
>structure. Solipsism, ethnocentrism, theism, egoism, utilitarianism,
>existentialism, and on and on. Socialism and communism are economic
>theories. That these were usurped by totalitarian governments as
>propaganda is a bit beside the point in terms of what they mean. And
>although Marx's theories were a product of German culture, they most
I wouldn't buy a supposed relation of his theories and the German
culture. Though as a German he was influenced, he delevoloped his
theories almost completely from his experiences in Great Britain.
Gerrit
"I don't know what he's playing, but it's not Jazz."
Dizzy Gillespie ueber Ornette Coleman
Harry Teichert
Matthew C Weiner <mcw...@pitt.edu> wrote:
: See some of Ken McCarthy's posts on the first free jazz
: thread for an explanation of why jazz can be called black
: music.
Also _Blues People_, by Leroi Jones (Amiri Baraka), which argues that
black music is a fountainhead for American popular music in general,
jazz in particular.
Harry Teichert
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
In article <5ah218$7...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> mcw...@pitt.edu (Matthew C Weiner) writes:
>states that the claim that "jazz is black music" is racist.
>See some of Ken McCarthy's posts on the first free jazz
>thread for an explanation of why jazz can be called black
>klezmer is Jewish music, or that tango is Argentinian music?
Those two claims are more or less correct. One can make a credible case
for them based on historical evidence. The claim that jazz is inherently
a black music is not supportable by historical evidence, once you get
past the very earliest incarnations.
Walter Davis
In article <5auvn0$1o...@grapool30.rz.uni-frankfurt.de>,
sto...@stud.uni-frankfurt.de (Gerrit Stolte) wrote:
>wda...@irss.unc.edu (Walter Davis) wrote:
>
>>although Marx's theories were a product of German culture, they most
>
>I wouldn't buy a supposed relation of his theories and the German
>culture. Though as a German he was influenced, he delevoloped his
>theories almost completely from his experiences in Great Britain.
>
culture. But certainly Marx's immersion in Hegelian philosophy impacted
his work. Still, my point stands - his work was in no way the product
of the Chinese and Russian societies which later attempted to adopt his
ideas. As Marx's theories pertain to what a society evolves into
_after_ capitalism, it's hard to see how they are supposed to apply to
agricultural, near-feudal economies to begin with. Anyway, "communism"
is not a product of cultural indoctrination, it's a set of economic
theories proposed by Marx and Engels - and that's where the "ism"
derives from.
Walter Davis
In article <8DRqoeen...@gol.com>,
as I remembered it, but I'll toss out a few highlights. But this is
available in paperback, from Oxford U. Press and shouldn't be that hard
to find and certainly could be ordered - Gene Lees, Cats of Any Color.
One drawback to interviews in general is that there's no citation of
sources. DeLerma is a musicologist, specializing in black music. His
expertise seems to be primarily in classical, but he delves into other
areas. The info he gives centers more around classical music than
jazz, much less about jazz than I remember. (Lees addresses some
jazz myths throughout the book). Given the way the piece is written,
it's sometimes hard to keep track of what Lees says vs. what DeLerma
says, so some of these statements may have come from Lees rather than
DeLerma.
They're speaking of various pre-slavery African migrations, noting that
there were African communities throughout much of the Meditteranean
(Spain, Portugal, Italy) and more amazingly China, Mexico, and the South
Pacific. To quote DeLerma: "Already by the year 1000, there was trade
with the southeast Pacific, which is how the xylophone got to Africa -
along with elephantiasis. There was an African community actually
living on Java by the year 1000. There was a black community in China."
He then discusses that at least some of they rhythms of Renaissance
music were of African origin, perhaps most or all of them: "You're
encouraged to think African when you encounter something like the
moresca, which was very popular in the late 16th century. It is that
dance, in fact, that concludes Monteverdi's _Orfeo_. The moresca, as
everyone knows, was an African dance taken to Naples at earlier times.
It spread all over Europe, particularly Italy, and even to England,
where it was known not as the moresca but as the Morris dance."
He and Lees both feel that part of the jazz "myth" is that it was made
by uneducated musicians with natural talent and no exposure to European
music. Some of the various comments and tidbits from either:
(me quoting/paraphrasing GL, who is sometimes paraphrasing DD, pp.
20-21): Will Marion Cook....had studied at the National Conservatory
under Dvorak and later was a violin studen of Josef Joachim in Berlin
and that his father was a law professor. Fletcher Henderson was trained
in European classical piano and had a degree in chem and math from
Atlanta University, while his brother Horace and Benny Carter went to
Wilberforce University. Jimmy Lunceford was a student in the Denver
high school music system directed by Paul Whiteman's father, then got a
bachelor's degree in music at Fisk and later studied at CCNY. Don
Redman, the son of a respected music teacher, had a degree in music from
Storer University and attended the Chicago and New England
conservatories. Claude Hopkins studied music and medicine at Howard
University, where his parents were on the faculty.
One of the running themes addresses the possible dissemination of and
interaction between European music and American (i.e. black) music. DD
notes that Dvorak came to the US in 1893 and was asked if America would
ever produce good music. Dvorak replied that it wouldn't as long as it
tried to write European music rather than American. "But our roots are
in Europe" they replied. He said "there are other roots - the
spirituals for example." Well, how did Dvorak know about the spirituals
in 1893? DD can't precisely answer that question, but notes that the
Fisk and Hampton University singers toured Europe during the 1870's.
Then there's this section:
DD: There was a house of pleasure in St. Louis run by Babe Connors. She
had, among other offerings, a rather rich musical life. The pianist who
played there attracted Paderewski's attention. And he frequented the
place just to hear the pianist.
So when we speak about the contacts that Jelly Roll Morton might
have had with opera in New Orleans - and there's no question that he
had, because he knew the material - I wonder what contact performers and
composers who visited this country had with black music. For example,
when Ravel came, he wanted to go and hear Jimmie Noone in Chicago.
Immediately. When Milhaud came to the US in 1921, he wanted to go to a
jazz club in Harlem. That was before he wrote _La Creation Du Monde_.
These were the kinds of contacts Europe had with black music.
GL: I think that's well-verified. Gene Krupa was working in a club in
Chicago and saw Ravel in the audience. Joe Venuti said Ravel came to
visit him and Gershwin.
DD: Now I wonder if Ravel when he was in France took advantage of the
chance to hear Jim Europe's band.
GL: I would think that it's almost impossible that he didn't. Look at
Debussy going to the Javanese exhibit at the Paris Exhibition of 1889.
DD: Dvorak _seems_ to have known the spirituals before he came to the
US.
Addressing some of the issues of race, DeLerma says: "Let's admit the
fact that black is not really all that pure. When you think of Willie
the Lion Smith, he was a cantor. The Jewish element is there. I know a
lot of people who ignore the Indian background or the Jewish background
or something else and consider black is black and that's all there is to
it. Consider somebody like Roque Cordero, who is a fantastic 12-tone
composer born in 1917 in Panama. He was originally offended when we
included him on the black composers series with Columbia. He said, 'why
do you call me a black composer? I'm Panamanian. Panamanian means
black, Indian, and Spanish.'
"I said, 'Roque, William Grant Still was born in Woodville, Mississippi,
and he was black, Indian, and Spanish. But also Welsh and Irish. And
he is not regarded as an American composer but as a black composer.'"
Responding to Lees's question about what is the earliest black American
participation in classical music, DeLerma says: "The earliest figure in
the western hemisphere whose music I can get my hands on was a
contemporary of Monteverdi. Her name ... was Teodora Gines. She was
born within one generation after Columbus landed on the island of
Hispaniola. She was very influential on the music of the Caribbean.
How much earlier we can go, I don't know, because we're dealing with a
culture that's got to be acculturated. Because as soon as you put down
notation, this is not an African thing to do. But we have it already by
1600."
Discussing black composers in the US (during the 1800's basically),
DeLerma notes that although there wasn't much opportunity for black
musicians/composers to mix with whites, they took advantage of whatever
opportunities they did have, and wrote what music they could. He notes
that we don't know the names of any of the composers of the spirituals
and notes that other black musicians were socially restricted in terms
of education, appropriate topics, etc. with much of their work
restricted to minstrel shows. He mentions Blind Tom, Ernest Hogan and
James Bland (composer of the state song of Virginia "Carry me back to
ol' Virginny"). Then:
"But in the midst of this atmosphere came Will Marion Cook, who had very
serious academic training at Oberlin, and in Germany with Josef Joachim.
Cook regarded himself as being a pretty good violinist. He gave a
recital. The critics said he was the best Negro violinist in the
country. Cook went to a critic's desk and said, 'You wrote this review,
saying I am the best Negro violinist in this country?' The critic said,
'Yes.' Cook said, 'I'm the best violinist in the country,' took out his
violin, smashed it on the critic's desk, and never touched the
instrument again....
"But then Will Marion Cook opened the doors for musical theater in NY,
which had not been open to blacks before. That was in the first decade
of the century.....
"William Grant Still might be symptomatic. Somebody who worked for WC
Handy, who played in a Broadway show _Shuffle Along_, who wrote music
for the Old Gold show and Artie Shaw, and all this time was thinking
that what he'd like to do was write a symphony. He had ambitions that
went beyond the stereotype. So he opened a door."
BitsyRN
I am doing a project on racism in jazz and need information. If anyone
has any information or knows where to get it then you can e-mail me at
jazz...@aol.com
Thanks a lot,
Jazzkid
sabutin
This whole thread about is there is or is there ain't racism in
jazz is reaching comic proportions. Scholarly book definitions of
racism!!! Give us a break!!! A racist is one who believes in the
general genetic superiority of one race over another, whether over a
broad spectrum of abilities, or in more specific areas. And you can't
have racism with out racists.
Can't have racism w/out rascists...OK, we're halfway there now...
Are there racists in jazz? SHIT yes!!! Black ones, white ones, Spanish
ones....musicians, listeners, critics, scholars, business
people...ESPECIALLY business people...racists, reverse racists,
racists with a philosophical twist, closet racists, parlor racists,
street racists, racists who don't even KNOW they're racists, all KINDS
of goddamned racists, more racists than you can shake a stick at...
Are MOST people involved in this music racists? SHIT no!!! Most
fine musicians, ESPECIALLY musicians, could care less. All they
really want is someone on the stand who can play on the level of the
rest of the band, or above. For real players, an out of tune,
raggedy-ass player only HAS one color, and that's BAD. Most listeners
don't care either...the ear is truly color blind. But the racists got
an axe to grind; they've got an argument to make; they're outrageous;
they make NEWS.( "Cept for the sneaky ones...) And news sells papers
and books, which in turn sell music, which in turn sells MORE papers
and books, and so on in a great big., endless feedback system.
It's not news for a musician or critic to stand up and say "Some
people got it, some don't; some are white, some are black; end of
story." But let some fool write a book stating that black people are
genetically mentally inferior or white people can't play jazz, and
BOOM, it's interview time on the Charlie Rose show. Bullshit. An
endless line of self-serving, career-making, ignorant bullshit.
A quick mention of another kind of insidious, money-based
racism...the attempt to racially balance bands, which is just as
foolish as the attempts in the bad old days (1930s???1980s??? WHICH
bad old days we talking about here???) to SEGREGATE bands, and is done
for the same old reasons, reversed. The ONLY non-ideological reason to
hire musicians on the basis of their supposed race is to try to
attract audiences (and placate critics and politicians) across a wide
spectrum of races and politics (which, of course, audiences and money,
was the reason for SEGREGATING bands in the first place.), and the end
result will ALWAYS be a weakening of the music, and the eventual
failure of that segment of the idiom.(If the music doesn't SOUND good,
it can only be marketed along artificial, temporary cultural and
stylistic lines, and when those change, the music dates, it ages, and
it's GONE. Take a quick listen to disco, you don't know what I mean
here.)
Enough about racism, ESPECIALLY enough debate over the EXISTENCE of
racism. They say that the Devil's greatest trick was convincing
humanity that he didn't exist...well, I don't know about the Devil one
way or the other for sure, but that's definitely what's happening on
this thread, and in the jazz press too. If anyone thinks that there
aren't racists active in the jazz world, that's lovely; I envy you
your innocence. For the rest of us, let's stop debating their
existence and get down, those of us who oppose the whole repugnant
idea, to DOING something about it.
Sabutin
Matthew C Weiner
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu wrote:
I didn't say "inherently." I don't think anyone said "inherently."
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "not supportable by
historical evidence." Have white musicians played jazz well, and
had some influence? Yes (but don't start exaggerating... on a list
of the most significant jazz musicians, counting only those
whose work can be viewed in perspective, the only white musicians
with a chance at the top 20 would be Bill Evans and Charlie
Haden). Are there some traditions of jazz that have been played
by more white people than black people? Probably. Does this
change the fact that jazz originated among black people, that
the most significant musicians have historically tended to
be black, that the majority of musicians have tended to be
black, etc.? No.
Klezmer and tango are by no means exclusive to Jews and
Argentinians, by the way. Romany musicians who survived the
Holocaust are an important source for Klezmer as played in
Europe, and of course there's Don Byron, other non-Jews in
the Klezmer Conservatory Orchestra, and the issue of jazz
influence on the current klezmer revival. Tango as it stands
now was greatly influenced by Astor Piazzolla's classical
studies (he founded new tango). And Finland has a tango
tradition--don't know anything about the music here, but it's
why Edward Vesala sometimes uses accordion.
No one is saying that people who aren't black can't play
jazz, or contribute significantly. That doesn't mean it's not
black music.
Matt
Tom Waters
Chris Kelsey (chke...@aol.com) wrote, by way of saying that it is a
non-issue whether or not jazz is black music:
: Ultimately it's about art, not racial politics. This hair-splitting about
: who invented/influenced what is trivial in the face of the music's power.
But what does that power come from? Some might say vibrational laws, but
I see a lot more sense in tracing it to the music's meaningful
relationship to its own history and to surrounding social history.
I don't think anyone is saying that only black people can play jazz, or
even that is is easier for black people to play jazz. Most of us call
jazz black music because the experience that launched the music and made
it meaningful was black experience. Even today, when so many of the best
jazz musicians are non-black, jazz musicians are able to stand apart from
the implosion of modernism and post-modernism because they can draw on a
mode of cultural autnomy and opposition to dominant forms that is
distinctly different from (but not completely incompatible with) European
avant gardism.
For a much better explanation of what I mean, see Albert Murray's great
Stomping the Blues -- except that I think that Charlie Parker was an
avant-gardist (among many other things) and that "avant-garde"
jazz musicians like Cecil Taylor and Roscoe Mitchell do draw on this
black strand of autonomy and opposition as well as avant-gardism -- and
so do white musicians like Evan Parker and Marilyn Crispell. Murray, as
you probably know, would beg to differ with these assertions.
Tom
--
Thomas Waters
twa...@use.usit.net
1021 East Oak Hill Avenue, Knoxville TN 37917
Dig And Be Dug In Return
ChKelsey
I haven't posted in a while, but occasionally I lurk, and this is a topic
that alternately angers and saddens me. As a "white" contributing member
of New York's Lower East Side jazz community, I have first-hand knowledge
of this (non)issue. We *must* get past it. William Parker, Rob Brown,
Rashid Bakr, Susie Ibarra, Cecil Taylor, Jackson Krall, Denis Charles,
Daniel Carter, Steve Swell, Butch and Wilber Morris, Myra Melford, Perry
Robinson, Herb Robertson and many, many other musicians did long ago.
Ultimately it's about art, not racial politics. This hair-splitting about
who invented/influenced what is trivial in the face of the music's power.
would like to lay exclusive claim to jazz, but it simply cannot be done;
the music's too profound.
Respectfully,
Chris Kelsey
Matthew C Weiner
I think Ken McCarthy is being a good Popperian here, and trying
to explain the way he uses the word "racism," rather than the
way everyone else uses it. Perhaps that's a bit confusing. But
I think the important point is that the phenomenon that Ken
refers to as "racism" and Walt refers to as "institutionalized
racism" exists, and is a much different phenomenon from a
mere belief in the superiority of one race. Specifically, its
effects are much more far-reaching and more pernicious.
I agree with Ken on this. I think it's best to avoid using the
term "racism" except to refer to racist *systems* and their
accompinaments. If we apply the same term to the Jim Crow
system and to a black supremacist like Leonard Jeffries, we
run the risk of implying that they are on the same moral
level--which, simply in terms of human suffering caused, is
not the case.
Matt
Walter Davis (wda...@irss.unc.edu) wrote:
: In article <emediaE3...@netcom.com>,
: eme...@netcom.com (Ken McCarthy) wrote:
: >One thing about "racism". It is very much an "ism", like
: >communism or socialism. It's a cultural product, the result
: >of indoctrination.
: Aaaarrgghh!! This is a misunderstanding of the suffix "ism" which means
: "belief" or theory and is not, per se, the product of "indoctrination"
: and has nothing whatsoever to do with social institutions/social
: structure.
[snip]
: >
: >"Race - ism" is when the leading institutions of a society
: >delare as policy that one race is superior to another
: >and it is therefore acceptable to deny the "inferior"
: >race access to education, employment opportunities,
: >access to the professions, political power etc.
: >
: Not by any dictionary I've ever seen (and I just checked one from 1993).
: What you describe is more accurately referred to as "institutionalized
: racism." "Racism" is a _belief_ in the superiority of one race over
: another. It can also mean racial prejudice and discrimination, although
Harvey J. Cormier
In article <5b3hqm$a...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, mcw...@pitt.edu (Matthew C Weiner) writes:
> I think Ken McCarthy is being a good Popperian here, and trying
> to explain the way he uses the word "racism," rather than the
> way everyone else uses it.
I agree that that's probably true of Ken, because he is obviously a rational
and fair-minded person. But often less scrupulous people use the "blacks can't
be racist" line as a technique of mind-control, an effort to make certain
thoughts--such as the thought that a black person could be guilty of a moral
indecency connected with racial discrimination--unthinkable.
When that happens, I, like Walt, am motivated to let out a good "Aaaarrgghh!!"
Harvey
sabutin
I posted this as a response on an earlier thread, decided I wanted
more people to read it, so I'm reposting it as an independent article,
slightly revised. Sorry if you read it already.
sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
This whole thread about is there is or is there ain't racism in
jazz is reaching comic proportions. Scholarly book definitions of
racism!!! Give us a break!!! A racist is one who believes in the
general genetic superiority of one race over another, whether over a
broad spectrum of abilities, or in more specific areas. And you can't
have racism with out racists.
Can't have racism w/out rascists...OK, we're halfway there now...
Are there racists in jazz? SHIT yes!!! Black ones, white ones, Spanish
ones....musicians, listeners, critics, scholars, business
people...ESPECIALLY business people...racists, reverse racists,
racists with a philosophical twist, closet racists, parlor racists,
monetary racists, street racists, racists who don't even KNOW they're
racists, all KINDS of goddamned racists, more racists than you can
shake a stick at...just like society in general.
Are MOST people involved in this music racists? SHIT no!!! Most
listeners, most fine musicians, ESPECIALLY musicians, could care
less. All they really want is someone on the stand who can play on the
level of the rest of the band, or above. For real players, an out of
tune, raggedy-ass player only HAS one color, and that's BAD. Most
listeners don't care either...the ear is truly color blind. But the
racists have got an axe to grind; they've got an argument to make;
they're outrageous; they make NEWS.( "Cept for the sneaky ones...)
They play politics; they spend time hustling instead of practicing or
playing or listening, and as a result, they get into positions where
they can run things, where they can manipulate public opinion.. Now
NEWS sells papers and books and air time, which in turn sell music,
which in turn sells MORE papers and books and air time, and so on in a
great big, endless feedback system of fame, fortune, empty words and
controversy.
It's not news for a musician or critic to stand up and say "Some
people can play, some can't; some are white, some are black; end of
story." But let some fool write a book stating that black people are
genetically mentally inferior or white people can't play jazz, and
BOOM, suddenly we've got book contracts, academic position,
and it's interview time on the Charlie Rose show. Bullshit. An
endless line of self-serving, career-making, ignorant bullshit.
A quick mention of another kind of insidious, money-based
racism...the attempt to racially balance bands, which is just as
foolish as the attempts in the bad old days (1930s???1980s??? WHICH
bad old days we talking about here???) to SEGREGATE bands, and is done
for the same old reasons, reversed. The ONLY non-ideological reason to
hire musicians on the basis of their supposed race is to try to
attract audiences (and placate critics and politicians) across a wide
spectrum of races and politics (which factors, of course, audiences
and money, were the real reasons for SEGREGATING bands in the first
place.), and the end result will ALWAYS be a weakening of the music,
and the eventual failure of that segment of the idiom. (If the music
doesn't SOUND good, it can only be marketed along artificial,
temporary cultural and stylistic lines, and when those change, the
music dates, it ages, and it's GONE. Take a quick listen to disco, you
don't know what I mean here.)
Enough impotent discussion about racism, ESPECIALLY enough debate
over the EXISTENCE of racism. They say that the Devil's greatest trick
was convincing humanity that he didn't exist...well, I don't know
about the Devil one way or the other, but that's definitely what's
happening on this thread, and in the jazz press too. If anyone thinks
that there aren't racists active in the jazz world, that's lovely; I
envy you your innocence. For the rest of us, let's stop debating their
existence and get down, those of us who oppose the whole repugnant
idea, to DOING something about it.
If you see or hear someone spouting this shit, whether they be
white or black or Hispanic racists, CHALLENGE them. At the very least,
stop spending money on their products, be they books, magazines,
broadcast forms, or recorded music. Without the monetary rewards, much
of this approach would die a quick death, because, believe it, most of
the "racists" are REALLY just hustlers, ready to shift songs at the
slighest sign of a change in the financial/career/power breeze. And if
we do this effectively, maybe this set of idioms we laughingly call
"jazz" will survive ANOTHER 100 years. I surely hope so.
Sabutin
Walter Davis
In article <5b3ibk$9...@news.usit.net>,
twa...@use.usit.net (Tom Waters) wrote:
> Most of us call
>jazz black music because the experience that launched the music and
made
>it meaningful was black experience.
I don't have much trouble with the first part of that sentence, but I
can't agree with that last part. What makes it meaningful is its
relation to _human_ experience, just like any other music. That's why,
from its inception, it touched non-blacks in the US and Europe, why it
flourished in Latin America, why it caught on in Japan, why jazz and
African musicians seem to get along so well, why folks on AsianImprov
and other labels are able to make connections between jazz and Asian
music, etc.
Walter Davis
In article <5b3hqm$a...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
mcw...@pitt.edu (Matthew C Weiner) wrote:
>I think Ken McCarthy is being a good Popperian here, and trying
>to explain the way he uses the word "racism," rather than the
>way everyone else uses it.
I agree that Ken made his definition fairly clear (although at times he
switches back to more of the dictionary definition of racism). My
problem is more with the fashionable concept of "isms" these days, which
equates any word that ends in "ism" with an oppressive social structure.
I'm not much concerned with changes in the English language. I'm more
concerned with the instances we see where folks assume a whole history
behind a concept that doesn't exist, because it ends in an "ism".
And, yes, the problem of institutionalized racism (and sexism and
classism and capitalism and totalitarianism and lots of other "isms"
and non-"isms") exists.
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
In article <5au5o7$g...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> mcw...@pitt.edu (Matthew C Weiner) writes:
>(Saying that the claim
>that jazz is black music is racism is, IMO, one example of shoddy
>thought.
All of the instruments used in jazz were invented by white men.
All of the harmonies used in jazz were invented by white men.
The idea and method of improvising over a pattern of chord changes
was invented by white men.
White men have constituted a majority of professional jazz musicians
since at least the 1920s.
The most popular jazz recording artists have always been white men.
White men composed most of the standard repertoire.
Considering the evidence, I find it absurd to claim jazz as a "black"
music. In my experience, the people who make that claim have a political
agenda, and it is usually racist.
Dennis Dawson
Finally some common sense!
In article <5b30o4$q...@camel0.mindspring.com>,
sab...@mindspring.com (sabutin) wrote:
> This whole thread about is there is or is there ain't racism in
>jazz is reaching comic proportions. Scholarly book definitions of
>racism!!! Give us a break!!! A racist is one who believes in the
>general genetic superiority of one race over another, whether over a
>broad spectrum of abilities, or in more specific areas. And you can't
>have racism with out racists.
>
> Can't have racism w/out rascists...OK, we're halfway there now...
>Are there racists in jazz? SHIT yes!!! Black ones, white ones, Spanish
>ones....musicians, listeners, critics, scholars, business
>people...ESPECIALLY business people...racists, reverse racists,
>racists with a philosophical twist, closet racists, parlor racists,
>street racists, racists who don't even KNOW they're racists, all KINDS
>of goddamned racists, more racists than you can shake a stick at...
>
> Are MOST people involved in this music racists? SHIT no!!! Most
>fine musicians, ESPECIALLY musicians, could care less. All they
>really want is someone on the stand who can play on the level of the
>rest of the band, or above. For real players, an out of tune,
>raggedy-ass player only HAS one color, and that's BAD. Most listeners
>don't care either...the ear is truly color blind. But the racists got
>an axe to grind; they've got an argument to make; they're outrageous;
>they make NEWS.( "Cept for the sneaky ones...) And news sells papers
>and books, which in turn sell music, which in turn sells MORE papers
>and books, and so on in a great big., endless feedback system.
sabutin
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu () wrote:
=======================================
Claiming this music, or parts of it, as black, claiming it as
white, claiming it as northern, or southern, men's music, women's
music, ANY damned separate group's music, it makes no difference WHICH
group, serves only to minimize the music's impact and importance, and
in the long run, it will serve only to further balkanize an already
stressed and divided idiom into further small kingdoms, each one the
better to be ruled as individual barren little feifdoms by no-playing
fools (a jazz musicians' technical term) with their heads up their
asses right on up to the ears, which organs (ears, that is) are
necessary to have any REAL understanding of this music in the first
place.
Arguing w/a racist idea by saying "No, this wasn't invented by X
group, it was invented by (dominated by, composed by, discovered
by...) Y group.", is only turning the argument around and shooting
yourself in the foot with it. All you succeed in doing is prolonging
the argument, which is based on false premises from the beginning.
"No, it was X, and here's the fallacious proof!!"
"No, it was Y, and here are some jive facts to back me up!!!"
" No, it was X, and I'm gonna kick your ass, you say otherwise."
"No it was Y, and our daddies are bigger'n your daddies, so watch
out...!!!"
THERE IS NO END to this line of no-thought and weak argument...in
this particular case, Tom Brown, speaking for the white race
(Lord have mercy!!!), makes six absolutely unproveable statements
regarding the primacy of the white (male) race in this contest to
claim ownership of "jazz", an object that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST in the
first place, and therefore can't BE "owned" or "discovered" !
My sense of this post is that his aim was to counter the equally
absurd claim that "jazz" is "black" music, whatever THAT really means.
Not a bad aim, in and of itself, but his method is terrible. Really
weak. Examining the post statement by statement:
1-Nobody knows WHO "invented" many of the instruments played in
jazz...Drums? Trombones? Flutes? Single reed instruments? Plucked and
bowed stringed instruments? Who really knows?
a. Nobody knows WHAT bloodlines ANYBODY has, past one generation. And
even in ONE generation, as Shakespeare pointed out in King Lear,
"Lucky the man that knows his own father." You SURE Adolphe Saxe was
"white"? Was Adolphe sure?? And, to repeat a phrase that's beginning
to be a trademark of my posts on this subject, WHO CARES?
2-I've already covered this harmony idea at length in another post,
but I will grant that most of the NAMES of the harmonies used in this
music were invented in Europe in the last four centuries. The
harmonies THEMSELVES, however, their concept, use, and physical
existence as combinations of frequencies dancing their lovely dances
through the overtone series, are as American as apple pie, Bix
Beiderbecke, and Louis Armstrong. ...more American than which you
cannot get.
3-Absurd. No one has the faintest idea WHO "invented" "playing
over changes", or whether it ever WAS "invented". Certainly Pops and
Fatha Hines and Sidney Bechet never MISSED a change...my own sense of
the matter is that it jes' grew like Topsy...What, you don't know who
Topsy was? Uh oh, you ain't been paying attention whenthe good tales
was told, my friend. You could look it up...
4-Absurd squared. Can't DEFINE "professional jazz musician", can't
tell me how MANY "professional jazz musicians" ther have BEEN since
the 1920's, nor what percentage of them were of primarily European or
primarily African ancestry...
5-This is getting tiresome. Absurd CUBED. The most popular "jazz"
recording artists have NOT always been white men. By the numbers.
Again, you could look it up. Miles, Louis, Billie Holiday, Duke,
Basie...a lot of records sold right there, just from a quick top-of-
the-head list. (Unless your definition of "jazz" is broad enough to
include people like Vic Damone and Perry Como...both damn good
singers, but where do you draw the line? Andre Previn?
Kenny G.? Mantovani? ) The numbers are further inflated, I'm sure, by
the natural but regrettable tendency of people of one race to buy the
records which have a face of the same race on the cover, and for a
long time, there have been MORE white people with MORE money to spend
than there have been any OTHER racial subdivisions here in America,
Many records, good and bad, white and black, have been bought purely
on the race of the artists...this has NO bearing on what race "owns"
jazz, only on what race "has owned" more money.
6-C'mon...WHICH "standard repertoire"? I've Got Rhythm? Seven Steps
to Heaven? Giant Steps? In A Sentimental Mood? Georgia? The so-called
"standards", show tunes of the twenties and thirties, were certainly
composed by white men. They were "standards" because they were popular
enough, widely known enough, that almost ANY group of musicians could
assemble and play them w/out rehearsal, and they were mostly composed
by white men because mostly white men were the only people allowed
mostly to WRITE songs for mostly white Broadway shows and mostly white
Hollywood movies, mostly attended by white people because they were
the ones wif the mostly white MONEY. That's the way it was, then, and
that's NOT the way it is now, nor HAS it been for a loooong time. The
problem hasn't been SOLVED, but it's sure been given a good kick in
the ass in the right direction.
To conclude, I suggest that if you're going to make claims, silly
as they are, about shit like this, at LEAST make claims that can be
defended. (If, of course that's even a conceptual possibility, given
the weakness of the original argument.)
Top o' the mornin' and a happy approaching Martin Luther King Day
to you, as well. Give it up, this race thing...it doesn't work, on any
level.
Sabutin
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
In article <5avds0$7el$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> teic...@MCS.COM (Harry Teichert) writes:
>Matthew C Weiner <mcw...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>: thread for an explanation of why jazz can be called black
>: music.
>
>black music is a fountainhead for American popular music in general,
>jazz in particular.
Both suggestions are excellent examples of racism in music.
ChKelsey
Subject: Re: Racism in Jazz
From: tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu ()
Date: 11 Jan 1997 08:52:55 GMT
Message-ID: <5b7kd7$r...@news.jhu.edu>
In article <5au5o7$g...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> mcw...@pitt.edu (Matthew
C Weiner) writes:
>(Saying that the claim
>that jazz is black music is racism is, IMO, one example of shoddy
>thought.
>>All of the instruments used in jazz were invented by white men.
No one culture can take credit for having invented the membranophone,
chordophone, or aerophone (percussion, string, and wind instruments). It
is true that European-derived versions of these have evolved into the
contemporary drum set, guitar, bass, piano, saxophone, trumpet, trombone,
etc. However, jazz can and often is played on manifestly non-Western
instruments, as well--the steel drum, the banjo, various Asian flutes and
reeds.
>>All of the harmonies used in jazz were invented by white men.
Again, not necessarily true. Have you forgotten the Asian-influenced modal
work of Coltrane? That's just one obvious example.
>>The idea and method of improvising over a pattern of chord changes
was invented by white men.<<
True enough, given the fact that functional harmony was a purely European
construct, but crassly and over-simply put, don't you think?.
>>White men have constituted a majority of professional jazz musicians
since at least the 1920s.<<
I suspect this to be true, though I'd have to be able to site empirical
evidence before I'd make such a sweeping statement.
>>The most popular jazz recording artists have always been white men.<<
Also true, if you accept every generation's version of Kenny G as being a
"jazz" musician, although to be fair there have been many popular white
jazz musicians whose credentials are beyond reproach. All this country's
presidents--popular and unpopular--have also been white men, for what it's
worth.
>>White men composed most of the standard repertoire.<<
True.
>>Considering the evidence, I find it absurd to claim jazz as a "black"
music. In my experience, the people who make that claim have a political
agenda, and it is usually racist.<<
I agree, to an extent. It's plain that jazz grew out of the various
African-American communities in turn of the century New Orleans, but it
quickly developed into something larger and more universal. Which means
that no one group can claim ownership. I think that's the point Tom is
trying to make, and it's a good one. The only conclusion that can
rationally be drawn is that African-Americans were there first, but
contributions were and have continued to be made by human beings of every
conceivable type (maybe even Republicans:->). If jazz is solely a "Black"
music, then it follows that it cannot be an "international" music. Since
we know that it *does* transcend race and nationality, then it doesn't
make sense to attribute exclusive ownership to anybody.
I don't mean to pick on Tom. He makes some valid points, but I think maybe
he lost his head a little on this one (it happens, as we all know too
well). Same goes, by the way, for Sabutin, who says some good things that
are ultimately compromised by bad musicology. (I lost your interesting
post in response to Tom from yesterday, Sabutin; your spirit is great and
you are obviously intelligent and articulate, but your analysis left
something to be desired. If you could post it to me by E-mail, I could
give you specific examples of what I mean.) It never hurts to remind
oneself that life is complex well beyond our capacity to perceive. The
older I get, the smarter I get, the more I realize just how little I know.
I can only imagine that to be true of others out there.
I predict that in one hundred years this jazz/race thing will not be an
issue.
For What It's Worth,
Chris Kelsey
Matthew C Weiner
sabutin (sab...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: THERE IS NO END to this line of no-thought and weak argument...in
: this particular case, Tom Brown, speaking for the white race
: (Lord have mercy!!!), makes six absolutely unproveable statements
: regarding the primacy of the white (male) race in this contest to
: claim ownership of "jazz", an object that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST in the
: first place, and therefore can't BE "owned" or "discovered" !
Eh? Jazz doesn't exist? I'm not sure what you mean here.
: My sense of this post is that his aim was to counter the equally
: absurd claim that "jazz" is "black" music, whatever THAT really means.
: Not a bad aim, in and of itself, but his method is terrible. Really
: weak. Examining the post statement by statement:
Look, I appreciate your rebuttals of Mr. Brown's arguments.
But I don't think the claim that jazz is "black music" is
"equally absurd." The claim is that it was invented by black
people (African-Americans if you will) and that most of the
significant figures in its history have been black, and that
it arises from a confluence of influences that are unique
to African-Americans. So far no one's disproved that.
I appreciate your reasons for wanting to say that jazz doesn't
belong to any one race. Of course I'm not saying that non-black
people (and non-Americans; the claim that jazz is American
music, incidentally, never seems to arouse the same degree
of opprobrium) can't play jazz well, or come up with
new styles, or what have you. But it does seem to me to be
something of a cheap shot to try to take jazz away from
African Americans while European-Americans still hang on to
the vast majority of the money and power (including definitions
of high culture) in U.S. society. That's why I find the
point worth arguing.
Matt
GJuke
>>>>All of the instruments used in jazz were invented by white men.<<<<
_All_ of them? well, let's say most...
>>>>All of the harmonies used in jazz were invented by white men.<<<<
We've been over this. Don't agree.
>>>>The idea and method of improvising over a pattern of chord changes
was invented by white men.<<<<
How? A little 4 measure cadenza based on triad harmony w/baroque
ornamentation is
Jazz improvisation?
>>>>White men have constituted a majority of professional jazz musicians
since at least the 1920s.<<<<
I don't think so. Not at all.
>>>>The most popular jazz recording artists have always been white
men.<<<<
Because they were the only ones who could get work in this society at that
time.
>>>>White men composed most of the standard repertoire.<<<<
See above.
I strongly believe in the contributions of whites in Jazz, and in the
shared heritage of Americans in this music.
But some of the things you're saying are just dumb.
GJ
Cyrus
Racism does not have a place in jazz. If one is sophisticated enough to
understand jazz, then they do not care if a black man or a white man or
a purple man is playing the piano, trumpet, or bass. There is racism
ABOUT jazz, but that is out of the inner core of jazz musicians. Being
of a different skin color does not increase one's technical skill.
Cyrus
Matthew C Weiner
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu wrote:
Ken McCarthy left the net before you started posting on this
and related threads, so he can't defend himself. I'm not
particularly inclined to defend him in detail either, because
I hope most people reading this probably don't believe your
judgments.
I've been trying to carry on this discussion at a higher level
than you--you've been crying "racism" quite a bit. I am sick
of making this effort, and do not want to get involved in
a series of personal attacks. So, please continue to post
about the development of jazz harmony. If I fail to respond
to things you say on other topics, don't think it's because
I can't think of anything to say.
Matt
Jeff Volkman
On 14 Jan 1997, Matthew C Weiner wrote:
> I appreciate your reasons for wanting to say that jazz doesn't
> belong to any one race. Of course I'm not saying that non-black
> people (and non-Americans; the claim that jazz is American
> music, incidentally, never seems to arouse the same degree
> of opprobrium) can't play jazz well, or come up with
> new styles, or what have you. But it does seem to me to be
> something of a cheap shot to try to take jazz away from
> African Americans while European-Americans still hang on to
> the vast majority of the money and power (including definitions
> of high culture) in U.S. society. That's why I find the
> point worth arguing.
IMO, breaking it down as a black vs. white, or African vs. European issue
makes little or no sense from a musical standpoint. It really just
doesn't work; it's not that simple. It only makes sense if you have a
political (non-musical) agenda to push.
-Jeff
Jeff Volkman
On 14 Jan 1997, ChKelsey wrote:
> I agree, to an extent. It's plain that jazz grew out of the various
> African-American communities in turn of the century New Orleans, but it
> quickly developed into something larger and more universal. Which means
> that no one group can claim ownership. I think that's the point Tom is
> trying to make, and it's a good one.
I agree.
> The only conclusion that can
> rationally be drawn is that African-Americans were there first, but
> contributions were and have continued to be made by human beings of every
> conceivable type (maybe even Republicans:->). If jazz is solely a "Black"
> music, then it follows that it cannot be an "international" music. Since
> we know that it *does* transcend race and nationality, then it doesn't
> make sense to attribute exclusive ownership to anybody.
>
> I don't mean to pick on Tom. He makes some valid points, but I think maybe
> he lost his head a little on this one (it happens, as we all know too
> well). Same goes, by the way, for Sabutin, who says some good things that
> are ultimately compromised by bad musicology. (I lost your interesting
> post in response to Tom from yesterday, Sabutin; your spirit is great and
> you are obviously intelligent and articulate, but your analysis left
> something to be desired. If you could post it to me by E-mail, I could
> give you specific examples of what I mean.) It never hurts to remind
> oneself that life is complex well beyond our capacity to perceive. The
> older I get, the smarter I get, the more I realize just how little I know.
> I can only imagine that to be true of others out there.
>
> I predict that in one hundred years this jazz/race thing will not be an
> issue.
Wow, another cool post. I'm really encouraged by the direction this
thread(s) has gone. For a minute it looked like it was headed for the
usual flame-fest. Right on Chris.
-Jeff
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
In article <8DRqoeen...@gol.com> sako...@gol.com (William Sakovich) writes:
>In article <5aoqra$d5$5...@newz.oit.unc.edu>,
>wda...@irss.unc.edu (Walter Davis) wrote:
>
>> My favorite is the interview with Dominique DeLerma, a musicologist,
>> which in a few pages calls into question enough jazz myths as to
>> make most of us casual fans/historians wonder how much we know.
>
>For those of us living in places where the book is unlikely to be
>available, what sort of jazz myths are these? Sounds like fun.
The main one is that jazz musicians are poor, naive, autodidacts.
Delerma says, as I have argued here a number of times, that jazz
musicians are generally of middle-class origin and are usually
well-schooled.
He also points out the inherent racism in referring to "black" music in
the US. Racist not because it ignores contributions from other groups,
but because it limits the identity of the purportedly "black" creators
who are usually of mixed euro, indian, and african origin. In this sense,
the black pride/black separatist agenda is really based on exactly the
same assumptions as the white racist agenda, in that it assumes that
melanin is the most important aspect of a person's identity.
sabutin
mcw...@pitt.edu (Matthew C Weiner) wrote:
>sabutin (sab...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: THERE IS NO END to this line of no-thought and weak argument...in
>: this particular case, Tom Brown, speaking for the white race
>: (Lord have mercy!!!), makes six absolutely unproveable statements
>: regarding the primacy of the white (male) race in this contest to
>: claim ownership of "jazz", an object that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST in the
>: first place, and therefore can't BE "owned" or "discovered" !
>Eh? Jazz doesn't exist? I'm not sure what you mean here.
=====================================
Can't agree on a definition of it. Can't pick it up and carry it
away with you. Can't eat it, or smell it, or taste it. Can't identify
it, quantify it, grab hold of it on ANY level and shake it, can't even
FIND it most of the time, so how're you going to prove it exists?
And if it doesn't exist, how can someone say they own it, or
discovered it, invented it, claim dominion over it? It's not a dog, or
a house, or a car, or a book or a painting...it's an IDEA, a series of
interconnected ideas, ideas of group effort and discovery, a long,
slow cooperative effort over time, a chimera, a shape-shifter, a
rumour of a memory of a series of sonic illusions. It doesn't exist,
not really, not in the world of attribution and ownership.
Bird's solos most certainly "belonged" to Bird, Duke's work to
Duke, Gil Evans' to Gil...but "jazz" doesn't "belong" to anybody, or
any GROUP of people.Too big, too tricky, too real.
========================================
>: My sense of this post is that his aim was to counter the equally
>: absurd claim that "jazz" is "black" music, whatever THAT really means.
>: Not a bad aim, in and of itself, but his method is terrible. Really
>: weak. Examining the post statement by statement:
>Look, I appreciate your rebuttals of Mr. Brown's arguments.
>But I don't think the claim that jazz is "black music" is
>"equally absurd." The claim is that it was invented by black
>people (African-Americans if you will) and that most of the
>significant figures in its history have been black, and that
>it arises from a confluence of influences that are unique
>to African-Americans. So far no one's disproved that.
==========================
I don't dispute that series of ideas; I just don't think that
means that this music we laughingly call "jazz" can be considered as
"belonging" to any one group of people.. If the privilege of playing
or listening to the music was reserved exclusively for people who
could demonstrate conclusively that they possessed a certain
percentage of African ancestry, THEN it could be called "black music",
much the same way as the Ku Klux Klan can accurately be termed a
"white organization." But, of course, that's not the case, as I will
continue to point out every chance I get. It's just music, and NOBODY
has an exclusive claim to it.
=================================
>I appreciate your reasons for wanting to say that jazz doesn't
>belong to any one race. Of course I'm not saying that non-black
>people (and non-Americans; the claim that jazz is American
>music, incidentally, never seems to arouse the same degree
>of opprobrium) can't play jazz well, or come up with
>new styles, or what have you. But it does seem to me to be
>something of a cheap shot to try to take jazz away from
>African Americans while European-Americans still hang on to
>the vast majority of the money and power (including definitions
>of high culture) in U.S. society. That's why I find the
>point worth arguing.
============================
CAN'T take it away from African Americans; 'cause they don't OWN
it. They can surely let it go, as vast numbers of them have, but it
can't be taken AWAY. As far as European-Americans owning the monetary
and cultural apparatus in the U.S., granting ownership of every
cultural advance in the last thousand YEARS to ANY minority won't
change THAT fact one iota. Face it, they could care LESS about this
discussion. Ain't going to affect the price of tea in China or
microchips in Silicon Valley by so much as a cent, and that's all the
power structure really cares about.
All I'm trying to do here is help ensure the health and continuing
growth of an idiom that nourishes me and mine 365 days of the year,
year in and year out, and racial politics, jive music history and
ignorant harmonic theory are anathema to that goal, as far as I can
see.
Sabutin
>Matt
GJuke
>>>>It's not a dog, or a house, or a car, or a book or a painting...it's
an IDEA, a series of
interconnected ideas, ideas of group effort and discovery, a long,
slow cooperative effort over time, a chimera, a shape-shifter, a
rumour of a memory of a series of sonic illusions.<<<<
My record collection seems to deny your arguments.
GJ
sabutin
gj...@aol.com (GJuke) wrote:
===============================
Your record collection is a pale reflection of innumerable living
moments, and of the human beings and their hours and decades of effort
and sacrifice that went into the creation of those moments. It's a
valuable reflection, an enjoyable one, I hope, but IT IS NOT THE
MUSIC, only a picture of the music. More than any other western
musical form, "jazz" (once again, I ask, along with Miles and Mingus
and many others, what the hell that word really means, but that's
another threrad entirely...) exists in and of the moment.. It is, and
then, suddenly, it is not. Gone. Untraceable. Vanished. Kaput.
Outta here.
I offer a (likely apocryphal, but still instructive) teaching
story, featuring everyone's favorite inscrutable genius, Pablo
Picasso. One day, the husband of one of Picasso's most frequent models
dropped by the studio as Picasso was putting some finishing touches on
one of his paintings. Standing back and eyeing the piece, which was
quite strange, the man asked who the model and had been, and Picasso
informed him that it was indeed that man's beloved wife. The gentleman
lost it, stomping up and down and fuming about how "That painting has
nothing to do with my wife!!! What are you, blind? Why, it doesnt
even LOOK like her!!!"
Picasso calmly let him slow down, and then asked "Well, if that
doesn't resemble your wife, what DOES she look like?", whereupon the
man whipped out his wallet and showed Picasso a snapshot, saying "THIS
is what she looks like!!! Are you crazy?"
Picasso took the photo over by the light, examined it for a minute
or two, and then gave it back to the man, commenting only "That's very
strange..I had no idea she was so SMALL!"
Records are like that...we take them for reality, but even the
greatest, most finely produced recordings are only snapshots of a
greater, continuing reality, and jazz (there's that word again..)
records are not only a snapshot of what was happening, they're a
snapshot of a one-time-only, never-to-be-experienced-again situation.
This is not to be taken as a criticism of recordings, or listening to
recorded music, or of PEOPLE who hear most of their music through
electronic media...I do it myself regularly, although I've spent
enough time right in the face of live music that I've learned the
difference, the limitations (and thestrengths) of recorded listening.
I suggest, however, that you search out the real stuff, live, in
the least constrictive, freest situations, absolutely as often as ytou
can. Sit, and listen, and listen some more, and learn. SEE the energy,
ABSORB the passion of the musicians, WITNESS the act of creation on
its most immediate level.THAT's where the music lives, in clubs, in
sessions and rehearsals and concerts. That's where you can witness it
full size, LARGER than life in some instances.
Sabutin
P.S. By the way, exactly HOW does your record collection "deny" my
arguments that this music "is not a house, or a car, or a book or a
painting.", but rather an idea, a series of ideas, spread out and
interconnected over nearly 90 years, maybe over centuries if you
really want to analyze where it comes from? YOU may infer,
incorrectly, I would argue, that your record collection (which most
certainly IS a discrete, inanimate object, but which equally certainly
is NOT "jazz" in its entirety, or even a corner of a molecule of what
"jazz" is or isn't) is evidence that "jazz" indeed exists, but your
record collection, unless it isinfinitely more gifted than any other
set of records and CDs I've ever run across, just sits there waiting
to be played, and when it IS played, it only exists insofar as it is
received and (in some cases unfortunately) interpreted by a human
brain. YOU deny the arguments; your record collection jes' sits and
waits.
Harvey J. Cormier
In article <5b5naq$s4i$5...@newz.oit.unc.edu>, wda...@irss.unc.edu (Walter
Davis) wrote:
> In article <5b3ibk$9...@news.usit.net>,
> twa...@use.usit.net (Tom Waters) wrote:
> > Most of us call
> >jazz black music because the experience that launched the music and
> made
> >it meaningful was black experience.
>
> I don't have much trouble with the first part of that sentence, but I
> can't agree with that last part. What makes it meaningful is its
> relation to _human_ experience, just like any other music. That's why,
> from its inception, it touched non-blacks in the US and Europe, why it
> flourished in Latin America, why it caught on in Japan, why jazz and
> African musicians seem to get along so well, why folks on AsianImprov
> and other labels are able to make connections between jazz and Asian
> music, etc.
I think you're oversimplifying a little here, Walt. Jazz, like a
Shakespeare play, has a universal meaning, but it wouldn't if it hadn't
first had a local, personal meaning to its creators. There is more in a
work of art than what the artist puts in, thanks to what we art-lovers put
in as well; but still there _is_ the contribution of the artist in his
particularity--and sometimes we can miss the full meaning of a work of art
if we pay no attention at all to the context in which it was created.
HC
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Harvey Cormier
Philosophy Dept.
University of Texas @ Austin
cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
"One never knows, do one?" --Fats Waller
Harvey J. Cormier
In article <19970114212...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
chke...@aol.com (ChKelsey) wrote:
> tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu wrote:
>
> >>Considering the evidence, I find it absurd to claim jazz as a "black"
> music. In my experience, the people who make that claim have a political
> agenda, and it is usually racist.<<
>
> African-American communities in turn of the century New Orleans, but it
> quickly developed into something larger and more universal. Which means
> that no one group can claim ownership.
To reiterate a point made by Matt Weiner (I think), does this mean we
can't say that jazz is American music, either? Non-Americans play it and
love it, and have done so nearly since the beginning. Same with
rock'n'roll, for that matter. But it seems pretty obvious that these are
creations of American culture, and are thus American music if anything
is. Why, then, can't we analogously regard jazz as a creation of the
black American sub-culture, or black American music? (Obviously, _some_
of the things you might mean by these words are racist, but not all of
them.)
> I think that's the point Tom is
> trying to make, and it's a good one. The only conclusion that can
> rationally be drawn is that African-Americans were there first, but
> contributions were and have continued to be made by human beings of every
> conceivable type (maybe even Republicans:->).
So white people (and Asian people, and Hispanics, and . . .) can play
black music, just as Finns can play American music. So what?
> If jazz is solely a "Black"
> music, then it follows that it cannot be an "international" music.
If the Dallas Cowboys can be "America's Team", or adopted and loved by
people all over the country, why shouldn't black American music be world
music?
> Since
> we know that it *does* transcend race and nationality, then it doesn't
> make sense to attribute exclusive ownership to anybody.
>
The claim doesn't have to be about "exclusive ownership". Jazz isn't a
piece of copyrighted property. Maybe it's more like freeware. It's there
for the taking, and even for the modifying, but you've got to give props
to the designer. (Jelly Roll has some postcards coming.)
Harvey
Harvey J. Cormier
> Claiming this music, or parts of it, as black, claiming it as
> white, claiming it as northern, or southern, men's music, women's
> music, ANY damned separate group's music, it makes no difference WHICH
> group, serves only to minimize the music's impact and importance, and
> in the long run, it will serve only to further balkanize an already
> stressed and divided idiom into further small kingdoms, each one the
> better to be ruled as individual barren little feifdoms by no-playing
> fools (a jazz musicians' technical term) with their heads up their
> asses right on up to the ears, which organs (ears, that is) are
> necessary to have any REAL understanding of this music in the first
> place.
>
To call on Matt Weiner's excellent point once more, do you have the same
strong feeling about the idea that jazz is _American_ music? Is that
necessarily a limiting "nationalist" idea? I can't see why it would be,
necessarily--although of course in the mouth of a nationalist it might
express a nationalistic sentiment, perhaps the claim that no non-American
could play jazz. But it doesn't _have_ to mean anything that dumb.
Likewise, someone _could_ say "jazz is black music" and mean that no
non-black person could play jazz, but that expression _could_ only mean
that jazz originated in a particular subculture of American society.
How about "Charles Ives's music is American music"? This seems like
something one would want to insist on, right? I'm inclined to think a
listener really couldn't fully understand what Charles Ives was all about
unless the listener understood Ives's connection to the New England Yankee
transcendentalists, his use of the music of turn-of-the-century American
popular culture (is that designation limiting?), etc.
And I think similar things are true about jazz throughout its history. It
reflects the spectrum of American black experience, from folkways,
segregation, and poverty to sophistication and cultural exchanges with
Europeans, European-Americans, and the rest of the world. White
performers have a role in that story, of course, but you don't understand
the whole story without knowing what blackness (and whiteness) meant.
That isn't racist, it's just a little bit reflective about what jazz is
about.
Nils G. Jacobson
GJuke (gj...@aol.com) wrote:
: I strongly believe in the contributions of whites in Jazz, and in the
: shared heritage of Americans in this music.
: But some of the things you're saying are just dumb.
Yes, I reluctantly enter this fray. Whoever is shouting out about the
contributions of white people is deaf to anything else. The whole
discussion is petty and irrelevant. GJuke, you are right on.
-Nils
Tom Waters
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu wrote:
: He also points out the inherent racism in referring to "black" music in
: the US. Racist not because it ignores contributions from other groups,
: but because it limits the identity of the purportedly "black" creators
: who are usually of mixed euro, indian, and african origin. In this sense,
: the black pride/black separatist agenda is really based on exactly the
: same assumptions as the white racist agenda, in that it assumes that
: melanin is the most important aspect of a person's identity.
Integrationism wouldn't get very far without making use of the concept
"black" either. So do integrationists limit the identities of
black people? Are they racist? Is there any way to oppose white
supremacy that isn't racist?
Tom
--
Thomas Waters
twa...@use.usit.net
1021 East Oak Hill Avenue, Knoxville TN 37917
Dig And Be Dug In Return
sabutin
cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Harvey J. Cormier) wrote:
>In article <5bg49a$2...@camel4.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> Claiming this music, or parts of it, as black, claiming it as
>> white, claiming it as northern, or southern, men's music, women's
>> music, ANY damned separate group's music, it makes no difference WHICH
>> group, serves only to minimize the music's impact and importance, and
>> in the long run, it will serve only to further balkanize an already
>> stressed and divided idiom into further small kingdoms, each one the
>> better to be ruled as individual barren little feifdoms by no-playing
>> fools (a jazz musicians' technical term) with their heads up their
>> asses right on up to the ears, which organs (ears, that is) are
>> necessary to have any REAL understanding of this music in the first
>> place.
>>
>To call on Matt Weiner's excellent point once more, do you have the same
>strong feeling about the idea that jazz is _American_ music? Is that
>necessarily a limiting "nationalist" idea? I can't see why it would be,
>necessarily--although of course in the mouth of a nationalist it might
>express a nationalistic sentiment, perhaps the claim that no non-American
>could play jazz. But it doesn't _have_ to mean anything that dumb.
>Likewise, someone _could_ say "jazz is black music" and mean that no
>non-black person could play jazz, but that expression _could_ only mean
>that jazz originated in a particular subculture of American society.
>How about "Charles Ives's music is American music"? This seems like
>something one would want to insist on, right? I'm inclined to think a
>listener really couldn't fully understand what Charles Ives was all about
>unless the listener understood Ives's connection to the New England Yankee
>transcendentalists, his use of the music of turn-of-the-century American
>popular culture (is that designation limiting?), etc.
>And I think similar things are true about jazz throughout its history. It
>reflects the spectrum of American black experience, from folkways,
>segregation, and poverty to sophistication and cultural exchanges with
>Europeans, European-Americans, and the rest of the world. White
>performers have a role in that story, of course, but you don't understand
>the whole story without knowing what blackness (and whiteness) meant.
>That isn't racist, it's just a little bit reflective about what jazz is
>about.
=========================
You're right, of course, part of the knowledge necessary for a
certain kind of study of ANY music includes some understanding of the
people who created it, and the conditions under which they lived at
the time it was created. I have no objection to that, nor to the idea
that much of the music under discussion here, especially during its
first 50 or 60 years, reflected and grew out of the African-American
societal experience in North America. ..as it reflectedand grew out
of, to greater or lesser degrees, the lower-middle class
European-American experience, the experiences of people of
African /Native American/European ancestry in the Caribbean and South
America, and, mostly after the Second World War, the experiences of
middle and upper-middle class European- Americans and finally, people
of every economic and cultural background, all over the world.
If one travels enough and is involved enough in this music to be
given the privilege of SEEING behind the filtration screen of what and
whom the people who produce records decide to promote, it soon becomes
obvious that, as we stumble into the 21st century, various forms of
this music are EVERYWHERE, being played at an astonishingly high level
by people of whom the average RMB subscriber and American "jazz"
consumer will NEVER hear. Willie Nagasaki, a very good Japanese
timbale player who goes so far as to DRESS like a 1953 Puerto Rican
mambo dancer from the Palladium, pointy shoes and all (not to mention
all the hundreds of OTHER wonderful Japanese players)...INNUMERABLE
Russian jazz players in Moscow and elsewhere in the Countries Formerly
Known As Russia (I'm not too partial to Prince's music, but DAMN he
did a wonderful thing with that clunky name he came up with, didn't
he?), some of whom, like the trumpet player Valery Pomanarev, have
come to America and been very successful as players with an original,
vital voice in the music; Cuban and Puerto Rican and Argentinian and
Panamanian and Venezuelan and Dominican and Panamanian (did I leave
anybody out, hermanos? Sorry if I did...) players by the truckload; a
Western European culture that has, in the last forty years or so,
invented, nurtured and supported a "jazz' culture that in many ways
surpasses anything going on in North America, which includes several
immediately recognizeable schools or styles of playing that are as
valid as anything to come out of North America during the same time
period, in my opinion...I could go on, but I have other business at
hand, have to cut this short...
My point here, is that this music has demonstrably burst through
the boundaries of race and culture, through the artificially conceived
and propagated conceits of the societal theorists and businessmen of
ALL races and natioalities, and cannot, SHOULD not, be referred to or
perceived as music that "belongs" to ANY group. Surely, let us
recognize and applaud the heroism of the musicians who fought their
way out of unimaginable ghettos and the meanest sort of racial hatred
to appear before the world bringing a music of unbelieveable strength
and sweetness and anger and joy. Of course, let us try to fully
understand how their life experience informed their music, if only to
finally and forever avoid that kind of historically oft-repeated
racial mistake in the future of this culture, maybe for all time, but
DON'T, as I have read (and OFTEN experienced first-hand) so many times
in the past twenty-five years, refer to or consider this music as the
property of any one group of people. It is not, and AT LEAST from the
time that Louis Armstrong brought this music at its highest level up
the river to Chicago with him, it HAS not been.
And it never will be again...
Sabutin
Harvey J. Cormier
In article <19970116032...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
chke...@aol.com (ChKelsey) wrote:
> I'm curious; why is it important that jazz be called "Black" or "Black
> American" music? Why do you feel it necessary to include the qualifier
> "Black" when describing jazz?
I don't feel it _necessary_: as I said a while back in another post
(maybe in another thread), I think the idea that jazz is black music is
entirely disposable. One can make a reasonable argument that there has
been too much non-black participation and influence from the beginning,
that some of the creators, notably Jelly Roll Morton, didn't see
themselves as black, that the distinction between black people and white
people is the invention of biological ignoramuses anyway, etc., etc.
However, I don't see any good reason for all the hysteria that seems to
attend any suggestion on this newsgroup that jazz is black music, because
that idea _can_ be a perfectly harmless one. It can be as harmless, and
even as informative, as the idea that jazz is "American" music. It can
indicate the origin and significant development of this music among the
people who were identified (and discriminated against) as black, and it
can indicate places to look if one is trying to understand the emotional
and cultural meanings of various musical forms and styles within jazz. If
you want to understand the music of Charles Ives, it's useful to know Ives
was an American and a New Englander: a lot of his experience of those
places is in his music. Analogously, if you're trying to understand
bebop, it just might be useful to know that Dizzy Gillespie was a black
man in America in the '40s and '50s when he participated in the creation
of this style of music. You might find a lot of Dizzy's experience in his
music, too. And, who knows, you might not. But at least holding that out
as an open possibility is not intrinsically evil, "racist", or--heaven
forfend!--"political".
> It seems to me, if we're to call jazz a
> "black" music, then we should call opera "Italian" music, even when
> written by composers of another nationality, since opera was "invented" by
> Italians. [. . .] Somewhere along the line, the roots of the
> music became less important to people than the actual music itself.[. . .]
This is an interesting argument, but I guess (a) I'm not exactly sure that
this has happened in jazz yet, or in rock'n'roll, country-western, R&B,
the blues, ragtime, hip-hop, or other forms that I still think of as tied
to the Americans who created them, and in some cases to the black
Americans who did, despite the fact that people all over the world now
create music in these forms. Maybe in another hundred years or so; but
didn't it take opera at least that long to get shook loose from the
Italians? (What's your hurry?)
And (b), in any case, it isn't any kind of immoral act to insist that
opera is an Italian musical form: it doesn't necessarily imply that no
one else could write an opera in another language, e.g. It's just a funny
way of talking that's likely to call for some clarification. I don't
think that calling jazz "black music" is equally odd, but you are free to
demand all the clarifications you like, as far as I'm concerned.
> Jazz is the name of a type of music. It has outgrown its
> beginnings to become an international phenomenon.
I think people around the world are interested in America and in black
America, and that jazz's connection to these things is part of the appeal
of jazz, not something it has had to "outgrow".
> In general, [jazz] is no
> longer a specifically "Black" music unless the particular musician playing
> it cares to label it as such. Most players I know don't bother. They just
> make music, because that's ultimately what it's all about.
>
I don't think it's up to the player alone to decide what kind of music she
or he is playing, for better or worse.
ChKelsey
Harvey,
I'm curious; why is it important that jazz be called "Black" or "Black
American" music? Why do you feel it necessary to include the qualifier
"Black" when describing jazz? It seems to me, if we're to call jazz a
"black" music, then we should call opera "Italian" music, even when
written by composers of another nationality, since opera was "invented" by
Italians. Indeed, in the eighteenth and the first part of the nineteenth
century, Italian was considered by many to be the only true language of
opera--the German-born composer G.F. Handel spent much of his career
writing Italian opera in London! Back then, the word "Italian" was added
to denote the only true opera. Somewhere along the line, the roots of the
music became less important to people than the actual music itself. Even
the quintessentially-German composer Richard Wagner wrote an Italian opera
("Rienzi"), in part to conform to the expected norm, yet his greatest
works came when he abandoned traditional affectations and began writing in
his native tongue. Obviously, one would never call "Tristan und Isolde" or
"Parsifal" an Italian opera, yet nobody (aside from Wagner himself, maybe)
would deny that they are in fact, indisputably operas.
Jazz is the name of a type of music. It has outgrown its
beginnings to become an international phenomenon. In general, it is no
longer a specifically "Black" music unless the particular musician playing
it cares to label it as such. Most players I know don't bother. They just
make music, because that's ultimately what it's all about.
Regards,
Chris Kelsey
sabutin
cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Harvey J. Cormier) wrote:
---snip---
>> It seems to me, if we're to call jazz a
>> "black" music, then we should call opera "Italian" music, even when
>> written by composers of another nationality, since opera was "invented" by
>> Italians. [. . .] Somewhere along the line, the roots of the
>> music became less important to people than the actual music itself.[. . .]
>This is an interesting argument, but I guess (a) I'm not exactly sure that
>this has happened in jazz yet, or in rock'n'roll, country-western, R&B,
>the blues, ragtime, hip-hop, or other forms that I still think of as tied
>to the Americans who created them, and in some cases to the black
>Americans who did, despite the fact that people all over the world now
>create music in these forms.
==========================
Oh, I think in much of the music called "jazz", as well as, to some
degree ragtime and blues. it CERTAINLY has, despite the most strenuous
attempts by people who...and I'm not referring to the present poster
now...have one or another vested interest in maintaining the idea that
jazz is a "black" music. One visualizes An R+B singer as
African-American, a C+W singer as of European descent ( it wasn't
until I saw Charlie Pride that I ever even considered what the saying
"The exception proves the rule." really meant...), rock musicians, at
least "hard", "heavy-metal", :grunge", etc. rockers as white, and so
on, yet the phrase "jazz musician" is as likely to bring up an image
in most people's minds of a sunglasses weraing, Gerry Mulligan looking
hipster as it is Bird or Diz.
Sabutin
---snip---
Thomas Richards
On 16 Jan 1997, ChKelsey wrote:
Richard Wagner's
> greatest
> works came when he abandoned traditional affectations
Don't everybody's?
--
Tom Richards -- Fredericton Area Network
<aa...@fan.nb.ca> or <tom...@afm.org> "Yo Cats"
I like mixed metaphors - they are the icing on the camel's back.
Matthew C Weiner
: In article <19970116032...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
: chke...@aol.com (ChKelsey) wrote:
: > I'm curious; why is it important that jazz be called "Black" or "Black
: > American" music? Why do you feel it necessary to include the qualifier
: > "Black" when describing jazz?
I personally feel this is important because of what I see
as a tendency on the political right to try to dispossess
African-Americans culturally. (All the following is going
to be vague, so it's worth exactly what you're paying for
it....) I've seen "multiculturalism" mocked for allegedly
diluting standards, I've seen a famous author apparently impugn
the literary talents of non-European peoples ("Where is the
Proust of the Papuans?" he allegedly asked; I'm not naming
names because I don't have a reliable source). Leaving
aside the question of whether Ralph Ellison, John Edgar
Wideman, and Toni Morrison can stand among the top ranks
of 20th-c. American novelists (I think yes, but it's off-
topic), I think it's a good thing to point out that the
most vital music of the 20th century is black music (or
descended from it, in the case of all forms of current pop).
In most contexts, this might require convincing someone
that jazz (and pop) has produced the most vital 20th-century
music--and there calling it "American music" may be tactically
better than calling it "Black Music." (By the way, the
"American music" example comes from my roommate, who won't
get any of his ideas attributed by name till he learns
to post.) But I don't think I have to fight that battle
here.
Of course, there are a lot of possible stereotypes left to
fight: the idea that jazz is purely spontaneous, a matter
of "soul" not craft; the idea that jazz musicians don't
understand what they're doing; the idea that jazz is a pure
expression of culture, not of individuals' genius. Some
arguments that jazz is black music may swing over that way.
But: 1) This issue got raised on this thread because of
Gene Lees' claim that it *is* racist to say that jazz
is black music; 2) Dominique De Lerma, the "ethno"musicologist
Lees interviews elsewhere in the book, fights all those
claims and seems to have no problem with the idea of
black music; 3) my grounds for making this claim may be
political--I have no problem with that--but are not racist.
Thanks to the last group of posters for keeping the tone
elevated.
Matt
GJuke
>>>>I personally feel this is important because of what I see
as a tendency on the political right<<<<
But see, why does this erroneous, political (not social; and DEFINITELY
_NOT_ MUSICAL)
type of bull-crap have to be brought into the argument????
I've seen lots of "tendencies" on the "political left" (read: flaming
liberals) to "disenfranchise" EVERYBODY; but I don't use this forum to
post _my_ political views (until someone riles me sufficiently...)
This is about history, this is about music... not your pet political
peaves; or interest in assigning blame.
Thanks for keeping the "discussion level 'high' "...
GJ
P.S.-- I saw Amos' post. For _ONCE_ (and probably only once), I'm inclined
to agree with him.
Look-- Black people invented Jazz. Period. What's the big fuss? We can all
play it, all enjoy it, all take pride in it as "American" music... and yes
(resoundingly), MAJOR contributions to Jazz have been made by Whites,
Latins, Native Americans, Asians, etc., etc. and yes, people all over the
world are playing it--everywhere.
But why do we have to now suddenly deny history, deny it's roots, deny
reality?
To make people "feel good"?
Feel "included" in this "inclusive" musical area?
Jazz was created by Black people. It doesn't hurt me to say it, and I'm
not Black.
Now let's get on with the music...
Julius Kusuma
here's how i see it:
play a tune by some jazz player you don't know and then ask yourself,
'hmm... is he white, black, or yellow?'
see if you can tell the difference.
in my opinion good jazz players sound awesome regardless of their
color.
- julius
Tom Waters
In article <5b3ibk$9...@news.usit.net>, I (twa...@use.usit.net d/b/a Tom
Waters) wrote:
: > Most of us call
: >jazz black music because the experience that launched the music and
: made
: >it meaningful was black experience.
And then Walter Davis (wda...@irss.unc.edu) wrote:
: I don't have much trouble with the first part of that sentence, but I
: can't agree with that last part. What makes it meaningful is its
: relation to _human_ experience, just like any other music. That's why,
: from its inception, it touched non-blacks ...
I agree that jazz is as universal as Shakespeare -- and probably more
universal than Beethoven -- but I don't think that the concept of "human
experience" does much to explain universality. (I'll admit "black
experience" is a fuzzy concept too.) Cross-cultural meaning has to be
established through a social process. It takes time. Bluegrass, for
example, is potentially as universal as jazz, but it is meaningful to a
much smaller group of people around the world, most of whom have made a
conscious effort to learn the language. Jazz is understood by more
people, many of whom have been less intentional about learning it, at
least as long as we are talking about Count Basie rather than Roscoe
Mitchell.
I've just been leafing around in Du Bois's The Souls of Black Folk,
looking for the famous "double consciousness" passage, but I can't find
it, so here it is as chopped up by Bartletts's: "It is a peculiar
sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense, this sense of looking
at one's self through the eyes of others.... One feels his twoness -- an
American, a Negro; two souls; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose
dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder." (Published 1903,
when jazz as such was just barely started. The great jazz critic Ralph
Ellison picked up this theme and developed it extensively.)
I believe that this twoness is printed into the musical features of jazz
-- the use of irony and refentiality, the role of improvisation, even the
quantitative prosody of swing itself -- through the music's social
history and the meanings assigned to it in black communities and later in
communities of all sorts.
Obviously there is nothing in this that makes it the exclusive property
of black people, but it enables us to explain how jazz came to acquire
its uniquely important meaning (and to explain why jazz has enjoyed a
particular relationship with black communities to this day, alongside its
universal role). I agree with Anthony Braxton that "Charlie Parker
invented something to help mankind" (approximate quote from an interview
in Composition Notes B, I think), and I think it is the understanding of
doubleness that proved so valuable in this century in black, non-black,
and mixed communities -- and therefore universal in scope.
In Braxton's view and in mine, jazz is a black universal.
Tom
sabutin
twa...@use.usit.net (Tom Waters) wrote:
=============================
That's right, there ISN'T anything that makes this peculiar
societal position of outsider while simultaneously insider the
exclusive property of black people. This music is SURELY the property
and creation of "outsiders", of those who see and hear and live in a
way not common to most people, and "blackness' is a ready-made,
irrereversible, often tragic guarantee of that "otherness", at least
in America, Asia and Europe, but that STILL doesn't make jazz black
music, any more than the truly foolish arguments of those that wish to
claim it as white music because they think Europeans invented the damn
saxophone and the major triad.
ANYONE who, consciously or by accident, steps outside of mainstream
society to pursue an uncommon (and uncommonly accepted) aim, is going
to necessarily experience the same position of duality as that spoken
of by DuBois. In fact, if you want to get specific about it, those
black musicians who have pursued this music at its highest level since
it stopped being an accepted, mainstream force in the black
communities of America...and don't be saying otherwise, 'cause I SAW
the tail end of the time when musicians like Diz + Bird + Monk served
as cultural heroes to the black urban communities at large, and that's
not the case today, by any means...have had to have a TRIPLE view of
themselves, because they were stepping AWAY from those values their
home culture thought of as necessarily valuable, stepping OUT of their
culture, or rather, more accurately, back INTO a richer aspect of
their culture than they might be able to find in the present.
=================================
I agree with Anthony Braxton that "Charlie Parker
>invented something to help mankind" (approximate quote from an interview
>in Composition Notes B, I think), and I think it is the understanding of
>doubleness that proved so valuable in this century in black, non-black,
>and mixed communities -- and therefore universal in scope.
>In Braxton's view and in mine, jazz is a black universal.
>Tom
>Thomas Waters
>twa...@use.usit.net
>1021 East Oak Hill Avenue, Knoxville TN 37917
>Dig And Be Dug In Return
=====================================
A universal, yes.
Born and nurtured in black communities, yes.
A BLACK universal (depending on one's definition of the term
"black", is this not an oxymoron?), no.
Sabutin
Walter Davis
In article <cormier-1501...@heidegger.wag.utexas.edu>,
>> > Most of us call
>> >jazz black music because the experience that launched the music and
>> made
>> >it meaningful was black experience.
>>
>> can't agree with that last part. What makes it meaningful is its
>> relation to _human_ experience, just like any other music. That's
why,
it
>> flourished in Latin America, why it caught on in Japan, why jazz and
>> African musicians seem to get along so well, why folks on AsianImprov
>> and other labels are able to make connections between jazz and Asian
>> music, etc.
>
>I think you're oversimplifying a little here, Walt. Jazz, like a
>Shakespeare play, has a universal meaning, but it wouldn't if it hadn't
>first had a local, personal meaning to its creators.
No doubt I am oversimpifying - of course so was the post I was
responding to. Jazz (and any other music) draws its "meaningfulness"
from many sources - the personal experience of the individual creating
it, the broader experience of that individual's social group (however
you want to define that), that individual's understanding of other
social groups' experiences, the even broader experience of that
individual's society, human experience.....and, of course, that same set
of experiences of the listener. None of this denies the importance of
context, it emphasizes the importance of looking beyond a single-factor
explanation of the "black experience." Art has meaning because it is
able to communicate to people who haven't shared the artist's personal
experience. For example, the blues (as "meaning") are a universal state
of being, not a black state of being. That doesn't necessarily mean
that the blues (as music) wasn't created by blacks as a way to express
the blues (and different from the way that European composers had
expressed the blues) nor that the blues the musicians were feeling
didn't derive, at least in part, from being black in a white society.
-walt
Walter Davis walter...@unc.edu or
Department of Sociology and wdavi...@mhs.unc.edu
Health Data Analyst at the ph: (919) 962-1019
Institute for Research in Social Science fax: (919) 962-4777
UNC - Chapel Hill
Giri Iyengar
On a bit of a tangent, jazz guitar seems to be dominated by white players.
Sure, you've got Wes, Christian, Green, etc. But you've always had white
players at the forefront. Farlow, Kessel, Burrell, Hall, and many, many
more.
..Giri "waiting for the jump"
Matthew C Weiner
GJuke (gj...@aol.com) wrote:
: >>>>I personally feel this is important because of what I see
: as a tendency on the political right<<<<
: But see, why does this erroneous, political (not social; and DEFINITELY
: _NOT_ MUSICAL)
: type of bull-crap have to be brought into the argument????
Because someone asked Harvey Cormier why he thought it
was important to call jazz "black music." I took the
question to be directed toward anyone who calls jazz
"black music"--e.g, me. My reasons for thinking that
it is *important* are political (and social, but I
confess I don't understand what you mean by the distinction);
my reasons for thinking it is *true* are not. Of course,
anyone who claims that it is racist to call jazz black
music has a political interest in the fray. In fact,
I'd guess most people on this thread have some underlying
political view that makes them care about whether we
call jazz black music or not (as opposed to just tracing
its history and not interpreting it). There's nothing
wrong with that--I think fundamentally decent political
instincts can lead you to both sides of this question
(for instance, though I disagree with Chris Kelsey
about whether or not it's a good idea to call jazz
black music, I think his reasons for not wanting to
are worthy of respect and consideration).
: I've seen lots of "tendencies" on the "political left" (read: flaming
: liberals) to "disenfranchise" EVERYBODY; but I don't use this forum to
: post _my_ political views (until someone riles me sufficiently...)
: This is about history, this is about music... not your pet political
: peaves; or interest in assigning blame.
I'm happy to make the "jazz is black music" argument
on grounds of history and music. To some extent I
think political considerations have to enter into the
question whether, given the historical/musical facts,
we want to call jazz black music (because "blackness"
is a social construction--do we want to acknowledge
it or pretend we've achieved color-blindness). But
if I'm asked why the question is *important*, the answer
is going to have to do with the culture wars.
Matt
: Thanks for keeping the "discussion level 'high' "...
Tom Waters
sabutin (sab...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: That's right, there ISN'T anything that makes this peculiar
: societal position of outsider while simultaneously insider the
: exclusive property of black people. This music is SURELY the property
: and creation of "outsiders", of those who see and hear and live in a
: way not common to most people, and "blackness' is a ready-made,
: irrereversible, often tragic guarantee of that "otherness", at least
: in America, Asia and Europe, but that STILL doesn't make jazz black
: music, any more than the truly foolish arguments of those that wish to
: claim it as white music because they think Europeans invented the damn
: saxophone and the major triad.
Sabutin,
What you are saying shows that you took most of what I said the way I
meant it and are disgareening mostly with the meaning that I give to the
word "black" in this context, and not to what I am trying to say when I
use the word. Still, I think it is important to have access to that
meaning (the one I am giving to the word "black") in order to express the
*social* and *community-based* aspect of the doubleness of black identity
as descibed by DuBois. It is an enormous important part of jazz's
importance that it can express the outsider quality, the alienation of
individuals, as you say. But much of the richness of jazz's expression of
that comes from its community roots, in the alientaion of a community.
And that is deeply tied up in black history.
: ...and don't be saying otherwise, 'cause I SAW
: the tail end of the time when musicians like Diz + Bird + Monk served
: as cultural heroes to the black urban communities at large, and that's
: not the case today, by any means...have had to have a TRIPLE view of
: themselves, because they were stepping AWAY from those values their
: home culture thought of as necessarily valuable, stepping OUT of their
: culture, or rather, more accurately, back INTO a richer aspect of
: their culture than they might be able to find in the present.
I agree with what you are saying about the change in jazz's social
meanings since the bebop period, and also in that TRIPLE thing.
Both are really important to understanding what is happening in jazz
these days -- and I mean in understanding Marsalis as well as Braxton.
But the way I see it, these are reasons to keep the issue of jazz's
blackness in the foreground, not to confine it to old history. Because
the process has gone a long way since Charlie Parker's time, but its
still going on, still tying jazz to its blackness even though the
universal side is what's growing.
: A universal, yes.
: Born and nurtured in black communities, yes.
: A BLACK universal (depending on one's definition of the term
: "black", is this not an oxymoron?), no.
It's an irony -- like so many key things about jazz.
Tom
--
bste...@idsonline.com
Matthew C Weiner wrote:
>
> I personally feel this is important because of what I see
> African-Americans culturally.
I believe that's true in regards to the blues since it is so obvious to
me as to it's origins, that english musicans later co-opted it. But
jazz music is an entirely different matter. It is more complicated in
it's roots and not so clearly defined as blues music is. At least that
is the way that I've seen it.
Trying 'to dispossess' is just another person's opinion. It is another
typical, multicultural answer.
> (All the following is going
> to be vague, so it's worth exactly what you're paying for
> it....) I've seen "multiculturalism" mocked for allegedly
> diluting standards,
And rightfully so. It should be mocked because standards have been
diluted and many graduate from high-school not knowing how to read or
write. Fortunately, we live in a society where people have a right to
reject others ideas and attitudes if they wish. As an academic elitist,
I can understand your defense of multiculturalism.
>
> Of course, there are a lot of possible stereotypes left to
> fight: the idea that jazz is purely spontaneous, a matter
> of "soul" not craft; the idea that jazz musicians don't
> understand what they're doing; the idea that jazz is a pure
> expression of culture, not of individuals' genius. Some
> arguments that jazz is black music may swing over that way.
Those are only YOUR stereotypes because they go against what you happen
to believe in. Instead of fighting those so-called 'stereotypes', why
don't you just accept the fact that some people out there may interpret
jazz differently than you do. You should climb down from that ivory
tower that you've been cooped up in for so long, and get out there in
the real world. Maybe breathing in a little bit of fresh air and not
posting to this newsgroup so much would help. Just a suggestion....
> But: 1) This issue got raised on this thread because of
> Gene Lees' claim that it *is* racist to say that jazz
> is black music;
Get over it, man! If Lees happens to believe that racism exists against
white musicians, then he is perfectly entitled to do so. I happen to
believe that racism isn't exclusively a white thing either, that racism
knows no boundries or colors. That is not a defense of it, but an
acknowledgement of reality.
> 2) Dominique De Lerma, the "ethno"musicologist
> Lees interviews elsewhere in the book, fights all those
> claims and seems to have no problem with the idea of
> black music;
Well you found another academic who agrees with you. So what??
>3) my grounds for making this claim may be
> political--I have no problem with that--but are not racist.
Well good, then you don't mind if I call you a liberal now, do you. It
seems that those of you on the politically-correct left have been shying
away from that term for years now. But remember that we live in a
democracy, and that not everyone out there is going to agree with you
politically. Some may even think of your claim as racist and they are
perfectly entitled to do so.
Sally Wilder
Ditto!
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
In article <5bg49a$2...@camel4.mindspring.com> sab...@mindspring.com writes:
>tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu () wrote:
>
>>All of the instruments used in jazz were invented by white men.
>>All of the harmonies used in jazz were invented by white men.
>>The idea and method of improvising over a pattern of chord changes
>>was invented by white men.
>>White men have constituted a majority of professional jazz musicians
>>since at least the 1920s.
>>The most popular jazz recording artists have always been white men.
>>White men composed most of the standard repertoire.
>
>>Considering the evidence, I find it absurd to claim jazz as a "black"
>>music. In my experience, the people who make that claim have a political
>>agenda, and it is usually racist.
> Claiming this music, or parts of it, as black, claiming it as
>white, claiming it as northern, or southern, men's music, women's
>music, ANY damned separate group's music, it makes no difference WHICH
>group, serves only to minimize the music's impact and importance, and
>in the long run, it will serve only to further balkanize
Ah, we agree already.
> Arguing w/a racist idea by saying "No, this wasn't invented by X
>group, it was invented by (dominated by, composed by, discovered
>by...) Y group.", is only turning the argument around and shooting
>yourself in the foot with it. All you succeed in doing is prolonging
>the argument, which is based on false premises from the beginning.
Yah, this is a very good criticism of my argument. However, you are
wasting outrage on something that was deliberately overstated in
order to satirize the racialist position, not to perpetuate it.
You're still correct, though.
>(Lord have mercy!!!), makes six absolutely unproveable statements
>regarding the primacy of the white (male) race in this contest to
>claim ownership of "jazz"
I'm sorry you missed the satirical intent. Demonstrating racial primacy
is a ridiculous goal, of course. My propositions were so overstated that
I would never back them 100%. However, if I am only 80% correct, then
the absurdity of the racist lie that jazz is a [XXX] music is demonstrated.
And the propositions are absolutely falsifiable. I really don't see
why you would object to them should they be toned down to a reasonable
musicological argument devoid of racialist overtones.
> 1-Nobody knows WHO "invented" many of the instruments played in
>jazz...Drums? Trombones? Flutes? Single reed instruments? Plucked and
>bowed stringed instruments? Who really knows?
A reasonable objection. However, is there really any argument that
the instruments used in jazz--whatever their provenance--came to
us from the european tradition? Both their construction and their
general technical usages demonstrate that. The point is that, aside
from the banjo, it is ridiculous to consider jazz instrumentation
"african" or "african-american".
> 2-I've already covered this harmony idea at length in another post,
>but I will grant that most of the NAMES of the harmonies used in this
>music were invented in Europe in the last four centuries. The
>harmonies THEMSELVES, however, their concept, use, and physical
>existence as combinations of frequencies dancing their lovely dances
>through the overtone series, are as American as apple pie, Bix
>Beiderbecke, and Louis Armstrong. ...more American than which you
>cannot get.
I'm only interested in backing up 80% of the original proposition.
Where do triads, seventh chords, ninth chords, quartal harmonies
come from? Where does root movement by fourths and seconds come from?
Where does the use of whole-tone or diminished harmony in a cadence
come from? Can anyone seriously argue that there is anything inherently
"african" or "african-american" in the above?
> 3-Absurd. No one has the faintest idea WHO "invented" "playing
>over changes", or whether it ever WAS "invented".
A reasonable objection. However, we know that improvising over
changes was a routine practice in 17th century europe. Johann
Heinichen even published a 960 page method book on it in 1728.
Clearly, there is nothing inherently "african" or "african-american"
about the practice.
> 4-Absurd squared. Can't DEFINE "professional jazz musician", can't
>tell me how MANY "professional jazz musicians" ther have BEEN since
>the 1920's, nor what percentage of them were of primarily European or
>primarily African ancestry...
Could but won't. It really is not a difficult research question to
answer. Federal censuses give occupation and race. Figuring out
who is a "jazz" musician is a bit harder, but one could develop
a reasonable estimate as to proportions by looking at union
archives.
However, there's no need to do all that work, because the intuitive
answer seems very convincing to me. Consider that blacks have never
much exceeded 10% of the US population in the 20th century. This means
that for the number of black musicians to equal the number of white
musicians, nine times as many blacks as whites would have to go into
music. If blacks and whites enter music in the same proportions, then
nine times as many blacks as whites would have to become jazz musicians
in order to equal the number of white jazz musicians.
It is very unlikely that we would find such a huge difference between
races. Would you take a one to nine bet? I would. I am surprised that
anyone questioned this proposition.
> 5-This is getting tiresome. Absurd CUBED. The most popular "jazz"
>recording artists have NOT always been white men. By the numbers.
>Again, you could look it up. Miles, Louis, Billie Holiday, Duke,
>Basie...a lot of records sold right there
Do you really think Louis outsold Whiteman and Crosby in the 20s?
That Duke and Basie outsold Goodman, Shaw, Miller, Dorsey in the
30s and 40s? That Miles outsold Brubeck and Getz in the 50s and
60s? That Billie was ever the most popular jazz singer on the charts?
>Many records, good and bad, white and black, have been bought purely
>on the race of the artists...this has NO bearing on what race "owns"
>jazz, only on what race "has owned" more money.
Hee hee. Good one. Sort of makes MY point, eh?
> 6-C'mon...WHICH "standard repertoire"?
[...]
>The so-called
>"standards", show tunes of the twenties and thirties, were certainly
>composed by white men.
You just answered your own question.
They were "standards" because they were popular
>enough, widely known enough, that almost ANY group of musicians could
>assemble and play them w/out rehearsal, and they were mostly composed
>by white men because mostly white men were the only people allowed
>mostly to WRITE songs for mostly white Broadway shows and mostly white
>Hollywood movies, mostly attended by white people because they were
>the ones wif the mostly white MONEY.
That hardly describes a "black" art form, does it?
David J. Strauss
: > (All the following is going
: > to be vague, so it's worth exactly what you're paying for
: > it....) I've seen "multiculturalism" mocked for allegedly
: > diluting standards,
:
: And rightfully so. It should be mocked because standards have been
: diluted and many graduate from high-school not knowing how to read or
: write. Fortunately, we live in a society where people have a right to
: reject others ideas and attitudes if they wish. As an academic elitist,
: I can understand your defense of multiculturalism.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Could you please clearly explain and
provide some evidence of this dilution, and how it is connected to
multiculturalism. Also, if you could define what you mean by
multiculturalism (for that matter what are these "standards"?), it would
be helpful.
Matthew C Weiner
I'm sending a lot of my response to Bryan by e-mail, because
I think a lot of it (and what I have to say in response to
it) wanders too far from this newsgroup's topic. Check
with me in the unlikely event that you want to hear what
I have to say
bste...@idsonline.com wrote:
: Matthew C Weiner wrote:
[snip]
: > Of course, there are a lot of possible stereotypes left to
: > fight: the idea that jazz is purely spontaneous, a matter
: > of "soul" not craft; the idea that jazz musicians don't
: > understand what they're doing; the idea that jazz is a pure
: > expression of culture, not of individuals' genius. Some
: > arguments that jazz is black music may swing over that way.
: Those are only YOUR stereotypes because they go against what you happen
: to believe in. Instead of fighting those so-called 'stereotypes', why
: don't you just accept the fact that some people out there may interpret
: jazz differently than you do. You should climb down from that ivory
: tower that you've been cooped up in for so long, and get out there in
: the real world. Maybe breathing in a little bit of fresh air and not
: posting to this newsgroup so much would help. Just a suggestion....
I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean to imply that, if I
got into the real world, I would see that jazz musicians
*don't* understand what they're doing, that jazz *is* an
expression of culture only, not of individual genius--in
short, that jazz musicians are mindless conduits for some
culturally determined expression? I doubt that, and I bet
most jazz musicians (who by all accounts often spend a
lot of time polishing their craft) would disagree, too.
Can you provide any evidence for that? Could anyone?
You can think that someone is expressing their culture
and their individual genius at the same time. That's a
large part of culture, after all; the creativity of the
individuals that make it up. Denying that just seems
silly.
Matt
Harvey J. Cormier
In article <5bmmck$g...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, mcw...@pitt.edu
> : In article <19970116032...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> : chke...@aol.com (ChKelsey) wrote:
>
> : > I'm curious; why is it important that jazz be called "Black" or "Black
> : > American" music? Why do you feel it necessary to include the qualifier
> : > "Black" when describing jazz?
>
> as a tendency on the political right to try to dispossess
> African-Americans culturally.
I'm inclined to think that it really isn't terribly important to argue this
point as a purely political strategy, mainly because such a strategy is doomed
to failure and rejection if the claim can't be supported on other grounds, but
also because providing black people with cultural respect is so trivial by
comparison with getting real economic and social justice for people who have
been denied it. If someone wants to insist that there has never been a black
musical innovator to compare with Debussy, but then wants to help change
society so that there can be one, I'd think my disagreement with him on the
cultural question was not worth too much anxiety.
Harvey
Jeff Volkman
On 18 Jan 1997, Sally Wilder wrote:
> Ditto!
Me too.
Harvey J. Cormier
In article <5bmfcp$c...@camel5.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com
>>> music became less important to people than the actual music itself.[. . .]
>
>>This is an interesting argument, but I guess (a) I'm not exactly sure that
>>this has happened in jazz yet, or in rock'n'roll, country-western, R&B,
>>the blues, ragtime, hip-hop, or other forms that I still think of as tied
>>to the Americans who created them, and in some cases to the black
>>Americans who did, despite the fact that people all over the world now
>>create music in these forms.
> ==========================
> Oh, I think in much of the music called "jazz", as well as, to some
I wish I could be this certain about any complicated cultural matter.
>[. . .] One visualizes An R+B singer as
> African-American, a C+W singer as of European descent ( it wasn't
> until I saw Charlie Pride that I ever even considered what the saying
> "The exception proves the rule." really meant...), rock musicians, at
> least "hard", "heavy-metal", :grunge", etc. rockers as white, and so
> on, yet the phrase "jazz musician" is as likely to bring up an image
> in most people's minds of a sunglasses weraing, Gerry Mulligan looking
> hipster as it is Bird or Diz.
>
Come on, Sabutin. Do you really think that the image of the sunglasses-wearing
hipster, even when it is affected by a white man, is unconnected to black
American culture? It's an emblem that other people are free to use, if they
can carry it off, but surely it gets much of its meaning--"coolness",
dispassionateness, knowing "what's going on"--from its origin among
urban blacks in America. (Maybe I finally have found a cultural issue I can be
sure of.)
And in any case, say "jazz" to most Americans today and what comes to mind will
probably be Kenny G. What does this mean to the question of what jazz is and
what it's about? Not much, I'd think.
Harvey
sabutin
cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Harvey J. Cormier) wrote:
>Harvey
=========================
Might do well to be careful of alliances with anyone that ignorant,
though...they usually ultimately blow it big-time. I would be much
more ready to deal with a bigot who had good time or ears than a
liberal who couldn't find one even if Bird were playing ...at least
the bigot would have some potential, whereas anyone who thought that
there's never been a black musical innovator on the level of Debussy
would be obviosly so deaf and/or blocked as to be nearly comatose, and
thus of not much potential use in ANY endeavor.
Sabutin
GJuke
>>>>And in any case, say "jazz" to most Americans today and what comes to
mind will
probably be Kenny G.<<<<
If you all don't stop mentioning K_n_y __., I'm going to start counting
K.G. postings again...
Anyone remember that? It was horrifying...
GJ
sabutin
cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Harvey J. Cormier) wrote:
>In article <5bmfcp$c...@camel5.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com
>(sabutin) writes:
>> cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Harvey J. Cormier) wrote:
>>
>And in any case, say "jazz" to most Americans today and what comes to mind will
>probably be Kenny G. What does this mean to the question of what jazz is and
>what it's about? Not much, I'd think.
>Harvey
===========================
In my less optimistic moments, I wonder how much the unfailing
dedication and hard work of those who believe that "jazz" is "black"
music ( or for that matter, ALL"critics" who attempt to layer their
own pet sociological and/or musicological theories on top of an
essentially non-verbal art form) is RESPONSIBLE for mainstream (read
middle -class, NOT white or black) America's vision of Kenny G. and
that truly poor excuse for a fake, the one that pumps his arm in the
air while playing idiot licks out of tune on a curved soprano...is
that Dave Koz???...sorry, I really can't tell most of them apart...as
"jazz" musicians.
For an idiom to make a profit, at least as contemporary American
culture is structured today, it must attract an audience in numbers
greater than the number of "committed", knowledgeable listeners. There
just aren't enough people who care deeply about the music, nor have
there EVER been, as far as I can ascertain by reading and by speaking
with people who've been around a long time. Casual listeners are a
necessity, an economic, natural necessity, and there really is nothing
WRONG with them. They're doctors, and lawyers, and bus drivers and
carpenters, teachers, bank robbers,, whatever...jes' plain folks, out
to soak up some of the joy and the burn that jazz can give listeners
better than just about ANY art form...
How many of those listeners have been alienated, or at least
discouraged, by the long-faced academics and critics with an axe to
grind over the years, from Frank Kofsky through Gunther Schuller and
on into half the people posting (and in some instances, posturing) on
this list? Do you think all the people who bought all those records of
the thirties and forties and fifties and on onto the sixties were even
THINKING about much besides whether Sketches of Spain or One Note
Samba or Giant Steps or East Saint Louis Toodle-O (never WAS sure how
to spell that...) would blend into their own private fantasy, guys
w/Hefner pipes and tweeds, women with long, ironed hair, couples
w/Sixties Afros and the latest dashiki...most of them were listening
to the music as part of of the fabric of the particular world in which
they wanted to live,music as wallpaper, as adjunct to the larger
dream, as is the case w/MOST listeners. And there are VERY DAMNED FEW
civilians, people not intimately involved in this music in one way or
another, that need the oh-so-serious imprecations of this particular
group of people posting on this particular thread...which group of
people, I believe, are at LEAST a good cross section of the views of
the opinion-makers and jazz-world shakers who influence this little
corner of the world .
So...when signifying about who what when where or why people have
been driven into the arms of CD 101 easy listening alto players and
other, less "serious" art forms and idioms, perhaps more than a few of
us could properly do said sicnifying while facing into a big, long,
hard, accurate mirror...
" We have met the enemy, and they are us..."
Sabutin
Harvey J. Cormier
In article <32E174...@idsonline.com>, bste...@idsonline.com writes:
> Matthew C Weiner wrote:
>>
>
> Trying 'to dispossess' is just another person's opinion. It is another
>
> [Multiculturalism] should be mocked because standards have been
> write. Fortunately, we live in a society where people have a right to
> reject others ideas and attitudes if they wish. As an academic elitist,
> I can understand your defense of multiculturalism.
>
Doesn't it seem a little strange to you that you have the right to assess the
alleged illiteracy of others, but that anyone else who offers an opinion or an
assessment of an idea is an "academic elitist"? What makes your evaluations so
especially unobjectionable?
>
> [. . .]Those are only YOUR stereotypes because they go against what you happen
> to believe in. Instead of fighting those so-called 'stereotypes', why
> don't you just accept the fact that some people out there may interpret
> jazz differently than you do. You should climb down from that ivory
> tower that you've been cooped up in for so long, and get out there in
> the real world. Maybe breathing in a little bit of fresh air and not
> posting to this newsgroup so much would help. Just a suggestion....
>
This is spectacularly arrogant and obnoxious, especially since it is such a
blatant case of narrow-mindedness trying to pass itself off as striking some
kind of blow for freedom of thought.
>
>> But: 1) This issue got raised on this thread because of
>> Gene Lees' claim that it *is* racist to say that jazz
>> is black music;
>
> Get over it, man! If Lees happens to believe that racism exists against
> white musicians, then he is perfectly entitled to do so. I happen to
> believe that racism isn't exclusively a white thing either, that racism
> knows no boundries or colors. That is not a defense of it, but an
> acknowledgement of reality.
Again, everybody has a right to his opinion except those annoying people who
disagree with you: they aren't "acknowledging reality". Truly sad.
>[. . .]you don't mind if I call you a liberal now, do you. It
> seems that those of you on the politically-correct left have been shying
> away from that term for years now. But remember that we live in a
> democracy, and that not everyone out there is going to agree with you
> politically. Some may even think of your claim as racist and they are
> perfectly entitled to do so.
>
>
The person who responded to this load of right-wing twaddle and muddle with
"Ditto" satirized it perfectly, whether or not she or he did so intentionally.
This is just the kind of resentment, fear, and hatred, tricked up to resemble
bold attacks on orthodoxy, that Rush Limbaugh and the dittoheads specialize in.
It's nauseating--or don't I have a right to that opinion?
Harvey
Jeff Volkman
On 20 Jan 1997, GJuke wrote:
> If you all don't stop mentioning K_n_y __., I'm going to start counting
> K.G. postings again...
> Anyone remember that? It was horrifying...
Yeah, I remember, you old coot (I think that means old person). Wasn't it
one of these racism-in-jazzathons that got you started last time?
-Jeff
bste...@idsonline.com
In article <5btud6$i...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
mcw...@pitt.edu (Matthew C Weiner) wrote:
>
> I'm sending a lot of my response to Bryan by e-mail, because
> I think a lot of it (and what I have to say in response to
> it) wanders too far from this newsgroup's topic. Check
> with me in the unlikely event that you want to hear what
> I have to say
Yes Mr. Weiner was kind enough to share with me some of his political
observations. I knew he had a (subtle) political agenda here, so I called him
on it. In fact, I can be just as arrogant and self-righteous as he can.
I do hope that Mr. Weiner lets us know when he plans to re-engineer society and
create the perfect utopia that he feels we should all live under. (sic) It's
nice to know that there are people out there who know what's best for us all,
but unfortunately I cannot defer to them. (sic)
>
> I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean to imply that, if I
> got into the real world, I would see that jazz musicians
> *don't* understand what they're doing, that jazz *is* an
> expression of culture only, not of individual genius--in
> short, that jazz musicians are mindless conduits for some
> culturally determined expression? I doubt that, and I bet
> most jazz musicians (who by all accounts often spend a
> lot of time polishing their craft) would disagree, too.
> Can you provide any evidence for that? Could anyone?
>
> You can think that someone is expressing their culture
> and their individual genius at the same time. That's a
> large part of culture, after all; the creativity of the
> individuals that make it up. Denying that just seems
> silly.
No, I was implying that you perhaps are creating many unecessary stereotypes in
order to bolster your argument above. It could be that you are creating
problems where none occurs. But I do agree that with you the assumption that
culture can nurture individual genius and that it isn't an either/or thing.
What I took exception to, was your implication about Lee's article concerning
racism against white musicians in jazz. To say that *no* black musicians have
ever excluded others due to the color of their skin, is just plain fantasy.
Yes, it's true that the vast majority of racism in jazz was directed against
blacks, but to pretend that isolated instances of it occuring the other way
around didn't happen and shouldn't be taken exception to, is utter nonsense.
Bryan
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
bste...@idsonline.com
In article <5brv6b$f4o$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
djs...@is.nyu.edu (David J. Strauss) wrote:
> I'm sorry, I don't understand. Could you please clearly explain and
> provide some evidence of this dilution, and how it is connected to
> multiculturalism. Also, if you could define what you mean by
> multiculturalism (for that matter what are these "standards"?), it would
> be helpful.
You might want to check out:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/multicult.html
I think he can enlighten you better than I can.
GJuke
>>>>The person who responded to this load of right-wing twaddle and muddle
with
"Ditto" satirized it perfectly, whether or not she or he did so
intentionally.
This is just the kind of resentment, fear, and hatred, tricked up to
resemble
bold attacks on orthodoxy, that Rush Limbaugh and the dittoheads
specialize in.<<<<
UuuhhhhhhhYaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwww (sound of a deep sigh and yawn).
GJ
sabutin
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu () wrote:
>Ah, we agree already.
=======================
Generally speaking, I don't believe I miss many of the
conversational nuances in day-to-day human communication, and yet I
seem to have totally missed your "satirical" intentions. I see three
possibilities (or combinations of said possibilities) here ...
1- I was being a dolt and an blundering idiot at the time I read
your post, a condition which I readily admit happens from time to
time, at which point I proffer my most sincere apologies.
2- Your attempt at satire was too heavy handed and somewhat off the
mark, which explains how so many people missed it entirely.
3- You really ARE a racist fool, and either aren't aware of it
yourself, or don't have the courage to stand up and admit it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having just now reviewed a number of your posts on this list, I am
still rather confused, but my general take on the matter is that you
and I disagree about the best method that can be used to oppose a
racial take on the history and present state of this music, but you
are NOT a racist, at least not of the conscious, dedicated sort. A
number of the things you say about it are quite correct; SOME of what
you say is too shallowly thought out for my tastes (especially
regarding harmony, and its very nature and function in improvised
music), and parts of it are just completely off the mark. The
(debatable) "fact" that Kenton or Whiteman or Brubeck might have sold
more records than Ellington, Bird or Miles does NOT, in ANY way, mean
that they were particularly "good", " important innovators", or in ANY
way imply that their effect on development the music was anything but
transitory, and further, I believe that in your ears, in your heart,
you know that this is true. Is your statement just more satire??? A
weak attempt at a sophistic argument? Did I miss something again?
Because by the same token, disregarding the racial angle inherent in
this particular thread, Jacqueline Susann, Herman Wouk and Mickey
Spillane would have to be considered the artistic and cultural
superiors of James Joyce, T.S. Eliot, and Shakespeare. Doesn't wash,
Tom, doesn't even iron or do dishes.
ANY argument that, by ANY means, opposes ONE form of racism with
ANOTHER, is doomed to failure., no matter WHAT form that argument
takes...satire, Socratic dialogue, or a law clerk's finely researched
list of precedents and relative record sales...it just doesn't matter.
It inevitably becomes exclusionary, traveling around itself in smaller
and smaller circles until it just curls up and dies, all alone,
eventually turning into a group of less than one.
I believe your heart is in the right place on this one, that you are
basically opposed to a racial interpretation of this music, but your
method hasn't proven to be very effective, whether it's a slightly
heavy-handed attempt at satire OR a well-meant desire to redress a
list of claims by proponents of a "black" view of jazz by counter
claims for "white" musicians. Denying the very real histories of the
founders and masters of this music, be they white OR black, is a step
down the path of denying the music itself, and no matter WHICH side of
the argument I see, I am going to present the THIRD side, which is
that PEOPLE make music...not black people, or white people, or brown
or yellow or red or fucking blue people...and that PEOPLE listen to
music, and buy it, and support the artists who create it. EVERY
attempt and counter-attempt to create a divisory view of the music ,
be it racial, economic, political, cultural, it really doesn't
matter, is a blow at the very universality of the music itself, a
wedge driven between all the potential listening groups out there in
audience-land and the music and musicians themselves, a method for the
parasites who live off the music...critics, "scholars", business
people, and the like (not ALL representatives of those groups, of
course, but enough, enough...) to divide the music into little
kingdoms, all the easier to rule for profit, and those arguments and
attempts at division are things that I will not let pass
unchallenged.
Whay are the radio stations of this country each their own little
cultural ghetto? Why CAN'T people listen to Getz, 'Trane, Mozart, Bob
Wills, Ba'aba Maal, and Aerosmith one after another without undue
regard to their races and/or cultures? When are people trained (and I
do believe it's the result of training rather than natural
inclination) to listen only to one or two or three idioms? It
certainly isn't the case with children...my ten year old listens, and
has ALWAYS listened, to Monk and Mozart, Yoruba drumming and
Appalachian hollers, Bulgarian choirs and Billie Holiday, with the
same ears, the same appreciation and joy, as do all those friends of
his who have not been limited by their parents' fears and
disapprovals.
I believe those parents had to be programmed a certain way by
society in order to more easily track them, in order to SELL them
music, like cereal amd deodorant, art as demographics, culture as
propaganda, and that those musics that are most easily digested by ALL
become the dominant musics of their time as a result. Thus Paul
Whiteman, thus Kenny G. I further believe that race...and, by
extension, class...,are the dominant methods used by the profit
seekers in America in their quest for dominance in the market place.
This is all well and good, as far as it goes; I have no quarrel w/the
system per se, but in the particular instance of this music ("jazz"
being a code word, to some degree, invented [encouraged?] more by the
marketeers than anyone else), it has resulted in a certain back-shelf,
sell-it-to-the-few mentality, and the musicians and music have
suffered greatly from it.
What we (and I say "we" because "I" am, if you haven't guessed it
already, a musician living in the midst of this system) need is a LESS
exclusionary approach to the music, LESS emphasis on its "blackness"
or "whiteness", and MORE attempts to include its entire glorious
breadth and history into the fabric or the culture of the world. ( I
don't use that word "glorious" lightly...this thing that happened here
in the twentieth century, this artistic progression from the slave
fields and drawing rooms of 18th century America to the clubs, concert
halls and CD players of the 21st century world, is nothing short of a
miracle, a one-time-only occurance, a confluence of historic forces
that produced something unheard of, impossible tro explain or
recreate...glorious is not a strong enough word for this beautiful,
wold-changing accident.
YES, Ellington, YES Gil Evans, YES 'Trane, YES Gerry Mulligan, NO
to "black" anything or "white" anything, No to ALL that shit. Let the
music be; stop trying to draw magic circles around it. The money guys
will try do enough of that without the help of the people who really
love the music itself. Just listen to it, and play it, and enjoy it,
and try to understand what the music is, try to learn how to hear it
WITHOUT words, WITHOUT artificial inclusions and exclusions based on
race or class or nationality...I promise you, that's how it was
created in the first place, and it's the ONLY way to let the music
continue to prosper and grow on into the next few hundred years.
Sabutin
GJuke
>>>>>
> UuuhhhhhhhYaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwww (sound of a deep sigh and yawn).
>
>
You're excused. The sight of your tonsils made me a little ill, though.
Harvey<<<<
Ditto.
GJ
bste...@idsonline.com
In article <1997Jan2...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu>,
> alleged illiteracy of others, but that anyone else who offers an opinion or an
> assessment of an idea is an "academic elitist"? What makes your evaluations
> so
> especially unobjectionable?
Well they wern't supposed to be unobjectionable. You don't especially have to
like my opinion and I certainly couldn't force you to do so. But I make no
apologies for the term, 'academic elitist'. It seems this newsgroup is being
run more and more by them each day.
>
> This is spectacularly arrogant and obnoxious, especially since it is such a
> blatant case of narrow-mindedness trying to pass itself off as striking some
> kind of blow for freedom of thought.
Yes, it was meant to be. And the only reason I'm narrow-minded in your eyes is
because I happened to have said something that you don't like. This newsgroup
isn't run on consensus, or haven't you been made aware of that?
>
> Again, everybody has a right to his opinion except those annoying people who
> disagree with you: they aren't "acknowledging reality". Truly sad.
Please don't patronize me, ok? This kind of benevolent schlock will get you
nowhere. Why don't you just come out and say 'you don't like what I said' and
stop beating around the bush. I find it amusing that you seem to believe I have
the power to impose censorship on others. That would be a great power indeed,
now wouldn't it? (sic) (laughs)
>
> The person who responded to this load of right-wing twaddle and muddle with
> "Ditto" satirized it perfectly, whether or not she or he did so intentionally.
> This is just the kind of resentment, fear, and hatred, tricked up to resemble
> bold attacks on orthodoxy, that Rush Limbaugh and the dittoheads specialize
> in.
Ahh, you sentiments exactly. Now I am beginning to see where you truly stand.
For your information, I happened to have voted for Clinton, twice, and am not
one of the ditto-head crowd. However, I do follow my own muse and am not bound
by any type of orthodoxy, either liberal or conservative. Now I know that may
be hard for you to understand since, in your eyes, we live in an either/or
world, but it is possible.
>
> It's nauseating--or don't I have a right to that opinion?
Sure ya do Harvey, just make sure you reach the john before you throw up. We
wouldn't want to make a mess on the floor, now would we? (laughs) ;-)
Matthew C Weiner
: What I took exception to, was your implication
: racism against white musicians in jazz.
: To say that *no* black musicians have
: ever excluded others due to the color of
: their skin, is just plain fantasy.
: Yes, it's true that the vast majority
: of racism in jazz was directed against
: blacks, but to pretend that isolated
: instances of it occuring the other way
: around didn't happen and shouldn't be
: taken exception to, is utter nonsense.
: Bryan
I'm not sure if you read my original (long) post on Gene
Lees' article--I'm told it's still available on dejanews.
I never said that *no* black musicians had ever excluded
others due to the color of their skin. I argued that Lees'
methods were so bad that he hadn't succeeded in proving
any of this--that he relies too much on hearsay, speculation,
and distortion of quotes. All criticisms a self-described
academic elitist should sympathize with.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be taken exception to when
it happens. I'm saying it should be taken a lot less
seriously to than racism of white people against black
people--because it's a lot less harmful.
Frankly, I'm sorry I ever said why I cared about whether
jazz was called black music. What I care about is that
people should be allowed to call jazz black music without
being put on a level with the Klan, the architects of
Jim Crow, and the top brass at Texaco--and that's what
happens when people such as Gene Lees talk about them
as "black racists" (or use the term Crow-Jim, or whatever).
I think there's enough facts behind the assertion that
"jazz is black music" (please don't respond to this, we've
been rehashing this for a while and I don't think anyone's
likely to change anyone else's mind at this point) that,
whether or not you agree with the assertion, you can see
that someone can make it without being a "racist." The
race divide in the U.S. is a fact. Trying to ignore it
in public--ban all mention of race from the public sphere,
to the extent that we refuse to recognize that some people
get discriminated against because of their skin color--is
just going to keep racism locked in as it is. Blathering
on about the horrible racism of calling jazz black music
is just one way in which the virulence of American racism
--perhaps I should say the racism of American society, to
emphasize that I don't necessarily mean a feeling lodged
in any individual's heart--gets minimized, belittled, and
covered up. End of story. I'm going to go check if I've
got any more signatures on my petition for civilian review
of the Pittsburgh police department.
Matt
Harvey J. Cormier
Jeff Volkman
On 21 Jan 1997, GJuke wrote:
> Ditto.
Same here.
Jeff Volkman
On 21 Jan 1997, Matthew C Weiner wrote:
> The
> race divide in the U.S. is a fact. Trying to ignore it
> in public--ban all mention of race from the public sphere,
> to the extent that we refuse to recognize that some people
> get discriminated against because of their skin color--is
> just going to keep racism locked in as it is. Blathering
> on about the horrible racism of calling jazz black music
> is just one way in which the virulence of American racism
> --perhaps I should say the racism of American society, to
> emphasize that I don't necessarily mean a feeling lodged
> in any individual's heart--gets minimized, belittled, and
> covered up.
The last two sentences seem to contradict each other. You want to stop
*some* people from talking about what they percieve as racism? I'm with
you for the first two sentences.
-Jeff
Walter Davis
In article <5c2nne$t...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
sab...@mindspring.com (sabutin) wrote:
>
> Whay are the radio stations of this country each their own little
>cultural ghetto? Why CAN'T people listen to Getz, 'Trane, Mozart, Bob
>Wills, Ba'aba Maal, and Aerosmith one after another without undue
>regard to their races and/or cultures?
Man, you guys gotta start listening to more college radio, although
you're more likely to hear Tuvan throat-singing than Mozart or
Aerosmith. (and, of course, we could endlessly argue over whether this
was the result of "undue regard to their races and/or cultures"....or we
could just enjoy the music. :-)
-walt
Walter Davis walter...@unc.edu or
Department of Sociology and wdavi...@mhs.unc.edu
Health Data Analyst at the ph: (919) 962-1019
Institute for Research in Social Science fax: (919) 962-4777
UNC - Chapel Hill