History of Jazz (book)

[couw]

Jost presents some sort of middle ground like Eric describes it. He does leave a lot of room for individual actors shaping history, he doesn't focus on them though, but rather on the history he's writing about. Writing about american history as a German may also play a part in conjuring up this healthy distance to the subject. (Jost does play sax himself BTW.)

I am really not much at home in (jazz)history writing.

Eric, can you provide more on this meta-history on jazz history writing?

Simon, would you care to elaborate on the more pragmatic angle?

are there distinct schools here?

PS. Strange if you think about it, how Hegel led to both Marx and Hitler...

Edited March 22, 2004 by couw

[Simon Weil]

Simon, would you care to elaborate on the more pragmatic angle?

are there distinct schools here?

PS. Strange if you think about it, how Hegel led to both Marx and Hitler...

Well, mostly I'm trying to say that the English distrust intellectuals and the Americans are kind of like that as well (as far as I can make out.). So then what you get is a discourse about an American artform (Jazz) in the country that it came from (The US) that distrusts the intellectual approach. That differs from Cubist art (or indeed modern visual art in general) in France, where intellectual approaches were de rigeur - or, I guess, German approaches.

By pragmatic I guess I mean in Jazz terms, tending to things you can nail down - say to do with technical analysis of the music. Sort of empirically measurable things, related to the scientific approach - if not exactly that, with something of the same spirit. There's also a kind of distrust of the poetic, intuitive response to art in it.

At any rate, I think that there are a lot of things in Jazz that would be looked at differently coming from a European rather than an Anglo-American perspective.

Apart from anything else, it might help people understand how great an artform Jazz is if people talked about it in comparable terms to that used for modern painting.

Because, currently, Jazz criticism is kind of a weird backwater artistically.

Simon Weil

P.S. I think loads of people "lead to" Hitler in one way or another...

Edited March 22, 2004 by Simon Weil

[garthsj]

Believe me, it is difficult to write what might be termed "compelling" social history. Unless the author comes up with a dramatic new thesis, interpretation, or data, the resulting work is likely to leave the knowledgable reader with a sense of "Hell, I know this already!" I think that is the problem here ... most of you on this board are extremely knowledgeable about jazz in all of its aspects (I have been enormously impressed in my short time here), and thus it might be difficult to come up with something that is likely to make you sit up and take notice. (One again, Ken Burns's documentary annoyed the cognoscenti, not the ignoscenti).

I hope that these scans of books in my collection are not annoying ... I love book design, and I thought that I would share with you some of the recent (and a few older classic) social histories of jazz which I would recommend as making significant contributions to our greater understanding of the role of jazz in shaping modern society.

This book is highly recommended, and does offer a very original interpretation: SWINGING THE MACHINE: Modernity, Technology, and African American Culture Between The World Wars, University of Massachusetts Press, 2003.

[garthsj]

Here is another that takes the rather mundane subject of the history of swing bands, and discusses its significance in the context of Depression America with its complex compost of politics, economics, race, and popular culture. In Stowe's thesis Swing becomes a major component of maintaining social unity during the years of WWII. A really good read .....

Edited March 22, 2004 by garthsj

[garthsj]

The issue of the acceptance of jazz into a "white America" is a frequent theme. Here is a one contribution, THE JAZZ REVOLUTION: Twenties America and the Meaning of Jazz, (Oxford UP, 1989).

[garthsj]

The theme of the influence of jazz on white Americans was first discussed in some (sane) detail by Neil Leonard in the early 1960s. By the time I took a course in American Studies with him when I was a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania in the early 1970s, he had lost most of his interest in the topic of jazz .. bummer! But this is still a provocative book ... JAZZ AND THE WHITE AMERICANS: THE ACCEPTANCE OF A NEW ART FORM, Uuniversity of Chicago Press, 1962.

[couw]

Well, mostly I'm trying to say that the English distrust intellectuals and the Americans are kind of like that as well (as far as I can make out.). So then what you get is a discourse about an American artform (Jazz) in the country that it came from (The US) that distrusts the intellectual approach. That differs from Cubist art (or indeed modern visual art in general) in France, where intellectual approaches were de rigeur - or, I guess, German approaches.

By pragmatic I guess I mean in Jazz terms, tending to things you can nail down - say to do with technical analysis of the music. Sort of empirically measurable things, related to the scientific approach - if not exactly that, with something of the same spirit. There's also a kind of distrust of the poetic, intuitive response to art in it.

At any rate, I think that there are a lot of things in Jazz that would be looked at differently coming from a European rather than an Anglo-American perspective.

Apart from anything else, it might help people understand how great an artform Jazz is if people talked about it in comparable terms to that used for modern painting.

Because, currently, Jazz criticism is kind of a weird backwater artistically.

Simon Weil

P.S. I think loads of people "lead to" Hitler in one way or another...

Not being German myself, but familiar with C-European thought, I'd indeed say that although there is an intellectual approach to emotion, that emotion itself is still put above any intellectual exercise. I have had very interesting (and sometimes tiresome) discussions with German ethicists on precisely that; they claim to reason logically, but in the end always fall back on what they call intuition. There probably is a big German philosopher's name to be tagged on that, but I am not that good at the names.

So, although there is a vast intellectual work on interpretation of emotion, my impression is that the emotion itself is still taken for granted or at least put on a pedestral.

Would you say that maybe such an approach is partly needed to nail down "jazz" as an artform as it certainly seems to deviate a lot from what can intellectually or technically be analysed? Jazz music probably is as much anglo-saxon/american as it is germanic: both a little and mostly not.

I am not familiar with this field at all; what do hispanic or black critics say about the music and its history (well, I know what Wynton c.s. say about it...) ?

hmm, re: the pure artistic history of jazz, I coudn't come up with one reference. I guess that's precisely what you wanted to say. But then again: it takes a bit of everything doesn't it? Technical criticism, esthetic, and social analysis.

PS: I fear you may be right...

[garthsj]

..... and finally .... here is one classic that should not be overlooked. It still offers a spirited examination of how jazz developed into a major art and entertainment in the period up to the mid 1950s. This copy is very dear to my heart, as it was signed and sent to me as a 17 year-old by Professor Stearns in response to a letter that I had sent to him, which he had published in Metronome Magazine, much to my surprise and delight. Marshall Stearns, THE STORY OF JAZZ, Oxford University Press, 1956.

[Chuck Nessa]

Garth my friend - fewer books, more music. B)

[Simon Weil]

Well, mostly I'm trying to say that the English distrust intellectuals and the Americans are kind of like that as well (as far as I can make out.). So then what you get is a discourse about an American artform (Jazz) in the country that it came from (The US) that distrusts the intellectual approach. That differs from Cubist art (or indeed modern visual art in general) in France, where intellectual approaches were de rigeur - or, I guess, German approaches.

By pragmatic I guess I mean in Jazz terms, tending to things you can nail down - say to do with technical analysis of the music. Sort of empirically measurable things, related to the scientific approach - if not exactly that, with something of the same spirit. There's also a kind of distrust of the poetic, intuitive response to art in it.

At any rate, I think that there are a lot of things in Jazz that would be looked at differently coming from a European rather than an Anglo-American perspective.

Apart from anything else, it might help people understand how great an artform Jazz is if people talked about it in comparable terms to that used for modern painting.

Because, currently, Jazz criticism is kind of a weird backwater artistically.

Simon Weil

P.S. I think loads of people "lead to" Hitler in one way or another...

Not being German myself, but familiar with C-European thought, I'd indeed say that although there is an intellectual approach to emotion, that emotion itself is still put above any intellectual exercise. I have had very interesting (and sometimes tiresome) discussions with German ethicists on precisely that; they claim to reason logically, but in the end always fall back on what they call intuition. There probably is a big German philosopher's name to be tagged on that, but I am not that good at the names.

The falling back on intuition is something deeply rooted in German culture. I mean it's basically the German romantic view. Million and one guys like that, including Hitler. I have the impression now that Germans react against that in Hitler by trying to be sort of hyper-analytic. But it always strikes me as a weird sort of hyper-analytic behavior. Are you saying it's got this recourse to intuition underneath it?

...I know you're Dutch...

So, although there is a vast intellectual work on interpretation of emotion, my impression is that the emotion itself is still taken for granted or at least put on a pedestral.

Would you say that maybe such an approach is partly needed to nail down "jazz" as an artform as it certainly seems to deviate a lot from what can intellectually or technically be analysed? Jazz music probably is as much anglo-saxon/american as it is germanic: both a little and mostly not.

Yeah, I think that's about it: "partly needed". I think Jazz criticism needs to loosen up in this area, but at the same time not be overwhelmed by "intuitive" styled criticism. You see, to me, Jazz criticism is not "doing it". It isn't covering the territory properly, articulating what is in jazz in a way that is comprehensible to the outside world - or indeed, I think, to Jazz itself. It's kind of underpowered. And to me those "European" approaches ought to help. I think a bit of intuition can open up some areas so they then can be empirically analysed, for example.

I am not familiar with this field at all; what do hispanic or black critics say about the music and its history (well, I know what Wynton c.s. say about it...) ?

Well, actually I think Murray (out of whom Wynton comes) tries to use European approaches quite substantially. Unfortunately, he doesn't know what he's doing. Arrrgghh. In general, I think it is essential to have really top quality Afro-American critics and I think, maybe, they'll have more of a taste for the intellectual stuff.

hmm, re: the pure artistic history of jazz, I coudn't come up with one reference. I guess that's precisely what you wanted to say. But then again: it takes a bit of everything doesn't it? Technical criticism, esthetic, and social analysis.

A bit of everything...But make it good. That's about it.

Simon Weil

Edited March 23, 2004 by Simon Weil

[Simon Weil]

I like both the Leonard and the Stearns books. The Stearns was one of the books I read to begin with.

But I don't have a signed copy....

Simon Weil

[garthsj]

Garth my friend - fewer books, more music.  B)

Chuck.. indulge me please.. just two more...

This is quite rare ... it is an early Marxist interpretation, almost Burnsian in its concentration on jazz as the product of the black experience, but otherwise the historical chronology is pretty standard "up the river from New orleans" sort of stuff. There is, as indicated on the jacket blurb, a strong "exploitation of Negroes" thematic treatment. JAZZ: A PEOPLE'S MUSIC, The Citadel Press, N.Y., 1952.

Edited March 23, 2004 by garthsj

[garthsj]

... and finally ... two pages from another rarity... Dare I enter the argument about "German intellectualism" here? This was, in every respect a pioneering work by someone who became a very respected jazz critic and photographer.

Edited March 23, 2004 by garthsj

[garthsj]

A page from the Borneman essay ...

[BruceH]

This book is the real deal, Wesbed. Get it and enjoy it. Then check out Gioia's West Coast Jazz, which is perhaps even more interesting.

Sure, no book that attempts such a broad and multi-detailed subject as the "History of Jazz" is ever perfect, or will please everyone. But overall this is value for money and time spent.

[Dr. Rat]

Eric, can you provide more on this meta-history on jazz history writing?

My experience is mostly with history more generally, rather than with jazz history in particular (Garth, apparently, is your expert there!).

And as Simon points out, jazz criticism and history is something of a backwater. Gioia, for instance gets a lot of praise because he does things like mention Walter Benjamin, who is cited out the wazoo in other sorts of aesthetic-historical writings (architectural or literary history for instance).

One thing about jazz writing is that a lot of it is journalistic rather than academic, a lot of the academics who are in the field don't know jazz as well as they might, and a lot of the more journalistic folks in the field (who often do know lots more than you'll read in books), are fans rather than critics. They are most interested in forwarding the cause of the music they love, not in analyzing it.

There is also, as Simon points out, a considerable hostility (for good and bad) in English-speaking culture toward "intellectualizing" and "academics" which you will see in a lot of writing on jazz, either in the background or in the foreground.

Gradually this is changing as jazz's center of gravity moves more toward the academy, the two worlds seem to be merging. Gioia probably being a good example of this.

More generally on meta-history: one of the good effects of the whole post-modernist movement in the intellectual sphere is the death (or at least the considerable weakening) of "meta-narratives" (obituary written by JF Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge).

This is one reason why social history is much more shy about determinism than it might have been in the past and much more concerned about the biographical details that, in jazz history, are still really the preserve of the fans and journalists.

Antonio Gramsci's concept of hegemony, which is pretty flexible, was a major influence on my generation of historical scholars. There's a good article by TJ Jackson Lears on hegemony which I'll email to you.

--eric

Edited March 23, 2004 by Dr. Rat

[garthsj]

One thing about jazz writing is that a lot of it is journalistic rather than academic, a lot of the academics who are in the field don't know jazz as well as they might, and a lot of the more journalistic folks in the field (who often do know lots more than you'll read in books), are fans rather than critics. They are most interested in forwarding the cause of the music they love, not in analyzing it.

There is also, as Simon points out, a considerable hostility (for good and bad) in English-speaking culture toward "intellectualizing" and "academics" which you will see in a lot of writing on jazz, either in the background or in the foreground.

Gradually this is changing as jazz's center of gravity moves more toward the academy, the two worlds seem to be merging. Gioia probably being a good example of this.

More generally on meta-history: one of the good effects of the whole post-modernist movement in the intellectual sphere is the death (or at least the considerable weakening) of "meta-narratives" (obituary written by JF Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge).

This is one reason why social history is much more shy about determinism than it might have been in the past and much more concerned about the biographical details that, in jazz history, are still really the preserve of the fans and journalists.

.

--eric

Eric is right. There is a trend against writing "meta-histories" in this post-modern age. It goes right back to the comment I made early in this thread that such "cosmic narratives" only invite critical attacks from specialists who are concerned that their particular slice of the world of (add your subject here) has been given either insufficient, or incorrect attention. This is unfortunate in my opinion, because we still need these "overviews" as a means of correlating the subject into some sort of cohesive whole that encourages and allows new perpectives.

Pardon me here if I become very personal in my experience as a social/cultural historian. In 1976 I wrote a book, "FILM: THE DEMOCRATIC ART - A Social History of Movegoing in America," (Little, Brown, 1976). Five months prior to my book appearing, Robert Sklar published his pioneering book, "MOVIE-MADE AMERICA: How the Movie Changed American Life," Random House, 1975. Our books were often the subject of joint reviews, which was apt because in some way we had approached the subject of the significance of movies in American life in very different, but complimentary ways. The point is that both these books were written by historians, and using historical reserach methods, and they were completely different from previous "histories of the movies". (In one complimentary review of my book, the reviewer enthusiastically noted that the book had "over a hiundred footnotes in some chapters"!) This type of reaction indicates the shift that Eric discusses from journalistic type writing which had been the previous paradigm in film history, to the work that Sklar and I (both trained historians) had produced.

However, the danger of producing a "meta history" such as this was soon made very apparent to me. A second reviewer, who later became a co-author on another book, pointed out that I was likely to suffer "the death of a thousand cuts" for having the temerity to tackle such a large subject. He was right, but I saw being a large target as a positive development in the emerging field of film history. In the nearly thirty years since that book was published it has been widely cited, and I have been "corrected" and "amended" hundreds of times, almost always with a nod to the "pioneering" aspect of my neophyte work. As I write this I am in the process of doing a revised second edition, which is, in fact, the creation of essentially a totally new work, such has been the level of correction and additional material that has appeared from a younger generation of scholars writing tight monographs on much more precise topics. (Literally entire books have been written in subjects I have dealt with in a few paragraphs). This makes the entire process of revising my original book much more difficult, and I sometimes wonder if there is even a need for the type of meta-history I am trying to write. The current scholarly climate in film studies is ambivalent on this subject; I get lots of encouragement to complete the revised edition, but on the other hand, there is increased scepticism that one person could be so audacious to think that he or she could hope to encompass all knowledge in one book.

I tell you all of this self-confessional because there is a similar trend in jazz historical studies. The significance of jazz as an integral part of the American social/cultural facric is becoming increasingly obvious. Many of the books I scanned above are the forerunners of scholarly works which are attempting to "place" jazz within the American Exerience. The basic theses of these mostly excellent mongraphs have yet to be included in a larger overview "meta-history" of jazz. I assume that such larger histories may be a long time in coming ... the economics of the publishing industry, and the dismal state of jazz appreciation in this country mitigates against such a development. What a pity!

.. this is a great thread by the way, but then I am predisposed to it ....

Garth.

Edited March 23, 2004 by garthsj

[ghost of miles]

Garth,

You and I read a lot of the same books! B)

I still haven't read the Finkelstein, which is considered a classic by some--I keep hoping that it will turn up in the local used bookshop.

I thought that Neil Leonard did write a later book on jazz; in fact, I think I have it! JAZZ: MYTH & RELIGION. I recently mentioned it to Lon. Still haven't read the 1962 book, though.

The social, economic, racial and cultural forces that accompanied the creation & dissemination of jazz are fascinating and deserve to be a part of the jazz narrative.

Here's a recent one that I enjoyed:

Publisher blurb:

This book presents a unique sociological vision of the evolution of jazz in the twentieth century. Analysing organizational structures and competing discourses in American music, Paul Lopes shows how musicians and others transformed the meaning and practice of jazz. Set against the distinct worlds of high art and popular art in America, the rise of a jazz art world is shown to be a unique movement - a socially diverse community struggling in various ways against cultural orthodoxy. Cultural politics in America is shown to be a dynamic, open, and often contradictory process of constant re-interpretation. This work is a compelling social history of American culture that incorporates various voices in jazz, including musicians, critics, collectors, producers and enthusiasts. Accessibly written and interdisciplinary in approach, it will be of great interest to scholars and students of sociology, cultural studies, social history, American studies, African-American studies, and jazz studies.

[medjuck]

The theme of the influence of jazz on white Americans was first discussed in some (sane) detail by Neil Leonard in the early 1960s. By the time I took a course in American Studies with him when I was a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania in the early 1970s, he had lost most of his interest in the topic of jazz .. bummer! But this is still a provocative book ... JAZZ AND THE WHITE AMERICANS: THE ACCEPTANCE OF A NEW ART FORM, Uuniversity of Chicago Press, 1962.

This reminds me: anyone here read "Lost Chords" the book about White Jazz musicians?

[Dr. Rat]

The theme of the influence of jazz on white Americans was first discussed in some (sane) detail by Neil Leonard in the early 1960s. By the time I took a course in American Studies with him when I was a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania in the early 1970s, he had lost most of his interest in the topic of jazz  .. bummer!  But this is still a provocative book ... JAZZ AND THE WHITE AMERICANS: THE ACCEPTANCE OF A NEW ART FORM, Uuniversity of Chicago Press, 1962.

This reminds me: anyone here read "Lost Chords" the book about White Jazz musicians?

I've not read it cover-to-cover, but I've tooled around in it quite a bit (my expression for looking things up in it and reading randomly at leisure).

I really like it. Very balanced and reasonable on most controversies, and really good reading.

--eric

[medjuck]

I started reading it but found myself getting confused because he didn't mention what was happening with Black musicians at the same time. I have no problem with his rediscovery of lesser known White musicians and their contributions but it all seemed out of context to me. I should try it again. There was a good 2 disc set that came out at the same time which contians many of the cuts and artists to which he refers.

[Simon Weil]

The social, economic, racial and cultural forces that accompanied the creation & dissemination of jazz are fascinating and deserve to be a part of the jazz narrative.

Here's a recent one that I enjoyed:

Publisher blurb:

This book presents a unique sociological vision of the evolution of jazz in the twentieth century. Analysing organizational structures and competing discourses in American music, Paul Lopes shows how musicians and others transformed the meaning and practice of jazz. Set against the distinct worlds of high art and popular art in America, the rise of a jazz art world is shown to be a unique movement - a socially diverse community struggling in various ways against cultural orthodoxy. Cultural politics in America is shown to be a dynamic, open, and often contradictory process of constant re-interpretation. This work is a compelling social history of American culture that incorporates various voices in jazz, including musicians, critics, collectors, producers and enthusiasts. Accessibly written and interdisciplinary in approach, it will be of great interest to scholars and students of sociology, cultural studies, social history, American studies, African-American studies, and jazz studies.

That does look interesting. In fact I just ordered a copy. Thanks Ghost!

Short interview with Lopes, where, in fact, he mentions intuition as generating the book.

Not to bash on about this or anything.

Simon Weil

[Dr. Rat]

Found an interesting review of Andre Hodeir by Neil Leonard, attached below.

--eric

Edited March 23, 2004 by Dr. Rat

[Dr. Rat]

I started reading it but found myself getting confused because he didn't mention what was happening with Black musicians at the same time. I have no problem with his rediscovery of lesser known White musicians and their contributions but it all seemed out of context to me. I should try it again. There was a good 2 disc set that came out at the same time which contians many of the cuts and artists to which he refers.

I did most of my perusing of the white jazz book directly after having read The Swing Era, so I might have missed the lack of context issue.

--eric

[Dr. Rat]

Eric is right. There is a trend against writing "meta-histories" in this post-modern age. It goes right back to the comment I made early in this thread that such "cosmic narratives" only invite critical attacks from specialists who are concerned that their particular slice of the world of (add your subject here) has been given either insufficient, or incorrect attention. This is unfortunate in my opinion, because we still need these "overviews" as a means of correlating the subject into some sort of cohesive whole that encourages and allows new perpectives.

To the extent that this is happening (and I think it is, too) I think this is an unfortunate trend as well. When I said the death of the metanarrative was a good thing, I had in mind the sort of all-controlling, all-determining, vegematic interpretation (just stick the facts in this end, and it all comes out looking the same at the other end!).

I don't like the hypercritical attitute people seem to bring to overviews and compendia. I just don't think it constitutes an interesting criticism to point out that something has been left out. Such books should come with promotional stickers like "Things left out!" "Tough choices made!" "A book, not a library!" just to remind reviewers of the simple facts of writing and book publishing.

And I'd encourage you to press on with your revision. I am a lover of little books that cover a lot of ground well.

I think of Paul Fussell's guide to technique in poetry or Terry Eagleton's introductions to literary criticism, which serve not only as great introductions but as fine expressions of a whole way of seeing things.

Of course, your project is different from these, but you might think of it as an expression of a way of seeing things--a way of seeing things that enriches the reader even if he can't entirely agree with it as well as being a basic introduction to the scholarship and primary material that's out there.

--eric

Edited March 23, 2004 by Dr. Rat