Racial Tension in the 1930's

               Since the early history of jazz, this art form and its development have been heavily talked about as being closely associated with issues of race. The Africans brought to America during the times of the Atlantic Slave Trade brought with them many key elements necessary to the creation of jazz, and the genre was widely considered a “black art form” and is still often associated with African American artists even today. Although this link between jazz music and race has always existed, it was not until the 1930’s that greatly tangible racial tensions began to arise in America, making race one of the most important aspects of the genre’s existence at the time.

               This flaring racial tension was built up largely due to the increasing popularity of jazz, which meant that there inevitably would be more and more financial gain possible for artists within this genre. While jazz was still looked down upon by high culture even into the 1930’s, the younger people of the time were becoming enthralled with this music, listening to it in dance halls and sweeping the nation with new dances to accompany it like the Jitterbug and the Charleston (Lecture, 2/14/13). By patronizing these dance halls and creating these styles of dance, young Americans were allowing jazz to assimilate progressively into their popular culture. Due to this rise in popularity, many jazz artists could not afford to be as concerned with the artistic value of their music; rather, they were forced to be concerned with the mass appeal and profitability of their musical endeavors (Lecture, 2/14/13). The impact of the Great Depression during this time only increased the need for a musician’s mainstream appeal as there was little money to go around during this era.

               With jazz becoming a widespread phenomenon with more and more artists involved in it, any given jazz musician had to truly stand out among the crowd in order to be well off financially. This was especially hard for African Americans, as they were not exposed to the same opportunities to play shows as whites were. For example, many big bands comprised of white musicians were able to secure places at concerts more easily than bands made up of blacks. Not only this, but the audiences of many concert and dance halls were racially segregated at the time, further polarizing the power within the genre (Lecture, 2/12/13). This polarization was strengthened even more by the fact that almost all jazz critics in the 1930’s were white (“Swing Changes,” 52). Whites being dominant as jazz critics meant that they were essentially able to dictate what was acceptable within the genre while blacks could say little in return. This imbalance of power contributed greatly to the racial tension brewing in the 1930’s.

                This tension can be further exemplified by looking at the career of Benny Goodman. Goodman advanced jazz in many ways and is remembered today as the “King of Swing.” In 1937, Goodman, a white man, squared off against Chick Webb, a black man, in a “swing battle” at the racially desegregated Savoy in Harlem. Although Webb is believed to have won this battle overall, Goodman is still called the King of Swing to this day, showing the imbalance of racial focus in jazz music at this time (Lecture, 2/14/13). Additionally, Goodman was one of the first to take the radio by storm as this new medium gained prominence in the 30’s. As Gioia puts it, “Goodman sent this apparatus into motion with a vengeance,” (129). This meant that mainstream America was becoming accustomed to jazz music on a large scale that was coming from white musicians, taking away from jazz’s influence as an African American art form. Goodman also advanced jazz by being the first jazz musician to play at Carnegie Hall in 1938. In this performance he also incorporated a few black musicians; this action can be seen as a step towards racial integration within jazz at this time (Lecture, 2/14/13). In other words, Goodman may have been responsible for both an increase and a decrease in racial tensions in the 1930’s. 

1920's Jazz: Chicago vs. New York

      Although Chicago and New York were both integral to the advancement of jazz music in the 1920’s, I would like to argue that Chicago contributed more overall to the progression of this genre. While Harlem was a major hub for jazz, the initial rise of the genre there was met with deep divisions among the social classes of blacks. There existed two Harlems, one where high-brow African Americans lived and originally did not listen to jazz artists and one where “working-class” blacks lived and thrived off of jazz as a major pillar of their culture (Gioia, 90). While this separation of cultures was occurring in Harlem, Chicago was experiencing an intertwining of the many cultures present there. The dialogue between these various cultures and the jazz musicians of Chicago led to the molding of jazz into something more than it had been in New Orleans: jazz with a “Chicago Style.”

       From New Orleans, however, came many influential jazz musicians to Chicago. Artists like Armstrong, Hines, Morton, Oliver, Noone, and Dodds made this migration in the 1920’s. Among their reasons for migrating was the incentive of financial opportunities: in New Orleans, jazz artists typically earned a few dollars per show, while in Chicago they could earn a hefty forty dollars per week (Gioia, 72). Apart from musicians, many others fled to Chicago in search of prosperity. The city experienced a large influx of roughly fifty thousand blacks who came to work in the country’s factories and mills (“King Oliver,” 37). These blacks were met with fierce competition for jobs; however, they all found their common ground by patronizing local jazz musicians after a long day’s work (Lecture, 1/29/13). The promise of a more successful life not only brought the most influential jazz musicians to Chicago, it also brought the audience these musicians needed to flourish.

       With plenty of talented musicians now in Chicago and a vast audience brought before them, a dialogue opened up between these two groups that took the reins of jazz’s formation and infused with it what is called “Chicago Style.” Gioia writes that this evolution was not explicitly noticed or discussed by musicians, but that this change occurred as a result of changing interests of the genre’s audience (73). This dialogue became more apparent as blacks began to let themselves assimilate more and more into American mass culture. As Liz Cohen states, “by participating in mainstream commercial life, which black Chicagoans did more than their ethnic co-workers, blacks came to feel more independent and influential as a race,” (147-148). This newfound individualism could also be seen in Chicago Style jazz. Part of this style was a focus on the individual – the soloist. Perhaps the greatest soloist of this time was Louis Armstrong, whose hot, driving rhythms and advanced syncopations were wholly unrivaled (Gioia, 58). While Harlem may have had exceptional soloists such as stride piano player James P. Johnson, these musicians did not receive the same level of attention that soloists like Armstrong garnered in Chicago, putting Chicago’s jazz above Harlem’s in terms of broad influence.

       While King Oliver and Armstrong may have been among the most talented jazz artists in 1920’s Chicago, I contend that Bix Beiderbecke and the Austin High School Band were among the most influential jazz artists in the city. The recording of “Nobody’s Sweetheart” that Bix did with the Austin High School Band is referred to in “The Chicagoans” as the epitome of Chicago Style (157). As Eddie Condon mentioned, this recording was largely a response to differing interests of Chicago’s musical audience (“The Chicagoans, 156). This song aimed to satisfy all of these interests at once, further proving that there was a dialogue between the audience and performers that molded jazz into its new Chicago Style. Altogether, jazz in Chicago was thriving in the 1920’s, perpetuated by many different musicians, both black and white.