(Modern) Jazz Education:
The Hegemony of Modern Jazz among Higher
Jazz Education Programs
60
Abstract
Many scholars acknowledge the stylistic narrowness among jazz education programs within higher music education institutions. According to them, jazz styles that can be identified as part of the modern jazz canon, dominate the classrooms of such programs. This study identifies the causes of modern jazz hegemony among higher jazz education programs. Firstly, most of the theories used in higher jazz education programs emerge from the same theoretical construct, which derived from modern jazz music. Secondly, after the emergence of modern jazz, jazz music became perceived as a high art form. Both of the reasons are related to the rise of African American middle class from which most of modern jazz musicians came from. In conclusion, the study relates all of the causes to the Eurocentric climate of higher music education institutions, and argues how crucial the values related to Eurocentrism are for modern jazz hegemony.
60
Content
Introduction 3
Chapter 1: African American Middle Class 8
Chapter 2: Theorizing Modern Jazz 22
Chapter 3: Modern Jazz & Cultural Hierarchies 33
Conclusion 44
Bibliography 47
Discography 57
60
Introduction
Scholars divide the history of jazz education and its institutionalization into two major periods of historical development: the 1st and 2nd halves of the 20th
century (Prouty 2005; Beale 2000). They, i.e. Prouty and Beale, stress that much of the first period, i.e. the 1st half of the 20th century, has been documented
around scarce materials (e.g. personal accounts, oral histories, etc.). While some of it is stored in jazz archives around the world (e.g. Institute of Jazz Studies at Rutgers, the Hogan Jazz Archive at Tulane, and the archive at Darmstadt in Germany), written chronicles on learning and teaching activities regarding the first half of the 20th century are difficult to find (ibid.). According to Beale, two
patterns of learning to play jazz were most popular throughout the first half of the century: acquiring knowledge from mentors, i.e. apprenticeship, and studying from noted transcription of solos or directly off records (Beale 2000: 756-759). Both Prouty and Beale note that the second period, i.e. the 2nd half of the 20th
century, affirms the establishment of curricular activities at different education institutions, such as North Texas State College (now the University of North Texas), Westlake College in Los Angeles (closed around 1961 for it’s striking decrease in size), or the Schillinger House in Boston (now Berklee College of Music). Prouty argues that an immense growth of jazz educational institutions during the 1960s and 1970s is the result of the second period, and today’s jazz educational system has its roots within it (Prouty 2005: 80-82). In addition to that, according to Beale, key educators such as Jerry Coker, David Baker, and Jamey Aebersold laid the groundwork for current educational practice. Beale notes that the need to justify jazz education as worthy of institutional and cultural attention led to a clear, if in retrospect slightly limited, (educational) definition of a single jazz style and related set of skills (ibid.). Hence, both scholars identify the 2nd half of the 20th century as a period, which alongside jazz
education institutionalization marked its institutionalization among higher education institutions – the subject from which the premises of my study derive. Of course the premises are very much part of my experience, since I am a graduate of one of such institutions – Leeds College of Music – where I finished a BA course in jazz performance, and became, in St. Nicholson words, “a part of jazz-education production line” (Nicholson 2005: 101). Compulsory subjects in LCM during the time included studies in performance (based on one’s principle instrument), composition, harmony, ensemble, aural & oral awareness, jazz language, jazz history, various workshops or masterclasses, studio environment, music industry, and popular culture. Apart from the last three subjects, higher music education institutions around the world (e.g. The Julliard School, University of North Texas, School of Jazz at the New School – the U.S.; Birmingham Conservatoire, Guildhall School of Music & Drama – England; Prins
60 Claus Conservatorium, Conservatorium van Amsterdam, Koninklijk
Conservatorium Den Haag – The Netherlands) use similarly constructed jazz programs, emphasizing subjects such as instrument based performance study, ensemble, aural awareness, canonical jazz history, composition or arranging, harmony or keyboard studies, improvisation or jazz language, i.e. vocabulary, and workshops or masterclasses via which similar guest artists-teachers (e.g. Jerry Berganzi, Randy Brecker, Dave Douglas, Robert Glasper, John Scofield, David Liebman, etc.) are invited. The larger part of the teaching staff in jazz program in LCM was musicians (as well as among all the institutions with higher jazz education programs listed above) and because of it, they were the most respected ones among us, students, too. Since day one teachers pulled us into a bubble via compulsory subjects, with which most of us were more than satisfied; those who were not, dropped out during and after the first year. The bubble, indeed, isolated our focus on everything that was challenging and therefore satisfying for us (e.g. John Coltrane’s “Giant Steps”, Bill Evan’s “Very Early”, Clifford Brown “Daahoud”, etc.). Even music that seemed to be less complex back then (e.g. Dave Brubeck’s “In Your Own Sweet Way”, Thelonious Monk's "'Round Midnight", Horace Silver’s “Silver's Serenade”, etc.) was still satisfactory to us as most of it was rooted in bebop and everything that came afterwards. It became so integral to all of us that our final recitals appeared to consist of musical numbers that also seemed to be deriving from everything bebop or post-bebop related. Even during my MA musicology program in University of Amsterdam, out of a few courses available on jazz, one was dedicated to the history of bebop.
My study experience, perhaps, epitomizes what Tony Whyton (2013) identifies as two main directions that construct the overall picture of jazz education among higher education institutions. On one end, there is a university sector (e.g. UvA), in which the subject tends to be viewed from socio-critical perspective, and also is usually placed in the context of other disciplines such as film and literature, writes Whyton. On the other end, there is a conservatory sector (e.g. LCM), which runs performance-based programs that have a tendency to approach jazz using bebop and the methodology written by Jerry Coker, David Baker, and Jamey Aebersold, as the formulaic model for success, notes Whyton (Whyton 2013: 168-169). Other scholars, also elegantly acknowledge the importance of bebop among performance-based programs within a conservatory sector underlined by Whyton. Darius Brubeck writes that indeed much of educational courses material among higher jazz education institutions derive from methodologies written by educators such as Jamey Aebersold (Brubeck 2002: 192), while Travis A. Jackson observes that the popularity of such methods of instruction among higher jazz education programs became a major object of criticism (Jackson 2012: 86). The criticism, as noted by Jackson, represents a far more categorical perspective towards higher jazz education than that shared by Whyton, Brubeck or Jackson.
60 All of them, critics, mainly indicate the stylistic narrowness of higher jazz
education programs. Beale notes how the first round of textbooks and other resources were characterized by and had an emphasis on strict formalization and structure, as well as on the definition of levels – all with a focus on establishing a relatively narrow core repertoire broadly around bebop and hardbop, which to current days sits at the core of jazz education (Beale 2000: 759-760). Similarly, Eric Porter writes: “Bebop continues to be a core element of the language of jazz. It informs the work of most contemporary players, and many stylistic and technical innovations created in the 1940s remain integral parts of jazz education” (Porter 2002: 54). Stuart Nicholson writes that the style of jazz taught in colleges and universities derives from the conventions of the bebop-hardbop style of the 1950s and 1960s, which became a common language among jazz courses in higher education institutions (Nicholson 2005: 100). Nicholson also argues:
“The problem with basing the educational curriculum on a bebop-styled repertoire is that solos in this style – and it is a style that focuses almost entirely on solos – were becoming so circumscribed stylistically and technically it was increasingly difficult for musicians to say anything original in the idiom.” (Nicholson 2005: 107)
Prouty, too, states that improvisation represents the core activity in academic teaching and learning jazz. He also notes that in courses designed to introduce students to basic concepts of the improvisational language, musical material is usually drawn from bebop and related stylistic forms, i.e. post-bebop (Prouty 2012: 60-61). David Ake, in the chapter “Jazz ‘Traning: John Coltrane and the Conservatory” in his book Jazz Cultures (2002), analyzes how early works of John Coltrane, who is one of the most appraised jazz players among students, overshadow his late works, since it does not fit into the narrow stylistic framework set by most higher education programs; i.e. Ake suggest that Coltrane’s later work is absent from higher jazz education classrooms because it is not related to bebop as much as his earlier work. Furthermore, an interesting example I discovered which parallels all that’s been written above, is David Sudnow’s book Ways of the Hand (2001), in which the author describes his experience while trying to learn how to play jazz on a piano. Hence, during the first steps of Sudnow’s learning experience, the author is also preoccupied with bebop based musical vocabulary; i.e. Sudnow first starts transcribing the music of Charlie Parker, and later starts analyzing scales relationship with harmonic structures of a given musical number – the methodology deriving from bebop. Finally, in the only book written entirely on higher jazz education and published recently (2014), Eitan Y. Wilf notes that two programs he chose to examine for his anthropological study are similar in terms of their stylistic narrowness, which according to him ranges from the 1940s to late 1960s.
60 “This period in the history of jazz, which encompasses several stylistic
shifts – from bebop, hardbop, postbop, to the beginning of free jazz – is considered to be the golden age of jazz within the jazz program, epitomized by legendary recordings (e.g., Sonny Side Up), recording labels (e.g., Blue Note Records), and groups (e.g., the Second Miles Davis Quintet). Educators often invoke musicians like saxophonists John Coltrane, Charlie Parker, and Sonny Rollins, trumpeters Miles Davis, Dizzy Gillespie, Clifford Brown, and Lee Morgan, pianists Bill Evans and Bud Powell.” (Wilf 2014: 97)
While corresponding to the others about the dominance of bebop based stylistic narrowness of higher jazz education programs, the front cover of Wilf's book1
features a picture of Dizzy Gillespie writing notes for a musical theme on a blackboard under the name of “Be-Bop”. Such image transmits a powerful message – one that is at the center of my attention – the causes of bebop’s (as well as other subgenres related to it) dominance among higher jazz education programs. However, more times than not, instead of the word 'dominance', I shall be using the term 'hegemony'; its associations with culture (Artz and Murphy 2000: 63-64) provide a framework for my research: "The most important question is, Who is dominant and for what purpose, and who is subordinate and what do the gain or lose?" (Artz and Murphy 2000: 4).
Moreover, all of the people discussed above write about the same time period as Wilf, i.e. the 1940s to late 1960s, which, as noted, covers subgenres such as bebop, cool jazz, hardbop, etc. Thom Holmes writes that the emergence of bebop in the 1940s marked the dawn of modern jazz (Holmes 2005: 11). Scott DeVeaux shares similar views: “By any measure, this is a crucial period for the history of jazz. During the years 1940–45 the first modern jazz style, shaped by Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonious Monk, and others, came into being” (DeVeaux 1997: 1). Robert R. Faulkner and Howard S. Becker, analyzing jazz repertoire, describes Thelonius Monk, Wayne Shorter, John Coltrane, or Charles Mingus as modern jazz musicians (Faulkner and Becker 2009: 41). So do Paul Lopes (Lopes 2000: 165) and Ted Gioia (Gioia 1998: 199), who link modern jazz to the same time period. Hence, in my study I will be using the term - modern jazz - because it abstracts all of the subgenres identified as hegemonic by scholars discussed above in jazz programs among higher music education institutions. Moreover, although the beginning of modern jazz, as noted, is fixed to a specific time in jazz history, i.e. the 1940s, the time marking the end of the term is more vague. Therefore, apart from its main objective, my research also attempts to clarify the term, i.e. modern jazz, as the content of the study is engaged into the discussion of the characteristics of the term.
In my first chapter, I will discuss the roots of the causes of the situation. My point of departure is the Great Migration in the U.S., from which onwards I explore its
60
subsequent effects on the African American migrants. I do this by focusing on the influences of the U.S. media, technology, education, and northern African American residents, with whom the southern migrants came into contact after the migration. Furthermore, I relate family backgrounds of modern jazz musicians to southern African American migrants and post Great Migration effects on them. In my second chapter I will examine the importance of musical aspects related to European concert music in modern jazz. I will discuss how dissonance and overall harmonic focus by modern jazz musicians shaped the sound of bebop leading to the development of Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization - a landmark achievement in both jazz and its education history. In my last chapter, I will look at the hierarchical connotations jazz carried in the U.S. prior to the emergence of modern jazz, and how such connotations changed after modern jazz emerged. I believe my study will raise important questions related to jazz, higher music education, and its institutionalization for future researches.
Chapter 1:
African American Middle Class
By the end of the 18th and at the beginning of the 19th century most of the
African American population was living in rural areas down south of the United States. Between 1910 and 1920 around 60,000 African Americans migrated from the South to industrial cities such as New York, Chicago, Detroit, or Washington D. C. (Jones 2002: 95). This event is called the Great Migration, and Leroi Jones notes that by 1920, the proportion of African Americans in the north had increased to 14.1%. According to Jones, the Great Migration also indicated North America’s transition from being an agricultural country to becoming the largest industrialized country in the world (Jones 2002: 97). J. Trent Alexander suggests that the numbers were even higher, as from 1910 to 1920 roughly around 500,000 African Americans migrated from southern parts of the U. S. to north eastern or north central parts of the country (Alexander 1998: 351). Furthermore, Stewart E. Tolnay describes the Great Migration as one of the most significant demographic events in U.S. history and notes that, as it proceeded, over 2,5 million southern-born African Americans had migrated by the 1950s, which resulted in a dramatic geographic redistribution of African Americans in different parts of the country (Tolnay 2003: 209-210).
In his analysis of the Great Migration’s causes and effects, Tolnay writes that scholars (Drake and Cayton 1946; Frazier 1932, 1939; Woofter 1928; Epstein 1918) construct a stereotypical image of a migrated southern African American as illiterate sharecroppers, displaced from the rural South because of agricultural distress or reorganization. Tolnay agrees that ethnographic studies of African American migrants living in the northern cities during the early stages of the Great Migration support such an image. However, the scholar finds it difficult to determine whether southern born African Americans migrated from rural areas or from towns and cities in the south. The scholar assumes that characteristics of the migrant population (level of education, social & economic positions, etc.) varied over time, as the social and economic forces driving the migration shifted (Tolnay 2003: 212). Tolnay, observing that economic factors are being emphasized most prominently, states:
“Closely related to the question of who the migrants were is the question of what induced them to leave the South. Research into the latter question has been guided strongly by theories of human migration that emphasize a rational decision-making process in which potential migrants carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of their current residence versus those of potential destinations” (Tolnay 2003: 214).
He notes that various scholars describe the lack of life improving possibilities for southern rural African Americans in plantation agriculture and the sharecropping system on which it was built, as well as occupational segregation in southern towns and cities, as the major reasons that influenced the Great Migration. Moreover, Tolnay writes that the economical context in the north of the U.S. is also scholarly analyzed, as at the time, most of these areas in the north were suffering from the lack of cheap labor power; a result of WWI, which stopped unskilled European labor migration. Although non-economic reasons encouraging migration have been studied less (with a notable exception of racial violence in terms of lynching), Tolnay lists the following causes of the migration: inferior educational opportunities, behavioral restrictions imposed by Jim Crow laws, and political disenfranchisement (Tolnay 2003: 215).
Tolnay writes that southern African American migrants resided in almost all areas of the North and West of the U.S. Yet, with time, major migration streams developed, resulting in larger concentrations of migrants in particular locations (e.g. popularity in western states increased only after the 1940s, as the expansion in defense industry on the West Coast was triggered by the United States entry into World War II). One of the major factors that played an important role in development of specific streams of migration, however, was transportation: routes of interstate highways and railroad lines connecting southern states with various locations in the north and west of the U.S. had a significant influence on the choices of destination of southern African American migrants. Yet, Tolnay notes that selection of destinations was influenced by more than simple logistical convenience, telling that migrants were more attracted to areas that offered stronger support and easier adjustment conditions for newcomers. For example, Tolnay suggests that the presence of family or friends in the North (or the West for that matter) provided important information about the economical conditions for potential migrants. The scholar believes that the lack of both financial security and opportunities in the southern part of U.S. were the major reasons that triggered the Great Migration. Many scholars (Flingstein 1981; Mandle 1978; Ransom and Sutch 1977; Henri 1975; Drake and Cayton 1946; Woofter 1928; Scott 1919) express similar beliefs to those of Tolnay.
The most important impact of the Great Migration was the demographic change in the U.S.: an increased population of African Americans in both northern and western parts of the country. Yet, it also increased white American hostility towards both migrants and those African Americans who lived in Northern and Western metropolitan areas before the migration, in order to maintain racial segregation: “Thus, although the neighborhoods of northern cities had been racially segregated before the Great Migration, the white community was forced to resort to even stronger measures to maintain segregation as the black population expanded" (Tolnay 2003: 221). Tolnay writes that various scholars (Massey and Denton 1993; Wilson 1987, 1978; Philpott 1978) analyzed how
northern white Americans intensified their efforts to restrict the residential and occupational opportunities available to all African Americans after 1920, as a result of the Great Migration (ibid.). Moreover, Tolnay notes that the migration also had an impact on white American’s residential mobility from cities to suburbs, resulting in economic restructuring. This increased unemployment and underemployment, as well as poverty, violence and family decline among African American populations in main metropolitan areas in the north and west of the U.S. On the other hand, the scholar suggests that the larger part of the African American population gained not only more customers and clients, but also increased political power, leading towards several elections of African American mayors in major metropolitan areas in the northern states (Tolnay 2003: 222-223).
The migration also created an interesting phenomenon, as the difference between southern and northern African American emerged in the eyes of the African American migrants. Thus, as Leroi Jones argues in his book “Black People”, during this time African American middle class emerged:
"The migration north was, of course, the main reason for the rise of a black middle class in America, since there was in the North that space that the increasing subtlety of the paternalistic society allowed. There was greater room for progress." (Jones 2002: 123)
Jones argues that black middle class from its inception has formed (itself) almost exclusively around the proposition that it is better not to be black in a country where being black is a liability. Thus, according to the author, it was the growing middle class who believed that the only way to be a citizen and survive in America, was to assimilate to white Americans, forgetting and leaving no trace of their (African American) roots (Jones 2002: 123 - 124). Jones also suggests that race assimilation in the U.S. was already evident in slavery times, as even then some slaves had more privileges than the others (e.g. house slaves were usually the first ones to assimilate their master's ideas, or accept their master's religion). Thus, a closer distance to the source, as seen in Jones’ example, makes it possible to take in various customs more easily, which in this particular case must be seen as an opposite to the slave’s customs. Moreover, Jones uses the assimilation concept to describe the power relationship between African Americans and, as Lee Artz & Bren Ortega Murphy note, dominant (white) society (Artz and Murphy 2000: 71), which in Jones’ text is dominant because of imposed segregation over African American population.
I agree with Jones ideas; however, I think that the migration alone was only one of the factors responsible for the rise of African American middle class. Moreover, I conclude three important aspects from this section. First, the rise of an African American middle-class described by Jones, is directly linked with the Great
Migration after southern African Americans migrated to the northern and western parts of the U.S. Research done by other scholars (Fultz 1995, Frazier 1957) also trace the roots of an African American middle class to the Great Migration. Second, an opposition of customs cultivated by a master and a slave in the United States represents an opposition between Europe and Africa, where European values dominate: Tony Whyton argues that North American cultural infrastructures, on which current jazz practice is founded, is born out of a model shaped by European values (2013: 31). Finally, the Great Migration represents a move that closed a distance between African Americans and the source of European values, i.e. Victorian values, which at the time were hegemonic.
*
One of the factors that played a major role in the rise and development of African American middle-class was the contact of southern African American migrants with northern African American residents after the migration. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss African American residents, and in particular the African American upper class in the north prior to the Great Migration; I assume that the northerners’ influence on the migrants was one of the decisive factors for the development of African American middle class. Some scholars (Laundry 1987; Frazier 1957) avoid using the term upper class to describe even the wealthiest, or the most educated of all African Americans, instead referring to such group of people as being part of a middle class: their class distinction is based on the overall class structure of the U.S. rather than African American population only. I will refer to such African Americans as an upper class, because in the end all of the scholars agree that such group had more wealth, education, and political power than the rest of African American population. Most importantly, however, inheritance (e.g. family background, skin color) played a major role in separating African American upper class from the rest of African American population. In his article (1988) on African American upper class between 1880 and 1920, Willard B. Gatewood Jr. notes that throughout the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, African American upper classes challenged stereotypical views (e.g. non-existing differences among African Americans in terms of social status) of African American society. According to Gatewood, it is generally agreed, among those studying the black class structure, that African American upper class was exceedingly small, and that the class structure was rooted in the slavery times: their place in it, role in resisting it, and most importantly, freedom from it (Gatewood 1988: 3-4). Those African Americans with such privileges formed groups in pursuit of economic and political objectives, distancing themselves from the rest of African American population, notes Gatewood. Washington, D.C. was the capital for African American upper class prior to World War I. Here the most prestigious families (Symphaxes, Wormleys, Cooks, etc.) and citizens important for various social reforms or education lived. Thus, family name and
heritage was of an exceptional importance to those within the upper class circles. According to Gatewood, family heritage was often related to skin color, as most African American aristocrats were light-skinned and serving the “natural” bridge between white society and the rest of African Americans. Gatewood notes, that some, because of their light skin color, even managed to avoid certain Jim Crow laws. Yet, a light skin on its own didn’t naturally give an aristocrat status, as emphasis on education and culture, beside the family history, played an important role, too. Although most colored aristocrats enjoyed a certain degree of financial security, wealth mattered less than family name, education, etc. Moreover, class status was most obvious among those who belonged to certain clubs (Charleston’s Brown Fellowship Society; New York African Society of Mutual Relief, etc.). Church affiliation was also an important factor, as the majority of African American upper class was Baptists or Methodists, notes Gatewood (Gatewood 1988: 13-14). African American upper class is also defined in a similar way by S. C. Drake and H. R. Cayton: group of people that belong to African American upper class have the most money, greatest amount of education, great political power and “best” family background among the rest of African American population (Drake and Cayton 1946: 526).
As discussed already, southern African Americans were very different from Gatewood’s representation of northern upper class African American residents. As migration occurred, southern migrants and northern upper class residents came in contact in the north mostly via segregated residential areas (Tolnay 2003; Peretti 1994; Drake and Cayton 1946). Lack of essential attributes that define African American upper class (e.g. family heritage) prevented southern African American migrants from gaining an upper class status. Yet, by acquiring other aspects (e.g. education, social activities, financial capital), southern African American migrants were able to separate themselves from those who did not poses such aspects, thus become a middle link between two polarities: illiterate sharecroppers and educated aristocrat. As Franklin E. Frazier notes: “From Its inception the education of the Negro was shaped by bourgeois ideals” (Frazier 1957: 60). Thus, aspiration to acquire aspects that help moving up the social status ladder became an essential part of the African American middle class development during the time. Scholars (Laundry 1987; Drake and Cayton 1946) note that aspiration for progress in life became an essential attribute to African American middle-class. More importantly to this discussion, however, are the aspects that southern African American migrants aspired, after getting in contact with northern African American upper class. Those aspects not only played a major role in defining African American middle class, they also distinguished northern and southern African Americans elite during the migration; i.e. differences between southern and northern parts of the U.S. that emerged after the Declaration of Independence were so big, that its post effects on African Americans’ living conditions, social status, etc. were inevitable.
Burton W. Peretti writes how the distinction between African Americans was already evident in New Orleans after 1865 in terms of class, education, cultural background and skin color. Not surprisingly that scholars (Peretti 1994; Drake and Cayton 1946) note that the same distinctions remained after the migration; various conflicts aroused between southern African American migrants and northern upper class African American residents. Most of the African American elite adopted a Victorian model of strict codes (education, self-control, male authority, etc.), and therefore, tried to guide southern migrants in adopting such models in the realms of culture, politics, etc. (Dickerson 2008; Du Bois 2007: 75-76; Peretti 1994: 58-61; Laundry 1987: 34; Drake and Cayton 1946: 73-76). Moreover, Peretti argues that the African American elite persuaded the migrants to listen to European art music, as well as follow formal music education. This to an extent that some African American musicians, soon after the migration, began adopting Victorian values represented by white and upper class African Americans more and more (e.g. musicians playing European art music became role models to many southern musicians who migrated to the north) (Peretti 1994: 62).
Although African American musicians who migrated from south to north were strongly influenced and affected by Victorian values as well as urban ways of life, southern African American traditions were not forgotten, and were maintained at the same time, writes Peretti. He also notes that northern African American residents were adapting to certain cultural baggage that came together with southern African American migrants. However, according to Peretti, it was mostly seen among African American musicians, as those born and raised in the North of the U.S., in time, became more and more interested in jazz music. Nevertheless, scholars (Peretti 1994; Drake and Cayton 1946) note that southern traditions diminished more drastically than anything exercised in the North of the U.S. prior to the migration: it was the result of formations of larger northern communities, which introduced southern African American migrants into a more formalized and eclectic black society. For musicians, it meant getting accustomed and acculturated to the more European-orientated musical ways of the North, writes Peretti (e.g. during this time jazz musicians adopted one of the central principles of the European art-music tradition: individuality, which, according to the scholar, resulted in musicians’ increased self-centered creativity) (Peretti 1994: 72). Peretti cites famous jazz saxophone player Benny Carter, who noted that jazz musicians' focus on individuality was a result of their education and diverse stimuli provided by the experience of migration (Peretti 1994: 73).
Drawing from the discussions above, central to my study is southern African American migrants aspiration for, and acceptance of, Victorian values, which in my opinion became an integral aspect defining African American middle class. Such values can also be interpreted as hegemonic, because, according to Artz and Murphy, hegemony is the process of moral, philosophical, and political leadership
that a social group attains only with the active consent of other important social groups, and elicits support from the mass media, educational institutions, the family, etc. (Artz and Murphy 2000: 1-3). Via aspiration for and acceptance of Victorian values, the migrants also became aware of social positions and various nuances constituting them. Furthermore, while all Victorian values played an important part in constructing African American middle class, some were more important than others; i.e. I assume that the migrants realized how important a financial capital or a family heritage is for the upcoming generations. Yet, formal education was the most important value the migrants aspired for, as via education one gains an access to means of gaining financial wealth as well as constructing family heritage as well as prestige.
*
Many authors concerned with modern jazz history identify the same musicians standing at the roots of the music’s birth: Thelonious Monk, Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Bud Powell, Charles Mingus (Whitehead 2011; DeVeaux and Giddins 2009; Holmes 2005; Gioia 1998; Stokes 1991; Gitler 1985). The following part discusses how most of these musicians came from those African American families who aspired and accepted Victorian values, thereby placing a high value in education. H. W. Shih notes how middle class family background is already evident in the preceding generation of jazz musicians identified with the swing era (H. W. Shih 1974: 174). Furthermore, according to Fultz, African American lower classes did not value education as much as African American upper and middle classes (Fultz 1995: 108). Moreover, as DeVeaux notes, respect for education was one of the qualities that jazz musicians shared with a black upper class: because money and wealth in general didn’t mean much in African American class system, education was one of the factors to lift one’s social superiority (DeVeaux 1997: 54-55). Likewise, I believe that the African Americans' exposure to formal education, and especially formal music education, became greater after the Great Migration.
Thelonious Monk was exposed to formal music education by the age of twelve, suggests Gabriel Solis. It was the result of continuous hours spent listening and watching his sister’s private piano lessons, which were provided by Monk’s family as part of a basic education of any young girl with aspirations for upward mobility, Solis puts forward. “These lessons would of course have focused on developing technique (fingering, articulation, fluent music reading, and so on), but they would have done so within the framework of the Western classical tradition, thus introducing Monk to the canon of that music” (Solis 2008: 20-21). Consider Dizzy Gillespie who received a music scholarship at Laurinburg Institute. Alyn Shipton suggests that Gillespie did not receive a lot of teaching on his main instrument, the trumpet. However, according to the author, during
Gillespie’s time in Laurinburg, the Institute did have a proficient cornet player, who was teaching music (Shipton 2001: 13). Having that in mind, an assumption can be made that Gillespie did receive formal music training, up to a certain degree, which I will leave unmeasured, as it makes no significant difference to my bigger argument. Furthermore, DeVeaux suggests that Gillespie did learn how to play piano, which according to the scholar resulted in excellent knowledge of music theory (DeVeaux 1997: 180). Such indication would further strengthen my assumptions, as music theory during the time was most likely associated with European concert music.
Another modern jazz “pioneer”, Bud Powell, was born in a musical family: Powell’s grandfather learned how to play a guitar in Cuba, his father was an admired stride pianist and bandleader, his older brother played both violin and trumpet, while his younger brother also played piano. B. Powell began playing piano at the age of six and until his mid-teens; he concentrated on European concert music (e.g. Bach, Chopin, Debussy) (Ramsey Jr. 2013: 47). Elmo Hope, a close friend of Powell, notes how both of them used to listen to classical music (Groves and Shipton 2001: 10).
Charles Mingus, another musician who played a major role during the early stages of development of modern jazz, played European concert music with cello, before switching to jazz, writes Gene Santoro. In his book about Mingus, the author states that exposed to the music from early years, Mingus found his instrument – bass – only by the end of high school by the help of good teachers and colleagues. However, because of various circumstances (e.g. racism, bigger opportunities in terms of financial wealth and fame), Mingus switched from European concert music to jazz at the age of sixteen (Santoro 2001: 5).
Brian Priestley writes how Charlie Parker went to a local Catholic school, in Kansas City, Kansas, and sang in its choir. When his family moved to Kansas City, Missouri, Parker entered Lincoln High School at the age of twelve. Musically, Parker was raised in one of the most musical cities of the U.S. at the time, where the young player was exposed to numbers of musicians located within the city’s limits, as well as those who were just passing by. As Priestley writes, Kansas City’s active dance hall and nightclub scene supported an increasing group of individual musicians and organized bands, which both were skilled (Priestley 2005: 9-15). On one hand, Parker was not exposed to formal music education as much as the others, although Ross Russell notes Parker’s fascination for European concert music, and composers as Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Hindemith, Bartók, Varèse, and Berg. By this Russel suggests that the saxophone player was a serious student of their works (Russell 1976: 209). On the other hand, although lacking formal music education, Parker came from the family that valued education and understood the importance of it for their son’s future; i.e. Parker was exposed to formal education by attending Lincoln High school, just like the
rest of the musicians discussed above. Yet, because my research is so much embedded in music, I emphasize the importance of formal music education instead of formal education.
Formalized music education at the time was, and according to some scholars (J. L. Vitale 2011; P. Jenkins 2011) still is, concerned with European concert music. Robert Walker traces the beginning of music education in Western civilization to ancient Greece, where Western educational practices in music were concerned primarily with the theoretical knowledge. “Not until the Christian era was musical performance affirmed as equal to, if not more important than, theory” (Walker 1990: 214-215). According to Walker, musical performance, which was instituted by religious authorities in Europe, to this day, remains the core activity in music education. However, important to my discussion is how musicians primarily responsible for the rise of modern jazz, became exposed to European concert music to a far greater extent than generations of jazz musicians before them. This was possible because of an easier access to, and greater appreciation for, formal music education. Furthermore, according to DeVeaux, non-existing degrees in higher jazz education made jazz musicians’ social status lower than those who studied law or medicine. European concert music, as being the most respected and the only formal music education available, resulted in African American musicians’ pursuit for higher artistic standards, which increased a distance from African American community and its customs (DeVeaux 1997: 54-55). While exposure to formal music education (as well as formal education), together with other Victorian values inherited from their families, played an important role in influencing key decisions made by those African American musicians responsible for the emergence of modern jazz, such circumstances were further amplified by technological advancements of the day.
*
Although influence of education on musicians such as Th. Monk, D. Gillespie, B. Powel, etc. was extremely important, the impact of technology on musicians, music education and the U.S. in general cannot be overlooked. As Kenneth J. Bindas suggests, technological innovations such as the phonograph or the radio represents the modern means through which music was created, disseminated, and accepted. Furthermore, Bindas calls the period from World War I to the end of World War II – the machine age in the U.S., which symbolized an apotheosis of modernity:
“The modern mind-set held that through the unification of science and industry any problem could be solved using precision and logic. The machine and what it represented – efficiency, logic, and a better life for all – became not only an object, but a process and symbol for the modern age” (Bindas 2001: 20-21).
While both radio and phonograph played an important part in the history of jazz music, I choose to discuss the impact of the latter. I believe it has a greater significance in my larger discussion, i.e. hegemony of modern jazz among jazz performance programs in higher music education institutions, because of a possibility of selection and repeatability of music in comparison to the radio, which did not allow such actions to be performed.
Mark Katz writes that enthusiasm for the phonograph in early 20th century North
America was widespread, and various teachers, critics, activists, patrons, performers, and phonograph owners across the country shared the same belief that the machine would make the U.S. a musical nation. Katz also relates such enthusiasm for sound recording to a general optimism in America. According to the scholar, the reasons behind the idea that the phonograph was valued highly as a means of musical progress lie in two perceptions widely held in the U.S. during the first decades of the twentieth century. Firstly, classical music was seen as a powerful cultural and moral force. Secondly, American citizens lacked access to it, compared to people living in Europe. Whether any of the two perceptions were true is not as important, as the distinct American ideal was that all members of the society should have equal access to the highest forms of human culture, notes Katz (Katz 1998: 449). During that time, many American citizens also believed that only European music was “good” (Lopes 2002), and such belief carried complex connotations. According to Katz, these were: “good” music’s civilizing influence and moral uplift (Cole 1913; Lutkin 1912), reduced temptation of popular music (Winship 1913; Shawe 1911), and its influence on improving the country’s cultural standing (Rhetts 1922; Clark 1920). Therefore, Katz argues that obstacles preventing North America’s musical development were partly removed by the arrival of the phonograph, which provided portability, affordability, and repeatability (Katz 1998: 450).
Firstly, Katz associates portability with the idea that recorded music could reach places in the U.S. that suffered from the lack of live European concert music performances, as the phonograph provided access for potentially every American citizen of all classes to hear music more easily than ever. Katz also notes that sound recording is linked with an increased popularity in opera during the time. Furthermore, the phonograph also provided an easier access to European concert music to many African American citizens, who usually had a limited access to public venues during the time. The scholar notes that many of African Americans saw European Music as a tool for achieving refinement and uplift. Secondly, Katz argues that affordable prices of both phonographs and records pushed recorded music to cross boundaries of geography, class and race more easily than live music, as the portability of both phonographs and records would have meant nothing if they were not affordable to the U.S. citizens. Finally, the repeatability of recorded music also helped people to differentiate good music from bad, as well as help them to appreciate it: “In the age of the phonograph,
repeatability became a criterion for evaluating music; it was frequently remarked that the best works rewarded numerous hearings while lesser pieces palled upon repetition” (Katz 1998: 451). What is more, Katz argues that repeatability helped people to understand the music better, as well as develop a better taste for it. Thus, through the analysis of various spheres of American life (e.g. home, education institutions, etc.) Katz indicates the benefits of the phonograph in the U.S.
During the first decades of the 20th century, the American home phonograph
market flourished (Darrell 1926; Partridge 1924). The falling prices and increasing number of record selection brought almost any kind of music to the homes of American families, notes Katz. Moreover, companies manufacturing phonographs began making them look like furniture, allowing them to fit into the home setting, notes the scholar. Thus, as home phonographs became recognized as being the best tool available to hear European concert music, owners of the phonograph acknowledged the importance of recorded music at home, which increased the appreciation of European concert music, irrespective of wealth or location. For example, Katz notes how poorer families were offered a chance to hear classical music, which was not an option before the advent of the machine (Katz 1998: 454). Furthermore, as European art music was associated with elite culture, its cultivation also brought refinement and taste, writes the scholar. According to Katz, the phonograph also caused a revolution in music education in the U.S. Whereas in the 19th century, music education was focused on teaching
students how to perform (Labuta and Smith 1997; Keene 1982), in the 20th
century the focus turned towards listening and appreciation (Gehrkens 1914; Pratt 1900), which changed the concept of musicality (von Sternberg 1912); although musicality was associated with performing and composing music, intelligent listening became seen as a core value held by a musical person, writes Katz. Music educators across the country faced the same issue of how to teach children to become “musical” listeners in terms of developing students’ understanding and appreciation for the music (Birge 1923). Neither was it easy for educators to perform the music they themselves considered teaching, nor was it easy to bring students to places where it was cultivated, or bring performances to the classrooms. The phonograph removed such obstacles away from educators, argues Katz, affecting all kinds of music studies at every level of the U.S. education (Katz 1998: 458).
The widespread popularity of the phonograph in the early 20th century discussed
by Katz, provided an easier access to European concert music via home and formal education (Katz 1998: 467) for the emerging African American middle class, which in my discussion is associated with aspiration, acceptance and influence of Victorian values. Moreover, as musicians associated with the rise of modern jazz (e.g. Monk, Powell, Mingus, Gillespie, etc.) came from such families,
the dissemination of European concert music via phonographs surely had an impact on their music focus, taste, education, or development, especially because of the repeatability of the recordings. Lastly, having also an impact on the African American middle class, I want to discuss the role of mass media in the U.S.
*
The absence of mass media agents that are present today (e.g. television, Internet, etc.), meant that the U.S. press, i.e. magazines (e.g. Literary Digest;
Ladies’ Home Journal; New Republic; Etude; Kenyon Review; Natural History, etc.),
newspapers (e.g. New York Times, etc.), or journals (e.g. Current Opinion, etc.), had the biggest influence on the country’s citizens. Various scholars have discussed the power of mass media (van Dijk 1989; McQuail 1979; McCombs and Shaw 1972). Furthermore, one of the negative features of the mass is the usage of it as a tool for ideological and political control (Lorenzo, Herrera and Cremades 2011: 126). Therefore, as Arthur Asa Berger notes, it is not surprising that, over the years, scholars who have studied and done research with the mass media have developed a number of theories that deal with the roles of it in society (e.g. Dependency theory, Agenda-setting theory, Cultivation theory, etc.). According to Berger, these theories fall into two general camps: those that argue that the media are powerful, and those that say the media have minimal impact on individuals and societies (Berger 1995: 150-151). As both categories acknowledge that media have an impact in society to a certain degree, I believe it is important to concentrate on, discuss, and also relate the media to my case study – higher jazz education.
Kathy J. Ogren (1992) writes that the most noticeable discussions concerning jazz took place among white-owned, or –managed publications, as well as white critics, educators, etc. According to Ogren, numbers of articles were directed towards the meaning of etymology of the word jazz, tracing origins of it across the world whether it was China, Africa, or Western Europe. Some analyzed jazz in terms of speech parts, i.e. noun, verb, adjective, etc. (Osgood 1926). Scientific articles regarding jazz were concerned with the music’s effect on humans’ psychology, as well as its status in the history of arts analyzed from historical or literary perspectives, which were mostly concerned with the alleged “primitivism” of the music. However, Ogren notes that despite obvious interest in jazz, many white Americans found it deeply disturbing, questioning moral, aesthetic, or professional values challenged by jazz.
“Many critics of jazz attacked the music as “noise,” and compared it to a plague or disease threatening to destroy the civilized world. […] All objections by whites to the music were, of course, based on the premise that blacks were inferior to whites.” (Ogren 1992:154)
Thus, the author provides ample examples of written commentaries by M. Berger (1947), N. Leonard (1962), E. Newman (1927), or V. Thomson (1924). What is more, additional context surrounding the music, such as places where it was played or activities practiced during it, were also under criticism, according to Ogren. She also adds that those defending the music and writing from a sympathetic perspective towards it were usually not the ones shaping the terms of the debate (Ogren 1992: 159).
Although the chapter by Kathy J. Ogren discussed above is informative, it covers too broad of a range of topics from which jazz music was criticized. Some of those topics discussed by the author are also less influential than the others on Africa American citizens during the time they were written; considering the lack of education among many African American migrants from southern parts of the U.S., scientific commentaries on jazz had less influence on them. Therefore, it is important to look at opinions on the music written in more accessible media (e.g. newspapers) among African American and American citizens in general.
Maureen Anderson in her article “The White Reception of Jazz in America” (2004) discusses jazz reception in mainstream, i.e. major, general interest publications in the U.S. more closely than Kathy J. Ogren. However, just like Ogren, Anderson also writes how jazz was met with hostility motivated by political and racial concerns: “Stunningly, what remains consistent in the reports on jazz is not the ultimate dislike of the music, but the political and social dislike of the black population” (Anderson 2004: 135). Thus, when summarizing all articles written on jazz, one encounters racial prejudice against African Americans more than anything else, suggests Anderson.
One of the articles discussed by Anderson was written in 1917 and published by
Literary Digest. Called “The Appeal of Primitive Jazz,” the article links jazz directly
to Africa and portrays jazz musicians as savages – unmusical, unsophisticated, etc. Such descriptions are supported when places where early jazz was performed are put into context. The article finishes with eliminating any talent needed to play jazz, and calling the entire black population unworthy, observes Anderson. Moreover, the article called “Why ‘Jazz’ Sends Us Back to the Jungle”, written in 1918, resembles the previously stated article in numerous ways, but most importantly characterizes jazz musicians, and those dancing and listening to the music, as savages. Anderson notes that ample of articles using jazz music as a cover for racial propaganda, were already written in the early 1900s (Anderson 2004: 138).
Such hostility was not left unnoticed by African American musicians, and one of them wrote a response called “A Negro Explains ‘Jazz’”, in which an unidentified musician defends both music and the whole African American race, notes Anderson. However, the response only added fuel to the existing fire, and caused
an even more hostile response. A response which not only compared jazz music to noise, but also called for the whole white race to rise up against African Americans. This was published in 1919 under the title “Delving into the Genealogy of Jazz”, only a few months after the musician’s response. As Anderson continues: “The hostile Current Opinion article made its mark, striking the discussion about jazz from popular magazines for the whole next year while America’s black and white populations took up arms, ropes, and hate against each other” (Anderson 2004: 141). Anderson also notes that after the incident black artists were no longer allowed to publish responses during the 1920s. “Does Jazz Put the Sin in Syncopation?” written in 1921 was yet another attack on jazz and the whole African American population, in terms of already familiar stories linking black man to a savage, and questioning whether jazz should be listened to at all. Over the next few years, authors would repeatedly publish similar articles (Anderson 2004: 143). The issue is further illuminated by the discussion of articles such as “Where Is Jazz Leading America: Opinions of Famous Men and Women In and Out of Music”, “Jazz – Lowbrow and Highbrow” both written in 1924, “Jazz and Its Effects” written in 1923, and “The Jazz Problem” written in 1926.
Both Anderson’s and Ogren’s discussions provide an insightful account of the role of mass media in the U.S. at the time, which I argue promoted Eurocentric views: via means of critique in various articles discussed above, the image of jazz (e.g. primitive, unsophisticated, low class music, etc.) was constructed to represent the opposite of what the emerging African American middle class was aspiring for (e.g. sophistication, higher class status, etc.). Furthermore, it further strengthened Eurocentric orientation, which was rooted in aspiration for Victorian values among the emerging African American middle class. Most importantly, in the case of modern jazz pioneers (e.g. Monk, Gillespie, Powell, etc.) who came from African American middle class families, such Eurocentric orientation resulted in an increased focus on European concert music. Exposure to it via formal music education, as well as increasingly easier access to it via dissemination of phonograph recordings, impacted their future choices and decisions regarding the creation of modern jazz.
Chapter 2:
Theorizing Modern Jazz
The Swing Era’s decline at the end of WWII brought a number of significant changes in jazz music. The most striking one was ensemble size. Dance bands associated with the Swing Era that preceded bebop, which marked the dawn of modern jazz, used a rhythm section (e.g. piano, drums, bass, and until a certain time, guitar) in addition to large reed and brass sections (e.g. saxophones, clarinets, trumpets and trombones). Ensembles formed by bebop musicians were smaller in size, usually consisting of a rhythm section, and often a mixture of a few horns (e.g. trumpet, alto, or tenor saxophones) (Porter 2002: 64; Townsend 2000: 66; Owens 1995: 20; Gitler 1985: 218-219). A greater ensemble size extended the possibilities of the arrangements, which during the emergence of bebop, because of the small ensemble size, became less significant. Scott DeVeaux notes that most compositions usually maintained the same arranging pattern for the central theme, which was played in a unison line by solo instruments, implying how such way of arranging distinguished bebop head arrangements from those of the dance bands (DeVeaux 1997: 424). Furthermore, it also increased the duration of improvisation and musicians began searching for different ways to approach it. Most of them did it by concentrating on harmony. DeVeaux, tracing the roots of bebop, picked Coleman Hawkins as the main character of his influential book The Birth of Bebop: A Musical and Sociological
History (1997), which to this day is the most detailed account of the birth of
modern jazz, and therefore will play a big part in my study, too. DeVeaux describes C. Hawkins as a harmonic player, who shaped his playing style against that of Louis Armstrong’s, focusing on harmonic content of musical pieces, thus expanding his harmonic knowledge. The musician also lived and played in Europe for a period of time, before coming back to the U.S. where he recorded a well-known song, “Body and Soul”, which became a huge success and gained popularity at the time, selling nearly 100,000 copies in the first months (DeVeaux 1997: 99). DeVeaux notes that such success of the record was odd, because Hawkins’ interpretation of the song was instrumental and contained a lot of improvisation. Moreover, Hawkins’ recording of “Body and Soul” became well known among musicians, as it was one of the first musical numbers to use tritone substitution, which later became one of the most used re-harmonization techniques among bebop musicians adding more dissonance to their overall harmonic language. Therefore, two things need to be emphasized from the main character of DeVeaux’s book and the underlying idea of his influence on young musicians. Firstly, Coleman Hawkins was harmonically orientated improviser. Secondly, dissonance introduced by Hawkins through the use of triton
substitution became a very important aspect of bebop. Hence, I want to discuss the importance of it further, as it became one of the central aspects in the harmonic language of bebop. It also perfectly illustrates the important role harmony played in shaping the sound of bebop, while at the same time introducing new challenges to improvisation. After all, DeVeaux writes: “Because harmony is a subject steeped in the specialized terminology of European music theory, black jazz musicians of the era found it intimidating as well as fascinating” (DeVeaux 1997: 66).
As noted before, from the 1940s onwards, the harmonic language of bebop (and modern jazz at large) became more dissonant than before (Meeder 2008: 90; Porter 2002: 54, 68, 72; DeVeaux 1997: 110; Owens 1995: 6). Traditional music theory connotes dissonance as a combination of different tones that are accepted as being unstable and therefore need to be resolved into consonance, or a stable sonority (Baker 1904: 58-59). It can also be described in relation to consonance,
i.e. the opposite of dissonance. Most obvious examples of the two can be
explained in terms of intervals: triton, minor or major 2nd and 7th (in jazz practice
2nd is the inversion of 7th, and the opposite) are dissonant intervals, while minor
or major 3rd and 6th (in jazz practice 3rd is the inversion of 6th) as well as perfect
4th and 5th (in jazz practice 4th is the inversion of 5th) are consonant intervals (for
interval inversion in jazz see Levine 1995: 3). This is a relative definition, dependent on a culture and its music; yet, an important one, because it is situated at the heart of European concert music’s language, i.e. vocabulary, which is closely related to jazz. DeVeaux notes that the whole principle of tension and release in the tonal system, which operates on many different levels, is based on dissonance and consonance (DeVeaux 1997: 79). Thus, new compositions written by bebop musicians were more dissonant sounding than musical numbers composed before. What became popular dissonant induction techniques among bebop musicians were: improvised melodic lines emphasizing notes that form dissonant intervals in relation to harmonic structures of a given music number, as well as chord substitutions (e.g. tritone substitution), and altered chords containing triton intervals (e.g. C 7th♭5; E♭minor/Major 7th), or
more than one major or minor 2nd/7th (e.g. G♯Major 9th; A♭7th♭13th); more than
one, because the usage of 2nd and 7th in jazz was common long before the
emergence of bebop (e.g. C 7th or B♭Major 7th). DeVeaux throughout his book
(1997) exemplifies the usage of such techniques in great detail. Yet, in my opinion, the most interesting technique inducing dissonance in compositions of bebop musicians were modulations between different tonality centers.
Consider, for example, Gillespie’s compositions such as “Dizzy Atmosphere”2 with
a modulating B- section (and tritone interval separating A- and B-sections), or “A Night in Tunisia”3, in which the whole first section is based on E♭7th and D minor
2 see appendix B.1 3 see appendix B.2
chords, i.e. minor 2nd interval, which do not belong to the same tonal center.
However, Gillespie’s composition “Groovin’ High”4 is a particularly interesting
example. The author starts the harmonic progression on the E♭Major chord but after two bars goes to A minor 7th and D 7th chords. Although the first chord sets
the song’s tonal center in E♭major, the next two shift the tonal center to G major, before coming back to E♭major. Afterwards, the chord progression shifts the tonal center to F major (G minor 7th to C 7th to F 7th), before coming back to the
original tonal center of E♭ major (E♭ Major, F Major and G Major are all separated by major 2nd interval). It is later followed by a chromatic chord progression that
starts in G minor 7th and ends in E 7th, i.e. dissonance is induced by unstable
tonality center that shifts by a minor 2nd down. Harmonic dissonance techniques
were important and evident in other musicians’ compositions, too. Thelonious Monk, in his composition “Well, You Needn’t”5, also used a similar technique as
Gillespie, separating two chords by a semi tone, where the whole A-section of the song is based around F 7th and G♭7th chords. Yet, Monk also used this technique in
a contrasting B-section, where a chord progression follows a minor 2nd
movement up the scale from G 7th to B 7th and down to G 7th, which resolves into C
7th before coming back to the A-section. Similar is Monk’s composition
“Epistrophy”6, where the harmonic progression of the composition is based on a
semi-tone difference between two chords (C♯7th to D 7th) that modulate up by a
minor 2nd (D♯7th to E 7th); such chord progression based on semi-tone modulation
not only introduces dissonance between two-chords by a minor 2nd, but also
modulates the tonality center half a step, bringing even more instability.
Jazz music preceding bebop, on the other hand, was more diatonic (Heble 2000: 22; Owens 1995: 4; Gitler 1985: 158) and therefore less dissonant, especially in terms of modulating between different tonal centers. In the case of the blues, which decreased in popularity among bebop musicians, a tonal center was rarely modulated, as most of the blues tunes were based on I – IV – V harmonic progression (e.g. in the key of C it would be C 7th – F 7th – G 7th), which belongs to
the same tonal center. Popular songs performed by jazz musicians prior to bebop were also very consonant; “I Can’t Get Started With You”7, written by Vernon
Duke and Ira Gershwin, is centered in the key of C major, and only for a couple of bars during its B section modulates to D major, before coming back to its original key; “My Funny Valentine”8, written by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart, is also
based on one key (E♭Major) throughout the song. Yet, the contrast between A-and B-sections is created by shifting the song’s A-section from its parallel minor (C minor) to E♭major in the B-section. Bebop musicians performed such musical numbers too, but used various re-harmonization techniques (e.g. tritone
4 see appendix B.3 5 see appendix B.4 6 see appendix B.5 7 see appendix C.1 8 see appendix C.2
substitutions, altered chords) to induce more dissonance to the harmonic structures of such songs.
Jam sessions, which were of a major importance to the development of bebop, were also very harmonically oriented; musicians saw them as a practice, leading towards new ideas and techniques, that could be discovered by exchanging information with their colleagues (Meeder 2008: 87; Porter 2002: 54, 57; Townsend 2000: 55-61; Erenberg 1998: 227; DeVeaux 1997: 202, 222; Gitler 1985: 4, 106). For example, playing in all keys was one of the most important attributes to the musician who wanted to sit in the jam sessions, writes DeVeaux. Modulating a half step up after each chorus was another harmonic challenge. In short, at various small clubs in Harlem and on 52nd Street in New York, harmonic
obstacles had a certain way of giving a cold shoulder to those who were inexperienced enough to participate, while at the same time providing a beneficial challenge for those musicians with the talent and courage (DeVeaux 1997: 214 – 217).
Perhaps the importance of harmony in bebop can be epitomized by Thelonious Monk’s ambition to play his harmonic progressions; DeVeaux cites Monk expressing a desire to play his own “chords”. The scholar argues that Monk’s most influential ideas concerned half-diminished chords (at the time Monk called them minor 6th chords); Monk introduced half-diminished chords to other
musicians. “Today modern jazz theory places the half-diminished chords securely within a conventional tonal framework”, writes DeVeaux, although acknowledging the fact that at the time they were beyond the boundary of most musicians’ knowledge. According to DeVeaux, Monk found half-diminished chords fascinating, because of the tritone hidden in the chord structure. Thus, he shaped his own harmonic language around it, while showing fondness for augmented chords, whole-tone scales, or flatted fifth degrees. Even though Monk was not the first jazz musician to explore dissonant sonorities, the pianist isolated its characteristics more systematically than any of his colleague. Not only was it vivid in Monk’s own compositions, but also in jazz standards he re-harmonized; DeVeaux notes how the pianist wrote harmonic progressions for his compositions by re-harmonizing famous jazz standards using dissonant harmonic techniques as listed before: “But in the process of translating these tunes to his own harmonic sensibilities, Monk radically defamiliarized them.” Therefore, the context of re-harmonization provided the focus for harmonic explorations, laying the foundation for a new repertory, writes DeVeaux, as musicians such as Dizzy Gillespie or Charlie Parker started exploring more dissonant ways of approaching melodic content during improvisations (DeVeaux 1997: 222 – 226); i.e. harmonic progression also shaped melodies, so more dissonance in harmonic progressions resulted in more dissonance in melodies. As DeVeaux points out:
