This is part two of a forthcoming book called 'Collected Essays.'
*******************
It is often stressed how jazz is inherently democratic. Indeed,
Michelle Obama stated: 'There is no better example of democracy than
a jazz ensemble' (Thompson 2014). It is the purpose of this essay to
interrogate this relationship. It will analyse how jazz is democratic
by looking at its formal features. Following this examination of
form, it will look at the political implications of the genre. It
will look at how jazz started in a country that granted its citizens
special constitutional freedoms. Duke Ellington:
Put it this way, jazz is a good barometer of freedom. In its
beginnings, the United States spawned certain ideals of freedom and
independence through which, eventually, jazz evolved, and the music
is so free that many people say it is the only unhampered, unhindered
expression of complete freedom yet provided in this country
(Ellington 1973).
Having established why this is the case, this essay will explore how
jazz is censored by totalitarian regimes. It will explore how jazz
aligns itself with the resistance, which campaigns for the democratic
process. It will do so by looking at its history in Nazi Germany and
the USSR. This essay will argue that jazz is inherently democratic
because it places special emphasis on improvisation, which this essay
will liken to freedom of expression. At the same time, a jazz
ensemble places strong emphasis on co-operation and for these reasons
it resembles a liberal democracy. It believes in freedom, the
individual, human rights and civic responsibility.
Although it has these implications, it would be useful to clarify
what jazz is in the first place. Totalitarian regimes that clamp down
on jazz often struggle to define it (Benz 1998). Jazz can be either
rigidly composed or entirely improvised and it involves either a
group or solo improvisation. The music is often based on certain keys
and thematic melodies. It sometimes follows them very rigidly, other
times very loosely. In its most extreme variations, there are no
adherence to tonal or melodic rules whatsoever.
There
is a sense, going by this description alone, that it has a strong
emphasis on freedom. Two more terms that need to be defined are
'freedom' and 'democracy.' When defining freedom, this essay will
turn to Leviathan
(1651)
by Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes makes a distinction between 'freedom' and
'liberty': 'A free man is he, that in those things, which by his
strength and wit is able to do, is not hindered to doe what he has a
will to do. (…) Whereas liberty is: all actions which men doe in
common-wealths, for feare of the law, are actions which the doers are
at liberty to omit' (p. 146, 1651). Freedom involves acting
completely without restraint. In other words, it is acting, as Hobbes
would term, within 'the state of nature.' Liberty, meanwhile,
involves acting within the parameters of the law as prescribed by any
given society. It involves all the actions you are at liberty to do
within those parameters. Jazz could be said to be a music borne of
freedom, since it was created by an oppressed minority who were not
at liberty to express themselves. Formally, meanwhile, it could be
said to conform to Hobbes' definition of liberty. The musicians sign
a social contract, in the same way that the citizens of Hobbes'
commonwealth did. They can express themselves, but at the same time
they all have roles and responsibilities. Meanwhile, free jazz
conforms to Hobbes' definition of freedom. This essay will soon liken
free jazz to anarchism. Anarchism is an ideology that is wholly
opposed to the law. It wants to return to a primordial 'state of a
nature,' which Hobbes believed led to a perpetual state of war and
which needed a strong autocrat to control. Free jazz in many ways is
a manifestation of that 'state of nature,' since the musicians do not
need to adhere to musical rules.
These are the definition of freedom that this essay will work with,
but what about democracy? 'Demos' means people whilst 'kratos' means
power/rule. A democracy is therefore a government which has been
elected by a group of people. A liberal democracy has a belief in the
individual, who is moral and rational enough to decide for himself.
It also a belief in reason and progress. Growth and development are
the natural condition of mankind and the politics of compromise must
be used to attain it. Society is consensual and there has to be a
desire for order and co-operation, not disorder and conflict. There
is, finally, a belief in shared power and a suspicion of concentrated
power, be it in individuals, groups or governments (Museum of
Australian Democracy 2013). Jazz also shares this belief in shared
power, whilst retaining its belief in the individual. Dave Brubeck:
'Jazz is about the only form of art existing today in which there is
freedom of the individual without the loss of group contact' (p. 176,
2003). As Dave Brubeck correctly identifies, jazz is both individual
and collective. Inevitably, we end up fetishising individual
performers to the detriment of the collective. This also happens in
liberal democracies, where individual politicians are praised or
disparaged for achievements made by groups of people. As regards the
other definitions of liberal democracy, each member of a jazz band
has moral and rational worth. Each member is usually rewarded with
his own solo and he uses his reason to improvise it. It also depends
on his moral worth, since each member of the band must respect the
rights of the other members. The members must back the soloist and
play in the appropriate key and metre. Jazz also shares a belief in
reason and progress, since it has usually aligned itself with
progressive movements. As this essay will soon examine, many jazz
musicians supported the civil rights movement. Jazz also has a belief
in consent and shared power. Power is equally distributed, since all
members are given the opportunity to solo. Jazz is also inclusive,
since anyone can play it. Although it was created by the black
community in the USA, it has flourished in all parts of the world. It
is particularly popular in Latin America (Meredith 2007) and Eastern
Europe (Lerski 2009), for instance. It also been embedded into the
folkloric music of all cultures.
It
is clear that jazz conforms to these definitions of freedom and
liberal democracy. Having gauged how jazz conforms to these
definitions, this essay will start by examining how the formal
features of jazz are democratic and why these formal features rankle
dictators and autocrats. It will also compare it with political
ideologies. Jazz appears to be an expression of freedom. At the same
time, the player usually improvises within a certain key. The
political implications of this are that, within the context of a
piece, the player is at liberty to play whatever he wants. In more
structured jazz, such as dixieland and bebob, a solo usually must
bear a stronger resemblance to the main tonal centre and to the main
melody. This is to some degree similar to free speech in a democracy.
A citizen is at liberty to say and do whatever he wants as long as
his words and actions comply with the law. When the jazz improviser
expresses himself within these constraints, he is also respecting the
needs of his fellow performers. There is a sense of civic
responsibility to this, since he is responding to the notes and
chords that they
are playing. These forms of jazz are more structured and conform to
the definition of a liberal democracy. Meanwhile, free jazz is
analogous to anarchy. The musicians do not have to play in key and
they often actively avoid it. It is equivalent to a lawless society,
where each musician can express himself in any way he likes. The
performers do not need to respond to one another, however they can if
they if they feel like it. Since there are no rules, the results are
often arbitrary. Anarchist societies want to optimise individual
freedom as much as possible – and so does free jazz. Anarchism has
historically aligned itself with radical forms of resistance and also
opposed the Soviet Union (Yaroslansky 1937). As this essay will later
examine, free jazz in particular was excessively monitored by the
Soviet authorities. As this paragraph has demonstrated, jazz is
formally radical. This is another reason why it is proscribed. Even
in its earliest incarnations, such as dixieland and rag-time, it was
radically different from other forms of music. It employed dissonance
and discords. This is why, alongside modernist art, it is usually
considered degenerate by these regimes. It is an affront to
classicism, which many dictators do their utmost to uphold. It is
also an affront to popular taste, which many dictators try their
utmost to exploit and control.
These
are formal features that this essay has identified and, above all
else, they signify the commitment that the genre has to freedom.
Thelonious Monk stated that 'jazz is freedom' (Jazz Online 2014) Due
to its improvisatory character, it has these associations. However,
totalitarian regimes also clamp down on it for other reasons. Certain
genres of music have certain formal components that make them
particularly interesting. However, music has always had
socio-economic implications. Musical genres are, for better or worse,
often associated with certain demographics. Jazz in particular has
always been associated with counter-cultures. The reason for this is
that jazz is not only an expression of freedom for those who perform
it, it also elicits a sense of freedom from its consumers. This is
another reason why it has democratic credentials. This essay will now
ascertain how jazz elicits these emotions by examining a passage from
Jean-Paul Sartre's Nausea
(1938).
Sartre's definition of freedom stresses that individuals must make
make their own rational and moral choices in a Godless universe
bereft of meaning. Like jazz, this is a viewpoint that has chimed
with counter-cultural movements. In his novel Nausea,
the character Roquetin experiences pangs of nausea and throughout the
majority of the novel feels maudlin. However, he enjoys moments of
exultation when listening to jazz:
I am in the music. Globes of fire revolve in the mirrors; rings of
smoke encircle them and spin around, veiling and unveiling the hard
smile of the light. (…) That movement of my arm unfolded like a
majestic theme, it glided along the song of the negress; it seemed to
me that it was dancing (p. 38, 1938).
There
is, more than anything, also a loss of control here. He loses control
of his arm and it moves of its own accord. The music appears to
elicit a sense of abandon. This is antithetical to totalitarian
regimes, as they want to control every aspect of life, including the
emotions of individuals. Interestingly, Roquetin is disdainful
towards classical music. Classical music is much more rigid and
formalised. Although totalitarian regimes do proscribe avant-garde
classicism, they do their utmost to uphold pure classicism. The prime
example of this is the Nazi's fetishisation of Richard Wagner.
Roquetin writes: 'And the concert halls are overflowing with
humiliated, injured people who close their eyes and try to turn their
pale faces into receiving aerials. […] The mugs' (p. 246). Going by
Roquetin's descriptions, jazz music also elicits freer emotions from
its consumers. Classical music forces the listener to concentrate in
a much more focused way. As Sartre writes, its listeners often have
'aerials' at the ready. As Sartre's novel demonstrates, jazz elicits
a sense of abandon from the consumer. A soloist's improvisation
signifies his individual freedom and the jazz aficionado also
expresses his individual freedom when listening to a piece of jazz
music. Such emotions generally reach this their apex with jazz. As
the character in Nausea
states, more composed music such as classical music does not elicit
the same emotions from him.
These are the emotions that jazz often elicits from the listener.
The character in Sartre's novel is a middle-class historian. However,
in its origins jazz was not positively regarded and was considered
primitive folk music (Philipp 2009). Like other forms of popular art,
many people argued that jazz was not art at all. An article called
'Jazz Must Go' argued this case in 1921 (Philipp). Jazz was even
considered a backward form of expression by middle-class black
people, despite the virtuosity and creativity that was obviously
present in the music. It was only until the civil rights movement
that this demographic started to feel proud of jazz (Philipp). During
this period, there were claims that the music was being appropriated
by white people. There were claims that black musicians were being
financially exploited. Malcolm X writes the following in his
autobiography:
I've seen black musicians at a jam session – a whole lot of
difference. The white musician can jam if he's got some sheet music
in front of him... But that black musician, he picks up his horn and
starts blowing some sounds that he never thought of before. He
improvises, he creates (p. 78, 1965).
There is a sense that, starting from its origins, that jazz was music
created by the oppressed. However, even though it was created by
minority groups, it was played by both white and black musicians.
From its beginnings, it could be played by any race, creed or class.
As white people were part of a higher economic strata, they often
exploited the musicians who created it. This reifies how jazz often
goes underground and aligns itself with fringe causes. Once black
citizens started to gain rights, jazz swiftly aligned itself with the
civil rights movement. In the 1960s, several of the frontrunners of
free jazz, such as John Coltrane and Charles Mingus, supported the
movement (Wright-Mendoza 2015). Coltrane performed in Alabama during
the height of the civil rights movement and shared Malcolm X's views
on pan-Africanism (Wright-Mendoza). Meanwhile, Norman Granz, modern
jazz impresario and founder of Verve Records, defied segregation laws
by refusing to have 'coloured' and 'white' seats at his concerts
(Wright-Mendoza). Jazz also aligns itself with progressive movements
in democratic countries. Yet despite Malcolm X's claim that black
musicians were more adept at this form of music, from its origins
jazz had a universalist belief system. And yet, despite its formal
complexity, it was lambasted for being tawdry.
It is ironic how jazz, for all its intrinsic sophistication, has
been characterised as 'crude.' Yet many of its detractors – often
censors and racists – characterise it as such. This essay will now
turn to the history of its repression in totalitarian regimes. It
will first evaluate its history in Nazi Germany before turning
looking at its history in the USSR. Jazz was particularly popular in
the Weimar republic. During the First World War, Germany was
economically blockaded. Thus, Jazz became known in Germany around
1919. Rations were lifted, which led to a 'jazz rage.' This was
before the advent of bebop, which was a more cerebral form of jazz.
The genre at this point was centred around dance. It reached a peak
between 1924 and 1928 and it was so popular that it led to a 'Jazz
fashion.' Its reception in Germany was similar to its reception in
the USA, with many German orchestras regarding it as noise. It was
only until the advent of symphonic jazz that the musical cognoscenti
recognised its merits. The world-wide economic depression of the late
1920s led to a declining interest in jazz (Benz).
Nonetheless,
jazz continued to be an integral part of German culture. Nazi
ideology harboured a strong dislike of the genre. This essay will
look at how the Nazis came to classify the genre and why it repelled
them on ideological and racial grounds. The Nazis defied jazz because
it was a music of free expression, consent and equal rights. For this
reason alone, it sought to regulate it. However, it also sought to
taxonomise it because it was an Afro-American type of music with
strong links to the Jewish community. In 1928, Bernd Polster wrote an
article which attacked the genre: 'The fundamentals of jazz are the
syncopation and rhythmic aspects of the Negro. Their modernisation is
the work of New York Jews. […] So jazz is Negro music seen through
the eyes of the Jews' (p. 9, 1989) From a purely formal perspective,
its syncopation and dissonant nature were enough to guarantee its
proscription. The Nazis railed against all forms of modernism and
'degenerate' art. Because jazz is associated with minority groups,
this highlights how tolerant it is of diversity. This contravenes the
social homogeneity that the Nazis wanted to impose on people and its
desire to control every sphere of human interest. Although the Nazis
were influenced by more suspect aspects of Enlightenment thought,
such as eugenics, jazz espouses universalist Enlightenment values.
Although nominally an Afro-American form of music, it is open to all
people and cultures. It is universalist and cosmopolitan. This is
opposed to the nationalism of the Nazis, as well as its belief in the
inherent superiority of certain races. Of course, the prime reason
why it is an affront to Nazi ideology is due to the latter reason.
As this essay has stated, the Nazis tried to classify all
aspects of culture. Having examined why jazz rankled them on
ideological grounds, this essay will now examine how they tried to
censor it. All culture was subject was to Nazification. This process
was called 'Gleischaltung' (co-ordination) and music had to conform
to the 'Nazi ideal.' (Treuman 2015) Special emphasis was placed on
the racial provenance of jazz and it was classed as 'Negermusik' –
Negro Music (Benz). When the Nazis first seized power, jazz was
occasionally played on the radio. By 1935, it was completely
prohibited (Benz). Initially, the Nazis struggled to classify it
because they struggled to define it in the first place. Goebbels, as
minister of propaganda, called it 'American nigger kike music'
(Transpontine 2008). This radical classification of the genre
struggled to gain traction because swing music was especially
popular. As such, the Nazis tried subtler ways to regulate jazz. The
tenor saxophonist Trevor Skvorecky lived in Germany at the time and
described some of the regulations in his novel The
Bass Saxophone
(1967). These were some of the regulations he recalls seeing
enforced:
'Pieces
in foxtrot rhythm (so-called swing) are not to exceed 20% of the
repertoires of light orchestras and dance bands. […]
In
this so-called jazz type repertoire, preference is to be given to
compositions in a major key and to lyrics expressing joy in life
rather than Jewishly gloomy lyrics
[…] So-called
jazz compositions may contain at most 10% syncopation; the remainder
must consist of a natural legato movement devoid of the hysterical
rhythmic reverses characteristic of the barbarian races and
conductive to dark instincts alien to the German people (so-called
riffs) […] All light orchestras and dance bands are advised to
restrict the use of saxophones of all keys and to substitute for them
the violin-cello, the viola or possibly a suitable folk instrument.'
(p. 9, Skoverky 1967).
These regulations try their utmost
to suppress the existence of swing without outlawing it completely.
Existing features of jazz – such as syncopation and instruments
such as saxophones – are quelled as much as possible. Although
racial aspects are proscribed, these regulations try their utmost to
uphold folkloric traditions. This emphasises their nationalism and
their desire to root out interloping foreign cultures. It is also
evidence as to how their far-reaching totalitarianism had to make
concessions to popular taste.
Eventually, swing music was
encouraged. This essay will now examine in what ways the Nazis used
swing for propagandist purposes. Swing consisted of largely of set
arrangements performed by a big band. This constricted improvisation,
which was considered primitive and backward. Musicians such as Benny
Goodman and Glenn Miller came to be tolerated by the Nazis for a
short period. It was considered an acceptable 'white' replacement for
atonal primitive noise. So much so that swing music was even played
at the Berlin Olympics (Benz). However, swing music would enjoy its
greatest resurgence during the Second World War. Because the Nazis
concentrated more on war time efforts, they neglected their
regulatory controls on culture and jazz reached a new peak between
1941 and 1945 (Benz). Many soldiers simply wanted to relax and listen
to music after coming back from the turbulence of war. By 1944,
Goebbels started to see jazz as a strong propagandistic tool (Benz)
and he wanted to take 'swing to the enemy' (Dickson 2014). Goebbels
wanted to re-write existing swing songs by replacing them with
anti-Semitic, anti-Roosevelt and anti-Churchillian lyrics. This was
done to 'instil fear into the heart of the enemy' (Dickson). Some of
the songs included the following lyrics: 'Another war, another
profit, another Jewish business trick. Another season, another reason
for makin' whopee' (Dickson). Although several of these oldies were
politically incorrect and salacious, none of them were especially
anti-Semitic! Eventually, Goebbels recruited a band, with salaries
paid for by the government. The groups were led by a singer called
Ludz Templin, who was obsessed with American culture. When bombing
raids failed, the Nazis turned to, in their own words, 'syncopated
anti-Semitism.' The group was allowed to listen to American
broadcasts, which had been made illegal in Germany. This allowed them
to keep up to speed with trends in American music. They listened to
American songs and 'rearranged them to suit Nazi dogma' (Dickson).
Ultimately, the Nazis still despised jazz for all the reasons already
propounded by this essay. They used it as an affront to the values of
Western Europe and the US, by taking their culture and inverting it.
In many ways, it was a subversion of values celebrating freedom,
plurality, democracy, the individual, consent, etc. It took a type of
music that actively celebrated such values and substituted it with
lyrics that claimed that the whole of western society was controlled
by greedy Jews, or other crude racial stereotypes.
This
was the extent to which the Nazis endorsed jazz. This essay will now
at look how they dealt with protesters who aligned themselves with
it. As this essay has previously stated, in totalitarian regimes jazz
usually aligns itself with the resistance. The Nazis were especially
brutal and methodical in dealing with dissent. As this essay has
explored, musical genres are often associated with certain
demographics. This essay explored the impact that jazz has on the
listener and it also pinpointed that jazz is associated with
counter-cultures. In the Weimar republic jazz was the most popular
form of music and it still remained in the popular consciousness,
even by the 1940s. The Swing Kids was a youth movement that danced to
swing records (Holocaust Memorial Day 2012). By 1936 the Nazis had
closed all youth groups and forced all young people to join Hitler
Youth. Once the Swing Kids started, they chose non-violent ways to
defy the Nazis (Holocaust Memorial Day). They held dance festivals
and played banned jazz and swing. In these festivals, they chanted
'swing heil' as opposed to 'heil Hitler' and openly mocked Nazi
ideals, activities and symbols (Holocaust Memorial Day). They grew
their hair long and adopted American and English fashions
(Subculture). They were pacifists and did not want to take part in
military service. Aside from this, the movement was largely
apolitical and were more concerned with culture and fashion
(Subculture). The Gestapo started to use violence to suppress their
activities. As society was heavily regulated and streets were
constantly patrolled, the events held by the movement were
clandestine affairs. In 18 August 1941, there was a brutal police
crackdown. Their leaders were deported to concentration camps. They
cut their hair and some of the members were sent back home and were
closely monitored. As a result, the movement became more politicised.
They stoked up their political campaign by distributing anti-fascist
propaganda. In January 1942, Himmler wrote to Heydrich urging him to
clamp down on the leaders of the movement. They were sent to
concentration camps, where they were subjected to beatings and forced
labour. Clubs were raided and participants were sent off to camps
(Subculture). By this point, the movement had been entirely depleted.
It is worth noting that this was one of the few resistance movements
that emerged – and it chose to align itself with jazz. Swing Kids
was initially a non-political movement and they only became
politicised once the Nazis started to repress them. They were
free-spirited and obviously could not find a release for their energy
in the heavily controlled Nazi regime. Obviously, the regime was
heavily censorious and conformist. As the analysis of Nausea
demonstrated, jazz tends to provoke a sense of exultation and release
from the listener. Although it was not a political gesture, they
chose to organise a movement precisely for this reason. However, the
Nazis suppressed the movement for one of the many reasons that they
suppressed jazz – it was an expression of individual freedom.
Ultimately,
the Nazi assault on jazz proved to be unsuccessful. This was because
their terminology was too lax. The Nazis were more successful in
proscribing modern classical music and any type of music made by
Jews. All of these musicians either fled Germany or were sent to gas
chambers (Treuman). Such music was easier to define. Twelve-tone
music, for example, was systematically organised. It also depended on
state grants, whereas jazz was privately organised by individuals.
Of
course, like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union was a totalitarian
society in that it sought to control all human enterprise. This
essay
will now turn to an assessment of jazz in the Soviet Union.
Throughout the existence of the USSR, jazz stood alongside movements
that campaigned for the democratic process. As stated earlier, jazz
evinces strong Enlightenment values. Like Nazi Germany, the USSR
pursued some of the most sinister currents in Enlightenment thought.
However, some of the most benign currents, which it assiduously and
dogmatically pursued, were its belief in equality and social justice.
It would eventually systematically violate these core values. The
values that jazz held – cosmopolitanism, universalism, freedom of
expression and a belief in the individual – were actively
proscribed by the Soviets. As well as disliking its individualistic
streak, it strongly disliked its cosmopolitan streak. It meant that
it was a form of capitalistic American culture that was seeping into
their own. As such, the Soviets wanted art to conform to Soviet
ideals. Apart from the era of the New Economic Plan, artists were
forced to conform to state propaganda. An example of this would be
the 'Socialist Realism' of the Stalinist period. The cultural policy
of the 'Iron Fist' demanded that all culture follow this mantra,
which was defined by Joseph Stalin (Lerski 2009). Most art, let alone
jazz, was considered bourgeois. Vladmir Lenin made the following
pronouncement about music: 'I can't listen to music too often. It
affects your nerves, makes you want to say stupid things and stroke
the heads of people who could create such beauty in this vile hell'
(p. 217, Marcus 1989). This phrase is indicative of the strong
distaste that the Soviets have towards 'beauty' and it is also
indicative of the distaste they had towards the therapeutic and
conciliatory aspects of music. It is almost as if the world is riven
with economic inequality and to pretend otherwise is to engage in
wishful thinking. The Soviets wanted all art to conform to their
particular view of aesthetics, which was communitarian. Of course,
improvisation is the core element behind jazz and, as this essay has
established, it is a manifestation of individual freedom and creative
expression, both of which were anathema to the Soviet regime
(Vanhellemont 2009). Jazz was banned, ultimately, because it
suggested freedom and the Soviets wanted to create a homogeneous
society (Koktobel Jazz Party 2014). Initially, a debate raged as to
whether jazz was symbolic of the black struggle against racial
oppression in the USA, or whether it was merely an expression of
'bourgeois individualism' (Culshaw 2006). Maxim Gorky wrote an essay
in 1928 called 'On the Music of the Gross,' where he claimed that
jazz was a symbol of the seedy side of capitalism (Lee 1983). The
latter argument won and the existence of jazz in the USSR was soon in
jeopardy.
Because of its founding
principles, the USSR did not take kindly to jazz. It would soon clamp
down on it. Initially, jazz was popular and officially tolerated
before Stalin's cultural repression. During Lenin's rule, the pianist
Leopold Leopold Teplitsky was sent to the USA to study jazz
techniques (Lee). Under Stalin's Iron Fist, laws were passed that
prohibited anyone from playing or importing jazz records. After
collectivisation in 1932 and the purges of 1936, jazz was
rehabilitated. 'Fox and trot' lessons were offered to workers.
Interest in jazz rose during WWII and, as in Nazi Germany,
regulations were relaxed after officials diverted their attention to
the war. During the Cold War, the Soviets revamped their propaganda
campaign, with American music singled out as being 'part of a
capitalist plot to take over the world.' In 1947, the Soviet Union
started a large propaganda campaign called 'Anti-Cosmopolitanism.'
This campaign argued that western culture had 'degenerated' and that
the Soviet Union had nothing to learn from the west. Jazz bands fell
foul of this campaign (Vanhellemont). Public use of the word jazz was
forbidden, saxophones were confiscated and hundreds of musicians were
sent to concentration camps. Jazz musicians formed bands in gulags
(Lee). Like the Nazis, the Soviets soon sought to sanitise jazz and a
'Jazz Orchestra' was established. Its intention was to add symphonic
music to the 'vulgar' pop music of the west. They tried to remove
syncopation and improvisation. The music that this band played could
scarcely be called jazz – it was, really, big band music
(Vanhellemont). The attempt to make jazz more 'European' and
'Soviet,' via symphonic touches, was an attempt to make it more
standardised and rigid. By shedding its improvisatory nature, it was
shedding those features which made it a hallmark of 'bourgeois
individualism.' Also, adding symphonic touches was also an attempt to
make the music more 'Russian.' There is, after all, a strong history
of Russian symphonic music and there is such a thing as a Russian
'style' in the classical tradition.
Through
the remainder of its existence, the USSR remained sceptical of jazz.
During the late 1950s and early 1960s, the most revolutionary style
in the west was experimental or 'avant-garde' jazz. This essay has
likened this style to anarchism. The Soviet tried to regulate jazz,
by adding symphonic touches. Free jazz is impossible to regulate
because there is no underlying structure. It epitomises all the
elements that repulsed the Soviets and takes them to extremes. The
swing bands that played Glenn Miller arrangements were
state-sponsored, whereas the avant-garde was pushed underground.
Experimental jazz was banned by the Soviets. In the 1980s, KGB agents
would stealthily wander into venues playing such music and switch the
electricity off (Culshaw). Additionally, free jazz, with its screechy
timbres, exemplifies all of the aspects of modernism and 'degenerate
art' that the Soviet and the Nazis sought to proscribe.
As
the years wore on, the Soviet Union stagnated culturally and
economically and some tame attempts were made at liberalising it.
Despite some political obstacles, culture thrived in Poland (Lerski
2009). Only certain genres were allowed to flourish, especially those
with folk rhythms and without syncopation. During the Stalinist
period, jazz was outlawed altogether. Jazz went underground and could
only be played at private gatherings. Whereas Polish filmmakers and
composers had to conform to the dictates of Socialist Realism, jazz
performers increasingly went underground and swapped records
clandestinely (p. 6, Brooke 2015). Film, particularly of the
serious variety, depends heavily on state funding. As such, it was a
medium that was used to promote Socialist Realist propaganda.
Likewise, classical music also depends on grants – as this essay
demonstrated, the Nazis also found it a lot easier to regulate. Jazz,
meanwhile, is usually organised privately and made at the discretion
of a group of individuals. As such, it has parallels with the
American amendment granting its citizens rights to free assembly.
Jazz has a grassroots quality that is a lot more difficult to
control. Indeed, in the Soviet Union free jazz thrived in remote
areas far away from centralised bureaucracies, such as Lithuania
(Mitropolsky 2011). Because of this grassroots, democratic and
anti-authoritarian streak, Polish filmmakers often sought to
integrate jazz into their films to criticise the regime (Brooke). In 1956, more liberal elements entered the Communist party
in Poland (Lerski). A magazine was founded called Jazz, which
issued daring polemics against the regime. In the late 1950s,
musicians in the Soviet Union were exposed to American jazz, the
music grew in sophistication and an avant-garde scene soon emerged.
Momentum grew when Dave Brubeck visited the Soviet Union in the late
1950s (Lerki). Despite the cosmopolitan nature of jazz, the scene in
Soviet Union could only become more technical by familiarising itself
with the advances made in the USA. Jazz scenes soon evolved
throughout the Soviet Union, but the more radical and experimental
ones were usually ostracised.
The
form of jazz resembles a liberal democracy. As Dave Brubeck
identified, it allows for both free expression and consensual
activity. Jazz also originated in a society that granted its citizens
constitutional rights that prioritised free expression and free
assembly. Just as anarchist societies have no rules or regulations of
any sort, pure free jazz has no rules. This is why this essay likened
free jazz to anarchism. Jazz usually aligns itself with progressive
causes, such as the civil rights movement. For these reasons,
totalitarian regimes try to root it out. It is centred around
improvisation, which is contrary to the pathological control that
totalitarian regimes try to exert. For these reasons, they often ban
jazz altogether, with the Soviet Union even banning the saxophone.
Jazz has always been at the forefront of new musical developments. As
such, it also rankles these regimes, who condemn it as 'degenerate.'
These regimes often try to uphold pure classicism, with the Soviets
delineating it as 'Socialist Realism.' Even when some laws and
economic policies were eventually liberalised, the Soviets still
banned experimental jazz, which has usually been at the forefront of
the 'avant-garde.' As an analysis of Nausea
demonstrated, Jazz also provokes a sense of release and abandon from
the listener. This is why it also aligns itself with the
counter-culture, which rankles totalitarian regimes because they want
to keep society controlled and homogenised. The 'Swing Kids' in Nazi
Germany exemplifies this. Jazz was created by black musicians at a
time of racial inequality and it was created in the midst of
oppression. Malcolm X claimed that white business people often
exploited them financially. Like blues, it has been associated with
an oppressed underclass. It has been continuously associated with
these classes, even in Nazi Germany and the USSR. This was one reason
why the Soviets briefly considered approving it, but they soon
discarded this idea. Because it is associated with Afro-Americans,
and because it has connections with the Jewish intelligentsia, it was
proscribed by the Nazis. Although it was created by a racial
underclass, jazz has a universalist and cosmopolitan belief system
and can be played by anyone in any place. This riled both the Nazis
and the USSR, since the former was a nationalistic creed and the
latter launched a campaign against 'cosmopolitanism' and economic
globalisation. These are the reasons why jazz is intrinsically
democratic and these are the reasons why totalitarian belief systems
root it out.
Works
Cited
Benson, Bruce (2009) The
Improvisation of Musical Dialogue: A Phenomenology of Music.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brooke,
Michael. (2015) Sounds of the Underground. Sight
and Sound.
January, p. 6.
Ellington,
Duke. (1973) Music
is my Mistress.
New York: Da Capo Press.
Hobbes,
Thomas. (1651) Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marcus,
Greil. (2001) Lipstick
Traces: A Secret History of the Twentieth Century.
London: Faber and Faber.
Philipp,
Zola. (2015) The Social Effects of Jazz. In York
Review.
6.1
Polster,
Bernd. (1998)
Swing
Heil – Jazz im Nationalsozialismus. Berlin:
Transit
Buchverlag.
Sartre,
Jean-Paul. (1938) Nausea.
London: Penguin.
Skvorecky,
Joseph. (1967). The
Bass Saxophone.
London: ECCO Press.
Unknown
author (2013). Defining
Democracy.
[Online] Museum
of Australian Democracy.
X, Malcolm. (1965) The Autobiography of Malcolm X. London: Penguin.
Yaroslansky, E. (1937) History of Anarchism in Russia. New
York: International Publishers of New York.
