Jazz and democracy

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.

Benz, Jill. (1998) Jazz in Germany 1919 – 1945. [Online] Return 2 Style. Available from: http://www.return2style.de/swingaring/amijazz3.htm.

Brooke, Michael. (2015) Sounds of the Underground. Sight and Sound. January, p. 6.

Culshaw, Peter. (2006) How Jazz Survived the Soviets. [Online] The Daily Telegraph. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandjazzmusic/3656544/How-jazz-survived-the-Soviets.html

Dickson, Andrew. (2014) Spring Time for Hitler: How the Nazis Fought the Allies with Jazz. [Online] The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/sep/16/propaganda-swing-nazi-jazz

Ellington, Duke. (1973) Music is my Mistress. New York: Da Capo Press.

Hobbes, Thomas. (1651) Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, Andrea. (1983) An American Sound. [Online] The New York Times. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/1983/04/17/books/an-american-sound.html

Lerski, Cezary. (2009) Polish Jazz – Freedom at Last. [Online] Culture.Pl. Available from: http://culture.pl/en/article/polish-jazz-freedom-at-last

Marcus, Greil. (2001) Lipstick Traces: A Secret History of the Twentieth Century. London: Faber and Faber.

Meridith, Bill. (2007) Latin Jazz: The Jazz Tinge. [Online.] Jazz Times. Available from: https://jazztimes.com/features/latin-jazz-the-latin-tinge/

Mitropolsky, Mikhail. (2011) Red & Hot: The Fate of New Jazz in Russia. [Online] Furious. Available from: http://www.furious.com/perfect/russianjazz.html

Monk, Thelonious. (2014). Great Quotes – Thelonious Monk. [Online] Jazz Online. Available from: https://jazzonline.gr/jazznews/others/item/756-great-quotes-%E2%80%94-thelonious-monk.html?format=html&lang=en

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.

Thomson, Marcus. (2014) Wesley Watkins Uses Jazz to Teach Democracy. [Online] Oakland Magazine. Available from: http://www.oaklandmagazine.com/Oakland-Magazine/September-2014/Wesley-Watkins-Uses-Jazz-to-Teach-Democracy/

Transpontine. (2008) Nazis and Jazz. [Online] History is Made at Night. Available from: http://history-is-made-at-night.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/nazis-and-jazz.html

Treuman, C. N. (2015) Music in Nazi Germany. [Online] The History Learning Site. Available from: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/music-in-nazi-germany/ Available from: http://moadoph.gov.au/democracy/defining-democracy/

Unknown author (2013). Defining Democracy. [Online] Museum of Australian Democracy.

Unknown author. (2012). Case Study: Swing Kids. [Online] Holocaust Memorial Day 2012. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20110817231332/http://hmd.org.uk/resources/education/case-study-swing-kids

Unknown author. (2017) Swing Kids. [Online] Subculture. Available from: http://subcultureslist.com/swing-kids/

Unknown author. (2007) Jazz Music in the Soviet Union. [Online] Master and Margarita. Available from: http://www.masterandmargarita.eu/en/09context/muziekjazz.html

Unknown author. (2014) Communism vs. Jazz. [Online] Koktebel Jazz Party. Available from: http://en.koktebel-jazz.ru/about_jazz/20140501/1013175535.html

Wright-Mendoza, Jessie. (2015) How Jazz and the Civil Rights Movement Came Together in the 1960s. [Online] Blank on Blank. Available from: http://blankonblank.org/2015/05/jazz-civil-rights-movement/

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.