Upon
signing up for this course last fall I expected a number of things to come out
of the class. First, I automatically assumed we would learn of some of the big
names of jazz like Miles Davis and Louis Armstrong. Little did I know, these
were just two of the many disciples of jazz and did not come close to covering
all genres of the music. While Miles and Armstrong are pinnacles of musical
achievement and innovation, their predecessors and influences were perhaps more
inventing and helped foster their sounds. King Oliver mentored Armstrong, while
Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie “Bird” Parker, some of my newfound favorite jazz
artists, took Miles under their shoulders when he moved to New York in
September of 1944. Secondly, I revised my views of the origins of jazz music. I
had formerly believed that jazz was created sometime in the 1930s as modern
jazz or bebop. I had no idea as to the origin of jazz in New Orleans as a
combination of ragtime and blues, or the historical influences that enslavement
of Africans and the Latin code of slavery had on jazz’s emergence at the turn
of the 20th century. The clash and fusion of African and European,
composition and improvisation, spontaneity and deliberation… will follow us at
virtually every turn in the evolution of jazz (Gioia 27).
Of
the many concepts discussed in class, the idea of a dialogic between artist and
community, as proclaimed by M.M. Bakhtin, has most changed my outlook on how
art and culture emerges. M.M. Bakhtin argues that there must be a
dialogic involved in the creation of an art form jazz. This dialogic
imagination refers to the idea that a musician does not create a new piece
without an intended listener in mind; they take the circumstances of that time
and make it relevant in their art form (Lecture 2/7). Coming into the course this
statement seemed logical to me; the culture reflects the community. But not
until this class did I begin to understand the complex dialogic between the
community and the artists. Dialogue may not be achieved in one direction. There
must be dialogue back and forth. Not only can a community influence artists,
but artists may create and influence communities through their work. Thelonius
Monk, for example, was a product of his upbringing in San Juan Hill. The
violent nature, diversity and segregation of the area led to a distinct sound
in Monk’s piano playing. Through his playing Monk was later able to foster a
unique bohemian community (Lecture 2/26).
This was very reflective and well written. Though you seemed to have a relatively informed view of the history of jazz before this course, your demonstration of the what you have learned this quarter shows that you had a real interest in this subject. I particularly agreed how you connected Thelonious Monk's influence on San Juan Hill as a community to the dialogic concept that we were first introduced to at the start of the quarter.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point that the dialogic theory of jazz did not just refer to how an environment shaped a musician, but how the musician shaped the environment as well. I'd like to hear some of your examples about that second part, because Stewart definitely discussed how a city would effect the musician, but it is harder to imagine how one person can shape an entire community. I think most people had a similar view of jazz as you prior to this class; we assumed jazz was headed by a few key players (the ones we have heard of) and that it had a small number of sub-genres that arose relatively recently. The course did well to show jazz's origins, the many movements within jazz from city to city, and of course the dialogic nature of jazz.
ReplyDeleteYou did a great job outlining what you expected from the course and what you already knew, and how this class changed those views. I really like your point about the dialogical characteristic of the arts- I think it really wraps up all of the topics, musicians, and history that we have learned in this class.
ReplyDelete