Race in Jazz: The Swing Era and Depression Era

Jazz has been a music rooted in racial dialogue since the time of its inception in New Orleans’s Congo Square through its evolution in the cities of Chicago and New York. However, in the 1930s, as the country plunged into economic depression and swing music dominated the commercial and popular music scenes, the racial role played in the evolution of jazz was more explicitly scrutinized and discussed than ever before.
Two major changes occurred at the turn of the decade that transformed the dialogue of jazz music and the industry as a whole: the mainstream popularization of the radio, and the Great Depression. Radio gave performers a certain level of racial anonymity, giving black artists the opportunity for more mainstream success and a wider listening base; This new economic opportunity became a source of racial competition between blacks and whites. Although blacks could make their way onto the integrated channels of radio, they were still unable to find as much work, respect, and success as their equally talented white counterparts (Gioia Ch.4). Black musicians had to suffer the injustices of racism and were subjected to having their music unwillingly “borrowed–or sometimes stolen outright–by other performers” (Gioia 133). The habit that white performers had of appropriating black music and its style was an old tradition, exemplified by the Austin High Gang and other North Chicago white musicians. However, in the economic downturn of the early 1930s, this process could have much more severe consequences for black musicians, greatly impacting their ability to make a living (Gioia Ch.5).
In many ways, the dire economic situation during the swing era of the 1930s produced the racial competition that bred open discussion of race in jazz. The “race records”, or labels that focused on black artists, were “especially hard-hit” by the Depression, and due to the ever-declining music industry and the growing popularity of big band music, musicians–especially black ones– found jobs at the time to be scarce. Because of the de facto racism of the 1930s, black musicians had a much harder time finding bookings for shows, radio promotions, and studio hirings than did white musicians (Gioia). This is best embodied by the contrast of two leading big band frontmen of the era– Fletcher Henderson and Benny Goodman. While it is true that Goodman was perhaps the more aggressive and driven band leader, his success in the jazz scene can also be partly attributed to race– the ease with which Goodman could book venues could not be matched by a black musician like Henderson. And although it was Goodman who was emulating Henderson’s ‘hot’ style– not the other way around– Goodman was able to project his music to a mass market larger than that which was probable for a black musician such as Henderson to reach (Gioia 132-133).
This racial divide had ill consequences not only for the black musicians who could not reach mainstream success, but also for those that could. Specifically, Duke Ellington was targeted by many for his success and, in their opinion, his abandonment of his own race in pursuit of that success. John Hammond, one of the most respected black producers of swing, “castigated Ellington for distancing himself and his music from the troubles of his people” (Swing Changes 51). These critiques were not without a racial founding: Ellington, by associating with white Jewish manager Irving Mills (and offering him a large portion of the royalty payments), was able to book radio appearances and shows at venues that other black musicians could never attain. But, as was stated, this commercial success came at the price of being vilified or ridiculed by other black musicians and critics (Swing Changes 50-51). This illustrates how the issue of race became a complex dialogue for blacks as well as whites, as both races endeavored to succeed commercially and innovatively while staying true to their roots and heritage.

Birth of Harlem Jazz and its Significance

M.M. Bakhtin states, “The third party is a constitutive aspect of the whole utterance, who, under deeper analysis, can be revealed in it”. This notion of dialogue, not between the artist and the art, but of the role that the third party–audience– plays in the conversation, is why I believe New York jazz was more important to jazz than Chicago. The jazz birthed in 1920s Harlem is more directly a product of the human conditions at the time– social, economic, and racial.
Economically, at a time when “Harlem was becoming a slum” (Gioia 90), rent parties created both demand and environment for jazz development. The need of lower-class blacks to pay rent created a new type of social gathering, one requiring music to dance to. In this way, economic conditions invoked a social climate which influenced jazz. Socially, jazz developed primarily as dancing music. The popular dances and musics of the Northeast were augmented by the migration of Southern blacks to Harlem. These ‘Gullahs’, preferential to gospel-style piano and ring-shouts popular in the south, created a demand for a new type of dance music, one that would developed a new Harlem style. Rent parties also provided the stage for “cutting contests”, a social form of performance where jazz pianists tried to outplay one another which became an important part of “jazz pedagogy and practice” (Gioia, 93).

These contests had a profound effect on jazz style, most notably in the standard of technique: “It was the stress of competition from their peers, rather than any highbrow demands... that encouraged the [inclusion] of several classical selections” (Best of Jazz 25). As well, racial divides in music provided other incentives for pianists to develop technique, as white demand for European-style technical mastery exerted its influence on jazz. James P. Johnson states, “The reason the New York boys became such high class musicians was because the New York piano was developed by the European method, system, and style” (Gioia 92). Differences of race inevitably affected jazz negatively, marginalizing the music, denigrating it as low art. In clubs such as the Cotton Club, blacks were allowed in only as performers, never patrons.  

However, jazz faced its most serious marginalization by black Harlemites who considered the music too lowbrow– more at home in rent parties than “in the ‘other’ Harlem of high culture” (Gioia 90).  But it was in those rent parties that the quintessential New York styles of jazz– stride piano, boogie-woogie– were created. Players such as Willie Smith, Art Tatum, and Fats Waller extended the stride formula to a new level of technical jazz not previously heard in Chicago or elsewhere. Its distinctive rhythm and style were hard to pin down: “...like the word ‘shout’ in the same context, ‘stride’ simply exists to confuse the layman” (Best of Jazz 31).  However, what can be confirmed about stride is its massive impact on the Harlem music scene and subsequent jazz styles such as swing. 

No player of the era better represents the culture and ‘third-party’ dialogue of Harlem jazz than James P. Johnson. Considered the “Father of Harlem stride” (Best of Jazz 27), Johnson’s work is not derivative; it is original. As a participant of the cutting contests and rent party dances, Johnson’s music is directly representative of the array of social, economic and musical elements which formulated Harlem jazz– even the marginalization of the art form is exemplified by Johnson’s multiple rejections from conductors and benefactors (Gioia). By adapting to the desires for ring-shouts and gospel, for European melodies over ragtime rhythms, Johnson intertwined different musical ethos into a style which was directly birthed from the reality around him; a style which to its core responded to and represented the climate of Harlem.