The record changer (Jan-Dec 1944)

The Record Changer, October 1944 JAZZ CRITIC LOOKS AT ANTHROPOLOGIST ROGER PRYOR DODGE In the Record Changer, Mr. Ernest Borneman, the anthropologist, contributes an interesting series of articles, The Anthropologist Looks At Jazz. If Mr. Borneman's anthropological viewpoint is to promote rather than confuse an understanding of jazz, it must pass the test of musical criticism in which it provokes discussion. As a commentator in the literature of jazz, I offer my remarks in the hope of synthesizing what is valuable and sifting the critical grain from the chaff. — R.P.D. The Author Roger Pryor Dodge is a professional dancer. Studying ballet in Paris, he adapted his own dance style to {azz music. One of Mr. Dodge's early successes was his role of " White Wings " in Carpenter's ballet Skyscrapers at the Metropolitan in 1925. Shortly thereafter his occupation led him to Billy Rose's first show " Sweet and Low " where his jazz dance was well received, R. P. has the greatest collection of Nijinsky photographs in the world; it is housed at the present time in the New York Public Library. Mr. Dodge's first article on jazz appeared in the London Dancing Times (1929) to be followed by others in Hound and Horn (1934) and the Atlantic Monthly. Other contributions have' been printed in the HRS Rag, tfie book Jazzmen, and the magazine Jazz. Mr. Ernest Borneman's article, "The Anthropologist Looks At Jazz," contains a great deal of information that one does not encounter in the usual run of jazz literature. We are grateful to him : a specialist can always throw new light where we least expect it. In the early and simple stages of an art, analysis is not particularly difficult. It is not one hundredth part as difficult as when many elements have accrued in the growth of the art. It is in maturer stages, when the ingredients of the art have become entangled and fused, that the critic begins to make* use of a measure of intuitive insight. Of course, an intuitive hypothesis, by itself, is not enough; but, unlike the scientist, we have not, in musical criticism, the benefit of acceleration of knowledge and understanding which comes by means of manipulating a controlled experiment in a laboratory. Instead, the critic must wait with resignation and some humility the results of his intuitive hypothesis. It is on this ground that I wish to meet with Mr. Borneman in friendly and constructive discussion, gratefully taking from anthropology what is really helpful and legitimate, frankly rejecting what may be alien to our purpose. In the name of anthropology, Mr. Borneman, at the very start, dismisses any differences which exist between primitive and sophisticated music. In the name of anthropolgy, he wishes to make no distinction between the merits of one musician and another. If anthropology indeed dictates this ironing out of distinctions, that is all very well. But why does Mr. Borneman proceed to discuss the flowering of jazz, the decline of jazz, and very particularly the merits of musicians? To satisfy its requirements, anthropology may take any suitable analytical standpoint. But Mr. Borneman is not always satisfied with remaining an anthropologist. He exists behind the scenes and reenters in a brand new costume. He practices a little surprising and charming sleight of hand. In fact, he betrays our credibility and simplicity when, after announcing that he would view jazz as a specialist through the criteria of anthropology, he finishes his performance 16