The record changer (Mar 1945-Feb 1946)

attitude towards early and late jazz by Roger Pryor Dodge I am often asked whether I think present-day jazz is as good as early jazz. Although I do not follow all the way with the extremists who throw out everything after, I do have a natural leaning towards the early jazz because I find it more vital. I do not mean to imply that I dislike all current jazz. Positive values in current jazz, values from the past, values that we can bring from the past and which we can extend, I do favor. However, it may be asked, if I call the early jazz more vital, why then do I not go all the way and prefer it to current jazz and acknowledge that it was the only jazz. In this article I intend to show why. There are those who like anything that is earthy and primitive but jazz is not just earthy and primitive. If jazz were just a simple tune played with an earthy tone, when the earthy tone disappeared then it would be senseless to cling to this simple tune. But jazz was not only this. It was and is a music of extreme and highly developed figuration which in semblance is as complex in any single melodic line or intricate in its collective state as any music of which we know. The essential element in jazz, which I consider to be the melodic line, can and does have an existence and development of its own quite apart from the tone or texture qualities of early jazz. And it is where there is a longer flow of melodic thought that I find the keenest interest and would prefer it even when delivered by a blander tone. The balance between the beginning, middle and end sometimes comes about in a subconscious manner in the early stages of music. Although the construction of the solos and ensembles was hardly ever long sighted the virility and strength compensated for this short-sightedness. As music develops or grows older it has larger vision, there is a more consistent balance between the beginning, middle and end of a solo or ensemble. There is, however, in the later music, a very slow deterioration going on at the same time. Because of the slowness of this deterioration music has time to establish a well balanced composition with little of its original vitality lost and a great deal of compositional and consistent inventiveness gained. Jazz might have followed this usual pattern if there had not been too many musically bad influences around it and had it not had to compete for an audience which was conditioned by the more suave compromises with Western music. This condition ruined most of the old players and created a bad musical atmosphere for the new musicians to be born in. All through this period of bad influences from 1930 on we can see the struggle of this first vital music trying to develop and at the same time hold on to its rich texture. We can see this conflict in current day jazz musicians who one night strive to play within the great tradition of early jazz players and the next night succumb to the detrimental evils of sleek sweet jazz. It is hard to estimate how much that is good will survive and develop with all the evil influences within the present-day jazz. Early jazz was not sweet nor was early European music. Just as the sweetness of Mozart was possible and acceptable at a certain point in the development of European music so may sweetness in jazz become possible and acceptable at a certain point in the development of jazz. Although we feel the change towards sweetness when entering Mozart's period we are nevertheless captivated immediately in spite of the sweetness and so we may be captivated with jazz even when it becomes sweet. We can sense a tendency towards sweetness and away from the earthy tone and brittle invention of early jazz. But when the best of the past has come to have the advantage of development and has become enriched it can satisfy us just as completely even though the texture of early jazz is missing. As vital as an early music is 1 do not think of it as listenable music. Except for a very few specialists its appeal was along other lines. The multitudes who liked it in its day were attracted to it by the sound of the instrument, its perfect function as dance music plus the excitement of the instruments in ensemble. Except when they played straight the liking was never musical. Any mass enthusiasm for a band "in the flesh" is never a strictly musical preference. Real preference is shown where the audience "goes for" the records. Although a large number of concert goers have excellent sophisticated taste and a pretty high standard of acceptance of music written for an audience yet they cannot "keep up" with early jazz. Even the most ardent enthusiasts are attracted to jazz for various reasons. Some are highly sensitive to intonation, others to rhythm and playing style. They become completely sold to somebody's tone. Although they may respond to and appreciate a good line, it is imperative that it be delivered by the tone they like. It is a question whether they see the line unless delivered by the tone of their choice. I believe the greatest musical significance is to be found in the musical line. Although the early jazz did not have the musical line completely I do not say that the jazz since that time has been more successful. I only say that I believe it is more successful although verging on the cheap side constantly. When under the influence of listening to a band in person some of the criticism made in this article may seem precious. I find that the atmosphere surrounding a band, whether a son orchestra in Cuba, a jazz band in New Orleans or any authentic folk orchestra is so all enveloping that we cannot analyze the nature of our total reaction or make critical distinctions. Obviously early jazz music would not stand up if played on an instrument for which it was not intended and by performers foreign to its spirit. Music of the great contrapuntal period certainly stands upon the piano. This is a triumph of the melodic content of the music. It has great musical meaning divorced from the instrument that it was planned for. Naturally its significance is enhanced when put back upon its original instrument, the harpsichord. Even then we are not listening to the music as it was heard by its contemporaries. The whole manner of playing is missing and if we could recapture that then we would see how much richer the total effect would be. This music must have had a style that was rich in tone and phrasing. The question might narrow down to whether we prefer the highly sophisticated music of the 18th century that we do have, to a music which, had we had recording then, came to us on records and revealed richness in tone, intonation and phrasing but could not stand up well in notation. To decide this it becomes a matter of whether we value the sensuousness (tone) .more than do we the esthetic (melodic line). Without a discussion of the significance of the esthetic and the sensuous in music let us investigate which of these aspects we like the most in jazz. In the nature. of the art the sensuous 7 THE RECORD CHANGER