The Insider and Outsider View of Jazz

Jazz is not stagnant and is ever changing throughout the years, like all art. But even at any given moment, there is always a difference between the insiders’ view and the outsiders’ view. It is easier for outsiders to see the different external forces that shape the musician and therefore, their music. It is more difficult for the musicians themselves to see how they are changed. This may be because they are focused on music in relation to their employment and income. Hindsight is twenty-twenty but, because progressive change is impossible to immediately recognize, it is easy to be oblivious in the moment. Taking a step back and removing oneself from the immediate crowd, aids in seeing the bigger picture of how music fits into the society and is created, rather than viewing it as an individual category that stands alone. This begs the questions whether such outsiders are entitled to criticize and compare the changes that occur.
Especially because recordings were rare and never captured the whole essence of a piece, the memories of spectators are the most accurate snapshots of music that can be compared to each other to notice a difference in them. The memories of events of an audience member is from the perspective looking onto the Jazz, while musicians are looking out from the stage and their perspective is limited in the sense that their main concern is to play music to the enjoyment of the audience.
Edmond Souchon, a “sheltered” white person, hears Joe Oliver play in the red light districts, then at Tulane University, and then at a later concert. Souchon describes how he sees Joe Oliver slowly polish his music to fit the demands of the public, which has proved effective since he became the “King” and huge Jazz personage. Souchon writes that “his (Joe Oliver’s) band was adapting itself to the white dance more and more.” (Souchon, p.344). Joe Oliver was likely not consciously trying to “sound more white”. He unconsciously made sacrifices to keep an audience, but lost some aspects of his playing by performing more rehearsed and refined pieces. Because of his periodical experiences of Joe Oliver’s music, Souchon was able to clearly see how external forces changed it and formed it into a more marketable product. Outsiders, like Souchon, decide the worth of Jazz decreases after it has been perfected to white music standards, but this is not necessarily the case, it simply shows how Jazz interacts with the outside world.
In an essay, Amiri Baraka writes, “And to a great extent such ‘bad taste’ was kept extant in the music, blues or jazz, because the Negroes who were responsible for the best of the music were always aware of their identities as black Americans and really did not, themselves, desire to become vague…” (Baraka, p.256). Here he implies that truly great musicians know the reason for their music and do not convert to white societal and musical norms, however, when he writes about critics his argument is slightly different; he writes that the critics were “…influenced more deeply by the societal and cultural mores of their own society” and that, “…it is only natural that their criticism … should be a product of that society…” (Baraka, p. 257). Baraka’s observation about white critiques should also apply to the musicians themselves; musicians are not removed from society, but experience the same pressures from society, including the pressure from critics like Baraka. The “why” of Jazz is imperative to understanding the music, but so is the “how”: how the ideas that come from Jazz are pushed and pulled in the material world in which it exists.
Bakara might accuse King Oliver of becoming more “featureless” like the black middle-class he writes about, who abandoned “black things” to avoid the stigmatization that came with it. Joe Oliver’s transition was unintentional and he only did what was natural for humans, which is to adapt and become as successful as possible. Souchon reminisces about Joe Oliver’s early years when his playing was most natural. Surely, if Joe Oliver was aware his music was becoming more mainstream, he would work against it, but because he was constantly exposed to the influence of the public, the gradual change of himself was less obvious from the inside. It’s not always a matter of being strong enough to go against society like Baraka writes, but a matter of even noticing how it affects you.
Another example of external forces, this time coming from black communities, is seen in “Red Hot Pepper”. Jelly Roll Morton’s fall from stardom in New Orleans was partly because he refused to change his joyous style to more somber, emotive Jazz which was becoming popular in New Orleans. Black people wanted “the real blues which stated their agony openly” (p. 221). Jelly Roll successfully refused to conform to the pressure of his community, but as a result fell out of popularity. For his music to continue to be in the spotlight, he would’ve had to give in. Jelly Roll was convinced that his music was the best. His wife saw that because Jelly Roll didn’t change, New Orleans moved on without him. Composers see themselves as part of Jazz first, and then as part of the surrounding world, but without listeners, they have much difficulty playing.
It is important to note that for the spectator to actually have a clear view of effects on musicians, one cannot be so far removed as to not care about the reason behind the music. An example of this is when black people held in slavery sang about the injustices of how they were treated and the ignorance of white people, the white people who heard these songs, liked them and sang along. Bessie Jones writes, “These games were for talking to them white folks direct, because the slaves didn’t like the way they were being treated.” (“For the Ancestors”, Jones, p.45). In this case, the outsiders are oblivious to what drove people to sing, ignored the “why” of the music, and therefore, they could not understand the “ how” either. Here the spectators only appreciate the song and see it as nothing else, while the singers know why they are compelled to sing.
There are insiders and outsiders, however, Jazz is unique in that it often involves the audience in performances, relying on spectators to respond and join in to create a fuller piece. It is this active interaction between audience members and musicians that Samuel Floyd writes about. Floyd claims that the only legitimate criticism for jazz is the reaction of the audience in that very moment. This means that you should not criticize Jazz compared to past performances. From call and response to parades, the distinction between performer and spectator fades. This mingle of roles makes it so that there is no incorrect way to play or interpret music; there is only change. And the change in interpretation over time does not invalidate previous interpretations. Outsiders may see the external forces on Jazz, but should not judge it for its changes, because evolution is inevitable.