Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Kansas City Jazz

[NOTE: I am posting this for Hannah, as she is having trouble using the site.]


Jazz in Kansas City started in the 1920s when musicians would assemble in a small union hall on the corner of 18th and Vine in downtown Kansas City for improvisational jazz sessions. Everybody jammed in the hall, regardless of if they were black or white. Their only goal was to experience the riff-and-rhythm-based, rollicking improvisational style characteristic of Kansas City jazz. These jam sessions sometimes went all night long, fueled by the free-flowing booze stemming from the city’s speakeasies. Enabled by the rampant political corruption in the city administration of city manager Tom Pendergast, saloons became gathering places for musicians and their fans.
            Other clubs soon evolved in Kansas City, such as Paseo Hall, the Cherry Blossom, Luciille’s Paradise, The Subway Club, The Ol’ Kentuck’ Bar B-Q, and Fox’s. Famous jazz anthems like “Kansas City”, “Vine Street Drag”, and “Vine Street Boogie” immortalize the exuberant atmosphere of this area, and enshrine it in popular culture as a place where anyone can access the rich soul of jazz.
            In 1917, the musicians formed a union, called the Local 627. It grew to 300 members by 1928, and sponsored an annual battle of the bands that was widely popular in the community. However, segregation proved to be a powerful factor in the area’s evolution as a historically black area. The community was bordered by 12th Street in the north, 27th Street in the south, Charlotte Street in the east, and Benton Street in the west. Within these lines was an entire world of theaters, shops, diners, churches, and clubs that served as the black community’s antidote to the “whites-only” policies that banned them from fully integrating with the rest of the world.
            However, urban renewal efforts in the late 1950s cleared the buildings out of the district in an effort to eradicate unused buildings from the inner city, and desegregation in later years led to many African-Americans departing the city for the suburbs, and left the once-hopping Jazz District to crumble from neglect. Today, only a fraction of its buildings are left standing to preserve the memory of the clubs and bars that served as an incubator for some of the best jazz America has ever known.
            In our class, “Literature and Culture of the Roaring Twenties”, we learn about the Roaring Twenties through 21st-century mediums like streaming video on YouTube, and digital audio files that have been converted from analog records. Though these advances help make the culture of the past accessible to the audience of the present, they also signal a revolution in the way music and culture is disseminated in America.
The popularization of the radio in the 1920s gave music fans the opportunity to listen to music without having to actually be at the venue it was performed at. Just as the radio changed the way people listen to music, so does the popularity of digital mediums in the 21st Century now enable would-be musicians to change the way they make music by enabling them to create and share music without having to be in the same physical location. In light of what we discussed in class about the evolution of jazz music and culture in cities like New York City and New Orleans, is having a physical base still relevant in today’s digital culture? In other words, can music and the arts retain their vibrancy in an age where every aspect of the creative process can be shifted out of the bars and clubs of old and onto the laptops and flash drives of today? Any thoughts you might have would be appreciated, there is no right or wrong answer.

13 comments:

  1. There are many people that believe modern technology has had a negative affect on art. The holiday window's scenes in Bloomingdales in Manhattan are now digital instead of the dolls that are used every year. There are many people that are disappointed and have criticized the digital windows, saying that it has taken away from the holiday spirit. I personally think that there are positives and negatives to the way technology has affected art. I don't think it makes it worse, just different.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Yael that there are pros and cons to how modern technology has impacted art, however, I would just like to present a pro. While it is true digital media may detract from the vibrancy and clarity of music, it makes it a lot more accessible. For instance, thanks to youtube I can hear Billie Holiday and other singers who I never would have listened to otherwise as I do not have their records. The ability to take records and transfer them to the computer is amazing. I know my dad has tons of old records that he wants to convert.Thus, in essence technology helps to preserve music and other forms of art they may have been lost over the generations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Having a physical base is still relevant in todays culture. No matter how you listen to your music, everyone will agree that to go to a live show and hear and see your favorite musicians play and interact with the music is an experience that cannot be replicated by the "laptops and flash drives of today." New technology is amazing, and has enabled great musicians to be successful, and great music to remain alive, but no comparison can be drawn between experiencing such live, and listening to it from the speakers of your macbook.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for posting this, first of all. This was well-written and informational. I agree with Avital; a physical base is very relevant, even today. If it wasn't, then why would people come to NYC to see the ball drop on New Year's Eve, for example?

    ReplyDelete
  5. While I do think a live base is still relevant I think it is important to consider how live shows are declining- more and more they are making concert movies so people just watch in theaters instead of hearing it live. Hannah Montana made one of these, the Jonas Brothers and now Justin Bieber is as well. Perhaps movie concerts will be the concerts of the next decade and slowly replace live music. After all they are cheaper, still provide a fun experience, and are allow the viewer to see the entertainer better. That do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hannah- I thought your blog was extremely informative and very interesting (taking into consideration Kansas’ reputation for being a quiet, chilled out place). You bring up a very good point about whether or not, in our advanced digital age, we still find the need for a physical “home base” for musicians to gather. I agree with Jenny that modern technology has made music more accessible than it was in previous generations. For example the iPod/mp3 player is (in my humble opinion) one of the greatest gadgets ever invented because, instead of having to carry around a huge stack of CD’s or sit in one location and listen to one record after another in the same room, these players store more music than you could listen to in a week, but it’s all right there if you want it. On the other hand, I would have to agree with Avital that the experience of going to a concert and physically seeing the band playing on stage, with all the energy in the room, is like nothing else. But Jenny, those movie concerts are terrible…more affordable but nothing like the real thing. I think it’s a shame that kids that are in love with stars like the Jonas Brothers, Hannah Montana, or Justin Bieber are being cheated out the “real” concert experience!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with what most people are saying here. There are pros and cons to living in the digital age. On the one hand these digital devices capture music and make it more readily available to the public. This is usually the cheaper way of doing things and it also provides listeners with music that can no longer be heard live - because those music legends have passed away.
    But we cannot ignore the cons. If the digital age is moving away from live performance and toward all music being digitally available, that eliminates the need for actual talent! As a music lover this drives me crazy. Because all the technology available can mask, blend, enhance, basically make it so anyone visually marketable can seem to have musical talent as well. So it would be tragic if we are completely moving away from live musical performances.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tami- I agree those are horrible excuses for a concert- but people love them!Very marketable for kids because usually parents don't want their kids going to concerts-

    ReplyDelete
  9. Specifically in regard to youtube, I think the biggest regret of our digital society is the disintegration of the quality of what we call "culture." In the world we live in now, "15 minutes of fame" is just a jump-skip-and-a-click away. Back in the day, musical or dramatic culture was limited to a talented and worthy few. Nowadays, everyone is a singer, everyone is a pop-star, and everyone is a celebrity, just because broadcasting is so accessible. This mentality has a negative effect on the quality of what our society venerates as culture mostly because people feel the pressure to produce quantity as opposed to quality in order to keep themselves in the ever-changing spotlight.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rachel i agree with what you said about how pop-stars now a days dont necessarily have talent but the "look". HoweverIi think that youtube is a great invention because many people who are talented do get to be seen. For instance the 14 (or 15) year old boy Greyson Chance (for those of you who dont know who im talking about i urge you to look him up singing paparazzi). If it wasnt for you tube than he may never of been discovered.

    Also since all my favorite bands are from the 60's i am grateful for modern technology so that i could see them preform and hear them whenever i want whereas with out it i would not be able to see them perform ever and i would have to rely on old records that my parents had during their teenage years (assuming that they even listened to the bands i like).

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree with what most people are saying here. Music is always better live but in todays world it has become alot more accessable. I love how I can now listen to any artist I want even if they died before I was born. I believe that technology is not good or bad, ti's just different.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree with those that say that nothing compares to the experience of live music.
    I'd like to add on, though, that nowadays some music is only created in the digital realm and it will never be able to be live. for example- Mike Tompkins. He remixes popular songs using only his voice. he has many music videos of his voice recordings. He will never be able to perform the songs live because he sings all the different instrumental sounds.
    He, and other digital musicians like him, have introduced a new kind of music, and while it can't compete in the same realm as live singers,they are talented and enjoyable in their own right.
    if you haven't heard any of Mike Tompkins songs check this one out- its his newest music video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtBeobpTcmk

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.