This description of the event paints the picture of multiple individual performances which accumulated into something bigger. The event sounds like a cohesive and unified display of exceptional work amongst many artists. The level of focus and effort that was given by the musicians, allowed for others and themselves to push the boundaries of the genre on a massive and collective scale. It sounds like there was a sense of freedom and exploration which prevailed, and raised the final product to a level beyond what could have been delivered otherwise.

I like this passage. As a mostly self-taught “musician” (I like music, I play music, and I like playing music) it can sometimes be frustrating understanding and accounting for genre purists and their strict guidelines for what can and can’t be considered “good” music. Even the earliest Jazz music that came from Louisiana had many influences from music that had existed long before it. Music is an art form, and most, if not all art (the good kind anyways) is informed by the inspiration of its creator. I’ve always viewed jazz and classical music as two entirely separate genres, even if (to my untrained jazz/classical ear) I perceive similarities. When I learn to play a song that is in a strict “category” of music, I can often find similarities between that and other songs I’ve previously learned from that same category. There are identifiable patterns that the brain pick ups on which helps to understand its separation from other genres. When I write music however, unless I consciously set out to stay within the “rules” of a given genre, my music is unavoidably influenced by what I like to hear and play, which is more than one genre. This can be frustrating if you grade yourself with a genre purist’s rubric. You break the “rules” and your work bleeds across defined categorical borders. But music is art, and in my opinion, in art it’s okay for rules to be broken. No defined genre of music would exist without either expanding upon or breaking some of the rules of the genres that came before and influenced it. I’m glad that some people are disregarding the separation between Jazz and Classical music, because it implies that they are allowing themselves to be inspired and influenced beyond the set “rules” that exist for either category. Why limit the quality and inspiration of your work solely to fit inside of a box that already exists (and will continue to exist) with or without you. Like the author, I don’t care if music is jazz, classical, both, or neither. I care if it’s good, and I care if when I listen to it, it sounds like it is what the artist desired to make.

I think there is a level of great beauty that exists within art when replication is not the aim of a piece. Within an original work, there is an idea and goal that exists beyond the sum of its parts. Technique is not the essence of the work, even when the technical execution is seemingly flawless, that execution is in service of a larger objective. When exact replication of an original work is the greatest goal of a project, the essence of the original work (which I would readily argue is the most important part) is the one thing which cannot be truly replicated. I was glad to read that MOPDtK didn’t put all their energy and aim into perfectly and objectively recreating Kind of Blue, but rather in paying homage to the work and into finding their own original beauty in that process.

I find this section of the reading intriguing in particular. It seems reflective of the controversial initial origins/audiences of jazz music in 1910s New Orleans. It then goes on to describe how young up-and -coming Jazz musicians at the starts of their careers in 1937 would have to navigate these spaces/live up to the audience’s energy/ meet the performance expectations in such charged spaces. With not much access to detailed reports and chronicles of how the first jazz musicians operated in 1910s New Orleans, I wonder if this is a close to accurate parallel, or if there would have been entirely different accounts of how those musicians adjusted/progressed in live spaces at the time.

I find it interesting that Billie Holiday faced so much backslash following the release of Strange Fruit. Specifically the fact that so much of the criticism directed at her didn’t focus on discrediting the overall message of the song, but rather on discrediting Holiday’s intelligence and intellectual capacity to fully comprehend it. At the time of its release, Billie Holiday was a black artist and jazz musician living in 1939 racially-segregated America, (in my opinion) I find it harder to believe that she wouldn’t understand the impactful messaging behind an anti-lynching song. Jazz music did not shy away from political statements, if she wasn’t already thinking about these things on her own (she probably was), it’s likely that she would have been surrounded by peers and colleagues that openly discussed these matters. There was also nationwide discourse over the subject of lynching/anti-lynching at the time. On top of all of that, her own lived experience would have furthered her understanding of the lyrics and themes. I understand that it was a typical at the time for black women (especially those marketed to white audiences) to be underestimated in their intelligence and hyper-sexualized, but drawing the conclusion that she wouldn’t understand the songs messaging in order to fit her into this stereotype is still baffling to me, even in its historical context.

Reading about the segregation and exclusion of black artists in early jazz music and radio broadcasting is very disheartening. It must have been extremely difficult for them to go through that, and also for them to have to tailor their music to an entirely different demographic of people to get by in their careers. The annotated section was nice to read, because although it didn’t undo any of the challenges that black artists were facing at the time, it must have been nice to finally receive recognition and to have their music accepted and appreciated by a group of people without having to worry if it was watered down enough to fit the expectations of white audiences.

I am drawn to the idea that Jazz music has been more than just a cut-and-dry label for a genre of music since the beginning. 1917 was the first year of jazz music being released in a traditional sense (sales of records/albums), and I think it’s cool that even that early on, people were already recognizing jazz as more than just an objective style of music, but also as an idea/attitude/culture as well. In some of the research that i’ve been doing for my paper, I’ve been looking at early newspaper articles about jazz music, and it’s interesting how much jazz is perceived just as much of a rebellious act/ cultural phenomenon as it is a genre of music. I also find it interesting how jazz music spread and was influenced over time across multiple different cultures, and that its history was not just limited to its development domestically.

I find it very interesting that many conversations today attempt to classify or declassify Jazz as being historically/culturally black music. In its early days, Jazz music faced much criticism from the American press and public, and I think that there is no doubt a large portion of that criticism was either consciously or subconsciously perpetuated by the public’s association of jazz to black culture/people. Originating in New Orleans, a city with a dense black population (largely african-american and creole), the genre was heavily shaped and influenced by black musicians, culture, and history. That being said, people from many different cultures and ethnic backgrounds helped shape jazz music in its early years and onward. Jazz (in early press coverage) was often even regarded as “uneducated,” “vulgar,” and “dirty” music by outsiders (words that no doubt held racial connotations in the early 20th-century South) and did not gain a more universal respect from the media and public until later on. Jazz music was once ostracized and faced overwhelming criticisms, deeming it immoral, at a time when it was regarded as ‘black music’ prior to gaining a more universal respect. Jazz is a genre of music with developmental trajectory that responded to the social and political ideas which surrounded it. In my opinion, trying to undo the label of jazz as culturally “black” music for the sake of perceived inclusion is an unnecessary effort to erase history that played a crucial role in shaping the genre into what it is today. Jazz music had to survive being labeled as “black” music in its early days on its journey to becoming what it is today. In order to examine the cultural origins of jazz music in America, it must be traced back to New Orleans, and it is important to observe the early widespread rejection of jazz music prior to its acclaim, as its development was influenced by the way that jazz musicians responded to its perception. The acknowledgment of jazz music’s culturally black roots does not need to create or lead to feelings of rejection by non black people. I think that jazz can be inclusive while also acknowledging its history.