Blog #2, Big Apple Trumps Windy City

The Roaring Twenties transitioned the heart of jazz from Chicago to New York City just as the post-bellum movement from New Orleans to Chicago. I argue that from the early 1920’s to the end of the decade, New York City was the new geographical foundation of jazz in the United States.

Economically speaking, both Chicago and New York City offered relentless economic gain from the industry if you were capable of standing out. However, quickly after the transition to Chicago, there was nothing unique in the area that New York could not match or even overtake.  While Chicago musicians could “earn $40 per week or more during the years following World War I…” (Gioia, 72), New York had similar, if not more profitable establishments such as the Cotton Club. On top of this, it was impossible to compare the theater lifestyle formed in Broadway to anywhere else, which through shows like “Hot Chocolates” gave jazz an outpouring of mainstream audience to an elite upper class, spreading its recognition.

In terms of style, many claim that Chicagoans were largely impersonations of the New Orleans style, and that the “most significant thing about ‘Chicago style’ as exemplified in ‘Nobody’s Sweetheart’ is that it was not a style at all” (The Chicagoans, 162). The only consistent reference to unique tunes is Bix Beiderbecke; ironically though, Beiderbecke spent most of his time performing in New York City. The other common counterargument to this would be Louis Armstrong’s Chicago growth. While it’s difficult to argue against his musical growth taking place at the heart of Chicago, multiple attractions kept bringing him back to New York in order to spread it more effectively, including Fletcher Henderson’s band and the ”Hot Chocolates” pit band (he even resided there permanently later on).

New York, on the other hand, brought out numerous players indisputable in their exclusive contributions to jazz in this time— James P. Johnson, Willie “The Lion” Smith, Art Tatum, Duke Ellington, and of course “Fats” Waller, to name a few. Even for those who claimed both areas had their own style, it can be reasoned that, similar to the economic case, musically Chicago was no match for New York. As James P. Johnson said, “the people in New York were used to hearing good piano played in concerts and cafes. The ragtime player had to live up to that standard” (Gioia, 92). The European roots in New York propelled the jazz music to a greater technical level, further propelling its appreciation by mainstream audiences. It is clear jazz cultivates under a large melting pot of talent—few names are mentioned for Chicago; for New York, the list could keep on going.

Regardless of that argument, the man who I believe stood at the soul of New York jazz could be argued to be “Fats” Waller. Waller drove jazz’s mainstream fame through his Broadway performances of the stride style, and “did more than any of these players to bring the Harlem style to the attention of the broader American public” (Gioia, 94). He compiled historic songs epitomizing the New York style, including “Honeysuckle Rose” and “Aint Misbehavin.” He mastered the call-and-response African technique arguably better than anyone of the time.

While Chicago was a vital step in the transition from New Orleans to Chicago, jazz’s coronation into the worldly stage was seen in the core of Manhattan. Both areas formed the necessary cosmopolitan, dynamic culture required for the seedling of jazz to grow its roots, but it is a stretch to claim that Chicago had a larger effect than New York.

Commented on Addison's post.