Difference between revisions of "Eth5. How jazz relates to ethics"

Discussion[edit]

Introduction[edit]

If jazz were immoral, this would be relevant to an ethical critique.

➢ Has anyone ever thought that jazz was immoral?

Unfortunately, "Yes," is the answer, especially early on in jazz's development, but even up until the 1950s and beyond, some critics found jazz immoral. Let us first establish this as a fact, then investigate what it would mean for a form of music, or playing such music, to be immoral.

In his 1956 book, The Story of Jazz, Marshall W. Stearns (1908–1966) discovered that an admired supporter of classical music held that jazz was immoral. When pressed, the critic gave some reasons presented in the quotations below.

“I discovered by accident, however, that he really feels that jazz is immoral. ‘Jazz,’ he told me one evening, ‘is unnatural, abnormal, and just plain unhealthy.’ I know of no effective way to answer this sort of pronouncement on any human activity. When pressed for reasons, however, he fell back on more rational assertions: ‘the harmonies of jazz are childish, the melodies are a series of cliches, and the rhythms are monotonously simple.’ Here is something technical and specific. What is more, these criticisms are reasonably typical and comprehensive. Since my friend (and others like him) occupies an important position in the world of music on the strength of his own unquestioned merits, his comments should be taken seriously.”

“Let me say at once that I feel that these criticisms are not valid and that they arise from a failure to realize that jazz is a separate and distinct art that should be judged by separate and distinct standards. Like any other dynamic art, however, the special qualities of jazz cannot be described in a few words. The history of jazz may be told, its technical characteristics may be grasped, and the response it evokes in various individuals may be analyzed. But a definition of jazz in the most complete sense—how and why it communicates satisfying human emotions—can never be fully formulated.

“A beginning can be made, nevertheless, by examining jazz in a perspective of the musics of the world to show how it differs from other music. In this manner, we may arrive at an understanding of the musical objectives and the distinguishing characteristics of jazz. Any art form should be judged in terms of its own aims, and jazz has suffered particularly from criticism which condemns it for not doing what it isn’t trying to do. This mistake originates in the application of standards of criticism that are not relevant.”

“Since we are all immersed in the classical tradition of Europe and, consciously or not, tend to accept its standards as universal, classical music must inevitably serve as a basis for comparison and contrast in defining jazz. Classical music and jazz have crucially different characteristics, although this fact is frequently ignored or forgotten, and an appreciation of these differences is the first step toward a real understanding of jazz.”

“In order to appreciate the cause of many of the fundamental differences between jazz and classical music, we must note the effect of equal ‘temperament’ (or tuning) in the history of European music.”^[1] (bold and bold italic not in original)

Many things are wrong with what both Stearns and the jazz critic assert. Let's go through them in the order found in the above quotations starting with the jazz critic and then critiquing Stearns's position on defining jazz.

Start with the very first claim by the critic. The jazz critic never actually says jazz is immoral; Stearns is the one who states what the critic thinks. For the sake of argument, assume the critic believes this, implying that anything with all three characteristics mentioned by the critic qualifies, namely, when something is 'unnatural, abnormal, and just plain unhealthy,' it is immoral. We have at least three questions to address:

(Q1) What does immoral mean?

(Q2) Is it true that something with these three properties is immoral? and

(Q3) Does jazz have these three properties?

Addressing the three questions regarding the immorality of jazz[edit]

(Q1) What does immoral mean? [edit]

One might think that immoral merely means not moral. Concerning conduct, the word "immoral" implies “one who acts contrary to or does not obey or conform to standards of morality." It can also mean licentious and perhaps dissipated. However, it is not true that the word "immoral" only has these few meaning focuses because humans are, in effect, sloppy and use the word in innumerable contexts with all sorts of different and even incompatible purposes. For example, from the synonyms from the list below for "immoral," one could be corrupt without being pornographic, shameless, or obscene.

Dictionary.com provides these as definitions for the adjective "immoral":

“1. violating moral principles.”

“2. not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.”

“3. licentious or lascivious.”

People often use a word consistent with its synonyms, and the word "immoral" has a high number of both synonyms and antonyms.

Take the first meaning given by dictionary.com for "immoral" as 'violating moral principles.' Does jazz violate any moral principles? The burden of proof is on the supporter of this position and not the denier.

Moral principles are guidelines people follow to act morally and do the right thing. Moral principles might include being honest, and treating people fairly, or equally. People from different environments and cultures may follow alternative ethical principles.

Moral principles are of two fundamental types: absolute and relative. The approach taken by moral absolutism is that specific actions are intrinsically right or wrong and based on universal truths about the nature of human beings independently of any cultural assessments. Contrasting this and opposing it, we have moral relativism, under which there are no absolute rules regarding what qualifies as right or wrong. What ethical principles apply may change depending on the situation.

Examples of candidate absolute moral principles are: (1) Don't kill innocent people. (2) Speak the truth. (3) Respect other people's property. These also might be principles followed in a relativist morality, but they will be 'easier' not to follow.

Relative moral principles depend on people's beliefs as to what they think is good or bad as it relates to themselves, so when someone says something is good, in most cases, it means they believe it is good for them or thinks it would contribute to their well-being. Of the following proposed relativist moral principles, some might think they should follow some ethical guidelines while others don't without this being contradictory. Some might think that it is morally wrong to spend money on luxury items or that it is ethically correct to develop sustainable practices to help preserve the environment, or not.

Does jazz violate any relative moral principles? No, since breaking a moral code is impossible in relativist morality because one can merely decide to apply different moral principles since there are none that are absolute. From a relativist point of view, ethical principles are relative to individuals, so jazz is no more right than wrong depending upon people's perceptions and beliefs and what they consider true or false about jazz playing.

Having ruled out ethical relativism leaves only absolute moral principles. For jazz to be immoral, it must go against some absolute moral code(s). What moral code or ethical rule has jazz broken? Indeed, none of the three reasons given by the jazz critic above in Stearn's book describing jazz music as 'childish,' using 'melodic clichés,' or having 'monotonously simple rhythms' violates any moral principles. One might say that children's tunes, such as "London Bridge is Falling Down" or "If You're Happy and You Know It," have the three features of being musically childish, using musical cliches, and having monotonously simple rhythms. Yet, no one, especially not Stearns's jazz critic, would accuse these children's songs of being either immoral or of being anything that is "unnatural, abnormal, or just plain unhealthy," as asserted by this critic about jazz.

While thinking about this, notice nothing is unhealthy about monotonously simple rhythms, other than being possibly dull but with no discernible effect on health.

Now let's look at Stearn's critic's subsequent criticism of jazz as being 'unnatural.' There are several meanings given for "unnatural" at dictionary.com:

“1. contrary to the laws or course of nature.”

“2. at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.”

“3. at variance with what is normal or to be expected.”

“4. lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman.”

“5. not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived.”

Going through the list in order, we already know jazz cannot do anything contrary to the physical laws of nature. Everything that jazz performances accomplish is consistent with the scientific laws of nature and never opposes them.

Does jazz music or performance ever act contrary to the nature of persons? Since jazz is music, and people perform all music, music-making is consistent with people's natures rather than being contrary to it.

Jazz is just as 'normal' as any other music-making. It does not lack 'human qualities' since humans make it. Lastly, jazz is 'genuine,' often spontaneous, especially when musicians improvise. There is nothing immoral about things because they have been contrived, which only means planned or schemed.

The second meaning given for "immoral" in the dictionary.com definition was 'not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.' Does jazz do this? What principles of personal or social ethics might jazz violate? In its early development, musicians frequently played jazz in brothels in Storyville in New Orleans, where prostitution was tolerated and controlled, even if technically illegal, from 1897–1917. Because the city of New Orleans found prostitution bearable and regulated it, one might argue it was consistent with social ethics. Since many people have frequented brothels, it is unclear whether it violates any personal ethics.

Even if prostitution is immoral, it does not follow that anything associated with brothels or prostitution is morally deficient. There is nothing evil with garbage collection, and garbage collection occurs at brothels.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, even if brothels and prostitution were immoral, these fail to supply reasons for jazz's immorality any more than it proves garbage collection at brothels is bad, which it isn't.

Consider now the third meaning given above of "immoral" meaning licentious or lascivious. Something is licentious when it is:

(1) “sexually unrestrained; lascivious; libertine; lewd.”

(2) “unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral.”

(3) “going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits; disregarding rules.”

Musicians playing jazz can be sexually restrained rather than unrestrained and generally are so restrained.

Something can be lewd when it is:

(1) “inclined to, characterized by, or inciting to lust or lechery; lascivious.”

(2) “obscene or indecent, as language or songs.”

Now, some jazz songs refer to sexual matters in the lyrics. Some chanteuses can make listeners sexually aroused. But this is not distinctively unique to jazz because other musical genres, such as rock, country, or pop music, may also arouse lust. Even so, not all jazz is lascivious, so its genre cannot be considered immoral per se. Since most theorists do not find all country music, rock (like Christian rock), or pop music to be morally wrong even when some of that genre's songs promote lust or are lascivious, the same standards need to apply to jazz.

Also, other genres of music, such as gangsta rap, for example, can be considered obscene or indecent because of pejorative references or offensive suggestions or references taken as obscene, pornographic, shameless, unethical, or debauched. Wikipedia: Gangsta rap reports that Gangsta rap “has been recurrently accused of promoting disorderly conduct and broad criminality, especially assault, homicide, and drug dealing, as well as misogyny, promiscuity, and materialism.”

(Q2) Is it true that something with these three properties is immoral?[edit]

Jason Dorrier explains several problems, including the impossibility, of labeling some activity as unnatural in his essay "Is Technology Unnatural—Or Is It ‘What Makes Us Human’?."

“But what is natural, and what is unnatural—is this even a useful distinction?”

“It seems a simple question at first, one whose answer is just as simple. But it isn’t simple at all. There’s a great Bertrand Russell line that goes: “Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise.”

“A dictionary definition of unnatural describes it as “different from how things usually are in the physical world or in nature.” This requires we define “usually,” and nothing could be more vague. Every human has a different notion of “usual” depending on their local circumstances and life experience. We can substitute “usually” with the word “average,” but we’re then stuck with a figment of statistics. (Mash the world’s diversity into “average” and you’re left without a single individual case).”

“And even if we take the word “usual” seriously: Stars, planets, life—things made of matter—these are far from usual. Almost the entire natural universe is empty space. But who would characterize Earth or the Sun or a tree as unnatural?”

“If we take a broader view, then, and say anything within our universe is natural—then anything unnatural is by definition an impossibility. It might exist, but we’ll never encounter it because it lies firmly outside our realm of experience.”^[2] (bold and bold italic not in original)

If it is truly impossible for anything 'unnatural' in our universe (meaning, acting contrary to the laws of nature) to exist, why would anybody ever claim this? The answer is obvious. Whoever claims this doesn't like the thing they are labeling as unnatural and attacking. Dislike of jazz does not make the thing you dislike become unnatural; it only reveals your dislike. The fact someone dislikes something, by itself, does not make the disliked thing immoral. Some people dislike anchovies, but eating anchovies is not by itself immoral. To be immoral, there must be some reason and some violation of a moral principle, not mere distaste.

(Q3) Does jazz have these three properties?[edit]

Even in the 1950s, jazz had songs performed that had non-childish harmonies, non-cliched melodies, and complex rhythms, refuting the claim that all jazz consists of childish harmonies, cliched melodies, and monotonously simple rhythms.

Anthropologist and well-published jazz scholar John Szwed (b. 1936) explains how Jelly Roll Morton's (1890–1941) recordings in the 1920s had “complex, multi-thematic forms,” establishing that some early jazz recordings were non-simple music.

“Worse yet, Morton had the bad fortune to record his finest work in the mid-to late 1920’s, when the fashion in music was turning away from the complex, multi-thematic forms Jelly originated to embrace the much simpler 32 bar, AABA popular songs that the popular younger musicians like Louis Armstrong were playing and singing.”^[3] (bold not in original)

One of Morton's non-childish and complex compositions was "Black Bottom Stomp," which featured the New Orleans style:^[4]

🟤 the frontline of trumpet, clarinet, trombone, and a rhythm section comprising piano, banjo, double bass, and drum kit.

🟤 the structure is derived from multi-thematic ragtime structures, with a transitional interlude leading to a new key.

🟤 collective improvisation ensemble sections, the main melody woven together with a counter-melody and the accompaniment.

🟤 the counter-melody relies upon scalar patterns and arpeggios.

🟤 the instrumental performance techniques such as the trombone counter-melody glissandos, sometimes known as "tailgating."

🟤 the percussive "slapped" bass is used to keep time in the rhythm section.

In structure, John Szwed (b. 1936) informs us that in "Black Bottom Stomp," “Morton practiced what he preached, managing to incorporate in one short piece the 'Spanish tinge,' stomps, breaks, stoptime, backbeat, two-beat, four-beat, a complete suspension of the rhythm section during the piano solo, riffs, rich variations of melody, and dynamics of volume, all of the elements of jazz as he understood it.”^[5]

Here are some of the many musical traits found in Morton's compositional style:

🟤 built-in breaks.

🟤 stop-time phrases.

🟤 rhythmically lively themes.

🟤 frequent contrasts of sustained whole note/semibreve phrases with syncopated semibreve patterns.

🟤 a stomping "trio" section.

🟤 Some distinct rhythmic features of New Orleans jazz appear throughout oby mixing 2-beat with 4-beat time, stop-time, and a Charleston rhythm.^[4]

No one will find this much complexity to be childishly simple, monotonous, or having childish melodies, thereby rejecting Stearns's jazz critic's criticisms of jazz, at least for this song and many others.

Szwed tells us that Morton's jazz compositions were anything but childish in their structural development.

“More than any other pianist in the first quarter of the 20th century, Jelly Roll Morton’s compositions were balanced—structurally, rhythmically, and melodically—with composed and improvised sections carefully fitted together, sometimes so carefully that the “improvised” solos were actually written out in advance. His compositions and arrangements for his Red Hot Peppers (1926–1930) were wonders of contrasting texture and form—multi-themed pieces in which every repetition of a melody was varied in instrumentation, rhythm, and dynamics.”^[5] (bold not in original)

Stearn's jazz critic initially claimed that jazz was “unnatural, abnormal, and just plain unhealthy.” None of these claims can be substantiated for all of jazz, as we saw above for "Black Bottom Stomp." Everyone knows that the word "unnatural" is a piece of loaded language, meaning a word that has “a strong positive or negative connotation beyond its ordinary definition.” Jazz is no more abnormal than any other music. Even if we consider jazz as abnormal, meaning “not normal, not average, nor typical, or usual; deviating from a standard,” how is this a bad thing? It just makes jazz stand out.

What could make jazz unhealthy? It would be harmful if playing the music (or listening to it) made the performers (or listeners) sick. We could easily do a scientific experiment to find out. The results of such an experiment would prove jazz does not cause disease or bodily harm from music. We also know that many jazz performers (and listeners) have lived long, healthy lives.

Marshall Stearns on defining jazz[edit]

In the second paragraph above, where Stearns introduces his jazz critic, there is a curious passage about a 'complete definition of jazz.' Stearns asserts that “a definition of jazz in the most complete sense—how and why it communicates satisfying human emotions—can never be fully formulated.”

The passage is curious because of its claim that any complete definition of jazz must address the questions of how and why jazz communicates satisfying human emotions. These requirements are not what most theorists would believe is required for defining jazz.

There are three basic proposals for addressing what would constitute an effective definition for jazz. The first approach, the formal musical features approach, strives to characterize the traditional musical elements of jazz and use them to distinguish jazz from all other genres of music. For many different reasons, some theorists find this standard musical features approach to be a dead-end. They then propose a non-musical approach, which includes factors such as the politics of jazz, the sociology-cultural history of jazz, or the saga of jazz. A third approach has some theorists holding that jazz has no overall identity or identifying properties. It is an artificial construct and a made-up concept that generates itself through a community of language users. In this third approach, a definition of jazz is arbitrary since opinions could change regarding what properties jazz should or should not have in the future. For a critique of this position, see PoJ.fm's Ontdef3. "Why jazz is not just an institutionally practice-mandated musical genre."

To better understand the oddity of Stearns's requirement, consider if someone had said the same thing about a complete definition for a circus as requiring the definiens to account for how and why circuses communicate satisfying human emotions.^[6]

Wouldn't one of our first tasks justify the assumption that either jazz or circuses, do communicate human emotions? After finding out that they do so communicate, wouldn't the next question need to be, "why is the communication of human emotions relevant to defining the thing in question?" On its face, neither circuses nor jazz gets defined such that someone could distinguish them using only information from how they communicate human emotions. Communicating human emotions is achieved in all genres of music—not just jazz. Furthermore, suppose that both convey human emotions for the same reasons. These facts alone will not permit anyone to go on to distinguish circuses from jazz.

CONCLUSION: Finding out how and why something can communicate satisfying human emotions will not be a complete definition of the thing in question that does this communication.

And another thing. Stearns appears skeptical that any description could succeed in accounting for the how and why of jazz as capable of communicating human emotions. To remind you again, here are the passages in question.

“Like any other dynamic art, however, the special qualities of jazz cannot be described in a few words. The history of jazz may be told, its technical characteristics may be grasped, and the response it evokes in various individuals may be analyzed. But a definition of jazz in the most complete sense—how and why it communicates satisfying human emotions—can never be fully formulated.”^[1]

Notice that there is a hopeful tone in Stearn's remarks. He states that “the special qualities of jazz cannot be described in a few words,” seeming to suggest that it is possible to describe jazz's 'special' qualities in many words!

We get further evidence of the possibility of successfully achieving a description of jazz in this and the next paragraph, where Stearns claims that “The history of jazz may be told, its technical characteristics may be grasped, and the response it evokes in various individuals may be analyzed,” so all of this should be good news. Stearns concedes one CAN put forward a history of jazz AND one CAN describe jazz's technical characteristics! If we can specify and delineate the 'special' features that makes music be jazz, then this is what some theorists would find produces a satisfactory definition of jazz.

Stearns appears to agree with this assessment in his next paragraph when he says that "a beginning can be made" at achieving these two things by giving the history and technical characteristics of jazz.

“A beginning can be made, nevertheless, by examining jazz in a perspective of the musics of the world to show how it differs from other music. In this manner, we may arrive at an understanding of the musical objectives and the distinguishing characteristics of jazz. Any art form should be judged in terms of its own aims, . . . ”^[1]

Overall Conclusions[edit]

People have accused jazz of being immoral. The burden of proof lies on the proponents of immorality and not on the defenders of the counter claim. Immoral had several different and incompatible meanings. Of the meanings considered for immoral above, namely, (1) not moral because violating a moral principle, (2) not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics, or (3) licentious or lascivious, we saw that for the first two, jazz does not violate any moral principles, and is generally consistent with personal and societal ethics. Regarding the third issue of being lascivious, even if some jazz tunes or performances are such, it does not contaminate the entire jazz genre as being licentious or immoral in this sense any more than it does so for other genres of music, such as rock, country, or pop that can also sometimes be lascivious.

(Q1) What does immoral mean? (Q2) Is it true that something with these three properties is immoral? and (Q3) does jazz have these three properties?

Jazz Improvisation and Ethics[edit]

☀ See Garry L. Hagberg, “Jazz Improvisation and Ethical Interaction: A Sketch of the Connections,” Art and Ethical Criticism , Garry L. Hagberg (ed.) (New York: Wiley-Blackwell, hardback 2008, paperback 2011).

☀ Laurent Cugny raises the issue of authorship and its ethical implications.

“How much control musicians have over their works is another issue that needs to be raised, as authorship has consequences in analysis. In the case of a concert that has been transcribed, if the performers validate the eventual changes made through the recording process, the concert itself and the recording become two distinct objects and it matters to ensure that the recording bears the stamp of the lead performer. If the lead performer has not been able (in the case of posthumous releases in particular) or has refused to approve a recording, the analyst has to face ethical issues rather than theoretical ones. Technically, nothing stops us from analyzing a recording that we know is not fake, but is it right to do so if the main performer has not been able or has refused to take responsibility for it? In such cases, a recording is a work in itself but it is difficult to state who it is by. In other words, does a work need to be validated by its creator to be defined as his or her work?”^[7] (bold and bold italic not in original)

NOTES[edit]

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1 1.2} Marshall W. Stearns, The Story of Jazz (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), PART SIX : THE NATURE OF JAZZ, "Ch. 20: The European Tradition: Harmony," 259–260.
2. ↑ Jason Dorrier, "Is Technology Unnatural—Or Is It ‘What Makes Us Human’?," SingularityHub.com, September 4, 2015. Accessed January 13, 2022.
3. ↑ John Szwed, "Doctor Jazz: Jelly Roll Morton,".
4. ↑ ^{4.0 4.1} Wikipedia: "Black Botton Stomp."
5. ↑ ^{5.0 5.1} John Szwed, "Doctor Jazz: Jelly Roll Morton," New York: Jazz Studies Online, 15. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 26, 2011. Accessed January 13, 2022.
6. ↑ That circuses communicate emotions, whether satisfying or not, is a consequence of many factors such as these specified below as properties of circuses.
   1. Diversity: Circuses are known for their inclusive nature, embracing the extraordinary and championing wonderful acts.
   2. Skill: Circuses allow people to witness acts that they would never see elsewhere, from hair-hanging to aerial hoops where almost all the performances guarantee something extraordinary.
   3. The Story: Contemporary circuses focus more on character driven or narrative pieces often focused around one central theme. Whereas circuses used to be a series of spectacles controlled by a ringmaster, today they often include elements of story-telling or attempts to convey a message to the audience.
   4. Costumes: Circuses come with glitz and glamour using fantastic costumes helping to create a spectacle. The colours and uniqueness of the costumes contribute to what makes circus stand out from all other art forms. People love being amazed by feats of daring and skill in a carnival-like atmosphere where they might also see exotic wild animals such as elephants and tigers. A circus is a creative outlet that can be inspiring.
   “Circus shows self-management, perfection of physical strength and human power over animals. Circus – it is gestures, posture, activity.”—Hugues Hotier
   A circus will present acts that feature risks, fears, super human control, effort, and beauty.
   

   “The central concept of a circus is the perfection of human power. All circus performances show human’s ability to handle themselves or overcome barriers and obstacles. For more than 200 years circus have entertained crowds of people. Why? Acrobats, jugglers, strongmen—all these artists give the opportunity to see human capacity development. Clowns 🤡 often face self-made or society-made pullbacks which they have to overcome. Performances with animals show a person’s ability to rule over nature. Canadian circus 🎪 expert Paul Bouissac associates circus charm with primitive and even prehistoric instincts. In his view, circus artists are seen by spectators as people who have reached perfection in a very narrow field, as superhumans who are more gifted than others.”
   

   “A circus is built on the most important skills that are necessary for survival. People have to overcome obstacles and perform a variety of tasks to survive, such as collecting food, hunting, avoiding attackers, and reproducing. By analyzing these factors, any of these capabilities can be used as the basis of a circus performance. Performers in a circus often have such skills:”
   

   1. Keeping one's balance and moving through narrow spaces.
   

   2. Hanging in the air and avoiding a deadly fall.
   

   3. Overcoming obstacles while jumping or climbing.
   

   4. Throwing and catching items to reach a goal.
   

   5. Controlling animals to get the best out of them or to neutralize predatory aggression.
   

   6. Coping with social conflicts.
   

   “Many of the performances found at a circus demonstrate examples of these skills.

   Circus – a magical ritual for modern humans.
   

   “Circuses have something magical and surreal about them. French circus historian and researcher Jacob Pascal claims circuses are opportunitities to experience something outside of reality in the realm of fantasy and mysticism. In his view, circuses for spectators are the same thing as participating in a shamanistic event. Circuses offer fantasy, just like books and films. They reveal an uncommon and supernatural situation where the attendees can feel like they are in the center of it all.” ("What attracts us to the circus?," ReRiga!, 2020.)

7. ↑ Laurent Cugny, Analysis of Jazz: A Comprehensive Approach, translated by Bérengère Mauduit (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2019), 16–17. Originally published in 2009 by Outre Mesure as Analyser le jazz © 2009 by Éditions Outre Mesure. This edition of Analysis of Jazz: A Comprehensive Approach is published by arrangement with Éditions Outre Mesure.