History of Jazz Education: A Survey of Modern Discourse

As with jazz itself, defining jazz education brings about a multitude of issues and raises both philosophical and cultural implications in it’s attempt to find meaning and place within shared discourse. In many respects this becomes the crux of assessing the history of jazz education; the emergence of jazz education being vital to its understanding. Jazz education has come to be accepted as “an institutionalized movement which began in the mid-to late 1940’s and which focused on teaching jazz performance, particularly in big bands, in bop-oriented groups, and in choirs” (Kennedy, New Grove Dictionary of Jazz, 2nd ed.)

When comparing the history of jazz education, a defined subdivision of traditional or classical music education, a marked distinction between both disciplines becomes apparent. Grove Music Online defines classical music education from its early Greek and Roman origins. A history marked by both mythical and seemly primal narratives is in direct contrast to the institutional makings of jazz education. Warren Anderson’s entry for music education begins with “The earliest evidence concerning music instruction is the Homeric poems and is both scanty and puzzling. In the Odyssey, Homer used two bards as characters: Phemius of Ithaca, who claimed to be ‘self-taught’ and then added ‘but a god has inspired ways of song of every kinds in my heart’ (xxii.347-8)” (Grove Music Online). In contrast, the history of jazz education is broken into two distinct periods of time: precursory and definitive.

The precursory period is predominantly in line with the development of jazz however lacks the authentic entity of a stand alone discipline as jazz had for itself. Kennedy entitles this period as “jazz education before “jazz education”: African American contributions”. By using the term ‘contributions’, Kennedy is diluting the significance and role of African Americans in jazz education and is removing further ownership from present institutions of jazz education. Early institutions and student groups such as the Jenkins Orphanage Bands, Colored Waifs Home for Boys, Jazz Demons, Tuskegee Institute, and Chickasaw Syncopators fostered notable jazz musicians during the time of jazz’s conception. In addition to this, notable educators such as Fess Whatley, W.C. Handy, Major N. Clark Smith, Alonzo Lewis, Charles Watts, William L. Dawson not only taught many jazz musicians of the time but laid the foundation for future educators such as Walter Dyett and Samuel R. Browne. Despite having institutional evidence and a narrative similar to those that later appear in the 1940’s, jazz education was neither defined nor separated from the music itself until later. Kennedy’s reasoning for the illegitimacy of early jazz education is due to the nature and content of the instruction. Kennedy contends that “because these institutions and teachers usually set out to convey a solid grounding in the rudiments of music (not necessarily a pedagogy specific to jazz), they wrongfully come to be excluded from the commonplace notion of jazz education.” (The New Grove Dictionary)

Taking into an account of the systematic approach to legitimizing an academic discipline during this time reveals an greater understanding as drawn upon by contextual evidence surrounding mainstream social and moral beliefs. The dichotomy between the two disciplines (classical music education and jazz education) can be attributed to the acceptance of jazz education by academia, a notably elite and homogenous brand of european established ideas. Characteristic of its time, jazz pushed against the mainstream likings of the traditional western european doctrine of music and culture. Mareen Anderson’s article “The White Reception of Jazz in American” categorizes the objections of critics into two classes: those who attempted to understand and those who attempted to discredit. Both groups used black stereotypes as means to validate and justify their claims.

“In striving to analyze and to understand the concert of jazz music, white critics often hid behind black stereotypes in order to explain the increased fascination the world had with jazz. Some, in utter contempt, wrote that jazz plagiarized and them mutilated the works of classical, white composers. Still other critics maintain that jazz as dangerous, unhealthy, or, even worse, a form of bayou voodoo.” (Anderson, pg. 136, 2004)

Established in its time as illegitimate to mainstream conventions, the narrative of early jazz education, much like jazz itself, became rooted in false notions and were accepted as fact in modern discourse. Murphy’s (1994) depiction of Len Bowden’s experience at the Great Lakes Naval Training center is an example of continuing with this narrative. Murphy’s dismissive language separates the work of Bowden from jazz education itself. Kenneth Prouty (2005) goes further to suggest that Murphy’s motive when describing Len Bowden’s program is to fit a overarching institutional narrative:

“Murphy’s use of the terms “testing ground” and “catalyst” implies that such a program was a preliminary or intermediate step toward something bigger and better that followed. Such musicological tropes are common within the construction of the history of jazz itself…such language is ultimately dismissive in the construction of an institutional narrative.” (pg. 84 – 85).

As it happens, the first two institutions that gained acceptance in both the historical and academic sense for jazz education were two programs based in mainstream european or traditional foundations. The Schillinger House of Music and the North Texas State Teacher College are among the predominant institutions for the “start” of jazz education. While Pourty suggests the motivation behind Murphy’s dismissal of Bowden’s contribution are for reasons of fulfilling an institutional narrative for jazz education, there are clear tones of preference of the european or white contributions over the African American contributions.

The emergence of jazz education and the period prior to its acceptance among institutions presents unique debate in both jazz education and performance. Authenticity is rooted in jazz and in the discourse that attempts to define it. As with many art disciplines, the first stages of its conception are perceived as the base for all works which in turn implies the highest level of authenticity. Tony Whyton (2006) categorizes this period in jazz history as “pre-institutional” and suggests a set values (‘natural’ values) that continue to be held by select musicians and educators (pg. 73). A seemingly mythical view of natural talent and god-given skills accompanies this philosophy and puts modern institutions as the bearer for all authenticity. However Whyton suggests that “this seems to ignore the fact that musicians throughout the jazz community, historically, and in the present, have used both educational methodology and social institutions for personal development…institutions such as the jazz club and big band are governed by their own set of institutional codes and conventions…” (pg 74). Whyton goes on to present the documented development of Louis Armstrong as a case to “dispel the myth of the jazz genius as being divorced from everyday rigours of education.” (pg 74) The denial of academic rigours in the development of early jazz musicians is in large part an attempt to separate intellectualism with jazz and its creators. Rather than acknowledge the common threads of modern institutionalism and intellectualism, critics chalk up the abilities of early jazz musicians as simply native intuition.

Institutional Narrative

As the culture of jazz encapsulated both performance and education during the early years of its conception, jazz education was not recognized as an accepted discipline until it became “institutionalized” in the 1940’s. Prouty (2005) defines the institutional narrative as “ a series of institutionally grounded events agreed upon by the field as a whole as having a certain significance, are connected in such a way that one seems to flow logically into the next” (pg. 80). As discussed previously, this movement began with such institutions as the Schillinger House and North Texas State College in the 1940’s, however, the movement did not reach full fruition until the 1960’s and 1970’s.

The 1950’s offers a unique problem to the institutional narrative of jazz education history. During the 1950’s, the institutional narrative points to only two developments: the National Stage Band Competition and the Lenox School of Jazz. The National Stage Band Clinics falls into the institutional narrative through its direct relation to the North Texas State College and its educators Dr. Gene Hall and Leon Breeden (International Musician, 1961). The Lenox School of Jazz was a summer institute that was organized similar to other institutions and likely was influenced by the proximity of such institutions as Tanglewood and the Schillinger House. As the 1960’s and 1970’s came about there was a sudden and significant development of jazz institutions. Pourty examines this change and questions the role of the institutional narrative in the growth of jazz education in the 1960s. The institutional narrative would suggest that the civil rights movement, particularly on college campuses, played a major role in the fruition jazz education. Prouty agrees with the role that Civil Rights played however,also believes that this only adds to the institutional narrative and denies credit to the jazz community.

“…Synder ulimately reinforces the institutional narrative by his failure to connect jazz education in the 1960’s with the development in the jazz community. Why was jazz the beneficiary of such developments, while other forms of black-influenced music (e.g. rock and soul) generally were excluded…The result is once again is an institutional narrative that is disconnected from the jazz community, one that excludes the musical/cultural process of that community as a major factor in historical construction.” (pg, 88)

Separating itself from the jazz community, jazz education is voided of all contributions and significance from its original creators. Despite its continued growth and development during the 1950’s, jazz education from the institutional perspective did not change. The motivation and reasoning behind istheir perspective is too simply divest the african american community from jazz education education and allow white institutions to gain ownership and control. Prouty contends that “the institutional narrative positions them as precursors to the “real thing”, when jazz will enter more mainstream (read: white controlled) educational institutions” (pg. 86)

The consequences of the institutional narrative on jazz education extends beyond the historical to reach the philosophical and methodological understandings. By divesting itself from the jazz community, jazz education within institutions becomes divided between the “cerebral vs. soulful”. This debate pushes through on highest levels of jazz pedagogical discourse and becomes a question on the role of jazz education: can jazz be taught? David Baker, an African-American educator, has suggested the academic practices of jazz education and the practices within jazz culture are the same (Baker, 200). However Bob Brookmeyer, a white performer, composer, and educator, says “I am afraid we are stuck with the music schools. ‘Real life- as my generation knew and experienced it – does not exist anymore…” (Haines, pg. 39) Based on the institutional narrative suggested by Prouty, these perspectives appear to contradict the belief that jazz education was strictly divested from all jazz culture. This also goes further to dispute the absolute racial disparities between institutionalized jazz education and ‘real’ jazz. However, Prouty is correct in suggesting the debate is not about the differences and deficiencies in institutionalized jazz education but rather similarities. The case between David Baker’s experience and Bob Brookmeyer’s might be anecdotal however it does reveal the complexity and nuances surrounding the culture of jazz education.

Tony Whyton (2006) describes jazz as containing polarities but cautions against trends within the discourse of jazz education to “oversimplify the narrative into binary oppositions” (pg. 68). As Prouty seeks to finds similarities between jazz culture and jazz similarities, Whyton believes it is important to “take a step back and examine the complex framework within which jazz education operates, as it is central to understanding issues” (pg. 68) Both Prouty and Whyton are suggesting that while there are differences between jazz culture and jazz education, and significant contentions developed within the institutional narrative, the discourse among the jazz community and jazz educators should reflect why such beliefs exist and how advancement can be made. Whyton recognizes the issues within the institution and asserts that “while providing musician with opportunities to cultivate and benchmark their skills, the majority of pedological publications do not encourage critical engagement with the educators’ methods or underlying methodologies, or indeed, offer dialogues on the nature of of jazz education” (pg. 66)

Canon

Whyton’s call for critical engagement within jazz education is one that focuses on methods. Methods within jazz education is similar to recordings and artists in mainstream jazz; there is a developed canon that defines its existence and practice. As with the critical discourse that seeks to define the role of canon within the history of jazz, the critical discourse correlated to the methodological canon within jazz education is one of constant debate and evolution. The canon, like the emergence of jazz education and the institutional narrative contains a unique history in the way it has been written about. Examining these writings and the history they attempt to depict is fundamental to the overall understanding the canon within jazz education.

The development of the methodological canon, as claimed by those adhering to the institutional narrative, is to have begun in the 1940’s with the founding of the North Texas State Teachers College, and the Schillinger House of Music. This claim however is short sighted in respects of its perspective and understanding for the medological canon. Defining canon in music education requires a broader definition in order to (1) include the jazz community and (2) recognize the basic fundamentals of education and learning.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines education as “the culture or development of personal knowledge or understanding, growth of character, moral and social qualities, etc., as contrasted with the imparting of knowledge or skill.” Taken the wide scope of education, it would be misguided to not recognize the early role of the methodological canon during the emergence of jazz itself. In recognizing this perspective, Prouty suggests:

“…the biggest problem is the way in which jazz education’s history has treated nearly every learning context prior to the incorporation of academic programs as being cut from the same pedagogical cloth, generally as part of a larger oral tradition…many jazz musicians were familiar with reading and writing musical notation, and certainly used recordings as a staple of their learning systems…” (pg. 89)

While learning may have been dominated by the use of recordings and the “oral tradition”, Prouty suggests that this, as unbeknownst to critics that pushed for the institutional narrative, was in fact seemingly identical to methodologies and canon used in early institutions (pg. 90). However, Prouty also points to evidence for the written transmission of jazz education through publications such as Downbeat magazine and Metronome magazine. While criticized as “borderline tabloidism” and being dominated by white musicians in its conception, Downbeat and Metronome magazines played an important role in critiquing performances and sharing pedological insight (Welburn, 1987). Teddy Wilson’s presentation of constructing chords and soloing was presented in Metronome magazine and can given insight to the early understanding and dissemination of the methodological canon. Having studied at the Tuskegee Institute, Teddy Wilson’s approach and understanding for chords and soloing is likely to share similar foundation for his early education. Simply categorizes the pre-institutional period of jazz education as strictly built among as “oral” methodological canon again divests the jazz community and specifically the African Americans, of the intellectual and prestige of the institutionalized jazz canon (prouty, pg. 94).

As the jazz community grew in the 1930’s and 1940’s, so did the theoretical complexities on the music. Aided by growth of publications, the methodological canon grew to present a more complex approach to understanding and performing jazz. The contrast between the development of musicians such as Coleman Hawkins and Louis Armstrong confirms evolving methodological canon within jazz education (Prouty). Cole Hawkins transition from the blues based Swing era to the chromatic and theoretical based Bebop era sets a lasting change in the methodological canon of jazz education. While debated and discussed within the critical discourse of jazz education, Bebop would become and continue to be the basis for jazz education. The development and understanding for the scale/chord relationship is a product of Bebop and is accepted as the mainstream within jazz education’s methodological canon.

George Russell was the first to translate the language of jazz and the complexities of bebop into a published work. Russell theoretical system “The Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization” created a “unified theoretical framework” (Prouty, pg. 97) that would set the foundation for both educators and institutions. This advancement within the methodological canon and its history offers a authentic representation of jazz education while also reconciling the relationship between the jazz community and jazz education and institution.

As Russell’s method advanced the relationship of the jazz community and jazz education, the late 1960s through the 1970’s saw growth connecting jazz musicians and educators. The increase in teacher development with emphasis on multicultural education led to call for qualified teachers. MENC’s 1967 Tanglewood symposium called for the inclusion of all musical forms including Jazz. Prouty contends “the first generation of jazz educators were primarily academics rather than widely recognized jazz performers…in the 1960’s a number of individuals began to enter the field who were able to satisfy both requirements, possessing…recognized status within the jazz community…[and] academic training and/or advances degrees ” (pg. 98).

Certainly the addition of musicians from the jazz community with educational backgrounds helped form a more authentic methodological approach to jazz education. However, many critics and musicians would argue that the canon continues to reflect an institutionalized concept which dominates or controls the discourse within both the educational and performance communities culture. Whyton (2006) suggests that the canon developed within the institution, while justified, stifles discourse and it turn diminishes the it’s value among critical teaching and learning. Accepting a methodological canon for learning both jazz performance and history is highly detrimental to its relevance and place with institutions.

The canon plays a subtle role in neutralising the effectiveness of education as a subversive or critical tool..The construction and celebration of a jazz canon facilitates a quasi-hegemonic form of control over discourse, in which education is used as a support mechanism to disseminate its power to the wider jazz community…buying into the ideology of the canon, educators not only run the risk of relegating jazz to a fossilized museum piece, they also lose the power of critical insight that is afforded to education by its unique place in society” (Whyton, pg. 75)

There is a final written work that can examined, in many ways, to summarize the emergence of jazz education, the institutional narrative, and the methodological canonization of jazz education. When analysing the history and growth of jazz education in secondary schools, there is significant institutional growth, however little musical growth. John Kuzmich and Lee Bash’s book Complete Guide to Instrumental Jazz Instruction, offers insight into the methodical canon, institutional narrative, and emergence of jazz education .

This guide offers insight for band directors on how to create a jazz program and includes sections on building a large jazz ensemble, applied jazz techniques, and putting it together (budgeting and promotion). The beginning chapter discusses “Why Join the Jazz Bandwagon” which includes the philosophy of jazz education and the history of jazz in public school education. The philosophy of jazz education is broken down in seven categories or reasons: (1) Jazz is a valid musical art form, (2) Jazz is America’s only original art form (3) jazz is a product of the twentieth-century sociological and technological acceleration and change, (4) jazz education is a valuable, (5) integral part of music education and American culture, (6) no other aspect of music education can develop originality and creativity better than improvisation, which is the heart of jazz, (7) jazz avocations and vocations are prominent in today’s society (pg 5 -7). Within these reasons, the authors make only two passing mentions of jazzs development by of African American’s.
“The phonograph and phonograph record allowed white musicians to imitate and later practice what, up to that time had been a black folk-art phenomenon” (pg. 6)

“…tremendous sociological changes [took] place…Jazz matured with these changes…the contribution made to the world by the black musician, is part of man’s struggle to understand the world.” (pg. 6)

In the first quote, the authors dismiss the development of jazz by African Americans by categorizing jazz as merely a phenomenon. This narrative evokes the mythical, pre-institutionalized narrative of jazz education and further places it into the canon of institutionalized jazz education. The second quote places the struggles of the African American’s as a common struggle of man, taking away the distinctively oppressive culture in which African Americans experienced by presenting their struggles as comparable to the generalized man. Similar to the emergence of jazz and jazz education being label as the period of african contribution, the authors suggest that the creation of jazz as with the struggle is equally shared by the mainstream white culture.

The chapter goes on to present the history of jazz within public school (secondary) in a chronological, 31 bullet point survey of major developments. The first point describes early jazz education in schools as “Prior to the second World War, most high school jazz ensembles were student-directed with little or no encouragement from the school band director” (pg. 8). From this point, the authors follow the history of literature, government funding, program growth, associations, as well as ‘notable’ institutions such as the 1953 jazz festival in Brownsville, Texas. Within this history there is no mention of notable pioneers in high school band/jazz educators such as Walter Dyett, Major N. Clark Smith, or Samuel R. Browne. These African American band directors were pivotal to the pedagogy of jazz education in secondary schools, however they are left out of the history jazz in public schools.

While the content, or lack thereof, within this book is troubling and misguided, the intentions should not be assumed as deliberate or acted upon with enmity by the authors. The lack of awareness and understanding is merely a product of jazz education. Published in 1984, the knowledge and understanding for education is built upon the development of jazz education in the 1960’s and 1970’s. As the author’s suggest, the jazz education ‘bandwagon’ was popular during this time and was heavily influenced by the institutional narrative and current/mainstream methodical canon. What appears be clearly evident is a deeply rooted foundation of jazz education that has been built upon false narratives and strict non-conforming canon. This foundation has found itself to be accepted among the jazz education community. And within this community there is an inherent dichotomy between the educators/critics that accept the status quo and the musicians and challenge and advance the critical discourse within music education. The latter of the two, as Prouty and Whyton suggest, are pivotal to the growth and place of jazz education with academia and the jazz community.