Harkness and Jazz (Part 2)

If you haven’t been reading this series, you might want to catch up with these posts:

Church piano music history: The background
Robert Harkness – The man who pioneered church piano music
Harkness and Jazz (Part 1)

A fascinating look at the way Harkness understood music is found in Lesson 28 of The Harkness Piano Method.  This chapter is entitled “The peril of jazz.”

Here are some excerpts from the chapter.

It is a true axiom that “a stream can rise no higher than its source.”  And the power of anything to lift and carry a load is dependent on its own inherent strength.  Jazz continues to demonstrate its inability to ennoble and elevate.

The modern musical trend, not only in jazz but in the highest forms of modern classics, indicates a strong tendency in the direction of the chaotic.  Close harmonies, intricate chords with a mixture of discord and dissonance, mark the present-day mode of composition.

We know that jazz never came from the mind of God.  Its chaotic content indicates this.  Look at the word of the Apostle Paul in I Cor. 14:33: “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace.”  Music has never offered such confusion as is suggested in jazz.

One writer in a national magazine has said with truth, “Jazz is the product of the mind of the untutored savage, served to the American public on a silver platter.”  And this is exactly the fact in the case.  My own experience in a great many of the islands of the South Seas verifies this outspoken statement.

Its peculiar rhythmic beat and accent are a reproduction of the drumbeat which accompanies the vile orgies of the barbaric, unchristian native.  The combination of weird trombone tones is but the imitation of many a fierce jungle call.

The harmony of jazz is both intricate and confusing.  It cannot be denied that the jazz harmonists are unusually clever in the arrangement of their music.  We find two sets of harmony in jazz.

Two rhythms are emphasized, a regular rhythm and a superimposed rhythm.  It is the conflict of these rhythms which makes jazz so dangerous.  The double rhythm has its origin in the weird and wild tribal orgies of the untutored savage.

So what should we take away from this kind of writing?  First of all, practically every statement above is rubbish.  Harkness simply didn’t know what he was talking about.  He did not understand jazz so he called it chaotic.  He did not understand its harmony so he called it dissonant.  He did not know where jazz originated.  He did not know the difference between music of what he called the “South Seas” and African music.  And there is no double harmony in jazz or for that matter, double rhythm.

Of course, Harkness was merely reflecting the common wisdom of his time.  The church was clearly very scared of jazz.  The reasons why are not simple and there is enough blame to go around on both sides of the issue.

First of all, jazz was associated with depravity, and in some cases, that association was correct.  Some songs had immoral lyrics and there was plenty of immorality associated with the clubs and halls where jazz was played.  Many of the jazz musicians themselves were immoral (through the ages, musicians have certainly struggled in that area).

Jazz was also used for dancing and many associated it to various degrees with sex.

On the other hand, much of the opposition to jazz clearly had racial overtones.  Those of us who were not alive during those times cannot really fathom the overt racism that existed in that society.  And the church was not exactly trying to tear down barriers; as a matter of fact, they were lagging behind.  Even in the 1960’s, Billy Graham faced fierce opposition as he bravely fought segregation within the church.

Whites were afraid of the influence of African-Americans on culture.  They saw jazz as dangerous because it tore down racial barriers; as I have said before, it is a result of a marriage between African and Western music.

To be fair though, it was not just white people objecting to jazz.  Many African-Americans also considered jazz to be depraved and wanted no part of it.

So, both sides were at fault.  Jazz had its sordid associations but some racist detractors exaggerated the problems to the point where jazz was considered an unredeemable musical form .  References to “savages” and “wild jungle calls” might have helped stir up the troops, but they were very silly statements to make.

What can we learn from this history?  And how should jazz be viewed today?

First of all, I have made it clear that I believe that jazz is art music.  It is ingenious in many ways and its musicians have greatly contributed to the development of Western music especially in harmony.  I have never met anyone that understands jazz that believes it is chaotic or dissonant.

On the other hand, I am not implying the church was wrong to reject jazz during those days.  Even today, though jazz has largely shed its more sordid associations, a church can make its own choices about its use.

But I would hope that we would try to make decisions based on objective knowledge rather than personal bias.  And we should strive to really understand a type of music before we reject it.  In the case of jazz, my observation is that the church failed those two tests.

That is all I am going to discuss regarding Harkness, and for that matter, jazz.  From here, I am going move on to a few other prominent church pianists that followed him.