PAUL WHITEMAN (What's he doing here?) Jazz History #10

[@marksnschwartz7190]

Chase, I love that you share and teach the history of jazz! Knowing where the music comes from is every bit as important as knowing how to play the music!

[@marksnschwartz7190]

Chase, I love that you do these! Knowing the history and where it came from is every bit as important as knowing how to play the music!

[@chasesanborn]

Thanks, Mark. I know that this series is not as directly applicable as the instructional videos on my channel, but they represent MANY hours of research and it's nice to know that others find them of value.

[@robertdehlinger6531]

The film was awesome!

[@chasesanborn]

Amazing for 1930.

[@bobboscarato1313]

Three stripe Technicolor movies didn't come out until 1934.

[@chrisyonts9652]

"IRONICALLY NAMED"? That's his name. I don't think his parents were trying to be ironic.

[@chasesanborn]

I think in the context of jazz history there is irony in his name, however it has nothing to do with his parents 'trying' to be ironic. (Irony is not typically a conscious decision.) Nor does the term apply to every person with white skin named Whiteman, and there are many of those. (As an aside, I think his father's name of Wilburforce Whiteman is a memorable alliteration.)

[@TF2SlyGuySaysHi]

Listen to whitemans jazz sides from 1925-26. His jazz is pretty hot. Its not like he never played great jazz. He was a fantastic performer.

[@chasesanborn]

Can you point to a specific example?

[@bennygoodmanisgod]

@@chasesanbornI recommend you listen to Sweet and Low Down, Charleston, China Boy, Ol’ Man River, and Happy Feet

[@caraqueno]

@@chasesanborn His recording of "My Blue Heaven" really swings for a fox trot and has good blues shading, at a time when mainstream jazz didn't usually feature anything bluesy until about 1929.

[@maxshenkwrites]

@@chasesanborn 'From Monday On" springs to mind.

[@TF2SlyGuySaysHi]

@@chasesanborn steppin in society, the charleston, flamin mamie (he cowrote)

[@bennygoodmanisgod]

I definitely think Paul Whiteman receives a lot more hate from contemporary scholars and listeners than is warranted. He was not responsible for the system that he was born into and, if anything, did alot of good to fight racism by introducing jazz to millions of white Americans for the very first time. I see him as a sort of prelude to what Benny Goodman did a decade later by straight up smashing racial barriers with an integrated band. In that aspect, both are worthy of praise. As for the title "King Of Jazz", aside from who you consider "king" to be very subjective, I think the name itself is very hyperbolic and really no one person can be the "king" of an entire genre, not least one as diverse as jazz. From what l've read, no one was more aware of that as Paul Whiteman himself. He certainly never acted like it and was always willing to give credit to black influences throughout his career. Which beyond that being what a real man does, that's a very noble endeavor considering the racial climate of the United States at the time. I myself quite like Paul Whiteman's work (most especially his 1920 recording of "Whispering" and 1930's "Happy Feet"). As a compromise (and with the benefit of hindsight), I think a better nickname for the man would be "King of the Jazz Age".

[@chasesanborn]

You aren't the first to speak up in defence of Paul Whiteman. I'm glad the tradition of bestowing hierarchal titles is past, but it's a funny thought to imagine who could be called 'king' of jazz today.

[@bobboscarato1313]

@@chasesanborn Did you mean "defense"?

[@chasesanborn]

Depends on where you live.

[@peteratkinson922]

​@@chasesanborn Agreed. From Britain!

[@chasesanborn]

You all invented the language anyway. :)

[@fromthesidelines]

Paul had great arrangers (and paid them *very* well)- including Bill Challis, Tom Satterfield and Ferde Grofe.

[@chasesanborn]

Whiteman knew how to sell his music and provided lucrative employment for a lot of musicians in the process.

[@fromthesidelines]

That he did! He signed Jack Teagarden to an exclusive five year contract (1933-'38) that paid "Big T" a *very* impressive salary.

[@takenby_cj]

we can definitely say, today, rhapsody in blue isnt jazz, but a great compose of a classic tune. i love rhapsody in blue. thx for the video!

[@chasesanborn]

It has elements of jazz, which seems to be Whiteman's direction overall.

[@gennettor8915]

Why state the racial difference between the two bandleaders? Whiteman was the King of the Jazz Era - no question about it. But you obviously do not understand that. And there is some genuine (and very superb) jazz in some of Whiteman's recordings; you obviously don't know that either. Fortunately Ellington understood.

[@chasesanborn]

I’m not sure how you define ‘King’ in this context but one is hard pressed to ignore the impact of race in jazz history. The fact that a black bandleader like Ellington and a white bandleader like Whiteman did not enjoy equal opportunity makes Duke’s comment all the more gracious. If the contention is that Paul Whiteman was on (or above?) the musical level of Duke Ellington, particularly in terms of their influence on jazz history, I’d say that’s not something about which there is no question, but thanks for sharing your viewpoint.

[@gennettor8915]

@@chasesanborn Paul Whiteman's influence on modern music was far more profound than Ellington's. In the racist society of the USA, yes that had to do with skin colour as well, but in Europe, where that issue mattered much less it was stil the same because Whiteman's music was more accessible. Ellington's records were available overhere just as easy as Whiteman's (and Ellington and Armstrong extensively toured Europe) they were mostly bought by young people and jazz buffs. The greater public bought Whiteman. But a more apt qualification of Whiteman would be "King of the Jazz Era".

[@chasesanborn]

@@gennettor8915 Whiteman's music in the 1920s was intended to be accessible to a broad public, and it made him wildly popular and successful, thus his title. Jazz has rarely enjoyed or been measured by widespread popularity. Your comment that Duke's records were bought by a niche of young people and jazz buffs speaks to his place in a lineage of innovators who push boundaries and ultimately evolve the music.

[@albertalikesbix]

It's too bad that the subject of jazz is drenched in political correctness nowadays. Not sure who gave Whiteman the title "King of Jazz", but I'd be surprised to learn it was he himself. My guess is some marketing "genius". Everything I've read about him confirms he didn't have a racist bone in his body. He understood what jazz was, and gave a jazz-tinged version of popular music which the music-buying public was ready to spend money on. Not a life I would have chosen, nor a music style that particularly appeals to me. The various Henderson bands you seem to prefer were only marginally better IMO. It was dance music after all, which is really a genre different from improvisational jazz. Not sure if you have a video on Goldkette, but he led groups which had some of the best jazz dance music ever recorded (and a lot of uninteresting period-pop). He wasn't a jazz musician either, but a musician-businessman. Not a terrific commercial success, but his bands were viable for short periods.

[@chasesanborn]

Your assessment of Whiteman concurs with mine. It is true that I prefer an undiluted approach to jazz as represented in this case by Fletcher Henderson, but I give Whiteman and his musicians their due, which is why this video appears in a jazz history series. I had a separate video on Jean Goldkette, but I think that got rolled into another, likely the one on Beiderbecke/Trumbauer. Bear in mind, this series was originally an in-person university course which I had to covert to video on-the-fly during the first year of Covid. That limited the scope and depth of the artists covered, but my primary goal was for students (and now a KZbin audience) to hear the music. Videos let me include much longer cuts than I was able to play in class, so that's one advantage to the format, aside from the ability to present to a much larger audience. Finally, I don't consider it 'politically correct' to acknowledge that many, arguably most, of the most influential jazz innovators, certainly in the first half of the history were black. You can't ignore the realities of life for those who contributed so much to a society which did not offer them equal treatment or opportunity. The histories are inextricably intertwined, however my focus in this series is generally on musical rather than societal evolution.

[@albertalikesbix]

@@chasesanborn Yes, it's certainly true that most jazz innovation came from blacks, and we are all well aware that life experience for blacks in the US was very different from that of (most) whites, except of course indentured servants and some European immigrants. Race is brought up nowadays in relation to jazz only to make the point that blacks suffered and slavery is wrong. We know. Stating it again doesn't change the past. My objection to the political correctness in jazz scholarship is that jazz is a cultural phenomenon, not a racial one. (No jazz in Africa, for example.) Jazz couldn't have developed anywhere but here, and it thus needed the American cultural milieu. (Can we go so far as to say jazz needed slavery to be born??) An equally strenuous objection is that whenever credit is given almost exclusively to blacks, somehow Creoles get passed over. Jelly and Sidney, to name only two Creole superstars, did not really share culture with southern blacks, yet their brilliance overshadowed most of their contemporaries, black or white. (Apologies to Louis! He'd agree, I'm sure.) If you're going the racial route, jazz is at minimum tri-racial: black, Creole, white. But that's not the correct way to see it. It's American, period.

[@caraqueno]

@@albertalikesbix Don't forget Caribbean music's significant contributions to jazz, particularly, the Haitian beguine and Cuban music. As Jelly Roll Morton said, "If it ain't got that Spanish tinge, it ain't jazz".

[@albertalikesbix]

@@caraquenoCertainly this is true now. But Jelly, brilliant though he was, was not exactly influential, and most Caribbean-tinged jazz was more of a novelty than a style. Besides, I think that Creole is considered Caribbean, though it's not always Spanish.

[@caraqueno]

@@albertalikesbix There's a definite Spanish element to Creole life and genetics in Lousiana. Spain possessed Louisiana for 37 years and brought a number of colonists, whose descendants intermarried with the French Creole, indigenous, and Black, as well as amongst each other. I've met many of those people in New Orleans and Los Angeles, where a sizeable Creole community lives. In the earliest recorded jazz, I can hear the influence of the Spanish habanera, a rhythm that was very popular in Cuba in the first two decades of the 20th Century. It is no accident that it would find it's way into New Orleans as a significant number of Cubans, Nicaraguans, Hondurans and Gulf Coast Mexicans, all with Afro-Latino rhythms, would influence jazz.

[@james-flynn1938]

I in the real life look like the paul whiteman guy its qute entertaining i do enjoy the guy amd all the music of that era

[@chasesanborn]

He was entertaining, for sure.

[@psalms519]

Parallels with Elvis being designated "King of Rock"

[@chasesanborn]

It all comes down to how you define 'King' I guess.

[@peteratkinson922]

Ultimately, the hype should be disregarded and the music just enjoyed. Imposed titles are often a burden for the performer

[@jimthompson606]

Paul Whiteman's San with its great musicians actually stands out as good jazz. Otherwise, he made some mighty fine straight popular music. And I love this Rhapsody in Blue however it may be classified.

[@chasesanborn]

There are quite a few Whiteman fans in the comments!

[@georgedabrowski6900]

Quick ..what was that NYTimes critic's name, again...? Riiiiiiight. Same with the critic who in his little book, an hour with music, referred to Rhapsody in Blue as circus music. His name, again, was........... hmmm...... 🐸

[@chasesanborn]

Paraphrasing Duke Ellington: "Critics sometimes concern themselves with what a person should have done rather than what they have done."

[@eselmartillo118]

i think whiteman deserves all the credit to be named the king of jazz during this time. lets consider that when jazz was being born most people did NOT like it. people liked opera and classic music, this can be seen in how victor records advertised jazz and how they advertised opera, big difference. and since we all know that whiteman played symphonic jazz blending what the people liked with jazz led to his success. as well, by doing this he successfully introduced jazz as a mainstream genre. because of this i do believe that whiteman deserves his title, but i agree with bennygoodmanisgod that maybe a more aproppiate title may be "the king of the jazz age". i must say, that even though whiteman didnt really play "pure" jazz, he does have some very hot and pure sides. such as the unissued 1927 wang wang blues, the orthophonic take of san, the charleston, manhattan mary, smile, tiger rag, from monday on, farewell blues and much more

[@chasesanborn]

You are not alone in this comments section in defending Whiteman. There is an obvious question of what the title 'King' means in historical context. Best? Most popular? Most influential? Most innovative?

[@eselmartillo118]

@ i think it could be all of those. best could be subjective, but he was certainly the most poular, influential and innovative.

[@newwavepop]

The thing is Jazz is about the only music genre i have almost no interest in but i like a lot of Whitemans work. "REAL Jazz" does nothing for me and have never understood the huge appeal for others.

[@chasesanborn]

There are foods I dislike which others love. We each have our tastes and preferences.

[@ducciocastelli7560]

King my foot.

[@chasesanborn]

The debate rages on. This video has generated more divergent positions than any other in the series.