A Rhetorical Analysis Of High Modernists By Bruce Johnson

In his article, Bruce Johnson discusses how the production and commodification of jazz has changed to accommodate modernist culture. A crucial element to jazz is the use of improvisation. Johnson explains that it is difficult to embody jazz in a score because jazz is produced within the performer itself. “High Modernists” have changed and “deformed” jazz in order to conform it to their ideals. The author does a good job discussing how jazz has become deformed and why it has become altered as a result of making it a commodity.

Johnson references various scholarly people, including Goddard and Ted Gioia, as evidence to support his claims. He explains that in order to suit to the modernist aesthetics, true jazz is at risk of diminishing. The author states that high modernists hold intellectual challenges that violate jazz in order to “legitimize its cultural claims on our attention” (Johnson, 6). In other words, they apply their modernist views to jazz, thus transforming it into something entirely different.

Modernist’s discourses are more political then the actual aesthetics of the music itself.

Gioia, in an attempt examine jazz as a high art form, actually establishes his conclusions with modernist principles. Johnson states that Gioia views improvisation as spontaneous and unplanned, and thus try’s to apply modernist standards to the music. This supports Johnson’s claim that modernist principles are changing jazz.

The author also uses Goddard as a reference to support this claim that jazz is becoming deformed as a result of modernist ideals and the commodification of jazz. Johnson explains that Goddard separates race and the music. Goddard presents the results of “a high and low” antipode. The author states that Goddard supports the belief that black people have a “natural” ability to improvise. Although this assumption is false, these beliefs encourage modernist ideas regarding jazz music to be held true. As a result, this deforms jazz and falsifies

it.
Johnson recognizes that jazz is difficult to make a commodity and that modernists disembody jazz in order to make it marketable. Commodification is supported by modernism and their cultural politics, and Johnson believes that this is destroying jazz. Hear Me Talkin’ to Ya, Johnson explains, “is not only one of the most compelling insights into the history of the music, its title is an imperative which should be heeded” (Johnson, 10). The author is stating that the song Hear Me Talkin’ to Ya is the perfect example of how jazz is being altered and obscure historical accounts of jazz are consequential to modernist production and commodification of it. The author suggests that we need to recognize that the true embodiment of jazz is changing in order to fit a specific culture.
While the key points that Johnson pointed out are precise, there are some things that I do not agree with. Johnson reveals that due to modernist culture and political discourse, the commodification of jazz is actually reshaping it into something entirely different. I agree with the author’s statements, however, his does not only happen to jazz music. Although it may sound harsh, this is life. Society determines the production of everything, from the commodification of music to television shows. For example, songs that come onto the radio may be altered through the use of censorship. The lyrics of the song are altered in order to accommodate a certain culture and thus the message of the musician is changed. I do not agree with Johnson when he states modernist are “killing it softly”(Johnson, 6). Modernist aesthetics are changing jazz, however, everything evolves over time and jazz is not exempt.