MASARYK UNIVERSITY

Faculty of Social Studies Department of Sociology

Coding Jazz Performing Music Criticism in Stalinist Bachelor thesis

Author: Dominik Ţelinský UČO: 397500 Supervisor: Dominik Bartmanski, M.A., Ph.D.

1

I would like to thank my advisor, Dominik Bartmanski for his personal effort, priceless comments and general help with the development of this thesis. My gratitude goes to Zuzana Ţelinská who corrected the language of the text and Lucie Kučerová who reviewed it and criticized it, as well.

2

I hereby declare that I wrote this thesis independently, using only the sources cited.

In , date: ……………………………………

Dominik Ţelinský: ………………………………

3

Content

1. A Brief Introduction 5 2. After the Victorious February of 1948 5 3. Performing Criticism 8 3.1. Dancing the critique. Is the act of criticism a performance? 8 3.2. Elements of performance 9 3.2.1. Background symbols and foreground scripts 10 3.2.2. Actor & Audience 11 3.2.3. Means of symbolic production 12 3.2.4. Mise-en-scène 12 3.2.5. Social power 13 3.3. Fusing the elements to mediate meaning 13 3.4. Criticism under Totalitarian Rule 14 4. Targeting Jazz 17 4.1.1. Briefly about Jazz in the Soviet Union 17 4.1.2. What about Czechoslovakia? 18 4.1.3. In the USSR 20 4.2. The East, the West and the Meaning of the Jazz 21 4.2.1. Construction of the Eastern and the Western 21 4.2.2. Authentic & Inauthentic Jazz 22 4.2.3. The Tool of Oppression 23 4.3 Space, Subculture and Form 24 4.3.1. Spaces of Jazz 24 4.3.2. Jazz Subculture 26 4.3.3. Jazz as a Formal Genre 28 5. Conclusion 30 6. A Note at the End 33 Bibliography 34 Name Index 40 Annotation 43 Anotácia 43

4

1. A Brief Introduction

This bachelor thesis provides an analysis of tense relationship between Czechoslovak communist party and jazz music during the Stalinist era (roughly 1948-1956). The first, introductory part acquaints the reader with basic historical and social events and signalizes the cultural sociological approach I am utilizing throughout the whole thesis. The second part is then devoted to analysis of contemporary music and art criticism through the scope of relatively recent theory of Cultural Pragmatics (Alexander 2006) and the theory of social performance. The third part offers a description of the contemporary interpretation of jazz music and its sociological analysis, as well as attempt to identify the reasons (subculture, space, and formal specificity) why jazz was rendered problematic by contemporary ideologues. The thesis ends with a conclusion and a note on the limitations of my work. To understand the problem and to develop the following thesis I have used, apart from theoretical conceptions, empiric material such as memoires of important figures of Czechoslovak jazz scene (Dorůţka 1997; Traxler 1980), coeval music criticism (e.g. Zhdanov 1949a; Gorodinsky 1952, etc.), contemporary press (Hudební rozhledy; Kulturní politika), and present-day articles in music periodicals (e.g. Dorůţka 2011a; Matzner 2014, etc.).

2. What Happened after the Victorious February?

Political turmoil that escalated between the 17th and the 25th February 1948 and climaxed in communist coup d‟état is widely considered to be a source of collective trauma in Czechoslovakia, for it, in the end, resulted in forty one years of pro-Soviet socialist regime. Close connection with the Soviet Union, the outbreak of the Cold War, closure of borders and anti-Western paranoia led at the time to establishment of totalitarian rule which aimed to uniformity (Macura 1992: 46) and absolute control of every particle within the system (Arendt 1996: 551). To sustain its position, totalitarian movement had to maintain its dynamics by constant search for and fight with an “objective” enemy (Arendt 1996: 585) – in this case the bourgeoisie, America, the . Communists began to occupy key positions in many spheres of the system yet before the Victorious February of 1948 (Traxler 1980: 265) and after the takeover they swiftly gained control over the entire public sphere, bureaucracy and politics. In order to do so, communist

5 members and employees of virtually every organization or enterprise (radio stations, publishing houses, hotels, unions, syndicates, etc.) concentrated themselves into “action committees” that investigated background and ideological affiliation of other participants in these organizations and purged administrative structures of non-communist elements that could endanger the smooth flow of takeover or defy the application of communist policy in the future. Such pattern applied to collectivization of private property of “kulaks” (wealthy peasants) and private enterprises as well. This radical and swift change influenced directly everyday life of Czechoslovak population and caused vast transformation of social reality. To uphold stability after such drastic intrusion into social life, communist authorities had to develop, or apply ready-made strategies for re-integration of Czechoslovak society. While manifestly fighting the Christianity, they utilized almost religious approach to unify the symbolic universe of the population. Since, as Émile Durkheim wrote, “moral remaking can be achieved only through meetings, assemblies, and congregations in which individuals, pressing close to one another, reaffirm in common their common sentiments” (Durkheim [1912] 1995: 430), primary for this process of re-integration and unification became secular rituals such as 1st May marches and later (after 1955) Spartakiads, mass athletic demonstrations (Macura 1992: 65-73). It is a ritual that manifests new political and social situation through semantic and spatial organization of symbols, for they are the “repeated episode of simplified cultural communication” (Alexander 2006: 29) that makes social reality intelligible for particular agents. Such rituals were not only massive; they permeated everyday life of people in form of constant ideological trainings and work sessions or conferences. It goes without saying that such rituals may have, for the same purpose, been utilized constantly in Western society as well. The structuring principle of symbolic system of Czechoslovak communism was the narrative of class struggle, based on theory of Karl Marx and further interpreted by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and other theorists and ideologues of Communism. After the Second World War and Victorious February, this narrative quickly took on geographical form – Western hemisphere of the globe became interpreted as colonized by imperialist and capitalist power, while the East was a land of free proletariat under the rule of Joseph Stalin. To this basic narrative, or myth (Barthes [1957] 1972), a bundle of other, specifying myths – such as the myth of the leader as the father of the working class (Macura 1992: 46-53) – was attached. One must not forget that this narrative of clash between proletariat and bourgeoisie or East and West had

6 strong moral dimension, understanding it as a war between Good and Evil (Alexander 2003: 3). To ensure their position, communists, similarly to Hitler‟s National Socialists‟ racial policy (Arendt 1996: 527), utilized trope of undeniable science of dialectical materialism that enables one to understand the objective course of history. It was hoped that through spreading of this mythology and practicing rituals, as well as introduction of new symbols and recodification of the old ones, it would be possible to unify symbolic consciousness of population and create symbolic boundaries between citizens mutually and between citizens and state apparatus. Rituals and myths played cognitive role: specified what is of special significance and orientated people‟s attentions toward specific objects (Lukes 1975: 301). To establish new boundaries, old ones had to be disrupted – this was to be attained via constant paranoid search for inner enemy, again, inherent to totalitarian system (Arendt 1996: 583). Paranoia of regime induced feeling of distrust and fear, enhanced by tragic massive rituals of purification – the show trials that manifestly proved existence of “reactionary” powers inside of People‟s democratic state of Czechoslovakia and shown exemplary treatment of such excesses (such trials took place in most countries of Eastern bloc, e.g. Hodos 1987). To certain extent, this experiment was, thanks to absolute monopoly on symbolic and physical power, successful – as Egon Bondy says, “It was impossible to resist this attack and most people were unable to at least start to defend themselves, for it was absolutely unexpected and its massiveness was, even after the experience with Nazi propaganda, unprecedented. It did not take much time to see the effect. Enthusiasm for Stalinism was, mostly among the youth, massive.” (Bondy 2008: 63) Since the sphere of culture and cultural production was considered to be an important source of information and hence a potential threat to homogeneity of freshly established Czechoslovak people‟s democracy‟s ideological structure, it had to be purified of non- communist elements as well. On the other hand, culture – art, literature, press, radio, and later television, was the medium that enabled the regime to transmit, through individual performance, the abovementioned unified symbolic system to whole population. Relative ideological coherence of cultural sphere was achieved through exclusion of openly non- communist authors from artistic unions, or authors with history of collaboration with Nazi regime, from artistic unions (Knapík 2006). Authors who did not belong to such official structures were denied the access to material means of production of art, music and literature and had to satisfy themselves with clandestine

7 samizdat editions and with minimal audience, consisting, at best, of their friends and relatives (Knapík 2006; Janoušek 2007). These authors, or whole genres of art, had to be chosen and their work interpreted as an attack against communist rule. It must be remembered that the exclusion and stigmatization of producers of cultural good might have had numerous reasons: as Vrba (1998: 282) argues, those were not only ideological – it could have been result of personal conflict or backwards revision of literary canon. Some formerly accepted products (this concerns mainly literature) might have been banned simply because they fell out of fashion even in party – those texts became simply grotesque documents of nonsensical time. This is why even writings of Joseph Stalin and were after 1956 blacklisted. To target and symbolically pollute cultural producers who did not fit the new vision of art that was taken ready-made from pens and mouths of Soviet ideologues, was the role of the critic. In the sphere of culture, it was the critic, who became more than a gatekeeper, a watch dog of Czechoslovak people‟s democracy, responsible for upholding the borders of Soviet Union and its satellites and keeping the poisonous elements away. Following text attempts to understand the tension between Soviet and Czechoslovak critics and jazz music, method that was used to deal with it as well as reasons that led to special attention it received.

3. Performing Criticism

3.1. Dancing the critique. Is the act of criticism a performance?

Considering the importance attributed to music criticism in contemporary literature (e.g. Zhdanov 1949a: 45), it seems that it was perceived as one of the most important elements which participated in process of shaping the artistic production throughout Stalinist years in Czechoslovakia. Not only then - the act of criticism is one of the basic devices the agents use when they make sense of the world; when they attribute meaning to objects and an important component that, by selection of those who are worthy, contributes to the establishment of what is known as the art world (Becker 1982). My aim in the following part of the thesis is to argue that it is not only possible, but plausible and productive to understand music criticism in the terms of performance theory. As a primary source of such comprehension, I used the relatively recent theory of Cultural Pragmatics developed in the field of cultural sociology. Specifically, I chose mainly Jeffrey C. Alexander‟s contribution to this field (Alexander 2006: 29 – 90).

8

Performance is not a simple, straightforward concept – it is a multidimensional nexus of intertwined aspects. It can be described as the practice of signification: according to Alexander‟s theory, performance is a social process through which agents display meaning of their social situation; a meaning they want those witnessing the act of performance to believe (Alexander 2006: 32). The concept encompasses textual quality, as explored by Kenneth Burke in his analysis of symbolic action (Burke 1941) and further developed by Clifford Geertz (Geertz 1973) or Paul Ricoeur (Ricoeur 1991), as well as aim-oriented pragmatic action, underlined by J. L. Austin‟s theory of performative (Austin 1955), Parsons, Shils and Olds (Olds, Parsons, Shils 1951), or famously by Ervin Goffman in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Goffman 1959). But neither the vision of performance as a symbolic formation that represents certain social trends (Burke 1941: 19) nor the image of omnipresent performance that serves to influence other agents /actions (Goffman 1959: 8) is sufficient without taking in account aspects of symbolic power that permeates everyday communication (Bourdieu 1991: 108-113) and staging – that was, to be fair, pronounced already by Kenneth Burke (Burke 1941: 64), but developed further by Richard Schechner ([1988] 2003: 58) or Jeffrey C. Alexander who explicitly adds an aspect of materiality in the notion of mise-en- scène (Alexander 2006: 36). Alexander identifies several constitutive elements of performance that have to be “re-fused” (successfully mobilized and combined) to induce the desired effect – to convince those who witness the performance that the motivation is genuine and that the displayed meaning corresponds with reality.

3.2. Elements of performance

Alexander argues that performance became in highly sophisticated modern society dissolved into six different elements (Alexander 2006: 32). In order to deliver a successful or “felicitous,” as Austin called it (Austin 1955: 14), performance, these elements have to be re- fused, re-combined again. Otherwise performance fails its purpose. Those elements of performance are: (1) systems of collective representations, (2) actor - both individual and collective, (3) audience, (4) means of symbolic production, (5) staging, or mise-en-scène and (6) social power (Alexander 2006: 37-54).

9

3.2.1. Background symbols and foreground scripts

When Andrei Zhdanov formulated one of his speeches in front of the attendants of the Conference of Representatives of the Soviet Music in 1948 (Zhdanov 1949b), he could not do it simply out of nothing. He built his parole on the basis of pre-established conglomerate of codes and narratives that constituted symbolic reality in Soviet Union. A slightly reductive demonstration can be done: when Zhdanov speaks about the conflict between proponents of despicable “formalism” and those of “realism” (Zhdanov 1949b: 17), it is a distinction based on Marxist theory of class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie, misinterpreted as a clash of impure, artificial Western culture and progressive, pure and plebeian Soviet vision of the World. Terms “formalism” and “realism” are the tropes of foreground script, defined by Alexander as “immediate referent(s) for action” (Alexander 2006: 33), a particular reflection of deeper background collective representation (Alexander 2006: 33); in this case the Stalinist misinterpretation of Karl Marx‟s theory of social conflict as a clash between proletariat‟s authenticity and westerners‟ bourgeois artificiality. This claim is, I hope, affirmed by other tropes used by Zhdanov in the speech – such as the call for “comprehensive musical sentence” (ibid, p. 18), return to “veracity and realism” of classical masters (ibid, p.21) or encouragement to “serve the people” (ibid, p. 20) by using folk melodies, the “beautiful source of creativity” that must inevitably enrich the “learned” music (ibid, p. 23). This is not, of course, the only trope employed by Zhdanov: from already cited notion of servitude one may sense the vision of artist as a contributor to progressive communist movement, manifested in Stalin‟s poetic definition of writer as an “engineer of the human soul” (frequently quoted, e.g. Zhdanov 1949a: 40). The initiative to exclude certain composers (“Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Myaskovsky, Khachaturian, Popov, Kabalevsky, Shebalin. Would you like to add somebody else?” (Zhdanov 1949b: 19)) by symbolically polluting them as proponents of elitism (ibid, p. 21), who compose for “individuals and tens of chosen” (ibid, p. 21), originates from contemporary Soviet doctrine of criticism and auto- criticism, anchored in the narrative of constant evolution toward an ideal communist society. This could not be achieved without inner cleansing – one can see a straight direction to Stalin‟s idea of socialism in one country (Carr 1958), paradoxically directly opposed Engels‟s The Principles of Communism (Engels [1914] 1999). Although in Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels wrote that “though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat

10 with the bourgeoisie is at first national struggle” (Engels, Marx [1848] 2007: 20), they never wrote that it was possible to establish socialism as a system within one country. I believe this can serve as a functional example of the concept of background symbolic representation, a system of codes and narratives (Alexander 2006: 33) that constitute the base for foreground scripts – a repertoire of symbols that can be swiftly mobilized to express the underlying system.

3.2.2. Actor & Audience

Actor is the agent who delivers performance; either as a collective or as an individual. While Alexander mentions only “flesh-and-blood” people (Alexander 2006: 33), Burke extends the definition considering writer a performer of symbolic action as well (Burke 1941: 5) – juxtaposing his or her role to that of a “medicine man” (ibid, p. 64). The presence of the actor is sufficient via written text, radio broadcast or television. The audience can be only physical agents able to process and interpret information, though without temporal or spatial connection. Audience is simply a conglomerate of agents (or even one individual) that witness the performance and process its symbolic content (Alexander 2006: 34). The challenge of the actor is to reach to repertoires, to background representations and constitute the particular shape of performance. This means to employ not only linguistic and rhetorical figures, but as well (if allowed by conditions, e.g. medium of performance) grimaces, style conventions and gestures that would aid him to trigger a process of psychological identification of the audience. At the end the observers will believe in genuine origin of his emotions(Alexander 2006: 35) - this will enable them to either attribute a new meaning to selected object, or recode the old one. Critic mediates the meaning (Alexander 2012: 27) he derived from background representations to the audience and assures the success of the performance. This was the reason why e.g. ‟s speeches were delivered in such aggressive, exalted manner that could effectively incite emotions of his audience. While such explicit strategies are used on daily basis, there are more subtle ways to influence observers. Frequent strategy lies in a stylistic attempt to deny the subjectivity of critic, hence create a sense of natural boundary between the signifier and signified (Alexander 2012: 32). To achieve this position, pro-communist critics often invoked trope of natural historical evolution, proved by science of Marx‟s dialectical materialism. Through this, they presented

11 themselves as messengers of already confirmed science of determination of social evolution. 3.2.3. Means of symbolic production

What Alexander understands under the term means of symbolic production are the material conditions for delivering performance (Alexander 2006: 35). To be able to mediate the meaning, one must be able to ensure his access to crucial mundane aspects of the act: the clothing, the stage, the technology, for even the simplest malfunction of microphone can immensely affect success of the performance. One must not forget that the material qualities of objects are intertwined with their meaning and therefore crucially determine the outcome of the performance – example can be found in Terence McDonnell‟s analysis on how material conditions and placing of anti-AIDS campaign determine its interpretation (McDonnell 2010). Not only status of the hall where speech is delivered plays the part; it is also access to paper and distributional nets that matters. When means of symbolic production are not properly chosen, controlled and prepared, it might create empirical difficulties for observers to perceive the act and performance collapses.

3.2.4. Mise-en-scène

Mise-en-scène is the exact choreography (Alexander 2006: 36) of the performance in conjunction with the setting of the stage and ordering of symbols utilized during the performance. Mise-en-scène is not exclusively a matter of physical performance, even if it may seem so. Written text, of course, does not anyhow preclude distinguishing of certain position of the author, the order and selection of stylistic elements, status of the periodical that published the text and other aspects that determine meaning of the performance. There is a particularly interesting case of specific textual creation of mise-en-scène: many performances were published in form of transcribed speeches, containing descriptions of what was happening – gestures, reaction of observers: “standing ovation” or “a voice can be heard from the audience: „He is right!‟” (Zhdanov 1949b) Such textual elements were employed to enhance psychological identification of observers, by fictionally re-staging the performance in text as already a successful one.

12

3.2.5. Social power

While mentioned, the extent to which cultural performance is entangled into a dense net of social power is in Alexander‟s theory underweighted (Alexander 2006: 36). Performance is a device through which social and symbolic force is exercised and can influence the audience only when delivered by a spokesman granted with special symbolic status that allows him to do so and makes recognised as a one that is worth (whatever the reason why) to be listened to (Bourdieu 1991: 108-109). Otherwise the performance cannot be successful; the actor will not be granted the opportunity to articulate (or write) his speech out loud. If Andrei Zhdanov had not held a specific position in the structures of symbolic, politic and administrative power, he would not be permitted – or invited – to give a speech at any kind of conference. And even if he, by accident, happened to give it, he might have faced the possibility of being derided. His speech would probably not be transcribed and certainly not translated and distributed among the Czechoslovak public. Similarly, if Emil František Burian did not possess certain amount of social and cultural capital, he would probably not have been the editor-in-chief of Kulturní politika (Cultural Politics, important intellectual leftist weekly published between 1945 and 1949) and his sharp, critical forewords would not be placed on the front page of the newspaper. This is not to deny the actors their personal and intellectual qualities, my claim is that without being entangled in a structure of symbolic and administrative force and without possessing certain amount of cultural, social and political capital, they would not be able to exercise, via performance, social power on other agents. The power is created through physical and symbolic violence in a dense net of social relations; it does not originate in actors, it is delegated through them. Of course – the art criticism is in the first place an exercise of power over the artist who is criticized and on the audience that aims to incorporate meaning which is mediated to them, into their already established symbolic worlds.

3.3. Fusing the elements to mediate meaning

The key to successful performance, as already indicated above, is to merge all discriminated elements effectively into a performance that will achieve a crucial psychological identification. While all these elements must be, in some way, present, to re-fuse them successfully does not mean that they must be of the highest quality or even mutually equal in

13 this respect. All these aspects have to be, whether consciously or unconsciously, selected in accordance with the situation as well as the cultural background of the audience. Even a well- dressed man in front of a ready and attentive audience on an official conference could spoil his performance by expressing his thoughts in chaotic or, even worse, inappropriate (e.g. vulgar) manner. On the contrary, a poor material quality of means of symbolic production and unsophisticated mise-en-scène can be saved by a great actor who delivers a “first-class” performance.

3.4. Criticism under Totalitarian Rule

New political and social system of people‟s democracy run by Stalinist doctrine of Socialism within one country created unique conditions for performance of criticism. In order to impose unified system of good and evil (Alexander 2003), the sublime and ridiculous (Burke 1941: 64), it was inevitable to take control of the sphere of art that was considered to be a source of potentially harmful information which could disturb the homogeneity of symbolic structure of the new political system. This was the reason for the outgrowth of bureaucracy and establishment of commissions that decided, on the base professional expertise as well as ideological commitment, whether musicians will be allowed to play in public. In this system the role of music critic became hypertrophied (Knapík 2006). Criticism, when stretched to its limits, is not only the complex and highly conventionalized performance that one sees in special section of cultural periodicals, but every act that serves the purpose of the evaluation of cultural goods, that attributes them negative or positive meaning. It is tightly intertwined with the administrative and physical forces of the state; they act when triggered by critical performance. Therefore criticism, when used in the right manner and in a type of society that permits such treatment, can easily lead to serious consequences. It is hardly imaginable that would be divested of his employment at the radio (Matzner 2014) just out of nothing; his activity had to be labelled dangerous, the music he was playing unsuitable for the new political situation. Apart from being, at a very basic level, the trigger, criticism has to be employed as well as a legitimization to those acts of power. Without providing some kind of symbolic rationale, the centre of power might experience instability and the use of force will be evaluated as meaningless and crude. This very procedure was utilized in the campaign against magazines Zvezda and Leningrad (Zhdanov 1949a: 33). If the works of Anna Akhmatova and Mikhail Zoshchenko were not

14 identified as a pernicious deviation from the doctrine of Socialist Realism (Zhdanov 1949a: 9- 52), there would not be a reason to ban them. To deny any doubts about the legitimacy of the crusade, the references to the case were employed in critical performances yet two years after, and in newly acquired territory, e.g. in Josef Brachtl‟s article Kritika formalismu (The Critique of Formalism; Brachtl 1948). Through performative affirmation of the pre- established norms and praise of the action toward Zvezda and Leningrad, Brachtl legitimizes his definition of formalism and critique of “constructivist and surrealist poetry of pre-war poets,” as well. Only this time the critical performance aims to discredit poets like Vítězslav Nezval and all whom Brachtl considered for musical formalists. His performance was probably not particularly successful, for Vítězslav Nezval later became one of the most favoured literati of Czechoslovak people‟s democracy. If one is looking for a more contemporary case, the trial with Pussy Riot comes in handy; it was a critical performance that attributed the act of performing punk music in the Moscow‟s Cathedral of Christ the Saviour with the meaning of vulgarity, blasphemy, hooliganism (e.g. Lukyanov 2012) and led to serious consequences. An important aspect of critique therefore lies in the fact that it does not only exercises social and symbolic power over the criticized musician (e.g. forcing him to practice harder, change his style, depriving him the invitation to a festival, etc.) and audience, but under special conditions it triggers and provides rationale for the use of more effective means of coercion. However, it is not only the musician who is subjected to the power of critique; in this particular era it is the critic himself who had to obey as well. This new tendency in art criticism is obvious from Miroslav Barvík‟s (then appointed a chairman of Syndicate of Czechoslovak composers) foreword in Hudební rozhledy (1949: 2) – “We are removing the glasses of „objectivism ‟,” or Antonín Sychra‟s monography Stranická hudební kritika: spolutvůrce nové hudby (Partisan Music Criticism: The Co-creator of the New Music, Sychra 1951: 32): “we must banish once and for all the objectivist and relativist prejudices and doctrines of bourgeois science.” To ensure that art will transmit only symbolic content concordant with the wishes of the Party it was necessary to control art criticism by depriving art critics the possibility to act out their own, or not-Socialist Realist, background repertoires of evaluative measures. This is the source of the critique of objectivism, a strategy that pretends to criticise art on the basis of eternal aesthetical norms (Sychra 1951: 33). For art criticism is the institution that holds the authority to decide who is included and who is excluded from the art world. The central doctrine of Socialist Realism, at the time called after Andrei Zhdanov, its main proponent, Zhdanovshchina, became the main

15 instrument of control. The term “Socialist Realism” was coined by Ivan Gronsky in 1932 (Morris 2005: 90) and popularized by Zhdanov from 1934. It was built on strong binary opposition of authentic and inauthentic. The authentic pole was represented by national folk culture, strong idealization of Soviet Union and Russian tradition, intelligibility of art and optimistic narrative of building. The other pole was connected with the West, or art that utilized elements conventionally associated with the western, predominantly American culture – eroticism, exoticism, mental and physical weakness, greed. Socialist realism rejected the notion creative freedom – artists and critics were frequently regarded as workers and artisans that should orientate their endeavour toward the people and final success of communism; hence follow the doctrine. Even a small mistake – identified on a basis of the vaguely defined canon – could become a problem, for “there is no ideological mistake so tiny that it would be impossible to trace its roots in the reactionary prejudices of decaying class” (Sychra 1951: 30-31). The vagueness of definitions, admitted by Minister Nejedlý himself (quoted in Kouba 2006), was calculated. Ready-made stigmas of cosmopolitism, formalism, westernism, decadence, nationalism, etc. were prepared to be used to disqualify selected object and withheld the coherence of the system at any moment. This adds another dimension of the act of art criticism in totalitarian system; not only it carries and establishes symbolic conventions and allows them to be sustained, not only it transmits and exercises symbolic power over the criticized musician, but it is a result of power entertained by the critic himself. Writing a critique became more than a process of maintaining the position in art world – an attempt to secure his social position by manifesting his own trustworthiness and loyalty. In this respect, criticism became a ritual of obedience one had to perform in order to maintain his access to the means of symbolic production and to the wider public. If critic did not want to face consequences similar to the disobedient artist, he or she had to follow the party line closely. Otherwise, independent of his social and cultural capital, he had to cope with the forbiddance (Černý 1992).

16

4. Targeting Jazz

4.1.1. Briefly about Jazz in the Soviet Union

It was in 1922, when jazz music was introduced in the Soviet Union by Valentin Parnach (Lücke 2007: 1). It was a moderate success, fuelled by later tours of American big bands, such as Benny Peyton‟s orchestra with the legendary Sidney Bechet on or Sam Wooding orchestra (both in 1926) that toured the Soviet Union as a part of European musical revue Chocolate Kiddies (Lücke 2007:1). The first jazz band to be recorded in the Soviet Union was Alexander Tsfasman‟s Amadzhaz in 1928. Jazz was even subsidized by the Ministry of Culture by organizing an official trip to the United States for Leopold Teplickij who was entitled to study American music and returned with instruments for whole big band ensemble, records and arrangements (Lücke 2007: 2). Although it drew attention of the critics from the very beginning, serious ideological accusations came from the Russian Union of Proletarian Musicians that promoted “proletarian music” and “anti-modern, anti-Western, anti-Jazz” position. Maxim Gorky‟s 1928 article O muzyke tolstych (On the Music of the Fat, Starr 1994: 89-90), where he attributed jazz music the meaning of “homosexuality, drugs and eroticism” (Lücke 2007: 2), launched an aggressive campaign that raged until a new distinction was invented and introduced (Lücke 2007: 3); the one between the authentic jazz of the proletariat and the one of the bourgeoisie that enabled certain forms of jazz music to be played and, together with the fulfilment of the first Five-Year-Plan aided jazz to become more popular than ever and Russian ideologues interpreted it rather as a genetically connected with the precarious situation of African-American working class. The situation lasted even throughout the years of the Great Terror (1934-1939), during which jazz musicians were frequently arrested, mainly for their western connections (Lücke 2007: 4-5). Jazz, particularly swing, flourished even during the Great Patriotic War. Regarded as music of the American allies, it reached an extreme popularity among the both civilians and soldiers – since jazz ensembles became an ordinary component of the Red Army music divisions. For the evolution of relationship between the Czechoslovak Communist government and the jazz music, it is important that this warm partnership of the Soviet Union and American music was swiftly transformed after the war. The outbreak of a new campaign against jazz can be dated as early as 1946 (Starr 1994: 213).

17

4.1.2. What about Czechoslovakia?

Jazz arrived in Czechoslovakia shortly after the First World War and became – as a part of wider cultural re-orientation towards the West and America – an immediate success (Calda 2008). Although criticized by the more conservative part of the Czechoslovak public as a primitive music of “Negroes” (Calda 2008: 118), it became popular among youth and leftist avant-garde and became an indispensable aspect of numerous cult phenomena – such as Jaroslav Jeţek‟s compositions, written for Liberated Theatre of Jan Werich and Jiří Voskovec (established in 1927). It was in Czechoslovakia where one of the first scholarly treatises on jazz was written – by already mentioned Emil František Burian, then twenty-four years old devoted communist with a passion for avant-garde theatre and Paul Whiteman‟s orchestra (Calda 2008: 121-122) who later became one of the most important figures for Czechoslovak cultural life. Popularity of jazz music escalated through the twenties and thirties, when swing was introduced, up until the outbreak of the World War II that resulted in disintegration of Czechoslovakia into independent Slovakia, collaborating with Hitler‟s , and the Protectorate of Bohemia and . Through crusade of constant critical performances that interpreted jazz through the scope of the National-Socialist racial policy as unacceptable, “degenerate” music of the Jews and Negroes. “Jazz is for niggers and primitives,” ranted the Protectorate newspapers (Navrátil in Hořec, Kotek 1990: 57). Both playing it and attending gigs became a risky business; Gustav Vicherek was incarcerated in concentration camp for singing scat in public (Dorůţka 2011b), Arnošt Kavka was arrested right in front of the audience and sent to concentration camp yet in the white tuxedo (Kavka in Hořec, Kotek 1990: 20) and one of the most popular singers of the pre-war jazz scene, Karel Hašler, was tortured to death in Mauthausen. Many musicians were of Jewish origin and were transported to concentration camps. But deportation did not stop them from playing and they often assembled small orchestras in ghettos and camps, like Erich Vogel‟s Ghetto Swingers (Dorůţka 1997: 131), formed in Terezín. Jazz was banned from the radio stations too; the only possibility to hear it on air was, under the threat of death, on foreign radio stations. Despite that, jazz and swing unofficially thrived throughout the Protectorate era (Dorůţka 1997; Traxler 1980). Musicians frequently performed jazz songs under German or Czech titles and with rewritten lyrics (Ludvík in Hořec, Kotek 1990: 27), played in unauthorized jazz clubs and even made records. Discussing jazz was dangerous in official periodicals, hence

18 home-made samizdat magazines, like Okružní koresponence, published clandestinely by Lubomír Dorůţka, appeared. After the liberation, jazz musicians could step out from the underground, enthusiastic about what the future will bring. Many of them were devoted leftists (E. F. Burian, Emanuel Uggé, Jan Stanislav or Josef Šíma) and wished to participate on the establishment of new, communist regime – or at least take advantage of it. Despite of increasing frequency of critical attacks that attempted to introduce new meanings and signifiers, recently invented or mobilized in the Soviet Union (Traxler 1980: 265), throughout the three years between May 1945 and February 1948 jazz music thrived. Jam sessions were re-established, concerts were organized and jazz venues such as Pygmalion, Westend (Dvorský 2001: 91), or Fénix (Hammer 1990: 129) became milieus for intelligentsia (Dvorský 2001: 94). It was especially dancing bar Pygmalion that became important for post-war jazz culture. With exclusive conditions for musicians, who could play only what they wished – mostly bebop inspired by Don Redman‟s orchestra (Hammer 1990: 128-132) – and were not forced to play croons, Pygmalion gained fame as late-night ‟s Mecca of modern music. Jazz music was reflected in periodicals again: Kulturní politika, Mladá fronta (that had its own jazz supplement) or JAZZ, a short-lived magazine devoted to news from the world of jazz music. Ironically, it was the Communist Party and its youth organization (Dorůţka 1997: 127-154) that allowed and aided the realization of concerts – such as gig of Australian jazz star Graeme Bell or evening production Hot-Jazz today and yesterday (Hořec, Kotek 1990: 103). Similar event was organized in Bratislava for Gustav Brom Orchestra (Matzner 2014). It is important to note, however, that jazz did not yet have the position of a counterpart to as it has now; it was not featured in the yearly musical festival Prague Spring. Nonetheless jazz was regarded as an inspiring music in the circles of intelligentsia; its expressiveness and improvised character concurred to the Freudian visions of then fashionable surrealists very well, an example Can be found in Karel Hynek (Dvorský 2001: 93-94) or young Egon Bondy and Ivo Vodseďálek (Vodseďálek 2000: 14). Later it were the circles concentred around venues Reduta and Vltava that significantly contributed to evolution of Czechoslovak pop-music (Janoušek 2007: 1992). Of them at least Jiří Suchý had undeniable impact on the shape of Czechoslovak culture throughout the Communist era and yet today.

19

As well as beatniks, existentialists, zoot-suit or zazou culture, significant part of younger generation of Czechoslovak urban middle class found jazz to be a common signifier for America, West, innovation, freedom. It was not only the artistic aspect; jazz venues proved to be ideal places for intelligentsia to exist – it offered spatial possibilities for meeting and making new acquaintances (see Bondy 2002; Dorůţka 1997; Dvorský in Alan, Bitrich 2001) and thereby contributed to establishment of various creative collaborations (Vodseďálek 2000). As to the audience; jazz was favoured by the young: an isolated survey published in magazine Veřejné mínění (banished immediately after the February 1948) (Hořec, Kotek 1990: 125) labels jazz as third most popular genre of music (16%) among the entire population – but as the second one (35%) among the youth (aged 18-29). The transformation of its post-war audience is described by Jiří Traxler who wrote: “mature and well-to-do society did not go there anymore; it was replaced by the youngest generation of swing-kids” (Traxler 1980: 263).

4.1.3. In the USSR

The enthusiastic vision of jazz as an official, state-subsidized dance music, formulated yet before the end of the war by the musicians and theorists (Uggé, Šíma, Spurný, Dorůţka) and shortly before liberation sent to underground Ministry of Education, turned out to be naïve (Dorůţka 2011a). Despite the strong position jazz music occupied in the structure of the post- war Czechoslovak culture, communist belief of many important figures of jazz subculture and their positions in hierarchical structures of the new establishment, the production of jazz music was eventually forbidden (Kusák 1998: 348). Rather than banishing jazz legislatively, it was classified as an anti-Socialist element and the artists were administratively restricted or denied their permissions for public performances. Jazz was to be erased from the public discourse: magazines JAZZ, Oldtimer or Gramorevue were cancelled as well, leaving fans again only with samizdat bulletins like Bop-Time and jazz-hating official magazine Hudební rozhledy. To play or to engage in jazz in any way became dangerous, especially for the young – Dorůţka recalls how a group of high school students was forbidden to enroll in the university, simply because they played in a jazz band (Dorůţka 2011c). This forbiddance came after a campaign constituted through constant public performances of Socialist Realist aesthetic doctrine on the pages of the daily press and theoretical or critical writings. If not delivered by

20

Soviet authors themselves through translated articles, essays, and books, most of symbolic content and metaphors were acquired from already established Soviet Union‟s anti-jazz discourse. Soviet matrix of meaning was than ready-made applied to Czechoslovak reality.

4.2. The East, the West and the Meaning of the Jazz

4.2.1. Construction of the Eastern and the Western

Symbolic system of the Stalinist Soviet Union relied on a sharp distinction between the Eastern and the Western. Those interdependent geographical terms were both structured sets of meanings (Alexander 2003: 26), constructed in the logic of distinction between the Sacred and the Profane (Alexander 2003: 45) as systems of binary oppositions. In order to legitimize the use of force and restrictions, this difference had to be constantly perpetuated through a performative crusade; a war that raged throughout the whole era of communist reign in Czechoslovakia. It goes without saying that similar campaign ran at the Western side of the Globe as well. This conflict was often depicted through the metaphors associated with the war. The purpose of Soviet art was, according to Zhdanov (1949a) “to lead the people” (ibid, p.42) and every piece of art was perceived as a victory of people (ibid, p.47). While Stalinism manifestly aspired to dissolve religious distinction of sacredness and profanity by rejecting Christianity, it nonetheless sustained it in its ideological system. Only now it was Stalin the Father of all workers and the Soviet Union, an exemplary case of development toward Socialism in one country that became objects of religious-like sacralisation. Soviet products (whether thoughts, books, music or material objects) were attributed with characteristics like purity, genuineness, freedom, rationality, the connection with the people, responsibility and ideological consciousness and were immune to criticism – as, according to Émile Durkheim, every sacred object is (Durkheim [1912] 1995: 215). This meaning was formed and affirmed through performative criticism of the West, the constitutive Other that aids to define the shape of the Same (Said [1978] 1979: 1-2). Being the capitalist Cold War enemy, America had to be symbolically polluted and in the same process the notion of the Soviet Union as pure had to be established and continually re-affirmed. The evil, inauthentic, impure, greedy and enslaving power of the United States of America became the delineation to the USSR and creations of the Soviet people.

21

It has to be said that it was not the American people, Soviet ideologues despised; they were perceived as chained and exploited by the capitalists and the middle class. Similar sympathy was expressed toward African-Americans, whose precarious position in American economic and social system was criticized as expression of . In the logic of us and them, Soviet ideologues welcomed every American who asked for asylum, or otherwise (if not clandestinely, as agent) entered the Soviet Union and her satellites. Paul Robeson, singer, socialist and human rights activist, who performed in Moscow and Warsaw as well as at the annual festival Prague Spring of 1949. Uncritical attitude is obvious for example from Marie Setonová‟s article that praises Robeson‟s attendance at the festival, calling him “the real artist,” or “the most famous artist in the World” (Setonová 1949: 6). Even one of the harshest critics of the western music, Viktor Gorodinsky, appreciates Robeson‟s qualities both as a singer of blues and traditional work-songs and music theorist (Gorodinsky 1952: 92). Such attributes had to be used to symbolically purify the American artist, clear him of the American pollution, and hence make him equal to Soviet ones. None the less, certain essentialist and xenophobic overtones are present; exemplary might be Gorodinsky‟s claim that it was indeed possible to create an outstanding orchestra in America, but only with foreign musicians (Gorodinsky 1952: 29).

4.2.2. Authentic & Inauthentic Jazz

Contemporary ideologues were at first uncertain in deciding how to evaluate the jazz music. On one hand, jazz originated in oppressed African-American working class; Communists often coquetted with exemplifying pernicious effect of imperialism and capitalism on the fate of the black Americans. Jazz (and blues that could be comprehended as a preceding evolutionary stage of African-American music) was the authentic musical expression of their sorrow. Similar case was hot-jazz in France, interpreted as a musical articulation of suffering experienced by nomadic French Roma community, manouché (Uggé 1945). In this respect, jazz was the ideal communist music. The problematic side of jazz was its popularity among urban middle class and in the pre-war avant-garde circles. Although members of cliques of artistic vanguard were frequently turned to the Left, in the Stalinist realm the avant-garde was simply a part of the reactionary bourgeoisie; opposed the Soviet vision of a new man. Their art was incomprehensible and overly complicated, unsuitable to be used as a base for a new mass culture. In order to induce psychological identification and create functional rituals through which it would be possible

22 to create emotional and symbolic boundaries, the communists promoted simple but sublime melodies, rich orchestration and national folk tradition with strong Slavic (Russian) affection. Tendency to distinguish between authentic and inauthentic jazz was represented notably in articles written by Emanuel Uggé (e.g. Uggé 1949). Here he emphasized that jazz is indeed concordant to the doctrine of Socialist Realism by pointing to the example of the Soviet Union where, from his point of view, proletarian jazz was already made possible. This distinction, elaborated already in the thirties in Soviet Union, triggered frequent discussions about the “authentic” jazz and the “inauthentic” jazz that took place not only in Czechoslovakia, but in the whole Eastern bloc (e.g. Poiger : 84). Discussing authenticity is characteristic for the first phase of communist transformation of cultural policy, when jazz was considered for acceptable form that could be played or listened to – but it is impossible to creatively contribute to its evolution (Klusák 1998: 348).However, these proclamations did not go hand-in-hand with the practical policy – for example, all jazz magazines were cancelled already in 1948, a year before Uggé formulated his vision of new jazz. When, in 1950, in his speech in front of the Czechoslovak Syndicate of Musical Composers Aram Khachaturian (Khachaturian 1950: 218) said that he “loves jazz” and Tikhon Khrennikov expressed himself that “there is nothing wrong with the itself,” (Khrennikov 1950: 221) all saxophonists from Moscow‟s Radio Orchestra were already fired and all in Moscow were confiscated, their players officially identified as oboists or bassoonists (Starr 1994: 216).

4.2.3. The Tool of Oppression

The other pole of critique was present mostly through public performances of Sychra and Gorodinsky – jazz was considered as depraved and decadent music of “unprecedented poverty of thought” (Gorodinsky 1952: 15) and empty American consumerism. Any music that was in any sense perceptually complicated, or experimental – ranging from Arnold Schönberg (Gorodinsky 1952: 16) to John Cage, “symptom of the times” (ibid, p. 107), was labelled a music of bourgeoisie, a mere musical expression of general decay of bourgeois culture. Gorodinsky discredited the notion of authentic jazz music by denying it any style at all (Gorodinsky 1952: 82) and interpreted it as a tool created by bourgeoisie and used as (invoking Marxist terminology) opium, as a device to enslave the population (Gorodinsky 1952: 82). This enslavement is attained through special rhythmicity, invoked already by

23

Maxim Gorky, which reminds of clapping of the machines – “beats your will as a steak” (Gorodinsky 1952: 82). While the connotation of America was a benefit throughout the World War II, when the United States of America, although capitalist and imperialist, were a war ally, after the outbreak of the Cold War it became a burden. How was it possible to keep music of the enemy, whose cultural background was directly opposed to the Soviet one, within its own borders? Starr argues that this was rather paranoia – jazz music was not intentionally used as a device of American international communication at least until 1955 (Starr 1994: 210). Though an unintentional, spontaneous cultural activity is incomprehensible within the framework of Stalinist Socialism in one country. The political dimension rests in the split with the West; hence in the beginning of the Cold War. Jazz, the music of American origin, became regarded as a vanguard of capitalist offensive (popularly associated with ), a method, through which imperialists try to “poison the taste” of masses (Válek 1949).

4.3. Space, Subculture and Form

4.3.1. Spaces of Jazz

The fact that the jazz music played a role of a catalyst of social relations and artistic collaborations is firmly intertwined with material and spatial relations that jazz music, or any other genre of music, is created and performed in. By its specific nature or symbolic status, jazz music attracted, among others, certain type of audience that might not have shared cultural preferences with Stalinist authorities. On the contrary, Jiří Traxler recalls a moment, when young people burst into wild, spontaneous laughter after his remark at a live broadcasted radio gig – an incident, after which he had lost his job (Traxler 1980). Jan Hammer and Vlasta Průchová were forbidden to perform after they “provoked audience to extremely loud applause” (Hořec 1990: 180). Apart from young enthusiasts, longing to provoke the authorities, jazz was known as the music of students and intellectuals who gathered to hear modern sound or were drawn into jazz clubs by their acquaintances. In limited space and under special conditions, they communicated and influenced each other, often establishing projects like openly anti-Stalinist Edice Půlnoc (Midnight Edition; published 1949-1954), published by Egon Bondy and Ivan

24

Vodseďálek (Bondy 2008). The aspect of “being there,” the spatial proximity and special setting is an important dimension in production of cultural goods (Currid, Williams 2010: 6, 8), for it enables the special social milieu to come to life. Knowledge that audience concentred around jazz music is perceptive to western impulses and contributed to authorities‟ perception of jazz music as force of Western influence that aims to disrupt the system from inside. Jazz clubs were seen as cells of pro-American forces, where anti-communist elements could thrive. It did not need to be jazz club only – jazz musicians needed albums they could enjoy together that almost did not come out until 1955 (Hořec 1990: 180) and had to be imported illegally from the West. As well as during the Protectorate era, only now not under the threat of death sentence, jazz was listened to clandestinely in private apartments – either on illegally imported vinyl records, or on equally illegal foreign radio stations, mostly on the Voice of America or AFM (Matzner 2014). However, the attempt to forbid jazz music and deprive subversive audience their social milieu, to exclude them from public space, was only half-successful, for more famous ensembles, such as Karel Vlach Orchestra or Gustav Brom Orchestra, were not dissolved and continued their work, although on the margins of the musical life, deprived official permissions to play independently. Karel Vlach Orchestra, the best Czechoslovak ensamble then, could pursue its activities only as an accompanying band in ABC Divadlo Satiry (ABC Theatre of Satire) playing almost exclusively Jaroslav Jeţek‟s compositions (Vlach 1990: 165). Jeţek was, thanks to his leftist and anti-fascist history the only jazz composer who was modestly accepted. Fans and other musicians quickly established an underground scene. Jazz music and circles of hard-core jazz enthusiasts moved to private apartments and unauthorized spaces. Famous underground jam sessions were organized by Luďek Hulan, whose quintet was denied permission for public performance, at Urban grill bar and later in café SIA (Titzl 1990: 171). Communist establishment understood very well that it is not solely jazz music that endangers the absoluteness of ideological dominance of Stalinist socialism in Czechoslovakia, and it is rather specific audience that gathered around jazz and existed in a constant flux of exchange of social and cultural capital. Every other gig or jam-session can be seen as a ritual that reinforces community (Lukes 1975: 301). One of the reasons for labelling jazz unacceptable was its contribution to the establishment of uncontrollable social milieus of intelligentsia and youth. Jazz music was partially the cultural element which bounded actors, drawn them into specific culture and aided the establishment

25 of iconic status of certain jazz clubs. By denying musicians official permissions for public performance, the communists hoped to deprive those social groups of the cultural and material conditions necessary for creation of a vibrant night-time community.

4.3.2. Jazz Subculture

Even under the conditions of totalitarian regime that promoted uniformity and mass unity, specific subcultures centred themselves around jazz music in the whole Eastern bloc. Resembling each other in the way of clothing, music they have listened to and indifferent, ironizing attitude towards communist mythology and aesthetics, they were called in Russia stilyagi, in Poland bikiniarze, in Hungary jampec, in East Germany halbstarken. Circles of jazz fans emerged in Czechoslovakia yet before the Second World War and went the under name potápky, or later, in the 50s, páskové. The term potápky was derived from a specific dance move that resembled diving, in Czech potápění, and was probably coined by popular jazz singer Arnošt Kavka (Vlach in Hořec, Kotek 1990: 14). Apart from being concentrated around jazz and later rock and roll music, both laden with the meaning of dangerous western music, the visual design, lifestyle and argot of jazz subcultures were apparently influenced by middle class culture and the West. Jazz fans in Czechoslovakia often used English expressions, calling for example police officers “sunny boys” and Wenceslaus Square “Trafo” or “Trafáč” after ‟s Trafalgar square and similarly to zazou culture or zoot-suiters wore expensive, oversized suits and complicated hairstyles (Ryška 2013). Later, in late 40ties and early 50ties, potápky adopted even more parrot-like style, wearing colourful chequered jackets often turned upside-down (the détournement is obvious here) and short, tight trousers that reached just above ankles and displayed flashy striped socks, reaching from their heavy shoes. In Czechoslovakia, they favoured wildly-painted ties with a tiny knot, often depicting packs of American cigarettes, but in Poland, bikinarze were named after common motif of atomic test on the Bikini Island (Tyrmand 1954: 108-109) and dared even to have naked women or American flag painted on their cravats. One must remember that in the post-war communist Eastern Europe most goods were not easy to acquire, so jazz enthusiasts had to rely on their own ability to adjust their clothing or shop at the black market. Appropriation of commodities in attempt to create the most spectacular style was often ironic or amusing – Lubomír Dorůţka recalls how jazz fans used

26 to install light bulbs into their high shoes, connected them with a switch they held in their pocket and used to signalize the direction they walked in (Dorůţka 1997: 63). A campaign that was unleashed was oriented primarily toward pásci subculture, since potápky (Czechoslovak equivalent of zazou, Swingjugend or zoot-suiters) were characteristic for the protectorate period and until 1950 or 1951. Pásci were derided e.g. in the satirical magazine Dikobraz (Ryška 2013) which frequently published caricature or ironic comics in which their authors emphasized the alleged absurdity of their style, calling pásci “the spooks of Trafalgar square,” and depicted them as lazy, feminine and narcissistic. This representation was based on a pre-established system of binary oppositions that in Stalinist ideological realm constituted notions of West (spoiled, chained, numbed, self-oriented, etc.) and East (pure, free, self-aware, solidary, etc.). The Eastern element was represented by concept of a Pioneer or committed member of the Communist Youth; always aware of the Reaction, devoted to construction of new society and supporting the party. The campaign climaxed with a trial with a group of young delinquents, called Vyšehradští jezdci (Vysehrad riders), who became exemplified as a common type in the youth subculture (Dorůţka 2011c). It might be interesting to note that throughout the Protectorate era, potápky were interpreted in a very similar way. The rhetoric figures of Protectorate and Communist official representatives are strikingly similar, when speaking on the topic of youth. This can be exemplified by words “Czech youth rejected decaying backwardness and joined the revolution, became sincerely socialist. Czech youth is not blind, it sees what democracy brought to us and what it feeds.” While it could easily be Zdeněk Nejedlý or Klement Gottwald, who wrote this to Lidové noviny, it was Emanuel Moravec, the symbol of Czech collaboration with Nazi regime (Moravec [1943] 2011). Jazz subculture was positioned into opposition to the semiotic set that was constitutive of the notion of the East. While the communists promoted clothing conventionally evoking working class, modesty and sobriety, potápky preferred extrapolation of conventional symbols of urban bourgeoisie, enriched by extravagant elements like abovementioned parts of clothing turned upside-down. In the era of post-war reconstruction and building of a new, pro-Eastern, proletarian society, potápky and pásci favoured Western music and Western pop-cultural icons and preferred relaxed lifestyle over the officially declared doctrine of Stakhanovism. Communists envisioned a new youth, modest, hard-working and devoted to Marxism- Leninism, in order to control in and to retain the power in their hands – and this vision was incompatible with the conspicuousness and dandyism of jazz subculture as well as their

27

Western orientation. In words of Dick Hebdige, they expressed forbidden content in forbidden forms (Hebdige 1979: 91). It was the disruption between East and West, the existence of a wall one could not to cross they symbolically reflected in the style of their subculture. They communicated their significant difference from the communist youth (Hebdige 1979: 102), their affinity with western lifestyle and culture. To extrapolate what they thought was western style of clothing, to listen to what was labelled as western music, to speak English, to act lazy and to spend conspicuously (i.e. as capitalists); it was all an attempt to “magically” (Cohen in Murdock, McCron [1975] 2006:210) resolve their inability to physically move out from the East. By meeting on “the Trafalgar” square, they were able symbolically translocate London to the centre of Prague, to make the West happen in the Soviet Union. Intentionality of this revolt is hard to prove and it is questionable. More likely it was Communists who were unable to understand the spontaneous character of subcultures and, drawing on the symbolic background of Stalinism, endowed the youth movement with the meaning of political “reaction” and disqualified it as a subversive delinquency.

4.3.3. Jazz as a Formal Genre

Not only the connotative associations with America and outlying culture were the reason for contemporary unacceptability of jazz music as a genre; it was the very formal definition of jazz what was problematic. Apart from “cosmopolitism” and “formalism” it was the already mentioned trope of “elitism” that was used to identify jazz music as unfit for the new system. The musical expertise that is necessary for a jazz musician, the qualitative demands on musicians who want to play jazz are extremely high. Not only young adepts, but professional jazz musicians spend most of the time practicing their ability to control the instrument and perform standards – massive set of tunes every jazz musician has to know in order to be able to play gigs and jam sessions (Cameron 1954: 180). Brilliance in technique is particularly important in highly exclusive bebop subgenre – bebop that was “the most severely forbidden and punished” (Bondy 2008: 65). Bebop is often perceptually complicated, played in high cadence and highly rhythmic with extensive improvised solos; it is the music beatniks (Ginsberg, Kerouac, later members of African-American movement such as Amiri Baraka) worshipped for its uncontrollability and

28 sensation of madness it evoked in contemporary audience (e.g. Kerouac [1957] 2002: 139). Swing or bebop performance might resemble Émile Durkheim‟s depiction of collective effervescence (Durkheim [1912] 1995: 217 – 218) in the uncontrollable explosion of audience‟s and performers‟ emotion Kerouac writes about (as belletrist, of course). Unleashed passions, uncontrollability of dance, sexual freedom and sense of unity between the musician and audience – general disruption of social norms (Durkheim [1912] 1995: 218) was characteristic and praised by fans and condemned by critics. It is probably not far off the mark to claim that the jazz music, particularly bebop, but swing as well, could provoke situation of effervescence, of unprecedented explosion of feelings by its specific rhythmic and melodic form, performed and experienced in specific spatial conditions. Psychological effect of this swing and bebop wild dancing and seemingly mad manner of playing the instruments could be described by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi‟s term “flow,” “the state of mind in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems matter” (Csikszenmihalyi [1990] 2008: 4), or according to Victor Turner is “the holistic sensation present when we act with total involvement” (Turner [1969] 1991: 55). Position of jazz music can be therefore very well described as anti-structural, liminal – one that falls in the interstices of structure, in a wild and disorganized place (Turner [1969] 1991: 125). In society that above all sanctifies orderliness, obedience, sedulity and uniformity such wildness is unthinkable. Improvisation, one of core and often praised elements of modern jazz performance, on-spot composing of melodic line, is problematic – since it opposes the notion of absolute control of event, cannot be pre-authorized by any commission. Since, as Hannah Arendt argues, totalitarian regime seeks the abolishment of spontaneity (Arendt 1992: 593), improvisation is, as a concept, unacceptable. It is exclusivist by its demand on musical expertise, individualist and perceptually challenging. It simply falls out of the system and it was rendered as useless for purpose of elevating spirit of the people (e.g. Racek 1948: 48). This relaxed atmosphere was considered a threat by communist authorities, paranoid about all kinds of ciphered subversive messages that could be easily delivered through improvised music (Traxler 1980: 286). It was not only the disorganization communist authorities disliked. Jazz clubs could become the effervescent social milieus where, as Durkheim argued (Durkheim [1912] 1995), religion is born. It was the counter-ritual, subsequently the counter-religion (or counter-ideology) that was thought to form and spread thanks to the jazz music.

29

Listening to jazz became at the same time the symptom and cause of a viral insanity – a strange, primitive music that “by hypnotising, spasmodic rhythm, sick eroticism, stupefying hysterical melodies and harmony turned upside-down affects the nervous system” (Gorodinsky 1952: 31). Capitalist forces were invading the now Soviet Czechoslovakia, weakening the youth that should be the backbone of regime, by inducing their mental, and consequently physical, disability. “Jitterbug” (actually a common name of contemporary jazz dance), was thought a disease caused by jazz music, affected neural system in a way that the sick uncontrollably moved his limbs in erratic manner and exclaimed syllable “pa” (Gorodinsky 1952: 31). It is on the basis of characteristic musical quality that Gorodinsky juxtaposes jazz to musical expressions of primitive cultures (Gorodinsky 1952: 31). The trope of primitivism, often invoked by Czechoslovak and Soviet critics, was not concordant with the myth of the Soviet Union‟s society as the most advanced on the globe. Formal specificity might be the reason why traditional was at first considered as an acceptable genre of jazz – it contains nothing of the wild improvisation, just embellishments of simple melody line and more conventional rhythm – unlike swing and bebop that were condemned (Hořec, Kotek 1990: 176).

5. Conclusion

Drawing on the conceptual framework of social performance and cultural pragmatics, I have tried to demonstrate that the jazz music throughout the Stalinist era was, by contemporary ideologues, perceived as a threat to homogeneity of new People‟s democratic regime. In order to ostracize this particular music and its culture, theorists and critics who worshipped (whatever their motivation was) the doctrine of Socialist Realism publicly performed and through performances attempted to attribute jazz music specific meaning, embedded in pre- established foreground script, and drawn from deeper and wider system of symbolic background. It was not only symbolic performances that problematized position of jazz music in the Soviet Union and its satellite people‟s democracies – the real threat to those who were engaged in the community was the use of (whether symbolic, or even physical) force. But, as I have argued in the part dealing with aspects of criticism performance, such use of force had to be triggered and legitimized by critique. Since no cultural object or product is innocent, jazz music was from its very arrival to the European continent burdened with the meaning of Americanism. Although being a Soviet

30

Union‟s war ally, the meaning of “America” was quickly transformed after the end of the World War II, affecting the interpretation of jazz in a very serious way. Incomprehensibility, or perceptual uneasiness and sense of chaos exuded by improvisation, an element formally inherent to the most of the jazz music, did not win appraisal of the communist critics either. It was due to the totalitarian nature of Stalinist regime that ideologically wished for absolute equality and uniformity of all agents, absolute control of every element (Macura 1992: 91), that is incompatible with the notion of improvisation and connotations of uncontrollable on- the spot inspiration. Complicatedness of jazz, particularly bebop, makes it uneasy to use as popular, mass songs, an article that communist regime hoped to use as an element aiding the performance of public rituals intended to symbolically communicate the status quo of power and social order, as well as to achieve symbolic integration of population. Those aforedescribed interpretations, or various meanings attributed to jazz, polluted its fans and musicians – who, in the eyes of communist ideologues, were not innocent either. Their rituals, behaviour and symbolic content communicated were incoherent, with the dominant ones – created on the basis of the set of symbols constructed as opposed to the one that centre of power considered its own. Eric W. Rothenbuhler‟s Turnerian analysis of strike groups provides fitting remarks, applicable to the topic. The relation between dominant communist structures and culture of jazz music was that of a liminal group (Rothenbuhler 1988: 67). Its rituals had to be combated, so they would not become widely practiced (Rothenbuhler 1988: 67). The nature of the group‟s activities is incomprehensible for the dominant structure (Rothenbuhler 1988: 67). It “performs roles not defined in the dominant social order, pursues goals not established by the society‟s myths and performs rituals not meaningful in the everyday social system” (Rothenbuhler 1988: 85). Drawing from background representation of the class struggle, misinterpreted as a doctrine of intensified class war within one state, contemporary Soviet (or Czechoslovak pro-Soviet) critics could not perceive jazz music as an alternative expression of the same social order (Rothenbuhler 1988: 68), for there was no alternative possible in coeval Stalinist interpretation of Marxism. Instead, they perceived it as an alternative social order, alien one, threatening to disrupt their endeavour (Rothenbuhler 1988: 68) and performed, hence attributed and mediated meaning, accordingly. Subculture of jazz enthusiasts existed in a liminal space of social structure and developed special features, such as uniform sub-cultural dress code, specific taste in music and art (Turner 1982: 26), and own symbolic system that made possible for them to overcome

31 barbed-wire on borders and translocate the West in the East. This position was delineated and attributed through performances of criticism from both sides of the Communist regime – Jazz barricade. It is, after all, Victor Turner himself, who identifies group of beatniks, associated with the jazz music in America, with status of liminal communitas (Turner [1969] 1991: 112). Rothenbuhler counted four possible outcomes of the clash between dominant social orders and liminal communities: (1) getting rid of the liminal group, (2) assigning a name and positioning of liminal group within the system, (3) liminal individuals or groups may achieve a recognized value in the period of factional liminality and voluntarily (4) dominant society may be defeated (Rothenbuhler 1988: 69). In spirit of this differentiation, one might say that throughout the Stalinist era in Czechoslovakia the relationship between the regime and the jazz music, scenarios (1), (2) and eventually (3) happened. The first phase of relationship is characteristic by an attempt to symbolically pollute jazz music; attribute it with conventionally anchored terms of “cosmopolitism” or “formalism” – incoherent with the Soviet Socialism and exclude jazz culture from everyday life, aiming to erase it altogether. The second phase came together with the third, on the one hand through strong individuals like Karel Krautgartner, who was able to finally negotiate creation of ‟s jazz orchestra , on the other by merging of jazz music more and more with popular music (Karel Vlach Orchestra). After 1955 jazz could be recorded once again and in 1956 Jazz club, Kroužek přátel jazzové a moderní taneční hudby (Circle of friends of jazz and modern dance music) was established (Hořec 1990). In 1957 it was possible for Gustav Brom to record a vinyl with western singer, Gery Scott (Kouřil 2010). This was, of course, enhanced by political changes – such as death of Joseph Stalin (and Klement Gottwald) and subsequent process of destalinization, triggered by Nikita Khrushchev‟s speech in 1956. Other reason for more benevolent attitude toward jazz might be the arrival of a new enemy – rock and roll. In subsequent years jazz became more or less accepted genre of music, later, in the 70s, even promoted (in a form of jazz-rock) as a plausible alternative of subversive underground rock music (Chadima 1992).

32

6. A Note at the End

The situation of cultural forms and goods that were expelled from the public sphere during the Communist era in Czechoslovakia is far too vast and complex to be sufficiently explained at a length of a book – not to speak of roughly 45 pages of a bachelor thesis. Even though my topic is considerably narrow, I experienced certain problems connected with the limitation in time and space. It was impossible to proceed day by day, or even a year by year, for the strategies of exclusion and treatment were, as it seems, diverse – from one authority to another, from one city to another – and yet angled by factors like personal relationships (I am not able to find and prove) or simple luck. Absolute majority of the memoires of these times that are available are Prague-based, hence my work is angled, Prague-centric, in this manner as well. What I had to leave our, or left out for the lack of my knowledge, will be an inspiration for my further research and endeavor. It is impossible to encompass everything but nonetheless I attempted to build a thesis that would provide the reader with a general view on how jazz music was treated in Czechoslovakia in the era of Stalinism and arguments on why it was chosen and interpreted as an alien force.

33

Bibliography

Alexander, J. C. 2003. The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Alexander, J. C. 2006. “Cultural Pragmatics: Social Performance between Ritual and Strategy.” Pp. 29-90 in Alexander, J. C., Giesen, B., Mast, J. L. (eds.). Social Performance: Symbolic Action, Cultural Pragmatics and Ritual. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Alexander, J. C. 2012. “Iconic Power and Performance: The Role of the Critic.” Pp. 15-35 in Alexander, J. C., Bartmański, D. Giesen, B. (eds.). Iconic Power: Materiality and Meaning in Social Life. New York: Pallgrave Macmillan.

Austin, J. L. 1955. How to do Things with Words. New York: Oxford University Press.

Arendt, H. 1996. Původ totalitarismu. Prague: Oikoymenh.

Barthes, R. [1957] 1972. Mythologies. New York: The Noonday Press.

Barvík, M. 1949. “Úvodní slovo.” Hudební Rozhledy 2 (1): 1-2.

Becker, H. S. 1982. Art Worlds. California: University of California Press.

Bondy, E. 2002. Prvních deset let. Prague: Maťa.

Bondy, E. 2008. “Kořeny českého literárního undergroundu v letech 1949-1953.” Pp. 61-69 in Machovec, M. (ed.) Pohledy zevnitř: Česká undergroundová kultura v dokumentech a interpretacích. Příbram: Pistorius & Olšanská.

Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Burke, K. 1941. The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action. Louisiana: State University Press.

Brachtl, J. 1948. “Kritika formalismu.” Hudební Rozhledy 1 (4): 91-94.

34

Calda, M. 2008. “Jazz in Czech Culture after World War One: Clash of Western Modernity with Central European Traditionalism.” Acta Universitatis Carolinae – Studia Territorialia 8 (12): 117-126.

Cameron, W. B. 1954. “Sociological Notes on the Jam Session.” Social Forces 33 (2): 177- 185.

Carr, E. H. 1958. Socialism in One Country. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Currid, E., Williams, S. 2010 “The geography of buzz: art, culture and the social milieu in Los Angeles and New York.” Journal of Economic Geography 10 (3): 423-451.

Černý, V. 1992. Paměti III (1945-1972) Brno: Atlantis.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. [1990] 2008. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Dorůţka, L. 1997. Panoráma paměti. Prague: Torst.

Dorůţka, L. 2011a. Jazzová škola podle levicových idejí. [online][retrieved on 20.3.2014]. Available from: http://www.muzikus.cz/klasicka-hudba-jazz-clanky/Jazzova-skola-podle- levicovych-ideji~19~kveten~2011/.

Dorůţka, L. 2011b. Český jazz za protektorátu. [online][retrieved on 20.3.2014]. Avilable from: http://www.muzikus.cz/jazz-clanky/Cesky-jazz-za-protektoratu~15~srpen~2011/.

Dorůţka, L. 2011c. interview in television documentary. Potápky, páskové, chuligáni. [online][retrieved on 18.4.2014] . Avilable from http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/ct24/exkluzivne- na-ct24/osobnosti-na-ct24/112025-potapky-paskove-chuligani/.

Dvorský, S. 2001. “Z podzemí do podzemí: československý surrealismus čtyřicátých aţ šedesátých let.” Pp. 76-153 in Alan, J., Bitrich, T. (eds.). Alternativní kultura: Příběh české společnosti 1945-1989.

Durkheim, É. [1912] 1995. Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: The Free Press.

Engels, F., Marx. K. [1848] 2007. The Communist Manifesto. New York: International Publishers.

35

Engels, F. [1914] 1999. The Principles of Communism. [online][retrieved 26.3.2014] Avilable from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm.

Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Goffman, E. 1959. Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.

Gorodinsky, V. 1952. Hudba duševní bídy. Prague: Národní Hudební Nakladatelství Orbis.

Kouřil, V. 2010. Hudba duševní bídy. [online][retrieved 18.4.2014]. Avilable from: http://www.advojka.cz/archiv/2010/5/hudba-dusevni-bidy.

Lukyanov, F. 2012. Pussy Riot: International Phenomenon? [online][retrieved 18.4.2014]. Avilable from: http://rt.com/op-edge/unpredictable-world-foreign-lukyanov/pussy-riot-russia- punk/.

McDonnell, T. E. 2010. “Cultural Objects as Objects: Materiality, Urban Space, and the Interpretation of AIDS Campaigns in Accra, Ghana.” in American Journal of Sociology 115 (6): 1800-1852.

Moravec, E. [1943] 2011. “Emanuel Moravec o Dnech mládeţe.” [online][retrieved 18.4.2014]. Avilable from: http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/ct24/exkluzivne-na-ct24/osobnosti- na-ct24/112025-potapky-paskove-chuligani/.

Murdock, G., McCron, R., [1975] 2006. “Consciousness of Class and Consciousness of Generation.” Pp. 162-176 in Hall, S., Jefferson, T. (eds.). Resistance through Rituals: Youth subcultures in post-war Britain. New York: Routledge.

Hammer, J. 1990. “Jazz kolem Pygmalionu.” Pp. 128-132 in Hořec, J., Kotek, J. (eds.) Kronika české synkopy: půlstoletí českého jazzu a moderní populární hudby v obrazech a svědectvích současníků. 2, 1939-1961. Prague: Supraphon.

Hebdige, D. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

Hodos, G. H. 1987. Show Trials: Stalinist Purges in Eastern Europe 1948-1954. New York: Praeger.

36

Hořec, J. 1990. “Jako by se mi to zdálo.” Pp.180-186 in Hořec, J., Kotek, J. (eds.) Kronika české synkopy: půlstoletí českého jazzu a moderní populární hudby v obrazech a svědectvích současníků. 2, 1939-1961. Prague: Supraphon.

Hořec, J., Kotek, J. (eds.) 1990. Kronika české synkopy: půlstoletí českého jazzu a moderní populární hudby v obrazech a svědectvích současníků. 2, 1939-1961. Prague: Supraphon.

Chadima, M. 1992. Alternativa. Brno: Host.

Janoušek, P. (et. al.) 2007. Dějiny české literatury 1945-89. II. 1948-1958. Prague: Academia.

Kerouac, J. [1957] 2000. On the Road. New York: Modern Penguin Classics.

Khachaturian, A. 1950. “Projev A. Chačaturjana.” Hudební Rozhledy 2 (8-9): 218-220.

Khrennikov, T. 1950. “Projev generálního tajemníka svazu sovětských skladatelů Tichona Chrennikova.” Hudební Rozhledy 2 (8-9): 220-222.

Kouba, K. 2006. Kapitola první: Teorie umění. [online][retrieved on 20.3.2014]. Avilable from: http://cl.ff.cuni.cz/sorela/mytologizace01.htm.

Knapík, J. 2006. V zajetí moci: Kulturní politika, její systém a aktéři. Prague: Libri.

Kusák, A. 1998. Kultura a politika v Československu 1948-1956. Prague: Torst.

Lukes, S. 1975. “Political Ritual and Social Integration.” Sociology 9: 289-308.

Lücke, M. 2007. “Vilified, Venerated, Forbidden: Jazz in the Stalinist Era.” Music and Politics 1(2): 1-9.

Macura, V. 1992. Šťastný věk a jiné studie o socialisticko kultuře. Prague: Academia.

Matzner, A. 2014. Jazz pod diktaturou moci XII. [online][retrieved on 20.3.2014]. Avilable from: http://hudebnirozhledy.scena.cz/www/index.php?page=clanek&id_clanku=1824.

Morris, P., D. 2005. Representation and the Twentieth-century Novel: Studies in Gorky, Joyce and Pynchon. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.

37

Olds, J., Parsons, T., Shils, E. 1962. “Values, Motives, and Systems of Action.” Pp. 47-276 in Parsons, T., Shils, E. (eds.) Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Poiger, U. G. 2004. “Searching for Proper New Music: Jazz in Cold War Germany.“ Pp. 83- 95 in Mueller, A. (ed.). German Pop Culture: How American Is It? Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Racek, J. 1948. “O společenské funkci hudby.” Hudební rozhledy 1 (2-3): 48-49

Ricoeur, P. 1973. “The Model of the Text: Meaningful Action Considered as Text.” New Literary History 5 (1): 91-117.

Rothenbuhler, W. E. 1988. „The Liminal Fight: Mass Strikes as Ritual and Interpretation.“ Pp. 66-89 in Alexander, J. C. (ed.) Durkheimian Sociology: Cultural Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ryška, P. 2013. “Strašidla z Trafouše.” [online][retrieved 18.4.2014]. Avilable from: http://padesatky.ffa.vutbr.cz/19531954/70-strasidla-z-trafouse.

Said, E. [1978] 1979. Orientalism. New York: Random House Inc.

Setonová, M. 1949. “Paul Robeson – Zpěvák a člověk.” Kulturní Politika 2 (21): 6.

Schechner, R. [1988] 2003. Performance Theory. London: Routledge.

Starr, F. S. 1994. Red and Hot: The Fate of Jazz in Soviet Union 1917-1991 New York: Limelight.

Sychra, A. 1951. Stranická Hudební kritika spolutvůrce nové hudby. Prague: Národní Hudební Nakladatelství Orbis.

Titzl, S. 1990. “Jazz za zavřenými dveřmi.” Pp. 169-178 in Hořec, J., Kotek, J. (eds.) Kronika české synkopy: půlstoletí českého jazzu a moderní populární hudby v obrazech a svědectvích současníků. 2, 1939-1961. Prague: Supraphon.

Traxler, J. 1980. Já nic, já muzikant. Toronto: Sixty-eight Publishers Corporation.

38

Turner, V. [1969] 1991. The Ritual process: Structure and Anti-Structure. New York: Cornell University Press.

Turner, V. 1982. From Ritual to Theatre. New York: PAJ Publications.

Tyrmand, L. 1999. Dziennik 1954. Warsaw: Prószynski&S-ka.

Uggé. E. 1945. “Ve znamení jazzu.” in Kulturní politika 1 (15): 6.

Uggé, E. 1949. “Jazz v Sovětském svazu.” in Kulturní politika 4 (5): 6.

Válek, J. 1949. “O novou budovatelskou píseň.” in Hudební rozhledy 2 (2): 62-63.

Vlach, K. 1990. “Tak hrával Karel Vlach.” Pp. 165-167 in Hořec, J., Kotek, J. (eds.) Kronika české synkopy: půlstoletí českého jazzu a moderní populární hudby v obrazech a svědectvích současníků. 2, 1939-1961. Prague: Supraphon.

Vodseďálek, I. 2000. Felixír štěstí. Brno: Host.

Vrba, T. 2001. “Nezávislé písemnictví a svobodné myšlení.”Pp. 265-305 in Alan, J., Bitrich, T. (eds.). Alternativní kultura: Příběh české společnosti 1945-1989.

Zhdanov, A., A. 1949a. O umění. Prague: Orbis.

Zhdanov, A., A. 1949b. “Projev A. A. Ţdanova na konferenci představitelů sovětské hudby v ÚV VKS (b).” Pp. 9-15 in Khrennikov, T., Zhdanov, A.A. 1949. Problémy sovětské hudby. Prague: Orbis.

39

Name Index

A E Akhmatova, A. – 14 Engels, F. – 10 Alexander, J. C. – 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, G 14, 17, 21 Geertz, C. – 9 Austin, J. L. – 9 Ginsberg, A. – 28 Arendt, H. – 5, 7, 29 Goffman, E. – 9 B Gorky, M. – 17, 24 Barvík, M. – 15 Gorodinsky, V. – 5, 22, 23, 24, 30 Baraka, A. – 28 Gottwald, K. – 8, 27, 32 Barthes, R. – 6 Gronsky, I. – 16 Bell, G. – 19 H Bechet, S. – 17 Hammer, J. – 19, 24 Bondy, E. – 7, 19, 20, 24, 25, 28 Hašler, K. – 18 Bourdieu, P. – 9, 13 Hebdige, D. – 28 Burian, E. F. – 13, 18, 19 Hitler, A. – 7, 11, 18 Burke, K. – 9, 11, 14 Hořec, J. – 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32 Brachtl, J. – 15 Hulan, L. – 25 Brom, G. – 14, 19, 25, 32 Hynek, K. – 19 C CH Calda, M. – 18 Chadima, M. – 32 Cameron, W. B. – 28 J Carr, R. H. – 10 Janoušek, P. – 8, 19 Černý, V. – 16 Jeţek, J. – 18, 25 Cohen, Ph. – 28 K Csikszentmihalyi, M. – 29 Kabalevsky, D. – 10 Currid, E. – 25 Kavka, A. – 18, 26 D Kerouac, J. – 28, 29 Dorůţka, L. – 5, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27 Khachaturian, A. – 10, 23 Durkheim, É. – 6, 21, 29 Khrennikov, T. – 23 Dvorský, S. – 19, 20 Knapík, J. – 7, 8, 14 Kotek, J. – 18, 19, 20, 26, 30 Kouba, K. – 16

40

Kouřil, V. – 32 Racek, J. – 29 Kusák, A. – 20, 23 Redman, D. – 19 Krautgartner, K. – 32 Ricoeur, P. – 9 Khrushchev, N. – 32 Robeson, P. – 22 L Rothenbuhler, E. W. – 31, 32 Lenin, V. I. – 6, 14, 15, 27 S Lücke, M. – 17 Said, E. – 21 Ludvík, E. – 18 Setonová, M. – 22 Lukes, S. – 7, 25 Scott, G. – 32 Lukyanov, F. – 15 Schechner, R. – 9 M Spurný, F. – 20 Macura, V. – 5, 6, 31 Stalin, J. – 6, 8, 10, 14, 21, 32 Marx, K. – 6, 10, 11 Stanislav, J. – 19 Matzner, A. – 5, 14, 19, 25 Starr, F. – 17, 23, 24 McCron, R. – 28 Suchý, J. – 19 McDonnell, T. – 12 Sychra, A. – 15, 16, 23 Moravec, E. – 27 S/Sh Morris, P. D. – 16 Shebalin, V. – 10 Murdock, G. – 28 Shils, E. – 9 Myaskovsky, N. – 10 Šíma, J. – 19, 20 N Shostakovich, D. D. – 10 Nejedlý, Z. – 16, 27 T Nezval, V. – 15 Teplickij, L. – 17 O Traxler, J. – 5, 18, 19, 20, 24, 29 Olds, J. – 9 Trotsky, L. – 6 P Tsfasman, A. – 17 Parnach, V. – 17 Turner, V. W. – 29, 31, 32 Parsons, T. – 9 Tyrmand, L. – 26 Peyton, B. – 17 U Popov, G. – 10 Uggé, E. – 19, 20, 22, 23 Poiger, U. G. – 23 V Prokofiev, S. – 10 Válek, J. – 24 Průchová, V. – 24 Vicherek, G. – 18 R Vlach, K. – 25, 26, 32

41

Vodseďálek, I. – 19, 20, 25 Wooding, S. – 17 Vogel, E. – 18 Z Voskovec, J. – 18 Zoshchenko, M. – 14 Vrba, T. – 8 Zh W Zhdanov, A. - 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, Werich, J. – 18 16, 20, 21 Whiteman, P. – 18

42

Annotation

This bachelor thesis is an attempt to understand the relationship between jazz music and Czechoslovak Communist party throughout the era of Stalinism. In the first part, music criticism is analyzed through the scope of the theory of social performance, using the theoretical outline of Jeffrey C. Alexander‟s theory of Cultural Pragmatics. The second part then is a concrete description of connotations, subculture, spaces and formal aspects of jazz music with references to contemporary press and memoires of figures active in the jazz scene of 1940ties and 1950ties, interpreted through cultural sociological perspective. To analyze the jazz as a cultural object and as an element, constitutive to social boundaries, I utilized numerous sociological concepts and theories – i.e. of Émile Durkheim, Edward Said, Victor Turner or Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. This work contains 89 854 signs, spaces included.

Anotácia

Táto bakalárska práca je pokusom porozumieť vzťahu medzi jazzovou hudbou a československou komunistickou stranou v ére Stalinizmu. Prvá časť je venovaná analýze hudobnej kritiky prostredníctvom teórie sociálnej performancie a kultúrnej pragmatiky Jeffrey C. Alexandra. Druhá časť je potom venovaná konkrétnemu popisu konotácií, subkultúry, priestorov a formálnych aspektov jazzovej hudby s odkazmi na dobovú tlač a pamäte osobností, aktívnych na jazzovej scéne štyridsiatych a päťdesiatych rokov, videnému z perspektívy kultúrnej sociológie. Na analýzu jazzu ako kultúrneho objektu a konštitutívneho element sociálnych väzieb som vyuţil viaceré sociologické koncepty a teórie – napr. Émile Durkheima, Edwarda Saida, Victora Turnera či Mihalyho Csikszentmihalyiho. Táto práca obsahuje 89 854 znakov vrátane medzier.

43