Jazz

There was a concerted effort to push Jazz onto the public

Cultural shifts are frequently understood as natural evolutions of popular preference, emerging spontaneously from the collective tastes of the populace. However, a compelling historical case study suggests that culture can, in fact, be purposefully shaped and directed from positions of influence, a process akin to "hacking" culture from the top down.

The ascendancy of jazz in the early 20th century provides a potent illustration of this phenomenon, demonstrating how a genre initially met with public indifference and outright hostility was deliberately propelled to national prominence.

In the 1910s, jazz faced significant challenges within the existing cultural landscape. The American public simply preferred rival genres. Critics were scathing; influential figures derided it as an "assault on the ears" and a "shocking affront to decency taste". Venues refused to book jazz acts, viewing them as "filth" unsuitable for respectable establishments. Furthermore, particularly among well-to-do types, the genre was widely perceived as low class and anti-aspirational. It was a culture fundamentally hostile to the new sound.

For those determined to make this cultural change happen, the guiding principle was clear: never take "no" for an answer. Despite the widespread resistance, the resolve to supplant the existing popular music with jazz persisted. Overcoming these obstacles required a series of deliberate actions, mirroring a strategic playbook used in various industries, including show business, which has historically been ruthless in its methods.

The strategy involved several key components:

• Neutralising Rivals and Establishing Control: To overcome the public preference for existing genres, a crucial step was to close off the ability of rivals to reach the public. This involved establishing a monopoly on the publishing houses or record labels that controlled music distribution. Cartel tactics and other methods, sometimes described as resembling mafia-like behaviour, were employed to crowd out any new upstartattempting to enter the market. Success in the industry became contingent on demonstrating fidelity to the controlled publishing houses; associating with competitors was made a career ender.
• Silencing or Co-opting Critics: Critics who opposed the new genre were subjected to personal attacks, harassment, and ridicule. Efforts were made to discredit their voice, isolate them, and lessen their influence. Alternatively, friendly critics were embedded in key newspapers, or, if resources allowed, independent media outlets were established. If a critic was too powerful to silence, a dialectic was established. This framed the critic's opposition as proof that the new genre was hip, trendy, and cool, while the critic was painted as a fuddy-duddy, old-fashioned, boring, or a prude. Once this framing was in place, the critic's attacks could be worn as a badge of pride.
• Gaining Access to Venues: Venue refusal was tackled through blackmailing and bullying tactics to force venues to book the desired acts and refuse others. Another method was to infiltrate venues by replacing hostile managers with sympathetic individuals. With sufficient capital, simply buying the venue was an option. A potent tactic involved using controlled media and friendly critics to publicly attack venues that refused cooperation. This relentless criticism aimed to force them to capitulate or come under new management friendly to the cause. Targeting sources of prestige, such as major venues like Carnegie Hall, was considered vital, as securing access there could "move mountains". If such venues booked classics like Mozart or Beethoven while rejecting jazz, the approach was not to label the classics as low class, but to portray them as boring, outdated, old-fashioned, or stayed, thus subtly altering public perception and the overall "vibe".
• Transforming Perception: The initial perception of jazz as low class and anti-aspirational was often a consequence of the other obstacles. Overcoming this required turning the perception on its head through the relentless use of friendly media to push a counter-narrative. The message promoted was that the new genre was the best thing going, embraced by all the "cool kids," implying that those who disliked it were somehow flawed or out of touch. It was framed as "the best thing since Jesus". Again, targeting sources of prestige – major venues and publications – was crucial, as their endorsement won a significant portion of the battle. Alternative genres were also subtly attacked or framed negatively to shift public preference and "change the vibe".

This process of deliberate engineering led to what is often referred to as a "vibe shift". This was not a spontaneous event. People in key places deliberately pushed the message using nodes of influence and control in exactly the manner described. When taste makers and high society figures began to articulate the same message simultaneously, the public perceived this shift. After approximately a decade of this focused, relentless pushing, refusing to take "no" for an answer, the perception changed. By the early to mid-1920s, there was a perceived "vibe shift," and jazz came to be widely regarded as the national music.

This was emphatically not some organic process; it was deliberately engineered with a desired result in mind by a close-knit group of people.

The promotion of jazz as a cultural force didn't end in the 1920s. In the 1950s, it received another significant push, this time as an explicit, government-led Propaganda effort. American intelligence services (CIA) and the military actively promoted jazz during the Cold War.

This was a direct response to frequent Soviet Union attacks accusing the US of racism. A massive effort was undertaken to present jazz as America's national music and a celebration of, and example of, the prominent roles given to its Black population. This was explicit propaganda designed to counter Soviet accusations. For instance, the global promotion of Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World" was part of this effort, disseminated worldwide as American propaganda to project an image of America as a freedom-loving, cosmopolitan, non-racist place, contrasting it with the Soviet Union.

The history of jazz's rise demonstrates how powerful, often ruthless, tactics can be employed to deliberately shape cultural tastes and norms from the top down. The perception that cultural shifts are solely emergent, bottom-up phenomena overlooks the significant influence wielded by determined individuals and groups in key positions, who can, and historically have, programmed people's dreams by engineering what becomes popular and perceived as desirable.