What most bothers me about this passage is the anonymity it reduces Feather and Hammond to. It's like they only exist as nexuses of social forces for Gennari. It's kind of daft, in that one remembers them as clearly defined individuals. I'm making the point because it seems to lead to a greater one about deconstruction and the perils of that approach for Jazz generally.
The fact is Deveaux's book strikes me as somewhat like that, as taking away from the individuality of the musicians to make for his case of socio-economic basis. I think that's why I don't like it, because the multiplexity of the musicians' characters gets lost in the mix. Other people will talk about the aesthetic basis of Jazz, but for me it's really about people. When Claire Daly says "Oh, there I am," she really gets to the heart of it.
I mean, surely that's what Jazz is about in its origin, at least in part, the assertion of (some) black people's identity in the face of a system that seeks to deny them it.
And, in a world which seeks to make people more and more anonymous, we still need that.
Not just blacks.
Simon Weil
This makes me think of Taine's history of English Literature. It has always been criticised because it left personal genius out of the account, treating Skelton and Shakespeare on even terms. But Taine was using English literature to find out something about what it was like to be English, so he was concerned about what the different writers had in common, not what separated one from another.
It's legit to seek this sort of information from any kind of art, because it doesn't come in a vacuum. It's even legit to seek it exclusively, within a context in which others are seeking other information exclusively. If that approach were the only one, it would lead to wrong conclusions. But as part of a whole range of approaches, there's no reason why this shouldn't be regarded as equally interesting, provided one recognises that, like the view that concentrates solely on aesthetics, it's only part of the story.
MG