"The Greatest Jazz Concert Ever:" Pierre Bourdieu and the Shifting Ontology of Bebop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On May 15, 1953, Toronto’s Massey Hall played host to what has become widely known in text books and collectors guides as “The Greatest Jazz Concert Ever.” The concert featured iconic bebop musicians Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Bud Powell, Charles Mingus, and Max Roach – a stunning assemblage of musicians whom Downbeat Magazine proclaimed to be the “Quintet of the Year.” Curiously, however, the contemporary critical reaction was decidedly lukewarm. According to 1950s Globe and Mail critic Alex Barris, for instance, “All in all, it was neither a great concert nor a bad one.” How, then, has such an apparently pedestrian event come to be known as the “greatest jazz concert ever”? 
 
 This paper pursues an answer to that question by drawing on the socially-grounded aesthetic theorization of Pierre Bourdieu to help unpack the complex web of social and textual factors involved in the aesthetic valorization of the bebop. In the first section, I establish the theoretical framework, briefly explaining those elements of Bourdieu’s terminology and theory that are most germane to my study. In the second section, I apply Bourdieu’s concept of consecration to examine how music journalists, critics, and scholars discursively constructed bebop as a high art form. In the third section, I consider the musicians’ own effort to affirm their high art credentials. In the fourth and final section, I interrogate the consequences of the valorization of a primarily black music according to the aesthetic terminology and values of a primarily white establishment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".