Crouch on Percy Heath

[chris]

Crouch on Percy Heath/MJQ

[Spontooneous]

So now the guy can't even write an obituary without turning it into an agenda-driven attack.

And he kinda sorta forgot to say much of anything about Mr. Heath.

[Hardbopjazz]

And he kinda sorta forgot to say much of anything about Mr. Heath.

Correct. He hardly talks about Percy Heath. I doubt he gives a rat's ass about Percy Heath.

Edited May 9, 2005 by Hardbopjazz

[slide_advantage_redoux]

"neo-sambo minstrelsy"

[Dan Gould]

Number one, that wasn't meant as an obituary of Heath, the person. So he doesn't deserve to be attacked for not talking about Heath.

Number two, Crouch is spot on about the MJQ as John Lewis conceptualized it. Lewis did aspire to a higher class presentation to a higher class of audience. Personally, I have never had any problem with what Crouch says about the "music" created today by African-American youth. It is crap and ought to be identified as such. And he is certainly not the only black writer to decry what this popular music presents.

[Joe M]

I know Crouch hating is very fashionable these days, but this is not an obituary, it's a commentary piece.

[Brad]

I agree with the prior two points. I think it's not so much as an obit of Percy Heath but perhaps of MJQ and what they represented. However, I agree with everything he says, especially the state of today's music or what passes as such.

[Christiern]

Stanley proves once again what an ignorant, agenda-driven ass he is. I have no quarrel with his praise for the MJO, but he elevates them at the expense of other great groups that came before them. Sure, the MJQ was concert-minded, but was it any more serious about the music than, say, the Benny Goodman Trio, Quartet, etc.? Of course not. The Quintette of the Hot Club of France is another group that should be taken every bit as seriously as the MJO.

As for what he calls "neo-sambo minstrelsy," it is no different from the run-of-the-mill minstrelsy that has always been found in jazz--he gives short shrift to Dizzy's commercial antics, the berets, horn-rimmed glasses, etc., but was it any different? Were the zoot suits any less "minstrelsy" than today's baggy pants, gold pendants, and whatever other periphenalia the hip hoppers favor?

In the 1920s it was ostrich feathers, giant head dresses, outrageous fabrics, etc., and the lingo has been jive since Bolden. Does Stanley really think that serious jazz began with the MJQ?

This is actually a typical Stanley Crouch jive piece, it conveniently skip over facts that would get in the way of his agenda, and it has nothing new to say.

The thread title is definitely misleading.

Edited May 9, 2005 by Christiern

[jlhoots]

I'm not a fan of Crouch's, but some of us need to calm down.

Edited May 9, 2005 by jlhoots

[chris]

The thread title is definitely misleading.

The PIECE is misleading. I labelled the thread in accordance with the article.

[mikeweil]

One of the troubles, however, was that many of the be-boppers were heroin addicts, which meant that on one hand they were producing a difficult, virtuoso style, while on the other they were pariahs to musicians outside of their camp.

As if the drug had anything to do with their musical craetions on an inspirational level ...

[Larry Kart]

"One of the troubles, however, was that many of the be-boppers were heroin addicts, which meant that on one hand they were producing a difficult, virtuoso style, while on the other they were pariahs to musicians outside of their camp.

Can't be sure, as is often the case with Crouch, whether this is sloppy writing or sloppy thinking -- maybe both? The "on the one hand, on the other" construction just doesn't fit what I think he's trying to say, though even when I apply my secret decoder ring, there's some confusion.

[marcello]

Nothing controversal here.

A fluff piece with very little to say.

The fact that he uses the MJQ to get on his soapbox against Hip-Hop culture doen't bother me in the least, but he dosn't give any REAL insight into what those men stood for and accomplished either.

[Jazz Kat]

Let's slam every single jazz writer there is!

[marcello]

Let's slam every single jazz writer there is!

LISTEN - READ - LEARN

[clifford_thornton]

Let's slam every single jazz writer there is!

A lot of us work very hard at our profession, and I think that you should keep that foot right where it belongs Jazz Kat.

[Christiern]

[JSngry]

Ok, this photo raises an issue I've long been unsure about. Is it considered "ok" to have the knot of a tie uncentered in relation to the collar of the shirt? I've always felt it to be a little bit "careless" myself, but I see lots of "well-dressed" guys who do it (and just as many who don't), so I'm wondering what the "code" is about such a matter.

I'm not a habitual tie-wearer myself by any stretch of the imagination, but when I do it, I try to make it look as sharp as possible. It just seems that the rewards of going to the trouble of getting a good tie and tying a good knot are a little bit negated by having it off-center.

But damn, them sure are nice suits. Not crazy about that short lapel look (there's a term for that style, where you button the top button and have that reduced shirt-visibility along with the shorter lapels, but I've forgotten what it is), but looks lie a good fabric, and defintiely well-cut. And GREAT ties. Who was the band's outfitter?

This is all serious, btw.

Edited May 10, 2005 by JSngry

[Spontooneous]

It don't mean a hoot if it ain't got that suit.

[marcello]

But damn, them sure are nice suits. And GREAT ties. Who was the band's outfitter?

Not to get too, too far from the subject....

I believe that, in fact, wardrobe was Percy's job.

If you look at the cut of those threads, they would be in style today with the high buttons and lapels.

Hip Cats!

Edited May 10, 2005 by marcello

[JSngry]

Well hey - dig Percy. He's the only one who went for the longer lapels, even if it meant showing a little buttonhole. And his tiework is the best of the band, too, at least in this photo. Lewis has a great knot but is a tad off-center (still not sure about the propriety of that...), Connies right but non-descript, and Bags looks like he put the thing on and said, "Ok, fuck it, it's on. Let's play some blues."

Besides studying clothes in photos, I also like to study eye contact with the camera(or lack thereof). But that's not always an exact science. Checking out clothes, otoh, is a pretty safe bet.

Edited May 10, 2005 by JSngry

[JSngry]

I believe that, in fact, wardrobe was Percy's job.

Well there you go.

[Sundog]

A windsor knot pulled (here's the key phrase) "ever-so-slightly" to one side with one indentation under the knot is the ticket. Don't get me started about those handkerchiefs. B-)

Those ties need to go back to the dry cleaners. whoa!

[Jazz Kat]

I where a tie everyday. I have seen some of the worst knotted ties in the history of bad knotted ties. Bad tie knots of every kind!

[Christiern]

None of my ties look worse for where.