Jump to content

Stanley Crouch


johnagrandy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 7 months later...

As I'm sure you all know, Stanley has a new book out this year, called Considering Genius. I picked it up Saturday just long enough to read the piece that got him fired from Jazz Times about Dave Douglas. The man has a point there - even if his point is that of a deadly blunted instrument - but nevertheless there's something to it. His novel, worse than unreadable, was made hilarious by listening to him promote it by saying it'd give Joyce, Faulkner and Hemingway a run for thier money, but I often find that his essays, no matter how desperately in need of an editor they inevitably are, no matter how heavily peppered with bigotry and ignorance, still more likely than not have a kernal worth exploring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pretty sure it was NOT Croch's editor he hit but rather another black dude writer at the Voice w/whom he disagreed re: some hip-hop thing. This is easily researchable.

Elis-- why, oh why, in wide world of literature, spend the time to find those kernals? We can go to the library or Strand & find 100s, 1000s of far more interesting writers of all kinds. For now, google Center for Book Culture & browse a cpl hundred of 'em.

TROOF: Stanley has rage bc, deep down, he knows he's bullshit & a failure who only suceeeds as one of a few token black men. He's been superceded on the streets-- listen to Nas, for one-- & was always a half-rate (at best drummer).

It's been all bluster & networking (thus Winton-- not a well-educated man, which has NADA to do w/lack of higher ed, he's simply POORLY read for the things his ambition has impelled him to do) to cover these things up. Even if yr interest is Af-Am culture, Crouch simply doesn't rank except as anachronism, Public Douchebag #1.

c

He hit Greg Tate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest youmustbe

I like Stanley in a strange way....he knows my brother, he's always been good to me, even when he was hitting me on the top of my head...but I always felt, and he said something to me years ago in Tower, something to the effect...'You're White, not even born in this country, but you know more about Jazz than me...' well, inferiority complex, whatever...but I still like him even if he veers towards being an all out asshole most of the time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Stanley in a strange way....he knows my brother, he's always been good to me, even when he was hitting me on the top of my head...but I always felt, and he said something to me years ago in Tower, something to the effect...'You're White, not even born in this country, but you know more about Jazz than me...' well, inferiority complex, whatever...but I still like him even if he veers towards being an all out asshole most of the time!

I've heard people say that about George W. Bush too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went in feeling what Chris and others have said. I had made my mind up sound unheard, hand unshaken. Then I got into the fray on that infamous thread at Jazz Corner. I felt I went too far in attacking Stanley and apologized in a PM. I got a message back and expected to be walloped, and to my utter amazement and delight he was anything but hostile. He could not have been more gracious or nice.

We've spoken on the phone twice since then and have been trying to get together. I made it plain that I've been rather critical in my perceptions of him and he took that like a man too. I guess he saw that I'm not a phoney and respected that. I also told him I feel we have plenty to talk about. In the meantime two friends of mine---who brook no bullshit and whose opinions I respect---told me he's a great guy. One is a singer to whose CD he did the notes and who has a built-in bullshit detector. I read those notes before promising myself I'd re-evaluate Crouch and rolled my eyes then. I re-read them the other day and thought he was on the money.

Opinions are opinions, opportunism opportunism, etc. If Stanley does the things he is accused of I figure he'll have to answer for them one day. But not to me---know what I mean? He has been nothing but nice since I reached out to him and that's enough for me to start fresh and trust myself and him to find out what he's really about. We can't let our own prejudices or disappointments get in the way of our perceptions of public people (or any people, for that matter). They have feelings and are human too. Maybe I'm a soft touch and Stanley is every bit the dick you and I thought all along. But as long as he is as nice as he's been to me personally so far--especially since he knows I've been critical as hell of him---he deserves at least not to be prejudged. He deserves my respect and will get it until he gives me reason to lose it.

To quote the Pets.com dog 'everyone deserves a second chance'.

Edited by fasstrack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, we're not prejudging him - just basing our comments on our experiences with him, his intellectual dishonesty, his written attacks on people lilke Anthony Davis (whom he thinks isn't black enough because his music comes out of a tradition that Stanley sees as too Euroo), the fact that he physically attacked one guy and has threatened others (like Gene Santoro) - look, Stanely can be quite charming, and I've spent some time with him. He's also a bright guy, but he aint no genius, and his prose is not only tortured but unintentionally humorous in its badly executed slang-ese. And the way he and Wynton have made a fetish of "the blues" is particualry repulsive - I will quote a letter that I wrote to the NY Times a few years ago and that was pub;ished in the Arts and Leisure section:

To the Editor:

While I am second to none in my admiration for Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington, I am becoming increasingly weary of Wynton Marsalis and Stanley Crouch's politicization of the blues. In their hands (as with their fellow Lincoln Center advisor Albert Murray) the blues has become something of an ideology, a club with which to beat all who do not share their aesthetic leanings. Last year, Mr. Marsalis told us what a blues-dependent art Ellington's was [''Ellington at 100: Reveling in Life's Majesty,'' Jan. 17, 1999], when in truth Duke used the blues so effectively because he was not dependent on them, but rather came to them, in terms of class and background, as something of an outsider. Now Stanley Crouch comes to tell us that Armstrong ''figured out how to articulate the sound of the blues through Tin Pan Alley tunes without abandoning their harmonic underpinnings,'' and quotes Mr. Marsalis as saying that ''not even Art Tatum, Charlie Parker, Monk and Coltrane did anything that sophisticated'' [''Wherever He Went, Joy Was Sure to Follow,'' March 12]. Once again, this is a case of fitting facts to ideology. Armstrong was truly a great blues player, but what he did most effectively was to expand the expressive possibilities of jazz in a way that made the blues only one element of many, in a manner that actually reduced their relative importance. Certainly Armstrong continued to play with the kind of tonal and rhythmic nuances that reflected the powerful dominance of the African-American performance tradition, but these were not necessarily related strictly to the blues. They reflected the larger picture of African-American performance styles. And Monk, Coltrane and, indeed, Charlie Parker devised musical systems that were every bit as sophisticated as Armstrong's.

ALLEN LOWE

South Portland, Me.

Edited by AllenLowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, we're not prejudging him - just basing our comments on our experiences with him, his intellectual dishonesty, his written attacks on people lilke Anthony Davis (whom he thinks isn't black enough because his music comes out of a tradition that Stanley sees as too Euroo), the fact that he physically attacked one guy and has threatened others (like Gene Santoro) - look, Stanely can be quite charming, and I've spent some time with him. He's also a bright guy, but he aint no genius, and his prose is not only tortured but unintentionally humorous in its badly executed slang-ese. And the way he and Wynton have made a fetish of "the blues" is particualry repulsive{quote]

Remember I said I didn't backtrack my opinions of him, his writing, or his political turnabout. Those things remain troubling to me. But any man who treats me decently deserves the same courtesy. It's simple manners. Having said this I also found out that Stanley is a big fan of the pianist Chris Anderson who I got to know in the 80s. Chris is unwell and about to turn 80. I broached writing a little something to Mr. Crouch about Chris's career achievements as he is a remarkable musician and person and Stanley has the pulpit. I think he will write something given the time. I'm glad he agreed with me. He's busy now with a 2nd career as a political talking head. I don't own a TV anymore or I'd doubtless find him and confreres entertaining as hell.

I really do want to sit down with Stanley and make my case for my generation which had great players like Ralph LaLama, Tardo Hammer, Tom Kirkpatrick. I know Rodney Kendrick forever, we came up together with Kim Clarke, Mark MacGowen and others---so many others, not to mention the previous generation it was passed on to us from: C. Sharpe, (Crouch did review C. in the Voice in the 80s, and raved) Tommy Turrentine, Jr. Cook. These guys were all on the scene and the jazz I knew and loved was being played not under bright lights and away from the radar of the press, mostly in the Soho area of Manhattan: Jazz Cultural Theater (Barry Harris' domain), Star cafe, Angry Squire. Further uptown there was the West End. I cut my teeth there, too, under the tutelage of real swing era cats. Also still up in Harlem, in joints like La Famille or the Three Eyed Shrimp (where Kim, Roy Haynes' son Craig, and a guy named Haji attempted to play behind Al Hibbler and our young asses destroyed Unchained melody---what a debacle!) and others. You could get into these joints for next to nothing and hear guys way better than the overtouted 'young lions'. And where is that unheralded generation now? Still playing, still doing our thing (I was younger than the aforementioned, except for Rodney who's younger than me, and a neophyte then, so I mostly mean the other guys) but plenty pissed off at the way our generation was rolled over by this other thing. Richie Vitale and Ralph always worked. Tardo is cool and most everyone is alive and healthy, except for the older cats who are gone now. Tom split for Italy over 10 years ago and I myself am headed for Holland soon, as it's too tough to survive here and I never get a chance to play.

So the Lost Generation who never got the ink but can play goes on. We were pretty pissed at being shut out and Stanley was an obvious target. But our cyber-encounter humanized him for me and again he's been very much a gentleman. But we will speak of these things---I sure will. I haven't told Stanley yet but I have 100 pages down of a book about the very jazz scene just described. I really should finish it and get it published because it's history that's never been documented, and from someone who was there and knew the cats. Barry especially deserves a tribute while he still walks among us. Just as a social force he will live on in my mind. He brought so many people together and lived his vision for 5 years with that place. I may have been a young knucklehead but I was there and played with them all. People ought to know about the other cats who weren't fast tracked (no pun intended on my screen name---I'm not that self-absorbed, just almost :D ) and what their lives and contributions were really about.

That's one thing that will definitely be broached at the Stanley Crouch-Joel Fass tete-de-tete. But again, so far Stanley is cool in my eyes now. Not an angel suddenly but cool. We mustn't let anger and disappoint rule. It's messy and not classy. Personal responsibilty makes a hell of a lot more sense, ne c'est pas?

Edited by fasstrack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your post may say more about you than it does about Stanley.

Meaning?

That Stanley can be pleasant is not new to most of us who have known him, so his turning on the charm is not a revelation. Ergo, your post does not shed new light on him (at least not to people who have observed him at close range). It does, however reveals how readily you were fooled by his PR facade (a veneer beyond which Allen and I can see) and how you seem able to not factor in Stanley's odious, disingenuous persona, opportunistic behavior, and total lack of journalistic integrity. All the charm in the world cannot obscure that, IMO.

I do, however, admire your positive view of things (as you have demonstrated on previous occasions)--rather than listen to us, you should make your own discoveries, but--re Stanley--the sheer volume of negative views should tell you something. Re-read the never-ending Crouch thread on JC (I think they are past or close to the 2000 mark) and you will see that Lois' desperate attempts to paint a positive picture of her celeb du jour are taken seriously only by the resident Wynton-mesmerized troll and those who consistently allow race to plow their path.

BTW, Allen's post bears repeating:

well, we're not prejudging him - just basing our comments on our experiences with him, his intellectual dishonesty, his written attacks on people lilke Anthony Davis (whom he thinks isn't black enough because his music comes out of a tradition that Stanley sees as too Euroo), the fact that he physically attacked one guy and has threatened others (like Gene Santoro) - look, Stanely can be quite charming, and I've spent some time with him. He's also a bright guy, but he aint no genius, and his prose is not only tortured but unintentionally humorous in its badly executed slang-ese. And the way he and Wynton have made a fetish of "the blues" is particualry repulsive - I will quote a letter that I wrote to the NY Times a few years ago and that was published in the Arts and Leisure section:

To the Editor:

While I am second to none in my admiration for Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington, I am becoming increasingly weary of Wynton Marsalis and Stanley Crouch's politicization of the blues. In their hands (as with their fellow Lincoln Center advisor Albert Murray) the blues has become something of an ideology, a club with which to beat all who do not share their aesthetic leanings. Last year, Mr. Marsalis told us what a blues-dependent art Ellington's was [''Ellington at 100: Reveling in Life's Majesty,'' Jan. 17, 1999], when in truth Duke used the blues so effectively because he was not dependent on them, but rather came to them, in terms of class and background, as something of an outsider. Now Stanley Crouch comes to tell us that Armstrong ''figured out how to articulate the sound of the blues through Tin Pan Alley tunes without abandoning their harmonic underpinnings,'' and quotes Mr. Marsalis as saying that ''not even Art Tatum, Charlie Parker, Monk and Coltrane did anything that sophisticated'' [''Wherever He Went, Joy Was Sure to Follow,'' March 12]. Once again, this is a case of fitting facts to ideology. Armstrong was truly a great blues player, but what he did most effectively was to expand the expressive possibilities of jazz in a way that made the blues only one element of many, in a manner that actually reduced their relative importance. Certainly Armstrong continued to play with the kind of tonal and rhythmic nuances that reflected the powerful dominance of the African-American performance tradition, but these were not necessarily related strictly to the blues. They reflected the larger picture of African-American performance styles. And Monk, Coltrane and, indeed, Charlie Parker devised musical systems that were every bit as sophisticated as Armstrong's.

ALLEN LOWE

South Portland, Me.

Edited by Christiern
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your post may say more about you than it does about Stanley.

Meaning?

That Stanley can be pleasant is not new to most of us who have known him, so his turning on the charm is not a revelation. Ergo, your post does not shed new light on him (at least not to people who have observed him at close range). It does, however reveals how readily you were fooled by his PR facade (a veneer beyond which Allen and I can see) and how you seem able to not factor in Stanley's odious, disingenuous persona, opportunistic behavior, and total lack of journalistic integrity. All the charm in the world cannot obscure that, IMO.

BTW, Allen's post bears repeating:

well, we're not prejudging him - just basing our comments on our experiences with him, his intellectual dishonesty, his written attacks on people lilke Anthony Davis (whom he thinks isn't black enough because his music comes out of a tradition that Stanley sees as too Euroo), the fact that he physically attacked one guy and has threatened others (like Gene Santoro) - look, Stanely can be quite charming, and I've spent some time with him. He's also a bright guy, but he aint no genius, and his prose is not only tortured but unintentionally humorous in its badly executed slang-ese. And the way he and Wynton have made a fetish of "the blues" is particualry repulsive - I will quote a letter that I wrote to the NY Times a few years ago and that was published in the Arts and Leisure section:

To the Editor:

While I am second to none in my admiration for Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington, I am becoming increasingly weary of Wynton Marsalis and Stanley Crouch's politicization of the blues. In their hands (as with their fellow Lincoln Center advisor Albert Murray) the blues has become something of an ideology, a club with which to beat all who do not share their aesthetic leanings. Last year, Mr. Marsalis told us what a blues-dependent art Ellington's was [''Ellington at 100: Reveling in Life's Majesty,'' Jan. 17, 1999], when in truth Duke used the blues so effectively because he was not dependent on them, but rather came to them, in terms of class and background, as something of an outsider. Now Stanley Crouch comes to tell us that Armstrong ''figured out how to articulate the sound of the blues through Tin Pan Alley tunes without abandoning their harmonic underpinnings,'' and quotes Mr. Marsalis as saying that ''not even Art Tatum, Charlie Parker, Monk and Coltrane did anything that sophisticated'' [''Wherever He Went, Joy Was Sure to Follow,'' March 12]. Once again, this is a case of fitting facts to ideology. Armstrong was truly a great blues player, but what he did most effectively was to expand the expressive possibilities of jazz in a way that made the blues only one element of many, in a manner that actually reduced their relative importance. Certainly Armstrong continued to play with the kind of tonal and rhythmic nuances that reflected the powerful dominance of the African-American performance tradition, but these were not necessarily related strictly to the blues. They reflected the larger picture of African-American performance styles. And Monk, Coltrane and, indeed, Charlie Parker devised musical systems that were every bit as sophisticated as Armstrong's.

ALLEN LOWE

South Portland, Me.

Chris: If you think I was 'fooled' or in any way naive you really don't know me at all. Trust me on that one. I explained myself in the above missive and am not gonna put angel wings on anyone's ass; his, mine, or yours for that matter. We're all fuckups, we humanoids. That makes us equal--maytbe not in the eyes of 'God'---wherever she is, but sure as shit in my eyes. For the last time: I simply want to go to the source---like I was learning a tune---and get it right. Eyeball to eyeball is the right way to find out about anyone. That way the praise, the hype, the shit-talking is left at the door and you break bread and say 'OK, MF, what are you really about?' And if he winds up being a friend that's my business and it'll be because we get on and I like him and vice-versa. Period. If not we both move on, none the worse. I have a lot of friends and do things my way.

BTW: I wrote my share of letter complaining about Stanley (and Wynton) to the Times. They never printed them, those bastards :crazy::g .

Edited by fasstrack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do, however, admire your positive view of things (as you have demonstrated on previous occasions)--rather than listen to us, you should make your own discoveries, but--re Stanley--the sheer volume of negative views should tell you something. Re-read the never-ending Crouch thread on JC (I think they are past or close to the 2000 mark) and you will see that Lois' desperate attempts to paint a positive picture of her celeb du jour are taken seriously only by the resident Wynton-mesmerized troll and those who consistently allow race to plow their path.

I just saw this, Chris, and thanks for that. Yes, I want to find the good in people. It ties in with why I play, because I believe in human potential and reaching out. (And also b/c I'm a selfish, greedy fuck that loves attention :g .). This doesn't put flies on me. I have been burned and hurt by people when I went against my instincts and went through doors I shouldn't have. Something happened recently through this very Internet that was horrible to go through, especially in the middle of an otherwise piece of shit summer. So I'll stay away from where the cyber-evildoers lurk, being sensitive and thin-skinned. But I'll still take risks or face the far worse risk: never learning or growing.

Really, it's time now for me to put this puppy to bed. It's not really that important to me but if y'all want to continue lobbing the ball, salud.

Edited by fasstrack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, not to beat a dead hearse here - but I've been recording lately with a trio, last week we recorded a nice blues and I went back and forth about what to call the damn thing on the new CD - finally came up with a title:

"All the Blues You Could Play (if Stanely Crouch Was Your Uncle)"

should go nicely on the new CD -

Edited by AllenLowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, not to beat a dead hearse here - but I've been recording lately with a trio, last week we recorded a nice blues and I went back and forth about what to call the damn thing on the new CD - finally came up with a title:

"All the Blues You Could Play (if Stanely Crouch Was Your Uncle)"

:rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...