Lee Morgan Bio and others

[ValerieB]

The complexities of the situation are effectively evoked. As the British photographer and writer Valerie Wilmer points out, Morgan, for all his civil rights sensibilities, still had a process - chemically straightened hair - at a time when Afros were de rigueur. Most pleasing of all is the way that Perchard actually downplays the sensational nature of his subject's life and death - he was shot by his girlfriend at a club aged just 33 - but vividly paints his portrait against a backdrop of music, culture and politics.

Just as a point of information, Lee Morgan didn't have a "process". That was his natural hair.

do you really know that to be a fact? i'm sure he did "something" to it, that's for sure.

I was in his company on occasion and saw him several times. I know a "process" when I see one, I've been around that all my life. Several of my friends, who happen to be black, have hair just as straight as Lee. Also, I knew Billy Higgins and Billy and Lee were very tight. Billy said it was natural.

well, i think i have the definitive answer to this from a really good friend of lee's bennie maupin says it was definitely not a "process" but a result of lee's indian blood. i believe that but still think he did some "plastering" with the style to cover the scar. boy, talk about a trivia discussion!!

[Chuck Nessa]

[Cali]

The complexities of the situation are effectively evoked. As the British photographer and writer Valerie Wilmer points out, Morgan, for all his civil rights sensibilities, still had a process - chemically straightened hair - at a time when Afros were de rigueur. Most pleasing of all is the way that Perchard actually downplays the sensational nature of his subject's life and death - he was shot by his girlfriend at a club aged just 33 - but vividly paints his portrait against a backdrop of music, culture and politics.

Just as a point of information, Lee Morgan didn't have a "process". That was his natural hair.

do you really know that to be a fact? i'm sure he did "something" to it, that's for sure.

I was in his company on occasion and saw him several times. I know a "process" when I see one, I've been around that all my life. Several of my friends, who happen to be black, have hair just as straight as Lee. Also, I knew Billy Higgins and Billy and Lee were very tight. Billy said it was natural.

well, i think i have the definitive answer to this from a really good friend of lee's bennie maupin says it was definitely not a "process" but a result of lee's indian blood. i believe that but still think he did some "plastering" with the style to cover the scar. boy, talk about a trivia discussion!!

Well, I don't consider it trivia when it's published that "Morgan, for all his civil rights sensibilities, still had a process - chemically straightened hair - at a time when Afros were de rigueur." This misrepresentation implies that Morgan was conflicted about his racial identity, which is absolutely false.

[chris olivarez]

As far as I'm concerned Lee made it out of Miles shadow.

[bertrand]

'Well, I don't consider it trivia when it's published that "Morgan, for all his civil rights sensibilities, still had a process - chemically straightened hair - at a time when Afros were de rigueur." This misrepresentation implies that Morgan was conflicted about his racial identity, which is absolutely false.'

I see your point and I would tend to agree with you that the author is taking great liberties in jumping to this conclusion.

We already knew from the 'socio-cultural' slant of the table of contents (and the subtitle) where this book is coming from. Don't expect any musical analysis. I hope at least that he is a good writer.

Bertrand.

Edited November 14, 2006 by bertrand

[andybleaden]

Hmmmm. Let me see know. Author taken liberties, talking in sweeping generlizations. Nope No surprise there

[ValerieB]

'Well, I don't consider it trivia when it's published that "Morgan, for all his civil rights sensibilities, still had a process - chemically straightened hair - at a time when Afros were de rigueur." This misrepresentation implies that Morgan was conflicted about his racial identity, which is absolutely false.'

I see your point and I would tend to agree with you that the author is taking great liberties in jumping to this conclusion.

We already knew from the 'socio-cultural' slant of the table of contents (and the subtitle) where this book is coming from. Don't expect any musical analysis. I hope at least that he is a good writer.

Bertrand.

but wasn't that valerie wilmer's faux pas and not the author of this current book?

[umum_cypher]

I know it’s strictly non-U to register in order to talk up your own book, and I’m loath to break an eighteen-month lurking run anyway, but I agree that this isn’t just hair-splitting.

Three things, from the trivial to the less-trivial:

1. Lee Morgan’s Native American features (from his mum’s side) meant that he didn’t need a process. It was all pomade.

2. I don’t for a second think he was ‘conflicted by his racial identity’. (Mind you, I think the idea that black people with straightened hair demonstrate that kind of conflictedness is itself a bit of a canard).

3. I don’t suggest that he had a process or was conflicted in that way in the book. What the above review begins to suggest and what some posters above then conclude is a slightly different matter.

The word ‘process’ is indeed attributed to an interviewee, not me. OK, that interviewee, talking at 30 years distance, isn’t entirely accurate in remembering Lee Morgan’s hairdressing habits – and I’ve already by that time in the book given the accurate information – but she’s still making a valid point. This correspondent wasn’t the only person to remark upon the apparent datedness of Lee’s hair and its political-symbolic ramifications, so I put it in, inconsistencies aside. People did and do think that about Lee’s hair. What Lee (sorry, Morgan) thought about it - and his isn't the only important point of view, surely - we don’t know. We don’t need to waste time guessing, either; like many here I can’t abide psychoanalysis by historical remove, not to mention academic theorising built on wafer thin bits of evidence.

Again, the culture-identity interpretation is drawn from the reviewer (‘…when Afros were de rigueur…’), not me. I don’t think there’s much reprehensible about that interpretation, and the book presents it via that interviewee, but it’s not quite my own view. (In fact, I’ve got something rather different to say about Lee’s haircut symbolism). It would be glib to suggest that my whole project is ideologically skewed on the basis of these others’ words. Thanks to ValerieB for pointing this out.

The review above concentrates on the late ‘political’ stuff, much of which is pretty familiar to posters here I imagine. Discussion of music and life, which account for two thirds of the subtitle (and which another reviewer has talked about more) are played down, even though they are actually featured in the book much more extensively than the ‘politics’. There’s a reason for that, though: that review was part of an ‘American Books Special’, which, coming the weekend after the elections over there, had a bit of a political bent. So that angle may well have been requested by the editor.

Two layers of hearsay, an added interpretation, and more than likely some extra-creative, commercial constraints: sounds like the jazz world to me. And that’s the kind of history I’ve written.

Bertrand, like you I’ve read a lot of ‘scholarly’ writing on jazz, so I completely understand that you feel forlorn about the prospect of more. But this isn’t that kind of work. I’d much prefer to hear your glum reactions than your glum prognostications.

Thanks in advance for indulging this. Sorry it’s so prolix. I don’t want to defend the book, as it can stand up for itself, but until it’s out and people are reading it (rather than other people’s glosses on it) I’m keen that it’s not taken for some kind of Cult-Studs/Kofsky bastard child.

Tom

[JSngry]

A spirited defense that has piqued my interest in the book. No guarantee that I'll like it, but the man has stated his case most clearly.

[ValerieB]

thank you so much for taking the time to write, Tom. i'm really looking forward to reading the book. i'm sure it will bring back lots of wonderful memories for me and be educational as well.

[montg]

thank you so much for taking the time to write, Tom. i'm really looking forward to reading the book. i'm sure it will bring back lots of wonderful memories for me and be educational as well.

My sentiments too. Thanks for taking the time

[bertrand]

I like what Jim said. I too have my interest piqued.

Tom, my main concern was that I have been in touch with several people who have been doing extensive research on Lee Morgan over the last 10-15 years, and from what I can tell you have not been in touch with them. But, as I have been reading more, I see that you have dug up some things no one else has (e.g. details on the fate of Helen More).

I am sorry that we were not in touch before (I first heard about your book when it was already written). I have posted this before on this board and the former Blue Note board that I stumbled across a large number (60-70) of compositions that Lee sent in for copyright deposit that he never recorded. Trumpeter David Weiss went through the lead sheets for these. Although there were many that were alternate titles for previously known compositions, there are still a number of 'new' pieces. Three of them ('Queen Joesphine', 'Anguish' and 'Festival Of The Grapes') were performed by a D.C.-based group almost 10 years ago.

I have mentioned this to the biographers I know. I think this could be an interesting topic for research, namely what prompted him (other than the obvious financial motive - he probably got paid some money for each of these tunes) to copyright these pieces, yet never record them. A big question mark was whether or not he played them live. I only recently got some information that he did, although I do not have too many details yet, as I got this from one of the musicians in his later bands but through a middle-man (I have yet to speak to this musician, who never comes through D.C.).

Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading your book. I'm sorry this information couldn't get to you in time.

Bertrand.

[bertrand]

P.S.

Did you ever find out anything about 'River Jordan'?

(Perhaps someone can dig up the thread from the old BNBB).

Bertrand.

[umum_cypher]

Oh Bertrand! More prognostication?! :-) (gave up on the icon after two minutes of trying, it's not important)

Not to be too coy, but maybe that info did reach me (and check the acknowledgements page when you get a copy). It's true I didn't have much to do with the Veteran Lee Morgan Research Corps - they were at home, I don't know, maybe preparing for publication - but I was visible enough.

In fact, that kind of mechanism (who ow[n]ed what / paid for which / why and how it affected Lee's art) is central to the thing; I draw some conclusions about Lee's (rather fishy, it has to be said) legal arrangements, and while they might not be final, and they might not prove to be 100% accurate, they at least some conclusions. I know that's not how these books usually work, but I did say… Hope you like it, anyway.

No more, promise. (Recent threads show that writer-talks-to-board-about-own-work doesn't make for palatable reading.)

ta

Tom

[edited in failed attempt to sort out sodding icons]

Edited November 17, 2006 by umum_cypher

[robert h.]

Oh Bertrand! More prognostication?! :-) (gave up on the icon after two minutes of trying, it's not important)

Not to be too coy, but maybe that info did reach me (and check the acknowledgements page when you get a copy). It's true I didn't have much to do with the Veteran Lee Morgan Research Corps - they were at home, I don't know, maybe preparing for publication - but I was visible enough.

In fact, that kind of mechanism (who ow[n]ed what / paid for which / why and how it affected Lee's art) is central to the thing; I draw some conclusions about Lee's (rather fishy, it has to be said) legal arrangements, and while they might not be final, and they might not prove to be 100% accurate, they at least some conclusions. I know that's not how these books usually work, but I did say… Hope you like it, anyway.

No more, promise. (Recent threads show that writer-talks-to-board-about-own-work doesn't make for palatable reading.)

ta

Tom

[edited in failed attempt to sort out sodding icons]

I think this entire unfortunate thread simply demonstrates that the arm chair critics who haven't ever read/heard before they start the sniping should take foot out of mouth, take a few pills and chill out before indulging their negativity.

And some posters should quit while they are ahead once it's been pointed out that they haven't a clue.

It's all too easy for some folks on the internet to kick someone else's work around without the slightest justification. They think that they will never be caught out on it because of the anonymity of the internet.

Thanks for coming on here to make sure that your work doesn't get scuttled by some anonymous, cowardly sniping from behind a screen. I find it unfortunate that some people feel a need to attempt to dismiss a work before it's even had a chance to be seen. It must be incredibly discouraging to read this type of thread and in general these people discourage others from attempting to do this kind of work. I'll be buying the book and enjoying it.

[JSngry]

otoh, writers should be encouraged by the fact that at least a portion of their potential audience will be informed & concerned enough to expect a well-researched & well-written book, unless they're hoping for the opposite so they can get by with writing slop.

Knowing that expectations ae high tends to lead one to either excellence or evasion. Thankfully, Tom sounds like he's in the former category.

[brownie]

Had plans to get the book!

Tom's posts here are more good reasons to purchase this!

Looks like some serious business

[michel1969]

I have ordered the book already. Can't wait till it arrives ! Beginning january, says Amazon...

[robert h.]

otoh, writers should be encouraged by the fact that at least a portion of their potential audience will be informed & concerned enough to expect a well-researched & well-written book, unless they're hoping for the opposite so they can get by with writing slop.

Knowing that expectations ae high tends to lead one to either excellence or evasion. Thankfully, Tom sounds like he's in the former category.

Informed and concerned yes, but trying to discredit a book before it's even been seen or read is hardly a case of "expectations", it's just plain being a blowhard and tossing negativity without reason.

Members of the audience have a right to expect discussion based on actual knowledge of the work being discussed, generally obtained by actually reading it or, at minimum, having some first hand exposure to it.

This is the same kind of rubbish that goes on continually at the whiner's forum (www.stevehoffman.tv) - endless complaining and bitching about every single little trivial thing, even about stuff that not only has yet to be released - but has yet to be created!

[JSngry]

otoh, writers should be encouraged by the fact that at least a portion of their potential audience will be informed & concerned enough to expect a well-researched & well-written book, unless they're hoping for the opposite so they can get by with writing slop.

Knowing that expectations ae high tends to lead one to either excellence or evasion. Thankfully, Tom sounds like he's in the former category.

Informed and concerned yes, but trying to discredit a book before it's even been seen or read is hardly a case of "expectations", it's just plain being a blowhard and tossing negativity without reason.

Members of the audience have a right to expect discussion based on actual knowledge of the work being discussed, generally obtained by actually reading it or, at minimum, having some first hand exposure to it.

This is the same kind of rubbish that goes on continually at the whiner's forum (www.stevehoffman.tv) - endless complaining and bitching about every single little trivial thing, even about stuff that not only has yet to be released - but has yet to be created!

Please!

I've read nothing in this thread that reflects any other sort of attitude than a desire for a good book, tempered by what I would consider legitimate concerns fueled by a review, concerns which were addressed straightforwardly and (at this point, convincingly) by the author himself. The author's answers were recieved graciously enough and the general attitude now seems to be one of eagerness to read his work, w/o any guarantees of finding it to anybody's particular likings (anything else, a "I know I'm going to love it before I even read it!" attitude is the fawning of fanboys). Fair enough, and what's the problem?

And as for Tom's assertion that

Recent threads show that writer-talks-to-board-about-own-work doesn't make for palatable reading.

I can only say that both Larry Kart & Allen Lowe, each in their own way, have shown an ability to discuss their work in a very palatable manner (when the discussion stems from genuine points of concern and not disingenuous "criticism"). There's another guy who's seemed to take a Planet Fitness approach to his work, but hey - there's always that type.

Tom, to his credit and at this point, seems to be the former type of guy. Here's hoping that once the book is out & has actually been digested, he comes back to address any concerns, questions, and/or criticisms that anybody might have in the same fashion that he's handled this pre-release mini-flurry of same.

[J.A.W.]

(...) This is the same kind of rubbish that goes on continually at the whiner's forum (www.stevehoffman.tv) - endless complaining and bitching about every single little trivial thing, even about stuff that not only has yet to be released - but has yet to be created!

Here we go again... What's the Hoffman forum got to do with this thread?? You seem to be taking every opportunity to bash that forum here. What's your problem? If you have issues with Steve Hoffman and/or his forum, why not contact him or post there instead of boring us with it here? Talking about whining...

Edited November 18, 2006 by J.A.W.

[JSngry]

"the author is taking great liberties"

"We already knew from the 'socio-cultural' slant of the table of contents (and the subtitle) where this book is coming from"

"Don't expect any musical analysis. I hope at least that he is a good writer."

"Author taken liberties, talking in sweeping generlization"

"I have been in touch with several people who have been doing extensive research on Lee Morgan....from what I can tell you have not been in touch with them"

yeah, sure, legitimate concerns by even handed and level headed folks.

Yes, I think so.

Anyways, I'm out of this one...

See you at Planet Fitness!

[Dan Gould]

I'll be buying the book and enjoying it.

a "I know I'm going to love it before I even read it!" attitude is the fawning of fanboys

[bertrand]

I'm looking forward to reading this book to see what I can learn.

Bertrand.

[J.A.W.]

(...) This is the same kind of rubbish that goes on continually at the whiner's forum (www.stevehoffman.tv) - endless complaining and bitching about every single little trivial thing, even about stuff that not only has yet to be released - but has yet to be created!

Here we go again... What's the Hoffman forum got to do with this thread?? You seem to be taking every opportunity to bash that forum here. What's your problem? If you have issues with Steve Hoffman and/or his forum, why not contact him or post there instead of boring us with it here? Talking about whining...

Hans, why don't you try to get it deleted, like you do with posts that embarras you about sonic obsessions?

For your information: I deleted a few of my own "looking for" threads with your negative, totally unnecessary and offensive comments on the items I was looking for.

Anyway, your post re the Hoffman forum speaks volumes.

Edit: apologies to the other posters for the thread crap. I'm out of here.

Edited November 19, 2006 by J.A.W.