Jutta Hipp

[Big Beat Steve]

If she found evidence in inteviews with musicians who were there it does not read like hearsay to me (regardless of whether the source is cited verbatim or footnoted or not - at least within such a relatively short article).

She seemed to have been rather sure of the statements she had gathered, judging from her own statements (as translated below from that 2006 feature on Jutty Hipp published in Jazz Podium, BTW. according to her publicly accessible Facebook page about Jutta Hipp, that book is still "in progress" as of 2016)):

However, Leonard Feather also played a key role in Hipp’s decision to end her career in jazz. I will explore this subject in depth in my forthcoming book. Despite being married and a father, Feather pursued Hipp shortly after her arrival in New York. Hipp, who at the time was engaged to the Hungarian guitarist Atilla Zoller (who would follow her to the US in early 1956) rejected Feather’s advances and also refused to record any of his compositions.

I see what you mean but by that yardstick it would be impossible to write any history once those who are the subject of the history (or were contemporaries of the persons involved) are dead (or even earlier), wouldn't it? I.e. only first-hand sources count (and even then - by your criteria - you would have to be able to hear both sides). Or any historical piece written at a later date would just be a case of rattling off earlier sources and quotes (which would make pretty well everything unreadable). Hearsay in this sense lurks everywhere.

Just see for yourself to what extent this would apply even within such a limited historical framework or timespan such as the history of jazz.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Big Beat Steve

[mjzee]

1 hour ago, Big Beat Steve said:

I see what you mean but by that yardstick it would be impossible to write any history once those who are the subject of the history (or were contemporaries of the persons involved) are dead (or even earlier), wouldn't it? I.e. only first-hand sources count (and even then - by your criteria - you would have to be able to hear both sides). Or any historical piece written at a later date would just be a case of rattling off earlier sources and quotes (which would make pretty well everything unreadable).

No, not really.  You have to consider the sources and see whether you consider them realistic.  For instance, we don't claim that von Schuttenbach has any firsthand knowledge of these incidents, as she never spoke to Hipp or Feather.  But she says "she interviewed musicians who knew Hipp."  Right now, we don't know who these musicians were.  When she names them and publishes transcripts of these interviews, we would then have a clearer picture and perhaps an ability to judge what happened.  

I read Ira Gitler's book "From Swing To Bop," which had lengthy interviews with those who participated in the era.  I judged, both from the people who were interviewed and the way their voices sounded from the transcripts, that they were believable.  On the other hand, I saw the Ken Burns Jazz series, in which Wynton Marsalis claimed to know what Louis Armstrong thought and how he came to his innovations; given Marsalis's age, I did not find him believable (even if what he was saying about Louis was true; he would have gotten that knowledge from other sources).

Right now, if these allegations just come from von Schuttenbach, then to us they're hearsay, because you're left with believing her or not.  And based on what?  She says she "found evidence;" how do you know that's true?  And a master's thesis needs to go through university review; how do we now know what their critique will consist of?

I'm making these points (at far further length than I originally intended) because I strongly believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and I don't like gossip.

[Big Beat Steve]

2 hours ago, mjzee said:

Right now, if these allegations just come from von Schuttenbach, then to us they're hearsay, because you're left with believing her or not.  And based on what?  She says she "found evidence;" how do you know that's true?  And a master's thesis needs to go through university review; how do we now know what their critique will consist of?

Like I said, I see and understand your point, but going by what you call "allegations", a lot of what has been written and is taken as a historical finding now would just be hearsay or worse, then (because the longer an event goes back in time the more you have to rely on secondhand sources and YET these sources are explored and not discredited just because those involved could not be interviewed first-hand anymore). Of course, as part of a master's thesis and/or a an in-depth book her sources would have to be identified and cited correctly and by scientific criteria. But in relatively short articles such as these? You don't see rows and rows of source listings in such articles and still ...

As for your reference to Ira Gitler, sorry but that misses the point IMO. Oral histories are one thing, but this is just ONE facet of how history is written - a great way but far from the only and most widespread one (alas). And we are not talking about oral history here. Besides, aren't there plenty of "unidentified" sources that are just identifed as "preferring to remain anonymous" or "name withheld" in exploring historical topics yet what they contributed was taken at face value in the sense that it must have had immense credibility to the author and reader alike? Yet by your terms this would definitely have to be ruled out, regardless of whether there would have been overwhelming (personal?) reasons why the informants did not wish to be identified.

So ... while I understand your arguments, since she does say she intends elaborate on this I feel that to her the facts she unearthed must be rather plausible so her "capsule" summary of her findings is not that unbelievable (or else, would she go that far out on a limb, given her involvement with her preferred subject matter and her other activities in this field? Wouldn't they have kicked her out of Rutgers if they had found her to be just gossiping?). And in the light of that Lucky Thompson experience read this morning about how easily Feather was wont to blacklist those who did not humor him (and aren't there other stories like this out there too?) I do feel that the fact that in Jutta Hipp's case personal (sexual) relations may have played a key role does not matter at all IMO in deciding what amount of evidence is needed to lend credibility to what otherwise would just be "allegations".

So .. to settle this, the evidence remains that Feather was found by many dealing with him to be a person who would not just drop you by the wayside but make sure you pay the price if you did not do as he wanted you to do.

Well, now I have gone on for much longer than I intended too.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

I have no interest in Jutta Hipp, but I can tell you that Leonard Feather has had a reputation as a conniving self-serving pimp (is there any other kind?) of his influence and power that has not exactly been a secret for not exactly a few quick minutes. You either played ball with him or yeah, he'd do his best to fuck you up. Do I have first-hand experience of that? Of course not! That's why they're called "reputations"!

Having said that, some very good people did play ball with him, and hey, life is full of unsavory scumbags with power, I lost count about 30 or so years ago. And you know, some people don't mind that because...whatever. Some people just don't mind that. But some people do. Takes all kinds, apparently.

And absolutely, as a "composer" he was pretty/extremely limp, but he did get a good one off with "I Remember Bird".

Still, Fuck Leonard Feather. Or even better, since he's now dead, DON'T fuck him. Let him lie in the ground waiting for all eternity for somebody, anybody, to want to do it so he'll once again have leverage. Deny him his posthumous jollies.

[Guy Berger]

What about the liner notes where LP passively-aggressively trashes Coltrane?

[JSngry]

Anti-Jazz

 

[Chuck Nessa]

On 8/27/2017 at 1:37 PM, Guy Berger said:

What about the liner notes where LP passively-aggressively trashes Coltrane?

LP?

[Guy Berger]

1 hour ago, Chuck Nessa said:

LP?

LF!  I think it's Ben Webster & Associates

[JSngry]

LP! Hell yeah, LP!!!

 

[Big Beat Steve]

On 28.8.2017 at 0:39 AM, JSngry said:

LP! Hell yeah, LP!!!

 

What is Hip?

 

THIS is Hip:

 

[JSngry]

What is hip today might become passe.

 

[Bluesnik]

On 30/08/2017 at 7:44 PM, Big Beat Steve said:

What is Hip?

 

THIS is Hip:

 

Completely agree.