Stanley Crouch Parker biography reviewed

[Quasimado]

Can't wait to hear what you cats have to say AFTER you've read the book ...

Q

[erwbol]

Can't wait to hear what you cats have to say AFTER you've read the book ...

Q

"I've read it high as a kyte, I've read it stone cold sober, but ... "

[Fer Urbina]

Of the books about Parker that I know, this sober one seems quite sound to me (and often insightful, especially about the music itself) as far it goes:

http://www.amazon.com/Chasin-The-Bird-Legacy-Charlie/dp/0195304640/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Some fellow on Amazon put it down in comparison to Ross Russell's "Bird Lives!," which is certainly colorful but full of outright fabulations.

Comparing Priestley to Russell is grossly unfair on Priestley, and ignorant about the extent of Russell's fabrications (he's the main responsible for the Massey Hall legend, as I explained in my blog).

What Brian did is to compile all solid biographical information available on Bird with some tidbits of his own, and added a very clear explanation of the music. IMHO it's a very good introduction to Bird.

With two new biographies coming out shortly, Priestley's book can be found for very little cash.

F

[Big Beat Steve]

Of the books about Parker that I know, this sober one seems quite sound to me (and often insightful, especially about the music itself) as far it goes:

http://www.amazon.com/Chasin-The-Bird-Legacy-Charlie/dp/0195304640/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Some fellow on Amazon put it down in comparison to Ross Russell's "Bird Lives!," which is certainly colorful but full of outright fabulations.

Larry

Did you read the Carl Woideck book on Parker?

Yes. I recall feeling that it was solid but not quite as much so as the Priestley book. In particular, and I'm relying on imperfect memory here, Woideck, who certainly knows what's afoot musically, has the problem of a good many such writers (on jazz or any music) of essentially pointing to/explaining -- in musical notation and in words that more or less paraphrase what's notated -- things that one can already hear, and then he pretty much stops at the point, as though the job were done. Priestley by contrast, at his best, succeeds at/makes a good attempt at detecting underlying principles that are at work and their possible implications as well. I guess what I'm saying is that Woideck is more or less a musicologist, and Priestley is a musically well-versed critic. Not my favorite critic -- among those would be Jack Cooke, Terry Martin, John Litweiler, the late Michael James, and the professionally irascible Max Harrison on one of his good days, but Priestley has some of the virtues (e.g. the understanding that one is running alongside a living art that, in Val Wilmer's phrase, is "as important as your life") of the old Jazz Monthly crowd -- to which he and the others I've mentioned (except for Litweiler) all belonged at one time or another.

Thanks for this evaluation.

I had totally forgotten I own the Woideck book. Apparently I put it aside shortly after having bought it. Took it out again now and got to say, it is bound to be short on biographical details. About 50 pages of bio plus about 200 pages of musical analysis is a bit of a mismatch unless you are a musician or a recording nitpicker.

Seems like the Chuck Haddix book has a similarly strong focus on the analysis of the music, or am I wrong?

I also have Ken Vail's "Bird's Diary" but this outlines just the very BARE FACTS and dates after all.

While I can do without the Ross Russell "embellishments" there must be more to Bird's personality and STORY.

Will Priestley still cover this sufficiently by today's state of knowledge or will one have to go for one that - by all accounts here - might turn out to be more like "Stanley Crouch writes about Stanley Crouch writing about Bird"?

[Fer Urbina]

Seems like the Chuck Haddix book has a similarly strong focus on the analysis of the music, or am I wrong?

Haddix's book is a straight biography, with no musical analysis, just passing comments on it. I'm half way reading it and it's very strong and specific on the pre-1945 stuff, as expected from his being based in KC, his own research and his access to Frank Driggs's (they did a book together on KC jazz).

F

Edited September 18, 2013 by Fer Urbina

[Big Beat Steve]

Sounds good. Thanks for that assessment.

[Larry Kart]

Of the books about Parker that I know, this sober one seems quite sound to me (and often insightful, especially about the music itself) as far it goes:

http://www.amazon.com/Chasin-The-Bird-Legacy-Charlie/dp/0195304640/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Some fellow on Amazon put it down in comparison to Ross Russell's "Bird Lives!," which is certainly colorful but full of outright fabulations.

Comparing Priestley to Russell is grossly unfair on Priestley, and ignorant about the extent of Russell's fabrications (he's the main responsible for the Massey Hall legend, as I explained in my blog).

What Brian did is to compile all solid biographical information available on Bird with some tidbits of his own, and added a very clear explanation of the music. IMHO it's a very good introduction to Bird.

With two new biographies coming out shortly, Priestley's book can be found for very little cash.

F

"Comparing Priestley to Russell is grossly unfair on Priestley..." That's what I meant when I referred to Russell's "outright fabulations."

[Fer Urbina]

"Comparing Priestley to Russell is grossly unfair on Priestley..." That's what I meant when I referred to Russell's "outright fabulations."

I know, I just wanted to elaborate from that.

Sounds good. Thanks for that assessment.

You're welcome. I should add that it's not a long book, and it's well written as in very easy to read. As for the level of detail, I haven't compared it properly with previous books on Bird, but some of the stuff looked "new" to me.

F

Edited September 18, 2013 by Fer Urbina

[Brad]

What I read in these pages about Stanley Crouch tends to be on the negative. However, the reviews that people have posted here (thanks for that) have been positive so I will keep an open mind, not to mention Bird is what got me into this music. I'm sure he has agendas and he is a strong advocate for Wynton (which in and of itself does not disqualify him for me).

Ben Ratliff does an interview with him in today's Times, http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/popcast-early-bird-and-kansas-city-lightning/?ref=books

[Steve Reynolds]

heard Crouch this AM in a short interview with Don Imus and it was interesting to hear him speaking to a mass audience

For me with my trained ear - even in this mainstream context, Stanley said that in jazz one cannot improvise alone on stage with other musicians and we know we hear that alot - of course VERY FEW of the millions of people listening to the interview have any idea what he is talking about.

For me I know that he simply cannot help himself in his resentment of music he dislikes and even disdains just because the inteplay of certain improvising musicians or altered or different approaches of improvisation and interplay isn't the *same* or as obvious as the interplay of the music of be-bop, hard bop or more mainstream jazz music.

One thing he did say that speaks of the truth - when Don axsked him about Parker's heroin addiction - Stanley responded that he stumbled into it and couldn't escape. Now this speaks of wisdom from Crouch.

[robertoart]

heard Crouch this AM in a short interview with Don Imus and it was interesting to hear him speaking to a mass audience

For me with my trained ear - even in this mainstream context, Stanley said that in jazz one cannot improvise alone on stage with other musicians and we know we hear that alot - of course VERY FEW of the millions of people listening to the interview have any idea what he is talking about.

For me I know that he simply cannot help himself in his resentment of music he dislikes and even disdains just because the inteplay of certain improvising musicians or altered or different approaches of improvisation and interplay isn't the *same* or as obvious as the interplay of the music of be-bop, hard bop or more mainstream jazz music.

One thing he did say that speaks of the truth - when Don axsked him about Parker's heroin addiction - Stanley responded that he stumbled into it and couldn't escape. Now this speaks of wisdom from Crouch.

It does?

[Steve Reynolds]

heard Crouch this AM in a short interview with Don Imus and it was interesting to hear him speaking to a mass audience

For me with my trained ear - even in this mainstream context, Stanley said that in jazz one cannot improvise alone on stage with other musicians and we know we hear that alot - of course VERY FEW of the millions of people listening to the interview have any idea what he is talking about.

For me I know that he simply cannot help himself in his resentment of music he dislikes and even disdains just because the inteplay of certain improvising musicians or altered or different approaches of improvisation and interplay isn't the *same* or as obvious as the interplay of the music of be-bop, hard bop or more mainstream jazz music.

One thing he did say that speaks of the truth - when Don axsked him about Parker's heroin addiction - Stanley responded that he stumbled into it and couldn't escape. Now this speaks of wisdom from Crouch.

It does?

Yes it does from my perspective which includes personal experience with drug addiction and recovery. Most addicts never escape active addiction even today when there are avenues and opportunities to recover and get clean.In Parker's time the understanding regarding the disease of addiction did not exist. It was looked at as a moral deficiency and personal weakness which it certainly is not.

.

No one had any clue about any of it - who the hell knew what they were getting into when they figured they were just fooling around with another drug...when did start using heroin? Late 30's or early 40's?

On the other hand many people who have used drugs including heroin did NOT and do NOT become addicts because they were or are NOT addicts. Some people are simply prone to addiction and at some point, once they are using they are unable to stop using through their own will. Parker was one of those people. Coltrane was also but through his process and in his case a God he found, he was able to stop using in 1957 - although as we know the after effects from his active addiction which was probably liver cancer from untreated hepatitis C killed him 10 years later.

[gmonahan]

Review of the book on Daily Beast site: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/23/what-made-charlie-parker-great-reviewing-stanley-crouch-s-biography-on-bird.html

gregmo

[robertoart]

heard Crouch this AM in a short interview with Don Imus and it was interesting to hear him speaking to a mass audience

For me with my trained ear - even in this mainstream context, Stanley said that in jazz one cannot improvise alone on stage with other musicians and we know we hear that alot - of course VERY FEW of the millions of people listening to the interview have any idea what he is talking about.

For me I know that he simply cannot help himself in his resentment of music he dislikes and even disdains just because the inteplay of certain improvising musicians or altered or different approaches of improvisation and interplay isn't the *same* or as obvious as the interplay of the music of be-bop, hard bop or more mainstream jazz music.

One thing he did say that speaks of the truth - when Don axsked him about Parker's heroin addiction - Stanley responded that he stumbled into it and couldn't escape. Now this speaks of wisdom from Crouch.

It does?

Yes it does from my perspective which includes personal experience with drug addiction and recovery. Most addicts never escape active addiction even today when there are avenues and opportunities to recover and get clean.In Parker's time the understanding regarding the disease of addiction did not exist. It was looked at as a moral deficiency and personal weakness which it certainly is not.

.

No one had any clue about any of it - who the hell knew what they were getting into when they figured they were just fooling around with another drug...when did start using heroin? Late 30's or early 40's?

On the other hand many people who have used drugs including heroin did NOT and do NOT become addicts because they were or are NOT addicts. Some people are simply prone to addiction and at some point, once they are using they are unable to stop using through their own will. Parker was one of those people. Coltrane was also but through his process and in his case a God he found, he was able to stop using in 1957 - although as we know the after effects from his active addiction which was probably liver cancer from untreated hepatitis C killed him 10 years later. Well that's a lot more insightful than Crouch's response!

Then again, didn't Parker say Heroin addiction was like rolling over all your problems into ONE big problem.

And what about the connection between being a Black man in America at the time and addiction?

[Steve Reynolds]

heard Crouch this AM in a short interview with Don Imus and it was interesting to hear him speaking to a mass audience

For me with my trained ear - even in this mainstream context, Stanley said that in jazz one cannot improvise alone on stage with other musicians and we know we hear that alot - of course VERY FEW of the millions of people listening to the interview have any idea what he is talking about.

For me I know that he simply cannot help himself in his resentment of music he dislikes and even disdains just because the inteplay of certain improvising musicians or altered or different approaches of improvisation and interplay isn't the *same* or as obvious as the interplay of the music of be-bop, hard bop or more mainstream jazz music.

One thing he did say that speaks of the truth - when Don axsked him about Parker's heroin addiction - Stanley responded that he stumbled into it and couldn't escape. Now this speaks of wisdom from Crouch.

It does? Yes it does from my perspective which includes personal experience with drug addiction and recovery. Most addicts never escape active addiction even today when there are avenues and opportunities to recover and get clean.In Parker's time the understanding regarding the disease of addiction did not exist. It was looked at as a moral deficiency and personal weakness which it certainly is not.

.

No one had any clue about any of it - who the hell knew what they were getting into when they figured they were just fooling around with another drug...when did start using heroin? Late 30's or early 40's?

On the other hand many people who have used drugs including heroin did NOT and do NOT become addicts because they were or are NOT addicts. Some people are simply prone to addiction and at some point, once they are using they are unable to stop using through their own will. Parker was one of those people. Coltrane was also but through his process and in his case a God he found, he was able to stop using in 1957 - although as we know the after effects from his active addiction which was probably liver cancer from untreated hepatitis C killed him 10 years later. Well that's a lot more insightful than Crouch's response!

Then again, didn't Parker say Heroin addiction was like rolling over all your problems into ONE big problem.

And what about the connection between being a Black man in America at the time and addiction?

the reality is that as long as what are refered to or thought of as 'hard drugs' have been available or used in this country - they have been distrubuted through and from more blighted areas which have been predominately populated by black/monorities.

I think this says as much and then and now about the connection/relationship between African Americans and addiction as anything.

My experience is that the disease of addiction does NOT discriminate base don color/age/religion/background/family background, upbringing or whatever.

addicts are addicts - that's really as deep as it gets. I know Doctors/Lawyers/homeless/homeowner/nice guys/scumbags - I know all sorts.

[uli]

Ben Ratliff does an interview with him in today's Times, http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/popcast-early-bird-and-kansas-city-lightning/?ref=books

I thought that was quite interesting.

Edited September 24, 2013 by uli

[Big Beat Steve]

Thanks for the links to the reviews, Brad and Greg M.

So if I get this right, the bird book out by Crouch now actually is only one of two and covers the K.C. period "only"?

This quote from the review linked b y Greg M. has me wondering, though:

"Still, as Crouch is the first to say, this is a life story full of gaps. And so, to compensate for the missing information, Crouch has relied on an imagination that might be called novelistic, if novelists dealt in generic supposition and platitudinous bombast."

No matter what praise is heaped on the book in that review, apparently it is not an unmitigated pleasure overall. Well ... Anybody out there who'd be able to judge if there definitely is no risk of this approach turning into Ross Russell-like embellishments if things become THAT novelistic?

Yes I know this might be an insult to some (seeing how Russell's book is generally judged these days) but still ... How much imagination can a bio stand before the facts get skewed?

And what I do wonder now ... since the Bird bio by Chuck Haddix seems to be strong on the K.C. period too, would one be better off going for that one if one can do without both "novelistic" fantasies and minute details that in the end might add up to speculation only? Any opinions?

[Steve Reynolds]

He said this morning that he will have a volume 2 done within 3 years. Not sure if he was serious as he sadi he had been working on the book since 1981.

[Face of the Bass]

Picked up a copy of it today. Looking forward to reading it. I definitely get what he means about needing a novelist's approach to fill in the gaps. Writing the biography of a man is an art, not a science.

[Brad]

That Daily Beast review was quite revealing, particularly about the novelistic. That bothers me some but apparently there are nuggets there so it's probably worth a shot.

[Chuck Nessa]

I think it will be really difficult to sift for the facts. It might be worth the effort for some but not for me. Sorry to see him obscure real research with the other crap.

[Face of the Bass]

I think it will be really difficult to sift for the facts. It might be worth the effort for some but not for me. Sorry to see him obscure real research with the other crap.

You don't know it's crap.

[Chuck Nessa]

Forgive me.

[BeBop]

Anyone going?

Jazz Museum in Harlem, September 26th

Harlem Speaks
Special Event: Kansas City Comes to Harlem: An Evening with Stanley Crouch and Charlie Parker
7:00 – 8:30pm
Location: MIST Harlem
(46 West 116th Street)
Donation Suggested | For more information: 212-348-8300

Cultural critic, drummer, and MacArthur Genius Award recipient Stanley Crouch has been one of the most outspoken, influential and challenging presences in American culture for over 30 years. His books, essays, newspaper/magazine articles have inspired impassioned discussion and exerted an immense influence, particularly in the sphere of jazz.

Crouch's three-decades plus opus on Charlie Parker has been a legendary work-in-progress until now, and we are honored to present an evening with Mr. Crouch as he shares the historic publication of this major work - Kansas City Lightning: The Rise and Times of Charlie Parker - of Americana with NJMH and our extended family (that's YOU!).

Please join us for what will surely be an evening to remember.

"With the straight-ahead timing and the ethereal blowing of a great jazzman, Crouch delivers a scorching set in this first of two volumes of his biography of Charlie "Yardbird" Parker, capturing the downbeats and the up-tempo moments of the great saxophonist's life and music." -Publishers Weekly July 29, 2013

[AllenLowe]

if I could I would buy it, photocopy the research, skip the bull shit, and then return it.