Seeing him in London on Saturday in one of our major concert halls, and very much looking forward to it as it will be the first time since a trio club date in late 80s. £100/ticket is definitely the very upper price range for the venue but I was gifted the ticket by my partner.

RIP. A great pianist 

I saw him once in NYC. I like his playing.  He was 87.  RIP Hal.  

This thread is taking on psychedelic overtones ... 😄 But getting a bit more back to the topic on hand:  First of all, the careers of MANY musicians cannot be separated from their off-stage lives (and I am NOT even referring specifically to drug addiction and everything that this brings with it). So obtaining knowledge and an understanding of the "times and life" (with a fairly big accent on the TIMES!!) of a musician and the style of music he (or, yes, she) performed in really is a key to understanding the essence of the music (his music) too. Anything short of that IMO misses the road to understanding (and taking the reader along) the person's biography and musical accomplishments.  And no, pea-counting musicological analyses geared at advanced music practitioners or musicologists do not make up for this at all.  Which is where the Don Byas bio IMO is a mixed bag, though the book overall is good and definitely worth reading. As Knauer has hinted at in his review, musical analyses are slim (and yes, they COULD be done so that a layman and non-musician understands them too or at least gets a close enough impression of the contents and what to expect from any given session - it has been proven countless times before). But in general, the author's approach to the subject at times is an odd one. Apart from a few errors in the presentation of persons, times and places (which can happen but are avoidable - sloppy proofreading, maybe?), what baffled me is how the author over and over again seems to have made every effort to derail the reader's immersion into the narrative of the text, i.e. into the life and career of Don Byas. What is the point of using soooo many quotes and citations (and therefore footnotes) for facts and events that are established, undisputable facts and common knowledge and do not need any quotes or citations at all - ever - to prove to ANYONE that the facts are as the author says? (Though, maybe, to a professor who is to pass judgment on a Ph.D. thesis submitted to him ... But could this ever have been the purpose of THIS book? ) It would require a separate post to list a handful of blatant examples to underline my quibbles, but yes - this did bug me. Because this book by no yardstick whatsoever could ever have been aimed at the total layman in the history of jazz.  And scholarly self-navel gazing at showing to the reader how the author has diligently and painstakingly worked his way through so many reference sources cannot have been the point either? Above all because enough quotes from and references to specialist sources remain anyway that definitely do merit their footnotes.   

Google translator has done too much harm… 😝