fasstrack

Where the hell is Phil Schaap?

136 posts in this topic

Have black folks and white folks ever looked at the same situation and interpreted, recalled things differently?

(I've been advised btw that Schaap was perhaps NOT adopted and that Chris A. was either misinformed or malicious. I do not know the "truth" in this matter but don't want to be thought spreading potentially false rumor.)

I'm adopted myself, not sure what would the potential malice in claiming that about anybody, at least not that in and of itself.

As to the other point, not just situation, but music, i.e. - all the gentrefentiled noise about too much bass and all that nonsense. Pay attention caucoids, pay attention and do your homework. Free your mind and your (b)ass will follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that Columbia will repair the damage on the CD issue, but if you can't find a pre-CD LP, Pure Pleasure has reissued the album version. It's expensive, but some good things do cost.

I have a, what they call it, OG Columbia with minimal surface noise, found it back in the 70s, and that's been more than rewarding. I just feel pissed that Schapp fucked it up and that Columbia has been too...whatever, to own that mistake, just man (or woman) up and fix that shit, ok?. Fuquitous in the bad way towards everybody, unless that's their idea of hell for Phil Schapp, to NEVER let it be forgotten what happened here. And even then, Columbia should not be playing god like that, least of all with Phil Schapp, and most of all with me and Chuck and Duke Ellington, people like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have black folks and white folks ever looked at the same situation and interpreted, recalled things differently?

(I've been advised btw that Schaap was perhaps NOT adopted and that Chris A. was either misinformed or malicious. I do not know the "truth" in this matter but don't want to be thought spreading potentially false rumor.)

I'm adopted myself, not sure what would the potential malice in claiming that about anybody, at least not that in and of itself.

As to the other point, not just situation, but music, i.e. - all the gentrefentiled noise about too much bass and all that nonsense. Pay attention caucoids, pay attention and do your homework. Free your mind and your (b)ass will follow.

Context was 2005 passing of Schaap's father, Walter Schaap, well-known Ellington Society eminence etc & also, on a personal level, a very racially progressive man (as far from common in NYC as anywhere else) & Chris A. used putative adoption to assert distance between respectable, well-regarded father & son of whom he very much feels otherwise & states it as often as possible.

So absolutely, there ** should be ** no malice, only love (I referenced Abel Meeropol above for # reasons) but that was plainly NOT how Chris A. intended it. (This from old AAJ thread btw, I did not and never do look at that site except when someone points me towards or it unexpectedly comes up in search engine.)

Edited by MomsMobley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never forget Schaap's "Mahalia Swears" note from the BB&B reissue or his error in the Such Sweet Thunder reissue. These events color all mention of him for me.

that seems picayune, Chuck. If I had the three hour Truck Parham interview he did (might be more than one) I'd send it over as at least moderate compensation. I don't disagree with someone's objection but can't imagine being bothered by it; it was just "silly" not "offensive."

Schaap was just reissue producer in any case-- SOMEONE at Sony Legacy signed off on that & they're at least complicit in any "offense" etc.

re: such "Such Sweet Thunder," how many of ya'll have the Stravinsky/Entremont piano concerto that's missing x # of bars from original recording/issue & has been incorrectly reissued multiple times?

Schaap had nothing to do with THAT one, obviously etc.

(Insert a 1/2 jillion other exampes here.)

Edited by MomsMobley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't disagree with someone's objection but can't imagine being bothered by it; it was just "silly" not "offensive."

Well, now, I've been following your POV to this point, but this is where we will have to agree that you might want to broaden your imagination, because, yes, offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

avakian had already dealt with deceiving record buyers in december 1955 when he talked louis armstrong into recording in an empty concert hall in milan, complete with spoken tune introductions, with plans of adding audience applause at a later date for the ambassador satch album.

then 6 months later the two do a promotional interview for that record in los angeles, and at the beginning of the intv, avakian reminds armstrong that during the intv, they will pretend that they're still in milan 12/55.

it's hard not to feel repulsed by this behavior. i would say that all record producers are kind of full of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have black folks and white folks ever looked at the same situation and interpreted, recalled things differently?

(I've been advised btw that Schaap was perhaps NOT adopted and that Chris A. was either misinformed or malicious. I do not know the "truth" in this matter but don't want to be thought spreading potentially false rumor.)

I'm adopted myself, not sure what would the potential malice in claiming that about anybody, at least not that in and of itself.

As to the other point, not just situation, but music, i.e. - all the gentrefentiled noise about too much bass and all that nonsense. Pay attention caucoids, pay attention and do your homework. Free your mind and your (b)ass will follow.

Context was 2005 passing of Schaap's father, Walter Schaap, well-known Ellington Society eminence etc & also, on a personal level, a very racially progressive man (as far from common in NYC as anywhere else) & Chris A. used putative adoption to assert distance between respectable, well-regarded father & son of whom he very much feels otherwise & states it as often as possible.

So absolutely, there ** should be ** no malice, only love (I referenced Abel Meeropol above for # reasons) but that was plainly NOT how Chris A. intended it. (This from old AAJ thread btw, I did not and never do look at that site except when someone points me towards or it unexpectedly comes up in search engine.)

IIRC, Chris' thing about Phil and Walter Schaap had to do in part with Phil doing something at the funeral of his much-admired (by Chris, too, I believe, FWIW) father that many present felt was fairly offensive or very self-serving or both and that Chris and others felt may have sprung from "issues" that Phil had with his late father because Phil was an adopted son (if he, indeed, he was).

I know who Meeropol is. If you're referring to his lyric for "Strange Fruit," IMO it is a piece of agitprop, effective agitprop but agitprop nonetheless. If you're referring to his adoption of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg's children, that was an act of kindness and compassion to be sure, but it did also fit into Meeropol's identity as a CPUSA loyalist. Or are you thinking of "The House I Live In"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retrieved from Internet limbo, Chris on the Walter Schaap funeral business:

'Phil has obviously convinced a great number of his listeners that he knows what he is talking about, but jazz historians and scholars know how many of his "facts" are stories of his own making. I am sure that he, himself, knows when he's telling a story. We all look at facts and--when they are vague--draw conclusions, but we don't pass our theories off as the real thing. That's where Phil really loses the respect of the jazz journalist/historian community.

'Talk to George Avakian about all the stories Phil has made up regarding his (Avakian's) recording sessions--was Phil there? No, but George was. Ask Phil why he tried to have George ousted from his father's memorial service recently (he didn't have the courage himself to ask that George leave, so he sent a couple of his friend--twice). George had known and been a close friend and colleague of Walter Schaap for some sixty years! I am happy to say that he did not heed Phil's wishes and leave.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retrieved from Internet limbo, Chris on the Walter Schaap funeral business:

'Phil has obviously convinced a great number of his listeners that he knows what he is talking about, but jazz historians and scholars know how many of his "facts" are stories of his own making. I am sure that he, himself, knows when he's telling a story. We all look at facts and--when they are vague--draw conclusions, but we don't pass our theories off as the real thing. That's where Phil really loses the respect of the jazz journalist/historian community.

'Talk to George Avakian about all the stories Phil has made up regarding his (Avakian's) recording sessions--was Phil there? No, but George was. Ask Phil why he tried to have George ousted from his father's memorial service recently (he didn't have the courage himself to ask that George leave, so he sent a couple of his friend--twice). George had known and been a close friend and colleague of Walter Schaap for some sixty years! I am happy to say that he did not heed Phil's wishes and leave.'

But none of this is contradictory, is it? Chris A's vindictiveness doesn't interest me in slightest & can be quickly dismissed on # of levels.

Avakian v. Schaap, real and imagined, is interesting because it's almost certainly...

Avakian v. Collective Memory of Ellingtonians voiced by Schaap

or

Avakian v. Particular Memory of Aggrieved Elliington(s) voiced by Schaap

You gotta think this through deliberately and logically: for whose benefit is Schaap attempting, in his view, to set record straight?

There's no $$$ in it, no glory (living people who care = statistical zero), no sex, probably not even one free beer.

And again, who spent more hours in more different settings with Ellingtonians 1963-2005, George or Phil?

Doesn't mean Phil's "right" but it is 99.9% certain that such assertions are NOT coming out of nowhere.

also, I daresay non-New Yorkers don't really get how zany Phil Schaap's life has been: his life, from out of the cradle to present, is almost completely defined by jazz obsession + hanging out with old-- & dying, & dying, & dying etc-- black guys-- and some hep white guys too.

There are those who mocked Schaap for the time he put into the Dean Benedetti tapes-- oh, and what a "surprise" Chris A. was among them!* (sense a complementary obsession/theme?)-- but I'm not one of them.

re: Meeropol, you remember what happened to W.E.B. DuBois, right? Paul Robeson? Albert Maltz? Theodore Dreiser? (Good people gulled by CPUSA and/or lifetime hostility, oppression, lies etc)

*

This takes nothing away from the various hep things a swell like Avakian-- or even Chris A. in New Orleans-- did but remember Melville "The Confidence Man" too-- "showing that man men have many minds."

Edited by MomsMobley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You gotta think this through deliberately and logically: for whose benefit is Schaap attempting, in his view, to set record straight?"

For Schaap's benefit -- i.e. it bolsters his reputation as THE jazz know-it all who not only knows inside stuff that no one else knows but who also exposes other commonly regarded to be important figures in and around the jazz world as self-important fabulators or worse. "I'm Phil Schaap -- you've heard the truth form me first!" Again, I've never heard Schaap's show, but many reports, even from pro-Schaap people, say that pumping up Schaap's self-image along these lines is among his chief projects.

About the assertions from Ellingtonians on the Newport subject. let me add two further thoughts about what may have happened here to the ones I offered in a previous post: 1) Schaap, I believe, is the source for these assertions i.e. unless I'm mistaken, these things were said to him; 2) Many Schaap listeners, including some pro-Schaap people, have said that his interview habits often consist of him telling the subject what he (i.e. the subject) does or should already know until the statement Schaap wishes to evoke has been attested to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I tell him this happened in 1948; he tells me it happened in 1949. I tell him I did this in 1951; he tells me I did it in 1952. I figure, why does he even need me there?"

-Al Haig on why he refused to be interviewed on Phil Schaap's radio show

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just glad the man is safe and sound and not in the back of some Cadillac in duct tape, or in the foundation of a new parking garage, or on a month long bender at Danny D'Imperio's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm getting from Clem is that Phil Schapp was probably always a dork of sorts, a really dorky kid who never "fit in" with his peers, and who found a "place" amongst older black jazz musicians, who probably accepted him as a crazy, non-dangerous white guy whose sincerity was neither unwelcome nor unnoticed.

I'm also getting that Clem feels that a lot of the "tone" of the Schaap-bashing "insiders" is rooted in the irritation that they feel about this misfit kid who never fit in with them or their world but could, apparently, go hang with "the help" with no worries. (and, although it's perhaps inevitable, I really do not mean any dispersion towards people like Avakian, Walter Schaap, or anybody else. But there is always a built in line between management and labor, and even between labor reps and front-line workers, inevitable and possibly even "correct" if one accepts the possibility of an imperfect world being the only perfect world) with not worries.)

I think that Clem is on to something there, and to the degree that he is pleading the guy's case to be looked at as the type of person he is versus the type of person he is/has been "expected" to be due to position/class/race/whatever (and the irritations that stem from him failing to be that type), I think he's saying something to take heed of.

But still, understanding a "fuck-up", even loving him, does not really excuse the fuck-ups themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You gotta think this through deliberately and logically: for whose benefit is Schaap attempting, in his view, to set record straight?"

For Schaap's benefit -- i.e. it bolsters his reputation as THE jazz know-it all who not only knows inside stuff that no one else knows but who also exposes other commonly regarded to be important figures in and around the jazz world as self-important fabulators or worse. "I'm Phil Schaap -- you've heard the truth form me first!" Again, I've never heard Schaap's show, but many reports, even from pro-Schaap people, say that pumping up Schaap's self-image along these lines is among his chief projects.

About the assertions from Ellingtonians on the Newport subject. let me add two further thoughts about what may have happened here to the ones I offered in a previous post: 1) Schaap, I believe, is the source for these assertions i.e. unless I'm mistaken, these things were said to him; 2) Many Schaap listeners, including some pro-Schaap people, have said that his interview habits often consist of him telling the subject what he (i.e. the subject) does or should already know until the statement Schaap wishes to evoke has been attested to.

LK, I'm sorry to say this but you've been drastically misled & perhaps even swallowed Chris A's poison pill on this matter. I've heard many 100s (of 3,000 or so) Schaap interviews both live & re-broadcast and that characterization of Schaap's Q&A is nonsense, flat out.

Q: If I had the honor-- really-- to interview you about your estimable career in journalism, would you have immediate daily, weekly recall of your work from 20-30-40 years ago? And if not, what if I first offer framing devices-- because I have your clips and a goodly # issues of magazines/papers etc-- & then perhaps a few cues, either based on evidence or educated guess? I'm trying to get you to talk... That's what ANY historian or diligent journalist would do, what they should do... Now, I would have to consider those answers to see if you weren't just talking to be heard-- or to shut me up-- but that's part of the process, later, or writing history.

Q: what has Schaap gotten with his "reputation"? He's not a writer-- he wasn't taking that work away from anyone, when such work as available. And I doubt anyone writer wanted to take his adjunct teaching positions, hauling ass back & forth from Princeton for a pittance... He DID stay on the radio, yes... and he DID get some reissue gigs... You can argue this 'authority' was part of long range plan that allowed to him hook up with JALC education & finally at age mid-50-something get a job with health benefits* but I don't think it was really that well thought out.

Q: Who once used to be on the radio & then wasn't AND who used to produce reissue records & then didn't & I don't know (really) whose choices those were or why but to pretend one's harshest & most obsessive critic is personally 'disinterested'... hardee har har as Mr. Kramden would say.

Now once more, what Schaap DOES with his fact gathering is open to question-- he's not publishing papers or books, doesn't footnote his liner notes or Facebook posts etc-- but the criticism of his ** interviews ** etc is utterly fatuous.

You (generally, not LK) would fucking shit to hear even a fragment of those interviews-- maybe sometimes in spite of Schaap's Queens-born nudgeiness, fine, nobody says you gotta like him but he sounds like a New Yorker to me & he did it.

For those 100s of interviews + the Dean Benedetti box alone I'd hold Schaap in high, if circumscribed, esteem.

it's a nice line yes but Al Haig-- Al Haig?!?!?-- as a character witness?

* How many years did George Avakian not have health insurance? How many major label record execs have died impoverished or had to draw on the Record Executives Welfare Fund?

And-- it's not enough for him to be wealthy & reasonably respected, he had to be loved by Ellingtonians too? Maybe he should be, maybe not but it's certainly well within range of possibility that perceptions, Boss & Worker, White & Black, (Sober & Drunk) etc differ, often greatly.

Edited by MomsMobley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that Columbia will repair the damage on the CD issue, but if you can't find a pre-CD LP, Pure Pleasure has reissued the album version. It's expensive, but some good things do cost.

You can get the correct version of Up and Down on a cd called "Ralph Ellison: A Life in Music". It's available on Amazon and in fact you can download just that cut as a an mp3 for 99cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re: Meeropol, you remember what happened to W.E.B. DuBois, right? Paul Robeson? Albert Maltz? Theodore Dreiser? (Good people gulled by CPUSA and/or lifetime hostility, oppression, lies etc)

Gulled by the CPUSA? Not sure about Dreiser's total history in this respect, but how many of those you've mentioned said or even thought, "I was gulled." And as prominent Party loyalists/advocates, they served to gull many others.

Yes -- Maltz did pull back a good bit:

http://www.moderntimes.com/maltz/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You gotta think this through deliberately and logically: for whose benefit is Schaap attempting, in his view, to set record straight?"

For Schaap's benefit -- i.e. it bolsters his reputation as THE jazz know-it all who not only knows inside stuff that no one else knows but who also exposes other commonly regarded to be important figures in and around the jazz world as self-important fabulators or worse. "I'm Phil Schaap -- you've heard the truth form me first!" Again, I've never heard Schaap's show, but many reports, even from pro-Schaap people, say that pumping up Schaap's self-image along these lines is among his chief projects.

About the assertions from Ellingtonians on the Newport subject. let me add two further thoughts about what may have happened here to the ones I offered in a previous post: 1) Schaap, I believe, is the source for these assertions i.e. unless I'm mistaken, these things were said to him; 2) Many Schaap listeners, including some pro-Schaap people, have said that his interview habits often consist of him telling the subject what he (i.e. the subject) does or should already know until the statement Schaap wishes to evoke has been attested to.

LK, I'm sorry to say this but you've been drastically misled & perhaps even swallowed Chris A's poison pill on this matter. I've heard many 100s (of 3,000 or so) Schaap interviews both live & re-broadcast and that characterization of Schaap's Q&A is nonsense, flat out.

Q: If I had the honor-- really-- to interview you about your estimable career in journalism, would you have immediate daily, weekly recall of your work from 20-30-40 years ago? And if not, what if I first offer framing devices-- because I have your clips and a goodly # issues of magazines/papers etc-- & then perhaps a few cues, either based on evidence or educated guess? I'm trying to get you to talk... That's what ANY historian or diligent journalist would do, what they should do... Now, I would have to consider those answers to see if you weren't just talking to be heard-- or to shut me up-- but that's part of the process, later, or writing history.

If you take a look back through some of the other threads here (and elsewhere on the Internet) on Schaap, you'll see that many people other than Al Haig and Chris -- normal jazz fan listeners to Schaap's show, many of whom are otherwise well disposed his work -- mention that his interview techniques often strike them as remarkably leading and tendentious, even comically so at times.

As for your example of how I might be interviewed by you about my "work from 20-30-40 years ago" -- that it would be legit for you to use "framing devices" and offer cues because my memory of what all I did back then mighg be imperfect and because you "have [my] clips and a goodly # issues of magazines/papers etc." -- well of course. But not if your framing devices and cues are designed to lead me down an interpretive path that is more or less designed to bolster conclusions about what I've done that you already have arrived at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find myself generally with Moms in this "debate". I think that what he has to say is more reasonable.

Phil Schaap has had his share of screw-ups but, as Moms has said, he's done a lot more good work and has been a friend to many musicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moms -- BTW, if you think that Chris is into character assassination, take a good look at Schaap's liner notes for the Complete Ellington at Newport set and imagine how you would feel if you were reading them and were George Avakian and knew or believed that much of what Schaap said about you there was not true. One might not be far wrong in thinking that a good deal of what was going on in those notes was an attempt on Schaap's part to piss all over Avakian's shoes.

And what does who has and who doesn't have health insurance have to do with anything here? The poor (or lower-middle class natives of Queens) are inherently, uniformly virtuous? Even Lenin didn't believe that, nor did Marx either. (My father in law is a native of Queens, and "lower-middle class" as a description of his circumstances at birth would be stretching it. A terrific guy who pulled himself up by the proverbial bootstraps, at age 84 he somehow has health insurance. His father enlisted in the U.S. Army at age 14 [!!] in 1917 because he thought that being a soldier would be a better deal than living hand-to-mouth on the streets of the Lower East Side, which is what he had been doing. He went on to win several combat medals in France.)

As for your "Q: what has Schaap gotten with his "reputation"? He's not a writer-- he wasn't taking that work away from anyone, when such work as available. And I doubt anyone writer wanted to take his adjunct teaching positions, hauling ass back & forth from Princeton for a pittance... He DID stay on the radio, yes... and he DID get some reissue gigs... You can argue this 'authority' was part of long range plan that allowed to him hook up with JALC education & finally at age mid-50-something get a job with health benefits* but I don't think it was really that well thought out.' -- are you aware of Schaap's campaign back in 2007 I believe it was (bolstered by a fairly ludicrous NY Times article) to get Columbia University to appoint him to a tenured faculty position in their Jazz Studies department that already had gone to someone else and that Schaap had never even applied for? It was Schaap's view, with which the author of the article essentially concurred, that the post should have given to Schaap because he was Phil Schaap, and that it was a great injustice that he was not so rewarded. If you want chapter and verse on this episode, I think I can supply it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's more upsetting here, the notion that somebody would try to piss on George Avakian's shoes, or that somebody would even think about pissing on George Avakian's shoes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LK, please consider: Schaap didn't need to "lead" anyone-- he didn't invent the line of inquiry, one or more Ellingtonians told him their version(s). What other possibility is there that Schaap would question the 'accepted' Avakian version?

Now I would like to know who first told Schaap this; how (relatively) drunk & sober the various participants, witnesses were, etc. We know Duke's band, like nearly all others, often drank a lot. I know nothing about Avakian's habits. Nonetheless, those who drank with Duke were very experienced drinkers and why, if Avakian a benign, even benevolent figure in their professional lives, would they speak otherwise?

Might Schaap have a 'secret' revisionist agenda? Anything is possible, sure, but that seems unlikely.

And however much a nudge he might occasionally be, Schaap is a GREAT interviewer because he's both thoroughly prepared & unabashedly loving to his subjects-- not generalized "I Heart Jazz" but that you did this specifically & its wondrous, how did that happen?

What's more upsetting here, the notion that somebody would try to piss on George Avakian's shoes, or that somebody would even think about pissing on George Avakian's shoes?

Here's another thought: besides the Newport question, I see that Avakian was Charles Lloyd's manager for a spell. Schaap is long-time good friends with Lloyd, continuing to this day. I have no beef with George generally but I've never viewed him as any kind of "saint." Who besides Johnny Mathis, maybe, am I to credit him for? And just because he was "classier"-- slicker anyway-- than, say, Syd Nathan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who/what is there to credit Avakian for? See this:

http://www.cilicia.com/armo_article_george_avakian.html

For example:

'He was producer of the first jazz album in the history of the industry, meaning a series of sessions recorded with the specific intent of issuing them together and not as singles. The album, Chicago jazz (Decca 121), reunited Eddie Condom Pee Wee Russell and others from the late '20s Chicago scene and was released in March 1940. Other sets celebrating New Orleans and New York followed.

'He organized and launched the "Hot Jazz Classics" line for Columbia, the industry's first regular series of reissue albums accompanied by notations explaining the history and importance of the material. The series began in 1940, took a wartime hiatus, then continued up to the introduction of the LP.' (My emphasis)

Further:

'When Life magazine ran a major article in August 1938 about the history and roots of swing, Ted Wallerstein, soon to become the first president of Columbia Records under its new parent CBS, had an idea: Why not reissue some of the records referred to in the Life story? Wallerstein moved to Columbia in late 1938, and he asked Hammond to undertake the job. Hammond was too busy, but recommended Avakian. A meeting was arranged in February 1940 in which Wallerstein outlined his idea and asked Avakian to research the masters and assemble a series of 78-rpm albums for $25 a week in pay. Thus, the 20-year-old Avakian became the first "authoritative" person to review the short history of jazz up to 1940 and nominate a fundamental canon of indispensable classics that could be heard by a wide audience. His selections included the Armstrong Hot Fives and Sevens, the now familiar Beiderbecke and Smith classics, and basic Fletcher Henderson and Ellington collections. In the process, he also became the first producer to discover and issue unreleased alternate takes. His choices would prove immutable, as they would influence the basic writing about jazz at a critical time when the music was beginning to be seriously written about.

'In 1951, Avakian expanded these albums to the LP format to create the famous four-volume Louis Armstrong Story and other LPs. Once in general circulation, they would remain in print until the advent of the CD and have an immense impact for generations to come as new listeners came to jazz.'

As for 'LK, please consider: Schaap didn't need to "lead" anyone-- he didn't invent the line of inquiry, one or more Ellingtonians told him their version(s). What other possibility is there that Schaap would question the 'accepted' Avakian version?"

How do you know that Schaap didn't lead them, even cook up this line of inquiry? As for why he might have done that, I've already said why he might have -- to bolster his reputation as THE jazz know-it all who not only knows inside stuff that no one else knows but who also exposes other commonly regarded to be important figures in and around the jazz world (i.e. in this case Avakian) as self-important fabulators or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Syd Nathan clip is awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Charles Lloyd story: Back in Lloyd's '60s heyday, Dan Morgenstern went to the hotel room where Lloyd was staying to interview him for a jazz magazine -- almost certain it wasn't Down Beat but the one that Bob Thiele started (was it just "Jazz"?) for which Dan was the editor for a while. In any case, Lloyd answered the door and told Dan that It was a shame he hadn't arrived sooner because, said Lloyd, a few minutes ago he had been levitating. Dan took this to be metaphorical at first and probably substance-related, but Lloyd made it quite clear that he meant he literally had been hovering in mid-air -- prone or vertical or seated cross-legged, I don't recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.