AllenLowe

well, it's stasis. Ok for some, not for others - it doesn't work for me, doesn't work for many people I know. Leads to senility and even dementia sometimes (according to some recent studies). Leads also to older artists rejecting anything new in a kind of wave of false nostalgia, and to attempts to reign in the new, which can not be reigned in. Leads to people becoming jaded or smug, because they feel they know all there is to know. Leads to young people justifiably becoming impatient with older people. Leads to alienation and isolation. To me, but obviously not to everyone, that's equivalent to death.

while I agree with Michael Weiss, I think any either/or approach is problematic - to me the greatest musicians (that I've known) were always engaged with other aspects of existence - one of which is biography and the examination of what people do and why they do it (even when that question is finally un-resolvable). One of the prime weaknesses of a lot of American artists is a lack of inter-disciplinary curiosity; I actually think this was what Fitzgerald was referring to when he said we have no second acts - too many American artists (musicians, writers, et al) rely upon a narrow and very instinctive kind of discipline. When the initial sources/inspirations/techniques dry up or are exhausted, they too often have nothing to fall back upon for renewal, no larger background of discipline or exposure to other forms. The result is, frequently, a lapsing of creativity and an end to advance.

let me add, vis a ve Chris's great Bessie bio, that African American life is particularly a matter of the intersection of the practical and the spiritually transcendent. I would argue, a la Lawrence Levine, that this is clearly related to African origins, and carries over into everything from religious practices to musical habits. Personally I find these intersections fascinating and culturally vital. Hence my interest. Also, though I know I risk seeming a bit silly (like one of those white guys teaching black history back in the sixties and wearing a dashiki) I consider it all to be a part of my own heritage - after all it's African-American; as with a lot of people on this list it holds far greater fascination for me than classically WASP culture.

tough luck Moose - especially since the offending post got edited out. So you probably didn't even see his original. Too bad. I'm not exactly enamored of your calling me a liar and other assorted things in the past - but thanks for sharing -

wanting to know about the life is basic intellectual curiosity. And to me, the life supplements the music - I find the life and the music largely inseparable, and though I believe the art can and always will stand by itself, regardless of the personal details, jazz and other forms of vernacular music have a strong relationship to those details. The picture gets clearer with the details; for me it's also vocational in a weird way. If you want to play or write about this stuff, the life of others like Monk, however it plays out, clarifies your own, even by contrast. knowing what Monk did, what he said, where he went, how he reacted to everything, is extremely educational, in the deepest sense, too. This stuff happens as a strange coincidence of people and events - I want to know what those were.

yes, it's Mike's list - I never said he did not have the right to run it as he wants to - though by yahoo rules I am not altogether certain of his edicts - only that his way of running it is inappropriate and ethically bankrupt. Though I do not believe he has the right to use the work of those on the list for his sole edification. and Chris, you are missing the point that by even commenting on it in THIS place you are in violation and subject to removal from Jazz Research. Are you ok with that? (it's sorta like Fight Club) - sure he has the right (maybe), but Mike's way of doing things is a little like the old New Yorker cartoon - it's in a restaurant and the sign says "we reserve the right to arrange seating" - and an angry waitress has everyone in the place sitting on top of each other on one chair.

she also sang a song in the Nick Ray movie In a Lonely Place (may have been the song Out of the Past) -

well, hmm...that language is difficult. But nothing that guarantees internal privacy, if I read correctly -

and lets look at Yahoo's own licensing policy: "a. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services, you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable: b. With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services other than Yahoo! Groups, the perpetual, irrevocable and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed." So basically Yahoo has the right to all text content and can use it at will - does Fitzgerald know this? It makes his restrictions somewhat useles -

my point is that repeating a forbidden thing doesn't justify the repressive notions of the person who intitially decided that that thing was forbidden - in this case it sheds a little light on an extremely unfair practice (and by the way I think that jazz research is a yahoo group, which does not exactly insure or guaranteee privacy). So your argument might be - "well, he is entitled to maintain the privacy of this group because..." but to say that my repeated objection to (and exposure of) his policy justifies his actions is a bit, in principle, like blaming the victim.

when did I make a deal to keep the group private? And since when did I LOSE the intellectual property that constitutes my own posts on that group?

"But from what I can gather, he wants this group to be limited to people with serious chops and credentials, and to that I say, yeah, right on. It is his thing after all.Oh yeah, right... that's not acceptable to you" this is an extremely dishonest way of arguing - because I NEVER said anything like that, that it was not acceptable. Stop making things up, please.

cmon, guys, this is silly - I am not revealing OTHER people's info or posts - I am simply posting here and saying things like "as I mentioned on the jazz research line" - "as I heard on the jazz research line" or "a point I made on the jazz research line" - this ain't the friggin CIA. And thanks, Jsngry, for taking this opportunity to turn this into a personal attack (rather than just discussing the general issue). This why we don't communicate, as you just basically keep looking for your opportunity. And your last point makes utterly no sense - you say it ain't the Pentagon Papers - so I should honor it? Or not? I should take the edict unless lives are at stake? Give me a break. And Chris, saying that my repeated voicing of my disagreement with Fitzgerald's policy only proves him right is like saying that your repeated objections to Israel policies only prove Israel is right - it makes no sense.

right - but that's assuming the rules make sense. With Jazz Research he clearly did not not want me to even REFER to it anywhere else. This is just not acceptable to me.

looks interesting - my only advice is to delete the "American Hipster" reference - don't know if this refers to anything in the book, but it ain't Monk, IMHO.

"me, and my shadow........"

you know, no one would have objected if he'd called it "Tribute to Duke" or "Cretin Love Call" or made it otherwise obvious what he was doing -

I never went there, but isn't that where Woody Allen was doing his thing (also Steve Allen worked there once or twice)? like I said I think Mike has done good work - but all the life has gone out of Jazz Research due to his hall-monitor attitude. There are some occasional interesting things - also, I have noticed that he plays favorites a bit, will tolerate certain things from more established people but will censor things from people he considers to be more of his peers (or will let things go if he agrees with the post; note the idiot psychologist on the list, Judith Schlessinger) - and just so you know, Chris, by posting here about his forum you have, at least under what he told me, violated his rules which, according to his email, are that NO MENTION may be made of Jazz Research outside of that list. I kid you not. Sorry, but I will have to report you.....

I'm sure he's good, but this story kind of ignores the fact that there has been plenty of recording activity, jazz-wise, with accordion over the years. Most obviously, Guy Klusevek (spelling?); I recorded with an accordionist on my first CD (at the Moment of Impact) in the late 1980s (Jay Gitlin, a great musician from Connecticut).

one thing that strikes me about Monk in this book is how infantile he is, ultimately - Nellie follows him around, feeds him, clothes him, does his laundry, makes all his arrangements, travels with him, gets him to his gigs, while always allowing him the to be an "artiste" - reminds me of what Walter Bishop told me about Bud Powell, whom he described as "infantile in every respect - except music." Though everyone seems a big afraid to say anything negative about the portrayals in this book (I don't mean about the book itself, which is wonderful), I do find that people like Monk (who is like more than a few jazz musicians I have known) can only function in such a way with enablers like Nellie and Nica (and Nica, which I did not realize until I read this, had her own substance abuse problems and clearly fed Monk's) - I do think there is a lot more "wrong" with these people than Kelley is willing to face in print.

don't ask me - I just write the stuff.

well I still think there's something to be said for throwing taste and ethics to the wind - I think of Kaempfert, with that arrangement, as playing Sonny Stitt to Duke's Bird.

well, Weinstock was OK, but he was no Herman Lubinsky -

well, through self-hypnosis I have learned to channel my inner idiot: LOWE AT HOME

just read what I wrote previously - that may be the dumbest thing I've ever said. of course, it still might be true.