Larry Kart

Lloyd told Dan that he had been levitating a few minutes before. That why he said that it would have been good if Dan had arrived sooner. Perhaps Lloyd's ability to levitate was a matter of timing and mood -- as in "sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

"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.

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.'

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"?

Elaine Anderson’s account: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/27/nyregion/public-lives.html And an interview with her and Avakian: Dear George [Avakian]: . . . . . to answer your questions and to let the internet group of Ellington collectors and scholars know the truth and the facts of that momentous evening, let me recall to the best of my ability (after all it was a long time ago) what really happened: HERE GOES: My husband, Larry Anderson (Anderson, Little Co.), Ted LeSavoy and Ed Capuano (Newport Finishing Co.) bought the box for the entire festival as we always had from the inception of the very first festival in the Newport Casino. After the Chico Hamilton group finished playing, the Ellington band took the stage at which time it was getting quite late and a lot of the audience was leaving and they played "The Newport Jazz Festival Suite" not too inspiring at this juncture. G. A. interrupts: Elaine is right. As Duke had anticipated, the band would disappoint him and themselves because of lack of preparation. He told them just before they went on-stage, "I know we haven't had time to prepare the Suite properly, but don't worry if it doesn't come off well, because I've asked George to reserve the studio Monday Strayhorn will mark the score as we play, and he and George and I will check the tape against it Monday morning, and I'll call you at the hotel to come in the afternoon and we'll fix anything that needs fixing. So after the Suite, let's relax and have a good time let's play Diminuendo and Crescendo in Blue . ." E. A. resumes: Ellington then called for Diminuendo and Crescendo in Blue the audience was very cold and at about the fourth or fifth chorus Jo Jones, who had played drums that night with Teddy Wilson and who was sitting on the steps at the edge of the platform, started thumping a rolled up newspaper in the palm of his hands and called out "Let's get this thing going " at which point Teddy LeSavoy got up and pulled me from my seat and pushed me in front of the bandstand and said, "Go Elaine" (I was infamous for my dancing) then Paul Gonsalves started his solo and the more he wailed, the more I danced ALONE. No one danced with me and I was never aware of any other dancers in the crowd. G. A. again: I am sure what Jack Heaney saw was Teddy getting Elaine started. I was on the stage at stage left; she was directly in front of the stage, slightly toward my right. The stage was less than four feet high. If she had taken five steps forward and I had taken three, I could have reached down and shaken her hand, but I did not see her begin because I was concentrating on the performance, and of course the moment I saw Paul blow into the wrong mike, eyes screwed tight, and Duke jumped up from his chair to yell at Paul "The other mike! The other mike!" which Paul never heard, of course I had no interest in the commotion taking place just below me. But as I ran down the steps to where our engineers had set up their equipment, I was aware that a platinum blonde was dancing alone, by then. Halfway down I nearly collided with my assistant, Cal Lampley (Irving Townsend did not participate in any of the recording, then or later) who was racing up to ask me "What's going on? We're not getting enough of Paul!" By the time I went back on-stage, other couples had started to emulate Elaine, who of course remained oblivious to everything but the music. E. A. resumes: Who caused the moment? It's how you look at it the glass was half filled? I did. Or the glass was half empty? Gonsalves did. Take your choice. They tell me I saved the night for the Ellington Band and that I was the cause of an historic event in Jazz history. In later years, I attended a concert in Grace Cathedral at the invitation of Duke Ellington and he admitted that I was the force that put his band back on the Jazz Map at that time. Best regards, Elaine Anderson Coda by G. A.: Yes, Elaine got a lot of publicity, but never by name. That was the last set of the 1956 Festival, and nobody ever found out who she was until she introduced herself to me the following year. Nothing like going to the primary source! George Avakian

Moms -- What's with all this "BOSS" versus "Queen's kid" stuff? Does being from Queens automatically make you an honest man? Does being from Armenia and going to Yale make you a liar and/or someone who only "hired" black people, having obviously being ruled out on a class and race basis from relating to them in any other way? If that's how think, you live in a very circumscribed world. As for the specific issues that Avakian has with Schaap, I think that most (but probably not all) of them have to do with the latter's liner notes to the Complete Ellington at Newport set, which make many disparaging assertions about what Avakian did and didn't do in relation to the Newport Concert and its aftermath that Avakian, who was of course there, a participant-witness, adamantly disputes. I once read a chapter and verse account of all this, which I no longer recall fully and can't find, but it left me with the definite feeling that Schaap was making up all sorts of shit -- in particular, who requested that some of the concert numbers be re-recorded in the studio (Schaap says that it was Avakian, and that Duke was dismayed; Avakian says that it was Ellington, in part because rhe band's execution of the "Newport Jazz Fesitval Suite" was haphazard, in part because Johnny Hodges had flubbed his familar glissando on "I Got It Bad and That Ain't Good)." Also, Avakian's original liner notes make much of Jo Jones' role during "Diminuendo and Crescendo in Blue," egging the band on as he kept time with a rolled-up newspaper from just off stage, an event that Avakian witnessed because he was standing an arm-and-a-half away from Jones and could see his interaction with the band -- ''first the reed section," Avakian wrote, in the original liner notes, "and then the trombones and finally the rest of the band picked up on Jo, who was shouting encouragement and swatting the stage with the edge of the newspaper..." Schaap insists that Jones' role as key encouraging force during that performance is a fiction perpetrated by Avakian, and that many members of the band found Avakian's account of Jones' role offensive (Schaap names Cat Anderson, Willie Cook, Paul Gonsalves, Jimmy Hamilton, Butter Jackson, Ray Nance, Russell Procope, Clark Terry, Jimmy Woode, Britt Woodman, and Sam Woodyard as those who have done so, though Schaap cites no sources for their testimony. Interesting, perhaps, that given Schaap's closeness to Jo Jones, Jones' account of what happened that night is something that Schaap either never obtained or, if he did, chose not to mention.) OK -- let's assume for the sake of argument that Avakian distorted or grossly misunderstood what actually happened during D&C. (BTW, others who were present in the crowd that night -- notably the blonde woman, Elaine Anderson, whose abandoned dancing to Gonsalves solo served to stoke audience response to this already exciting musical event -- have said that they saw Jones just offstage doing exactly what Avakian said he was doing and saw the band and Gonsalves react to what Jones was doing just as Avakian said that they did.) But if Avakian did distort or misunderstand what happened, why would he do so? Because it made for a good story would be a reasonable guess. Why would the members of the band, contacted at some point down the road (if it was by Schaap, one would assume that this would have been years later), say that Jones had nothing to do how they played on D&C? Because they were proud of their performance, resented any implication that they needed to be egged on by Jo Jones to play at the top their game, and/or they just had no memory of anyone in the band taking notice of Jones -- all these would be good guesses. And if Avakian, who was of course actually there, had not distorted or misunderstood what actually happened, why would Schaap say that he did? To further the impression that Schaap not only knows all the inside stuff about jazz that's worth knowing but also that others who might have been or claim to have been in a knowledgable inside position were, in fact, bullshit or ripoff artists or know nothings. You pays your money and you makes your choice.

LK-- I don't think Schaap flawless but fortunately or un- he's overwhelmingly working in oral tradition so we don't know where he's getting x, y, z or how he's synthesizing. But he's definitely done lots of reseeach on certain topics-- Bird most obviously-- and has historical and musical insights to offer. Also, tho' he can be imperious about dates etc, his pushing of interview subjects (moreso in past when more swing & bop players were alive) is generally towards greater good. They played a jillion gigs, might have made hundreds of record dates, memories blur etc. re: Chris Albertson, while I respect what he did, his judgements are... "stern" is a generous way of putting it. And where did Chris come from again? re: Avakian, a prince of an executive etc, sure, but-- not to make too much of a class argument here-- an executive nonetheless and where did HE come from & how much power he did he wield? for better/worse, Schaap is coming from mixed-race middle class Queens, New York, jazz fan parents (ardently so in his father) (ADOPTED the ghost of Chris Albertson will remind us), damn near a surrogate father/uncle in Jo Jones, frequent contact and conversation and later some work, broadcasting with TONS old(er) black guys & their families (he'll shout out the Eldridge family, the Eddie Durham family etc etc), he ** below ** them (Avakian always above, Albertson a functionary on the side or slightly above as radio guy) ... Those are VASTLY different perspectives & I daresay those black men (not exclusively but most importantly) spoke to Phil differently than they did to others. Perhaps-- obviously-- not all the way candid but moreso than not because of familiarity & Schaap's unquestioned adulation (which-- true-- might be annoying at times). Dick Katz came on the air with Schaap damn near six hours on John Lewis memorial broadcast; we can presume Dick knew something about jazz and even for the love of John, wouldn't fraternize with Schaap if he didn't like? "Record Executive" Side Q: Bob Koester, I believe, took a bus east for the 1963 March on Washington. What did George Avakian do? *** SGCIM: I don't have any inside dope on WKCR & it would be dangerous to admit it if I did, i.e. WKCR has always been in a semi-perilous position re: its mission both from above (commercially oriented admin) & below (short-sighted narcissistic students). I believe, however, the 'sign' that set Schaap off this year was the interruption of Duke Ellington b-day broadcast for a regular one hour Columbia sports talk show... when tradition says ALL regularly scheduled programs are pre-empted... I'll also note the kid who was host of that show graduated this year & is obviously a real piece of work: he goddamn well knew what he was doing & if not a decision he could make himself... that someone OK'd it is a Bad Sign. Also, the departure of Ben Young is regretable on # of levels, both his broadcasting & the continuity & seriousness he brought... There are other excellent alumni still there: Mitch Goldman (Ronald Shannon Jackson ex- road manager among things), Sid Gribetz mentioned above (a Bronx family court judge in real life), Cliff Price (his brother did the Joe Albany documentary recently), the beloved Sharif Abdus-Salaam, also long-time dudes who do African, West Indian, Latin music shows etc. Hopefully this was just bad mix of Schaap freaking out & WKCR making bad decision & everyone has calmed the fuck down, the sports monster & others can co-exist (and Schaap not anti-sports, cf. Dick Schaap et al, it's just the world doesn't lack for sports bullshit... Jazz & other vernacular musics & real community news, arts programming... isn't abundant (stating the obvious, I know)). Moms -- I have no idea what you mean by these remarks, especially the "where did he come from?" business: 're: Chris Albertson, while I respect what he did, his judgements are... "stern" is a generous way of putting it. And where did Chris come from again? 're: Avakian, a prince of an executive etc, sure, but-- not to make too much of a class argument here-- an executive nonetheless and where did HE come from & how much power he did he wield?' "for better/worse, Schaap is coming from mixed-race middle class Queens, New York, jazz fan parents" Chris comes from Denmark and arrived here under by-the-bootstraps circumstances, I believe. He had a job in radio for many years at a public station and produced a number of important recordings, especially of New Orleans and other older musicians who otherwise might have been forgotten. He's been a freelance music journalist. He wrote one of the best jazz biographies. Avakian you disparage/dismiss as some sort of dabbling aristocrat? More so than the Erteguns? Than John Hammond, for freaking sake? My attitude has always been that "everybody's got to be some place," and it's what you do from then on that counts. Also you seem to be saying that Schaap's "mixed-race middle class Queens, New York, jazz fan parents" background in itself amount to a big plus or a saving grace? How so?

Minus apprentice stuff: Orchestral: Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune (1894) Nocturnes (with female choir in Sirènes) (1897–1899) • Nuages • Fêtes • Sirènes Le roi Lear (1904) La mer (1903–1905) Images, Set 3 • Gigues (1909–1912) • Ibéria (1905–1908) • Par les rues et par les chemins • Les parfums de la nuit • Le matin d'un jour de fête • Rondes de printemps (1905–1909) Ballet: Khamma Jeux (1912–1913) La boîte à joujoux (1913) Concerted works: Fantaisie for piano and orchestra (1889–1890) "Rhapsodie" for alto saxophone and piano or orchestra (1901–1911) Première rhapsodie for clarinet and piano or orchestra (1909–1910) Petite pièce for clarinet and piano or orchestra (1910) Chamber: String Quartet in G minor (1893), Opus 10 Danses for cross-strung harp and string quintet (1904) • Danse sacrée • Danse profane Syrinx for flute (1913) Cello Sonata (1915) Sonata for flute, viola and harp (1915) Sonata for violin and piano (1916–1917) a (1911–1912)

Ah, but Mr. Lowe! As someone who has yourself spoken to a great many jazz musicians, you know there are very often significant discrepancies between their perceptions of an event & events and what you might know & reasonable piece together from myriad sources. Oral history can be tremendously valuable and it can a mess of delusion, ignorance, invention etc. Think of how much you know or reasonably surmise from unique or largely overlooked sources etc. Now the same goes for Gushee also, of course, and his diligence in the archives. Think back, Pilgrim: where has much of Schaap's "knowledge" come from? If Russell Procope said it happened that way or Aaron Bell or Milt Hinton or Larwrence Lucie or Truck Parham etc etc. That said, Gushee is almost overstating the case out of professional pique and, if not "jealousy" per se-- nobody really wants to BE Phil Schaap though it would have been interesting to know, say, Jo Jones, Earl Warren, Roy Eldridge etc as he did-- than an irritation at his prominence relative to theirs. (Though for sure, tenured Gushee had an easier lot than the vagabond & un-tenure-able Schaap.) Also, yes, Schaap DOES posit himself as authoritative but, if you've ever seen his writing per se, you know he's got, ah... let's call them "clarity" and "concision" issues, so who's to say he doesn't accidentally garble his own primary research x oral testimony? Finally, if you study enough historiography, as I know you and Gushee have, it's actually pretty rare to see real historians (i.e. not slumming journalists though they sometimes do very well) INVENT something, 1) it's too easy to get caught and 2) it's too much work. Far more common, is combination of sloth, arrogance & insecurity that makes them overstate their case to the exclusion of contradictory or 'difficult' but complementary facts. I do not care in the slightest one way or the other about the erstwhile Mahalia Jackson shtick (a schoolboy jape, boring but inoffensive) but I don't think Schaap is in it for-- or capable of-- "inventing" all that much. If Mr. Gushee did or others would care to expound, that would be welcome. To clarify, Gushee was an esteemed academic musicologist-- also medieval music?-- and, I believe, an amateur horn player? Schaap has a BA in American history with ardent interest in same, especially American civil rights, but his primary vocations are discographer, record collector, broadcaster, valet for/acolyte of numerous old black guys, club booker/manager a few years (West End), gypsy educator, reissue producer (Savoy-- the unedited Bird at the Roost tapes-- Verve, Sony). Now, do we want to wonder what Larry Gushee could have achieved with that type of access to people and primary materials? OK, that's fair speculation. But re: Schaap and Duke, say, what is there he could invent that probably hasn't already been mangled in the historic press? Even mangled in the historic record if you've ever seen Census forms where someone starts to accidently transpose #s or names. And if Schaap did claim something that Gushee strongly disagrees with, might he not have a source, however disputable? Make no mistake, I've thought a # of times & even once called someone a poltroon based on their sloppy and /or rube like misuse of dubious sources but I when I did, independently, find their sources... what they had done did make sense. Moms -- Larry Gushee died on Jan. 6 of this year: http://www.news-gazette.com/obituaries/2015-01-25/lawrence-gushee.html Never having heard Schaap on the air nor having met him, I can have no personal opinion of or knowledge about his good deeds or alleged misdeeds. But the ire that George Avakian bears toward Schapp for quite specific factual reasons carries a fair amount of weight to me -- and I have met Avakian, who is an estimable man personally and one whose achievements and good deeds in the world of jazz and elsewhere are known to me and to many of us. I combine this with the similarly detailed distaste toward Schaap of Chris Albertson -- who can be a stern judge when it comes to, shall we say "mixed," figures like John Hammond, Frank Driggs, and Schaap, but whose assertions about them, to my knowledge, have always proved to be true -- and I'm more than inclined to trust Avakian and Chris.

“Toscanini’s brightly-lit performances had a cathartic effect on contemporary audiences, but it is debatable whether they represented the final, definitive revelation of La mer or just a very impressive exhibition of the conductor’s art. One decidedly negative aspect of Toscanini’s La mer was his modification of passages, including two full pages of full score that ‘he actually rewrote … and pasted … into his copy of the authentic text.’ Under Toscanini’s direction, as under Koussevitsky’s, La mer became an orchestral showpiece of the first order — a noisier, more brilliant work than seems justified by the authority of the score or the illuminating Paris recordings.” — Simon Trezise, “Debussy’s La mer” “Toscanini’s personal copy of La mer … is now housed in the Toscanini Collection in the Music Division of New York Public Library for the Performing Arts. — “Debussy and His World” Toscanini’s account: “I tell Debussy are many things not clear: and he say is all right to make changes.” Cesare Civetta, “The Real Toscanini"

Moving on to Jeux de vagues, this is where Boulez (Sony) comes into its own. In the words of David Hamilton (from a 1969 review in High Fidelity), "We have many performances of this that are marvels of orchestral execution and transparency, but they are generally melody-oriented, the progress of movement governed by the limits and climaxes of the principal 'tunes.' While the New Philharmonia misses a few niceties of ensemble, Boulez nevertheless achieves a remarkable realization of the multi-layered textures...." OTOH I wouldn't say that Inghelbrecht is any less tuned in to those textures, and the spontaneous-seeming surge and swell of his phrasing (at times one comes close to feeling salt spray) does make Boulez sound just a bit tight-lipped and clinical. The spotlighting in the Bernstein recording goes over the top here; I'm still struck by Lennie's insights and conductorial control, but one begins to feel that this is the score for a deleted scene from Fantasia. Ormandy (Sony) remains very good -- not at all vulgar, which is the common rap on him, and the sheer quality of his orchestra is something else. Found an account of what was revised in the 1909 revision of the score. Nothing about tymps behind cellos being subtracted or added.

That's the one I just ordered.

Gosh all willy.

'Beginning with La mer, Debussy created a new formal concept which one could call open form, which would find its fullest expression in Jeux and the last works: a developmental process in which the very notions of exposition and development coexist in an uninterrupted burst, which allows a work to be self-propelled, so to speak, without relying on any pre-established model. 'Such a conception of a work of art obviously strikes at the decayed state of traditional analysis. Indeed in La mer, musical technique is reinvented, not in the details of the language, but in the very concept of musical organization, and sonorous becoming… In it, music becomes a mysterious world which, to the extent that it evolves, it contrives in itself and destroys itself.' — Jean Barraque Hey -- I knew there was a reason I like La mer so much.

More than fifty years ago I dreamt I was in the old Rose Records Store on Wabash in Chicago, listening to a recording of "Stars Fell on Alabama" that featured Jack Teagarden and Paul Desmond -- the former playing the melody fairly straight, the latter embellishing it freely in a kind of dancing-darting but perfectly in tune with Teagarden manner. Felt sad when I woke up that no such recording existed.

About Munch, Monteux, and Martinon, I'm in the market. Sadly, my Desormiere LP is in unplayable shape, but it was a Parliament pressing to begin with, so what do you expect? Hey -- I see it's available on a two-CD set (with other vintage Debussy recordings) on Amazon for a mere $120. Teasing the Korean -- I'm eager to hear what you're able to find out. I may have some sources too.

According to Walter van de Leur's "Something To Live For: The Music of Billy Strayhorn," p. 62-3, Strayhorn "for the full-band version of 'Rocks in My Bed' with Ivie Anderson ... scored the vocal segment ... breaking away from the I-IV-V blues changes [of the original recording with just Ellington and Joe Turner], replacing them with a liquid string of dominants that are connected with chromatic passing chords. As a result of the substitute chords, [strayhorn] has to adapt the melody significantly, and consequently none of the original passage remains, apart from the lyrics. Strayhorn's role has changed from arranger to co-composer."

Dreamt last night of three great Ellington recordings from the early 1940s, all jumbled together, but then they do go together, both in spirit and (to some extent) in detail: "Rocks in My Bed," "Across the Tracks Blues," and "I Don't Know what Kind of Blues I Got." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45gN-bUNFjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQZsP-8ZP94 Bigard and Lawrence Brown! And those sax section choruses! And Duke the Magician/Dramatist (with some input from Strayhorn, I believe).

Here's Boulez Philharmonia; it's at about 4:46, and there's almost nothing but the cellos: Inghelbrecht, about 4:50; the drums are there! And what a performance!

Here's the Bernstein. The passage I'm thinking of is at about 5:02: Here's Haitink; it's about at 4:27: