John Gennari's BLOWIN' HOT & COOL

[ghost of miles]

A review copy of this just came across my desk--didn't even know that publication was imminent. Scott Deveaux plugged Gennari to me years ago, and I've followed his essays with interest; now his book, a history of jazz criticism, has finally come out.

Blowin' Hot and Cool

Think I've found my vacation reading, along with THE LEMON TREE.

[Larry Kart]

Ghost -- let me know what you think of it. I've read it, and while I like some of it (the parts that deal with Martin Williams especially), it has grave faults IMO, especially as Gen nari gets closer to the present. In particular, there's the implicit assumption (it gets explicit at several points) that attitudes toward the music, and of course the alleged interests of the those who formulate and promulgate those attitudes, essentially shape the course of music --or do so far more than the other way around. Such thinking seems me to be a hallmark of DeVeaux and the new jazz studies folk (that's not what they call themselves, but I forget what they do call themselves), and to me it's at once intelligent-dumb (if you know what I mean) and pernicious -- the latter because, among other things, it so easily boils down to a form of power-mongering itself. That is, you critically explore (which in practice usually means "expose") the interests (or "interests") of a John Hammond, a Leonard Feather, a Martin Williams et al., and it's you who get to say that their views are or are not little more than those interests in action, as though that were the only option. Like so much academic stuff, it's scholarship in the name of seizing and wielding the whip hand.

[montg]

Ghost -- let me know what you think of it. I've read it, and while I like some of it (the parts that deal with Martin Williams especially), it has grave faults IMO, especially as Gen nari gets closer to the present. In particular, there's the implicit assumption (it gets explicit at several points) that attitudes toward the music, and of course the alleged interests of the those who formulate and promulgate those attitudes, essentially shape the course of music --or do so far more than the other way around. Such thinking seems me to be a hallmark of DeVeaux and the new jazz studies folk (that's not what they call themselves, but I forget what they do call themselves), and to me it's at once intelligent-dumb (if you know what I mean) and pernicious -- the latter because, among other things, it so easily boils down to a form of power-mongering itself. That is, you critically explore (which in practice usually means "expose") the interests (or "interests") of a John Hammond, a Leonard Feather, a Martin Williams et al., and it's you who get to say that their views are or are not little more than those interests in action, as though that were the only option. Like so much academic stuff, it's scholarship in the name of seizing and wielding the whip hand.

The point about academics & power is well-taken. But I wonder, does the thesis--critical attitudes helped shape the music--have legs? I'm thinking for instance (in the Brothers! thread) about the West Coast tenors overhauling their style to sound like Rollins. How much of that was due to the critical dismissal of the West Coast players as effete? Or to the critical praise of Rollins? Or was Rollins' influence largely (exclusively) at a musical level? Or maybe at this distance it's not possible to say?

I ordered the book, looking forward to it--but I'll read it with a skeptical eye.

Edited May 19, 2006 by montg

[Simon Weil]

Ghost -- let me know what you think of it. I've read it, and while I like some of it (the parts that deal with Martin Williams especially), it has grave faults IMO, especially as Gen nari gets closer to the present. In particular, there's the implicit assumption (it gets explicit at several points) that attitudes toward the music, and of course the alleged interests of the those who formulate and promulgate those attitudes, essentially shape the course of music --or do so far more than the other way around. Such thinking seems me to be a hallmark of DeVeaux and the new jazz studies folk (that's not what they call themselves, but I forget what they do call themselves), and to me it's at once intelligent-dumb (if you know what I mean) and pernicious -- the latter because, among other things, it so easily boils down to a form of power-mongering itself. That is, you critically explore (which in practice usually means "expose") the interests (or "interests") of a John Hammond, a Leonard Feather, a Martin Williams et al., and it's you who get to say that their views are or are not little more than those interests in action, as though that were the only option. Like so much academic stuff, it's scholarship in the name of seizing and wielding the whip hand.

Well, I agree with Larry in (really) disliking the whole idea of critics shaping the music. Mostly, it seems to go against common sense - in that Musicians make the music first. After that the critics speak. So it's ex post facto, their effect. OK, you can say that critics direct the attention of audiences, but I give people more credit than that. And particularly Jazz people. Anyone here knows just how little attention critics get as decisive influences on our listening these days. Witness the thousand and one examples of people saying they'd rather come here than listen to what a critic has to say. And I just refuse to believe that is entirely new. Jazz has a particularly intelligent as sussed audience and has a history of that.

My reading is there's a degree of wish-fulfilment in the idea of critics shaping the music (or any other art). I mean (some) critics would like that power because, well, power is a buzz. OK, here's a theory: But then they find they can't do it and get pissed off because no-one's taking a blind bit of notice. So they go back in the past, where they assert that critics did have the power. And in a kind of fit of pique and frustration they assert that these particular critics used their influence malignantly which kind of assuages their inability to do anything.

I can think of examples.

I think the most important critic these days is Wynton Marsalis - and he's the most important critic because he's a musician and infuses his critical ideas (which are BS) with his standing as a symbolic player in Jazz. Musicians cannot be unbiased observers and his usurpation of the critics role is backed by a version of this "critics have used their influence malignantly" line - a line, which, as I have indicated, I believe to be hollow.

Of course, your occasional critic might make a difference.

Simon Weil

[Larry Kart]

To state openly what I hope is already clear, what I said above is only my reaction to Gennari's book and to the "new jazz studies" movement that it seems to me to exemplify. Rereading what I wrote, it sounded a good deal too ex cathedra to me.

[ghost of miles]

Larry, I'll read with your cautionary note in mind, and will certainly try to post some comments here when I'm done. (Doubt I'll get to the book till I go on vacation the first week of June.) I think I might be a bit more inherently sympathetic to the new jazz studies (I think that is what it's called) than you are, but I also agree that a problem-in-reverse can occur when it's not done well; i.e., the attempt to correct omissions in the narrative of jazz history, or to argue that certain agendas have distorted the historical record, can result in a spankin' brand-new agenda-driven distortion.

I'll be curious to see if Gennari talks at all about Coltrane and the infamous "anti-jazz" 1961 brouhaha, along with his & Dolphy's response in Downbeat.

[AllenLowe]

it is interesting to think about - Don Byron told me that as a result of Gary Giddins's big piece about him in the Village Voice he got both an agent and a record contract -

[JSngry]

i don't think that critics, producers, etc. influence the creation of the music, not usually. But let's face it - as the ones who control the means of distribution (be it of product or information), they can't help but influence the way the music reaches the public, which in turn can't help but influence the way that some musicians go. John Hammond definitely had an "agenda", as did Norman Granz, Albert Lion, you name them. Chuck Nessa didn't record the Art Ensemble or Warne Marsh by pulling random names out of a hat, if you know what I mean. Getting that stuff out, and getting it talked about and played, reached people, and once that happens, hey, "influence" is under way. If the neither Basie nor the AACM never recorded, how would I, in lonely Gladewater, Texas, ever have heard them? And if critics had never written about them, how would I ever even have known about them?

This isn't intrinsically evil or anything, it's just the way stuff works in our society. It's also why so many musicians have expressed interest in having their own labels. Unfortunately, the skills needed to market product and to create it seldom reside in the same individual(s), so...

What I do have a problem with is an over-simplification of "agenda". Saying that some in the non-performing end of the business have used their position of influence to promote and act out on their own socio-psychological "issues", as some revisionist writers have been claiming (and no. I don't remember names) is probably true, but it's only partially true and it's probably not even the main truth. But that's what happens when you try to build your being on corpses - the obvious is already claimed, so you gotta go poking around for the minor shit that ain't nobody found yet and holding it up like a newly found treasure.

Is it "illuminating"? Yeah, sure. But is it revalatory? Uh....I don't think so. Not usually.

Edited May 20, 2006 by JSngry

[Larry Kart]

i don't think that critics, producers, etc. influence the creation of the music, not usually. But let's face it - as the ones who control the means of distribution (be it of product or information), they can't help but influence the way the music reaches the public, which in turn can't help but influence the way that some musicians go. John Hammond definitely had an "agenda", as did Norman Granz, Albert Lion, you name them. Chuck Nessa didn't record the Art Ensemble or Warne Marsh by pulling random names out of a hat, if you know what I mean. Getting that stuff out, and getting it talked about and played, reached people, and once that happens, hey, "influence" is under way. If the neither Basie nor the AACM never recorded, how would I, in lonely Gladewater, Texas, ever have heard them? And if critics had never written about them, how would I ever even have known about them?

This isn't intrinsically evil or anything, it's just the way stuff works in our society. It's also why so many musicians have expressed interest in having their own labels. Unfortunately, the skills needed to market product and to create it seldom reside in the same individual(s), so...

What I do have a problem with is an over-simplification of "agenda". Saying that some in the non-performing end of the business have used their position of influence to promote and act out on their own socio-psychological "issues", as some revisionist writers have been claiming (and no. I don't remember names) is probably true, but it's only partially true and it's probably not even the main truth. But that's what happens when you try to build your being on corpses - the obvious is already claimed, so you gotta go poking around for the minor shit that ain't nobody found yet and holding it up like a newly found treasure.

Is it "illuminating"? Yeah, sure. But is it revalatory? Uh....I don't think so. Not usually.

Now that's what I meant to say.

[JSngry]

Even the "minor shit that ain't nobody found yet" part?

Doesn't seem like you your style...

But otherwise, it's nice to be able to return a favor once in a while.

[montg]

But that's what happens when you try to build your being on corpses - the obvious is already claimed, so you gotta go poking around for the minor shit that ain't nobody found yet and holding it up like a newly found treasure.

Is it "illuminating"? Yeah, sure. But is it revalatory? Uh....I don't think so. Not usually.

This should be posted on the entrance to every academic building in the humanities across the nation, methinks.

[AllenLowe]

well I'll add a somewhat ironic note to this, but I'm only speaking for myself - musicians in general do not read criticism with any eye to intellectual illumination and stimulation, or to get ideas - they usually read critics to see if the critics liked their recording - but I've always looked to criticism in all the arts I'm interested in (particularly theater, literature, and music) to engage with the form and to not only help me understand what things happen and why, but to give a good explication of the process. As a musician I find this more than helpful, and though there are only about 3 critics I trust enough to stake any of my own musical efforts on, I think, in general, it is really an intellectual (and often musical) failure on the part of jazz musicians when they have so little grasp of not only the music's history but of critical approaches to understanding and interpreting the music. This is a roundabout way of getting to my point - in about 2 hours I'm going into a recording studio for the first time in 15 years and I did what I always do before I record - look for intellectual stimulation that relates to the work I am about to do. So I was up late last night reading Larry's book, really as a way of grounding myself intellectually as I head for recording-land, to re-affirm my own musical/intellectual impulses and to calm myself or the task at hand. So critics do have an influence -

Edited May 21, 2006 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

n about 2 hours I'm going into a recording studio for the first time in 15 years and I did what I always do before I record - look for intellectual stimulation that relates to the work I am about to do.

In the old days, many cats would spend that time drinking, getting high, getting laid, all of the above, or something like that. Or warming up. The music, and the need to make it, was immediate, and so were the opportunites to do so. No need to consciously look for any stimulation because it was all around you.

But that was then.

[Larry Kart]

Allen: "...in about 2 hours I'm going into a recording studio for the first time in 15 years and I did what I always do before I record - look for intellectual stimulation that relates to the work I am about to do. So I was up late last night reading Larry's book, really as a way of grounding myself."

Jim: "In the old days, many cats would spend that time drinking, getting high, getting laid, all of the above, or something like that."

It's great to know that my book is a substitute for the things that Jim mentioned. If there's a paperback edition, I want that in a blurb.

BTW, good luck Allen. Look forward to hearing the results.

[JSngry]

It's great to know that my book is a substitute for the things that Jim mentioned. If there's a paperback edition, I want that in a blurb.

[AllenLowe]

stimulation yes - but I'm in Maine - nice place to live, not much musical stimulation - Jim's right, and that was closer to my life when I recorded in the 1980s and 1990s - I was playing steadily, and was surrounded by world class rhythm sections (no hookers, though) - and recording brings out my OCD traits anyway - best thing I read was Larry's section on Ornette, about Ornette's essential revival of pre-tonal music - it fit right into my attempts at playing country music and the session went pretty well, I would say -

[montg]

This is a pretty interesting read so far, although the preoccupation with race becomes more annoying and less illuminating as the book wears on. How many times do we need to be reminded that Leonard Feather was a white jazz critic and Duke Ellington was a black bandleader and so forth?

I've certainly learned a lot about John Hammond--generally, I thought of him as the perceptive scout who 'discovered' Basie, Billie Holiday, Charlie Christian, Dylan... But his views on race and jazz purity were blinded by arrogance. He apparently thought he was the arbiter of authentic 'black music'. His review of Ellington's Reminiscing in Tempo is goofy, calling it "un-Negroid":

the "trouble with Duke's music is the fact that he has purposely kept himself from any contact with the troubles of his people...(Ellington) keeps himself from thinking about such problems as those of the southern share croppers, the Scottsboro boys..."

[ghost of miles]

This is a pretty interesting read so far, although the preoccupation with race becomes more annoying and less illuminating as the book wears on. How many times do we need to be reminded that Leonard Feather was a white jazz critic and Duke Ellington was a black bandleader and so forth?

I've certainly learned a lot about John Hammond--generally, I thought of him as the perceptive scout who 'discovered' Basie, Billie Holiday, Charlie Christian, Dylan... But his views on race and jazz purity were blinded by arrogance. He apparently thought he was the arbiter of authentic 'black music'. His review of Ellington's Reminiscing in Tempo is goofy, calling it "un-Negroid":

the "trouble with Duke's music is the fact that he has purposely kept himself from any contact with the troubles of his people...(Ellington) keeps himself from thinking about such problems as those of the southern share croppers, the Scottsboro boys..."

Yeah, that's a rather infamous quote. I mean, I love the culture of the 1930s popular front, but it did include some pretty condescending attitudes, as demonstrated above. The whole Marxist/CPUSA hate/love affair with jazz is something that might be worthy of a longish article by someone, at some point (might have been done already, for all I know). By the late 1930s they generally embraced swing with enthusiasm (pretty much sponsored From Spirituals to Swing via the New Masses), but early on jazz was dismissed as either decadent or bourgeois music.

Edited June 1, 2006 by ghost of miles

[montg]

The relation of the CPUSA/Marxists to jazz is pretty well covered in this book.

The problem with Hammond is the weird racial stuff that distorts his 'jazz for the people' leftist thinking. For Hammond, there is a chasm between jazz (aka African American music) and Euro musical forms that should not be crossed. The vitality and purity of jazz is more or less exclusively rooted in its 'negroid' aesthetics.

[JSngry]

Hammond's attitudes towards thigs racial were (and still are) not at all uncommon among "white collar liberals". A weird, well-intentioned but ultimately insulting combination of a sublimated "noble savage" mindset, a less sublimated sense of envy that "these people" have what their life lacks in things "visceral", and the inevitable arrogance of presumed "rightness" on all things socio-political that comes from being in a position of privilige. That last onejust comes with the territory, it seems, and is found across the ideological spectrum.

"Patronizing" is probably too weak a word to describe all the levels of wrong inherent in attitudes like Hammond's, but given the real lack of malevolent intent involved, I guess it'll do.

[montg]

I just dug out Hammond's 'review' of Reminiscing. It's fascinating how intertwined politics, race, and music were for Hammond--and for many other critics in the 30s-50s (don't know about the musicians)

"(Ellington) has never shown any desire of aligning himself with forces that are seeking to remove the causes of these disgraceful conditions" (segration/racism).... "The Duke is afraid even to think about himself, his struggles, and his disappointments, and that is why his "Reminiscing" is so formless and shallow a piece of music."

For Hammond racial solidarity, leftist thinking, and jazz were all of one piece. These three factors don't seem to be so tightly bound together anymore, at least in public consciousness.

[Simon Weil]

This is a pretty interesting read so far, although the preoccupation with race becomes more annoying and less illuminating as the book wears on. How many times do we need to be reminded that Leonard Feather was a white jazz critic and Duke Ellington was a black bandleader and so forth?

I've certainly learned a lot about John Hammond--generally, I thought of him as the perceptive scout who 'discovered' Basie, Billie Holiday, Charlie Christian, Dylan... But his views on race and jazz purity were blinded by arrogance. He apparently thought he was the arbiter of authentic 'black music'. His review of Ellington's Reminiscing in Tempo is goofy, calling it "un-Negroid":

the "trouble with Duke's music is the fact that he has purposely kept himself from any contact with the troubles of his people...(Ellington) keeps himself from thinking about such problems as those of the southern share croppers, the Scottsboro boys..."

Yeah, that's a rather infamous quote. I mean, I love the culture of the 1930s popular front, but it did include some pretty condescending attitudes, as demonstrated above. The whole Marxist/CPUSA hate/love affair with jazz is something that might be worthy of a longish article by someone, at some point (might have been done already, for all I know). By the late 1930s they generally embraced swing with enthusiasm (pretty much sponsored From Spirituals to Swing via the New Masses), but early on jazz was dismissed as either decadent or bourgeois music.

For me, the real problem with this stuff is getting enough critical distance to assess it properly. I mean the whole thing is pervaded with racial issues which implies degrees of anger hard to keep at bay. I personally am scared of going there, if only because of the anger that persists there now.

It's a judgemental thing and I don't have it.

Pity.

Simon Weil

Edited June 2, 2006 by Simon Weil

[AllenLowe]

I agreee about Hammond in general but I would not equate him with white-collar liberals - he was really, as I remember someone referring to him years ago, one of the "Rockeller Foundation Communists," a somewhat ironic term but true to so many who populated the Communist noblese-oblige crowd of those days; truly philanthropic but seriously deluded in so many ways (many Stalinists among them) if well intentioned but ultimately very destructive (I'm surprised Chris Albertson, who knows this area much better than I, hasn't come into this discussion) -

Edited June 2, 2006 by AllenLowe

[ghost of miles]

Review from David Yaffe in the Oct. 2 Nation.

[Larry Kart]

I'm reviewing it for the Annual of the Institute of Jazz Studies' "Annual Review of Jazz Studies." Upside of that, from my point of view, is that I get all the space I need, and I think I'll need a good deal -- there's a lot about this book, the first time through, that left me with doubts and suspicions. Downside of writing a review for the "Annual" etc. is that it won't appear for more than a year and won't be seen by that many people.