John Gennari's BLOWIN' HOT & COOL

[ghost of miles]

About "the notion that race and racism had nothing at all to do with the music ... is a form of blindness itself," I would agree. But again, no one I don't think is saying that race and racism have "nothing at all to do with the music" -- I'm saying that the path from the effects of racism, or feelings about race and racism (and a whole lot of other injuries and interests) to specific musical choices and the way one values the results of those choices is nowhere near as schematic as the NJS approach typically tries to make it -- further, that once we get into the realm of crystallized musical choices, factors that arguably are specifically musical tend to loom very large in the minds of people who actually are musicians and in the minds of like-minded listeners. Which is not to say that one can't or shouldn't read backwards from those crystallized choices into all those other social-political-economic realms as freely and as honestly as you can (as Finkelstein, for one, tries to do). But don't forget (Finkelstein doesn't) that once crystallization into art occurs, one has entered a somewhat different world, and that to take what has been crystallized there as mere evidence is doing neither those crystallized choices nor yourself a favor.

Finally, IIRC that part of the book, I thought that DeVeaux's "suggestion that the difficulties black big bands faced in touring--particularly the South--might have contributed to the small-group format which bop favored" was, in Allen Lowe's words, a "typical after-the-fact political rationalization." There are so many other more obvious reasons for bop's favoring "the small-group format," and the way DeVeaux's suggestion bolsters his larger thesis -- eh.

I guess I just don't see (or read) Deveaux in the same way. Deveaux actually is a musician (one of the reasons why I enjoy his writing--he brings that level of awareness to the table as well), and THE BIRTH OF BEBOP is fairly studded, in some sections, with musical examples (I just pulled out my copy to glance through it). I don't think Deveaux's being as reductive as you suggest re: aesthetical choices & presenting them as evidence, but again, I need to sit down and reread the entire book. I just glanced through the "Out of Step With Swing" chapter, in which he quotes a 1940 Downbeat article that proclaimed, "The truth is that the public will accept only a limited number of Negro bands." That gives a pretty fair sense of what the climate was like for working musicians circa 1940 (Deveaux goes into much more detail on the difficulties that large black bands encountered). I don't think he's saying that those difficulties CREATED bebop, but that they did play a part... because even those crystallized choices are coming from a personality that's been shaped by historical/political/economic forces. Again, I think Deveaux does a good job of finding a balance between the "evolutionary style" narrative of jazz history (which strikes me, especially at this late date, as just as false as any excesses of NJS) and a Marxist-style interpretation that leaves no room for discussion of individual aesthetic choices. And an "after-the-fact political rationalization" may simply be a later articulation of something that was unconscious at the time. I think we both agree that what we ultimately want is as accurate a representation of jazz history as is possible--perhaps we just have slightly differing views on how to get there. Have you ever read Deveaux's essay, "Constructing the Jazz Tradition"? For some reason Krin Gabbard did not include it in his JAZZ AMONG THE DISCOURSES anthology; rather puzzling, as it really set the stage for the book itself. It's been collected in Robert O'Meally's THE JAZZ CADENCE OF AMERICAN CULTURE. It's an insightful piece on how the ideological agendas of previous critics, who claim not to be ideological at all, have shaped jazz history in powerful and distorting ways.

[ghost of miles]

How long till the "Scott Deveaux is here" thread starts?

[Chuck Nessa]

I'll jump right into that sucka'.

[Larry Kart]

I guess I just don't see (or read) Deveaux in the same way. Deveaux actually is a musician (one of the reasons why I enjoy his writing--he brings that level of awareness to the table as well), and THE BIRTH OF BEBOP is fairly studded, in some sections, with musical examples (I just pulled out my copy to glance through it). I don't think Deveaux's being as reductive as you suggest re: aesthetical choices & presenting them as evidence, but again, I need to sit down and reread the entire book. I just glanced through the "Out of Step With Swing" chapter, in which he quotes a 1940 Downbeat article that proclaimed, "The truth is that the public will accept only a limited number of Negro bands." That gives a pretty fair sense of what the climate was like for working musicians circa 1940 (Deveaux goes into much more detail on the difficulties that large black bands encountered). I don't think he's saying that those difficulties CREATED bebop, but that they did play a part... because even those crystallized choices are coming from a personality that's been shaped by historical/political/economic forces. Again, I think Deveaux does a good job of finding a balance between the "evolutionary style" narrative of jazz history (which strikes me, especially at this late date, as just as false as any excesses of NJS) and a Marxist-style interpretation that leaves no room for discussion of individual aesthetic choices. And an "after-the-fact political rationalization" may simply be a later articulation of something that was unconscious at the time. I think we both agree that what we ultimately want is as accurate a representation of jazz history as is possible--perhaps we just have slightly differing views on how to get there. Have you ever read Deveaux's essay, "Constructing the Jazz Tradition"? For some reason Krin Gabbard did not include it in his JAZZ AMONG THE DISCOURSES anthology; rather puzzling, as it really set the stage for the book itself. It's been collected in Robert O'Meally's THE JAZZ CADENCE OF AMERICAN CULTURE. It's an insightful piece on how the ideological agendas of previous critics, who claim not to be ideological at all, have shaped jazz history in powerful and distorting ways.

That DeVeaux is a musician doesn't mean that he can't also be a tendentious writer/scholar. That 1940 Down Beat citation -- "The truth is that the public will absorb [not "accept"] only a limited number of Negro bands." -- is a good example. No scholar who is familiar with the sorts of journalism that prevailed in Down Beat and Metronome at the time would accept that article at face value, as evidence in and of itself. And evidence of what? That the most popular bands of the time were white? We already knew that. That these bands were more popular BECAUSE they were white, and that the public (the white public only, obviously) didn't like black bands as much BECAUSE they were black? That Down Beat article goes on to say, according to DeVeaux, that of the black bands that had "attained any measure of financial stability," Calloway's did so on the basis of his "personality," Armstrong's on his "high-note appeal," while Ellington's was "sui generis." The first is obviously true as far it goes (which is a fair way), the second is such a tiny part of the truth as to be false (Armstrong's appeal was based on his vast overall gifts as an entertainer and a long-established one at that; his ability to hit high-notes was far from the gist of it), and that Ellington was "sui generis" (of its own kind) means in this context -- what? So an article that arguably is off base in two of its three key examples is worthy of citation? I'd say that the article primarily is evidence that articles of that time from such sources are of dubious value, in and of themselves. Take an article like that as a point of provocation if you wish, but then go and do the difficult work yourself, insofar as that's possible. (Again, see Gushee's book on the Creole Jazz Band for examples of what can be discovered and verified under far more difficult scholarly circumstances.) Also, in the DB article's longish list of black bands that were "practically out of the picture as far as the general public is concerned," I see no mention of Erskine Hawkins' very popular 'Bama State Collegians ("Tuxedo Junction" and "After Hours" were big hits). In one sense I can see why the author of that 1940 article might choose to ignore Hawkins' band -- its music had a proto-R&B flavor and almost certainly appealed more to black audiences of the time than to white ones (but a good deal to both), and the same could be said of Louis Jordan's Tympany Five a short ways further down the road. But the way he handles this article also suggests to me that DeVeaux isn't looking carefully enough at the not always straightforward realities of the cultural/racial marketplace of that era -- either that or he is looking at that marketplace only for evidence (in this case, I would say, "evidence") that suits his thesis.

I haven't read DeVeaux's "Constructing the Jazz Tradition," but the book that includes it is on its way to me.

[ghost of miles]

That DeVeaux is a musician doesn't mean that he can't also be a tendentious writer/scholar.

Of course--I just mentioned that he is a musician because of your earlier remark:

I'm saying that the path from the effects of racism, or feelings about race and racism (and a whole lot of other injuries and interests) to specific musical choices and the way one values the results of those choices is nowhere near as schematic as the NJS approach typically tries to make it -- further, that once we get into the realm of crystallized musical choices, factors that arguably are specifically musical tend to loom very large in the minds of people who actually are musicians and in the minds of like-minded listeners.

...simply that Deveaux is a NJS scholar who's also a musician, and who certainly incorporates analysis of crystallized musical choices into his work.

That 1940 Down Beat citation -- "The truth is that the public will absorb [not "accept"] only a limited number of Negro bands." -- is a good example. No scholar who is familiar with the sorts of journalism that prevailed in Down Beat and Metronome at the time would accept that article at face value, as evidence in and of itself. And evidence of what? That the most popular bands of the time were white? We already knew that. That these bands were more popular BECAUSE they were white, and that the public (the white public only, obviously) didn't like black bands as much BECAUSE they were black? That Down Beat article goes on to say, according to DeVeaux, that of the black bands that had "attained any measure of financial stability," Calloway's did so on the basis of his "personality," Armstrong's on his "high-note appeal," while Ellington's was "sui generis." The first is obviously true as far it goes (which is a fair way), the second is such a tiny part of the truth as to be false (Armstrong's appeal was based on his vast overall gifts as an entertainer and a long-established one at that; his ability to hit high-notes was far from the gist of it), and that Ellington was "sui generis" (of its own kind) means in this context -- what? So an article that arguably is off base in two of its three key examples is worthy of citation? I'd say that the article primarily is evidence that articles of that time from such sources are of dubious value, in and of themselves.

Deveaux cites more than the DB article in the section, "The Wages of Discrimination"--inability of black bands to get prominent hotel gigs, high-profile radio spots, etc. And I took the phrase "high-note appeal" to convey a more general meaning that's somewhat in line with what you say about Armstrong. DB journalism is, as you say, not to be taken as gospel--that's for sure--but it's indicative of what people who were around then were thinking, to a large degree, and DB did exert influence over its audience. (And Ellington was one of a kind, in more ways than one--how many black bandleaders could afford to have their own train, so as not to have to endure the indignities suffered by so many black musicians while touring the South?) And if we can't give any credence to journalism of the era, then the earlier complaint against Gennari:

Another aspect of the book that drives me crazy and that is connected to what I've already said is the way it blithely (or so it seems, but it isn't really blithe at all) takes chunks of the past that you have direct experience of and transforms them into things that are quite distant from and alien to what you and others actually experienced.

seems at odds, at least indirectly, with the critique of the DB article citation.

Which again is NOT to say that DB journalism of the time can stand on its own, etc., but I'm surprised to see it dismissed so readily when there's plenty of other evidence that discrimination affected black bands in many ways. Yes, perhaps Deveaux could have substantiated his argument more thoroughly, but I find it difficult to disagree with his conclusions.

I'm really interested in that Gushee book--thanks for mentioning it. And while I understand your not wanting to discuss the Gennari book too much before writing your piece, I'd be eager to read any thoughts you have on Deveaux's "Constructing the Jazz Tradition" after you read it.

[Chuck Nessa]

Again, I think Deveaux does a good job of finding a balance between the "evolutionary style" narrative of jazz history (which strikes me, especially at this late date, as just as false as any excesses of NJS).....

Please explain this. I think you just really pissed me off.

[Larry Kart]

That DeVeaux is a musician doesn't mean that he can't also be a tendentious writer/scholar.

Of course--I just mentioned that he is a musician because of your earlier remark:

I'm saying that the path from the effects of racism, or feelings about race and racism (and a whole lot of other injuries and interests) to specific musical choices and the way one values the results of those choices is nowhere near as schematic as the NJS approach typically tries to make it -- further, that once we get into the realm of crystallized musical choices, factors that arguably are specifically musical tend to loom very large in the minds of people who actually are musicians and in the minds of like-minded listeners.

...simply that Deveaux is a NJS scholar who's also a musician, and who certainly incorporates analysis of crystallized musical choices into his work.

That 1940 Down Beat citation -- "The truth is that the public will absorb [not "accept"] only a limited number of Negro bands." -- is a good example. No scholar who is familiar with the sorts of journalism that prevailed in Down Beat and Metronome at the time would accept that article at face value, as evidence in and of itself. And evidence of what? That the most popular bands of the time were white? We already knew that. That these bands were more popular BECAUSE they were white, and that the public (the white public only, obviously) didn't like black bands as much BECAUSE they were black? That Down Beat article goes on to say, according to DeVeaux, that of the black bands that had "attained any measure of financial stability," Calloway's did so on the basis of his "personality," Armstrong's on his "high-note appeal," while Ellington's was "sui generis." The first is obviously true as far it goes (which is a fair way), the second is such a tiny part of the truth as to be false (Armstrong's appeal was based on his vast overall gifts as an entertainer and a long-established one at that; his ability to hit high-notes was far from the gist of it), and that Ellington was "sui generis" (of its own kind) means in this context -- what? So an article that arguably is off base in two of its three key examples is worthy of citation? I'd say that the article primarily is evidence that articles of that time from such sources are of dubious value, in and of themselves.

Deveaux cites more than the DB article in the section, "The Wages of Discrimination"--inability of black bands to get prominent hotel gigs, high-profile radio spots, etc. And I took the phrase "high-note appeal" to convey a more general meaning that's somewhat in line with what you say about Armstrong. DB journalism is, as you say, not to be taken as gospel--that's for sure--but it's indicative of what people who were around then were thinking, to a large degree, and DB did exert influence over its audience. (And Ellington was one of a kind, in more ways than one--how many black bandleaders could afford to have their own train, so as not to have to endure the indignities suffered by so many black musicians while touring the South?) And if we can't give any credence to journalism of the era, then the earlier complaint against Gennari:

Another aspect of the book that drives me crazy and that is connected to what I've already said is the way it blithely (or so it seems, but it isn't really blithe at all) takes chunks of the past that you have direct experience of and transforms them into things that are quite distant from and alien to what you and others actually experienced.

seems at odds, at least indirectly, with the critique of the DB article citation.

Which again is NOT to say that DB journalism of the time can stand on its own, etc., but I'm surprised to see it dismissed so readily when there's plenty of other evidence that discrimination affected black bands in many ways. Yes, perhaps Deveaux could have substantiated his argument more thoroughly, but I find it difficult to disagree with his conclusions.

I'm really interested in that Gushee book--thanks for mentioning it. And while I understand your not wanting to discuss the Gennari book too much before writing your piece, I'd be eager to read any thoughts you have on Deveaux's "Constructing the Jazz Tradition" after you read it.

Ghost -- "High-note appeal" means the appeal to an audience of Armstrong's ability to hit high notes, this being a regular feature of his performances of that time. How you can take "high-note appeal" as a more general statement about Armstrong's all-around skills as an entertainer escapes me.

Of course, Ellington was one of a kind, but the DB piece says or implies that he was one of a kind in such a way that he overcame the inability or the unwillingness of the (white) public to "absorb" more than "a limited number of Negro bands." What one wants and needs to know here is why -- both from the point of view of that DB writer and from that of DeVeaux -- that was so (if indeed DeVeaux thinks it was so). You or I could make some reasonable guesses, but my point is that the DB article gives us no clue as to what its writer thinks those reasons might be. My problem with that citation, then, is not that there isn't "plenty of other evidence that discrimination affected black bands in many ways" but that that citation is empty in itself. When a scholar handles material that carelessly, I get suspicious.

As for:

"And if we can't give any credence to journalism of the era, then the earlier complaint against Gennari:

Another aspect of the book that drives me crazy and that is connected to what I've already said is the way it blithely (or so it seems, but it isn't really blithe at all) takes chunks of the past that you have direct experience of and transforms them into things that are quite distant from and alien to what you and others actually experienced.

seems at odds, at least indirectly, with the critique of the DB article citation."

When I said "takes chunks of the past that you have direct experience of and transforms them into things that are quite distant from and alien to what you and others actually experienced," I simply meant, as I said, chunks of my own past and chunks of the pasts of other people whom I know and trust. Why you think one of those trustworthy other people should be an anonymous 1940 DB journalist whose own words tell me that he's not a very trustworthy source at all escapes me once more. Just because he wrote what he did in 1940? Where's the contradiction here?

[ghost of miles]

Ghost -- "High-note appeal" means the appeal to an audience of Armstrong's ability to hit high notes, this being a regular feature of his performances of that time. How you can take "high-note appeal" as a more general statement about Armstrong's all-around skills as an entertainer escapes me.

Larry--Of course I understand what the sentence means in a literal sense, but it's no great leap to interpret it as also meaning that Armstrong had great crowd-pleasing/entertainer skills.

When I said "takes chunks of the past that you have direct experience of and transforms them into things that are quite distant from and alien to what you and others actually experienced," I simply meant, as I said, chunks of my own past and chunks of the pasts of other people whom I know and trust. Why you think one of those trustworthy other people should be an anonymous 1940 DB journalist whose own words tell me that he's not a very trustworthy source at all escapes me once more. Just because he wrote what he did in 1940? Where's the contradiction here?

Because you're essentially saying that you know more than the DB journalist, even though he/she lived through that era and you didn't--and yet you're taking Gennari to task for giving a different interpretation of an era through which you lived and he didn't (not as a perceiving adolescent/adult, anyway--not sure how old Gennari is). Living through an era, of course, does not give one carte blanche in interpreting it, or prove that one is automatically a trustworthy source (and I DO consider you a trustworthy source; your writings always seem grounded in solid, penetrating thought & research), but the DB article, general as it is, is not at odds with other parts of the historical record from that era.

[ghost of miles]

Again, I think Deveaux does a good job of finding a balance between the "evolutionary style" narrative of jazz history (which strikes me, especially at this late date, as just as false as any excesses of NJS).....

Please explain this. I think you just really pissed me off.

I mean a narrative history that makes no allowances for any sort of political, social, or economic forces at work in how people came to create certain forms of music, or any kind of art, for that matter.

I have no idea why that should piss you off.

[Larry Kart]

Ghost -- "High-note appeal" means the appeal to an audience of Armstrong's ability to hit high notes, this being a regular feature of his performances of that time. How you can take "high-note appeal" as a more general statement about Armstrong's all-around skills as an entertainer escapes me.

Larry--Of course I understand what the sentence means in a literal sense, but it's no great leap to interpret it as also meaning that Armstrong had great crowd-pleasing/entertainer skills.

When I said "takes chunks of the past that you have direct experience of and transforms them into things that are quite distant from and alien to what you and others actually experienced," I simply meant, as I said, chunks of my own past and chunks of the pasts of other people whom I know and trust. Why you think one of those trustworthy other people should be an anonymous 1940 DB journalist whose own words tell me that he's not a very trustworthy source at all escapes me once more. Just because he wrote what he did in 1940? Where's the contradiction here?

Because you're essentially saying that you know more than the DB journalist, even though he/she lived through that era and you didn't--and yet you're taking Gennari to task for giving a different interpretation of an era through which you lived and he didn't (not as a perceiving adolescent/adult, anyway--not sure how old Gennari is). Living through an era, of course, does not give one carte blanche in interpreting it, or prove that one is automatically a trustworthy source (and I DO consider you a trustworthy source; your writings always seem grounded in solid, penetrating thought & research), but the DB article, general as it is, is not at odds with other parts of the historical record from that era.

Geez. I'm saying that I know more than that DB journalist because what he writes gives me abundant evidence that he doesn't really know much about what he's talking about. I've said in previous posts why I think that's so. To be blunt -- the fact that I'm a fairly bright and curious guy, and this writer, based on the evidence before me, was not seems to me to trump the fact that he was alive and writing in 1940. Is the tone and factuality of a person's discourse not a reasonable guide as to whether they're making sense? And again, no that DB article is not wholly at odds with other parts of the historical record, but both you and DeVeaux cite it as though it were important evidence to be added to that record when, in itself, it isn't. (Somehow I'm reminded of Yogi Berra's supposed reaction to seeing the film version of "Dr. Zhivago" -- "Sure was cold in Russia in them days.") What the article certainly is evidence of, though -- and this may be interesting, though it also may not fit that neatly into DeVeaux's argument -- is that Down Beat in 1940 obviously was willing to print an article that said what this article says. Was the writer's goal simply reportorial? Was it an attempt to stir white guilt or just to create some free-form controversy? (There was a lot of that going on at DB and Metronome in those days.) Was it an article that DB was happy to print or may even have elicted, or was it just something that more or less flew over the transom and was pasted in for lack of something better that week? (I worked at DB and know that that could happen.) Did the article inspire any responses (letters, other articles) that would give us a clue as to how DB's readers took it? How many other articles on this and related subjects appeared in DB and Metronome in those years, and what tacks did they take? My point is that if genuine historical "contextualization" is your goal, you've got to know what kind of stuff you've got your hands on and how to treat it.

[ghost of miles]

And again, no that DB article is not wholly at odds with other parts of the historical record, but both you and DeVeaux cite it as though it were important evidence to be added to that record when, in itself, it isn't. (Somehow I'm reminded of Yogi Berra's supposed reaction to seeing the film version of "Dr. Zhivago" -- "Sure was cold in Russia in them days.") What the article certainly is evidence of, though -- and this may be interesting, though it also may not fit that neatly into DeVeaux's argument -- is that Down Beat in 1940 obviously was willing to print an article that said what this article says. Was the writer's goal simply reportorial? Was it an attempt to stir white guilt or just to create some free-form controversy? (There was a lot of that going on at DB and Metronome in those days.) Was it an article that DB was happy to print or may even have elicted, or was it just something that more or less flew over the transom and was pasted in for lack of something better that week? (I worked at DB and know that that could happen.) Did the article inspire any responses (letters, other articles) that would give us a clue as to how DB's readers took it? How many other articles on this and related subjects appeared in DB and Metronome in those years, and what tacks did they take? My point is that if genuine historical "contextualization" is your goal, you've got to know what kind of stuff you've got your hands on and how to treat it.

But Deveaux is writing about what was going on with black swing musicians and their economic situation in that chapter--not about the culture of Downbeat and its readers. And I don't quite get the Berra analogy, humorous as it is on the surface--that the DB article is guilty of only pointing out the obvious? I thought that a lack of obviousness was exactly what was at question here... and again, it wasn't Deveaux's primary "evidence," but a fleeting allusion in a larger chapter. And I've already said that yes, perhaps Deveaux's research could have gone deeper (even though I still agree with his analysis and conclusions)... and you raise interesting questions as well, the kinds of questions which--I hope--Gennari's book will raise as I get further into it.

Edited September 24, 2006 by ghost of miles

[ghost of miles]

Chuck, in regards to "false," I'm simply saying that a manner of approaching jazz history that omits what I mentioned seems to me just as distorted as any NJS approach that arrives with a predetermined "outcome". In the course of my discussion w/Larry this evening I went back to re-read "Constructing the Jazz Tradition," and this passage might provide more elaboration (the essay was written in 1991, hence the reference to Schuller's THE SWING ERA as "recent"):

Nevertheless, it is curious how the concept of the jazz tradition tends to leach the social significance out of the music, leaving the impression that the history of jazz can be described satisfactorily only in aesthetic terms. In a recent review of THE SWING ERA: THE DEVELOPMENT OF JAZZ, 1930-1945, E.J. Hobsbawm applauds Schuller's "monumental contribution to jazz literature," but wonders how a purely stylistic framework can possibly claim to provide a complete account of "the development of jazz... Mr. Schuller's book," he concludes, "is an implicit call for a social, economic, and cultural history of jazz in the New Deal years." Nowhere is the disparity between the smoothness of the official narrative and the noise (to use Jacques Attali's term) of social disruption clearer than in the treatment of bebop. If any movement within jazz can be said to reflect and embody the political tensions of its time--the aspirations, frustrations, and subversive sensibilities of an elite group of African-American artists during a time of upheaval and rapid change--it is this musical revolution that took shape during and after the Second World War. "We were the first generation to rebel," remembers pianist Hampton Hawes, "playing bebop, trying to be different, going through a lot of changes and getting strung out in the process. What these crazy n*&$ers doin' playin' that crazy music? Wild. Out of the jungle."

Edited September 24, 2006 by ghost of miles

[Larry Kart]

And again, no that DB article is not wholly at odds with other parts of the historical record, but both you and DeVeaux cite it as though it were important evidence to be added to that record when, in itself, it isn't. (Somehow I'm reminded of Yogi Berra's supposed reaction to seeing the film version of "Dr. Zhivago" -- "Sure was cold in Russia in them days.") What the article certainly is evidence of, though -- and this may be interesting, though it also may not fit that neatly into DeVeaux's argument -- is that Down Beat in 1940 obviously was willing to print an article that said what this article says. Was the writer's goal simply reportorial? Was it an attempt to stir white guilt or just to create some free-form controversy? (There was a lot of that going on at DB and Metronome in those days.) Was it an article that DB was happy to print or may even have elicted, or was it just something that more or less flew over the transom and was pasted in for lack of something better that week? (I worked at DB and know that that could happen.) Did the article inspire any responses (letters, other articles) that would give us a clue as to how DB's readers took it? How many other articles on this and related subjects appeared in DB and Metronome in those years, and what tacks did they take? My point is that if genuine historical "contextualization" is your goal, you've got to know what kind of stuff you've got your hands on and how to treat it.

But Deveaux is writing about what was going on with black swing musicians and their economic situation in that chapter--not about the culture of Downbeat and its readers. And I don't quite get the Berra analogy, humorous as it is on the surface--that the DB article is guilty of only pointing out the obvious? I thought that a lack of obviousness was exactly what was at question here... and again, it wasn't Deveaux's primary "evidence," but a fleeting allusion in a larger chapter. And I've already said that yes, perhaps Deveaux's research could have gone deeper (even though I still agree with his analysis and conclusions)... and you raise interesting questions as well, the kinds of questions which--I hope--Gennari's book will raise as I get further into it.

No, DeVeaux is (or needs to be) writing about both things, because he says that the economic situation of black swing musicians was profoundly shaped by the racism of the white public (IIRC, in his view, a situation shaped more profoundly by white racism than any other factor). Thus, evidence about the culture of that white public would seem to be a significant, even crucial. To put it crudely but I hope clearly, can one say that a long gone fan of Artie Shaw in 1940, who at the same time doesn't care much at all for Basie, is a) responding to the relative "whiteness" of Shaw's music as it manifests itself musically because he himself is white b) not attuned to the relative "blackness" of Basie's music as it manifests itself musically because he himself is not black, either because he then doesn't get that it or because he does get it but feels it's not for him c) doesn't like Basie primarily because he consciously or unconsciiously doesn't like or fears black people, regardless of how their music sounds, or ... we could go on and on like this, but my point is that if you're going to really look at such things in a careful, scholarly manner, you really need to look at them that way, not just poke around looking for ways to portray the past so as redress the undoubtedly genuine injustices of that time.

About the Yogi remark -- of course, it ups the ante a good deal from the DB citation we were talking about(that's why it struck me funny when it came to mind), but would you cite what Yogi said as evidence of what Russia's climate was like in "them days," even though it almost certainly "sure was cold" then? Ok, you can't explain a joke.

[ghost of miles]

Fair enough--any protracted gaze into the hillbilly Zen of Mr. Berra always helps to restore a sense of clarity and balance.

[AllenLowe]

I shouldn't have gone to sleep, seems I missed a lot here - I want to cite Richard Gilman, an old professor of mine, taught theater, but understood principles that applied to any kind of art form - Gilman was always weary of approaches to the history of any art form that merely tried to situated that form historically and socially; the act of artistic creation, he said, (and I paraphrase, will have to dig out the book) constitutes, at its best, a counter-history, an aesthetic alternative to the prevailing social order. Try and try as they might, academics rarely if ever change our aesthetic judgement of the music - yes, it is interesting to see what musicians were doing and why, and useful to understand the social construct within which they played - but I will say that I have been listening to jazz since 1968, from the tender age of 14, and the more I have learned about the social context of jazz the less it has meant - the music still creates its own reality, regardless of time and place. That's why I keep coming back to it; if it was merely a sociological curiousity I (and you guys) would have tired of it years ago -

Edited September 24, 2006 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

I will add another comment - I feel that academics who are so bent on creating a schematic social context do a disservice to not only the musicans but to the music - they place a sociological burden upon the musicians that deprives them of their personal and artistic freedom. It's like Stanley Crouch telling Anthony Davis that he's not black enough; it's like labels like Generation X or the 1960s Generation, the kind of Time magazine shorthand that simplifies everything and strips it of its real meaning. I remember Harold Rosenberg writing in disgust about critics who tried to place him and others in a certain 1930s-1940s pre-and post-War American intellectual category; Rosenberg said that his own influences and interests were much wider than some narrow school, that he admired Europeans and many people outside of the scope of that category - this to me epitomizes the grand weakness of contextualization, whether done glibly by journalists or "smartly" by academics.

[Simon Weil]

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 Gennari 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.

I posted this back in May, and it's what I still feel as I re-read the book. What I plan to do now is immerse myself after re-reading Gennari in a big stewpot of New Jazz Studies stuff (BTW, that is what the NJS folks call themselves) to make sure that I'm right in thinking that Gennari is, as I think he is, reading the history of jazz criticism so that the NJS approach is both the cure and the culmination.

Another aspect of the book that drives me crazy and that is connected to what I've already said is the way it blithely (or so it seems, but it isn't really blithe at all) takes chunks of the past that you have direct experience of and transforms them into things that are quite distant from and alien to what you and others actually experienced. [as though] the room they checked in to isn't there, there's no door for it, the wife and daughter have vanished, the people at the hotel say they've never seen the man or his wife and daughter before, and the page in the hotel register where the man signed his name doesn't exist. "It Was. But It Ain't." -- to borrow the title of the Charles Olson essay that zeroes on on this evil semi-intellectual con game.

First off, forgive me for chopping out the setting for your parallel. I feel it allows me to see more clearly. I just feel you're going to have an awful lot of evidence before you accuse someone of doing evil - especially when you've been online and accused him in this direct way. He can just come right back at you, if he has right of reply.

The other thing is this comes across as a bit of a zero-sum game. The whole thing about the deconstructive approach is it works best (and usefully) if you can absorb its insights into a larger frame. Of course you may feel Gennari doesn't have any insights - in which case I guess it would be a game to reduce Jazz history to some arbitrary glop. The only meaning being that he gets to define what the glop is.

But if that really is the case, you should be able to find hard evidence. Or anyone someone should. If it's that bad, you could probably deconstruct the text and come up with stuff. But does anyone really want to read a deconstruction of a book deconstructing Jazz history?

I think you might be better of demonstrating skewed scholarship.

Simon Weil

Edited September 26, 2006 by Simon Weil

[AllenLowe]

I think Larry's point of view is a little more complex than that - I see the crux as this line in Larry's post:

"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" -

I don't think it's a matter of de-constructing a deconstruction; it's basically a matter of challenging a kind of false historical documentation, of questioning the authority that seems to come from a tenured position and a book contract -

[Larry Kart]

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 Gennari 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.

I posted this back in May, and it's what I still feel as I re-read the book. What I plan to do now is immerse myself after re-reading Gennari in a big stewpot of New Jazz Studies stuff (BTW, that is what the NJS folks call themselves) to make sure that I'm right in thinking that Gennari is, as I think he is, reading the history of jazz criticism so that the NJS approach is both the cure and the culmination.

Another aspect of the book that drives me crazy and that is connected to what I've already said is the way it blithely (or so it seems, but it isn't really blithe at all) takes chunks of the past that you have direct experience of and transforms them into things that are quite distant from and alien to what you and others actually experienced. [as though] the room they checked in to isn't there, there's no door for it, the wife and daughter have vanished, the people at the hotel say they've never seen the man or his wife and daughter before, and the page in the hotel register where the man signed his name doesn't exist. "It Was. But It Ain't." -- to borrow the title of the Charles Olson essay that zeroes on on this evil semi-intellectual con game.

First off, forgive me for chopping out the setting for your parallel. I feel it allows me to see more clearly. I just feel you're going to have an awful lot of evidence before you accuse someone of doing evil - especially when you've been online and accused him in this direct way. He can just come right back at you, if he has right of reply.

The other thing is this comes across as a bit of a zero-sum game. The whole thing about the deconstructive approach is it works best (and usefully) if you can absorb its insights into a larger frame. Of course you may feel Gennari doesn't have any insights - in which case I guess it would be a game to reduce Jazz history to some arbitrary glop. The only meaning being that he gets to define what the glop is.

But if that really is the case, you should be able to find hard evidence. Or anyone someone should. If it's that bad, you could probably deconstruct the text and come up with stuff. But does anyone really want to read a deconstruction of a book deconstructing Jazz history?

I think you might be better of demonstrating skewed scholarship.

Simon Weil

Thanks for the solicitude, Simon, but I'll call 'em as I see 'em and take my chances. Of course, Gennari and anyone else can "come right back" at me if they wish, after reading what I've written. What's wrong with that? And as for me having "accused" him (and the NJS studies movement) online (i.e. here) "in this direct way," I'm afraid I'm only one person with one mind and one set of opinions/conclusions -- though of course those can change a bit over time, and I might express myself a bit differently in an essay-review than I would here. But not much.

[Simon Weil]

I think Larry's point of view is a little more complex than that - I see the crux as this line in Larry's post:

"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" -

I don't think it's a matter of de-constructing a deconstruction; it's basically a matter of challenging a kind of false historical documentation, of questioning the authority that seems to come from a tenured position and a book contract -

I think the question of authority is central to this, but I see it a bit differently to you. Essentially, I think you have two competing forms of authority: Larry's which comes from being there, watching the music being made and commenting on it so excellently over so many years that he built himself a reputation as a quality critic - And: Gennari's which comes out of succeeding in the world of the academy and, as such, relates to scholarly working over of events from the past.

If Jazz goes on as it is, i.e. with nothing much happening (at least on the Ornette Coleman. Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong level of change), the major sort of valid writing about Jazz will, more and more, be reworkings of the past - because the future of Jazz will have stopped. So this is about how Jazz will be perceived in the future.

Larry gets to say that Gennari is disappearing important bits of the past, and Gennari gets to say, no he's merely correcting the historical record. And when, 20 years from now, someone reads this stuff, he won't be able to tell which is right - because authority disappears like the wind and all you have is opinions.

I do agree with Larry that he has to call it like it sees it.

Simon Weil

[Larry Kart]

I've almost finished re-reading Gennari's "Blowin' Hot and Cool" and am somewhat surprised to find that its New Jazz Studies underpinnings, which I still detect at work, are far less explicitly present than I recall.

In fact, one could fault the book, which after all was published this year, for paying almost no direct attention to the NJS movement, which has been vigorously doing its stuff for more than a decade now and arguably has had as much or more of an impact on the world of jazz discourse than anything else that's been up and running during that period of time -- both in terms of what the NJS folks are saying and in the success with which they've been able to colonize the academic world. About the NJS underpinnings being at work in the book but in a less explicit manner than I'd thought the first time through, I'd say that a great many of the cited judgments/estimates that are given the most weight by Gennari (as in so-and-so "shrewdly" says or "tellingly" points out) are from NJS texts, and that his own approach for the most part is that of NJS's style, we are the first generation to be truly wised-up "contextualization."

[Chuck Nessa]

I am still pissed Mr Ghost.

[ghost of miles]

After three days? You must be working on a hell of a hangover.

[ghost of miles]

I am still pissed Mr Ghost.

Well, now I am too, so we should make for swell company. (If only you meant it in the British sense of the word.) Frankly, some of the attitude against NJS reminds me all too much of Louis’ infamous “Chinese music” comment. I am simply saying that it’s my belief that a true history of any art form includes the social, economic, and political circumstances from which it emerged as well as the “aesthetic” aspects of its evolution. That notion comes under attack from some quarters, here and elsewhere, as somehow “falsifying” history, and my point is that ignoring factors such as racism and the economic impact of racism on jazz history is a falsity to match any distortion produced so far by NJS. And I’ll argue that point relentlessly, though I think I’ve already spoken my piece too much in this thread, and have no desire to resuscitate my debate w/Larry (which ended up revolving more around a pretty narrow scholarship/research aspect of a larger question—and my sense is that Larry, while vigorously and rightfully demanding of historical inquiry, is still open to some of the notions that NJS puts forth.) If you think “NJS sux” then you, even more so than all or most of us here, have earned that opinion. Somehow, though, that opinion won’t piss me off, nor should it.

I’ve never gone to grad school. I came to this music out of a passionate love for listening to it, and still come to it that way every day and night—I sure as hell don’t listen 5-6 hours a day out of “sociological curiosity.” I sure as hell don’t need to defend that love to anybody either, or to shut down my mind to new and fascinating ways of looking at jazz history (hardly new at this point, I’ll grant you, as NJS has been around at least since Deveaux’s 1991 essay on the making of the jazz canon). I go where passion and intellectual curiosity drive me, and for the past few years it’s driven me to, among other places, books and articles by NJS writers. Some of them, like Deveuax, are musicians themselves, or at least know how to play reasonably well, and I find myself more attracted to such writers because they are more likely to have that same passion for the music, and an ability to talk about it in an aesthetic and a cultural way. Yes, some academics can exude attitude and unearned authority—just as those who despise them can exude prejudice and unearned contempt. When it comes to jazz reading I couldn’t give a damn where somebody went to school. I have books on my shelf right now by Martin Williams, John Litweiler, Whitney Balliett, Frank Kofsky, Val Wilmer, Art Taylor, Rex Stewart, Ted Gioia, Mezz Mezzrow, Sherri Tucker, Scott Deveaux, Larry Kart, Dan Morgenstern, Steven Isoardi, John Hasse, Lewis Porter, Nat Hentoff, Horace Tapscott, David Rosenthal, Dizzy Gillespie, Allen Lowe, John Gennari, Ashley Kahn, Chris Albertson, and many, many others. If you ever end up writing a book or memoir it’ll be there too, even if it’s titled Hoosier Jazz Jocks Who’ve Pissed Me Off.

So, let’s see, three people I really respect, like and admire—Mr. Kart, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Nessa—what other worthies can I honk off with this thread? If I can just figure out a way to agitate Sangrey or Chris, I’ll have a grand slam.

[Chuck Nessa]

Nope.