New Monk bio in progress by Robin Kelley

[J.A.W.]

would like to add something that's really important to understand here - unless you've ever written a book, it's almost impossible to understand how easy it is to make extremely stupid mistakes, even when you know better - the whole process of turning out 100,000 words are so entails a certain stream of consciousness that leads to some bizarre things - wrong names, dates, complete non-sequitors, strange intellectual ideas, complete gibberish - I kid you not. And sometimes, no matter how many times you read your work, you miss really obvious things. It may be intellectual overload, I don't know. Add to this the general lack of editing and you have a prescription for some very strange mistakes.

Absolutely. By the way, it's non sequitur

Edited October 24, 2009 by J.A.W.

[AllenLowe]

thank you. Spelling is not my strong point -

also, big problems with than and then, stationery and stationary (ask Litweiler), principle and principal, horse and cat.

Edited October 24, 2009 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

Should have been edited though.

Hey.

[seeline]

Proofing (etc.) is very hard, as Allen and others have said. Try writing (even 500-word reviews) and you'll see... it's so easy to miss your own typos, etc. (I do it all the time.)

I also think it's a bit weird to criticize someone for one mistake when (here it comes) you haven't even read the danged book. Kelley's bio. is a tome - 100 pp. of endnotes, just for starters. The amount of research he did is just unbelievable - I ca see why it took him 14 years to research and write this thing.

So, could we get back to actually discussing content?

Edited October 24, 2009 by seeline

[J.A.W.]

The quality of the recordings kinda hides it, but his touch &underlying "pulse" are both there from the git-go.

also keep in mind that earlier issues of the Christian/Gillespie/Monk matreial didn't note that Monk (or Diz) was only on a few cuts, the rest being Kenny Kersey, iirc. Other Jerry Newman-sourced sessions on Onyx were more carefully documented.

Yes, even the 2nd edition of the Monk discography doesn't seem to distinguish between the 2 pianists. On the other hand I have a Don Byas cd entitled Midnight at Minton's that has 2 tracks presumably with Monk that aren't in the Monk discography: "Uptown" and "Body and Soul". Is there a source for the correct discography of early bootlegged Monk?

(Or maybe the book under discussion which I'm about to order has one.)

Kelley's book doesn't have a discography, just a list of selected recordings.

[JSngry]

A) - I am reading the book. I actually bought it. With my own money!

B) - I am not framing the criticism of the misuse of the word "solfeggio" in the context of the overall merit of the book. It is an issue quite separate from that.

C) - Yeah yeah yeah, life is hard, writing is hard, shit happens, blah blah blah, I know. I write a bunch of piddly-ass bulletin board shit on here all the time that is fucked up in all kinds of ways, so the matter of scale is not lost on me. Not the point.

D) - It's still a musical term used damn near totally incorrectly, and shit like this happens all the time in music writing directed at a non-musician audience. Whether or not that is "ok" depends on your POV. From mine, it's gonna happen, but needlessly, and it's just one more micro-imperfection adding to the overall fiber of the macro-inaccuracy of life. A lot of 'em I let slide because I just don't have the time, or because I just don't give a damn, or because I don't even know they're there. This is not one of those.

E) - Call it a pet peeve. That's ok. But it's still a word used incorrectly, not even almost correctly. Sympathy won't change that, just as sympathy won't change a wrong note once it's been played. And yes, there are wrong notes.

F) - Careless and unnecessary fuckups keep happening unless and until enough noise gets made to call attention to their carelessness, unnecessity, and fuckuppedness, after which, either enough excuses get made that they become institutionalized or else somebody says, "hey, why not fix this shit"? That's how you get to be a better musician, and that's how quality-of-life in general improves.

G) - Take your stand and live with it. No excuses.

H) - Next!

Edited October 24, 2009 by JSngry

[JSngry]

I also think it's a bit weird to criticize someone for one mistake when (here it comes) you haven't even read the danged book.

BTW - I like the way you used cursive on the word "read"!

[Chuck Nessa]

[umum_cypher]

would like to add something that's really important to understand here - unless you've ever written a book, it's almost impossible to understand how easy it is to make extremely stupid mistakes, even when you know better - the whole process of turning out 100,000 words or so entails a certain stream of consciousness that leads to some bizarre things - wrong names, dates, complete non-sequitors, strange intellectual ideas, complete gibberish - I kid you not. And sometimes, no matter how many times you read your work, you miss really obvious things. It may be intellectual overload, I don't know. Add to this the general lack of editing and you have a prescription for some very strange mistakes.

I'm enjoying reading Devilin' Tune at the moment, Allen - but who is this Louise Armstrong you keep mentioning?

[AllenLowe]

I once thought of starting a project of reviewing things I hadn't seen, read, or listened to. The idea was to actually see, read, or listen to the thing later and see how close I got.

never got around to it; still sounds like a good idea, though -

Louise Armstrong is Charlotte Parker's cousin.

-

Edited October 24, 2009 by AllenLowe

[seeline]

I also think it's a bit weird to criticize someone for one mistake when (here it comes) you haven't even read the danged book.

BTW - I like the way you used cursive on the word "read"!

or maybe "italics," eh?

Yes, I agree that "solfeggio" (in book) is wrong, annoying, etc. But.

[JSngry]

I also think it's a bit weird to criticize someone for one mistake when (here it comes) you haven't even read the danged book.

BTW - I like the way you used cursive on the word "read"!

or maybe "italics," eh?

Hey, it's ok, you know what I meant, and besides, when you post all day like I've been doing today, shit happens, ya' know? No worries!

And that blink emoticon at the end, that's a nice touch!

[Chuck Nessa]

The world is full of annoying buts (or is it butts).

Both, I guess.

[medjuck]

or maybe "italics," eh?

Are you Canadian, "eh"?

The quality of the recordings kinda hides it, but his touch &underlying "pulse" are both there from the git-go.

also keep in mind that earlier issues of the Christian/Gillespie/Monk matreial didn't note that Monk (or Diz) was only on a few cuts, the rest being Kenny Kersey, iirc. Other Jerry Newman-sourced sessions on Onyx were more carefully documented.

Yes, even the 2nd edition of the Monk discography doesn't seem to distinguish between the 2 pianists. On the other hand I have a Don Byas cd entitled Midnight at Minton's that has 2 tracks presumably with Monk that aren't in the Monk discography: "Uptown" and "Body and Soul". Is there a source for the correct discography of early bootlegged Monk?

(Or maybe the book under discussion which I'm about to order has one.)

Kelley's book doesn't have a discography, just a list of selected recordings.

Anyone have a suggestion as to where I might find the correct information?

[JSngry]

The world is full of annoying buts (or is it butts).

Both, I guess.

But it's ok, because we know what those butts mean to look like.

[ghost of miles]

[Lazaro Vega]

Allen, no doubt about Bud Powell: he was the quintessential bebop pianist, and the most appreciated. Monk had to wait for that 5 spot gig to break through on that level. Yet the point here is that Bud was a protege of Monk's early on (and one of Monk's champions, recording some of Monk's compositions before Monk did). I wasn't necessarily looking for a eureka moment per se but just sort of aching along with Monk and Nellie as they go through these pains of being under-employed, broke-ass and scuffling, the whole while knowing Monk was an important force in the musical community. There are certainly temperament and personality issues going on, but when he's getting left out of the discussion musically, sheyot. And, yes, Dizzy and Milt Hinton were up on the roof of the Cotton Club working on new ideas during intermission from Cab's band, though Cab didn't always appreciate what they tried to bring down from the roof.

As to Monk at Minton's...was just listening to a Don Byas CD called "Midnight at Minton's" where Monk plays "Indiana" in his own way, though far off mic. And the Dizzy Big Band Cd with Monk to listen for his accompaniments.

[AllenLowe]

another interesting thing in the book relating to some of Monk's difficulty getting work is that he was obviously rejected by many of his fellow musicians (even some of whom praised him in later years when his deeper reputation was made, media-wise). This reminds me of the difficulties that Herbie Nichols had and speaks to the conservatism and obtuseness of many jazz musicians, who, though they continually rail about critics, are no better when it comes to assessing talent. I'm willing to bet that, though few would admit it later, many more than we know thought, privately, like Oscar Peterson, that Monk was not a very good "pianist."

[Quasimado]

another interesting thing in the book relating to some of Monk's difficulty getting work is that he was obviously rejected by many of his fellow musicians ... I'm willing to bet that, though few would admit it later, many more than we know thought, privately, like Oscar Peterson, that Monk was not a very good "pianist."

Tristano certainly didn't have a high opinion of Monk's playing, and didn't hide it. Interestingly, a friend of mine once asked Monk what he thought of LT. Monk replied, "What about him! He's one helluva piano player, ain't he?"

Q

[seeline]

Well, OK.... I'm seeing my own equivalents of "solfeggio" now that I'm a bit further into the book. Not sure I understand the carelessness on either Kelley's part, or that of his readers and editor, but then, I *know* it's not easy to deal with things as they are in the publishing world. A number of years ago, Oxford U. Press issued a revised edition of a book by someone I know, but the "revisions" weren't really as stated. They said they would not pay to re-typset the original book, so all errors/typos in the main body were reproduced verbatim. The only "revision" was in OUP's wanting a couple of new chapters to tack on at the end - which were printed in a different font than the rest of the book.

This kind of thing isn't - as far as I know - uncommon.

[medjuck]

When Jack Chambers had his Miles bio re-published in one volume the new publisher (Scarecrow I think) wouldn't allow him to revise it (it does need revision) because they wanted to use the original type-setting. He only got to write a new introduction which dealt mainly with the last years of Miles's life.

[seeline]

When Jack Chambers had his Miles bio re-published in one volume the new publisher (Scarecrow I think) wouldn't allow him to revise it (it does need revision) because they wanted to use the original type-setting. He only got to write a new introduction which dealt mainly with the last years of Miles's life.

I think this is the rule rather than the exception now, unfortunately.

btw, I'm not Canadian, but i used to live close to the Ontario border and picked up a few quirks of speech that way.

*

You doubters can always check this thread on editing/proof-reading horror stories...

Edited October 25, 2009 by seeline

[Enterprise Server]

I just ordered the book 10 minutes ago. Standby..............

[AllenLowe]

one thing that strikes me about Monk in this book is how infantile he is, ultimately - Nellie follows him around, feeds him, clothes him, does his laundry, makes all his arrangements, travels with him, gets him to his gigs, while always allowing him the to be an "artiste" - reminds me of what Walter Bishop told me about Bud Powell, whom he described as "infantile in every respect - except music."

Though everyone seems a big afraid to say anything negative about the portrayals in this book (I don't mean about the book itself, which is wonderful), I do find that people like Monk (who is like more than a few jazz musicians I have known) can only function in such a way with enablers like Nellie and Nica (and Nica, which I did not realize until I read this, had her own substance abuse problems and clearly fed Monk's) - I do think there is a lot more "wrong" with these people than Kelley is willing to face in print.

Edited October 27, 2009 by AllenLowe

[7/4]

one thing that strikes me about Monk in this book is how infantile he is, ultimately - Nellie follows him around, feeds him, clothes him, does his laundry, makes all his arrangements, travels with him, gets him to his gigs, while always allowing him the to be an "artiste" - reminds me of what Walter Bishop told me about Bud Powell, whom he described as "infantile in every respect - except music."

Though everyone seems a big afraid to say anything negative about the portrayals in this book (I don't mean about the book itself, which is wonderful), I do find that people like Monk (who is like more than a few jazz musicians I have known) can only function in such a way with enablers like Nellie and Nica (and Nica, which I did not realize until I read this, had her own substance abuse problems and clearly fed Monk's) - I do think there is a lot more "wrong" with these people than Kelley is willing to face in print.

Go to the movie and tell us how it ends Allen.