New Monk bio in progress by Robin Kelley

[seeline]

So, does the fact that I've learned a big bunch about a whole lot of stuff from the work of somebody who was at some level mentally disturbed mean that what I've learned makes me, or could make me, mentally disturbed as well? Do I have to be/be prone to being mentally disturbed to even pick up on these things in the first place? What if all I ever knew about Monk in my entire life was his music, would I be missing something, including the risk of becoming/not becoming mentally disturbed? Should I approach them differently knowing that Monk was mentally disturbed?

I mean, I know that at one level this stuff "matters". But on another, perhaps bigger/higher/whatever one, I don't think it does. Learn the songs, play the songs, teach the songs. Find the music in them and then find that music within yourself. Then read a book about it, maybe.

*

Last night I watched The Jazz Baroness - liked it a great deal. Nica's niece (the filmmaker) has a nice web site, with some interesting sound clips.

Edited November 3, 2009 by seeline

[AllenLowe]

"I mean, I know that at one level this stuff "matters". But on another, perhaps bigger/higher/whatever one, I don't think it does. Learn the songs, play the songs, teach the songs. Find the music in them and then find that music within yourself. Then read a book about it, maybe."

what higher level? Thanks for letting us know you have access; wish I did, too.

so are you saying that you, unlike the people who are posting to the contrary here, have learned things that we have not, or cannot learn? There's nobody interested in the book who knows the songs or understands the music? Like Barry Harris or Randy Weston (whoops, forgot, both those guys have praised the book)? Or Robin Kelley? Guess he wasted 14 years of his life. Guess I've wasted about 35 years, because I've read more books on the subject than I can remember. If only I had known then what you know now -

I'm glad you and Seeline have figured this out for us all. I guess both of you have access -

and by the way, Seeline, I never realized that Jeffrey Dahmer was making a lifestyle choice.

Edited November 3, 2009 by AllenLowe

[Chuck Nessa]

I never realized that Jeffrey Dahmer was making a lifestyle choice.

What the hell would you call it?

[Harold_Z]

"Jeffrey...I don't like your neighbors."

"Try the vegetables."

[JSngry]

"I mean, I know that at one level this stuff "matters". But on another, perhaps bigger/higher/whatever one, I don't think it does. Learn the songs, play the songs, teach the songs. Find the music in them and then find that music within yourself. Then read a book about it, maybe."

what higher level? Thanks for letting us know you have access; wish I did, too.

so are you saying that you, unlike the people who are posting to the contrary here, have learned things that we have not, or cannot learn? There's nobody interested in the book who knows the songs or understands the music? Like Barry Harris or Randy Weston (whoops, forgot, both those guys have praised the book)? Or Robin Kelley? Guess he wasted 14 years of his life. Guess I've wasted about 35 years, because I've read more books on the subject than I can remember. If only I had known then what you know now -

I'm glad you and Seeline have figured this out for us all. I guess both of you have access -

and by the way, Seeline, I never realized that Jeffrey Dahmer was making a lifestyle choice.

No, i mean it is important, the book, the illness, all that, just not in a purely musical way. It's more academic, or if you prefer, scholarly, which is important in its own realm, just not so much when it comes to internalizing the music as a player. As a fan, or a scholar, yeah, sure, in those realms that's the name of the game, and Kelley's work is invaluable there. But when I learned "Little Rootie Tootie", there were a gazzillion things I needed to know, and five gazillion things I wanted to know before/besides whether or not Monk was mentally disturbed, and if so, in which way. And now that I know the tune, I really don't feel a need to go back and relearn it in light of the possibility that it might be the work of a mentally damaged individual.

Should I?

[seeline]

Exactly!

fwiw, I've already said that I don't necessarily agree with everything Judith S. wrote in the AAJ piece. I'd prefer to talk with her about that, rather than getting into some big digression here. (of course, it would be nifty to have her posting in this thread.)

Edited November 3, 2009 by seeline

[AllenLowe]

jsngry - I do know what you mean - but realize that for some of us it does relate to the way we internalize the music and play it. Speaking only for myself, as one who, maybe, works both sides of the fence - the music and the history - but I know other musicians like me. And it's not a question of him being damaged or not - but for us to understand the truth of the individual who created the music, which can help us understand the music from both an external and internal angle. But I find truth compelling in cases like this.

so it works for some of us.

and I find what you say interesting, because in many ways you are the most introspective musician I know - you never shy away from the process. You just have your own way of doing it (intellectualizing, I mean).

Edited November 3, 2009 by AllenLowe

[7/4]

Exactly!

fwiw, I've already said that I don't necessarily agree with everything Judith S. wrote in the AAJ piece. I'd prefer to talk with her about that, rather than getting into some big digression here. (of course, it would be nifty to have her posting in this thread.)

Come on down!

[JSngry]

jsngry - I do know what you mean - but realize that for some of us it does relate to the way we internalize the music and play it. Speaking only for myself, as one who, maybe, works both sides of the fence - the music and the history - but I know other musicians like me. And it's not a question of him being damaged or not - but for us to understand the truth of the individual who created the music, which can help us understand the music from both an external and internal angle. But I find truth compelling in cases like this.

so it works for some of us.

and I find what you say interesting, because in many ways you are the most introspective musician I know - you never shy away from the process. You just have your own way of doing it (intellectualizing, I mean).

Yeah, Allen, you're probably right about that, and it works for me too, just up to a point. At some point, like Bird said in a different context, you gotta forget all that shit and just play!

Believe me, I am not unappreciative of or unsympathetic to the value of understanding cretors from a personal angle. But for me (and I stress, for me), at some point it doesn't matter any more, because, to use one example, the bridge to "Little Rootie Tootie" is crazy enough - yet ultimately even more sane - as it is, and therein lies the truth I need to pursue to be able to forget all that shit and just play!

Again, that's just me, and absolutely no dis intended of anybody who goes/comes at it differently.

[seeline]

Exactly!

fwiw, I've already said that I don't necessarily agree with everything Judith S. wrote in the AAJ piece. I'd prefer to talk with her about that, rather than getting into some big digression here. (of course, it would be nifty to have her posting in this thread.)

Come on down!

I wish she would, but I bet she's getting a lot of email right now due to the AAJ piece... might take a while to get through all of that!

[Larry Kart]

Funny how it's the unshakeable logic of Monk as a composer (almost always) and improvisor (at his best) that is so striking. For me, it's much less a "how strange" feeling than a "what perfect sense" one -- albeit the resolutions are unexpected until they're experienced. Hope that's not too banal for the room; it's how I've always felt.

[seeline]

I bet the things you're talking about are one of the main reasons people are posting in this thread. What you're saying is very true of - and for - me as well, Larry.

Monk's music has so many "Aha!" moments in it... so much surprise, and so much wit, too.

Edited November 3, 2009 by seeline

[Larry Kart]

Monk's music has so many "Aha!" moments in it... so much surprise, and so much wit, too.

It was Jim's mention of "Little Rootie Tootie" that brought all that to the foreground again; that tune and the incredible logical solo that spins out from it always make me go "Aha!"

[blajay]

Monk's music has so many "Aha!" moments in it... so much surprise, and so much wit, too.

It was Jim's mention of "Little Rootie Tootie" that brought all that to the foreground again; that tune and the incredible logical solo that spins out from it always make me go "Aha!"

The context in which we listened to "Little Rootie Tootie" the other night at Kelley's reading was set when he asked us to imagine as if we were Hall Overton, with Monk telling us to just play the record every time we ask Monk about the music to arrange it for their big band concert. Then Kelley played it. I guess I paid more attention than when I normally listen to it on my own, but I was quite taken by it. Since then I've been listening to "Little Rootie Tootie" over and over with the Riverside Town Hall recordings after the Prestige one. It's fun to hear the differences (and the similarities) of those performances because of the differing ensembles. Great tune!

[papsrus]

At first I thought you people were talking about that pop psychologist Dr. Laura Schlesinger. ... Whew.

Read the article at AAJ. Doesn't really shed much light one way or the other, seems to me.

[seeline]

At first I thought you people were talking about that pop psychologist Dr. Laura Schlesinger. ... Whew.

Read the article at AAJ. Doesn't really shed much light one way or the other, seems to me.

The article makes a lot of sense in light of the way Kelley presents certain things in his book, but I can see how it would be largely "?" if you don't have access to a copy.

her point about Bellevue is very interesting, in that it's very hard to believe that there was *no* diagnosis made during the course of a 3-week hospitalization. I think there's a gaping hole there (in Kelley's presentation of it), because the docs had to have made some kinds of at least semi-conclusive comments and observations.

she's also dead on in terms of the way people used to get labeled as "paranoid schizophrenic" (and variations thereof) in the 50s, 60s and even into the 70s. (No matter how inaccurate the label, it was a common catchall at that time...)

for the sake of clarity, here's the graph in question (Schlesinger):

According to Kelley, Monk's first hospitalization in 1957 was precipitated by a car accident that followed a year full of unusual stressors. But somehow Monk emerged three weeks later without any diagnosis at all: "no one knew what was wrong with Monk, not even the highly trained staff at Bellevue" (p. 214). Given the ease with which inpatients became "paranoid schizophrenics" back then, it's remarkable that the staff didn't document any psychiatric disorder in Monk.

*

But hey... historical and biographical research is largely full of holes that can't be filled. Even though Monk's life is far more closely documented than would have been the case had he lived in the 19th-early 20th century, there's still - inevitably - a lot of guesswork there for anyone wanting to write about him. (or most anyone else, for that matter!)

Edited November 3, 2009 by seeline

[blajay]

she's also dead on in terms of the way people used to get labeled as "paranoid schizophrenic" (and variations thereof) in the 50s, 60s and even into the 70s. (No matter how inaccurate the label, it was a common catchall at that time...)

That's what Kelley said.

[seeline]

During the talk you heard, I take it?

[blajay]

During the talk you heard, I take it?

No, in the book.

[blajay]

During the talk you heard, I take it?

No, in the book.

I think I remember reading Kelley saying it was surprising he hadn't been diagnosed with that considering how often it was misdiagnosed that way at that time, specifically for African American patients.

[seeline]

Hmm - I missed something! Thanks for the heads-up. (I'm reading the chapters in sequence, but also skipping ahead - via the index - to look at other material.)

There really is something to be said for the combined effects of various prescribed drugs (she mentions Benzedrine; Kelley also says Monk was on Thorazine for a while) and other things, like alcohol. Gives me the shivers just thinking about it, really. (There's so much possibility for horrible side effects, drug interactions *and* misdiagnoses, etc. Both Thorazine and Benzedrine by themselves are incredibly powerful and just... well, you wouldn't want to be on either if you had the choice, I'm thinking.)

Being over-medicated is yet another thing... and it still happens a lot. Some people look at the clients who come to them as "patients" (in a chronic "mental patient" kind of way) and just keep piling on drug after drug. Even when a person follows all the directions to the letter and doesn't abuse the drugs, bad things can happen.

I think I remember reading Kelley saying it was surprising he hadn't been diagnosed with that considering how often it was misdiagnosed that way at that time, specifically for African American patients.

It really was a catchall for *everyone* during that time period, though I'm sure - as he says - that lots of black psych patients were just labeled as that, in a pro forma way.

Edited November 3, 2009 by seeline

[AllenLowe]

there was a also a lot of self-medication going on for people to either counter the effects of what their doctors were giving them or to deal with other symptoms. Kelley is extremely good on all of that.

this is another example of Judith creating straw arguments and then trying to demolish them. She's arguing with herself (as with the Jamison book that 18 people have read; of course by Seeline's logic we should not be reading about mental illness anyway but should be living it); and to say that Monk's final months of silence were a "choice" borders on incompetence.

ultimately Larry's right about the great logic of Monk's work - though this is true of many creative people whose personal lives are a shambles or, at the least, quite messy. The art is the only place where they can impose order. Bill Evans was another. And if you don't think that this indicates certain mental and emotional proclivities you are either living on another planet or have never had to deal with musicians like these.

try to imagine Monk without Nellie -

Edited November 3, 2009 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

I realize that this can sound obnoxious, but I am going to go with Seeline and Jsngry on this and turn to real life instead of books - how many of you here have ever had to deal with musicians with various emotional/psychological disorders? If so, do you see those disorders are merely life choices, or as difficult and destructive things? I ask this because I get the sense, re-Judith, that she has had little personal experience with the real thing, in terms of jazz musicians.

Personally I could name 20 people -

[Christiern]

AllenLowe: "Personally I'd rather live life than read about it."

Personally, there are parts of my life that I wish I had only read about.

[AllenLowe]

as long as it's not in Braille - or in People Magazine.

Edited November 3, 2009 by AllenLowe