Will Friedwald's new book

[crisp]

Just came across this. I really liked Friedwald's Jazz Singing book; this looks like more of the same in a format similar to David Thomson's Biographical Dictionary of Film. He talks about it here. Anyone here got it/looked at it yet?

[AllenLowe]

Will is great, and there was a recent interview with him on Jazz Wax.

[Larry Kart]

Will is great, and there was a recent interview with him on Jazz Wax.

Will can be OK, provided he doesn't don cape and mask and enter his "Natureboychick" cavern.

[JSngry]

I found his Sinatra book to be frustratingly erratic, and have not really cared too much about him one way or the other ever since.

Then again, what is there to care about? Songs? Singers? Still? Really? :g

[ghost of miles]

I found his Sinatra book to be frustratingly erratic, and have not really cared too much about him one way or the other ever since.

Then again, what is there to care about? Songs? Singers? Still? Really? :g

F*&# yeah!

Crisp, I have solid intelligence that the Friedwald book will be showing up under my house's Christmas tree come December 25.

[medjuck]

I give him credit for pointing out that My Funny Valentine was hardly a standard and rarely recorded before the Mulligan Quartet version. Apparently the bass player (Carson Smith?) knew it and taught it to the rest of the band.

[mattes]

His books are very good until he inevitably starts hacking at any artist or idea that falls outside his grand theory of Frank.

[Ted O'Reilly]

His books are very good until he inevitably starts hacking at any artist or idea that falls outside his grand theory of Frank.

Speaking of Frank, does anyone have a take on the James Kaplan book "Frank: The Voice"?

[crisp]

His books are very good until he inevitably starts hacking at any artist or idea that falls outside his grand theory of Frank.

But that's the point where his writing usually becomes very funny. His description of Bono's duet with Sinatra is especially hilarious.

[gmonahan]

His books are very good until he inevitably starts hacking at any artist or idea that falls outside his grand theory of Frank.

But that's the point where his writing usually becomes very funny. His description of Bono's duet with Sinatra is especially hilarious.

I think his book on Sinatra is one of the only good ones ever written about him. I've put this one on my wish list.

gregmo

[JSngry]

I think his book on Sinatra is one of the only good ones ever written about him...

Except that he horribly misunderstands Gordon Jenkins, misuses musical terms more than once, seems to be unable to notice and/or comprehend the evolution of the singer's swing (and that of the backgrounds) throughout the 50s & 60s, seems t think that all of the post-comeback material is more or less of a piece, and seems to be convinced that at some point "I" will "need" to hear all of the 40s recordings (hasn't happened yet, not but a long shot. One or two at a time is just fine, thank you.).

Other than that, a fine book. Seriously. But ain't no way that I take him at all seriously on the "insight" front. I think he's a literate fan as much (or more) than anything else.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Christiern]

I thought his Sinatra book was good, but his Singers book was awful.

[MomsMobley]

DING DING DING DING!

Freidwald is musically-- get this-- illiterate; an OK, if not infallible, guide to shit he "likes" and a fraud to things he-- for whatever reason, usually ill-explained or merely bitchy-- does not. Meanwhile, despite having Tony Bennett's DNA on his chest, his claims are fucking laughable. esp. given Will's V-A-S-T goddamn ignorance of non-jazz (and a little cabaret) pop singers. And what the fuck was his problem with Mabel Mercer? I admit she didn't TASTE good but who says you gotta eat her?

At one time I found parts of the Singing book alright; decent on, say, Peggy Lee; dogshit on, I forget... Jeri Southern? Julie London? Ann Margaret?

I don't think he mentions Jim Reeves, which ain't my regular cup of meat but I wouldn't NOT put him against Dick Haymes, say.

Friedwald's Wall Street Journal writing is crap too btw tho' I cut him slack there, sorta.

Do I recall his Kenton/Mosaic notes as decent?

I can't remember what he said about Dean Martin who, while he obviously didn't make-- or try to-- the same quality of albums Frank did ...

fucking DESTROYS Frank and most other pop/jazz/etc as a live performer-- which counts for a lot, actually.

sleepy time down south

gentle on my mind

up a lazy river

Freidwald also missed a lot of lesser known songbirds in the singing book tho' OK, he was a young guy then spending capital of his old man's (excellent) record collection.

I think his book on Sinatra is one of the only good ones ever written about him...

Except that he horribly misunderstands Gordon Jenkins, misuses musical terms more than once, seems to be unable to notice and/or comprehend the evolution of the singer's swing (and that of the backgrounds) throughout the 50s & 60s, seems t think that all of the post-comeback material is more or less of a piece, and seems to be convinced that at some point "I" will "need" to hear all of the 40s recordings (hasn't happened yet, not but a long shot. One or two at a time is just fine, thank you.).

Other than that, a fine book. Seriously. But ain't no way that I take him at all seriously on the "insight" front. I think he's a literate fan as much (or more) than anything else.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[gmonahan]

I think his book on Sinatra is one of the only good ones ever written about him...

Except that he horribly misunderstands Gordon Jenkins, misuses musical terms more than once, seems to be unable to notice and/or comprehend the evolution of the singer's swing (and that of the backgrounds) throughout the 50s & 60s, seems t think that all of the post-comeback material is more or less of a piece, and seems to be convinced that at some point "I" will "need" to hear all of the 40s recordings (hasn't happened yet, not but a long shot. One or two at a time is just fine, thank you.).

Other than that, a fine book. Seriously. But ain't no way that I take him at all seriously on the "insight" front. I think he's a literate fan as much (or more) than anything else.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Hmmmm. Well, I think he gets Gordon Jenkins about right. As for the other points, the fact that he organizes the book around arrangers rather than chronologically does make it harder for him to chart certain evolutionary developments in Sinatra's singing. Like you (apparently!), I'm not a huge fan of Sinatra's 40s stuff, even though I have and have listened to the Blue Box. I guess I just view that as something I need to listen to again!!

gregmo

[JSngry]

Friedwald portrays Jenkins as some kind of goyish sentimental buffoon whose arrangements were the same only moreso. That is an only partially accurate description. The guy had enough moments of real taste and subtlety (and occasionally outright nailing it) to merit a significantly more nuanced evaluation. Friedwald didn't have a clue.

Fail, Friedwald.

[crisp]

It's amazing how many people (critics and musicians) don't get Gordon Jenkins. If pressed, and much as I love Nelson Riddle and Billy May, I would say Sinatra's Fifties and Sixties albums with Jenkins were my favourites, September of My Years especially. I'd probably say the same for Nat King Cole, too.

[MomsMobley]

Post corrected.

BTW, much of the new one is on google books, so let's see what he says about Dean Martin now--

Friedwald & Martin (Crocetti)

Forget that I don't even disagree with most of it.

Q: Why does Friedwald change the meaning of "menefreghista" (page 304) to "incapable of giving a damn?

It's incaple of giving a fuck, asswipe (sez so explicitly in the Tosches he's riffing on), and this is a BOOK, meaning you can write ** whatever ** you like, i.e. at Wall Street Journal (which used to be a great paper, for news) you have to follow 'standards' but ** NO ** legit editor of adult books is going to censor your language for 'dirty' words.

"Funny" too how text search shows 'the dreaded N-word' isn't in the book; how the FUCK can that be?

That's not 'taste' or 'sensitivity,' it's a goddamn historical LIE.

Note also, while Paul Robeson is mentioned numerous times, there is ** NO ** Paul Robeson entry.

What's the matter Will, can't handle complex truths without Tony Bennett telling you it's OK?

Paul Robeson Purest Kind of Guy (Marc Blitzstein)

Fuck Will Friedwald.

And Gorden Jenkins was goddamn brilliant.

xxoo,

Moms

Friedwald portrays Jenkins as some kind of goyish sentimental buffoon whose arrangements were the same only moreso. That is an only partially accurate description. The guy had enough moments of real taste and subtlety (and occasionally outright nailing it) to merit a significantly more nuanced evaluation. Friedwald didn't have a clue.

Fuck Friedwald.

Edited November 25, 2010 by MomsMobley

[AllenLowe]

I prefer Roland Hayes.

[Christiern]

Lovie Austin had an affair with Roland Hayes. Her love for him had very clearly not ebbed in 1961, when I visited her home. There was also, on prominent display, a framed photograph of RH.

Back to Will's book, please allow an observation. I read the section on Alberta Hunter in the excerpts that accompany MM's post. Will acknowledges that his information mostly stems from Frank Taylor's book and my own writings, but he still gets some of the facts wrong—no excuse for that. In my mind, it casts doubt on the rest of the book.

[gmonahan]

I'm not saying I dislike all the stuff Jenkins did with Sinatra, but it just seemed to me that too often, he overdid it with the strings. The most classic case for me comes from "September of My Years" on the hit song "It Was a Very Good Year" where the strings completely overwhelm everything, making one of Sinatra's best and most heartfelt vocals sound maudlin. Riddle, May, and even some of the lesser used arrangers like Mandel and Oliver, sound much better. They didn't overwhelm the singer--and Sinatra wasn't easy to overwhelm!

gregmo

[JSngry]

I don't find that cut maudlin at all. In fact, to me, that's an example of Jenkins nailing it.

[gmonahan]

I don't find that cut maudlin at all. In fact, to me, that's an example of Jenkins nailing it.

Each set of ears is different! The most startling contrast is between something like that track and Riddle's (for me) utterly brilliant arrangement of "One For My Baby" on the Only the Lonely album. The strings are so subtle on the latter you're barely even aware they're there, but they make for a gorgeous background. (I often wonder what "September of My Years" would have sounded like with Riddle at the helm.)

gregmo

[JSngry]

It would have sounded different, for sure, but not necessarily "better'.... Jenkins' "sentimentality" was a known quantity, and apparently a desired one as well. When it goes over the top (my "favorite" example is Cole's "Love Letters", which made me queasy - literally - the first time I heard it), it's pretty hard to take, but when reigned in/disciplined/applied judiciously/whatever, it's a genuine "flavor" that is a legitimate as anything else. I think it works just fine for the material on September Of My Years. That's not exactly an unsentimental album, and Riddle, great as he was (by far and away my favorite of Sinatra's "Big 3") would probably not have nailed it like Jenkins did.

I think it might be fair to say that the POV of Jenkins was one that was decidedly non-urban, non-"hip", and non-"ethnic". In other words, the guy was pretty damn WASP-y. But that's not a sin in and of itself, I wouldn't think. I do think, though, that it presents a problem, or more accurately, a point of reference, which many people, especially today, find disfavor with just because it is what it is. Too bad, because that whole vibe is just as real, and just as nuanced of a mixed bag, as is anything else.

[BruceH]

Hey, I'M a WASP and I think Jenkins goes over the top with the damn strings, especially on "It Was A Very Good Year." Just my two cents, not looking for a fight.

Actually, I don't much care for it as a SONG, never did. Truth to tell, the lyrics make me want to vomit, so that may color my reaction somewhat. But a more subtle, Nelson Riddle-type of approach may have worked wonders, for me anyway.

[JSngry]

Oh Jenkins frequently goes over the top, imo. Just not always. That's all I'm saying, and it is just my opinion.

As for the song itself...I don't know that it's one of those (if ther are any) that are good no matter what, for sure. But the Sinatra/Jenkins tandem puts it where it needs to be. Again, just my opinion, and mileages can and should differ wildly on that one.

As for Jenkins vs Riddle...on ballads, Riddle could do "melancholy" better than anybody, & Jenkins could do "sentiment" better than anybody. In the case of "It Was A Very Good Year", the song's built-in/obvious "melancholy" is balanced by Jenkins "sentiment" to create a "poignancy" that might not exist if either mood was played to at the expense of the other.

And don't forget the 1957 Capitol "I'm A Fool To Want You", on which Sinatra goes to a place that only Jenkins could stand up to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFq6c855E5w

Compare this to the much more celebrated Columbia version of 1951, which for my taste goes overboard with the vocal group and solo violin obligatto:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEQm--gWvfA

Win, Jenkins, not even close. Again, he nails it.

Of course, this is all opinion, but all I'm really arguing for is a consideration of the variety found within Jenkins' admittedly rather narrow general palate, which is definitely more than Friedwald (or Jenkins' most dismissive detractors in general) seem to want to allow for.