Which jazz book are you reading right now?

[Chuck Nessa]

[jlhoots]

Who is that on the cover with Don Cherry???

[Big Beat Steve]

Looks like some Egyptian goddess statue posing as a silent listener. 

[jlhoots]

$46 - is that the best price??

[Joe Bip]

Now Jazz Now or Now Jazz 45–65 years ago?

[felser]

On 12/23/2025 at 8:32 PM, jlhoots said:

$46 - is that the best price??

Pre-order price on Amazon is $68.38, so $46 is probably it.  Hard pass for me at that price.

[Holy Ghost]

Talk about C.G. Jung's synchronicity. I was at a bar last night with friends for a drink and Eagle Eye’s Save the Night came on…cheers! Then later, we walked over to Barnes and Noble right by the restaurant we were at, and I came across Nenah Cherry’s Memoir, and of course I raced over to the chapter on Don. WOW. Within 5 minutes, she talks about her brother, Eagle Eye. Now that’s synchronicity!   

[Holy Ghost]

On 12/22/2025 at 4:14 PM, Chuck Nessa said:

Weird, think it's a statue, but maybe his wife, Moci, but not to get to weird about it, she was white, so I don't know.

Just now, Holy Ghost said:

Weird, think it's a statue, but maybe his wife, Moci, but not to get to weird about it, she was white, so I don't know.

Nenah did say this in the chapter about her dad, where she thought this album sleeve embodied everything about jazz to her; she really dug her dad in shades in this picture...I do too:

 

[clifford_thornton]

It is a statue/sculpture.

Ordered the book from Forced Exposure for $43 + shipping.

[optatio]

Just ordered ...

https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/books/detail/-/art/100-essential-free-jazz-improvisation-recordings-60-0/hnum/12525045?lang=en 

[Big Beat Steve]

I had recently started reading the earlier Listening to Prestige Vol. 1 (1949-54) session-by-session book (well, it's not that comprehensive session-by-session wise and otherwise a somewhat mixed bag too), but before additionally getting started seriously on the new "Listening to Prestige" label history book by Tad Richards as well I went back to this one (below) that I had gifted to myself for Christmas (based on recommendations by fellow forumists):

Well-written, a fluent and informative read - about the music, the band and the man as an orchestra leader, anyway (as some other reivewer said, there are other books for other aspects of Stan Kenton the man ). I am now a bit more than halfway through the book (up to the Mellophonium years) and can say it really gives today's reader a good look into the "Kenton era" in all its facets. I've seen reviews of this book by, on the face of it, renowned reviewers who faulted Michael Sparke's book for a lack of "critical musical analysis" of Kenton's music. I don't know what they'd have expected this to be - how would anyone do a readable (!!) in-depth analysis of the Bob Graettinger scores or even those of Johnny Richards that remains readable to anyone OUTSIDE the confrerie of advanced musicologists in their ivory towers? I.e. readable to the average layman reader and listener and collector of the Stan Kenton music. For this target group of readers, however, I find the author has found the right balance of presenting, describing and characterizing the music in a way that makes you reach for certain records in the Kenton corner of your record shelves to give them a spin again or to revisit other records where the less than ethusiastic description by the author makes you wonder whether you did right in buying that platter in the first place. So, no, the author is no Kenton fanboy all the way through but does cover the weak spots too. 
Another bone of contention by some reivewers was the alleged excessive reliance on quotations from former band members and "subjective opinions". It may be only me but I find it is exactly these statements from those who worked with the man that brings the music and the life and working conditions of the Kenton band really into life and makes it all more understandable to present-day readers. This is another point where I wonder how things would have to be done to please these professional reviewers and what, if proceeding by the same yardstick, they would they have had to fault other authors for in THEIR biographies (and there are plenty out there where the weak spots stand out glaringly even to the non-expert reader).

In fact, as I had come into posession of the below Kenton biography by William Lee last summer I decided on a two-fold approach and for large stretches of the Sparke biography I read the Lee biography in parallel for additional info - and testimonials (quotations ) from band members. 

On its own, the Lee biography can be a wearisome read for anyone but unconditional Kentonites who gladly absorb every snippet of everything ever written about Stan Kenton ... The quotations from former band members are even more numerous and even lengthier there, the capsule biographies given in the chronology for most new band members can distract and wear the reader out in the long run, and the reprints of contemporary press coverage of Kenton and his band activities often are redundant and colored by period copywriter blurb anyway (and not totally easy to quickly absorb for the reader due to a clumsy page layout). But if taken piecemeal and in moderate and well-targeted doses, those quotations and period press articles can be interesting and helpful in better understanding the reception of the Kenton band in its times. Even though those testimonials by former band members may be a bit colored by the fact that many seem to have been collected soon after the death of Stan Kenton (so a tone of "de mortuis nil nisi bene" may well have reigned here and there). All in all, when used in a targeted manner as a  "source book" the Lee biography complements the one by Michael Sparke in a very useful way. 

In short, even without having access to the Lee biography, I'd recommend the Sparke bio any time to those who are not yet familiar with any Kenton biography - and thanks again to you forum members who pointed me towards this one. 

 

Edited January 30 by Big Beat Steve

[Lazaro Vega]

https://www.upress.state.ms.us/Books/S/Speakeasies-to-Symphonies

 

[EKE BBB]

Just finished Con Chapman's bio of Don Byas. And just started to revisit Chapman's bio of Johnny Hodges, at the same time I continue my journey through Mark Lehmstedt's bio of Art Tatum.

 

 

[Big Beat Steve]

1 minute ago, EKE BBB said:

Just finished Con Chapman's bio of Don Byas. And just started to revisit Chapman's bio of Johnny Hodges, at the same time I continue my journey through Mark Lehmstedt's bio of Art Tatum.

 

 

 

 

Did Chapman go as overboard with his footnotes (often for no gain in information to the reader) in the Hodges bio as he did in the Byas bio?  

[EKE BBB]

2 minutes ago, Big Beat Steve said:

 

Did Chapman go as overboard with his footnotes (often for no gain in information to the reader) in the Hodges bio as he did in the Byas bio?  

Yes, I would say that he follows the same approach with verbatim quotations, hence listing myriads of references in footnotes. I am also an anorak with regard to including proper references and giving due credit to your sources, but in this case it may be too much for a ca. 200-pages bio. Both bios are very valuable assets, being the first full-length bios of Byas and Hodges, but both also have their lights and shadows.

[Big Beat Steve]

I see we agree.  (As elsewhere before ...)
I also value footnotes that indicate the sources and - above all - provide additional info (that would be of use to those interested in the finest details but might throw more "straight-ahead" readers off course and therefore is not necessarily needed in the main text).
But what annoyed me somewhat in the Byas bio was that not so few of the numerous footnotes by Chapman (approx. 965 footnotes for a 180-page biography really is A LOT!) only served to indicate that facts and dates about recordings, gigs, meetings, personal events were taken from two overriding sources by a Dutchman named Hazevoet (a discography and a "chronology" that - without having seen it - must be something like the diaries/itineraries by Ken Vail).  This does not, however, tell much to those readers who do NOT own these sources.
And in a book like this that is no Ph-D. thesis there is not that much need to show off over and over again that you are able to cite your sources in an academically correct way. A general statement (in a prominent place in the book) that info like this was taken from the Hazevoet sources would have been sufficient IMO. Most readers would probably give the author the benefit of trusting that he checked and reported the discographical details, dates and places correctly anyway. 

(Though, BTW, depite all these footnotes Chapman here and there screwed up the timeline anyway )

Edited 20 hours ago by Big Beat Steve

[EKE BBB]

1 hour ago, Big Beat Steve said:

I see we agree.  (As elsewhere before ...)
I also value footnotes that indicate the sources and - above all - provide additional info (that would be of use to those interested in the finest details but might throw more "straight-ahead" readers off course and therefore is not necessarily needed in the main text).
But what annoyed me somewhat in the Byas bio was that not so few of the numerous footnotes by Chapman (approx. 965 footnotes for a 180-page biography really is A LOT!) only served to indicate that facts and dates about recordings, gigs, meetings, personal events were taken from two overriding sources by a Dutchman named Hazevoet (a discography and a "chronology" that - without having seen it - must be something like the diaries/itineraries by Ken Vail).  This does not, however, tell much to those readers who do NOT own these sources.
And in a book like this that is no Ph-D. thesis there is not that much need to show off over and over again that you are able to cite your sources in an academically correct way. A general statement (in a prominent place in the book) that info like this was taken from the Hazevoet sources would have been sufficient IMO. Most readers would probably give the author the benefit of trusting that he checked and reported the discographical details, dates and places correctly anyway. 

(Though, BTW, depite all these footnotes Chapman here and there screwed up the timeline anyway )

Cornelius ‘Kees’ Hazevoet is a Dutch multiinstrumentist (piano, trumpet, clarinet) who has done thorough and extensive research on Don Byas. His discography and chronology in two parts is a groundbreaking source and reference for all-things Byas. He is listed as the main contributor in the acknowledgments section of the Chapman bio (btw, I am also listed 😜). I have exchanged a lot of information with Kees over the years. He is one the nicest and most generous researchers I have come across in my never-ending Tete Montoliu project. And he is a member of these forums, under the name of Caravan.

And yes, Chapman has screwed up the right chronological order in some places. And he has also included some factual mistakes on the years spent by Don Byas in Spain and Portugal.

[ghost of miles]

On 2/18/2026 at 1:51 PM, Lazaro Vega said:

https://www.upress.state.ms.us/Books/S/Speakeasies-to-Symphonies

 

Me too! And also digging into Ian Carr's Miles Davis biography.

[Big Beat Steve]

10 hours ago, EKE BBB said:

Cornelius ‘Kees’ Hazevoet is a Dutch multiinstrumentist (piano, trumpet, clarinet) who has done thorough and extensive research on Don Byas. His discography and chronology in two parts is a groundbreaking source and reference for all-things Byas. He is listed as the main contributor in the acknowledgments section of the Chapman bio (btw, I am also listed 😜). I have exchanged a lot of information with Kees over the years. He is one the nicest and most generous researchers I have come across in my never-ending Tete Montoliu project. And he is a member of these forums, under the name of Caravan.

And yes, Chapman has screwed up the right chronological order in some places. And he has also included some factual mistakes on the years spent by Don Byas in Spain and Portugal.

This confirms what I figured. Hazevoet's work certainly is second to none, and this becomes evident to the reader. Yet it seems to me that somehow the reader does not gain much additional information if he is just reminded over and over again in the footnotes that the dates and places mentioned were researched and documented by Hazevoet. Since his work IS such a cornerstone among the available sources it should be evident that this is where the information comes from. I frequently referred to the footnotes just so see what additional info there might be. And most of the time all I saw was "oh this is where he got it from". Fine, but shouldn't the reader have assumed anyway that a diligent author uses reliable sources? 
Discographical details in particular, once researched in a definite way and documented accordingly (which clearly is the case here), IMO should be taken as hard facts where there is no need to prove to the reader in each case where the author looked them up. This, too, would have helped to unclutter the footnotes. 
As for overdoing things with the footnotes, about the time I finished this book and got ready for another purchase (the "This Is An Orchestra" biography of Stan Kenton), I came across an online review (by a professional reviewer) of this book, and the reviewer complained about the huge number of footnotes caused by the author quoting so many musicians verbatim. Well, the Kenton bio has some 540 footnotes for 308 pages.  Now what would this reviewer have said about the quantity of footnotes in the Byas bio?  (And no, the huge flow of footnotes in the "Saxophone Colossus" biography of Sonny Rollins does not deter me. This is an altogether different concept IMO. ) 

BTW, I did notice you were credited. Well deserved!  And I agree that overall the Byas biography is important. To make it clear - I did not at all regret buying it. And some vinyl purchases of latter-day Byas recordings that, by coincidence, I made in recent months appear in a slightly more nuanced light now that background info on the sessions has been provided in this book. 

[EKE BBB]

16 hours ago, EKE BBB said:

Cornelius ‘Kees’ Hazevoet is a Dutch multiinstrumentist (piano, trumpet, clarinet) who has done thorough and extensive research on Don Byas.

I can't edit my initial post. Just to highlight that the correct spelling of Kees' first name is 'Cornelis' and not 'Cornelius'. My mistake! 

[Big Beat Steve]

I don't think many would have noticed that. (I for one wouldn't ...) Particularly since there are certain non-Anglo names that are spelled incorrectly all the time. But your attention to detail is to your credit. 

[Niko]

the Dutch and their first names are funny anyway... I recently almost bought this duo album of Hazevoet (English: Harefoot) with Hendrikus Johannes 'Han' Bennink

might still get it for Easter if it's still available

Edited 49 minutes ago by Niko