Whistle Stop: Kenny Dorham, Jazz, and the Journey of a Texas Family

[Joe]

My copy arrived last week direct from the publisher. I've just flipped through it, but it looks like the authors really did their homework. Case in point: some discussion of Kenny's brother Joel and the efforts he made to raise K.D's profile.

[Dan Gould]

No shipping notice, just found it in the mailbox.

Oh happy day.

OTOH I only now realize that one of the co-authors is a professor of Political Science.  I really hope we do not get bogged down in contemporary "academic" topics.

[Peter Friedman]

Looking forward to to some comments from those reading the Dorham book. 

[AllenLowe]

well....I downloaded a sample on Kindle, maybe 40-50 pages worth and I think it's pretty awful. The intro is a waste of time, and the first section makes the same mistake every author, unedited, seems to be making these days. The writer has mistaken research for writing, and it is so overloaded with detail about - well, everything, Texas insects, the family history (could have been cut to about 3 pages), land deals, political battles - everything but Kenny Dorham himself.  And written in a totally dead style, like a listings section of a newspaper. Sorry, this is probably not a popular opinion, but this weirdness is everywhere in current jazz bios and music bios in general. The writer(s) seems to thing that merely describing something is the same as having insight into it. I just am so tired of how badly music bios are done - unless they are by Robin DG Kelley of John Szwed. I gave up on this one (and I haven't even described one particular howler of mistake, which may be an editing mistake, but that just shows there was probably no editor).

Edited April 4 by AllenLowe

[Peter Friedman]

Waiting for opinions on the book from those who have a copy, or that  have ordered one and hopefully should arrive soon.

[JSngry]

I would not discount the formative impact of Texas insects. Especially skeeters.

[gvopedz]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

I would not discount the formative impact of Texas insects. Especially skeeters.

I agree.  Not only Texas insects, but also Texas arachnids - finding a scorpion inside your shoe is unforgettable.

[JSngry]

Word!

[AllenLowe]

I hear Texas has enormous cockroaches.

[JSngry]

We call them "water bug" to lessen the impact, but if it runs like a cockroach and finally squishes like a cockroach ..

June Bugs are not cockroaches though. They're beetles. Many newcomers lump them altogether, though. Making an informed delineation of Texas etymology not entirely superfluous.

I will be disappointed if Texas  reptiles are not equally covered.

[T.D.]

9 hours ago, AllenLowe said:

well....I downloaded a sample on Kindle, maybe 40-50 pages worth and I think it's pretty awful. The intro is a waste of time, and the first section makes the same mistake every author, unedited, seems to be making these days. The writer has mistaken research for writing, and it is so overloaded with detail about - well, everything, Texas insects, the family history (could have been cut to about 3 pages), land deals, political battles - everything but Kenny Dorham himself.  And written in a totally dead style, like a listings section of a newspaper. Sorry, this is probably not a popular opinion, but this weirdness is everywhere in current jazz bios and music bios in general. The writer(s) seems to thing that merely describing something is the same as having insight into it. I just am so tired of how badly music bios are done - unless they are by Robin DG Kelley of John Szwed. I gave up on this one (and I haven't even described one particular howler of mistake, which may be an editing mistake, but that just shows there was probably no editor).

Thank you. I held off ordering due to fear of something of the sort (lack of concrete KD info), and have been waiting for reviews. Re. lack of editor, sadly that seems practically the norm nowadays.

[Stompin at the Savoy]

I took a look at that kindle sample of the book.  I did not read the whole sample, just skimmed through a bit.  It did not look that bad to me.  I like Kenny Dorham and am interested in his story so I'll probably order the kindle edition one of these days if they ever drop the price.

[Peter Friedman]

On 4/4/2026 at 10:39 AM, AllenLowe said:

well....I downloaded a sample on Kindle, maybe 40-50 pages worth and I think it's pretty awful. The intro is a waste of time, and the first section makes the same mistake every author, unedited, seems to be making these days. The writer has mistaken research for writing, and it is so overloaded with detail about - well, everything, Texas insects, the family history (could have been cut to about 3 pages), land deals, political battles - everything but Kenny Dorham himself.  And written in a totally dead style, like a listings section of a newspaper. Sorry, this is probably not a popular opinion, but this weirdness is everywhere in current jazz bios and music bios in general. The writer(s) seems to thing that merely describing something is the same as having insight into it. I just am so tired of how badly music bios are done - unless they are by Robin DG Kelley of John Szwed. I gave up on this one (and I haven't even described one particular howler of mistake, which may be an editing mistake, but that just shows there was probably no editor).

Allen, thanks for sharing your opinion. Unless I become aware of more positive reviews, I will keep my money in the bank. Too bad, as a  "good" bio on Kenny Dorham  would be appreciated.

[Brad]

Allen posted something about the book on FB. Frankly, I’m thinking he makes too much of this particular passage.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0vn8juNCWeExLk1gVYiHCzPdLnRDGYzcy13qVXDZofy9ME81G7Szy1snR6pGtddE7l&id=100000637954817

[Big Beat Steve]

43 minutes ago, Brad said:

Allen posted something about the book on FB. Frankly, I’m thinking he makes too much of this particular passage.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0vn8juNCWeExLk1gVYiHCzPdLnRDGYzcy13qVXDZofy9ME81G7Szy1snR6pGtddE7l&id=100000637954817

I just read the entire FB discussion linked above, and - apart from the fact that, for a FB page, this is some serious and enlightened discussion  - he may indeed be making too much of this particular passage if this was the only sore spot. But was it??
I don't know so I'd not judge that book myself. 

In general, though, I'd find such nonsense almost as grating as Allen did. Why do these authors have to resort to such clichés? And why can't they link the elements of their reasoning more properly so the reader isnt left wondering what the author actually meant to say? Do they really expect that their bluff won't be called by some readers if it can be called that easily? (In fact they ought to be glad that readers out there read their elaborations that attentively, instead of just glossing over them ... )

I guess I've been overly critical with some books I've read and commented upon here on that forum too. But one basic premise just is and remains: Get your facts right! 

[danasgoodstuff]

18 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

I just read the entire FB discussion linked above, and - apart from the fact that, for a FB page, this is some serious and enlightened discussion  - he may indeed be making too much of this particular passage if this was the only sore spot. But was it??
I don't know so I'd not judge that book myself. 

In general, though, I'd find such nonsense almost as grating as Allen did. Why do these authors have to resort to such clichés? And why can't they link the elements of their reasoning more properly so the reader isnt left wondering what the author actually meant to say? Do they really expect that their bluff won't be called by some readers if it can be called that easily? (In fact they ought to be glad that readers out there read their elaborations that attentively, instead of just glossing over them ... )

I guess I've been overly critical with some books I've read and commented upon here on that forum too. But one basic premise just is and remains: Get your facts right! 

The editing, or lack of same, is as much to blame as the original authors.

[Big Beat Steve]

1 hour ago, danasgoodstuff said:

The editing, or lack of same, is as much to blame as the original authors.

Yes, this is a recurrent problem, not just in the field of (music) history books.

[danasgoodstuff]

22 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Yes, this is a recurrent problem, not just in the field of (music) history books.

It's a Sign of the Times

[T.D.]

Seriously, I'm not sure publishers do serious editing any more.

OTOH, doesn't pretty much any book contain a preface in which the author thanks family, sources, assistants, publisher/editor etc. and concludes with "...any remaining errors are the author's responsibility"?

[Dub Modal]

I didn't want what Allen said to be true since it was based on an excerpt, but I started reading my copy this weekend and it wasn't until chapter 3 that discussion on Kenny finally started. There's some great info otherwise on Texas, Jim Crow and racially driven murders in the region, and other "quality of life at the time" descriptions. But when one's time for leisurely reading isn't much, it kind of sucks wading through all of this data before we get to the topic at hand. So I agree, editing would have been nice. I had a history prof tell me once long ago that my report missed the forest for the trees. I got caught up in minutia and presenting data points but forgot to tell the actual story. Seems like that applies here too. Maybe it gets better going forward. I sure hope so. 

[gvopedz]

Sounds like people want an abridged version of the book.  Reminds me of Mark Lewisohn’s bio of the Beatles “Tune In” – there is an extended UK version with a ton of historical detail and an edited USA version without the ton of historical detail.

[Dub Modal]

Just now, gvopedz said:

Sounds like people want an abridged version of the book.  Reminds me of Mark Lewisohn’s bio of the Beatles “Tune In” – there is an extended UK version with a ton of historical detail and an edited USA version without the ton of historical detail.

Ha, it's nice to have options. 

[Dan Gould]

3 hours ago, Dub Modal said:

I didn't want what Allen said to be true since it was based on an excerpt, but I started reading my copy this weekend and it wasn't until chapter 3 that discussion on Kenny finally started. There's some great info otherwise on Texas, Jim Crow and racially driven murders in the region, and other "quality of life at the time" descriptions. But when one's time for leisurely reading isn't much, it kind of sucks wading through all of this data before we get to the topic at hand. So I agree, editing would have been nice. I had a history prof tell me once long ago that my report missed the forest for the trees. I got caught up in minutia and presenting data points but forgot to tell the actual story. Seems like that applies here too. Maybe it gets better going forward. I sure hope so. 

I've often skipped ahead ... so thanks for letting me know I can probably just start with Chapter 3.

 

FWIW didn't the universally lauded Monk biography start with a veritable crapton of information about his ancestry, to a level of detail few people got anything out of?

[Niko]

1 hour ago, Dan Gould said:

FWIW didn't the universally lauded Monk biography start with a veritable crapton of information about his ancestry, to a level of detail few people got anything out of?

I do agree, that Kelley's Monk biography is not the best example of someone sticking to the essentials and only the essentials... (for instance, I am just reading John Chilton's Bechet biography and imho that one is perfect in keeping the balance between biographical information, gossip and music; also in talking about the music without getting overly technical), then again, genealogical research is not cockroaches in Texas; and while Kelley makes (iirc) some new contributions to our understanding of Monk's family history, I hope very much that the authors of that Dorham bio do not expand the world's knowledge about cockroaches in Texas...