Max Roach confined to home

[JSngry]

I'll go for "disgrace" in that it is a disgrace that such a great contributor to America has no other options.

It's not about a lack of respect or love on the family's part. I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of whatever doubt might exist. It's about a lack of love and respect on America's part. Max was never destitute or anything lie that, but there's no way in hell that he made enough money or achieved enough fame while he was functional so that when something like this did happen that he would have the resources to be handled with the same level of care that his stature dictates. That IS a disgrace.

Say what you want to about free markets and familial obligations and everybody has equal dignity regardless of who they are and all that stuff. Whatever. That's all good. Nevertheless, the REAL disgrace here is that Max Roach, a man who has not, to the best of my knowledge, led a life of dissipation and/or financial imprudence has been one of the greatest artists of our time and has squat to show for it once he needs too much more than 3 squares and a roof. That just ain't right, and yes, THAT is a disgrace.

The history of Max Roach's career for about the last 40 or so years has been that of a man triumphing, gloriously so in fact, on the global stage in spite of any number of attempts by the industry in his homeland (Bruce Lundvall being a notable, and noble, exception) to ignore him (or at best marginalize him) in the hopes that he would just go away. The ignobilty of this present situation, which again, I'm in no way blaming on the family w/o concrete proof, cannot be ignored.

Edited October 16, 2004 by JSngry

[Christiern]

Chris wasn't just the messenger-he made value judgements ("a disgrace") without being able to say anything about the reasons behind the decisions made by Max's family. That's what I responded to and questioned.

Now Chris tells us that "all of Max's children signed papers to have him committed to this home" and simply ignores the likelihood that Max's children are doing what they feel is best. Who are we to question those decisions? Until I hear that Max is being abused, or has hateful, hurtful kids who just want him out of their hair and taken care of to the barest extent necessary, I will not second guess their decisions.

Again, if its a question of money, I think we'd all want to contribute to help make Max's remaining time more bearable.

• I said: "I don't know why Max's kids did what they did--perhaps they did not see any other way--24/7 nursing care is rather expensive."
  
  To which Dan responded: "Now Chris tells us that "all of Max's children signed papers to have him committed to this home" and simply ignores the likelihood that Max's children are doing what they feel is best.
  

I don't know what you are trying to do here, Dan, but it sure looks like you are trying--for some inexplicable reason--start an argument.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Over on the Jazz Corner's Speakeasy, Lois Gilbert is reporting that she spoke with several people familiar with Max's situation last night and she was told that Max's children sold his apartment so they would have enough money to afford a very good home for Max. She said she's knows the name of the place and it's a good one.

Later,

Kevin

[Dan Gould]

Chris wasn't just the messenger-he made value judgements ("a disgrace") without being able to say anything about the reasons behind the decisions made by Max's family.  That's what I responded to and questioned.

Now Chris tells us that "all of Max's children signed papers to have him committed to this home" and simply ignores the likelihood that Max's children are doing what they feel is best.  Who are we to question those decisions?  Until I hear that Max is being abused, or has hateful, hurtful kids who just want him out of their hair and taken care of to the barest extent necessary, I will not second guess their decisions.

Again, if its a question of money, I think we'd all want to contribute to help make Max's remaining time more bearable.

• I said: "I don't know why Max's kids did what they did--perhaps they did not see any other way--24/7 nursing care is rather expensive."
  
  To which Dan responded: "Now Chris tells us that "all of Max's children signed papers to have him committed to this home" and simply ignores the likelihood that Max's children are doing what they feel is best.
  

I don't know what you are trying to do here, Dan, but it sure looks like you are trying--for some inexplicable reason--start an argument.

ALL you had to do, Chris, was say this in your original post, instead of inserting it after the dispute begins:

"I don't know why Max's kids did what they did--perhaps they did not see any other way--24/7 nursing care is rather expensive."

BTW, its a real neat trick to invert the chronology of the comments, as if from the start you held the family blameless, instead of covering your ass after people questioned your comments.

Now, from Lois via Kevin, we learn that the family sold his apartment to secure an excellent home for him (a very typical familial response), one that Lois herself vouches for.

So, is it really an "outrage"? Should he really be "brought home" when his family has apparently done the best thing they can do for him?

I'll say it again:

I think its highly likely that people unfamiliar with the family's decisions and reasons for what they did, and with no knowledge of what is being done, came to see Max and found him in a distressing state, in a depressing place, and decided "something should be done."

Maybe, just maybe, something is being done.

[Dan Gould]

Jim,

I agree that from a societal standpoint, it is an outrage.

Too bad Chris didn't particularize what he found outrageous about Max's situation. A lot of pixels might have been spared.

Edited October 17, 2004 by Dan Gould

[Christiern]

Let us hope that what Lois heard is true. I have no reason to doubt her.

BTW, the reason Lois inquired into this matter last night is because I told her what I had heard and asked her if she knew anything. She told me she would inquire at last night's event--she did, and the news is good.

Edited October 17, 2004 by Christiern

[Dr. Rat]

I'll go for "disgrace" in that it is a disgrace that such a great contributor to America has no other options.

It's not about a lack of respect or love on the family's part. I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of whatever doubt might exist. It's about a lack of love and respect on America's part. Max was never destitute or anything lie that, but there's no way in hell that he made enough money or achieved enough fame while he was functional so that when something like this did happen that he would have the resources to be handled with the same level of care that his stature dictates. That IS a disgrace.

Say what you want to about free markets and familial obligations and everybody has equal dignity regardless of who they are and all that stuff. Whatever. That's all good. Nevertheless, the REAL disgrace here is that Max Roach, a man who has not, to the best of my knowledge, led a life of dissipation and/or financial imprudence has been one of the greatest artists of our time and has squat to show for it once he needs too much more than 3 squares and a roof. That just ain't right, and yes, THAT is a disgrace.

The history of Max Roach's career for about the last 40 or so years has been that of a man triumphing, gloriously so in fact, on the global stage in spite of any number of attempts by the industry in his homeland (Bruce Lundvall being a notable, and noble, exception) to ignore him (or at best marginalize him) in the hopes that he would just go away. The ignobilty of this present situation, which again, I'm in no way blaming on the family w/o concrete proof, cannot be ignored.

So who does deserve to be in this situation? I mean, isn't every worker in America exploited? Do any of the regular folk end up getting true value for what they've done in life? How many millions end up in far, far worse situations than Max Roach?

The man is sick and being cared for in a relatively "nice" situation. All this disgrace stuff--I can't see how this is a disgrace when there are people without insurance literally dying because they can't get the proper measures taken and no one pays the least attention.

Max Roach's artistic accomplishments, imho, do not and ought not get him some special dispensation from what life brings. I am sorry he is so ill, I am sorry people are irresponsibly casting about for someone to villify over it.

Just be sad, for god's sake.

--eric

[Christiern]

The "disgrace" would apply if Max--being someone who has made an immeasurable contribution to America's cultural scene--had been left to spend the rest of his life in less than comfortable/dignified surroundings. It looks as if that is not the case, so we can all relax.

I agree that no one suffering bad health ought to have that compounded by callous treatment. Unfortunately, that happens all the time, mainly because costs are so high, but also because relatives and "friends" have other priorities. If Max's case receives more visibility than that of the lesser person, it is perhaps because one feels that a certain reimbursement (for lack of a better word) is in order from those whose life and careers he enriched with his music.

[JSngry]

Dear Dr. Rat -

Chill out, man. It's a disgrace and you know it.

Or maybe you don't, in which case you should.

The ready availability of new Max Roach "product" to American jazz consumers for about the last 35 or so years has been pitiful. He was effectively "blacklisted" from the American recording industry for his political stances and how he brought them to the music. Atlantic gave him a shot, and for his final album with the label they "suggested" that he do something "familiar". So he did LIFT EVERY VOICE AND SING. That, as they say, was that.

Now, if he had have just rolled over and died, or gone commercial (relatively speaking), or something like that, it would be easy enough to say "Oh well, them's the breaks" and let it go at that. But he didn't. He continued to grow as an artist and as a bandleader, In fact, his work in the 70s and early 80s may very well be his most brilliant of all.

But you'd not know it if you were your average American jazz fan in the pre-Internet age. The records were all on European and Japanese labels with distibution that was highly specialized, to put it mildly, and they were not getting reviewed in the mainstream jazz press. I remember the first time I went to NYC in 1980 and going apeshit because at long last, HERE were record stores that had all these Max sides that I'd been hearing about from the cognosenti (and some that I hadn't).

Yeah, it's real easy to say that all jazz musisicans have it hard, and that this is a human tragedy first and foremost, blahblahblah, etcetcetc. It's easy to say because it's true. But it's ESPECIALLY tragic, and yes, disgraceful, becuase in Max Roach, we're talking about one off the major artists of the 20th century, and we're talking about a man who systematically had his career stymied by the American "jazz industry" (again, Bruce Lundvall is a notable and noble exception) because of his outspokenness regarding his political views.

It's precisely his willingness and abilty to stay strong and forge ahead (and GROW as an artist) in the face of such bullshit that has made him such a hero to me over the years. Now, if you can't see it as a disgrace that the man achieved nowhere near his full and rightful earning potential (earning potential that may very well have prevented his family from being forced into doing today what it is that they apparently have to do) for no other reason than he steadfastly refused to play ball and tone it down to make the powers that be less, uh... "uncomfortable". well, that's your perogative. But if the life of somebody like Frankie Lymon or Janis Joplin can be called "tragic", and if the rank exploitation of so many blues & R&R pioneers can be called "disgraceful", then SURELY the deliberate marginalization of Max Roach for the last 35+ years can and should be viewed in the same light.

That's my story and I AM sticking to it. No room for "debate" on this one, not from me.

Edited October 17, 2004 by JSngry

[brownie]

Jsngry wrote:

He was effectively "blacklisted" from the American recording industry for his political stances and how he brought them to the music. Atlantic gave him a shot, and for his final album with the label they "suggested" that he do something "familiar". So he did LIFT EVERY VOICE AND SING. That, as they say, was that.

He did however record a couple of albums for Columbia around 1980 including his own 'Chattahoochee Red' and the M'Boom' ensemble ones.

[JSngry]

Those were Bruce Lundvall's doing, bless him.

[medjuck]

Weirdly enough the following story appeared in the LA Times today:

As a child, Daryl Roach loved all the drama and commotion when his family headed south to his father's rural birthplace. Before they left New York for Dismal Swamp in North Carolina, they'd jam the Lincoln Continental full of food and push all the bags into the trunk, which was already half filled by a big red canister of gasoline.

Roach said he only realized years later why all the provisioning had been necessary.

His father, Max Roach, is a legendary jazz drummer who helped create the bebop style and played with Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk, Clifford Brown and Miles Davis.

But driving through the rural South in the 1950s, Max Roach knew that as a black man he'd be denied service at many a gas station and restaurant.

Over the years, he became a civil rights activist, using his fame to speak out against racial injustice.

"I listened to a lot of ideas, a lot of revolutionary ideas," said Daryl Roach, now a 56-year-old actor living in Los Angeles.

Activism, it turns out, runs in the family.

On Monday night, Daryl Roach will hold the kickoff event of his new nonprofit organization, Musicaids … Life Thru Music. At a benefit concert at the Wilshire Ebell Theatre, James Taylor will sing, along with Brandi Carlile, Deborah Falconer and Arnold McCuller. Saxophonist Brandon Field will also perform.

Tickets for the concert, which is called "Songs for a New Resolution," cost $45 to $65. The event will raise money to help stop the spread of HIV and AIDS through education and research into preventive vaccines and microbicides.

Roach got the idea for Musicaids through years of listening to his close friend Peter Anton, a gastroenterologist, UCLA professor and director of the UCLA Center for HIV and Digestive Diseases.

Anton, who is also a researcher at the UCLA AIDS Institute, would often tell Roach about new studies. The physician told of research finding that as many as one in three young black males in Los Angeles and other American cities were infected with HIV, that two American teenagers were infected each half hour.

Roach was shocked by what he heard about the increase in new infections among black women and the particularly high rate of infection in young black men.

"I was alarmed at what he was telling me. I mean, there are studies that show that the rate of infection for young black men in South-Central Los Angeles is 30%," Roach said. "The only place with a higher rate is in Botswana."

He wanted to do something.

He thought immediately of music, which was always a force for change in his family.

"One thing which always got us through was music. It was music which got us through family struggles, which got us through life," he said.

He also thought of his father, and asked him for his help.

Soon, as in the old days, the talk turned to civil rights.

Max Roach wanted to help, but at first he was worried. He didn't want to erode any civil rights gains by focusing attention on something negative within the black community.

His son recalls saying to his father, "If we don't address this problem now, over the next 10 years we're going to lose all the gains of civil rights, because we'll lose a generation."

The debate went back and forth. Finally, son convinced father of the urgency.

Max Roach gave his son access to his extensive mailing list and signed Musicaids' first letter soliciting donations. Family friends, including Maya Angelou, sent money.

Money raised by Musicaids for research will go to the UCLA AIDS Institute. Unlike government grant money, it won't be bogged down by seemingly endless restrictions. Researchers will be able to use it to pursue their best ideas, said Edwin Bayrd, the institute's executive director.

A vaccine to prevent HIV infection is still at least a decade away, Bayrd said, particularly because the virus constantly mutates, creating numerous different strains.

But the institute hopes to soon begin testing another kind of medicine that would slow the pace of infection in people who already have HIV, Anton said.

Researchers are also testing microbicides — gels or foams that could be applied to skin and that could block transmission of the virus before it reached the bloodstream, Bayrd said.

Safe, effective and inexpensive microbicides could be particularly important in preventing HIV's spread among women, since it would give them the means to protect themselves, he said.

Max Roach is 81 now. He suffers from hydrocephalus, which affects his short-term memory and his balance. He lives in New York and won't be at Monday's concert.

But Daryl Roach said he hoped the event would be one of many that would honor his father's legacy. He wants to plan more concerts, featuring gospel, rhythm and blues, rap and jazz. He's hoping to sell concert CDs. He has lots of ideas.

"My father's life was always about deeds," he said. "The name of one of his albums was 'Deeds, Not Words.' And, really, that's what this is all about."

[Dr. Rat]

Dear Dr. Rat -

Chill out, man. It's a disgrace and you know it.

Or maybe you don't, in which case you should.

The ready availability of new Max Roach "product" to American jazz consumers for about the last 35 or so years has been pitiful. He was effectively "blacklisted" from the American recording industry for his political stances and how he brought them to the music. Atlantic gave him a shot, and for his final album with the label they "suggested" that he do something "familiar". So he did LIFT EVERY VOICE AND SING. That, as they say, was that.

Now, if he had have just rolled over and died, or gone commercial (relatively speaking), or something like that, it would be easy enough to say "Oh well, them's the breaks" and let it go at that. But he didn't. He continued to grow as an artist and as a bandleader, In fact, his work in the 70s and early 80s may very well be his most brilliant of all.

But you'd not know it if you were your average American jazz fan in the pre-Internet age. The records were all on European and Japanese labels with distibution that was highly specialized, to put it mildly, and they were not getting reviewed in the mainstream jazz press. I remember the first time I went to NYC in 1980 and going apeshit because at long last, HERE were record stores that had all these Max sides that I'd been hearing about from the cognosenti (and some that I hadn't).

Yeah, it's real easy to say that all jazz musisicans have it hard, and that this is a human tragedy first and foremost, blahblahblah, etcetcetc. It's easy to say because it's true. But it's ESPECIALLY tragic, and yes, disgraceful, becuase in Max Roach, we're talking about one off the major artists of the 20th century, and we're talking about a man who systematically had his career stymied by the American "jazz industry" (again, Bruce Lundvall is a notable and noble exception) because of his outspokenness regarding his political views.

It's precisely his willingness and abilty to stay strong and forge ahead (and GROW as an artist) in the face of such bullshit that has made him such a hero to me over the years. Now, if you can't see it as a disgrace that the man achieved nowhere near his full and rightful earning potential (earning potential that may very well have prevented his family from being forced into doing today what it is that they apparently have to do) for no other reason than he steadfastly refused to play ball and tone it down to make the powers that be less, uh... "uncomfortable". well, that's your perogative. But if the life of somebody like Frankie Lymon or Janis Joplin can be called "tragic", and if the rank exploitation of so many blues & R&R pioneers can be called "disgraceful", then SURELY the deliberate marginalization of Max Roach for the last 35+ years can and should be viewed in the same light.

That's my story and I AM sticking to it. No room for "debate" on this one, not from me.

My concerns about the human tragedy blah, blah, blah actually are so broad as to include folks who aren't even jazz musicians--to people I know and work with who struggle to say, get their teeth fixed, or to scrape together money to have heart surgery. People who might one day die because they don't have the means to make use of the greatest medical system in the world.

In this context, I find it kinda odd people immediately start talking disgrace when they know very little about what's going on. I find it kinda distressing that people start throwing around innuendo about Roach's family. And I really don't think it's a disgrace for the man to, as now seems to be the case, for the man to get proper medical attention for his sad state of health.

Should he have been rich? Should he have gotten a record contract in the 80s? Should his records be easier for you to buy? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's OK to unleash the paranoid fantasies and trash his family, does it?

Read the first post. Tell me that just isn't icing on the music-industry-mistreatment cake. Now Roach's illness is made the vehicle to launch innuendo against his family. Classic, don't you think?

But let's not pay any attention to that. By all means let's talk about the blacklist.

--eric

[JSngry]

Yes, let's.

[Shrdlu]

Hey folks! Back off with Chris! All he wanted to do was to post the info. I'm sure you don't really think that Chris isn't aware of the reality of Altzheimer's, and the decisions that families have to make when it shows up.

This kind of thing, where a sincere post is dragged into a miry rabbit trail, sometimes makes me very close to staying away. (Now, wouldn't that make some people's day! )

[Dr. Rat]

OK. Honestly curious:

He was effectively "blacklisted" from the American recording industry for his political stances and how he brought them to the music.

What do you mean by "effectively blacklisted?" To me that sounds like "effectively pregnant."

Why? Because "blacklisted" doesn't mean your career is going bad because of your work lacks market appeal. Blacklisted means that you are able to produce work that is viable in the market, and you are not allowed to work because of your politics or your color or your religion or something else that has nothing to do with your work.

So, any evidence that Roach's career was "systematically stymied?" Any "deliberate marginalization" other than Roach's own? Any actual, as opposed to effective, blacklist?

Or is "no room for argument" "no evidence to argue with."

On the "disgrace" of other folks not liking what you like:

Roach took his art in a direction that he knew was at best marginal in terms of appeal. I respect him for that. But people do this all the time--I've done it--I could be making more money being a lawyer or something. I made a choice not to pursue those options, instead I am doing things more along the lines of what I want to do. I don't think society owes me my "missed potential wages." I don't think society owes me greater monetary appreciation for what I do do.

If I find my current situation sufficiently frustrating, I'll have to move along.

Max Roach had options. He chose to do what he did. And, as best I can tell, he didn't do so very badly.

Now Roach, granted, is a special case. And that's been recognized: the Lundvall recordings didn't makes any money, by Roach's own admission. Roach also brought home a McArthur--more that $300,000 of 1980s money. He had a fairly nice teaching gig at UMass. This is more or less as it should be, imho.

I think there are limits to how far society is obliged to subsidize my hobbies and obscure interests. And I figure it's just as well for my hobbies and obscure interests that they aren't too well subsidized. Call me conservative.

When an artist creates works for posterity, that artist had better realize that posterity doesn't have any money, either. Within reason, people and companies get to decide where to spend their money. Period. It isn't a "disgrace" if they don't choose to spend it in a way you hope for or approve of.

Trotting out the old exploitation stories is kind of disingenuous, isn't it? The issue with John Lee Hooker et al. (who were hardly innocents--they just bet wrong) was who got the profits from compositions and recordings that made a lot of money. That just isn't the issue with Roach.

(And btw, I am completely in favor of letting JLH and others back out of agreements they signed--blacks had been treated brutally and ripped off for centuries, they had no reasonable expectation that their future rights would be recognized. But I don't buy the usual argument that they didn't know what they were signing. That's patronizing bullshit.)

But in the absence of evidence, this whole line of argument looks like a convenient "white guilt smokescreen" to make us forget this:

Sad to report that Max Roach has been committed to a Brooklyn home by his children. From what I hear (from reliable sources), he is confined to a very small room without television or anything that might make it more bearable for him. He is, from what I understand suffering from Altzheimer's or dementia, but this treatment is outrageous and now some people are getting together to raise funds and give him a more dignified place--preferably to bring him home.

Edited October 19, 2004 by Dr. Rat

[JSngry]

Like I said, I stand by my statements and will not be drawn into a debate on them. Think what what you want.

I've said all I am going to say on the matter. If you want to have the last word, post now. It's yours.

[Chalupa]

This past May, Max Roach was the recipient of an honorary degree from the University of Pennsylvania. He was too ill at the time to attend. This was not a surprise since Penn had been notified months before that he could not attend. In his abscence his daughter Maxine accepted the degree for him. A good friend of mine had the pleasure of escorting Maxine around for the day. My friend is a avid jazz lover and spoke at some length w/ Maxine about her father. She was very candid and told him that he wasn't doing well. Apparently it is true that he needs constant, around the clock care. My friend said that Maxine seemed to be very concerned about her father and from what she told my friend it sounded as if she was doing everything she could to make sure her father was being looked after.

Until someone can confirm that Max isn't being treated well I will continue to assume that his family is doing the right thing.

[Jazzmoose]

Like I said, I stand by my statements and will not be drawn into a debate on them. Think what what you want.

I've said all I am going to say on the matter. If you want to have the last word, post now. It's yours.

I hope you'll reconsider that, Jim. As a relative newbie to this music, I know nothing of Roach's political beliefs or any reactions to them. You've got me curious...