Charlie Christian

[Hardbopjazz]

We all know how great a guitarist Charlie Christian was. It made me wonder why wasn’t he ever offered a date as a leader. Was there something in his contract with Benny Goodman that prevented him from leading up a band of his own?

[AllenLowe]

it's a good question, but remember how young he was when he died - maybe there just wasn't enough time -

[Christiern]

You are being too kind, Allen, for there was plenty of time. John Hammond could have arranged that, but he obviously did not see Christian as a "genius" until after his death. I once asked John why, given his high enthusiasm for Christian's work, he never gave him a session of his own. It was obviously an embarrassing question and I was never given a real answer. I often wonder if Benny being his brother-in-law had anything to do with it.

[Jazz Kat]

I still have to go with there not being enough time. I don't think doing sessions on your own was that big at that time, for musicians, who didn't lead big bands.

[MartyJazz]

  Christiern said:

You are being too kind, Allen, for there was plenty of time. John Hammond could have arranged that, but he obviously did not see Christian as a "genius" until after his death. I once asked John why, given his high enthusiasm for Christian's work, he never gave him a session of his own. It was obviously an embarrassing question and I was never given a real answer. I often wonder if Benny being his brother-in-law had anything to do with it.

We've all read stories about how difficult it was to work for Goodman. And don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading such stories. However, I wonder in this case if your speculation is baseless concerning a possible negative influence of Goodman on Hammond. The reason being, many musicians aligned with Goodman were able to get their own dates while still being members of his organization. Two examples that come readily to mind are Lionel Hampton and Teddy Wilson, the only black participants in his various combos (if not the full band) prior to Christian's arrival. Why would BG exercise "pull" when it came to Christian, but not the others? And indeed if he did do so, what would be the motivation?

[Christiern]

I didn't even suggest that Benny exercised "pull," all I did was wonder if the family ties made John decide to let Benny have an exclusive, of sorts. That is very different from what you read into my post.

[Dr. Rat]

Well, Christian didn't need Hammond to do a session. The question starts with Christian, not with the closest white man.

Perhaps he didn't feel like it. Perhaps he figured he'd have plenty of time to do it and was in no hurry. Perhaps he'd much rather sit in at some after hours club.

--eric

[Jazz Kat]

Yeah I dont think it was as popular at that time to do your own session as it is now.

[AllenLowe]

I think Chris is saying that Hammond could very well have exercised his influence, which was considerable, in making it hard for Christian to record as a leader - this is not an unreasonable conclusion -

[Christiern]

  Dr. Rat said:

Well, Christian didn't need Hammond to do a session. The question starts with Christian, not with the closest white man.

Perhaps he didn't feel like it. Perhaps he figured he'd have plenty of time to do it and was in no hurry. Perhaps he'd much rather sit in at some after hours club.

--eric

A rather clueless post, eric. You obviously don't know that 1939-41 was a very different time as far as the record industry goes. Musicians did, in fact, need people like John if they wanted to do a session--especially if they were not well-established, but even then.

[Christiern]

  AllenLowe said:

I think Chris is saying that Hammond could very well have exercised his influence, which was considerable, in making it hard for Christian to record as a leader - this is not an unreasonable conclusion -

As Allen points out, John did have the power and he didn't always use it in a positive way. In fact, he had a bad habit of taking silly "revenge" by preventing gigs. I don't think that was the case here, for he did bring Mary Lou's "discovery" to Goodman, but I have heard him tell artists--over the phone--"I'll see to it that you never record again." Rex Stewart once told me that this was something Hammond commonly did if an artist dared to assert him/herself. Jimmy Rushing said the same thing--then I heard it with my own ears.

Again, I really don't think this was the case with Christian.

[medjuck]

  Christiern said:

I didn't even suggest that Benny exercised "pull," all I did was wonder if the family ties made John decide to let Benny have an exclusive, of sorts. That is very different from what you read into my post.

Christian wasn't exclusive to Goodman. He also recorded with Ida Cox, Lionel Hampton and Edmond Hall.

[Christiern]

  medjuck said:

  Christiern said:

I didn't even suggest that Benny exercised "pull," all I did was wonder if the family ties made John decide to let Benny have an exclusive, of sorts. That is very different from what you read into my post.

Christian wasn't exclusive to Goodman. He also recorded with Ida Cox, Lionel Hampton and Edmond Hall.

Exclusive in terms of being a member of a working band. The Ida Cox sessions were John Hammond's.

The point here is not that Christian was couldn't work, it is that he--for all his brilliance as a musician--was not given a single session of his own.

[Dr. Rat]

  Christiern said:

  Dr. Rat said:

Well, Christian didn't need Hammond to do a session. The question starts with Christian, not with the closest white man.

Perhaps he didn't feel like it. Perhaps he figured he'd have plenty of time to do it and was in no hurry. Perhaps he'd much rather sit in at some after hours club.

--eric

A rather clueless post, eric. You obviously don't know that 1939-41 was a very different time as far as the record industry goes. Musicians did, in fact, need people like John if they wanted to do a session--especially if they were not well-established, but even then.

Christiern-

Do your damnest and try not to be patronizing, either to me or to Charlie Christian.

There's a damn site of difference between needing John Hammond to record and needing someone "like" John Hammond. If you can't see that difference, sorry, but perhaps you don't know that plenty of folks recorded in the late thirties and early forties without the personal intervention of John Hammond.

So Charlie Christian had more options than begging a reluctant John Hammond to give him a recording session if he was disposed to record, no?

And other black musicians of similar stature or even lesser stature in the era managed to find record producers who would record them, no? How ever did Chu Berry lead a session? Or Tiny Parham? or [fill in the blank].

The patronage of some rich white guy was not the be all and end all. Black artists found ways to use their resources to get things they wanted from the system, no matter how crooked it might have been. And, apparently, it was not a Herculean task, though no doubt it was needlessly difficult.

So, as much as we might like to get a dig in on John Hammond, the question goes back to Charlie Christian, not to John Hammond.

[AllenLowe]

Dr. Rat -

respectfully, I think you're missing Chris's point - the musical orbit that Christian moved in (Goodman/Hammond) would impact on such a thing - not all black musicians moved within that orbit, but Christian had gotten his professional/East Coast start from Hammond/Goodman. So it's very possible that Hammond may have exercised some power in this area - and we know from after-the-fact accounts that Hammond, for all his aura of altruism, could behave in a much different manner -

[Chuck Nessa]

Please consider that on his own, CC might not have a concept to bring off a date of his own by then.

It's alway fun to look for bad guys, but sometimes the truth is more mundane.

[Christiern]

Still clueless and, as Allen said, missing the point.

No need to pursue this with you, ratso--believe what you want.

[Hardbopjazz]

This is becoming a big debate. I thought there would be a simple answer to a simple question. I guess unless you were there, there may never be a definitive answer.

[marcello]

  Christiern said:

I all I did was wonder if the family ties made John decide to let Benny have an exclusive, of sorts.

Chuck Nessa Posted on Mar 21 2005, 09:02 PM

Please consider that on his own, CC might not have a concept to bring off a date of his own by then.

A little of this and a little of that, I suppose. The question really does'nt have a answer, does it?

Edited March 22, 2005 by marcello

[AllenLowe]

yes, Chuck may well be right - temperment plays an important part in musicians who become leaders - many are content to work as sidemen, no matter how great they are -

[Dr. Rat]

  AllenLowe said:

Dr. Rat -

respectfully, I think you're missing Chris's point - the musical orbit that Christian moved in (Goodman/Hammond) would impact on such a thing - not all black musicians moved within that orbit, but Christian had gotten his professional/East Coast start from Hammond/Goodman. So it's very possible that Hammond may have exercised some power in this area - and we know from after-the-fact accounts that Hammond, for all his aura of altruism, could behave in a much different manner -

Except for the fact that C. specifically disavowed the idea that Hammond did this:

  Quote

As Allen points out, John did have the power and he didn't always use it in a positive way. In fact, he had a bad habit of taking silly "revenge" by preventing gigs. I don't think that was the case here,

And the fact that Mr. Christian was not limited to dealing only with Mr. Hammond. He was--get this!--an actual social agent in his own right, in spite his situation as a black man in a white-dominated world. And he could well have, if he so chose, gone to other folks in the world of jazz who might have recorded him as a leader. This assuming that Mr. Hammond had some sort of aversion to the idea of Christian recording as a leader, which we have no evidence of whatsoever.

The "point" I seem to be missing is that the opportunity to carry out a personal vendetta comes in three furlongs ahead of the facts with some folks.

But, anyhow, back to late lunch,

--eric

[Fer Urbina]

  AllenLowe said:

yes, Chuck may well be right - temperment plays an important part in musicians who become leaders - many are content to work as sidemen, no matter how great they are -

Very true, and almost everyone who met Charlie Christian says that he was very laid-back. The only mention I know about him being a leader is that he was planning to have a combo with Cootie Williams after he recovered from TB (which he never did, sadly).

Another thing is that I don't think BG would be ready to get rid of CC. By the time he got him in the Sextet and then Septet, BG's popularity as a big band leader was not so good (he had already lost Gene Krupa, Harry James and Teddy Wilson - and Glenn Miller was on the rise) and the combo with CC was very popular. Besides, CC was contributing many riffs and tunes (btw, according to Peter Broadbent's bio of CC, Flying Home may have been written by Leslie Sheffield of Oklahoma City) and he was the one of the few people BG kept on salary when he disbanded for a few months in 1940.

It's just speculation, but all in all it seems very likely that neither Hammond nor Goodman would have let CC go easily.

F U

[Christiern]

  Dr. Rat said:

Except for the fact that C. specifically disavowed the idea that Hammond did this:

  Quote

As Allen points out, John did have the power and he didn't always use it in a positive way. In fact, he had a bad habit of taking silly "revenge" by preventing gigs. I don't think that was the case here,

And the fact that Mr. Christian was not limited to dealing only with Mr. Hammond. He was--get this!--an actual social agent in his own right, in spite his situation as a black man in a white-dominated world. And he could well have, if he so chose, gone to other folks in the world of jazz who might have recorded him as a leader. This assuming that Mr. Hammond had some sort of aversion to the idea of Christian recording as a leader, which we have no evidence of whatsoever.

The "point" I seem to be missing is that the opportunity to carry out a personal vendetta comes in three furlongs ahead of the facts with some folks.

But, anyhow, back to late lunch,

--eric

Eric: "And the fact that Mr. Christian was not limited to dealing only with Mr. Hammond. He was--get this!--an actual social agent in his own right, in spite his situation as a black man in a white-dominated world. And he could well have, if he so chose, gone to other folks in the world of jazz who might have recorded him as a leader. This assuming that Mr. Hammond had some sort of aversion to the idea of Christian recording as a leader, which we have no evidence of whatsoever."

• The above raises the strong possibility that you are unaware of the power John Hammond had during the period in question and that you don't know the circumstances under which Charlie Christian came to New York and--for that matter--to be a member of Goodman's band.
  
  It has nothing to do with anybody's race. No one has said that John (Hammond) had an "aversion" to Christian leading a session, but he did have a special tie to his brother-in-law and Christian, in turn, had a special tie (perhaps he regarded it as a debt) to John.
  
  I'm not sure what you are driving at or whether you are just throwing in arguments for the sake of arguments--that's what it sounds like. Either that, or you are simply too uninformed in this area to draw reasonable conclusions.
  
  As for my disavowal, as you term it, I merely said that I don't think John--who had it in him to be vindictive--was showing that side of his character in the case of Charlie Christian. I think John genuinely admired his playing, which is why I always found it odd that he did not arrange as much as one Christian session at Columbia. It was well within John's power to do so. This is why I brought the subject up to John on at least one occasion (FYI, I saw John every day for a few years). He could easily have told me that there wasn't time, or given some other excuse, but he didn't--in fact, he showed embarrassment and avoided giving me a direct answer. That's all.
  

[marcello]

After reading all of this I realize that there really is not a comprehensive biography of this seminal figure and huge influence.

Calling Chris!

[037]

The definitive CC biography is already in the pipeline:

Solo Flight

See the March 7 entry.

"7"