Peter Pullman-- Bud Powell Biography

[Big Beat Steve]

Actually the release of this book had (and still has) got me close to the point of breaking my habits and getting a Kindle after all (OK, the Teddy Weatherford bio had begun to steer me in that direction ever so slightly too) but after reading the discussions of P.P.'s writing style and political agenda, I am sort of unsure.

I guess I am one of those who resent having all sorts of political agendas relatively extraneous (to me, anyway) to the subject matter on hand being permanently forced onto me and shoved down my throat while reading. I know I came to resent this as I read that "Swing Shift" book about female swing orchestras (Yes I know, no doubt Mr Pullman is a much better writer but still ... that personal political agenda thing ...)

So I know how I will react to "afram", "euram", etc. It is all very well and appropriate not to use once-common denigrating terms to the extent they used to be but you really can overdo it ... and from what I read here (seeing how many seem to find it hard to gloss over those outbursts of the personal battle Mr Pullman seems to be fighting) he really seems to be overdoing it. All the more so because he is one in a by-now long row of publishers and do-gooders who seem to be intent on rewriting history by instilling present-day P.C. instead of allowing the reader to look at things the way they were AT THE TIME. Adding explanatory notes has never done any harm and could have straightened things out for Mr Pullman too but if he had to go all they way, well ...

It's a bit like what is happening even over here with various books published decades ago and universally considered totally innocent, yet being rewritten and "tidied up" NOW for current printings in an attempt to remove "offensive" terms. No way anybody is to be allowed to see and reflect on historical events in the context of their times.

As if you can rewrite history ... He.., some even want to see "Uncle Tom's Cabin" banished from the bookshelves altogether!

[Fer Urbina]

Actually the release of this book had (and still has) got me close to the point of breaking my habits and getting a Kindle after all (OK, the Teddy Weatherford bio had begun to steer me in that direction ever so slightly too) but after reading the discussions of P.P.'s writing style and political agenda, I am sort of unsure.

I guess I am one of those who resent having all sorts of political agendas relatively extraneous (to me, anyway) to the subject matter on hand being permanently forced onto me and shoved down my throat while reading. I know I came to resent this as I read that "Swing Shift" book about female swing orchestras (Yes I know, no doubt Mr Pullman is a much better writer but still ... that personal political agenda thing ...)

So I know how I will react to "afram", "euram", etc. It is all very well and appropriate not to use once-common denigrating terms to the extent they used to be but you really can overdo it ... and from what I read here (seeing how many seem to find it hard to gloss over those outbursts of the personal battle Mr Pullman seems to be fighting) he really seems to be overdoing it. All the more so because he is one in a by-now long row of publishers and do-gooders who seem to be intent on rewriting history by instilling present-day P.C. instead of allowing the reader to look at things the way they were AT THE TIME. Adding explanatory notes has never done any harm and could have straightened things out for Mr Pullman too but if he had to go all they way, well ...

It's a bit like what is happening even over here with various books published decades ago and universally considered totally innocent, yet being rewritten and "tidied up" NOW for current printings in an attempt to remove "offensive" terms. No way anybody is to be allowed to see and reflect on historical events in the context of their times.

As if you can rewrite history ... He.., some even want to see "Uncle Tom's Cabin" banished from the bookshelves altogether!

Having read the book (the manuscript, which should be less polished than the book anyway), I personally don't like, and don't agree with, the euram, afram... terminology. I agree with the reasons behind it, but not with the solution (I don't think there is one). That said, I found that it didn't really interfere with my reading.

However, I honestly think that the leap from that choice of terminology, political as it may be, to political bias, political correctness, whatever... is incorrect in this case. IMHO Pullman does not rewrite history and, in fact, that would probably be the unfairest criticism on this book. Leaving his writing style aside, this is one of the most factual jazz bios I've ever read.

F

Edited March 13, 2012 by Fer Urbina

[Big Beat Steve]

I stand corrected, and just to make this clear: Of course I would not have wanted to judge on the overall contents of that book as I have not yet read it.

It just is that I have become a bit wary of those who work too much of their own agenda into the way they write about history. I've been through a couple such cases - though they were not linked to "race" issues - and did not find the results all that entertaining to read, especially since the subject on hand would have been interesting if it had not been for these "agendas".

As for this afram/euram business, I still don't get it. Nobody would have expected any author to use terms like "colored" or "sepia" (or more inappropriate ones) in a book written TODAY, but in a historical context, what is so utterly bad about just talking about "black" and "white" (wherever that mattered at all) as a simple statement of fact? As pointed out by someone else before, if you use key terms in discussing events that took place at a time when the key terms in question had not been in use yet (particularly if these terms are far from neutral descriptors), you risk giving a slant to the discussion that clouds matters more than it clarifies.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Big Beat Steve

[AllenLowe]

the Roost sides are from 1949? I really do not believe that, based on aural evidence, and on his ballad playing in particular. Something is amiss.......his ballad playing on the Roosts is much inferior, basically sounds like someone who is trying to get that aspect of his playing together -

Edited March 13, 2012 by AllenLowe

[Pete C]

some even want to see "Uncle Tom's Cabin" banished from the bookshelves altogether!

Ironic, since the book was one of the major vehicles that helped to inspire support for the abolitionist cause.

the Roost sides are from 1949? I really do not believe that, based on aural evidence, and on his ballad playing in particular. Something is amiss.......his ballad playing on the Roosts is much inferior, basically sounds like someone who is trying to get that aspect of his playing together -

It had been long suspected that the Roost sides were backdated for who knows what reason, bragging rights?, so Pullman's "revalation" was not news to me.

[AllenLowe]

I honestly disagree - those sessions sound like early Bud. No way they are later than '47 - might even be '46.

Edited March 13, 2012 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

I even remember talking with Curley Russell about those sessions - I think he would have noticed if the dates were so far off. We had long talks about how the labels stockpiled recordings before the ban. He never questioned '47.

[Fer Urbina]

It had been long suspected that the Roost sides were backdated for who knows what reason, bragging rights?, so Pullman's "revalation" was not news to me.

Well, maybe that's why he doesn't brag about it and I thought he might as well: I, for one, had always seen this session dated 1947, including in reissues by Cuscuna, who has all the access one can get to whatever is left of the Roost archives.

I honestly disagree - those sessions sound like early Bud. No way they are later than '47 - might even be '46.

IMHO the only way to go about this would be comparing whatever evidence you have, Allen, with Pullman's. I just re-read the story of the Roost session. Summer of 49, according to Pullman and his interviewee, who was present at the session. Also, although this may be less significant than it'd seem, Roost records wasn't started till early 1949.

FWIW, regarding stockpiling before the 1948 ban, the Roost recordings are usually dated January 10, 1947, whereas the 1948 ban wasn't announced till nine months later, in mid-October.

F

[Pete C]

Also, although this may be less significant than it'd seem, Roost records wasn't started till early 1949.

Ah, but if Reig had recorded that session when he was with Savoy, surely the man who ruined Jimmy Scott's career (Lubinsky) wouldn't have let Reig just take them, n'est-ce pas?

[Big Beat Steve]

FWIW, the (brief) liner notes on the back cover of Roost LP 2224 (which is made up of the 8 1947 or 1949 recordings plus 4 from 1953 as "fillers") alluding to the Bud/Curley/Max trio state: "Recorded in 1950 with a sound fresher than today's ..."

So they did not attempt to "backdate" the KEY session on that record? Of course this does not PROVE anything and notoriously incorrect details on liner notes from that era are common, but I wonder what specifically made Roost indicate that date instead of maybe 1947 (which would have allowed them to pull the publicity stunt of indicating how advanced this trio was as early as 1947)?

[AllenLowe]

my evidence is the aural evidence, the ballad playing - I should Care, etc - which is significantly less mature than the the (supposedly) later recordings. I just feel very certain that this is an earlier Bud, on the Roosts -

I don't have it in front of me, but isn't Somebody Loves Me on the Roosts? That, also, is, to me, an earlier-sounding Bud.

[J.A.W.]

I don't have it in front of me, but isn't Somebody Loves Me on the Roosts? That, also, is, to me, an earlier-sounding Bud.

It is.

[AllenLowe]

thanks - to me, that's just a (slightly but significantly) different Bud from '48-'50. Listen also to the Savoys with Bird and the Bebop boys recordings.

But mostly it's the '47 (sic?) ballads, which are not nearly as mature as the later ones, like Polka Dots and Moonbeams, Over the Rainbow, Sure Thing, et al.

[bneuman]

thanks - to me, that's just a (slightly but significantly) different Bud from '48-'50. Listen also to the Savoys with Bird and the Bebop boys recordings.

But mostly it's the '47 (sic?) ballads, which are not nearly as mature as the later ones, like Polka Dots and Moonbeams, Over the Rainbow, Sure Thing, et al.

Do you also classify April in Paris/Yesterdays/Body and Soul from the early Verve sessions as 'mature' ballads? I think they're 1949 too. Can you say anything more specific or explicit about what differentiates '47 Bud from '49/'50 Bud? I can hear that I Should Care sounds even schmaltzier and overloaded with Tatum-ish frills than Powell's playing on those early Verve sessions or Blue Note sessions (Over the Rainbow, It Could Happen to You), but I'm not acquainted well enough with that whole way of playing ballads to really differentiate between a lot of arpegggios and a lot of a lot of arpeggios. The Blue Note performances might sound a little more purposeful and thought-out, but I always assumed that was just because he cared about those sessions more.

I'd also be curious to hear anything more specific or explicit about the slight differences between '47 and '49 re: his bop playing. I think that, say, his head arrangement on 'Somebody Loves Me' is very Teddy Wilson, but the solos I know from '47 (the Bird sessions and the Roost session) don't jump out at me as all that different from the Verve/Blue Note stuff.

[Pete C]

Is it possible that Pullman never mentions the 1946 session with Sarah Vaughan, or did I just miss it somehow?

[bichos]

about the so called "roost" session: in the modern jazz discography by w. bruyninckx is a note about this january 10, 1947 session: "the above session was originally recorded for deluxe, but sold and first issued by roost." (maybe in 1949?)?

keep boppin´

marcel

[Fer Urbina]

Is it possible that Pullman never mentions the 1946 session with Sarah Vaughan, or did I just miss it somehow?

I haven't seen it either.

about the so called "roost" session: in the modern jazz discography by w. bruyninckx is a note about this january 10, 1947 session: "the above session was originally recorded for deluxe, but sold and first issued by roost." (maybe in 1949?)?

As I said, Pullman interviewed a witness to the session, Jack Hooke, Reig's associate in Roost Records, but he also interviewed Fred Mendelsohn, involved in De Luxe records in 1949, and both give Summer of 49 as the date of the session. There are plenty more details about this session, the music, the financial arrangements..., and Pullman also elaborates on the date issue.

As it's been said before, there's a lot of fresh research in here.

F

[AllenLowe]

Ben -

1) it's the floridness of I Should Care - which is SO different than the Verve/Bluenotes - that says to me Bud is still working out his approach through Tatum, in particular - and then - wham - they're there on the later ballads -

2) Bud in '46 (and maybe, I hope '47) just has a harder touch and a bit more connectivity to his playing on straight-ahead tunes that (to my ears at least) undergoes a perceivable deterioration through the years - even Ornithology on the Bluenotes, though brilliant, does not sound as rock-like as Somebody Loves Me (or his bebop boys and Bird - on -Savoy sides).

it' just the sound - in '46 and (once again I hope '47) it has a more rugged, edgy, 'newness' to it. Not a scientific explanation, but I've been listening to these for almost 40 years and they just sound that way to me -

and then - once again this is not documentary evidence - it just seems someone like Curley or Max would have said something over the years if that Roost session had been reported incorrectly - also, Don Schlitten, who first gave me a copy of that LP ( a beatup reissue copy) and who was on the scene all the time in those days, always described it to me as a '47 session.

Edited March 14, 2012 by AllenLowe

[king ubu]

Is it possible that Pullman never mentions the 1946 session with Sarah Vaughan, or did I just miss it somehow?

I haven't seen it either.

I thought doing this kindle thing would allow for full-text searching?

[Chuck Nessa]

Ben -

1) it's the floridness of I Should Care - which is SO different than the Verve/Bluenotes - that says to me Bud is still working out his approach through Tatum, in particular - and then - wham - they're there on the later ballads -

2) Bud in '46 (and maybe, I hope '47) just has a harder touch and a bit more connectivity to his playing on straight-ahead tunes that (to my ears at least) undergoes a perceivable deterioration through the years - even Ornithology on the Bluenotes, though brilliant, does not sound as rock-like as Somebody Loves Me (or his bebop boys and Bird - on -Savoy sides).

it' just the sound - in '46 and (once again I hope '47) it has a more rugged, edgy, 'newness' to it. Not a scientific explanation, but I've been listening to these for almost 40 years and they just sound that way to me -

and then - once again this is not documentary evidence - it just seems someone like Curley or Max would have said something over the years if that Roost session had been reported incorrectly - also, Don Schlitten, who first gave me a copy of that LP ( a beatup reissue copy) and who was on the scene all the time in those days, always described it to me as a '47 session.

Allen, which edition of the Roost material are you listening to? IIRC, editions before the Blue Note "complete" box run at the wrong speed. This can warp one's perspective.

[Matthew]

Great, the biography finally came out, and I know it will worth the wait. Little did I realize it would take so long, but it's great Mr. Pullman got it on Kindle.

[AllenLowe]

Chuck - I've listened to so many versions that I don't remember which was which anymore - but that's interesting - I'll dig out the Bluenote box when I have a chance, and give it a run.

[Chuck Nessa]

Chuck - I've listened to so many versions that I don't remember which was which anymore - but that's interesting - I'll dig out the Bluenote box when I have a chance, and give it a run.

I had the old Roost lp, a Japanese Roost lp reissue and the first EMI/Blue Note cd before I got the BN box. For 20+ years I thought the early date was fake.

[AllenLowe]

well. I don't know. What does Gitler think? Like Schlitten, he was around.

Edited March 15, 2012 by AllenLowe

[Chuck Nessa]

Were they paying attention? I misremember stuff all the time.