New Monk bio in progress by Robin Kelley

[AllenLowe]

"me, and my shadow........"

[Man with the Golden Arm]

Today streamed live at 11 EST (then archived at 3 PM (?)) Kelley and Matthew Shipp discuss the book on Boston Univ NPR - WBUR 'On Point' radio show.

Monk On-Point

[AllenLowe]

looks interesting - my only advice is to delete the "American Hipster" reference - don't know if this refers to anything in the book, but it ain't Monk, IMHO.

[seeline]

one thing that strikes me about Monk in this book is how infantile he is, ultimately - Nellie follows him around, feeds him, clothes him, does his laundry, makes all his arrangements, travels with him, gets him to his gigs, while always allowing him the to be an "artiste" - reminds Allen Lowe of what Walter Bishop told him about Bud Powell, whom he described as "infantile in every respect - except music."

IIRC, this was clearly stated by T.S. and others in Straight No Chaser...

Edited October 27, 2009 by seeline

[Hoppy T. Frog]

one thing that strikes me about Monk in this book is how infantile he is, ultimately - Nellie follows him around, feeds him, clothes him, does his laundry, makes all his arrangements, travels with him, gets him to his gigs, while always allowing him the to be an "artiste" - reminds me of what Walter Bishop told me about Bud Powell, whom he described as "infantile in every respect - except music."

Though everyone seems a big afraid to say anything negative about the portrayals in this book (I don't mean about the book itself, which is wonderful), I do find that people like Monk (who is like more than a few jazz musicians I have known) can only function in such a way with enablers like Nellie and Nica (and Nica, which I did not realize until I read this, had her own substance abuse problems and clearly fed Monk's) - I do think there is a lot more "wrong" with these people than Kelley is willing to face in print.

Go to the movie and tell us how it ends Allen.

SPOILER ALERT:

Monk dies at the end.

[jazzbo]

I agree Allen, Kelly (understandably) stays away from closely depicting the habits and practices of several persons (Nica, Bud, et al). And probably, to a certain extent, Thelonious.

[JSngry]

one thing that strikes me about Monk in this book is how infantile he is, ultimately - Nellie follows him around, feeds him, clothes him, does his laundry, makes all his arrangements, travels with him, gets him to his gigs, while always allowing him the to be an "artiste" - reminds me of what Walter Bishop told me about Bud Powell, whom he described as "infantile in every respect - except music."

Though everyone seems a big afraid to say anything negative about the portrayals in this book (I don't mean about the book itself, which is wonderful), I do find that people like Monk (who is like more than a few jazz musicians I have known) can only function in such a way with enablers like Nellie and Nica (and Nica, which I did not realize until I read this, had her own substance abuse problems and clearly fed Monk's) - I do think there is a lot more "wrong" with these people than Kelley is willing to face in print.

Go to the movie and tell us how it ends Allen.

SPOILER ALERT:

Monk dies at the end.

But don't worry, there's a sequel where he comes back as this kinda cosmic savant who writes and plays all this jolly music that makes people laugh and skip and jump and grin knowingly and shit like that.

[seeline]

I agree Allen, Kelly (understandably) stays away from closely depicting the habits and practices of several persons (Nica, Bud, et al). And probably, to a certain extent, Thelonious.

I agree with you guys, but at the same time, believe that there are serious ethical dilemmas facing any decent biographer, unless their subject has been dead for 500 years or so. (Questions of not wanting to abuse the Monk family's trust have got to be a major thing, for Kelley and the publishers, too.)

At the same time, this isn't a bio. of Bud, Nica, or even of Nellie Monk, so.... But, by way of contrast, it's possible to go too far in the other direction (cf. Arnold Rampersad's multi-volume bio. of Langston Hughes, where he scrupulously avoids any mention of Hughes' sexual orientation, along with some other important things about Hughes' life - though it may well be that he chose the right course there, given the time in which he was writing and the lack of clarity about certain details).

Edited October 27, 2009 by seeline

[JSngry]

Well, the dreaded Leslie Gourse was quite blunt in her recounting of Monk's drug use. I never heard anybody contest that (and Kelley doesn't refute it), I just heard that Leslie Gourse was essentially a bullshit writer in general (which I have no real argument worth one way or the other), so...it was the day when cats got high. Not all of them, and not all of the time, but cats got high. I'm kinda like, hell, bfd, what else is new?

And ok, I'll stipulate to definitely being in a minority here, and I'm reading all this biographical detail, and it's cool enough, yeah, lot of work, no doubt about that, a job very well done, but the back of my mind is asking me is this really going to help me play the tunes any better? And the answer I can't shake is that if I hadn't already gone through a few years heavy immersion in a good chunk of the Monk compositional legacy (sorry, but "songbook" just doesn't sound right...), then it might make me think it would/was, but since I have, I'm kinda like, well, gee, this is just like reading a book, which I guess is what it is after all, I'm just saying it's not playing the music, it's not even about playing the music, which is ok, because that's not what biographies do, all I mean is that yeah, it's a really good book, but it's not the music, and in the end, Monk is for me, the music, since he's dead now, and also because when it comes to being father and husband, and son, and brother, and all that, well, that was personal to him and his, just as mine is to me and mine, and when it comes to Monk, Musical Genius, you got the music, deal with it, don't just read about it, ya' know?

Like I said, I know mine is a minority viewpoint, and probably with good reason. I'm probably a Philestine or some such these days when it comes to stuff li,e this. But the bridge to "Off Minor" is... it just is.

Great book, though!

[seeline]

I bet Kelley would absolutely agree re. Monk's music. But that's not the focus of his book, after all. He wrote a "straight" biography, not a critical examination or survey of Monk's music in the context of his life.

To me, it's kind of a foregone conclusion that actual biography doesn't allow much room for discussion of creative works, no matter who's making them, or in what medium they exist. Bios. of writers have a little more room for that, but not much.

It's always wise to have stuff by the person being "biographied" on hand when reading, I think - whether it's recordings by Monk, poems by Hughes, reproductions of Rembrandt's paintings - whatever.

As for the Kitty Kelly-like approach you mentioned (re. Leslie Gourse), that's really not Robin D.G. Kelley's aim, imo.

Edited October 27, 2009 by seeline

[AllenLowe]

wanting to know about the life is basic intellectual curiosity. And to me, the life supplements the music - I find the life and the music largely inseparable, and though I believe the art can and always will stand by itself, regardless of the personal details, jazz and other forms of vernacular music have a strong relationship to those details. The picture gets clearer with the details; for me it's also vocational in a weird way. If you want to play or write about this stuff, the life of others like Monk, however it plays out, clarifies your own, even by contrast.

knowing what Monk did, what he said, where he went, how he reacted to everything, is extremely educational, in the deepest sense, too. This stuff happens as a strange coincidence of people and events - I want to know what those were.

Edited October 27, 2009 by AllenLowe

[blajay]

wanting to know about the life is basic intellectual curiosity. And to me, the life supplements the music - I find the life and the music largely inseparable, and though I believe the art can and always will stand by itself, regardless of the personal details, jazz and other forms of vernacular music have a strong relationship to those details. The picture gets clearer with the details; for me it's also vocational in a weird way. If you want to play or write about this stuff, the life of others like Monk, however it plays out, clarifies your own, even by contrast.

knowing what Monk did, what he said, where he went, how he reacted to everything, is extremely educational, in the deepest sense, too. This stuff happens as a strange coincidence of people and events - I want to know what those were.

Well said, Allen. You have wonderful insights like these; please try not to get too emotionally impacted by the prevailing power-discourse of your internet groups. The actual discussion is much more interesting.

[seeline]

wanting to know about the life is basic intellectual curiosity. And to me, the life supplements the music - I find the life and the music largely inseparable, and though I believe the art can and always will stand by itself, regardless of the personal details, jazz and other forms of vernacular music have a strong relationship to those details. The picture gets clearer with the details; for me it's also vocational in a weird way. If you want to play or write about this stuff, the life of others like Monk, however it plays out, clarifies your own, even by contrast.

knowing what Monk did, what he said, where he went, how he reacted to everything, is extremely educational, in the deepest sense, too. This stuff happens as a strange coincidence of people and events - I want to know what those were.

Agreed (for the most part), Allen. These things are (imo) intertwined in ways that we'll never fully understand, or figure out. Though by no means would I limit this to musicians or people involved in popular music.

Still, a biographer is making leaps of faith when going beyond actual data. (Speculation being human and all that.)

Edited October 27, 2009 by seeline

[Christiern]

When I wrote my Bessie Smith biography, the publisher wanted me to do it in six months. I took a year and, with all the research that had to be done, that was inadequate. I decided that—other than gathering recollections of people who heard Bessie sing—I would let her recordings take care of the music. I had, after all, spent over 2 years on a complete reissue project. Did I really need to include an analysis of Bessie's singing? I don't think so. When I prepared the 2003 revised edition, I did not have the pressure of a deadline, so I did include more words about the content of the recordings, but no analysis. I haven't had any complaints over the omission.

If a carefully-researched biography and the subject's complete recorded output leaves the reader wanting, I think the only solution may be Madam Nora in the candlelit basement down the street.

As for Gourse, Jim, just read a few pages of any of her many books (she spewed them out like chocolates in a Lucy skit) and you will see just what a cut 'n' paste hack she was.

[gmonahan]

wanting to know about the life is basic intellectual curiosity. And to me, the life supplements the music - I find the life and the music largely inseparable, and though I believe the art can and always will stand by itself, regardless of the personal details, jazz and other forms of vernacular music have a strong relationship to those details. The picture gets clearer with the details; for me it's also vocational in a weird way. If you want to play or write about this stuff, the life of others like Monk, however it plays out, clarifies your own, even by contrast.

knowing what Monk did, what he said, where he went, how he reacted to everything, is extremely educational, in the deepest sense, too. This stuff happens as a strange coincidence of people and events - I want to know what those were.

Exactly. I'd add that compositions are often the direct result of specific life experiences, and I think that knowing what Monk was doing at a given moment he wrote a given piece can enrich even further one's enjoyment of that piece.

gregmo

[Christiern]

"Exactly. I'd add that compositions are often the direct result of specific life experiences, and I think that knowing what Monk was doing at a given moment he wrote a given piece can enrich even further one's enjoyment of that piece."

Isn't that what a biography should do by default?

[AllenLowe]

let me add, vis a ve Chris's great Bessie bio, that African American life is particularly a matter of the intersection of the practical and the spiritually transcendent. I would argue, a la Lawrence Levine, that this is clearly related to African origins, and carries over into everything from religious practices to musical habits. Personally I find these intersections fascinating and culturally vital. Hence my interest. Also, though I know I risk seeming a bit silly (like one of those white guys teaching black history back in the sixties and wearing a dashiki) I consider it all to be a part of my own heritage - after all it's African-American; as with a lot of people on this list it holds far greater fascination for me than classically WASP culture.

Edited October 27, 2009 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

wanting to know about the life is basic intellectual curiosity. And to me, the life supplements the music - I find the life and the music largely inseparable, and though I believe the art can and always will stand by itself, regardless of the personal details, jazz and other forms of vernacular music have a strong relationship to those details. The picture gets clearer with the details; for me it's also vocational in a weird way. If you want to play or write about this stuff, the life of others like Monk, however it plays out, clarifies your own, even by contrast.

knowing what Monk did, what he said, where he went, how he reacted to everything, is extremely educational, in the deepest sense, too. This stuff happens as a strange coincidence of people and events - I want to know what those were.

No argument about that, For me, though, it's just a matter of degree, and I think I might have reached the degree where, no I don't care all that much anymore. They're all dead & I'm closer to being dead than to having been born, and I've read and listened a big bunch to this point, and now it's like, yeah, well, time to live my life now, before it's too late, and....sometimes history gets claustrophobic. I mean, Monk was already MONK when The Beatles hit, I was just 8. I think I get both Monk and The Beatles all I'm going to by now, at least as far as "breakthrough" understandings go, and having been hit by The Beatles when and how I was, I'll never get Monk the way that somebody who was more there than I was would have gotten it, and The Beatles are already old and "historic" and 1/2 dead. I accept that, I actually dig that, but hell....it's all old to me by now and after a while, looking for more "there" there when what's already there is going to always be there...I dunno, life changes, peoples changes, I guess I've changed. Looking back in order to look ahead, it's just not fun anymore. Everywhere I look I see dead people. I want to dance, but my knees have gone bad. My nightmare is being a shut-in with my record collection being my scrapbook. Or even worse, being a shut in and my record collection being my "imaginary friend" who accompanies me on all these imaginary places where I can be people I've never been (or even partially knew) and whacko shit like that. Excuse me, I really would rather die first.

I love Monk, always have, always will. And that bridge to "Off Minor" is one of those unfathomable mysteries about the meaning of life that can take you over if you don't watch it. But I'm reading this book and it's making me feel old, like "death beckons" old, and when I watch this week's Curb Your Enthusiasm, I laugh my ass off, and I'm like, well, they're all on their way to being dead too, and if I'm still there when they get there, am I gonna want to read about it, or will I just want to know that I know what I know because I came by it honestly, and that's the way I'm beginning to feel about biographies and such, I've played Monk's music, gotten inside it, and I've not exactly shied away from "the jazz life" as it has existed in my chosen area of the world. So right now, Monk has great meaning to me, a meaning that this book , fine as it is, just does not speak to all that much, and trying to change that meaning to meet the book just seems....creepy right now. The Monk I "know" is alive, the one in the book, like the spoiler alert let on, is dead.

Feeling tremendously conflicting emotions while writing this, knowing full well that a great contributor to humanity is finally being treated as such, yet at the same time thinking that...it's ultimately symbolic, not real. Real is a lot more difficult than is generally acknowledged...

Apologies to the board - this is no doubt too personal, too unresolved for "general consumption", probably should just sit and stew, rather than pump out this unformed, negative ambiguity. Maybe next time, ok?

[Michael Weiss]

Like I said, I know mine is a minority viewpoint, and probably with good reason. I'm probably a Philestine or some such these days when it comes to stuff li,e this. But the bridge to "Off Minor" is... it just is.

Well, like Monk said (if accurately attributed), "You got to dig it to dig it. You dig?" And all the biographical scholarship and insight won't help you dig the bridge to Off Minor any more than you already do/don't.... Oh wait – Unless there's a story in the book about the bridge to Off Minor and how Monk came up with it. Any conversations/documentation survive about that topic? I didn't think so.

While biographies offer plenty of useful info, the reader shouldn't be fooled into thinking they'll gain an easy-pass to appreciating the subject's music as a substitute for aural study.

[JSngry]

As for Gourse, Jim, just read a few pages of any of her many books (she spewed them out like chocolates in a Lucy skit) and you will see just what a cut 'n' paste hack she was.

No thanks. I am already convinced. I was just saying that her Monk book had stuff in it that I hadn't seen elsewhere. Unfortunately, it was also the exception.

[AllenLowe]

while I agree with Michael Weiss, I think any either/or approach is problematic - to me the greatest musicians (that I've known) were always engaged with other aspects of existence - one of which is biography and the examination of what people do and why they do it (even when that question is finally un-resolvable). One of the prime weaknesses of a lot of American artists is a lack of inter-disciplinary curiosity; I actually think this was what Fitzgerald was referring to when he said we have no second acts - too many American artists (musicians, writers, et al) rely upon a narrow and very instinctive kind of discipline. When the initial sources/inspirations/techniques dry up or are exhausted, they too often have nothing to fall back upon for renewal, no larger background of discipline or exposure to other forms. The result is, frequently, a lapsing of creativity and an end to advance.

[JSngry]

And what's wrong with that?

[AllenLowe]

well, it's stasis. Ok for some, not for others - it doesn't work for me, doesn't work for many people I know. Leads to senility and even dementia sometimes (according to some recent studies). Leads also to older artists rejecting anything new in a kind of wave of false nostalgia, and to attempts to reign in the new, which can not be reigned in. Leads to people becoming jaded or smug, because they feel they know all there is to know. Leads to young people justifiably becoming impatient with older people. Leads to alienation and isolation. To me, but obviously not to everyone, that's equivalent to death.

Edited October 27, 2009 by AllenLowe

[Michael Weiss]

Knowing about Wayne's infatuation with Sci Fi I can hear it in Remote Control, Who Goes There!, Forbidden Plan-It!, Condition Red, etc. But it's just a little "ah-ha" moment kind of thing, and I already dig the music anyway. Too much intellectualizing going on here....

[AllenLowe]

or maybe not enough....