New Monk bio in progress by Robin Kelley

[jazzbo]

Interesting. Thanks.

[jazzbo]

Interesting. Thanks.

[AllenLowe]

problem is that she starts with a reasonable premise (the difficulty of distant diagnosis) and comes to an idiotic conclusion, per Monk's last days: "This is not psychosis: this is choice"

once again I will cite Barry Harris, who lived with Monk for those last years - and who's very loving depiction of Monk's last days was filled with an understanding that something was seriously wrong - "he would start a conversation, stop it, and than continue it months later, in the same place, as though no time had passed."

so she is making her own distant diagnosis - I would beware of Schlessinger, who reminds me of that very popular 1960s-70s shrink (sorry, can't remember his name) who took a relativist position of mental illness, that it was really a reaction to society and not indicative of personal psychosis. Anyone who has ever lived with or dealt with such a person knows otherwise, and even Monk's family, fond as they clearly were of him, obviously (on the evidence of this book) know otherwise.

Edited November 2, 2009 by AllenLowe

[7/4]

problem is that she starts with a reasonable premise (the difficulty of distant diagnosis) and comes to an idiotic conclusion, per Monk's last days: "This is not psychosis: this is choice"

once again I will cite Barry Harris, who lived with Monk for those last years - and who's very loving depiction of Monk's last days was filled with an understanding that something was seriously wrong - "he would start a conversation, stop it, and than continue it months later, in the same place, as though no time had passed."

So what? My Dad's been doing that for years.

so she is making her own distant diagnosis - I would beware of Schlessinger, who reminds me of that very popular 1960s-70s shrink (sorry, can't remember his name) who took a relativist position of mental illness, that it was really a reaction to society and not indicative of personal psychosis. Anyone who has ever lived with or dealt with such a person knows otherwise, and even Monk's family, fond as they clearly were of him, obviously (on the evidence of this book) know otherwise.

What ever...Doctor (cough).

[AllenLowe]

yes, whatever. The only people who think this stuff is just garden variety eccentricity are the ones who have not had to deal with it up close.

If I lived with someone who did not speak for months at a time, I would consider it to be something more than a personal choice.

[jazzbo]

I definitely agree with you. I lived with someone who would go into time warps. They didn't want to. They only chose to in that it was part of their compulsive behavior, they chose to "reflect" and went into that mode.

[AllenLowe]

Schlessinger has apparently written a book debunking the "crazy genius" theory, I don't know, but we used to clash a bit over on the ** list (would write Jazz Research but don't want to get in trouble). First of all, I don't think that many people subscribe to the theory anymore; but I would add that some of the most hyper-creative people I've known have had eccentric tendencies, to say the least, and often much more than that. I think it's a trait of people who see the world a bit differently, as Monk obviously did. There is definitely a different kind of vision there, and, not surprisingly, it affects aspects of personality (though cause and effect are probably skewed). Beyond that I leave it to Dr. Judith, who should spend a year living with a Monk-ish personality and than report back on all of his charming quirks.

Edited November 2, 2009 by AllenLowe

[7/4]

I would think there's a difference between starting a conversation, stopping it, and than continuing it months later and not talking for three months.

I've been on the internet for 17 years...I know a net kook when I see one, so I'm talking from experience.

edit: of course, that's just a distant diagnosis.

Edited November 2, 2009 by 7/4

[AllenLowe]

uh...7/4 - don't wanna scare you, but this was BEFORE the internet -

[7/4]

uh...7/4 - don't wanna scare you, but this was BEFORE the internet -

...and woosh! there it goes...over his head and outta the ball park.

.

[AllenLowe]

I think you're looking for the SPORTS discussion -

[seeline]

I know Judith and while I don't necessarily agree with everything she writes (in this article or elsewhere), I think she knows what she's talking about. (From multiple angles.) And she's absolutely on target re. Kelley's misunderstanding of terminology.

Seems like some commenters would be better off starting a thread about her article over on AAJ... where she can respond directly. (It would be fairer to her, imo.) ** It's possible to leave comments on the article itself (as opposed to on the AAJ board), so...

Edited November 2, 2009 by seeline

[seeline]

As for people supposedly not putting stock in the notion that "musicians and artists are crazy people" anymore, well... Kay Redfield Jamison won a McArthur Foundation grant for advocating just that, in her book Touched with Fire. She's widely cited as an expert on all things related to the arts and mental illness - there was even a JazzTimes cover story on her ideas published a number of years ago.

I think Judith S. has been very much on the money in her analyses of Jamison's work. (Several of them can be found on the AAJ site; one is a rebuttal of the JT cover story.)

A lot of people - in my experience, at least - tend to accept Jamison's ideas without really examining them carefully. The thing is, there's some good (if older) literature on the subject of "mad artists" out there that covers similar ground, but far more carefully. (Like Born Under Saturn: The Character and Conduct of Artists, by the late Rudolf and Margot Wittkower. Schlesinger cites them, but the book has been around for over 40 years and is something just about anyone who studies art history - which I did - ends up reading at some point or another.)

To be fair to Jamison, she may be right in guessing that some artists, writers, composers (etc.) were bipolar, but I think that one of her biggest limitations is that she sees everything through that lens. (She is herself bipolar - see her book An Unquiet Mind for more.)

fwis, anyway...

Edited November 2, 2009 by seeline

[Lazaro Vega]

Some of you have probably already seen this, and it has nothing to do directly with the Kelley book, but thought it might be of interest. Some notes of advice Monk wrote to Steve Lacy. Beyond that, the thread at AAJ doesn't really offer much further insight about where it came from.

This is mentioned in the Kelly Book, and in the footnote doubts its authenticity. Published after Steve Lacy passed away, and since he put out almost everything he ever wrote this was kind a golden kernel (so why didn't it come out when he was alive, reasons Kelly, who doesn't come right out and say it's a fake, but is skeptical). Lacy did mention many of these things in interviews over the years, however. Found the segment in Kelly's book on Lacy with Monk at the Jazz Gallery the most comprehensive bit on that history that I've come across. Recall talking to Lacy about it a bit, too. He mentioned the Jazz Gallery, the repertoire -- didn't realize, though, that Rouse and Lacy began their blending sounds at that point. They sounded great in that one-off "That's The Way I Feel Now" recording that Hal Wilner put together.

[fasstrack]

If this is the newest book just out I just gave it a thorough perusal today, and it seems excellent. A lot of good interviews and it seems well-researched. I plan to read it cover-to-cover.

[jeffcrom]

Some of you have probably already seen this, and it has nothing to do directly with the Kelley book, but thought it might be of interest. Some notes of advice Monk wrote to Steve Lacy. Beyond that, the thread at AAJ doesn't really offer much further insight about where it came from.

This is mentioned in the Kelly Book, and in the footnote doubts its authenticity. Published after Steve Lacy passed away, and since he put out almost everything he ever wrote this was kind a golden kernel (so why didn't it come out when he was alive, reasons Kelly, who doesn't come right out and say it's a fake, but is skeptical). Lacy did mention many of these things in interviews over the years, however. Found the segment in Kelly's book on Lacy with Monk at the Jazz Gallery the most comprehensive bit on that history that I've come across. Recall talking to Lacy about it a bit, too. He mentioned the Jazz Gallery, the repertoire -- didn't realize, though, that Rouse and Lacy began their blending sounds at that point. They sounded great in that one-off "That's The Way I Feel Now" recording that Hal Wilner put together.

Missed that footnote (I'll try to find it), but this is Lacy's handwriting. It's not anything Monk wrote out for Lacy - it appears to be Lacy's notes on things Monk told him. Compare it to other writings in Lacy's hand (like on pp. 259 & 262 of Steve Lacy: Conversations edited by Jason Weiss) - it's obviously Lacy's handwriting.

Later edit: Just found the footnote - Kelly seems to think that this is someone's attempt to forge Lacy's handwriting. I'm not a handwriting expert, but I did some letter-by-letter comparisons from a postcard Mr. Lacy sent me, and I'm convinced that it's Lacy's writing. The shape of of the "D" and "H," for example, is the same. If it looks different from other examples of Lacy's writing I've seen, it's because it's sloppier - and that would be easy to understand Lacy was writing in his own notebook, not for other people to read.

Edited November 2, 2009 by jeffcrom

[AllenLowe]

Seeline - may I ask - re: Monk's last days, his long silence - do you agree with Judith that "This is not psychosis: this is choice" ?

also, Jamison book or not (I haven't seen it) - I just don't know anybody anymore who subscribes to a glib, "crazy" genius theory. I'm sure there are some people out there - but I never hear it anymore in any larger journalistic way.

I mean, in the jazz world - nobody calls Louis Armstrong crazy, or Duke Ellington, or Sonny Rollins.

Edited November 2, 2009 by AllenLowe

[Chuck Nessa]

Not sure about that last sentence.

[AllenLowe]

well, not crazy like Jack the Ripper - or Monk. Eccentric, maybe, a little nutty, but not crazy.

I think..................

Edited November 3, 2009 by AllenLowe

[medjuck]

Some of you have probably already seen this, and it has nothing to do directly with the Kelley book, but thought it might be of interest. Some notes of advice Monk wrote to Steve Lacy. Beyond that, the thread at AAJ doesn't really offer much further insight about where it came from.

Thomas Pynchon cribs from this in the epigraph to Against the Day though he makes it a bit more poetic: "It's always night or they wouldn't need light.-- Thelonious Monk"

[blajay]

Some of you have probably already seen this, and it has nothing to do directly with the Kelley book, but thought it might be of interest. Some notes of advice Monk wrote to Steve Lacy. Beyond that, the thread at AAJ doesn't really offer much further insight about where it came from.

Thomas Pynchon cribs from this in the epigraph to Against the Day though he makes it a bit more poetic: "It's always night or they wouldn't need light.-- Thelonious Monk"

I believe Kelley, himself, actually quotes it in his book Freedom Dreams, too, talking about surrealism.

[JSngry]

So, does the fact that I've learned a big bunch about a whole lot of stuff from the work of somebody who was at some level mentally disturbed mean that what I've learned makes me, or could make me, mentally disturbed as well? Do I have to be/be prone to being mentally disturbed to even pick up on these things in the first place? What if all I ever knew about Monk in my entire life was his music, would I be missing something, including the risk of becoming/not becoming mentally disturbed? Should I approach them differently knowing that Monk was mentally disturbed?

I mean, I know that at one level this stuff "matters". But on another, perhaps bigger/higher/whatever one, I don't think it does. Learn the songs, play the songs, teach the songs. Find the music in them and then find that music within yourself. Then read a book about it, maybe.

[blajay]

Some of you have probably already seen this, and it has nothing to do directly with the Kelley book, but thought it might be of interest. Some notes of advice Monk wrote to Steve Lacy. Beyond that, the thread at AAJ doesn't really offer much further insight about where it came from.

Thomas Pynchon cribs from this in the epigraph to Against the Day though he makes it a bit more poetic: "It's always night or they wouldn't need light.-- Thelonious Monk"

I believe Kelley, himself, actually quotes it in his book Freedom Dreams, too, talking about surrealism.

It’s always night or we wouldn’t need light....

It is no surprise that Thelonious Monk turned out to be one of the surrealists’ major heroes. Monk’s music appealed especially to the surrealists’ struggle for complete freedom and the overthrow of bourgeois concepts of beauty and art. He made music that destroyed many Western ideas about music making, turning conventional rules of composition, harmony, and rhythm on their heads. He stripped romantic ballads of their romanticism and took his listeners on wild harmonic rides filled with surprising dissonances… (Kelley, Freedom Dreams p. 157-162)

[paul secor]

So, does the fact that I've learned a big bunch about a whole lot of stuff from the work of somebody who was at some level mentally disturbed mean that what I've learned makes me, or could make me, mentally disturbed as well? Do I have to be/be prone to being mentally disturbed to even pick up on these things in the first place? What if all I ever knew about Monk in my entire life was his music, would I be missing something, including the risk of becoming/not becoming mentally disturbed? Should I approach them differently knowing that Monk was mentally disturbed?

I mean, I know that at one level this stuff "matters". But on another, perhaps bigger/higher/whatever one, I don't think it does. Learn the songs, play the songs, teach the songs. Find the music in them and then find that music within yourself. Then read a book about it, maybe.

This makes more sense to me than just about anything else I've read in this thread.

[AllenLowe]

give us a break - why do you do anything? Read any books? Talk to anybody?

Just do stuff - why read about anything? It might make us think about what we do. And that's a very bad thing, oh yes. I mean, why do we read about politics and history? Let's just go out and make history. Let's run for office. Let's make policy whether we know anything about it or not. Let us get rid of written history. We just need to learn how to do everything.

why do we come here? because other people say things which may interest us or teach us something?

I mean we already know enough stuff already. We are each historically self sufficient. And music is just notes anyway. Has nothing to do with the person who makes it.

we should just be something. Personally I'd rather live life than read about it.

Edited November 3, 2009 by AllenLowe