New Monk bio in progress by Robin Kelley

[Mark Stryker]

Re: earlier discussions of Asperger's syndrome in this thread: Interesting piece in today's New York Times about various issues surrounding the diagnosis of the condition and its relationship to other forms of autism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/0...ml?_r=1&hpw

Edited November 3, 2009 by Mark Stryker

[AllenLowe]

thanks, yes, saw that. I have a kid who's diagnosed as Aspergers/PDD NOS, so I'm always watching these things.

[7/4]

as long as it's not in Braille - or in People Magazine.

WTF is that supposed to mean???

.

[Lazaro Vega]

I don't know, that Monk always made people learn his music by ear no matter how long it took is insightful. The way he sings drum rhythms to Paul Motian and turns his life around, or tells Billy Higgins what not to play...I would bet that if you wanted to find out about the bridge to Off Minor in some way other than learning it by ear, "there's a footnote for that." He alludes to so many different sources of information for more specific investigation. Has anyone looked at the Butch Warren interview on MSNBC that he alludes to? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24864395

[JSngry]

I realize that this can sound obnoxious, but I am going to go with Seeline and Jsngry on this and turn to real life instead of books - how many of you here have ever had to deal with musicians with various emotional/psychological disorders? If so, do you see those disorders are merely life choices, or as difficult and destructive things? I ask this because I get the sense, re-Judith, that she has had little personal experience with the real thing, in terms of jazz musicians.

Personally I could name 20 people -

I could name 20 just within the last decade...

How do I deal with/see it/them? As people with "issues", some clearly bio-chemical, some more a behavioral dysfunctionality. To the extent that they can make the gig and make the gig happen, it's all good there. To the extent that they do not take over/attempt to take over my personal live/space/whatever, I try to be understanding, encouraging and supportive, usually with constructive results, at least in the short-term. But there comes a point where I got my own life to deal with, and it is not one which offers me the luxury or ability to offer unlimited "me" in service of an unsolvable "problem". And that's when the line gets drawn, not out of a lack of concern or anything, but simply as an act of self-defense/preservation/whatever you want to call it.

The worst for me is the cats who need help, know they need help, but refuse, sometimes militantly refuse, to get help and then expect you to continue to be thier support group. No. Not gonna happen.

[AllenLowe]

yes, I had a feeling you would know what I mean - personally I spent too many years chasing down dysfunctional jazz musicians, trying to get them to play (or at least stop hallucinating) - my complaint with Judith is that I don't get the sense that she has seen much of this up close, though I may be wrong.

[Larry Kart]

as long as it's not in Braille - or in People Magazine.

WTF is that supposed to mean???

Made sense to me -- as in "I'd rather read about it as long as I'm not blind or some sort of notorious celebrity."

[JSngry]

Frankly, I see a lot of arrested developement, people so in love with the notions of "art" and "artist" that simple day-to-day responsibility, like the act of paying a bill on time would shatter their creative world (I exaggerate, of course, but...). Hell, just grow the fuck up and accept the responsibility for all of your life, ya' know? It's been done, right? Miles was a freak, but he handled his business, as did Trane, as did any other number of people.

For every truly tortured genius like Bird, Bud, or Monk (although is "tortured" the right word for Monk?), there's at least as many, probably more, cats who just don't want to grow up & they construct all sorts of elaborate premises as to why they can't/shouldn't. I'm not talking about the cats with real bio-chemical problems either, just the ones who are always looking for a scam or a con or some other way to get you to handle their business for them. If the Gil Evans bio was to be believed, he was one of those type, and god knows that I love Gil Evans, but the lamenting of his rather limited output over the years could probably be just as directed at him as at any "industry indifference". That's what I'm talking about.

[AllenLowe]

I think from now on Larry will be my translator here - it beats Google Translation - but just to make it easier for 7/4, here it is in Turkish:

Sürece Braille içinde değil - veya People Magazine in.

Edited November 3, 2009 by AllenLowe

[7/4]

I think from now on Larry will be my translator here - it beats Google Translation - but just to make it easier for 7/4, here it is in Turkish:

Sürece Braille içinde değil - veya People Magazine in.

Thanks Larry - no need for Allen to be really nasty and sarcastic about it, but he's sick..he can't help himself.

[AllenLowe]

nah, it's just a life choice -

[jazzbo]

Frankly, I see a lot of arrested developement, people so in love with the notions of "art" and "artist" that simple day-to-day responsibility, like the act of paying a bill on time would shatter their creative world (I exaggerate, of course, but...). Hell, just grow the fuck up and accept the responsibility for all of your life, ya' know? It's been done, right? Miles was a freak, but he handled his business, as did Trane, as did any other number of people.

For every truly tortured genius like Bird, Bud, or Monk (although is "tortured" the right word for Monk?), there's at least as many, probably more, cats who just don't want to grow up & they construct all sorts of elaborate premises as to why they can't/shouldn't. I'm not talking about the cats with real bio-chemical problems either, just the ones who are always looking for a scam or a con or some other way to get you to handle their business for them. If the Gil Evans bio was to be believed, he was one of those type, and god knows that I love Gil Evans, but the lamenting of his rather limited output over the years could probably be just as directed at him as at any "industry indifference". That's what I'm talking about.

I agree.

Of course there are many artistic people who paid too much attention to the bills and the rent and the family scene. . .and never developed their art.

It's such a wonderful universe full of so many potentialities! (I've become an optimist; that has the potential to change.)

[AllenLowe]

well, I always remembered what I was told by a guy who did a LOT of work and booking with various avant garde jazz groups over the year: "No matter how successful you think those guys are just remember that just about every one of them could have been twice as successful if he wasn't so crazy."

Edited November 3, 2009 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

Of course there are many artistic people who paid too much attention to the bills and the rent and the family scene. . .and never developed their art.

This is also very true. The ideal is to have support that does not become a crutch, but that requires resonably "healthy" attitudes on the part of all concerned, and...good luck on that!

Seriously, nobody's perfect, and whatever works between peoples works. I just get tired of "excuse making" taking the place of self-responsibility. It's something that never really bothered me until my kids got to be teenagers...

[AllenLowe]

yeah the kids change things - I remember Paul Bley telling me he thought Al Haig was "depraved." I said, "why?"

"At 4 oclock in the morning he had his kid in the car, coming home from a gig."

[AllenLowe]

one recurring theme in the Kelley book that I'm skeptical about is that Monk, contrary to myth, was utterly reliable for gigs - and I just found this little quote from Teddy Charles on Marc Myers' Jazz Wax site, about the 52nd Street scene in the 1940s on Coleman Hawkins' gig:

"I knew Hank Jones, who was often in the club with another band. One time when Monk didn't arrive by show time, Hank told me to go up and play. So I did. I was fearless then. I sat down and played behind Coleman Hawkins until Monk walked in. Then I’d clear out. After that I sat in regularly until Monk arrived."

hmmmmm....sounds like a fairly regular thing -

[papsrus]

At first I thought you people were talking about that pop psychologist Dr. Laura Schlesinger. ... Whew.

Read the article at AAJ. Doesn't really shed much light one way or the other, seems to me.

The article makes a lot of sense in light of the way Kelley presents certain things in his book, but I can see how it would be largely "?" if you don't have access to a copy.

Yes, perhaps. Although I would point out Schlesinger herself states she hadn't read the entire book at the time she wrote the piece. My takeaway from her article is that she wanted to correct some of Kelley's misuse of terms, but then goes on to make suppositions about Monk's mental state herself that seem loosely grounded. Sort of a "could be this, could be that," kind of thing. And really, that's probably the best that can be managed at this point.

Is there any indication in the footnotes that Kelley consulted with a psychologist during the writing of the book?

Edited November 3, 2009 by papsrus

[seeline]

At first I thought you people were talking about that pop psychologist Dr. Laura Schlesinger. ... Whew.

Read the article at AAJ. Doesn't really shed much light one way or the other, seems to me.

The article makes a lot of sense in light of the way Kelley presents certain things in his book, but I can see how it would be largely "?" if you don't have access to a copy.

Yes, perhaps. Although I would point out Schlesinger herself states she hadn't read the entire book at the time she wrote the piece. My takeaway from her article is that she wanted to correct some of Kelley's misuse of terms, but then goes on to make suppositions about Monk's mental state herself that seem loosely grounded. Sort of a "could be this, could be that," kind of thing. And really, that's probably the best that can be managed at this point.

Is there any indication in the footnotes that Kelley consulted with a psychologist during the writing of the book?

Yeah, I wish that piece hadn't been rushed into publication. And you're right that it's supposition - at very best - on anyone's part at this point.

Re. the notes, I need to check... (100 pp. of endnotes!)

[blajay]

At first I thought you people were talking about that pop psychologist Dr. Laura Schlesinger. ... Whew.

Read the article at AAJ. Doesn't really shed much light one way or the other, seems to me.

The article makes a lot of sense in light of the way Kelley presents certain things in his book, but I can see how it would be largely "?" if you don't have access to a copy.

Yes, perhaps. Although I would point out Schlesinger herself states she didn't read the entire book at the time she wrote the piece. My takeaway from her article is that she wanted to correct some of Kelley's misuse of terms, but then goes on to make suppositions about Monk's mental state herself that seem loosely grounded. Sort of a "could be this, could be that," kind of thing. And really, that's probably the best that can be managed at this point.

Is there any indication in the footnotes that Kelley consulted with a psychologist during the writing of the book?

Yeah, seriously. With that article and most of this thread, to be frank, I feel like I've shown up to class eager to discuss after working hard on my homework, and the ones dominating class discussion didn't read it. She also misspelled Kelley's name twice. It struck me as a poorly thought out rant that should not have been published, even on an online site like that. It is unfortunate considering how fantastic some articles on AAJ are, like Clifford's.

Edited November 28, 2009 by zanonesdelpueblo

[blajay]

At first I thought you people were talking about that pop psychologist Dr. Laura Schlesinger. ... Whew.

Read the article at AAJ. Doesn't really shed much light one way or the other, seems to me.

The article makes a lot of sense in light of the way Kelley presents certain things in his book, but I can see how it would be largely "?" if you don't have access to a copy.

Yes, perhaps. Although I would point out Schlesinger herself states she didn't read the entire book at the time she wrote the piece. My takeaway from her article is that she wanted to correct some of Kelley's misuse of terms, but then goes on to make suppositions about Monk's mental state herself that seem loosely grounded. Sort of a "could be this, could be that," kind of thing. And really, that's probably the best that can be managed at this point.

Is there any indication in the footnotes that Kelley consulted with a psychologist during the writing of the book?

Yeah, seriously. With that article and most of this thread, to be frank, I feel like I've shown up to class eager to discuss after working hard on my homework, and the ones dominating class discussion didn't read it. She also misspelled Kelley's name twice. It struck me as a poorly thought out rant that should not have been published, even on an online site like that. It is unfortunate considering how fantastic some articles on AAJ are, like Clifford's.

Perhaps because the ones that have read his book are impressed and satisfied with it.

Edited November 28, 2009 by zanonesdelpueblo

[AllenLowe]

well, since I'm the only one here who actually ever stood NEXT to Monk -

I can definitely say he was tall.

Edited November 3, 2009 by AllenLowe

[7/4]

I was on the same planet as Monk once, so I must know what I'm talking about.

.

[seeline]

Yeah... so many of the posts on this thread are tangential - and I'm including some of my own in that category.

Still, it is what it is a this point.

I do wish we could steer it toward other aspects of Monk's life - and Kelley's bio., though. (I've made a few efforts in that direction over the past day, as have others.)

*

So, have any of you had a chance to The Jazz Baroness? If you have, how do you think it fits with the book, or argues against the book, or... ???

For me, the interview segments with T.S. were a highlight.

Edited November 3, 2009 by seeline

[AllenLowe]

well, let me add something that Kelley did not get quite right - though he mentions that Teddy Wilson admired Monk, he doesn't mention why except in general terms -

Dick Katz told me that when he was studying with Wilson, Wilson told him "go hear Monk - he's a rhythm master." I always found this fascinating because not only were they from different generations but they were such different players - and to me this was a tribute to Wilson's open ears. It made me admire him even more.

Edited November 3, 2009 by AllenLowe

[Larry Kart]

There's a wonderful Wilson version of "'Round Midnight" here:

http://www.amazon.com/Then-They-Wrote-Wils...2526&sr=1-1

Brighter in tempo than most performances, it makes the piece's Swing Era roots quite clear. On the same fine album, there's a striking reading of Kenton "Artistry In Rhythm."