New Monk bio in progress by Robin Kelley

[AllenLowe]

yes, I agree, and the point I was making was basically the same as you make at the end of your post - the fallacy of any attempt to narrowly find that "eureka" moment which does not really exist (and which, 60 years later, cannot be clearly defined) -

honestly, if I had to made a somewhat educated guess, I would say that Bud Powell was much more influential than Monk in this way - listen to the 1942 recordings with Cootie, for a start - Bud was as harmonically advanced as Monk, and probably more accessible to other musicians - as a matter of fact Curley Russell said that one reason he became so much in demand in the early bebop days was because he was good at reading the chords from pianists' left hands - well, try this with Monk-

but ultimately I would go with Al Haig on this who said something to the effect that there were just a bunch of musicians working on similar things in different parts of the country and that it was a mistake to call anyone the first to do anything -

HOWEVER - from what Haig told me (and I heard same from Bill Triglia and Schildkraut) - Bud Powell was the pianist that everyone followed everywhere (Triglia and Haig literally followed him from club to club - he was really, to their way of thinking, the source, not just for piano in that era but harmony and rhythm, as much as Bird was) -

Edited October 24, 2009 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

It seems to me that Monk was, as Trane would say later of Monk's gift, the Architect of the underlying changes in the music that the virtuoso stylists were innovating with or on. That seems to be what people were turning to him for in the Minton's days.

"

Since 3 is pretty much a holy number across time & humanity (and eliminates the possibility of "either/or"), consider Dizzy's position that Monk had the chord changes, Bird had the rhythm, and he had the organizational principles.

Harmony, rhythm, & structure. Sounds like a plan to me.

Now, which one is "more important"?

[Larry Kart]

zanonesdelpueblo -- Could you cite a page number or two where Kelley uses "solfeggio" in that odd way? I have the book but am waiting to finish something else before I start. Consulted the index, but that didn't help (which may be my fault),

The first reference I saw was on page 72, paragraph 2. However, I am only about 100 pages in.

It's clear from that reference that what Kelley means by "sing solfeggio while he played" is that Monk made sounds that approximated/stood for the pitches he played as he played them. It was not, I think, a good idea to use the term that loosely because "solfeggio" has a common and more specific meaning: "The singing, especially as a musical teaching device, of scales, intervals, and melodic exercises to solmization syllables [i.e. where pitches are designated by specific syllables rather than letter names]." Perhaps a tad pretentious on Kelley's part, especially when he adds "though a more precise description might be groaning, moaning, and humming," but no big deal.

[JSngry]

Not a big deal, but still, blatant bullshit that didn't have to happen. Why didn't the editor just step in and say "dude.....no"? Just do your job and make it not happen.

Call me Kitty Kallen if you like, but little things mean a lot.

[AllenLowe]

well, you know, I agree, much as I admire the book (still reading through). But this, really, and I'm not just being obsessive, is a problem with the vast majority of academic books on jazz that I read. Fortunately Kelly really, in its essence, seems to understand Monk's music, so in this case it works out. But I was just discussing with a critic (a good one) last night how frustrating it is to deal with the basic lack of exposure most people engaged in jazz and American studies have to broader types of jazz and pop music. It gets downright strange sometimes. You talk to them and mention what you assume are common frames of musical reference and you get blank stares.

[Harold_Z]

but ultimately I would go with Al Haig on this who said something to the effect that there were just a bunch of musicians working on similar things in different parts of the country and that it was a mistake to call anyone the first to do anything -

That makes the most sense to me. Not only as regards BeBop but all jazz - from it's development forward.

[medjuck]

Are there any extant recordings from Minton's or Monroe's that display Monk's uniqueness. I've always been surprised that on the recordings I've heard that claim to haves Monk on piano I've been unable to recognize anything very "Monkish".

[JSngry]

The quality of the recordings kinda hides it, but his touch &underlying "pulse" are both there from the git-go.

also keep in mind that earlier issues of the Christian/Gillespie/Monk matreial didn't note that Monk (or Diz) was only on a few cuts, the rest being Kenny Kersey, iirc. Other Jerry Newman-sourced sessions on Onyx were more carefully documented.

[medjuck]

yes, I agree, and the point I was making was basically the same as you make at the end of your post - the fallacy of any attempt to narrowly find that "eureka" moment which does not really exist (and which, 60 years later, cannot be clearly defined) -

honestly, if I had to made a somewhat educated guess, I would say that Bud Powell was much more influential than Monk in this way - listen to the 1942 recordings with Cootie, for a start - Bud was as harmonically advanced as Monk, and probably more accessible to other musicians - as a matter of fact Curley Russell said that one reason he became so much in demand in the early bebop days was because he was good at reading the chords from pianists' left hands - well, try this with Monk-

but ultimately I would go with Al Haig on this who said something to the effect that there were just a bunch of musicians working on similar things in different parts of the country and that it was a mistake to call anyone the first to do anything -

HOWEVER - from what Haig told me (and I heard same from Bill Triglia and Schildkraut) - Bud Powell was the pianist that everyone followed everywhere (Triglia and Haig literally followed him from club to club - he was really, to their way of thinking, the source, not just for piano in that era but harmony and rhythm, as much as Bird was) -

In his "Inside Be-Bop" ("Written by America's No.1 authority on Be-Bop" it says on the cover of the 1949 edition I found somewhere) Leonard Feather quotes Kenny Clark as saying Bud Powell "used to do all the things Monk wanted to do but couldn't. Bud had more technique; Monk was a teacher, a creator rather than a soloist." Feather was never exactly a Monk fan.

[Larry Kart]

Not a big deal, but still, blatant bullshit that didn't have to happen. Why didn't the editor just step in and say "dude.....no"? Just do your job and make it not happen.

Call me Kitty Kallen if you like, but little things mean a lot.

What makes you think that the editor, if there even was one in the sense you mean (i.e. a text editor rather than an acquisitions editor; that kind of editor typically doesn't do more than glance at manuscripts), would have known the difference? In the case of my book -- a compilation of previously published pieces, with some new material -- Yale U. Press told me that they don't text edit such manuscripts in house, that if I wanted that kind of editing they would recommend some freelancers but that I'd have to pay him or her out of my own pocket! I took that route (cost was $800; my advance against royalties was $1,000) and am glad I did (he caught some errors and even said that he enjoyed reading the thing), but this text-editor knew little about jazz or music, so if I'd made a mistake in that area, he wouldn't have caught it. No doubt Kelley's situation was a bit different -- he speaks of a long gestation process and credits two editors, one of them as a "musician-editor" -- but, I'd be surprised if either one pored over the manuscript per se with pencil in hand.

[JSngry]

Not a big deal, but still, blatant bullshit that didn't have to happen. Why didn't the editor just step in and say "dude.....no"? Just do your job and make it not happen.

Call me Kitty Kallen if you like, but little things mean a lot.

What makes you think that the editor, if there even was one in the sense you mean (i.e. a text editor rather than an acquisitions editor; that kind of editor typically doesn't do more than glance at manuscripts), would have known the difference? In the case of my book -- a compilation of previously published pieces, with some new material -- Yale U. Press told me that they don't text edit such manuscripts in house, that if I wanted that kind of editing they would recommend some freelancers but that I'd have to pay him or her out of my own pocket! I took that route (cost was $800; my advance against royalties was $1,000) and am glad I did (he caught some errors and even said that he enjoyed reading the thing), but this text-editor knew little about jazz or music, so if I'd made a mistake in that area, he wouldn't have caught it. No doubt Kelley's situation was a bit different -- he speaks of a long gestation process and credits two editors, one of them as a "musician-editor" -- but, I'd be surprised if either one pored over the manuscript per se with pencil in hand.

Yet further proof that it's A World Gone Wrong.

[paul secor]

:blush2:

yes, I agree, and the point I was making was basically the same as you make at the end of your post - the fallacy of any attempt to narrowly find that "eureka" moment which does not really exist (and which, 60 years later, cannot be clearly defined) -

honestly, if I had to made a somewhat educated guess, I would say that Bud Powell was much more influential than Monk in this way - listen to the 1942 recordings with Cootie, for a start - Bud was as harmonically advanced as Monk, and probably more accessible to other musicians - as a matter of fact Curley Russell said that one reason he became so much in demand in the early bebop days was because he was good at reading the chords from pianists' left hands - well, try this with Monk-

but ultimately I would go with Al Haig on this who said something to the effect that there were just a bunch of musicians working on similar things in different parts of the country and that it was a mistake to call anyone the first to do anything -

HOWEVER - from what Haig told me (and I heard same from Bill Triglia and Schildkraut) - Bud Powell was the pianist that everyone followed everywhere (Triglia and Haig literally followed him from club to club - he was really, to their way of thinking, the source, not just for piano in that era but harmony and rhythm, as much as Bird was) -

In his "Inside Be-Bop" ("Written by America's No.1 authority on Be-Bop" it says on the cover of the 1949 edition I found somewhere) Leonard Feather quotes Kenny Clark as saying Bud Powell "used to do all the things Monk wanted to do but couldn't. Bud had more technique; Monk was a teacher, a creator rather than a soloist." Feather was never exactly a Monk fan.

Guess if I'm gonna go along with Len and Kenny Clarke I'll have to tune out whenever Monk solos on all the Monk records I have.

[Larry Kart]

On the other hand, one of the so-called "readers" who read my manuscript in order to advise the publisher whether it was worth doing at all was musician-writer Bill Kirchner, and Bill didn't let anything get past him. With such books on somewhat specialized subjects, it's probably in that stage that the author is going to get the most help.

[JSngry]

yes, I agree, and the point I was making was basically the same as you make at the end of your post - the fallacy of any attempt to narrowly find that "eureka" moment which does not really exist (and which, 60 years later, cannot be clearly defined) -

honestly, if I had to made a somewhat educated guess, I would say that Bud Powell was much more influential than Monk in this way - listen to the 1942 recordings with Cootie, for a start - Bud was as harmonically advanced as Monk, and probably more accessible to other musicians - as a matter of fact Curley Russell said that one reason he became so much in demand in the early bebop days was because he was good at reading the chords from pianists' left hands - well, try this with Monk-

but ultimately I would go with Al Haig on this who said something to the effect that there were just a bunch of musicians working on similar things in different parts of the country and that it was a mistake to call anyone the first to do anything -

HOWEVER - from what Haig told me (and I heard same from Bill Triglia and Schildkraut) - Bud Powell was the pianist that everyone followed everywhere (Triglia and Haig literally followed him from club to club - he was really, to their way of thinking, the source, not just for piano in that era but harmony and rhythm, as much as Bird was) -

In his "Inside Be-Bop" ("Written by America's No.1 authority on Be-Bop" it says on the cover of the 1949 edition I found somewhere) Leonard Feather quotes Kenny Clark as saying Bud Powell "used to do all the things Monk wanted to do but couldn't. Bud had more technique; Monk was a teacher, a creator rather than a soloist." Feather was never exactly a Monk fan.

And yet many more say that Bud was Monk's protege early on, that Bud dug the shit outta Monk & followed Monk around night & day.

Bud was sui generis, as was Monk, as was Bird, as was Dizzy (when he let himself be). Attempts to place one over the other are just more "divide and conquer" tricksterisms.

[JSngry]

On the other hand, one of the so-called "readers" who read my manuscript in order to advise the publisher whether it was worth doing at all was musician-writer Bill Kirchner, and Bill didn't let anything get past him. With such books on somewhat specialized subjects, it's probably in that stage that the author is going to get the most help.

Imagine if somebody wrote a book about food which confused lemongrass with lemons. If I knew/cared about food at a certain level, that would leave a sour (no pun intended) taste in my mouth for the rest of the book, no matter how spot on it might otherwise have been.

Guaranteeing proper use of craft-specific terminology is a simple sign of respect for that craft. I've lived in a time where the craft was respected while the art was overlooked, now sometimes I feel that it's the craft that is getting disrespected & the art glorified. Neither is a satisfactory dynamic as far as I'm concerned, becuase ultimately you can't have one without the other, not in a living, breathing world.

I don't know about that $800.00 guy, but who was your real buddy? Bill Kirchner, that's who.

Is that an actual career, being a reader for music books and stopping it before it gets started? If so, how much does the gig pay, and where do I go for an interview?

[umum_cypher]

On the other hand, one of the so-called "readers" who read my manuscript in order to advise the publisher whether it was worth doing at all was musician-writer Bill Kirchner, and Bill didn't let anything get past him. With such books on somewhat specialized subjects, it's probably in that stage that the author is going to get the most help.

Imagine if somebody wrote a book about food which confused lemongrass with lemons. If I knew/cared about food at a certain level, that would leave a sour (no pun intended) taste in my mouth for the rest of the book, no matter how spot on it might otherwise have been.

Guaranteeing proper use of craft-specific terminology is a simple sign of respect for that craft. I've lived in a time where the craft was respected while the art was overlooked, now sometimes I feel that it's the craft that is getting disrespected & the art glorified. Neither is a satisfactory dynamic as far as I'm concerned, becuase ultimately you can't have one without the other, not in a living, breathing world.

I don't know about that $800.00 guy, but who was your real buddy? Bill Kirchner, that's who.

Is that an actual career, being a reader for music books and stopping it before it gets started? If so, how much does the gig pay, and where do I go for an interview?

A few academic presses now ask for camera-ready copy - what you send is what goes on the page, not even any proofing. In a hothouse university 'research' culture where academics publish whatever because they have to, not because it's important, or ready, that's how it's going to be - thousands of poorly produced titles and a miniscule margin for the publisher. Respect for the craft is nowhere in that equation.

In this case I'd be wary of criticising a historian for slightly clumsy music vocab use, since most music scholars come off far worse when (if) they try and engage with history - proper history, not chronology and list making.

[medjuck]

The quality of the recordings kinda hides it, but his touch &underlying "pulse" are both there from the git-go.

also keep in mind that earlier issues of the Christian/Gillespie/Monk matreial didn't note that Monk (or Diz) was only on a few cuts, the rest being Kenny Kersey, iirc. Other Jerry Newman-sourced sessions on Onyx were more carefully documented.

Yes, even the 2nd edition of the Monk discography doesn't seem to distinguish between the 2 pianists. On the other hand I have a Don Byas cd entitled Midnight at Minton's that has 2 tracks presumably with Monk that aren't in the Monk discography: "Uptown" and "Body and Soul". Is there a source for the correct discography of early bootlegged Monk?

(Or maybe the book under discussion which I'm about to order has one.)

[Larry Kart]

On the other hand, one of the so-called "readers" who read my manuscript in order to advise the publisher whether it was worth doing at all was musician-writer Bill Kirchner, and Bill didn't let anything get past him. With such books on somewhat specialized subjects, it's probably in that stage that the author is going to get the most help.

Imagine if somebody wrote a book about food which confused lemongrass with lemons. If I knew/cared about food at a certain level, that would leave a sour (no pun intended) taste in my mouth for the rest of the book, no matter how spot on it might otherwise have been.

Guaranteeing proper use of craft-specific terminology is a simple sign of respect for that craft. I've lived in a time where the craft was respected while the art was overlooked, now sometimes I feel that it's the craft that is getting disrespected & the art glorified. Neither is a satisfactory dynamic as far as I'm concerned, becuase ultimately you can't have one without the other, not in a living, breathing world.

I don't know about that $800.00 guy, but who was your real buddy? Bill Kirchner, that's who.

Is that an actual career, being a reader for music books and stopping it before it gets started? If so, how much does the gig pay, and where do I go for an interview?

Well, both Bill and the $800 guy were necessary, but Bill's kind of expertise and care were much rarer than what the $800 guy had to give, though he was very good of his kind.

No, "being a reader for music books" is not a career, though there are fees or honorariums; the one time I did it, I got to pick $150 worth of books from the publisher's backlist -- whoopee! Usually (or so I believe), the problem from the publisher's point of view is that the people who are qualified to give an opinion are also very conscientious and therefore understandably unwilling to put a good deal of time and effort into a task that doesn't really "pay." Either that, or they do agree to do it and then push the job to the back of their "things to do" list and take a very long time to report back, thus holding up the whole project. Assuming that the reader is one of the right people, it works out best when he or she thinks that the book, if done well, would really be worth doing; then everything -- motivation, judgment, etc. -- falls into place.

[DukeCity]

Is there a difference between solfeggio and grunting?

Not if you listen to some of my students try to sing.

[JSngry]

I'd be wary of criticising a historian for slightly clumsy music vocab use,

It's not "slightly clumsy", it's fundamentally incorrect.

[umum_cypher]

I'd be wary of criticising a historian for slightly clumsy music vocab use,

It's not "slightly clumsy", it's fundamentally incorrect.

I'm not saying he's above criticism, far from it. In the binary opposition sense critiqued above this is fundamentally incorrect, but I'd be inclined to cut him a little slack - it's wrong, but you know what Kelley's driving at, at least. Should have been edited though.

[AllenLowe]

Medjuck - I don't have it in front of me out now but I included at least two early Monk performances on Devilin Tune that were from that period, and from Jerry Newman recordings, though at this moment I can't tell you what they are (will try and dig it out in a little while) - on the other Minton's recordings (like maybe Topsy) I believe one can hear Monk do some interesting early stuff -

as for editing I will say that I didn't pay anyone, but, to my eternal gratefulness, Dick Spottswood read my ms before it went to press, and was extremely helpful.

and for a self-plug, I honestly think I did a better job in the book part of Devilin Tune than anyone else out there at balancing the technical with the impressionistic, in terms of descriptions of musical performances. Though I am about to do a re-write to improve things that, with the passing of time, do not look so good anymore.

Edited October 24, 2009 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

found it - on Volume 3, CD 7 of Devilin Tune I include excerpts from Melancholy Baby/I've Got Rhythm/Nice Work if You Can Get it -

all from 1941, clearly Monk and very much in character. These are live shots, Jerry Newman, and I THINK they're from Mintons, but I have to do a little bit more research to confirm -

[Christiern]

Apropos editors, one of the two who worked on my original Bessie book (at Stein & Day) systematically removed the "P" from James P. Johnson. When I restored it, she told me, "We don't use middle initials." I told her that Mr. Johnson did.

No such problem with he later edition, Yale hired an outside editor at no apparent cost to me—she was very good, although a couple of typos made it into final print.

[AllenLowe]

would like to add something that's really important to understand here - unless you've ever written a book, it's almost impossible to understand how easy it is to make extremely stupid mistakes, even when you know better - the whole process of turning out 100,000 words or so entails a certain stream of consciousness that leads to some bizarre things - wrong names, dates, complete non-sequitors, strange intellectual ideas, complete gibberish - I kid you not. And sometimes, no matter how many times you read your work, you miss really obvious things. It may be intellectual overload, I don't know. Add to this the general lack of editing and you have a prescription for some very strange mistakes.

Edited October 24, 2009 by AllenLowe