Oscar Peterson - RIP

[Hot Ptah]

I saw Oscar perform a solo piano concert once. His playing was quite compelling, more so than on some of the group recordings which I have heard. I think that had he concentrated on solo piano work, instead of accompanying others or small group work, his reputation among the elite may have been more elevated.

Looking into my crystal ball, the clouds part and I foresee few members of this forum agreeing with me. I know what I heard.

Edited December 26, 2007 by Hot Ptah

[garthsj]

I saw Oscar perform a solo piano concert once. His playing was quite compelling, more so than on some of the group recordings which I have heard. I think that had he concentrated on solo piano work, instead of accompanying others or small group work, his reputation among the elite may have been more elevated.

Looking into my crystal ball, the clouds part and I foresee few members of this forum agreeing with me. I know what I heard.

Actually many of "the elite" do appreciate Oscar's contribution to the history of jazz ... don't be fooled by Oscar's detractors who are self-designated "elite" by virtue of claiming NOT to enjoy his music. Jazz fans have different tastes. I stick by my original statement that there is intense resentment that Oscar achieved so much universal admiration while others deemed more worthy (Powell, Jones, Twardzik, Hope, Wilson, etc.) are largely ignored by the general public. I love all of these pianists, some even more than Oscar, but to denigrate him because he was "popular" is not fair game ... he was popular for a reason, as many of the posts in this thread reveal.

AS many know, I am a great Buddy DeFranco fan, so I got really pissed when Richard Stoltzman was suddenly hailed as a great "jazz" musician, as he was a few years back, thanks to skillful RCA marketing. (In fact he can't play jazz for s--t!). But I accepted the fact that Stoltzman will receive more attention from the mainstream media, and moved on ... Oscar had the whole jazz "package" in my estimation (I am also a self-designated "elite"!), and he was immensely popular. If your guy was not as widely recognized then just accept that fact and move on, but don't blame Oscar ... all he did was play great jazz piano, and was an incredible international ambassador for this music that we all claim to love.

Garth, from Sunny Cape Town ..

[RDK]

Not my favorite jazz pianist by any means, but Oscar Peterson was a giant and it's always sad when a giant leaves us; there aren't that many left.

Just to piss off Clem and some others, I'm now gonna spin OP + 1 w/Clark Terry, one of my favorite OP albums.

R.I.P. Mr. Peterson.

[fasstrack]

Not my favorite jazz pianist by any means, but Oscar Peterson was a giant and it's always sad when a giant leaves us; there aren't that many left.

Just to piss off Clem and some others, I'm now gonna spin OP + 1 w/Clark Terry, one of my favorite OP albums.

R.I.P. Mr. Peterson.

'Brotherhood of Man'.....

Makes me smile just thinking about it.....

[robviti]

i think it's both interesting and telling that this thread contains no less than 13 reprints or links to obits written in praise of OP. i cannot recall the same kind of treatment being given to any other artist upon his/her death on this board. frankly, it feels like i'm being hit over the head with a "he was the greatest - he influenced everyone - now weep" declaration. mind you, i do not for one second believe this was intended or planned by any member. it's just how i experienced it. at the same time, i wonder if some of the "detracors'" posts might not reflect a backlash against this kind of idoltry. personally, i'm much more moved by people's remarks about how or why they liked him and his music than any critic's assessment of OP's place in jazz history.

btw, i do take offense to garth's repeated claim that if you disagree with him and dis OP, it's because you're bitter and jealous. sure, some people may resent what they consider a lesser talent receiving excessive praise (can't wait for the reactions to the deaths of w. marsalis and kenny g). but that ain't the end of it, not by a long shot. like it or not, many jazz fans didn't like OP's style of playing. i suggest you grow up, get over it, and enjoy OP's music without telling the rest of us how we think or what our feelings should be upon his passing.

rob, from overcast waltham, ma

[JSngry]

I stick by my original statement that there is intense resentment that Oscar achieved so much universal admiration while others deemed more worthy (Powell, Jones, Twardzik, Hope, Wilson, etc.) are largely ignored by the general public.

The only "resentment" is from having to hear him on so many records that are otherwise totally to my liking.

Other than that,the man was loved and immensely successful. I have no resentment about any of that. Why would I resent anybody having a good life? That's just sick and/or childish to suggest that. It's like the Wynton-ites who will go to their death insisting that people who don't like his playing do so for extra-musical reasons. Well, I for one don't like him (Wynton) for extra-musical reasons, but I don't like his playing simply because it does nothing for me. With Peterson, I really have no extra-musical reasons to dislike him. Didn't like Monk's playing? Oh well, that speaks for itself, and he's far from alone that way. A bit of an ego? Hey, whatever. Hardly the first one you could say that about. Canadian? Geez, I dig Joni Mitchell & Fred Stone, and that's just for starters. Hardly an issue. General Popularity? Hey, Brubeck's probably sold more records, and I got no axe to grind with him, even though I'm not too much of fan there either. The fat thing? Me in the mirror, 'nuff said. The grunting thing? Me working on a spreadsheet, 'nuff said, again. Is it because he's Black, like Syl Austin? Hey, some of my best friends...

Please, get a grip and recognize that some people, incredible as it might seem to you, just did not like Oscar Peterson's playing. Period, end of story, show's over, move on, ok?

[ghost of miles]

i think it's both interesting and telling that this thread contains no less than 13 reprints or links to obits written in praise of OP. i cannot recall the same kind of treatment being given to any other artist upon his/her death on this board. frankly, it feels like i'm being hit over the head with a "he was the greatest - he influenced everyone - now weep" declaration. mind you, i do not for one second believe this was intended or planned by any member. it's just how i experienced it. at the same time, i wonder if some of the "detracors'" posts might not reflect a backlash against this kind of idoltry. personally, i'm much more moved by people's remarks about how or why they liked him and his music than any critic's assessment of OP's place in jazz history.

Well, I think that's part of it (and I'm speaking as somebody who likes/liked O.P.'s records, even though for a long time I DIDN'T like him... for exactly the reasons stated by some above. I had a similar problem with Tatum for the first several years that I was a jazz fan as well--not to mention Cecil Taylor). Like it or not, a person's death becomes a period of summation/judgment, and if some people think O.P. was overrated in life, they (they being the intelligent, articulate lot that most posters here are) are going to feel compelled to respond at some point in a thread like this. (And threads like these often seem to get a bit bristly...tricky online etiquette biz, I think, as such threads are somewhere between say-a-prayer-and-sing-a-hymn and all-out critical dissection, both good and bad.)

This place values honesty above all else, and jazz musicians deserve no less, alive or dead. They also deserve respect, and again, I don't really think anybody here has, you know, kicked O.P.'s corpse or spat on it, metaphorically speaking. I hear the things being criticized in his playing--I just hear other things as well, and he's somebody I've come to like a lot in the past few years. I don't love his playing the way I love Bud Powell's, or Herbie Nichols', or early Bill Evans, etc. In many moods a little of Oscar can go a long way... other times he really makes me smile. RIP, indeed, and the rest of us just gonna have to carry on somehow...and we sure will!

[Peter Friedman]

Personally, my least favorite recordings by Oscar are when he is playing solo piano. (Though the few recordings where he sings also were not to my taste.) It was when playing solo that his technique struck me as overwhelming the musical content. When playing in a trio setting, or as a sideman, Peterson sounded more relaxed and swinging.

I have received much pleasure from listening to Oscar over the years. His playing (for me) has an optimistic joyful quality. It is very different from the enjoyment I get from the more introspective impressionistic playing of Bill Evans, or the hard core bebop style of Barry Harris. Jazz and the listeners are the beneficiary of that wonderful diversity.

[Spontooneous]

A really striking percentage of jazz artists I've interviewed have said that Oscar was one of their main gateways into the music. And it's not just the piano players. Gotta give him propers for that.

[gmonahan]

A really striking percentage of jazz artists I've interviewed have said that Oscar was one of their main gateways into the music. And it's not just the piano players. Gotta give him propers for that.

Count me among those who always loved his playing. I particularly liked the last trios he recorded at the Blue Note on Telarc, but my favorites will always be the "Satch and Josh" recordings with Basie on Pablo. His solo on "Jumpin' at the Woodside" is still a pure joy to hear. To my ears, he swung harder than any other pianist I ever heard.

And I also love Monk, who really disliked him. Different styles. Vive la difference!

[John L]

One thought on Oscar Peterson's broad appeal:

It is interesting that I have two friends who do not really like jazz, but love Oscar Peterson. One of them must have 10-15 Oscar Peterson records - no Armstrong, Miles, Monk, etc. This person also assures me with total confidence that Oscar Peterson, along with Art Tatum, is the best that jazz has to offer.

Both of these people are big 18th and 19th century classical music fans. I think that this may not be a coincidence. Oscar Peterson presents jazz to classical music fans who don't really know jazz in a musical manner that many of them can appreciate: the sheer bravura, virtuosity, and flawless execution can carry the day. They don't want to hear their blues any other way.

For some (but unfortunately not for my two friends), Oscar Peterson might, in this fashion, provide a gateway into a more general appreciation of jazz.

Edited December 27, 2007 by John L

[Big Al]

For some, Oscar Peterson might... provide a gateway into a more general appreciation of jazz.

There are so many artists I came to enjoy because of OP's sideman work (which I actually prefer over his own records). The thing that impresses me the most is how able he was to work himself into any situation: swingers, ballads, stomps, shoutin' blues, ANYTHING. He never seemed overpowering to me.

The other thing that impressed me, probably more than anything, was his stamina. I need look no further than on the Complete Norman Granz Jams. Tunes anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes long, and he's comping beautifully; sometimes floating, other times charging. (Ray Brown gets my nod in this category as well)

Time was if I saw OP's name on an album, I'd pick it up, no questions asked. That doesn't happen much anymore (in fact, for a while there, just the opposite was happening: if I saw OP's name, I'd put it back), but like I said before: there is a lot of jazz out there, a lot of artists I might never have known about had OP not been on that record. Said record would then open the door to the other artists who appeared on that record. And even though I would usually find other pianists whose work I enjoyed more than OP, I found OP the perfect springboard to other avenues of jazz.

And for that I say, once again, thank you Oscar Peterson, and RIP. You've certainly earned it.

[Hot Ptah]

I find it slightly odd that on another thread, Stanley Turrentine's artistry is staunchly defended by the group against any and all criticisms, but Oscar Peterson is so harshly judged on this thread. I don't think it is quite so obvious that Turrentine was a far more worthy artist than Peterson.

I like the "to each their own" idea, but I realize that many here do not.

[AllenLowe]

1) thank you for placing me among the jazz elite. No one has ever done this before. I certainly hope there's an honorarium or annuity attached to such an honor -

2) as for Turrentine, as a jazz player he was much superior to O.P. - though he recorded a lot of commercial stuff, when he blew he was a fine jazz man; see his stuff with Max Roach, among other things -

3) I once took an informal poll of jazz pianists that I knew about their feelings about O.P. (poll was conducted circa 1980) - it's a small sampling, but interesting:

a) Bob Neloms - "I like him."

b) Barry Harris: "He's not my favorite."

c) Bill Triglia: "I admire his technique but he's not a jazz pianist."

d) Bill Evans: "He's one of my favorites."

e) Duke Jordan: "Great pianist."

f) Jaki Byard: "Cliches."

g) Joe Albany: "I used to hear him in California."

interesting assortment of pianists and opinions, I thought -

Edited December 27, 2007 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

just to add, yes, to each his/her own - we who dislike O.P.'s playing are not advocating repression of his recordings (though I have thought about it) - we are just voicing our opinions - and do not wish to interfere with your listening pleasure -

however, there will be a CD burning of all of Kenny G's recordings tonight at midnight - please be on time -

[Hot Ptah]

1) thank you for placing me among the jazz elite. No one has ever done this before. I certainly hope there's an honorarium or annuity attached to such an honor -

As a member of the elite, you are allowed to stay here:

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

1) thank you for placing me among the jazz elite. No one has ever done this before. I certainly hope there's an honorarium or annuity attached to such an honor -

As a member of the elite, you are allowed to stay here:

But it's not free, even for members of the Elite, because there's this singer hanging about.

MG

[Hot Ptah]

I saw her live in a small bar about the time that this album came out. She was standing on a stage which was one foot higher than the rest of the place. I was packed in right next to her at the stage. She was a real beauty then (as now).

[mjzee]

i think it's both interesting and telling that this thread contains no less than 13 reprints or links to obits written in praise of OP.

Make that 14, from the WSJ:

Oscar Peterson:

A Jazz 'Behemoth' Moves On

By NAT HENTOFF

December 27, 2007; Page D7

Only when it was absolutely necessary, Oscar Peterson wrote, would he go on stage before a concert to check out the piano, because doing so "might lead to preconditioned ideas, and they can in turn interfere with the creative process so essential to a creative jazz concert."

For Peterson, who died on Sunday at age 82, his full mastery of the instrument enabled him to keep striving for what to him was his ultimate reason for being. In his equally masterful autobiography, "A Jazz Odyssey: The Life of Oscar Peterson" (Continuum, 2002), he said of the "dare-devil enterprise [the jazz experience]" in which he engaged for so many years that it "requires you to collect all your senses, emotions, physical strength and mental power, and focus them totally on the performance. . . every time you play. . . . Uniquely exciting, once it's bitten you, you never get rid of it. Nor do you want to; for you come to believe that if you get it all right, you will be capable of virtually anything. That is what drives me, and I know it always will do so."

He wrote that after a stroke in 1993 that, at first, limited the use of his left hand. But "the will to perfection," as he called it, kept driving him, and as a result he regained much of his customary skill, and with it the satisfaction of continuing to surprise himself.

Born in 1925, Peterson was mandated by his father to practice piano at a very early age; but it was hearing Nat "King" Cole that fired his enthusiasm, and he won a talent contest at the age 14. By the 1940s, Peterson was already a presence on the radio in his native Canada and in Montreal clubs. But his audience began to greatly expand when jazz impresario Norman Granz heard him and brought him to New York's Carnegie Hall in 1949 for one of Granz's "Jazz at the Philharmonic" concerts, where the competition was so intense that many careers of the participants were enhanced.

Granz became Peterson's manager and close friend as they toured Europe and other continents. Also a producer of records on his Verve and Pablo labels, Granz extensively featured Peterson, not only as leader of his own trios but also as an accompanist for a wide range of other jazz masters whom Granz recorded. Among them were Louis Armstrong, Dizzy Gillespie, Lester Young, Coleman Hawkins, Ella Fitzgerald, Benny Carter, Ben Webster, Billie Holliday, Duke Ellington and Roy Eldridge.

As classic jazz players used to say of extraordinary peers, Peterson had "big ears." In all the varying contexts of these Granz recordings, he remained himself while also being completely consonant with the diverse stylists on those sessions.

A fascinating section in his autobiography describes what each soloist required of Peterson as an accompanist. For instance, Eldridge "would slide over to me and quietly ask, 'Can I get my strollers, please?' By this he meant that he intended to start simply with a mute aided by Roy Brown's bass in the lower register.

"He trusted the remaining members of the rhythm section not only to sit out and allow the excitement to build between him and Ray, but more importantly, to anticipate exactly where to re-enter and move him up a few notches emotionally."

Moreover, as a writer from the inside of the music, Peterson's profiles of other longtime associates prove him to be a master practitioner of jazz history and criticism. As he wrote: "To have played for these and other behemoths of the music world certainly served to educate me in areas in which that type of education just isn't available [and] served to deepen my true realization of the immensity of the music we know as jazz."

Because of the scores of albums Peterson recorded, it's difficult for me to select any as the best. So, subjectively, two that make me rise and shout are, "The Oscar Peterson Trio at the Stratford Shakespearean Festival" (1956) and "Night Train" (1962). (Both are on the Verve label).

Another autobiography that matches Peterson's in moving the reader into the life force of jazz is Sidney Bechet's "Treat It Gentle" (Da Capo Press, 2002). He writes of growing up in New Orleans: "That music, it was like waking up in the morning and eating. . . it was natural to the way you lived and the way you died."

And for Peterson, the pleasures of being inside that music recalled, he wrote, "the joyful exclamation [guiarist] Barney Kessel produced after [the] first evening in my trio. He came over to me after the last set, shook his head, and said with that Oklahoma accent, 'Oscar, that was better than sex!'"

Wherever he went around the world, Peterson's effect on audiences demonstrated the truth of Art Blakey's invitation to extreme pleasure: "You don't have to be a musician to understand jazz. All you have to do is be able to feel."

[JSngry]

Oh, so people who don't dig OP are now the "jazz elite"?

Wht does that make people who are in agreement with the sentiment that he "dominated" jazz piano for the second half of the 20th century, when merely doing the math can look at how many people are playing in what way and come to the conclusion that that distinction probably belongs to Bill Evans (directly and/or filtered through Herbie Hancock and/or Chick Corea), with honorable mentions going to McCoy Tyner & Cecil Taylor?

Peterson's "towering" pianistic influence is limited to a really narrow group of players, but it's interesting that the inference is that these players (and therefore Peterson himself) represent the "real" jazz, and that everybody else mustt be on the outside looking in, suffering from some neurotic affliction like incurable jealousy or something like that. Once again, the Marsaillisian need to define by exclusion rears its ugly, proto-Fascistic head.

I've tried to be sincerely respectful of a man whose work I do not personally care for but whose abilities and acomplishments I have the highest & most genuine respect for. Holding such superficially conflicting opionons is easily possible, and I can only think (and not for the first time) that people who find it to be impossible and feel the need to take a small, self-contained kingdom and insist that it is the world where we all surely must live have no concept of reality in more than two dimiensions, and are therefore a big part of the reason why society is becoming as dangerously dysfunctional as it is today.

So out of disrepect for nothing except vainglorious illusions of self-centered and wholly manufactured "superiority", here's some "reality" for y'all's Anti-Elite Asses:

With Art Tatum, God truly was in the house.

With Oscar Peterson, the pizza was at the door.

And people sure be lovin' their pizzas, don't they be...

[Hot Ptah]

My "elite" comment was not well thought out, or delivered well. What I meant by it was that many people have loved the music of jazz popularizers over the years, from Cannonball Adderley to George Shearing to Ramsey Lewis to Oscar Peterson, while those with more jazz experience and critical taste have often been less enamoured with these popularizers. Those with this heightened amount of experience and taste could be called "the more experienced jazz listener", "the more critically aware jazz listener", or to shorten it in a thoughtless moment, "the elite".

"The elite" is not a good term, as it contains too many negative connotations.

[Hot Ptah]

With Art Tatum, God truly was in the house.

With Oscar Peterson, the pizza was at the door.

And people sure be lovin' their pizzas, don't they be...

In James Lester's "Too Marvelous For Words", his biography of Art Tatum, Tatum's respect and love of Peterson's playing is described several times. Lester wrote that when Art Tatum knew he was dying, he asked for Oscar Peterson.

Now, has there been a discussion about that book on this forum? It could be that the book is unreliable. I am not aware of another full length biography of Art Tatum.

I don't know of anyone who would state that Oscar Peterson was a greater artist, or pianist, than Art Tatum. Art Tatum is in a class by himself.

Edited December 27, 2007 by Hot Ptah

[JSngry]

"The elite" is not a good term, as it contains too many negative connotations.

Indeed it does, but I now better understand what you mean, so, ok.

The thing about "popularizers", though, get tricky, because some many different people have done it in so many different ways. Cannonball was a baaad mf, period, and it's become a cliche of mine to point out that up until the end of his life, no matter how "comercial" the settings he placed himself in were, he himself found a way to insert some ongoingly evolutionistic adventurous playing. His was in some ways a "stealth" approach, and there were others like him, who got over and still put something else inthe mix, somewhere, somehow.

Then you got the folks like Ramsey Lewis (for whom to this day I still have a less than full appreciation) who brought it straight on, no tricks, no gimmicks, what you heard was what you got, a lot of people heard it, a lot of people got it, and hey, it felt good, so people did it, and ya'know, I got no problem with that either.

To me, Peterson belonged to the latter camp. I've ehar plenty of his work over the years, and I've heard nothing that isn't immediately accessible, nothing that shows an ongoing evolution of creativity, nothing except Oscar Peterson Playing What He Plays The Way He Plays It. Some of it is "less obvious" than the rest, but that's it. Again, what you heard was what you got, etc etc etc.

And that really doesn't bother me, since once the Original Heroes Of Norman Granz That I Really Loved died, the jazz world of Oscar Peterson and the jazz world that I lived in very seldom intersected. When it did, it was usually on Pablo (the encounter with Bags on MPS is one that I've very nearly bought countless #s of times over the years, but I consistently & inevitably end up passing), and you knew what it was going to be before it happened, and that was part of the appeal anyway, that whole Neo-Verve-dom. Again, what you saw was what you got, etc etc etc.

So the years go by, and neither I nor a helluva lot of people I know think too much about Oscar Peterson other than that he's one helluva piano picker & he's there if you want him, and you don't have to try too hard to avoid him if you don't. Fair for all, win-win, and life is good.

Now all of a sudden, the cat dies, and it's like he's become The Pianist That All Jazz Has Genuflected To And Sprung From, and I'm sorry, that's just so much bullshit. Apparently he's been a gateway for a lot of people, and that's cool, I can relate to that. He wasn't for me (I never really felt him, not even when discovering the music), but cats like Brubeck & Mulligan were, so I appreciate how your "first kiss" is one that lingers forever, even if the perons you did it with might be somebody you'd rather not remeber. But dammit, look around the jazz world today and tell me that the only real "impact" that OP has had as an artist is within a very narrow circle. That's just reality.

And really, so what? Peterson did whathe did, al ot of people dug it, a lot of people didn't, and to not dig it in no way means that you automatically disrespect him or have any other "motivations". It's no secret that on the whole, I don't really dig Bill Evans that much either, but I got no problem calling him Arguably The Most Influential Jazz Pianist Of The Second Half Of The 20th Century, simply because there's evidence to back it up. I bristle at similar accolades being bestowed upon Peterson simply because there isn't similar evidence, unless one has a really narrow vision of what jazz "is", "should be" , or something like that. That's going to get my goat no matter what the context.

[JSngry]

With Art Tatum, God truly was in the house.

With Oscar Peterson, the pizza was at the door.

And people sure be lovin' their pizzas, don't they be...

In James Lester's "Too Marvelous For Words", his biography of Art Tatum, Tatum's respect and love of Peterson's playing is described several times. Lester wrote that when Art Tatum knew he was dying, he asked for Oscar Peterson.

Maybe Tatum wanted one more pizza?

No, seriously, that seems perfectly likely. Peterson was one of the few pianists who could even be considered as having Tatum's level of facility, and facility such as that don't come easy, to put it mildly. I think you'll find that musicians are perfectly able to separate deep (and I do mean deep) respect for craft from "esthetic" judgement, although sometimes when there's a toss-up, they'll give the benefit of the doubt to the craft. But sometimes not. That one's a crapshoot, really. But the point is that there's a "foxhole mentality" among musicians when it comes to recognizing the difficulty of playing any instrument with an extremely high level of facility. You know, the whole "if you ain't been there, you can't understand" thing. And that's legit, I believe.

Besides, Peterson's playing at the time of Tatum's impending death related to the "whole" of jazz in a totally different way than he did at the time of his own, wouldn't you say? In a hypothetical role-reversal of the deathbed scenario, what current pianists would Peterson want by his side? Or to twist it even more, which pianists of today would want Peterson at their's? Look at the possibilities, and then look at the stae of jazz as a whole, and that's where this "dominant influence" thing breaks down in a big hurry...

[Larry Kart]

A practical comment from the perspective of a former journalist: I hated writing obits of jazz musicians for several reasons. First, if it was someone whose work I loved, then the act of writing the obit (which almost always was a tense, deadline affair) would pretty much prevent me from feeling what I would have felt if, say, Basie or Hines or Monk had died and I hadn't had to write their obits. Second, while I always tried to put the career of the deceased musician in what seemed to me to be the proper perspective -- that is, say just what I would have said otherwise (in terms of information and estimate of musical worth by both myself and the jazz community at large, should there be a significant difference there) and not let the fact that the artist had just died turn the obit into an exercise in artistic inflation, breast-beating, etc. The problem there was that at my paper, and I'm sure at most papers, there was a general reluctance to give much space to obits of jazz musicians; the only excuse to do so, one understood, was that if the obit was going to say that so-and-so was the greatest. I balked at the pressure, but it certainly was there. In fact, I recall one case where it became almost comically explicit, though the writer of this obit was my predecessor in writing about jazz for the Chicago Tribune, Harriet Choice. The musician who had died was Cannonball Adderley, and the editor involved asked Harriet, as though it were a foregone conclusion given her request for space on page one, "He was the greatest living jazz musician, right?" Harriet coolly said, "No -- he wasn't." What struck me as funny there was that Harriet not only was not a person to be pushed around, but she also thought that she should have been running the whole damn paper -- and she might well have done a good job of it, too.

Also, some writers on jazz for mainstream papers seem to me to pump up the volume when writing obits in such a way as to implicitly claim that their beat, and of course they themselves, are that much more important. That's ugly.