Albert Murray Speaks

[AllenLowe]

some of you may be aware of the recent discussions through Ethan Iverson's blog (Do the Math) and by David Adler on his blog about Randy Sandke's book Where the Light and The Dark Folks meet. One of the disagreements is over the whole Crow Jim thing, about whether or not there is a critical bias, in some quarters, against White musicians. Personally, though this is a complex topic, I have always felt that there is a degree of liberal reparations being paid in the Jazz Critical World, part of an understandable but misguided attempt to address larger social issues in the realm of aesthetics.

As to the issue of Lincoln Center and their attitudes, I know first hand the kind of sycophancy that Wynton Marsalis demands as he takes the stage to make his various pronouncements; and years ago I interviewed Albert Murray, one of the guiding forces of that whole program. This is what Murray said to me (we were speaking about race and jazz):

"White musicians can never play as well as black musicians; sure, they can learn to play jazz, but it's like learning a second language, you can never be as good at it as you would be if it were your first."

Truthfully, I think this is an unwritten code that many critics, black and white, live by, if many times unconsciously.

Edited February 9, 2011 by AllenLowe

[Guy Berger]

Given that jazz is no longer a popular music in America and is to a large degree disconnected from other forms of popular music, I would assume it is a "second language" for pretty much every musician.

[AllenLowe]

good point - and I've felt that, while few would argue that it is not, in original form, attitudes, rhythms, and style, an African American expression, the further it gets from its folk origins the more it becomes a world music.

the other think I would add, and this gets harder to express in ways which don't sound like boiler plate methods of mass-speak happytalk, is that as an African American music it is part of my heritage as well - because any other belief would be truly racist.

Edited February 9, 2011 by AllenLowe

[Stereojack]

Murray's attitudes go beyond simple racism to obvious ignorance - he clearly doesn't even know how to listen to music, and he seems to know very little about the music's origins - he only knows what he thinks he knows..

Those who have made these comments in the past, black and white, cannot back up their claims with any ability to tell a musician's race in a blindfold test.

[AllenLowe]

I don't know - I can usually tell that Donnie Osmond is white.

[Fer Urbina]

This is what Murray said to me (we were speaking about race and jazz):

"White musicians can never play as well as black musicians; sure, they can learn to play jazz, but it's like learning a second language, you can never be as good at it as you would be if it were your first."

Since we know now that this is not true (and they could have known it as far back as the early 1950s, tell me with a straight face that Zoot Sims or Bob Brookmeyer didn't swing back then), is he talking jazz before 1945? Silly question, I know, but is the worst black jazz musician better than the best white jazz musician?

It can be argued that years ago black musicians knew jazz better because they grew up in a social environment where they were in contact with that music from a very early age, and due to racial discrimination, whites weren't. Racial discrimination is caused by the inability to relate to someone who's physically different, mainly because of skin pigmentation, and it is a D-I-S-G-R-A-C-E. But to pretend that socially things haven't changed in America and that today being black somehow gives you a headstart to play jazz, I don't know, it doesn't make sense to me.

White people in general discriminating against black people because of race may have created the social circumstances for blacks to be way better at playing a certain kind of music. But that doesn't imply that black people are better (or worse) at anything because of race, does it?

F

[AllenLowe]

as far as I could determine, Murray was speaking about jazz musicians in the overall sense. But I think these attitudes are held, consciously or not, by many post-War critics.

[Larry Kart]

The early 1950s? How about (in the '20s) Bix, Teschemacher, Teagarden, Bud Freeman, Pee Wee Russell, Dave Tough -- etc. and ad absurdum?

[JSngry]

"White musicians can never play as well as black musicians; sure, they can learn to play jazz, but it's like learning a second language, you can never be as good at it as you would be if it were your first."

"Never" is such a big word... one that, say, Donald Byrd & Pepper Adams must never have heard, or at least not believed...

Besides, I would counter that any honest music that is not simply re-creative in nature cannot avoid bringing any number of "cultural flavors"...that's what helps make it unique. So maybe the problem is not that white players can never "play black" authentically, maybe it's that Murray and others of his trip can't "hear white" (or Latin, or Indian, or etc.), and whose fault is that? Certainly not the players'.

Anyway - this is all rumblings of a "world" whose death is well underway. The "real people" making the "real music" of today are past that, not because they've argued the point to a successful conclusion, but because they've realized that the argument is one that is at this point nothing more than game for suckers & have just moved on to leave the dinosaurs to argue amongst themselves.

But back to Donald Byrd & Pepper Adams, the argument could be made that "first language" and "second language" and all that are very much a product of environment, and to the extent that race in America determines environment, well, make your claim, but that extent is wholly man-made/artificial, and should no way be construed as being Natural Law.

So, isn't Albert Murray dead already? His undeniable eloquence in expressing why he liked (likes?) what he liked is one thing, but thinking that he should "make the law" for anybody besides himself and those who like the same thing for the same reasons is just plain wack.

[AllenLowe]

he's still around, age 95, apparently; but I do think that a lot of people, consciously or not, hold the same assumptions, that white jazz players (and I think this attitude is much less prevalent today than it was even 20 years ago) are socially deficient. I have to admit that in my early listening days I even felt that pull -

Edited February 9, 2011 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

...I do think that a lot of people, consciously or not, hold the same assumptions, that white jazz players (and I think this attitude is much less prevalent today than it was even 20 years ago) are socially deficient. I have to admit that in my early listening days I even felt that pull -

And a lot of times it's true. But "a lot" is not always, and that's where one's ability to actually hear music instead of simply having are reflexive response to any auditory stimulus that sounds like what we think music oughtt to sound like comes into play.

I call no foul on one's own "shortcomings" in this regard, as they are all but universal and inevitable. I do call it, however, when those shortcomings are seriously represented as an ongoing reality for anybody besides one's self. The Murray & Marsalis crowd are the most visibly entrenched perps these days, but, really, it's an eternal/ongoing dynamic, this compulsion to "own" a music by defining it rather than just letting it be whatever its gonna be & taking advantage of a change to learn, grow, and evolve when it does.

[Larry Kart]

Re: What Jim said. By now, it's all about decayed politics (cultural/social, etc.) and would-be power operations of some sort, with the would-be factor paramount. We demand reparations from Al Hirt!

[JSngry]

I doubt that you'd get much - if any - dis of Al Hirt from Wynton, Hirt's cred amongst NO musicians (as I hear it) is pretty solid on grounds of respect for instrumental facility and, by all accounts, being a fair employer, and besides, he's a homeboy who stayed local even once he got national, and that means a lot. but yeah, decayed and would-be, that's really all that's left in this game at this time.

[MartyJazz]

"White musicians can never play as well as black musicians; sure, they can learn to play jazz, but it's like learning a second language, you can never be as good at it as you would be if it were your first."

"Never" is such a big word... one that, say, Donald Byrd & Pepper Adams must never have heard, or at least not believed...

Besides, I would counter that any honest music that is not simply re-creative in nature cannot avoid bringing any number of "cultural flavors"...that's what helps make it unique. So maybe the problem is not that white players can never "play black" authentically, maybe it's that Murray and others of his trip can't "hear white" (or Latin, or Indian, or etc.), and whose fault is that? Certainly not the players'.

Anyway - this is all rumblings of a "world" whose death is well underway. The "real people" making the "real music" of today are past that, not because they've argued the point to a successful conclusion, but because they've realized that the argument is one that is at this point nothing more than game for suckers & have just moved on to leave the dinosaurs to argue amongst themselves.

But back to Donald Byrd & Pepper Adams, the argument could be made that "first language" and "second language" and all that are very much a product of environment, and to the extent that race in America determines environment, well, make your claim, but that extent is wholly man-made/artificial, and should no way be construed as being Natural Law.

So, isn't Albert Murray dead already? His undeniable eloquence in expressing why he liked (likes?) what he liked is one thing, but thinking that he should "make the law" for anybody besides himself and those who like the same thing for the same reasons is just plain wack.

Your mention of the late, great Pepper Adams reminds me of a discussion I had many years ago with a black co-worker in the record shop where we were both employed. He insisted that no matter how well a white musician could play jazz, there would always be a segment, however minor, of the black jazz audience that would dismiss the efforts of that musician. So I bet him that I could name a white musician who was liked by all modern jazz listeners, regardless of color. I gave him all kinds of clues as to the musician's identity, but he couldn't guess who, and then I finally gave the answer, "Pepper Adams". He smiled rather ruefully, agreed that Pepper was loved by everyone he knew (including himself), and paid the bet.

[Christiern]

As far as I know, Albert Murray is still breathing, bit he looked dead when I last saw him, at Ira Gitler's 80th birthday party. Of course, that stony face could have been caused by the presence of Stanley Crouch. They were no longer on speaking terms. As for

Murray's thoughts on the music, I have never taken him seriously, because his bias was showing. He is also in large measure responsible for much of the crap Wynton and Stanley drool.

Not having read Sandke's book, I will wait to comment on that, but I agree that complexion too often dictates musical taste—on both sides of the ancestral spectrum. Granted, the most influential musicians (in terms of changing directions) have been black, but great performers come in more than one color. I gather that Sandke feels white musicians have in some way been slighted. By critics, perhaps, but only those of a lower order.

[AllenLowe]

part of the problem, too, is that Randy is the most under-rated jazz musician on the face of the earth. Because of his lack of public performance opportunities outside of the realm of Dick Hyman (with whom he plays beautifully) few people have any idea of what he can do - inside, outside, chords, no chords, sonically, as a section player, soloist - soul and technique on every kind of tune.

[Brownian Motion]

part of the problem, too, is that Randy is the most under-rated jazz musician on the face of the earth. Because of his lack of public performance opportunities outside of the realm of Dick Hyman (with whom he plays beautifully) few people have any idea of what he can do - inside, outside, chords, no chords, sonically, as a section player, soloist - soul and technique on every kind of tune.

I agree. Randy is the promise of Bix fulfilled.

[JSngry]

Randy is the promise of Bix fulfilled.

I don't know what that means.

[Christiern]

I know what that means, but I ain't talkin'!

As for Sandke's playing, I like it.

[Brownian Motion]

Randy is the promise of Bix fulfilled.

I don't know what that means.

It's an expression of enthusiasm.

[AllenLowe]

unsure, but I am curious. Brownian?

I'll eventually post some clips of Randy at our concert last September that will give some idea; also, if you have my CD Jews in Hell, check him out on "I Licked Bird's Blood."

[Joe]

For the curious, a good demonstration of Sandke's abilities can be heard on:

=160&tt_products[backPID]=5&cHash=753c3aa9f1681b5df6884d9d449e4c8f"]INSIDE OUT (Nagel-Heyer)

and

OUTSIDE IN (Evening Star)

[AllenLowe]

my wedding band, September 12, 1982:

Randy, Percy France, Dick Katz, Leroy Williams, Skinny Burgan (with Aaron Bell sitting in). Nice night.

[Chuck Nessa]

This has also been covered in Chris Kelsey's blog http://chriskelsey.com/blog/ . I have not read this thread for a couple of reasons - I read the stuff on Chris's blog AND I had a nasty confrontation with Murray a few years ago and don't care what he thinks. Time for all to "move on folks, nothing to see here".

[marcello]

This has also been covered in Chris Kelsey's blog http://chriskelsey.com/blog/ . I have not read this thread for a couple of reasons - I read the stuff on Chris's blog AND I had a nasty confrontation with Murray a few years ago and don't care what he thinks. Time for all to "move on folks, nothing to see here".

Chuck speaks the truth.

Edited February 10, 2011 by marcello