Frank Driggs has died

[Christiern]

More here. Edited September 22, 2011 by Christiern

[brownie]

Did he actually sell his collection of photos before he died?

The Driggs collection

A sample

[Christiern]

I don't know if Frank managed to sell his ill-gotten collection, If you have his phone number in Hell, you might give him a call.

Before anyone goes into the old "respect the dead" bit, let me say that I was just as vocal when he was alive.

[sonnymax]

"Driggs produced numerous recordings, including Columbia Records’ ”Robert Johnson: The Complete Recordings.” He received a Grammy for it in 1991."

Quite a feat given that he was 8 years-old when the original recordings were made. They were produced by Don Law (I worked with Law's son, Don Jr., in the 1980s.)

[alankin]

Ah, the difference between taking the photos and taking the pictures.

[BERIGAN]

an interesting article on him from 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/nyregion/01jazz.html

[Big Beat Steve]

I don't know if Frank managed to sell his ill-gotten collection, If you have his phone number in Hell, you might give him a call.

Before anyone goes into the old "respect the dead" bit, let me say that I was just as vocal when he was alive.

Yes, the subtle play on words in the subtitle of "Took thousands of photos" was duly noted.

[AllenLowe]

picture that..................

[Joe]

So... fair to say Mr. Driggs was not exactly conscientious in recording the provenance of many of these images?

Not defending FD, as I know next to nothing about the specific controversies surrounding his acquisition of these materials, much less his turning a profit from them, but, in the interests of providing maybe a little more context... As someone who grew up with a collector (and of many things), it seems to me that the business, regardless of what is being collected, is always at least a little sketchy around the edges. But this is how libraries and archives have almost always been built. Such figures aren't artists, but they do leave a legacy -- an oeuvre, if you will -- and, just as we often forgive artists for being less than admirable persons, perhaps the same leniency could be extended to figures like Mr. Driggs? Besides, now that he can no longer claim ownership of these photos, etc., isn't there some chance that reparations (credit-where-credit's-due, $) may be made?

[Larry Kart]

So... fair to say Mr. Driggs was not exactly conscientious in recording the provenance of many of these images?

Not defending FD, as I know next to nothing about the specific controversies surrounding his acquisition of these materials, much less his turning a profit from them, but, in the interests of providing maybe a little more context... As someone who grew up with a collector (and of many things), it seems to me that the business, regardless of what is being collected, is always at least a little sketchy around the edges. But this is how libraries and archives have almost always been built. Such figures aren't artists, but they do leave a legacy -- an oeuvre, if you will -- and, just as we often forgive artists for being less than admirable persons, perhaps the same leniency could be extended to figures like Mr. Driggs? Besides, now that he can no longer claim ownership of these photos, etc., isn't there some chance that reparations (credit-where-credit's-due, $) may be made?

If I recall Chris' previous accounts, Driggs typically "borrowed" material (photos, etc.) from people (including Chris) who legitimately had purchased or inherited it -- "borrowing" this material, Driggs would say to those people, in order to make use of it in some supposedly worthwhile project; and some of those projects were worthwhile. But once Driggs got his hands on this material, he would never return it; it became "his." This is outright theft, not the way "libraries and archives have almost always been built." And it would seem likely that Driggs' extreme reclusiveness was in part a defense against those who might attempt to come after him for what he did. As far as reparations go, I think it's also likely that Driggs did the best he could to cover his tracks.

[Joe]

So... fair to say Mr. Driggs was not exactly conscientious in recording the provenance of many of these images?

Not defending FD, as I know next to nothing about the specific controversies surrounding his acquisition of these materials, much less his turning a profit from them, but, in the interests of providing maybe a little more context... As someone who grew up with a collector (and of many things), it seems to me that the business, regardless of what is being collected, is always at least a little sketchy around the edges. But this is how libraries and archives have almost always been built. Such figures aren't artists, but they do leave a legacy -- an oeuvre, if you will -- and, just as we often forgive artists for being less than admirable persons, perhaps the same leniency could be extended to figures like Mr. Driggs? Besides, now that he can no longer claim ownership of these photos, etc., isn't there some chance that reparations (credit-where-credit's-due, $) may be made?

If I recall Chris' previous accounts, Driggs typically "borrowed" material (photos, etc.) from people (including Chris) who legitimately had purchased or inherited it -- "borrowing" this material, Driggs would say to those people, in order to make use of it in some supposedly worthwhile project; and some of those projects were worthwhile. But once Driggs got his hands on this material, he would never return it; it became "his." This is outright theft, not the way "libraries and archives have almost always been built." And it would seem likely that Driggs' extreme reclusiveness was in part a defense against those who might attempt to come after him for what he did. As far as reparations go, I think it's also likely that Driggs did the best he could to cover his tracks.

Ugh. Perhaps this also explains why no one has been willing to purchase this collection.

Just based on my experience, though, I maintain ill getting of various types and degrees has always gone hand-in-hand with collecting, including those private collections that, in the form of bequests, became libraries and archives. (I've guess I've pored over too many finding aids in my day to be convinced otherwise.) E.g., one person's "rescue" of forgotten / neglected / apparently discarded material is another person's theft of the same.

There's probably no way to know, but I wonder how much of Driggs' archive consists of demonstrably stolen material.

[Christiern]

Frank did not only steel from individuals, he rifled collections that his "standing" gained him access to. One such collection was the Time/Life photo files he had available to him when he was working on the "Harlem On My Mind" exhibit. Another was the Schomburg Collection, and, of course the Columbia Records files.

When I used a well-known publicity photo of Bessie Smith in my book, I received a letter from Frank's attorney demanding a payment of $1,000. I wrote back that Frank must be rather well off, because that photo was in wide use, including the cover of a Paul Oliver book. I explained that Frank would not have received any payment from me, even if the amount he threatened to sue me for had been a nickel.

The next letter from his attorney suggested that we "come to an agreement". I told them to stop bothering me with this nonsense. There were no more demands made, but I received a call from Frank a year or two later. "We should not be on opposite sides of the fence," he suggested as he apologized.

I never spoke to Frank again, and, yes, he stole from me a wonderful photo of Johnny Dunn marching in a parade in Holland. Worse than that, he stole an acetate recording of Leroi Nabor's band that I had promised to return to Leroi—it was the only copy of the only recording he had of his band, and I had borrowed it to use in an attempt to get John Hammond interested in recording Leroi.

So, pardon me if I am not in mourning.

[AllenLowe]

well, Chris, if you read the notes he wrote to the new Uptown Charlie Christian CD, you'll see that he had apparently lost his faculties in recent years - they are almost incoherent. The photo gods work in mysterious ways.

actually, I heard he was killed in a dark room explosion -

Edited September 22, 2011 by AllenLowe

[Joe]

Frank did not only steel from individuals, he rifled collections that his "standing" gained him access to. One such collection was the Time/Life photo files he had available to him when he was working on the "Harlem On My Mind" exhibit. Another was the Schomburg Collection, and, of course the Columbia Records files.

When I used a well-known publicity photo of Bessie Smith in my book, I received a letter from Frank's attorney demanding a payment of $1,000. I wrote back that Frank must be rather well off, because that photo was in wide use, including the cover of a Paul Oliver book. I explained that Frank would not have received any payment from me, even if the amount he threatened to sue me for had been a nickel.

The next letter from his attorney suggested that we "come to an agreement". I told them to stop bothering me with this nonsense. There were no more demands made, but I received a call from Frank a year or two later. "We should not be on opposite sides of the fence," he suggested as he apologized.

I never spoke to Frank again, and, yes, he stole from me a wonderful photo of Johnny Dunn marching in a parade in Holland. Worse than that, he stole an acetate recording of Leroi Nabor's band that I had promised to return to Leroi—it was the only copy of the only recording he had of his band, and I had borrowed it to use in an attempt to get John Hammond interested in recording Leroi.

So, pardon me if I am not in mourning.

Judging by the sentiments expressed on this thread, I suspect that there aren't many mourning Frank Driggs. And, the fate of his eternal soul aside, it sounds like he built a nice little Hell for himself right there in Flatbush.

[AllenLowe]

well, I did come up with this news photo of Frank coming out of the Museum of Modern Art -

[medjuck]

[

Judging by the sentiments expressed on this thread, I suspect that there aren't many mourning Frank Driggs. And, the fate of his eternal soul aside, it sounds like he built a nice little Hell for himself right there in Flatbush.

I'm on a jazz research list-serve and there seem to be many people who are mourning him. (I have no opinion.)

[Christiern]

[

Judging by the sentiments expressed on this thread, I suspect that there aren't many mourning Frank Driggs. And, the fate of his eternal soul aside, it sounds like he built a nice little Hell for himself right there in Flatbush.

I'm on a jazz research list-serve and there seem to be many people who are mourning him. (I have no opinion.)

The mourners are the only ones whose posts get through there.

[AllenLowe]

Fitzgerald? one of the Jazz world's great censors -

[Larry Kart]

Chris -- Have you tried to post there about Driggs and been rebuffed? I'd gladly try myself, but I have no direct experience with Driggs and thus if challenged would be unable to support what I'd said in what surely would be a highly contentious framework.

[Christiern]

Yes, Larry, I posted, briefly, my reasons for not joining the list's grievers. My post was ignored. PC is a bitch!

[Larry Kart]

Chris -- Sorry to hear that. Any idea why Driggs is off-limits? I don't recall that being the case with John Hammond, whose record in life was also, shall we say, mixed.

[brownie]

Obituary in The New York Times today.

[Christiern]

As John Hammond's last secretary muttered after listening to a succession of praises for John at his memorial service , "They believed the stories."

Larry, I don't know why Frank was protected and John not. Years ago, I told John that Frank was carting off valuable material belonging to Columbia and that he used Columbia's editing room and engineer to steal unreleased Frank Sinatra recordings. I brought it to John's attention because that kind of thing reflected negatively on Michael Brooks, myself, and other reissue producers. "Oh," said John, "poor Frank, his mother didn't have a lot of money, she had a little dress shop."

Go figure!

[Larry Kart]

Never having met Driggs myself, my guess is that by interacting on a practical level with so many people who needed access to the material he had amassed he made himself part of the "community" in ways that the often high-handed Hammond did not. Maybe in this realm Driggs was himself very practical about how cooperative he was to whom.

[Big Beat Steve]

Never having met Driggs myself, my guess is that by interacting on a practical level with so many people who needed access to the material he had amassed he made himself part of the "community" in ways that the often high-handed Hammond did not. Maybe in this realm Driggs was himself very practical about how cooperative he was to whom.

Which sounds very much like a case of "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine (even if only posthumously)".

Just the ways of the world, I guess ... Ater all, networking often only amounts to creating dependencies.