Stanley Crouch Parker biography reviewed

[Fer Urbina]

Crouch's project (started in 1981, IIRC, read it in a 1986 interview with Wynton he had been working on it for 5 years) is coming to an end, apparently. In an interview he did last September for jerryjazzmusician, he says

JJM How soon after you got interested in this music did you discover Charlie Parker?

SC Sometime in the early sixties.

JJM Are you still working on his biography?

SC The first volume will be out next summer.

Elsewhere in these forums there are comments about this bio. Something to look forward to, I guess.

F

[Big Al]

The first volume???? Jeezus, how long-winded is this gonna be? He may set his own bar even higher..... or lower, depending on your opinion of him.

[kh1958]

No thanks.

[Simon Weil]

The last two collections Crouch has produced (of previously published articles) have merely retreaded old ideas. I see no sign of anything new in the uncollected stuff. So it's years and years since he's had a new idea. This may have some stuff in it - if he's been going at it that long - there will still be ideas from when he was still capable.

"The First Volume"? Hell.....l......llllpppppp

Simon Weil

[Nate Dorward]

Yeah... I mean, it's not as if Parker lived into his 80s, necessitating multiple volumes.

[Werf]

I bet he slags him. I mean, Bird was one avante-garde motherfucker.

[Fer Urbina]

Personally, I'll wait and see. Allen Lowe mentioned in the Stanley Crouch thread that he'd seen some of his research and that it needed publishing. Let's hope that there'll be a lot of factual info and very little of Crouch's agenda.

Bird may have been an avant-gardist (not so sure about that...), but he was black, a helluva blues player and swang like mad, so I think we've got that covered.

And Wynton was born a few years after Bird's death. Unlikely that he'll appear in the book.

Or will he?

F

[kenny weir]

And Wynton was born a few years after Bird's death. Unlikely that he'll appear in the book.

Or will he?

F

Count on it.

First part?

[gmonahan]

Let's hope that there'll be a lot of factual info and very little of Crouch's agenda.

Like that's possible. The pain of digging through all of Crouch's BS to find actual nuggets about Bird we haven't seen is too awful to contemplate. Volume 1? Lord help us....

[AllenLowe]

I am no Crouch fan, but yes, it is true, I have seen a little of the research and have spoken to people who have read the notes - he interviewed important people, made important discoveries - the problem is whether he can sublimate his own ego suffciently to let the material speak for itself. We will have to wait and see -

[John L]

Yes, the book should contain a lot of valuable information.

As far as the political agenda of the book, I think that it is clear that Crouch is out to debunk the "myth" of the movie that Bird flew only on the basis of inborn natural genius, and was nothing but an irresponsible junky in real life. I am sure that Crouch will do his best to portray Bird as serious, responsible, and hard working as possible.

Even if Crouch takes this agenda too far, I think that we can use a book like this. Many of the myths need to be debunked. Even just listening to the consistently brilliant almost weekly live recordings that we now have of Bird makes you realize that he was a much more serious, responsible, and professional musician than the mythology would suggest.

[Simon Weil]

As far as the political agenda of the book, I think that it is clear that Crouch is out to debunk the "myth" of the movie that Bird flew only on the basis of inborn natural genius, and was nothing but an irresponsible junky in real life. I am sure that Crouch will do his best to portray Bird as serious, responsible, and hard working as possible.

Even if Crouch takes this agenda too far, I think that we can use a book like this. Many of the myths need to be debunked. Even just listening to the consistently brilliant almost weekly live recordings that we now have of Bird makes you realize that he was a much more serious, responsible, and professional musician than the mythology would suggest.

Crouch is not a debunker of myths. Or if he is, it is only in the service of building up his own. He believes that:

"...all jazz musicians [when on stage enter] the world of vernacular American myth. But vernacular or not, the myth they addressed had the same components as once described by Richard Wagner...."

Live at Blues Alley sleevenotes.

I think you misunderstand his basic stance.

Simon Weil

[John L]

Now you got me REAL confused.

[JSngry]

Well, Wagner, man, you know, he got Bird's axe and shit...

[Lazaro Vega]

Vernacular meaning "spoken as one's mother tongue; not learned or imposed as a second language"? And "Domestic, native." So all jazz musicians are Horatio Alger? What is the American myth other than that pragmatic, capitalist based, mechanized economic one? Jazz musicians are asserting their manifest destiny over Latin American music? (Sarcasm intended). So jazz musicians are the myth makers. Well, the hero quest and all that. Man vs. man, though it's hard to hear only social conflict in music. When you enter the realm of myth you go much further back into "man's" collective unconscious than Wagner.

[Larry Kart]

Well, Wagner, man, you know, he got Bird's axe and shit...

[Simon Weil]

Vernacular meaning "spoken as one's mother tongue; not learned or imposed as a second language"? And "Domestic, native." So all jazz musicians are Horatio Alger? What is the American myth other than that pragmatic, capitalist based, mechanized economic one? Jazz musicians are asserting their manifest destiny over Latin American music? (Sarcasm intended). So jazz musicians are the myth makers. Well, the hero quest and all that. Man vs. man, though it's hard to hear only social conflict in music. When you enter the realm of myth you go much further back into "man's" collective unconscious than Wagner.

Well, to be fair to Crouch, he does include a quote by Wagner which shows myth as going right the way back. Trouble is, if I included that I'd get people's heads spinning even more than they already are. But then the whole thing is kind of intellectual Baked Alaska - overcooked on the surface and underdone inside.

If I read you right, that's what you're saying anyway.

Simon Weil

[bertrand]

I hope this book will finally solve the mystery of whether Art Blakey killed Bird or not.

Bertrand.

[Lazaro Vega]

Sure, Simon. And asking, what does that really mean? Performing music is stepping across a border into a cultural narrative, or is the narrative happening all the time and stepping on to stage is just one place where it receives stylized attention?

As far as the Bird book goes, yes, I’ll give it a spin. Not always wise to dismiss something out of hand.

[Simon Weil]

Sure, Simon. And asking, what does that really mean? Performing music is stepping across a border into a cultural narrative, or is the narrative happening all the time and stepping on to stage is just one place where it receives stylized attention?

Well...His idea is that the core myth/narrative of America is the Democratic ideal, whereby America is the carrier of Democracy - in some sense that is what America is about. So when you go onstage as a Jazz musician your role is to enact that ideal - to take part in what he (and the rest of the Lincoln Center people) see as a democratic discussion in music. But this isn't just one place where it receives attention, it's THE place - Jazz is made the core exemplar of the American spirit.

If you want to compare that to Wagner, in his writings, W says that his music is the core place where the GERMAN spirit is carried. But he thinks the German spirit is universal, just as Crouch et al think the American spirit is universal.

As far as the Bird book goes, yes, I’ll give it a spin. Not always wise to dismiss something out of hand.

Yup...Seems fair.

Simon Weil

[AllenLowe]

well, I've always thought the jazz-as-democracy bit was complete bullshit - ask Wynton who makes the decisions in his band (or at Lincoln Center). And who gets leader pay. And anytime I see convoluted discussions of The American Myth I head for the door, as it usually means second-hand rationalization and layers of fog between the actual figure portrayed and his actions/reality. Reminds me of when I was in college, ca. 1971 and had a big argument with Neal Gabler (same guy who now writes books on various film-related subjects; was than film critic for the Michigan Daily at the U. of Michigan); Gabler had decided that Dirty Harry was a film masterpiece because of its portrayal of the American Myth. I though it was an ok, proto-fascist cop film.

Crouch is a smart guy and I have read pieces of his with remarkable insight - as matter of fact, the BEST thing I have ever read that he wrote was for The New Republic on the movie Bird. I think they must have actually edited his crap because it was coherent, well-reasoned, and without his usual awkward and strained (maybe I should say stained) metaphors. The Bird book will be crap as long as he interprets, likely, but it may be valuable for the research he has done and the people he has intereviewed. It might be better presented a source book; with the Crouch ego, however, it will likely be much more (and less) than that.

But I hate this "myth" thing that some cultural writers do; it's as tired as the use of metaphor in fiction -

Edited December 18, 2006 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

His idea is that the core myth/narrative of America is the Democratic ideal, whereby America is the carrier of Democracy - in some sense that is what America is about. So when you go onstage as a Jazz musician your role is to enact that ideal - to take part in what he (and the rest of the Lincoln Center people) see as a democratic discussion in music.

Paul Desmond once said that he had another octave range on his alto until he started thinking about how he was doing it. Then he couldn't do it anymore.

[AllenLowe]

sorta like the Vienna boys choir -

[Simon Weil]

well, I've always thought the jazz-as-democracy bit was complete bullshit - ask Wynton who makes the decisions in his band (or at Lincoln Center). And who gets leader pay. And anytime I see convoluted discussions of The American Myth I head for the door, as it usually means second-hand rationalization and layers of fog between the actual figure portrayed and his actions/reality.

Quite...They talk the talk and then...walk the dog.

Reminds me of when I was in college, ca. 1971 and had a big argument with Neal Gabler (same guy who now writes books on various film-related subjects; was than film critic for the Michigan Daily at the U. of Michigan); Gabler had decided that Dirty Harry was a film masterpiece because of its portrayal of the American Myth. I though it was an ok, proto-fascist cop film.

Or then there's the time I had a discussion about a Brit avant-garde film maker. I maintained her work was universal, the other guy that it was specifically Scottish. We got very heated. Meanwhile, the woman was standing right next to us, kind of ignored. God, it's embarrassing.

Crouch is a smart guy and I have read pieces of his with remarkable insight - as matter of fact, the BEST thing I have ever read that he wrote was for The New Republic on the movie Bird. I think they must have actually edited his crap because it was coherent, well-reasoned, and without his usual awkward and strained (maybe I should say stained) metaphors. The Bird book will be crap as long as he interprets, likely, but it may be valuable for the research he has done and the people he has intereviewed. It might be better presented a source book; with the Crouch ego, however, it will likely be much more (and less) than that.

Yup.

But I hate this "myth" thing that some cultural writers do; it's as tired as the use of metaphor in fiction -

People need myths (aka stories).

Simon Weil

Edited December 18, 2006 by Simon Weil

[Lazaro Vega]

Thanks for that clarification, Simon. Was leaning towards understanding it as the mythology of jazz itself, that when you step on stage you're stepping into the story of jazz up to that point and are extending, repeating, or reworking that story according to who you are and what you know about music, what you're trying to express.

That was an interesting comment, Jim: self consciousness and over examination in such a spontaneous art form being a determent. Newk went through that, famously, with Schuller's review of "Blue 7."