Thanks for this. Completely fascinating. Loved Stanley’s Bird book. Too bad there will not be a second one (although I don’t know if he intended to do one).
It strikes me that 2007 was nearly the last year when the notion of a "white critical establishment" worth complaining about would have any meaning. There was a lot to complain about -- running Crouch out of Jazz Times was one of the most parochial things I've ever seen in any field -- but by 2015, iPhones and Instagram had wrecked the tenuous careers of most of that establishment, and damned if I sometimes don't miss some of them.
as usual, Paul, you make an acute point. I myself was saying to someone else this week that my reposts about Marsalis, Ellison, Murray, and Crouch are not timely, they are fully historical.
Great interview, Ethan. Your style likely opened SC up to engage in a very refreshing manner. It brought up memories for me of a time, perhaps 2007, at the Guelph Jazz Festival, Amiri Baraka was a keynote speaker on one of the panels and Charlie Haden in the same room. There was an antagonistic vibe; I assumed it was directed at Haden. Mr. Haden assured me that it was not the case. His reply, something like, "No, we're cool."
Thanks so much for this, Ethan. There are no coincidences in life. I had just discovered and read Considering Genius a month ago! That book made a big impression, as does your interview with mr. Crouch.
When I moved to New York in the early 80s I had several conversations with Stanley at the Vanguard. We (mostly he) talked about jazz, cigars, boxing, rap (luckily for me I agreed with him), literature and film. One time we got around to politics and I told him I was a socialist. I received the full-on Crouch treatment, but was able to fire back. Finally, here was one subject I could more than hold my own with him about. He slapped me rather hard on the back and started talking to someone else.
During my last few years living in New York my favorite jazz club was Smoke partly because the musicians hung out at the bar between sets. I exchanged a few words with several of them who were more or less in their 50s. Not one had much good to say about Stanley. But when I had similar conversations with Barry Harris and Harold Maberne at other venues they both appreciated him.
I found this conversation hugely interesting to read, and it made me understand that Stanley Crouch had a much wider ear, so to speak, than I’d thought. E.g., he appreciated Just the Facts and Pass the Bucket — an LP I treasure (there’s one used CD copy at Amazon, $178).
A word must be missing from this sentence: “ I’m [not] one of those sentimental people….”
thanks for comment! Right on. I believe the sentence is correct, that Stanley is saying that he DOES have a sentimental side, but that he also quick to reject it.
Ethan, I have read the Crouch interview several times since it first appeared and each time I learn something new. Kudos for arguing with him a bit about Douglass and Taylor. At that time it must not have been easy for you. The problem I have with Stanley's thresher style is this: in complaining about Jackson's and Ritchie's music is it necessary to insult their physical appearance? Or mention that Stevie Wonder is blind? Even in praising a Betty Carter performance in the Voice he mentioned the "bulbous glory of her backside" (I'm sure that didn't endear him to the many feminists on staff). I don't know if Stanley ever wrote about Chick Webb, but if he did would he have pointed out that he appeared hunchbacked?
In the liner notes for J.J. Johnson's "Quintergy" (rec 1988) Crouch wrote "(Ralph) Moore's reputation had begun to grow in the middle eighties and his replacing the saxophonist who played the previous gig added much". He's dissing the sax player who played in the band leader's previous group, in the liner notes for the band leader's current group? Damn.
I would have loved to get to know SC - his intellect comes shining through in this interview, of course, but always paired with a passion for the music that is much more catholic than his own writing seemed to admit.
Do you have a sense, Ethan, of why some of his writing (and I’m thinking now of the Marsalis liner notes, though I believe what I’m about to describe was not limited to those little essays) was so baroquely bullshit-y? From the Standard Time Vol 1 notes: “We hear these things because these young men share the awareness of a merciless fact that takes no prisoners into history: the responsibility passed on to the more ambitious artists of each generation is to learn how to redefine the fundamentals while maintaining the essences that give the art its scope and its grandeur.”
This was clearly a guy who understood that criticism (and his own critical writing certainly) was in a political conversation with others and was out to “win” in shaping the future of the culture. So I always assumed all his chatter about “grandeur” and the “majesty” of the blues was partly a rhetorical ploy to out-fancy the White gate-keepers or something. Alas, it mainly came off as flatulent hype to my ears - the verbal equivalent of Wynton feeling the need (was it need rather than desire? do we know the difference?) to unerringly wear a slick suit while performing.
The voice in your wonderful interview has a slant relationship with the voice in the liner notes. Was he simply trying to manipulate a suburban NJ guy like me, who loved Wynton’s playing and Dave Douglas’s playing about equally? (My first real essay on jazz was about them in contrast, in which I argued that they “required each other” - https://www.popmatters.com/jazz-today-a-tale-of-two-trumpets-2495457207.html)
Thanks for republishing this great conversation. It reminds of why SC is so animating, insightful, and wise at his best.
While I understand where you are coming from, I grew up reading the baroque liner notes with interest. It was a style and a brand. The 1987 paragraph you quote is not the most excessive (lol).
I just wrote about the late Richie Beirach, who was perhaps sidelined thanks to the young lions. Beirach didn't have much do to with the blues, he hated boogie-woogie, and I don't even think he truly appreciated Bud Powell. By 1985, Gary Burton built a whole system of jazz education that almost tried to deny black music and the blues. The label ECM was incredibly influential in that era, and right around the time Wynton hit, GRP was beginning to infuse acoustic jazz with as much Caucasian fusion as they could. Chick Corea is a perfect example of what Wynton and Crouch gave us: Was the more recent trio with Christian McBride and Brian Blade more "majestic" than the 1989 Akoustic band with Patitucci and Weckl? Maybe so. Is "majestic" a word I would use? Of course not. But that over-the-top sentiment has not been proven to be incorrect....
I hear you, Ethan. I read the baroque/pretentious Crouch with interest too back then. Particularly after reading your interview, though, I suspect that some real part of Crouch’s shtick in those liners (and elsewhere in his various assertions that only blues/pretty narrowly defined swing/Latin was really jazz) was a calculated exaggeration. And, honestly, that kinda rankles me.
But I agree for sure that there was value in advocacy for some return to jazz traditions (especially an appreciation of Armstrong and Ellington, Monk and Parker) around 1982. The trends you cite (ECM, GRP, etc) weren’t bad entirely, but they were kinda … blanching the music of its heart in many cases.
Why, then, did Crouch/Marsalis simultaneously seem to dismiss music that went outside bebop harmony in seeking more freedom? Your interview is VERY insightful on that question, and I loved reading SC’s appreciation for Arthur Blythe, Julius Hemphill, and (kind of) Braxton. It seems to me that Crouch was oversimplifying his own argument for rhetorical reasons - he didn’t trust his readers.
the shame is that most of Wynton's younger cohort didn't know much about Blythe, Hemphill, and Threadgill, although I don't think that, say, Tain is unaware of the whole lineage, especially by the 21st century. But in the '80s something abstract went underground that should have stayed more visible.
I always thought it strange that Wynton and Lester Bowie had an ongoing beef. They sort of focused on some of the same aspects of playing trumpet...bringing back the focus on tone color, half valve Rex Stewart influenced stuff that was previously neglected, heavy emphasis on blues and groove. Brass Fantasy is a crowd pleasing, acoustic, relatively straight ahead group that would have fit right in at JALC.
Thanks for this. Completely fascinating. Loved Stanley’s Bird book. Too bad there will not be a second one (although I don’t know if he intended to do one).
yes I liked the book also. He intended a second book but didn't complete it.
“…the community of the practitioners should have a big part in defining the importance of a given player.” Yes!
thumbs up!
This is great! I just bought Crouch's Bird biography and I'm excited to dig into it.
Awesome!
It strikes me that 2007 was nearly the last year when the notion of a "white critical establishment" worth complaining about would have any meaning. There was a lot to complain about -- running Crouch out of Jazz Times was one of the most parochial things I've ever seen in any field -- but by 2015, iPhones and Instagram had wrecked the tenuous careers of most of that establishment, and damned if I sometimes don't miss some of them.
as usual, Paul, you make an acute point. I myself was saying to someone else this week that my reposts about Marsalis, Ellison, Murray, and Crouch are not timely, they are fully historical.
Great interview, Ethan. Your style likely opened SC up to engage in a very refreshing manner. It brought up memories for me of a time, perhaps 2007, at the Guelph Jazz Festival, Amiri Baraka was a keynote speaker on one of the panels and Charlie Haden in the same room. There was an antagonistic vibe; I assumed it was directed at Haden. Mr. Haden assured me that it was not the case. His reply, something like, "No, we're cool."
Thanks so much for this, Ethan. There are no coincidences in life. I had just discovered and read Considering Genius a month ago! That book made a big impression, as does your interview with mr. Crouch.
Lovely to hear!
When I moved to New York in the early 80s I had several conversations with Stanley at the Vanguard. We (mostly he) talked about jazz, cigars, boxing, rap (luckily for me I agreed with him), literature and film. One time we got around to politics and I told him I was a socialist. I received the full-on Crouch treatment, but was able to fire back. Finally, here was one subject I could more than hold my own with him about. He slapped me rather hard on the back and started talking to someone else.
During my last few years living in New York my favorite jazz club was Smoke partly because the musicians hung out at the bar between sets. I exchanged a few words with several of them who were more or less in their 50s. Not one had much good to say about Stanley. But when I had similar conversations with Barry Harris and Harold Maberne at other venues they both appreciated him.
I found this conversation hugely interesting to read, and it made me understand that Stanley Crouch had a much wider ear, so to speak, than I’d thought. E.g., he appreciated Just the Facts and Pass the Bucket — an LP I treasure (there’s one used CD copy at Amazon, $178).
A word must be missing from this sentence: “ I’m [not] one of those sentimental people….”
thanks for comment! Right on. I believe the sentence is correct, that Stanley is saying that he DOES have a sentimental side, but that he also quick to reject it.
Ah, okay — I misread it.
Ethan, I have read the Crouch interview several times since it first appeared and each time I learn something new. Kudos for arguing with him a bit about Douglass and Taylor. At that time it must not have been easy for you. The problem I have with Stanley's thresher style is this: in complaining about Jackson's and Ritchie's music is it necessary to insult their physical appearance? Or mention that Stevie Wonder is blind? Even in praising a Betty Carter performance in the Voice he mentioned the "bulbous glory of her backside" (I'm sure that didn't endear him to the many feminists on staff). I don't know if Stanley ever wrote about Chick Webb, but if he did would he have pointed out that he appeared hunchbacked?
I mean, I have no defense. But Crouch was Crouch.
In the liner notes for J.J. Johnson's "Quintergy" (rec 1988) Crouch wrote "(Ralph) Moore's reputation had begun to grow in the middle eighties and his replacing the saxophonist who played the previous gig added much". He's dissing the sax player who played in the band leader's previous group, in the liner notes for the band leader's current group? Damn.
Probably the only critic ever who did this kind of thing!!
I would have loved to get to know SC - his intellect comes shining through in this interview, of course, but always paired with a passion for the music that is much more catholic than his own writing seemed to admit.
Do you have a sense, Ethan, of why some of his writing (and I’m thinking now of the Marsalis liner notes, though I believe what I’m about to describe was not limited to those little essays) was so baroquely bullshit-y? From the Standard Time Vol 1 notes: “We hear these things because these young men share the awareness of a merciless fact that takes no prisoners into history: the responsibility passed on to the more ambitious artists of each generation is to learn how to redefine the fundamentals while maintaining the essences that give the art its scope and its grandeur.”
This was clearly a guy who understood that criticism (and his own critical writing certainly) was in a political conversation with others and was out to “win” in shaping the future of the culture. So I always assumed all his chatter about “grandeur” and the “majesty” of the blues was partly a rhetorical ploy to out-fancy the White gate-keepers or something. Alas, it mainly came off as flatulent hype to my ears - the verbal equivalent of Wynton feeling the need (was it need rather than desire? do we know the difference?) to unerringly wear a slick suit while performing.
The voice in your wonderful interview has a slant relationship with the voice in the liner notes. Was he simply trying to manipulate a suburban NJ guy like me, who loved Wynton’s playing and Dave Douglas’s playing about equally? (My first real essay on jazz was about them in contrast, in which I argued that they “required each other” - https://www.popmatters.com/jazz-today-a-tale-of-two-trumpets-2495457207.html)
Thanks for republishing this great conversation. It reminds of why SC is so animating, insightful, and wise at his best.
While I understand where you are coming from, I grew up reading the baroque liner notes with interest. It was a style and a brand. The 1987 paragraph you quote is not the most excessive (lol).
I just wrote about the late Richie Beirach, who was perhaps sidelined thanks to the young lions. Beirach didn't have much do to with the blues, he hated boogie-woogie, and I don't even think he truly appreciated Bud Powell. By 1985, Gary Burton built a whole system of jazz education that almost tried to deny black music and the blues. The label ECM was incredibly influential in that era, and right around the time Wynton hit, GRP was beginning to infuse acoustic jazz with as much Caucasian fusion as they could. Chick Corea is a perfect example of what Wynton and Crouch gave us: Was the more recent trio with Christian McBride and Brian Blade more "majestic" than the 1989 Akoustic band with Patitucci and Weckl? Maybe so. Is "majestic" a word I would use? Of course not. But that over-the-top sentiment has not been proven to be incorrect....
I hear you, Ethan. I read the baroque/pretentious Crouch with interest too back then. Particularly after reading your interview, though, I suspect that some real part of Crouch’s shtick in those liners (and elsewhere in his various assertions that only blues/pretty narrowly defined swing/Latin was really jazz) was a calculated exaggeration. And, honestly, that kinda rankles me.
But I agree for sure that there was value in advocacy for some return to jazz traditions (especially an appreciation of Armstrong and Ellington, Monk and Parker) around 1982. The trends you cite (ECM, GRP, etc) weren’t bad entirely, but they were kinda … blanching the music of its heart in many cases.
Why, then, did Crouch/Marsalis simultaneously seem to dismiss music that went outside bebop harmony in seeking more freedom? Your interview is VERY insightful on that question, and I loved reading SC’s appreciation for Arthur Blythe, Julius Hemphill, and (kind of) Braxton. It seems to me that Crouch was oversimplifying his own argument for rhetorical reasons - he didn’t trust his readers.
the shame is that most of Wynton's younger cohort didn't know much about Blythe, Hemphill, and Threadgill, although I don't think that, say, Tain is unaware of the whole lineage, especially by the 21st century. But in the '80s something abstract went underground that should have stayed more visible.
I always thought it strange that Wynton and Lester Bowie had an ongoing beef. They sort of focused on some of the same aspects of playing trumpet...bringing back the focus on tone color, half valve Rex Stewart influenced stuff that was previously neglected, heavy emphasis on blues and groove. Brass Fantasy is a crowd pleasing, acoustic, relatively straight ahead group that would have fit right in at JALC.
I don't know, but I think Bowie's Brass Fantasy may be too funky for a purist. Those are such cool records, I need to re-listen
Charlie Parker did yoga?
I find golf almost more surprising
Yes. I guess the wind instrument teacher in me got excited by the yoga reference.