Francis Davis bites back at Crouch.

[Pharaohrock]

Anyone see his letter in the latest JazzTimes??

[xricci]

P-rock, If it isn't too much trouble, can you retype it?

[Pharaohrock]

WHY STANLEY CAN'T WRITE

In the introduction to my collection Like Young, I pointed out that jazz once provided white people the "illusion" of a way into "black culture at its most esoteric and oppositional." I didn't think it necessary to italicize illusion, though I now see I should have for the benefit of readers like my pal Stanley Crouch, whose tin ear when it comes to the English language is apparent in every ungainly sentence on his attack on me in "Putting the White Man in Charge" (April 2003). "Because Negroes invented jazz, and because the very best players have often been Negroes..." Crouch writes, by which I trust he means that many, not to say most, of the leading figures in jazz have been black (no argument there), although what he is literally saying is that Louis Armstrong, Coleman Hawkins, Charlie Parker, et al., were "often" black but sometimes not. The qualities that Crouch admires in Wynton Marsalis- grace, precision, technical mastery- have equivalents in writing, and Stanley comes no closer to swinging in print than he did as a drummer.

I admire Crouch as a social commentator, though not as a prose stylist and certainly not as a jazz critic; he did his best writing on jazz 20 or 30 years ago, before becoming a mouthpiece for Albert Murray and Ralph Ellison and their honor roll of dead white men: Eliot, Hemingway, Malraux, etc. A sign of Crouch's dishonesty is his taking the stormy rhetoric of 1960s free jazz and putting it to use in defense of a reactionary musical aesthetic. In a passage to Like Young that Crouch fails to acknowledge, but which I doubt he missed, I accuse him (and Marsalis) of playing the race card at every opportunity, and this is exactly what he does in accusing me and unnamed colleagues of harboring a racist agenda in preferring Douglas to Marsalis and his clones.

Crouch might have strengthened his polemic by quoting a few lines from Like Young that show I am "intimidated by Negroes and also quite jealous of them" but of course, he couldn't find any. Besides, he knows that vagueness can be an effective weapon; ad hominem attacks are easy to laugh off, but they are also difficult to rebut. As a matter of curiosity though, why does Crouch (mistakenly) assume that I was a child of the middle class? Because I'm white and more articulate than he is? Isn't this the same as assuming that anyone black grew up illiterate and on welfare? And anyone on the payroll at Lincoln Center has a lot of nerve calling someone else "middlebrow"- especially a longtime contributor to The Atlantic Monthly, which Stanley not so long ago thought was the finest magazine in America.

Oh well, at least he's willing to admit that Dave Douglas "is far from being a bad musician", which is more than he would conceded a few years ago. This is progress, I guess.


- From JazzTimes, May 2003

[Jazzmoose]

Damn...this is the first time I've regretted allowing my subscription to lapse!:D

[jav]

Once again I find Stanley Crouch has made some cogent points, but has gone too far with the rhetoric. Sounds like Davis was stung and came out swinging as he should have. However back to Crouch, I also have wondered if artists such as Dave Douglas have in some ways benefited from white privilege in attaining their lofty status with jazz critics. Not to say that an artist like Douglas has sought or wants this advantage, but it does seem that as in other music genres there are a preponderance of white jazz artists who receive more positive press coverage and more live bookings. Obviously racism and white privilege continue to exist in America, if in doubt check the sociological studies and statistics, but I personally dont believe as Crouch does that it is as intentionally deep rooted in jazz. I found his critique of Francis Davis to be way overboard. As an alternative explanation to jealousy and seeking "the destruction of the Negro aesthetic," I would offer as a more likely leading cause of privilege being a difference in taste in music. Jazz began from the divergent sources of european, creole, african and african american blues and field songs and it occurs to me that today many whites still prefer the former sources and many blacks prefer the latter. To quote saxopohonist David Murray from the current issue of DOWNBEAT:"The two essential elements of jazz from the U.S. are gospel and blues. When you take those two elements out, I'm not sure what you get." He was referring to the difference between american and european jazz, but it strikes me that perhaps that defines the differences Crouch is speaking of more clearly. Of course these are broad generalizations, but I do believe the issue of white privilege needs to be aired, but in a more fair and open manner than just Crouch's approach which tends to further polarize the issue. jav

[Pharaohrock]

I also have wondered if artists such as Dave Douglas have in some ways benefited from white privilege in attaining their lofty status with jazz critics. Not to say that an artist like Douglas has sought or wants this advantage, but it does seem that as in other music genres there are a preponderance of white jazz artists who receive more positive press coverage and more live bookings

- I don't think there's any question that you have white privelige involved with the success of some white jazz artists. Whether critics consciously boost white artists or it's simply a matter of white artists playing the kind music that will more likely appeal to them ("real" jazz or not), I think you do have the basic situation where white artists in jazz seem to have an easier time getting coverage.

However, all of this ignores the larger fact that the vast majority of the audience is white anyway. I think in Stanley's romanticized vision of jazz the music is dominated by blues/swing, this gets all the best coverage, and the audience has a substantially larger number of African Americans than it does today. He needs to recognize on some level that critics speak to the audience, and that if the audience isn't predisposed towards blues/swing, there's nothing that can really be done about that.

I definitely agree with Stanley's premise that straight-ahead artists are not afforded the same amount of interest and discussion that supposed "innovators" are. I think many of the critics of today come from a rock childhood where there is always some "new thing" and they seek to project this on jazz on some level. I do think that the jazz tradition is vitally important, and that regardless of what innovations may be occurring on the edges of the music, that straight-ahead jazz needs to be paid attention to and given respect.

There's a kind of attitude among some critics that all straight-ahead records sound the same these days. I would beg to differ! There is as much variation in quality and nuance with S.A. as there is with the avant-garde, but few critics outside of Stanley Crouch, Gary Giddins and Nat Hentoff seem to want to look at this music with a deeper level of appreciation. I read Stanley's current column praising Eric Reed with interest because it occurred to me how rare what he was doing was: actually bothering to analyze the strengths of a straight-ahead musician! (of course, taking a few swipes at avant-garde artists in the process. lol.) But it is great when they are afforded this level of interest, even as it is rare.

- Incidentally, Francis Davis compromised his own position by preferring Douglas' music over "Wynton and his clones." This makes him seem genuinely hostile to the music that Crouch portends to represent. He should have kept his argument focused on the messenger, not the music which he says he isn't opposed to but obviously isn't really in support of either .

[Al Rearick]

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
- Incidentally, Francis Davis compromised his own position by preferring Douglas' music over "Wynton and his clones." This makes him seem genuinely hostile to the music that Crouch portends to represent.

What music does Crouch "portend to represent?" Or did you mean to type pretend? ;)

Being hostile to "Wynton and his clones" certainly does not make one hostile to music that actually swings.

[kdd]

Being an old liberal white guy, I won't see all the racism out there but it seems as though Crouch's article uses race as the main issue when the point seems to be that critics tend to give more attention to avant-garde leaning music (or world influenced) these days. Matthew Shipp and Jason Moran have benefitted from this as much as Dave Douglas so I don't see it as a race issue as much as a mentality that a critic has to be on the cutting edge of things so they can look smart 20 years from now by saying see, so and so is now considered a master now and I predicted it 20 years ago, where's my book deal. Well they've always got it wrong and will always get it wrong, so maybe they can try judging things on their merits regardless of context. Both sides, Ratliff or Crouch, have blinders on and that doesn't help anything.

[Leeway]

I think Crouch made a mess of his essay on Dave Douglas, race, etc. A very unappealing piece. Perhaps Stanley is losing his touch. Francis Davis has every right to criticize it. However, his attack on Stanely seems atbest petulant, and at worst unjustifiably personal. I refer to such comments as:

"I now see I should have for the benefit of readers like my pal Stanley Crouch, whose tin ear when it comes to the English language is apparent in every ungainly sentence on his attack on me"

"Stanley comes no closer to swinging in print than he did as a drummer."

"I admire Crouch as a social commentator, though not as a prose stylist and certainly not as a jazz critic; he did his best writing on jazz 20 or 30 years ago"

Maybe Crouch had it coming to him, but I don't admire the way Davis handled his end of it. Too much bile all around.

[Paul Secor]

I can never understand why people don't just ignore S.C. He thrives on controversy and attention. Ignore him and perhaps, just perhaps, he'll go away.

[Pharaohrock]

The only reason Stanley has such resonance in spite of his faults is that he's black, and he makes a claim on white people in jazz- listeners and musicians alike, that they need to be accountable to the black historical nature of jazz. White guilt necessitates that someone like Crouch will never be simply ignored. People may argue with him, but they recognize they need to engage him nonetheless.

[Chris A.]

Then, of course, there is that right hand punch! :rolleyes:

[Leeway]

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
The only reason Stanley has such resonance in spite of his faults is that he's black, and he makes a claim on white people in jazz- listeners and musicians alike, that they need to be accountable to the black historical nature of jazz. White guilt necessitates that someone like Crouch will never be simply ignored. People may argue with him, but they recognize they need to engage him nonetheless.

P-Rock, I'm sure you don't mean it that way, but your statment has a whiff of racism to it. And, no, I don't feel "guilty" about anything. Maybe Crouch's IDEAS appeal to people. Maybe it has nothing to do with his being black. Maybe his way of seeing things has the resonance of truth to it. I didn't like the Douglas article either, but why play the "race card" to voice disagreement with it? Challenge it on its merits.

Sometimes, it's the very vehemence of the reaction to Crouch that makes me think he's right, else why such pained outrage? Is it guilt that makes one (black or white, or Asian, or Hispanic) realize " the black historical nature of jazz." How could one like jazz and not know it? That's not guilt, that reality. I don't like the call to "ignore" someone- it's an evasion of intellectual responsibility. Deal with the ideas.

[jav]

Agree or disagree, Crouch elicts discussion, particularly about matters of race and for that I am grateful he is around. I usually find some truth in what he says, but then he goes way beyond the point and sees the world of jazz in very black and white terms. In a world that is various shades of gray I find it impossible to defend his extreme tenets as a whole, but he does push the envelope and there is always a need for those type of people lest we all get complacent. The point made in an earlier post that perhaps critics look to music that is "out there" to be forward thinking and keep ahead of the game does seem to have merit. That could be part of the answer as to why Dave Douglas is such a media darling and I agree that Mathew Shipp and Jason Moran also may have benefited from this mindset. However true or not it does not deter the reality that race and white privilege still play a role and Crouch keeps this part of the equation alive and in active discussion, so thank you Stanley even if you can be maddening to deal with! jav

[Chris A.]

Stanley has a history of making philosophical u-turns. It is a characteristic of the opportunist, and it makes one agree with him one minute and not the next (unless, of course, one is equally chameleonic).

I have a strong feeling that Stanley frequently goes against the flow for no other reason than to stand out from the crowd. In matters of race, that often means supporting the more prevalent white point of view--which he often does.

I recall a time when he insisted that white saxophone players weren't worth a damn. It was a controversial stance to take and he later contradicted himself. When PBS ran a series on Africa (it may have been called "Africa") several years ago, Stanley reviewed it in The Village Voice, and surprised me with his candor. He pointing out that the series' host/writer/producer (who was an African) was guilty of serious racial bias--that the series was rife with inaccurate statements and was, in fact, so slanted that PBS should have presented a panel discussion with knowledgable historians following each installment. I totally agreed and dashed off a letter to the Voice commending Stanley for having made the observation.

I now have to wonder if he really meant what he said or if he was simply trying to generate controversy.

Many years ago, Stanley and I had in common a friend named Orde Coombs, Orde, who passed long ago, was a black writer determined to make a name for himself at a time when that was a career liability. He told me that his approach was to be as controversial as editors would allow him to be. Thus he wrote a piece for the New York Times, the gist of which was that most street crimes were committed by blacks, and we ought to build concentration camps to house them.

Needless to say, he infuriated many people across racial lines. His follow-up was a New York magazine article (cover story, as I recall) suggesting that we should be on the lookout for, and fear, a "mulatto power" movement that was brewing. It was ludicrous and he admitted it to me. We had both been at a predominantly black party whose guests included a number of light-complexioned African-Americans (Orde was West Indian). Someone, in jest, made some silly remark like "They're taking over." That's all Orde needed to hear--the article germinated immediately.

All this to say that Stanley's apparent m.o. reminds me of Orde.

[Lawrence Kart]

I think Chris may have nailed it with Crouch, though there's also Crouch's peculiar blend of the coercive and the fawning. Two examples, fortunately my only encounters with the man: In the mid-1980s, Crouch was spending time at a writers colony in a Chicago suburb and called me at the Chicago mewspaper where I then wrote about jazz among other things, to say hello, shmooze, whatever--very buddy-buddy garroulous, though we'd never met. Within a few minutes, maybe because he was aware that I'd written favorably about many AACM figures over the years, especially Roscoe Mitchell, he said something along the lines of Lester Bowie not being able to play the trumpet--his tone not being contentious but more like, "Hey, pal, everyone who knows anything knows that." I stopped him in mid-flow and said I didn't agree on that at all. He hung up.
Second encounter was in 1985 at the Village Vanguard. I was with Thad Jones (to do an interview with him), and Thad wanted to drop by the Vanguard to catch a set of Kenny Burrell. When the band took a break, Kenny spotted Thad and walked over to say hello, but Crouch intercepted Kenny and began to engage in a bout of dramatized verbal ass-licking that was beyind anything I've ever witnessed from a sane human being, worthy of an old-fashioned Broadway gossip columnist. Worse yet, this display seemed to be aimed not only at Burrell but at everyone else in the vicinity, that it was an attempt to showcase and verify the closeness that supposedly prevailed between Crouch and a talented musician. Creepy stuff.

[Paul Secor]

Originally posted by Leeway




Sometimes, it's the very vehemence of the reaction to Crouch that makes me think he's right, else why such pained outrage? Is it guilt that makes one (black or white, or Asian, or Hispanic) realize " the black historical nature of jazz." How could one like jazz and not know it? That's not guilt, that reality. I don't like the call to "ignore" someone- it's an evasion of intellectual responsibility. Deal with the ideas.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would never make a judgement on someone's ideas based on other people's reactions. I judge people and their ideas on their own merits.
As for "an evasion of intellectual responsibility", I don't feel that S.C. has written anything that warrants an intellectual response. I see him as the jazz media equivalent of Madonna - someone who exists merely to create controversy and attract attention.
My only sighting of S.C. reminded me of Lawrence Kart's experiences. I was in Tower Records some years ago, and S.C. walked up to a woman he evidently knew. When she showed him the recording she was planning to buy, he responded, "and what do you think of Wynton Marsalis' latest record, Ms. ...?" If I didn't know better, I would have thought he was pimping for Wynton. But of course, S.C. would never do that.
Anyway, anyone who wants to engage S.C. intellectually can do so. I'll continue to ignore him.

[montg]

I don't see it as a race issue as much as a mentality that a critic has to be on the cutting edge of things so they can look smart 20 years from now by saying see, so and so is now considered a master now and I predicted it 20 years ago, where's my book deal.

I think this is an interesting point and something I've suspected myself sometimes. I don't want to generalize, and I understand that a critic's role is, in part, to discover what's nonobvious to most of us, but it would be nice to see more discussion of the straight ahead music. I quit subscribing to both Downbeat and Jazztimes because the writers amd reviewers seemed largely unconcerned with the straght ahead scene.

[Valerie]

What speaks volumes to me about Mr. Crouch's M.O. and enormous ego is the fact that whenever I've observed him in public and he's talking to someone or pontificating to a small group, he's always speaking very loudly and constantly looking around to see who else is listening to him and whether they're sufficiently impressed by him and/or his name-dropping! It's really quite pathetic, IMHO.

[3pointdeli]

from what i've heard, he does this (what valerie described) in jazz clubs while muicians are trying to play. anyone know if this is true?

[Chris A.]

Originally posted by 3pointdeli
from what i've heard, he does this (what valerie described) in jazz clubs while muicians are trying to play. anyone know if this is true?

Yes.

[3pointdeli]

yes, as in "yes, it is true" or "yes, i know if it's true or not"?

[Chris A.]

"Yes" as in I have witnessed that behavior on more than one occasion, the last time being about a year ago at George Wein's annual JVC kickoff party.

[3pointdeli]

so i guess my suspicions were correct. stanley crouch is, in fact, a loudmouthed slob and an asshole.

[Saundra Hummer]

Oh!!! This is fun!!!!

[Valerie]

Originally posted by 3pointdeli
from what i've heard, he does this (what valerie described) in jazz clubs while muicians are trying to play. anyone know if this is true?

Yes, 3pointdeli, I'm sorry to say that the Village Vanguard is one of the places I saw him displaying this obnoxious behavior during, between and after a set!!

[jav]

I'm surprised that Lorraine Gordon would let SC get away with such boorish behavior at the Vanguard! jav

[Chris A.]

Originally posted by jav
I'm surprised that Lorraine Gordon would let SC get away with such boorish behavior at the Vanguard! jav

Stanley has a column in the NY Daily News.

It's amazing what people can get away with when they have a column. Leonard Feather remains a good (i.e. bad) example of this sort of thing.

[Hardbop]

Originally posted by 3pointdeli
from what i've heard, he does this (what valerie described) in jazz clubs while muicians are trying to play. anyone know if this is true?

I've seen Mr. Crouch many, many, many times in jazz gigs in night clubs and in concerts and never once have I heard a peep out of him while musicians are playing. Specifically, I have seen him int the Vanguard many times and have never heard him talk over musicians. Any reports of this type of behavior are no doubt apocryphal.

Meanwhile, while speaking about the *great* Stanley Crouch some congratulations are in order. He has added another accolade to his sterling C.V. He is the Louis Armstrong Professor at Columbia University for the 2002-03 academic year.

Quite an honor

[Chris A.]

It should be noted that when Heaney sees Stanley at a performance, Wynton is probably the performer. Stanley knows on which side his bread is buttered.;)

[Hardbop]

Originally posted by Chris A.
It should be noted that when Heaney sees Stanley at a performance, Wynton is probably the performer. Stanley knows on which side his bread is buttered.;)

Boy, you are like an aging gunfighter who is no longer quick to the draw. It took you 17 minutes between the time I posted and the time you responded.

[3pointdeli]

Originally posted by Hardbop


I've seen Mr. Crouch many, many, many times in jazz gigs in night clubs and in concerts and never once have I heard a peep out of him while musicians are playing. Specifically, I have seen him int the Vanguard many times and have never heard him talk over musicians. Any reports of this type of behavior are no doubt apocryphal.

Meanwhile, while speaking about the *great* Stanley Crouch some congratulations are in order. He has added another accolade to his sterling C.V. He is the Louis Armstrong Professor at Columbia University for the 2002-03 academic year.

Quite an honor

you're sad, man.

[Pharaohrock]

I don't care who's telling the truth here, there's an air of vindictiveness in Chris A.'s tone that makes me suspicious of his accounts. Somehow I doubt Crouch is that rude because I know plenty of musicians who would chastise him for it. No one is afraid of him and no one reveres him too highly.

I saw him at the Jazz Standard once and he just sat at the bar and had conversations there with different folks, but was never loud.

And 3pt, please take the ad hom attacks to another forum. We've had very little of that here but one also knows it only takes a little of that to start a wildfire.

[3pointdeli]

i'm not going anywhere pharoah. crouch is a public figure and will take any criticism i, or anyone else, wants to throw his way.

[jazzcritic]

JazzTimes blundered when they added the egomaniac Stanley Crouch as a columnist. It was one of many reasons that caused me to end my subscription to the magazine after over a dozen years.

For those of you who aren't aware, this is the same character who was invited as a guest presenter by the Jazz Journalist Association for their awards show a few years ago, and later took a swing at its present during the festivities which followed.

I have better uses of my time than to read his rants.

[Chris A.]

Posted by Pharaohrock
I don't care who's telling the truth here, there's an air of vindictiveness in Chris A.'s tone that makes me suspicious of his accounts.
When one makes personal, first-hand observations that don't agree with your notions, I suppose it spells "vindictiveness" in your mind. Well, I am just one of many people who have made the same observations re Stanley, so perhaps you should wonder why so many people are "vindictive." Is it a conspiracy? Or is Mr. Crouch simply not a very sociable person? Look into it.
Pharaohrock:
Somehow I doubt Crouch is that rude because I know plenty of musicians who would chastise him for it. No one is afraid of him and no one reveres him too highly.
Could it be that you are contradicting yourself just a little bit here?
Pharaohrock:
I saw him at the Jazz Standard once and he just sat at the bar and had conversations there with different folks, but was never loud.
I have seen him sit quietly at a bar--in fact, he has joined me at a bar and started a conversation. That proves nothing--no one is suggesting that Stanley walks around talking loud and throwing punches.
Pharaohrock:
And 3pt, please take the ad hom attacks to another forum. We've had very little of that here but one also knows it only takes a little of that to start a wildfire.
Ah, we are back to playing AAJ Police, are we?

[Pharaohrock]

Regardless, I've seen your act on other forums and it's the same old shit, going out of your way to bash Wynton and Crouch, usually investing no small amounts of type to do so. It's like a friggin' crusade for you to try and bring them down, but it doesn't seem to dawn on you that holding court on a BBS is hardly a real sphere of influence.

Bottom line is you've got some kind of neurosis about Wynton man, and you really ought to keep that shit under wraps better. It makes you seem rather one-dimensional if nothing else.

Moreover, if you as a professional jazz critic can't see what an unprofessional piece of agenda-driven muckrakery the above article is, then your bias is REALLY blinding you at that point.

[Chris A.]

What's your problem, Prock?

Gonna re-assume your imaginary constabulary role and kick me off the board for not falling at Wynton's and Stanley's feet? :D :D :D

[Pharaohrock]

I'm the last to fall at their feet, but your criticism of them has a rather vicious and unrelenting edge to it, and anyone who's seen your act before at another forum knows exactly what I'm talking about.

[Chris A.]

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
I'm the last to fall at their feet, but your criticism of them has a rather vicious and unrelenting edge to it, and anyone who's seen your act before at another forum knows exactly what I'm talking about.

So it's an "act," is it? I think you need to chill. By the way, what were you doing at Blue Note? Don't you know that it is aagainst the BPR (Board Police Rules) to jump Board?

Picking a fight seem to be something you get off on, but you won't get one out of me--your obvious resentment of me is ok, don't worry about it. I have my opinions, you have yours--perhaps you could learn to live with it? :confused:

[Pharaohrock]

don't play this off on me. you're the one launching full-tilt into a hate-agenda. you hate wynton, and would stop at no lengths to try and smear his name.

- and it is an "act", in the sense that it's the same old shit, over and over again, at this forum and so many others...

....and even if there is truth in it, you're either trying really hard to convert people to your views or you are so egocentric you're not aware that you're repeating yourself.

[Chris A.]

Keep going...I'll just sit back and watch you reveal yourself some more :D :D

[Pharaohrock]

well, you'd be disappointed because the fact is i'm no one who has interacted with you before. in fact, in the past I had (*naively) thought there was nothing wrong with your anti-Wynton diatribes because I was in general agreement that he was overrated. i've come to feel in recent years though that there's a point at which the anti-Wynton talk becomes not just critical but HATEFUL, and to me your venting often crosses that line.

[Lazaro Vega]

To intercede for a moment: what of a critical bias favoring the so-called avant-garde? Maybe the young lions of the 1980's have come up against some of the same musical dilemmas facing artists in the late 1950's and are starting to come up with the similar answers, or their own versions of similar answers (Douglas, Moran).

Before Dexter Gordon returned from Europe and Art Pepper from prison, before all of the media attention Art Blakey was able to muster (deservedly) in the late 70's and early 1980's, in other words, before the seeds were sown for the arrival of Wynton and the generation of young players who took it straight ahead, MUSICIANS were more in charge of the music they were making and selling and teaching than at any time since. And some of their music, whether from the AACM, BAG, CAC or Woodstock's Creative Music Studio, or Horace Tapscott's organization, was dealing with larger musical issues than blues plus swing equals jazz. Broader musical palette. Maybe the critics aren't looking forward as much as they are looking back to people who wrestled with some of these same musical issues before. Whatever one's opinion of Crouch or Davis, this central issue is worth discussing. And to allay any personal attacks, I'm down with the tradition, too.