Stanley Crouch & "Jazz Times" Part Company

[Hardbop]

I don't know if this is "old" news but I was over on Eric Reed's web site and he mentions that Stanley Crouch -- who championed Eric in his JT column -- has been "released from his duties as a columnist at JT."

Too bad. Stanley proved to be too hot to handle for that publicaton. I don't feel so bad of not re-upping my subscription. JT feeds us the pabulum by Crouch's fellow columnists Nat Hentoff and Gary Giddins.

According to Reed's web site, James King is writing a piece on these contretemps for the "Village Voice" and Hentoff will address it in a "JT" column.

[Chris A.]

I wonder why they took him aboard in the first place. Perhaps the dumped him because he acted typically (i.e. punched an editor), but it is probably because they realized that he is in the JCL pocket, and has nothing significant to add to a jazz discussion.

Maybe he'll write another worst-selling novel:D

[Hardbop]

Originally posted by Chris A.
I wonder why they took him aboard in the first place. Perhaps the dumped him because he acted typically (i.e. punched an editor), but it is probably because they realized that he is in the JCL pocket, and has nothing significant to add to a jazz discussion.

Maybe he'll write another worst-selling novel:D

Don't wonder for too long. They hired him for the same reason Columbia University and Jazz at Lincoln Center and the New York Daily News and CBS and on and on and on. He writes well and has something to say, something that Hentoff and Giddins can no longer say.

[Chris A.]

Originally posted by Hardbop
...He writes well and has something to say, something that Hentoff and Giddins can no longer say.

Sure, and perhaps you should remove that foot from your mouth, Heaney. :rolleyes:

[3pointdeli]

maybe they could hire phillip clark.

[Bev Stapleton]

Originally posted by 3pointdeli
maybe they could hire phillip clark.

I was going to say that!

Just as long as they don't do an exchange with Jazzwise.

Can you imagine Crouch let loose on European jazz for a lengthy period!!!!

[3pointdeli]

i'd wager that european jazz fans would be more likely to simply ignore crouch.

[Bev Stapleton]

Possibly.

But it would be a scream to read!

[Pharaohrock]

for once i agree with Chris A.

Hardbop, don't brag on Crouch at Giddins' expense....Giddins is one of the few truly dedicated jazz writers out there. Crouch doesn't have half the commitment he does. Whether he's actually right in his positions or not, he's obviously content just to write one diatribe or laudatory piece after another, never dealing with anything in much depth. It's telling that he has written no major books about jazz.

As far as the firing of Crouch, I always viewed his hiring as a cynical ploy by JT to draw readers in through controversy, never mind if the editors may have thought his stuff was a pile of steaming poop. I'm sure they knew what they were getting with him, but just as they tried to pander to readers in the first place, they probably backed off just as quickly after receiving some letters claiming (usually bullshit) that people were going to cancel their subscriptions.

Of course none of us know the full story, but this is what I would tend to believe about it.

[Hardbop]

Boy, it took Aljerkoff only 12 minutes to chime in on the post. The Stan-ster's name is magic. If you want to find Aljerkoff, just mention Stanley or Wynton in a thread hedeline and he'll come runnin'.

Meanwhile, Gary Giddins is burnt out. I read the Voice every week and he is charged with the jazz listings section each week or at least is a heavy contributor and his sloppiness is laughable. He doesn't give a shit. Anyone who reads the Voice regularly will pick that up.

[Philip]

HB comments:
"Boy, it took Aljerkoff only 12 minutes to chime in on the post. The Stan-ster's name is magic. If you want to find Aljerkoff, just mention Stanley or Wynton in a thread hedeline and he'll come runnin'."

It took you three minutes to respond to Chris A!
:rolleyes:

[Chris A.]

Thank you, Philip!:D

[kdd]

I assumed Jazz Times hired Crouch to create controversy and he did a better job they they expected so they fired him for it, a bit hypocritical if you ask me. As for Giddins, he's been phoning it in for a while now. His Voice stuff is riddled with errors every week and his last piece on the Bad Plus was embarrissing

[Jazzmoose]

kdd, I agree that JT probably hired Crouch merely to stir up controversy. It's a cheap ploy to boost interest in a publication and works in the short run, but it never lasts forever. Once most of the readers figure out the writer in question has little to contribute other than the easy controversy, the end is near. I would imagine Crouch was let go because the string was pretty much played out. Columnists like this are just a quick circulation fix, and never last long in any one place.

Hardbop, I don't know why you felt the need to attack Giddins and Hentoff over this, they didn't fire Crouch. I myself prefer to read a column that is thought out and articulate, but maybe that's just a personal thing...

[Phil Kelly]

All I can add is that I wish they'd follow the rest of my suggestion when Crotch was hired by JT in the first place:

" fire Stanley Crotch ..and hire Artie Shaw " :D:D

[Brad]

Ah, Hardbop and Chris. Somethings never change. It's refreshing, I suppose.

[Leeway]

I'm a subscriber to JT (wonder how many who posted on this thread are?).

I'm disappointed that Crouch has been dropped. Sometimes I've disagreed with SC, and sometimes I've agreed with what he's had to say. So, he's often kicked up a fuss. What's so wrong with that? It's popular journalism, it's supposed to be provocative and idiosyncratic and challenging. But that's so rare, that when we get it, some of us are shocked! shocked!

SC at least forces people to (re) think about their positions (although much of the criticism directed his way is often mindless personal attacks). Too much of the criticism we read these days is the equivalent of smooth jazz.

Even more disappointing to me than Giddins has been Hentoff. He has not written one memorable JT column.

[Jazzmoose]

Leeway, I couldn't agree less. There's a difference between challenging writing that makes me think and someone just stirring shit to raise a stink. I find Crouch's writing to be sloppy. The cliche "rare insight" could be applied, but only because it's rarely there. I don't know, I find Hentoff's column to be much more interesting. True, it's not as controversial as Crouch's, but I never saw being controversial simply to be controversial and sell magazines as any great virtue.

(By the way, in answer to your question, I subscribed for about four years, but let it lapse late last year. Not due to Crouch or anything; I just didn't feel I was getting my money's worth from the magazine.)

[Leeway]

Here's the problem Jazzmoose. One man's"stirring shit" is another man's provocative thinking. The history of art and literature is replete with artists and critics being savagely assailed for principles or practices (modernism, surrealism, abstract expressionism, symbolism, minimalism, personal journalism, etc etc) that were later to be considered vital parts of the cultural tradition. SO I'm reluctant to write off work I disagree with as "shit." Indeed, I've learned that when a work really bugs me, I need to give it time and honest attention. It often turns out that there IS something there after all. Like the music of Cecil Taylor, Braxton, or Ayler. Jazz is kind of like that: sometimes the stuff you end up liking best is the stuff that bugs you the most at first.

I am NOT defending everything Crouch writes, not am I defending him as a person (I don't know him at all). I AM defending him as a writer who brings passions, ideas, yes even prejudices, to the table. I like this quality in a writer. Giddins, as has been remarked, has decided to phone it in, and Hentoff- who knows? Rather than drop Crocuh, JT should bring in such vocal opponents as our own Chris A., and offer a forum where jazz ideas get free play. Instead, it all gets boiled down to baby food, so as not to offend. IMO, that's why you felt you weren't getting value from JT.

[Hardbop]

Originally posted by Jazzmoose
Hardbop, I don't know why you felt the need to attack Giddins and Hentoff over this, they didn't fire Crouch. I myself prefer to read a column that is thought out and articulate, but maybe that's just a personal thing...

I don't read JT any more, but I thought Hentoff's column was terrible. He said absolutely nothing in it. Giddins seems to be focusing on writing tomes. His work in the Voice and in his JT column was banal. I haven't read his Bing Crosby bio (only part 1 of what will be at least a two-part bio) but it was well received. And I think he also wrote a bio of Hoagy Carmichael.

Crouch did exactly what you wanted to do with a column. He stirred interest. Just read the letters in the editor in JT. All were about Stanley's writing.

[Doc_Gamble]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hardbop
[B]

Giddins seems to be focusing on writing tomes. His work in the Voice and in his JT column was banal. I haven't read his Bing Crosby bio (only part 1 of what will be at least a two-part bio) but it was well received. And I think he also wrote a bio of Hoagy Carmichael.


The recent Hoagy Carmichael biography "Stardust Melody" (not to be confused with Will Friedwald's "Stardust Melodies" ) was written by Richard Sudhalter.

[montg]

VERY interesting take on the Crouch controversy in the Village Voice.

http://villagevoice.com/issues/0320/king.php

[Phil Kelly]

>>from the V/V ..(attributed in part to Crotch ..)

>>>His columns were becoming tedious, generally alternating between vitriolic rants and celebrations of his buddies."

"Sure, I was late, but then I ceased to be late," answers Crouch. "That a writer of my status and reputation would be dismissed in this way, with no discussion at all, constitutes some serious brand of injustice. . . <<<

well , there it is .."of *MY* staus, and reputation " ..

It would seem that Mssr Crotch is would seem to be guilty ( in the colorful words of the former Dallas Cowboy Nate Newton ) of the publicly egotistical kneejerk reaction of " smellin' hisself "...

weve spent way too mant pixels on this windbag ..

[montg]

Focusing on Crouch's brashness completely misses the point. Crouch contends, and the Village article suggests, that the mostly white critical establishment is in bed with the recording industry and they have unknowingly(?) ignored and marginalized voices like Crouch's. I don't beleive critics choose favorites based on race, but there's certainly the possibility that the cultural backround of the critic biases him/her and Crouch (and others) are concerned that the bias leads to overhyping folks like Dave Douglas while ignoring those building on the more straight ahead tradition.

Jazztimes and Downbeat (Backbeat?) routinely ignore the tradition--when's the last time you read a feature article on Coleman Hawkins or Lester Young, for instance-- while fawning on stuff that to Crouch and others seems counter to this tradition.

[makpjazz57]

The article at ejazznews.com was interesting. I don't like to hear of any opininions denied, however, sometimes I feel even the best of the critics have a really hard time being objective and seeing the big picture and that gets in the way of their writing.

For me personally, Crouch's monthly column was becoming somewhat of a bore, but I'm sure others felt differently and that's what it is all about - you can't please everyone!

Marla

[Al Jones]

Crouch's "ordeal" is being discussed here:

http://bagatellen.com/archives/frontpage/000083.html

[Pharaohrock]

These comments are most telling to me:

"Stanley's thing about the white critical establishment? You've got to be kidding—of course there is one," counters Mark Ruffin, an African American Downbeat contributor based in Chicago. "There has never been a single full-time black music critic at the Chicago Sun-Times or the Tribune—and I've been paying very close attention. I was a freelancer at the Sun-Times, and the things they choose to promote boggle my mind as a black American who grew up immersed in this music. The more far-out the music is, the more white critics promote it. I disagree with Stanley about a lot of things, but this consensus blows my mind."

"I've been a [JazzTimes and Downbeat] contributor for years," says Willard Jenkins, a black critic, "and it strikes me as curious that Stanley was let go following this article, when he has written things before that have deeply angered many in the African American community, and has never been taken to task. But now that he offends many in the white jazz establishment, he's out. There were insights in what he wrote: There is a tendency among white writers [to] prematurely elevate . . . the white flavor of the month. The [all-white jazz-rock trio] Bad Plus are the most recent example of that."

[3pointdeli]

yeah right, all those angry letters that were printed in the magazine right after crouch was hired were written by black readers. give me a break.

[Pharaohrock]

huh? that's the point no?

[Hardbop]

A second rate publication like "Jazz Times" was lucky to have a man of letters like Crouch even writing for them.

[Chris A.]

Originally posted by Hardbop
A second rate publication like "Jazz Times" was lucky to have a man of letters like Crouch even writing for them.

Incredible! And the sad thing is that Heaney probably believes the nonsense he posts.:rolleyes:

[kdd]

Chris even you have to admit that firing Crouch was a chicken-shit move. I mean the did hire him to fan the flames and fired him because he did what, his job too well. We can the argue the merits (or lack of) of Stanley's journalism till were blue in the face but firing him for giving them what they wanted, I don't know.
I read the Voice piece written by a white guy who writes for Jazz Times and calls Porter his good friend and with that in mind it was pretty even-handed but all the black critics mentioned the Bad Plus as proof Stanley has point. Hard to argue with that even though I don't generally agree with Crouch's article.

[Chris A.]

Originally posted by kdd
Chris even you have to admit that firing Crouch was a chicken-shit move. I mean the did hire him to fan the flames and fired him because he did what, his job too well.

If it is as simple as that, I will agree with you, but we don't really know what happened. One thing is for certain, the magazine didn't handle this well.

Stanley's limited literary talent aside, he has a terrible reputation for his anti-social behavior and for being a vaccillating contrarian. IMO, that, alone, would be a valid reason for not hiring him, but I'm sure that someone at JT saw the latter "quality" as a readership booster; after all, we live in a tabloid-oriented age where controversy, no matter how contrived it may be, increases readership.

So I will agree that this is probably a case of JT getting more than its editors wished for. There has been talk of racism on the part of the magazine, but, given the fact that Stanley was not hired by people wearing blinders, and considering that he relies more on being controversial than on literary talent or insight, I think racism is, at best, a minor factor here. Remember, he was also late handing in his copy, a fact that he has admitted to.

In short, I think Crouch has too many minuses in this equation for me to conclude that his firing was not justifiable.

As someone who has written for magazines for many years, I know that racism, however subtle it may be, exists in that business. It is also true that the jazz press for decades was virttually all white, and that it continues to be dominated by white writers and editors. Some say that this reflects the fact that jazz audiences, in the man, are not black, but I don't buy that. It's all too often who you know and who you feel comfortable with.

[Pharaohrock]

As much as I believe Crouch has a message that needs to be heard (the white press is hijacking jazz), I think his columns were starting to sound like a broken record. He would be better served writing a lengthy essay and having it published somewhere rather than by writing the same old diatribe just with different clothes, every week.

[3pointdeli]

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
huh? that's the point no?

pharoah, you know i was being sarcastic with my last post, right?

i'm not sure what you're trying to say here. it seemed like you were agreeing with the two excerpts you posted. to say that crouch made black readers angry, which is acceptable, but that he made white readers angry, which is NOT acceptable (and is the reason he got canned) is a false statement. look at all the letters written in response to crouch's column. those letters were not written only (probably not even mostly) by black readers.

maybe i misinterpreted you, though. that's the trouble with these silly web discussions.

[Hardbop]

Originally posted by Chris A.


If it is as simple as that, I will agree with you, but we don't really know what happened. One thing is for certain, the magazine didn't handle this well.

Stanley's limited literary talent aside, he has a terrible reputation for his anti-social behavior and for being a vaccillating contrarian. IMO, that, alone, would be a valid reason for not hiring him, but I'm sure that someone at JT saw the latter "quality" as a readership booster; after all, we live in a tabloid-oriented age where controversy, no matter how contrived it may be, increases readership.



You are the last person who should be criticizing someone for "anti-social" behavior given your antics on jazz chat boards.

And maybe it isn't clear to you "what happened," but it is pretty clear to me and everyone else "what happened" at "Jazz Times" and L'Affaire Crouch.

[Phil Kelly]

Originally posted by Hardbop


You are the last person who should be criticizing someone for "anti-social" behavior given your antics on jazz chat boards.

.


Hmmm ..I don't recall hearing of Chris physically ..and repeatedly.. assaulting people ..

the hyperbole herein is getting a bit steep ..although I too, feel JT booted this one big time in their handling of things ..

[Chris A.]

Originally posted by Phil Kelly

Hmmm ..I don't recall hearing of Chris physically ..and repeatedly.. assaulting people ..


Don't mind Heaney, Phil, he gets ever so upset when people criticize Crouch, because Crouch is part of the JLC "mafia," as some people call it. As many of us know, Heaney has a history of embracing mediocrity, whether it's Blood On the Fields or a Leslie Gourse cut and paste job, or a John McDonough anti-post bop tirade. Most of us humor him, and if it makes him happy to jump on my posts with his inanities, I say let him do it.:D

[Hackensack]

I wish I could be brief, but since JT will never publish my letter to the editor, this is it:

Stanley Crouch is such an ass! The thesis of his March column seems to be that if you ain't with us (the Lincoln Center crowd) you are either "Putting the White Man in Charge" or you're one of the white massas yourself. I don't understand how Crouch can twist Dave Douglas's playing "whatever he wants to do" into an implication that Dave wants "so badly" to put Negroes (using Crouch's term) in the background.

Could there be remnants of racism left in American society, that penetrate even to jazz writers (which seems to be Crouch's initial point)? Hell, yes. Would that have anything to do with Crouch's division of the world into "us" and "them?" I say no.

Crouch shows his ignorance by claiming that those who move beyond simply blues and swing are doing so to participate in the dissolution of the "Negro aesthetic." Perhaps he should take a look at Amiri Baraka's (Leroi Jones's) book Blues People for an eloquent argument that the free jazz aesthetic is a "Negro aesthetic." Crouch needs to open his eyes--and ears--to the role of the "new" Negro in the ongoing creation of a new jazz aesthetic. Geniuses in the generation discussed by Baraka and successors like William Parker, Jameel Moondoc, Hamid Drake, Joe McPhee, and Anthony Braxton happen to be Negroes who can play.

Ken Vandermark recently released two CDs of Free Jazz Classics. How does a white man paying tribute to the black creators of Free Jazz fit into Crouch's world view of "putting the white man in charge?"

[kdd]

Well Jazz Times printed some letters and the editor added this in the new issue:
"We didn't discontinue Stanley Crouch's "Jazz Alone" column because of what he wrote in "Putting the White Man in Charge". We ended it because the column became tedious, and we could no longer ignore his conflicts of interest or his many missed deadlines".
It goes on to include quotes from Stanley's response to their firing via e-mail. Jazz Times is close to doing something I didn't feel was possible, making Stanley a martyr. Jazz Times behavoir is in this matter is abysmal and it's just getting worse. It's amazing to me that that people (the editors of Jazz Times) in this position have no idea how to act professionally. Maybe they think this continued debate will sell more magazines but Jazz Times has been a marginal magazine at best and now they've made it easier for me not to buy it anymore.

[Chris A.]

Originally posted by kdd
Jazz Times has been a marginal magazine at best and now they've made it easier for me not to buy it anymore.

But, you live in Purchase!:D

[kdd]

O.K. How about I'll make my purchases elsewhere.

[montg]

Jazz Times has been a marginal magazine at best and now they've made it easier for me not to buy it anymore.

It's sad that the best jazz magazines are published on other continents. You'd think somebody in the US could put out a decent monthly jazz magazine.