Stanley Crouch Korner

[Hardbop]

I debated where to put this thread, but I figured the "Artist's" section is as a good a place as any since, in his own inimitable way, Stanley is an artist.

You may want to program your VCRs because on Book TV/C-Span2 the Stan-ster will part of the "In Depth" program where authors are featured. I don't have the time, but the date is October 5.

And I stumbled across Stanley's name in Bob Thiele's autobio, which I finished last night. Thiele recorded the Stan-ster on his Flying Dutchman label in the 1970s. I never knew this -- never even heard of it -- but Stanley recorded for Thiele an album of poetry. It had a very Mingus-like title: "Ain't No Ambulances For ******s Tonight." That is something I would like to hear.

[Chris A.]

Bob Thiele recorded a lot of crap.

[PHILLYQ]

What would Crouch think of that recording today? From what I understand, he pretty much turned his back on the music he used to play(and on David Murray, whom he formerly championed), so it would be curious to see his reaction if it were brought up to him.

[Hardbop]

Get your Stanley Crouch fix this Sunday on C-Span2/Book TV. It is called "In Depth" and will be "live" (I think) from noon to 3 p.m. on Sunday. Booktv.org.

I've already programmed my VCR.

[Chris A.]

Yesterday, I sat through the 3-hour Crouch interview and it was as amazing as it was boring. Still, I wanted to hear what Stanley had to say and, of course, the interview being transmitted live, there was always the possibility of seeing him punch out the interviewer. :D

They took calls, but the callers rarely got an answer--instead, Stanley rambled down a different path, most of the time. He obviously does not take well to criticism, although he should have grown accustomed to it by now. He arrogantly refers to his critics as "minor men." When they read to him an excerpt from a lengthy, negative review of his novel, Don't the Moon Look Lonesome, he immediately tagged the reviewer (an accomplished author) as a "minor" person, and added that he was a man of small physical stature, too. It was gratuitous and dumb.

Inevitably, someone asked about Wynton. Crouch pointed out that there are people who hate him, but that they are "minor men." He said that jazz was considered all but dead when Wynton came on the scene, but that Wynton helped prove that to be untrue. He also called Wynton "the greatest trumpet player in the world," and when asked if that was greatest of all time, he wouldn't come out and say it, but mentioned that someone who had shared a stage with Gillespie and other greats thought Wynton was the best ever. Stanley also referred to Wynton as "an extraordinary composer," and that his success prompted many musicians to believe that they could be as successful, but they could not.

His enthusiasm for Albert Murray seems to have cooled off. Could it be that Murray is becoming a minor man?

Like I said, amazing. :D

[peter rh]

Chris - please check your PMs

[Hardbop]

Originally posted by Chris A.
Yesterday, I sat through the 3-hour Crouch interview and it was as amazing as it was boring. :D

It couldn't have been all that boring if you spent three hours watching it.

[Chris A.]

Originally posted by Hardbop
It couldn't have been all that boring if you spent three hours watching it.

You still don't get it, do you, Heaney? Unlike you, I feel that one cannot credibly comment on something with which one is not familiar. Yes, it was a big bore, but I can talk about it. Guess that's difficult for you to understand.

[KolumBUZZ]

As far as Stanley not taking well to criticism...

- Point blank, Stanley Crouch is an insecure black intellectual. He is a bright man and has much to offer the world in terms of independent thinking, but unfortunately he is not secure enough in his own stature as a black academic in a white world, to resist making ad hominem attacks as an ego defense mechanism.

I'm not totally sympathetic though, because he also seems to believe that braggadocio is appropriate and justified if you're a black man, even if the context is the academic world where detached tones are held sacred. IMO, he's trying to take the legacy of great black men who talked a good game, e.g. Muhammad Ali or some of the religious orators, into the academic world...Cornel West does this too, and in the end, doesn't see how he's sacrificing genuine respect for his ideas, for entertainment value, in putting too much emphasis on his whole stage persona and schtick. Ditto Al Sharpton.

[Hardbop]

Originally posted by Chris A.
When they read to him an excerpt from a lengthy, negative review of his novel, Don't the Moon Look Lonesome, he immediately tagged the reviewer (an accomplished author) as a "minor" person, and added that he was a man of small physical stature, too. It was gratuitous and dumb.

Why the big secret? Who was the "famous" author who trashed the Stan-ster's tome? And you are back in the pot calling the kettle black territory here. You had some nasty things to say about Stanley's countenance -- racist comments as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by Chris A.

He said that jazz was considered all but dead when Wynton came on the scene.

He was right.

[Chris A.]

Originally posted by Heaney
Why the big secret? Who was the "famous" author who trashed the Stan-ster's tome?

No big secret, Heaney, and I did not say that the author was "famous"--I said accomplished, quite a different thing (I'm sure the difference is explained in your well-worn thesaurus). Like I said, I don't recall the name of the reviewer, but you allege to have the interview on tape--so why not tell us?

In the meantime, I did a quick search of reviews, hoping to find something that might trigger my memory--I didn't. However, I did find several reviews of the book and laudatory promotional blurbs. The following is typical of what I found:

NPR Jazz Book Review
Don't the Moon Look Lonesome
(Pantheon)
by Stanley Crouch
Reviewed by Zoë Anglesey

Nearly everything about Stanley Crouch's ambitious novel, Don't the Moon Look Lonesome, seems excessive. The narrative's forward motion breaks for ponderous flashbacks and sufficient backstory for a three-book contract. Protagonist Carla's story adds up to a remarkable résumé, but the former homecoming queen of Norwegian descent from North Dakota never quite reaches that "Embraceable You" stage of an appealing heroine.

In bits and pieces, Carla emerges. She foregoes her high school ambition to compete in the Olympics as an ice skater to become music major in Chicago. She meets up with Bluesman Jimmy Joe who introduces her to soul cooking and the Blues. Degree in hand, Carla vacates the Windy City and sets out to begin her post-grad immersion as a vocalist, composer and arranger in the Big Apple's jazz scene. That's a tall order for a novice, but lucky again, she picks the right man for the moment. Drummer Bobo is fortunate, too, especially when Carla unbelievably cools out a shotgun standoff between him and racist bikers. As a Vietnam Vet, Bobo recognizes courage, but he's too Hollywood, going on about the valor of "white boys." Lacking the quality he so admires, Bobo succumbs to heroin's supremacy. In walks Maxwell Davis, a successful saxophone player. By now, five years into the relationship and nearing forty, Carla checks the pulse of things and concludes Max is about to move on. Pressure comes from his crowd, post-Afrocentric and assertive. Carla is always invited, but is she embraced as a sistuh? No way. Carla and Max take a break and head for his folks' place in Houston, Texas. Earth mother Eunice and wise father Ezekiel get the couple back on course.

Meanwhile there are cultural issues to contemplate. The narrator takes stock of Rothko's chromatic black canvases and implies that abstraction--"the fractured figurative image" is less than high art. In Houston, after a fine transcription of church, the rites of the Last Supper are revisioned once again. A resurrection occurs a la sitcom style when Mother Harris is struck by a heart attack, dies and mid-funeral service, then arises alive from the satin-lined casket. Inserted are jokes about God, Charlie Parker and Bach and a gay lovers' quarrel ending up in a public immolation. Supermodel Leeann thrives on the Darwinian principle while her D.C. cousin rants about the Viagra curse-it allows men retired by impotence to prowl again. This drug nails down the time line, yet everyone talks "Crouch"-African Americans are still "Negroes".

Under thin disguise, Toots Celestine "The New Orleans trumpeter who is "king of New York jazz" and Maxwell's rival, "the one musician whom he was transparently jealous of ...the artistic director of the most important jazz program in the world" hosts a party. This is where vocalist Carla shines belting it out next to Toots. This is not sufficient. At party's end, Toots invites Max to join his band.

Carla's potential as a pre-millennium feminist fizzles. Crouch defines how: "...the girl from South Dakota became one of the guys. All by her lonesome. They were dealing with her, not her as Maxwell's girlfriend. She was right in there joking....She was making smug fun of the jazz writers who didn't really spend that much time in clubs listening to the art they sat in judgment of...."Maybe Carla, the "Empress of Caucasian booty" mesmerizes Max less or the "white bitch" barbs strike their mark. Max begins to think twice about mixed company and hires an all African-American band.

By novel's end, awkward, ungrammatical labyrinths of syntax vie for attention as much as the stunning passages on blues or the "opulence of harmonies" in jazz. Too bad, but this debut novel resembles the first hour of a rehearsal and qualifies as a work-in-progress.

-- Zoë Anglesey is the jazz editor of BOMB magazine and editor for the book, Listen Up! Spoken Word Poetry (One World Press). Her poetry was also featured in the book Brilliant Corners.

Then there was a very long review by Dale Peck in the New Republic--Here is a paragraph from it. The link at the bottom will lead you to the complete review:

Let's be blunt. Don't the Moon Look Lonesome is a terrible novel, badly conceived, badly executed, and put forward in bad faith; reviewing it is like shooting fish in a barrel. This doesn't mean Crouch is always or even often wrong in his opinions. In fact, I agree completely with his novel's premise: race shouldn't be a hindrance in love - nor in life, for that matter - but it sometimes is, and when that happens the parties involved should do everything to ameliorate the problem. Such a treatise seems hardly worth the trouble of a novel, especially in this day and age; but then Stanley Crouch isn't just another bad novelist.

http://www.powells.com/review/2001_08_23.html

[Hardbop]

Originally posted by Chris A.
No big secret, Heaney, and I did not say that the author was "famous"--I said accomplished, quite a different thing (I'm sure the difference is explained in your well-worn thesaurus). Like I said, I don't recall the name of the reviewer, but you allege to have the interview on tape--so why not tell us?



Excuse me. He was so "accomplished" that you can't even remember his name.

Ah. Having Stanley on tape. Unlike you I occasionally leave my apartment so I taped Stanley so I thought. When I got back home and went to rewind, I had three hours of the "New York 1" cable channel. So, no Stan-ster for me.

Oh, by the way, you are welcome for starting the thread in the first place and posting the information so you and others would know about the Stan-ster's show.

[KolumBUZZ]

oh that's too much! you actually think chris should be grateful??? this gets more absurd all the time.

[clifton]

Hardbop vs. Albertson, Round 572. You two must love internet feuding. You've made it an art form. You both substitute venom for critical thinking, quite a trick considering that your posts elsewhere reveal that you both possess considerable intelligence. Your opinions regarding Crouch have been crystal clear for a long time. Could you both please declare a truce? Could either of you offer any new insights regarding Crouch? I've posted frequently on Crouch in the past. Hardbop, you and I would surely disagree on Crouch. OK if we leave it at that?

[Muskrat Ramble]

Sometimes, in a perverse sort of way, they remind me of an old married couple ;)

[Chris A.]

Clifton, all I did was post my observations re the Crouch interview. Having sat through 3 hours of that ego fest, I do think I am entitled to talk about it.

Heaney brought the subject up, Heaney said he couldn't wait to see the program, Heaney said he had set his VCR to record it.

Heaney obviously was neither able to comment intelligently nor counter my observations in an informed manner, so, rather than leaving it alone, he resorted to his usual infantile trolling approach.

I should follow the example of most AAJ members and simply ignore him. That's what I was doing, actually; my post re Crouch was not aimed at Heaney, mainly because intelligent exchange with him is impossible, but I could not allow his gratuitous nonsense to stand. I replied to that with a couple of reviews of Crouch's book. Heaney, of course, did not address them, but simply continued in his trolling mode.

I thought a discussion of the Crouch interview might have been interesting--not with Heaney, of course, but with some of this board's open-minded, intelligent posters.

I rest my case.

[Hardbop]

Originally posted by Chris A.
[list]
I should follow the example of most AAJ members and simply ignore him.

Have you taken a poll? I wish you would ignore me. You are the one who follows me from chat board to chat board and not vice versa.

Originally posted by Chris A.
[list]
That's what I was doing, actually; my post re Crouch was not aimed at Heaney, mainly because intelligent exchange with him is impossible, but I could not allow his gratuitous nonsense to stand. I replied to that with a couple of reviews of Crouch's book. Heaney, of course, did not address them, but simply continued in his trolling mode.

For someone who you purportedly can't have an "intelligent exchange" with why is it that you go through my posts with a fine tooth comb? I bet you read everything I write on this chat board. Your deeds don't match your words.

By the why, you're welcome for posting the info regarding Crouch.

[Philip]

Isn't Stanster an obvious pun on monster? :D

[AllOrNothingAtAll]

"Isn't Stanster an obvious pun on monster?" [Philip]

No. It's a pun only by a fatuous stretch, let alone an obvious one.

[Hardbop]

For those of us lucky to live in New York, there is going to be an interesting lecture/discussion on Wednesday, Dec. 3 at Aaron Davis Hall at City College where the Stan-star will be part of a panel that will discuss "Strayhorn on Convent Avenue."

The Stan-ster will be joined by Clark Terry and Alyce Claerbaut, who I'm not familiar with, on a panel moderated by the prolix Phil Schaap. I hope for the panelists' sakes that Phil will let them get in a word edge wise.

Meanwhile, the John Hicks Ensemble on Saturday Dec. 6 will be playing the music of Strayhorn at Aaron Davis Hall. Hicks has put teogether a pretty good band that includes Craig Handy, Curtis Lundy, Victor Lewis, Joe Lovano and Gary Bartz among others.

[Hardbop]

What a card the Stan-ster is! Last time I was in the Vanguard they had comp copies of "Jazziz" on the tables and there was a piece about the Stan-ster in the issue I read. Evidently he took a turn on the drums at the Jazz Journalist's Association gathering at Birdland I think it was. He played solo for 5 minutes or so. When Larry Blumenthal buttonholed him after the "performance" he asked the Stan-ster why he did it. The Stan-ster replied: "To show the difference between you all and me" or something to that effect.

[Hardbop]

Originally posted by Chris A
At a dinner party I attended last week, some of us noted, with interest how Crouch and Albert Murray demonstratively avoided each other. I also got the impression that Gary Giddins avoided eye contact with Crouch. One wonders what's happening over at J@LC :laugh:

It sounds like there was a lot of stimulating conversation going on at your end of the table. Getting stuck next to you would be akin to drawing the short straw.

[KolumBUZZ]

I read some Stanley Crouch liner notes the other day that I thought were actually very nicely done....the liner notes to Harold Land's final record w/ Billy Higgins, Mulgrew and Ray Drummond. Stanley can write (and not fillibuster) when he wants to.

[Leeway]

Originally posted by KolumBUZZ
I read some Stanley Crouch liner notes the other day that I thought were actually very nicely done....the liner notes to Harold Land's final record w/ Billy Higgins, Mulgrew and Ray Drummond. Stanley can write (and not fillibuster) when he wants to.

Indeed he can, and he has written some excellent articles, but something has gone way wrong for Crouch over the last year or two. Don't know what it is really, but I hope he comes out of it. Maybe he needs to run with a new crowd :wink2:

[atozjazz]

Stanley Crouch bulldozed his way into making an unannounced appearance on stage at the 2003 Jazz Journalist Association
Awards show, where he subjected fellow journalists, real musicians and other guests to his incredibly boring, self-indulgent drum solo. Francis Davis followed up with a snappy put-down, but comedian Al Lewis (Grandpa Munster) one-upped him. He talked about seeing live jazz in NYC in the 1940s, quipping "I remember Big Sid Catlett...now there was a real drummer!" I don't know if the walk-on egomaniac was still in the room, and I wonder if he might have taken a swing at Lewis, as he did at JJA president Howard Mandel during a JJA funtion, where he was invited as a presenter.

[mickey/lynn]

I read Mr. Crouch's "Don't the Moon Look Lonesome" a while back. I am in agreement with the critics, a truly awful book. I don't always agree with his statements nor his articles, he comes across as extremely arrogant and over the top. I have a theory as to why he is that way. When one's physical appearance is like that of Mr. Crouch- we all can admit this, he's not what you would call "attractive" (don't even go there-"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"-let's call a spade a spade) I think he's built up a mighty powerful ego, to counter off the hurt and pain this must have caused him. I don't know what his appearance was as a child, I'm just assuming he must have been teased all his life. Even now, as recently as the jazz series by ken burns- my brother and I were watching it and he shrieked "who the hell is that" when they showed Mr. Crouch talking. I'm not trying to be funny, I'm not trying to make excuses for his behavior per se. I do believe he might be a pretty insecure person in a society where his looks are not at the top of everyone's list. Anyone else agree/disagree?

[clifton]

I know Crouch has been discussed to death, but I kinda dig mickey/lynn's notion that he's got a big chip on his shoulder because he's butt-ugly. Not sure it's true but it's intriguing.

[xricci]

http://www.merchantmanager.com/mcny/pics/stancrouch.jpeg http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols2/crouch.jpg

He's definitely not leading man material, and yeah, he's overweight, bald and wears glasses, but isn't he about average for a guy his age?

[xricci]

From the AAJ Discussion Thread Archives...

Stanley Crouch and Those Zany Jazz Hacks
July 1998
By Walter Price

You know I could start by calling Stanley "The Couch", but let me refrain from such slanderous name calling in the name of peace in the Jazz world. The vibe around AAJ is the talk of Stanley's behavior at the First Annual Jazz Awards at Alice Tully Hall and the after battle, I mean after party at the Knitting Factory. Just take a look at the Bird Lives Diatribe to get the gruesome details, but I would like to comment on Stanley and the hacks myself.
First, I wanted to do the most disturbing challenging task before I wrote this article that ranks right up there with going to the local DMV -- read some of Stanley's liner notes. Without further ado here is the concluding excerpt from Stanley's liner notes of J Mood by his favorite son Wynton Marsalis:
"They [Marsalis, Roberts, Hurst, Watts] also form part of the reaction against the arrogant sloth and snarling decadence that face us all, threatening to devour all craft and purity, and to push human beings into the hopper of hysteria, where they will be stripped of all but obvious responses. In that sense, J Mood is a declaration of war against the contrived and the worthless."

Can somebody please tell me what the hell does the above have to do with the music on this particular album. Stanley -- you hack, this is liner notes, not a manifesto on the jazz YOU personally hate. Miles was right -- get rid of those no nothing hacks, artists, and industry people (rats) who take up valuable space with liner notes. Give me photos, the artists that are playing what instrument on what tune, and maybe some personal thoughts from the artists THEMSELVES on the music!

Knowing Stanley's tired hack act, I ask the people at this Jazz Awards show -- "Why did you let Stanley on stage the first place?" Oh I know if you want to be a Jazz awards show you must mimic the other awards show by inviting hacks and industry rats to make presentations. May Charlie Parker roll in his grave in trying to come up with an original format. How about this next year jazz rats -- just let the jazz artists make presentations and so what if they are not perfect, rehearsed, or polished in their presentations -- it is not like this event is broadcasted live on NBC. Listen rats -- jazz fans like to hear from the artists -- the more of them and LESS of hacks and rats makes a better awards show. So why is it surprising to everybody that a hack like Stanley would want to grab the spotlight with his own agenda at an awards show in making his presentation. Wow, a hack who likes to editorialize, grab the spotlight, and showcase his personal agenda -- what a discovery (almost sounds like some jazz artists themselves)!

As for Stanley taking a swipe at Howard Mandel -- well again, that is what you get when you mix booze with a jazz hack -- a volatile combination to say the least! Stanley just is representative of what is bad with the whole jazz industry. Everybody is going to be finger pointing at him personally and what he specifically did when people should be finger pointing at what he represents! I can see the hacks and rats now saying, "Stanley is bad for jazz!" No hacks and rats, most all of your kind are bad for jazz itself!

And the discussion that followed

Date: 07-Jul-1998 17:05:08
From: Howard Mandel (hman@jazzhouse.org)
I appreciate the rant, but there ought to be somewhere for jazz journalists between hackdom and ratdom. Why can't we aspire to writing valuable reportage, insightful essays, critical and speculative literature? I don't want to see my work reduced much further -- if I were just a hack, I'd probably be writing much more lucratively, like ad copy.

The real story of the Jazz Awards was the Jazz Awards. Mostly artists presenting honors to other artists. Next year, we and Bird will have an original format. HM


Date: 17-Jul-1998 12:37:05
From: David Whiteis (whiteis@ipfw.edu)
This won't be an exact quote -- I'm reciting it from memory, from Mingus' original liner notes to BLACK SAINT & THE SINNER LADY -- but as a critic myself, I always go back to this whenever I start to think I'm important:

"Critics are amazing people: they can write, they can talk, some of them can play music -- I even know one who can hear!"


Date: 19-Jul-1998 08:58:21
From: george massouris (ms@cranny.schnet.edu.au)
i agree. i love marsalis but he dont need stanley. let the music talk!!


Date: 29-Jul-1998 07:53:07
From: Sangeeta Michael Berardi (geeta@ix.netcom.com)
Well, I guess I just had to take that cheap shot in the "subject." Now on to better things: back in the late Sixties Crouch crossed swords with the wrong man when he challenged the great drummer Sunny Murray to a bout. Sunny unceremoniously broke a chair over Stanley's fatback. Apparently the fight was over the fact that failed drummer Stanley was playing all the shit he stole from Sunny's ESP records and Sunny took offense. At the time Sunny himself couldn't get a gig in the club Stanley the NonPlayer was "playing" in. I could see how a man could be pissed off to hear a no-playing lardass using his licks while he himself couldn't get a gig. Crouch tried to slobber his contempt over me one night in the Vanguard while Pharoah was playing and we both were standing along the left sidewall. Apparently my enthusiastic vocalizing offended the Great Grouch and he gave a little push in my back and a nasty glance when I turned. I ignored him because I already knew him for the bigoted moron he is. When Pharoah came off the bandstand he walked straight up to me and gave me a big hug, completely ignoring Stan the Man who was trying to get his attention. Pharoah asked, "Anything happening at the Loft tonight?" He was referring to my loft on Seventh Ave. where Pharoah, Rashied, Dave Schnitter, Joonie Booth, Idries Muhammad, Arthur Rhames, Reggie Workman, Art Taylor and many many more musicians came to play most every night. This was during the 80's when the manipulators, among them Crouch, were encouraging jazzers to look backwards, the era of Marsalis and his "nothing happening after 1964, not even with Trane," arrogance. Creativity was the only rule at the Loft. We played "free", bebop, improvisational funk, whatever the musicians wanted to explore. Pharoah had ended up there after a conversation with Rashied in which he talked about missing the way they played in the old days. Rashied gave Pharoah my number. I had sat in with Pharoah in California so we knew one another somewhat. In fact I was on the Lower East Side during the great rush of creativity in the Sixties and was in casual contact with many musicians, playing with others. Well, that night at the Vanguard I said to Stanley: "Hey, man, I hear you're a drummer. Come on up to the Loft and play with us." He didn't even acknowledge me and he left without a word to Pharoah either.

There are some benefits sometimes to being one of the most obscure musicians in the universe. People are more likely to reveal their inner selves to a "nobody." Your jazz page is without doubt the best I've seen. I've just found out about it from my friend Steve Rowland and will be visiting it regularly. I really enjoyed Marty Khan's oh-so-true rant. Can you put me in touch with him? I'd like to write him directly about his diatribe. Perhaps because it's nice to hear someone else conclude that sometimes "nothing is better than something." I chose that route and do not regret it. I'm not well known, but will be in the new jazz encyclopedia being put together by Lewis Porter, a true jazz scholar, not a pretender like Crouch. However, musicians know who I am, even some of the younger ones like Eric Person who wrote me about the "purity of my sound" recently. Retaining that "purity" has been my motivation and reasoning behind some of my "biz decisions" which have seemed very off-the-wall to others. I have no regrets. Marty, at the end of his diatribe, mentions the formation of "alternate distribution" channels, etc. Could you have him, or someone, send me info on that? I'd like to send some tapes to the appropriate folks and see what's up. One of my recording bands is: Archie Shepp, Roswell Rudd, Rashied Ali, Eddie Gomez, Mario Pavone and me, Sangeeta, on guitar/compositions. Another is the same rythmn section with added percussion but with Joe Diorio also on guitar and Vea Williams singing. Another features John Esposito, Hill Greene, Peter O'Brien and Jim Finn and me. Any info you can email to me would be greatly appreciated. I want to bring these recordings out. Only the Shepp date was released and because of recent changes I am now able to take control of these recordings, all of them, without fear of reprisals. (That's a story in itself, but I'm afraid I've already taken up too much of your time.)
Thanks for a great site.

Peace & Music,

Sangeeta Michael Berardi


Date: 28-Nov-1998 18:46:16
From: Skip Norris (SKIPNORRIS@aol.com)
I've read with great interest the many negative comments that have been generated about the writer Stanley Crouch. I'm very fortunate that I've known Crouch in excess of 15 years - I've found his friendship not only insightful, but tremendously stimulating as well. I know this may seem foreign to many of the critics of Stanley. But as a human being, you cannot find a better human being. He is truly a man to know.

But let's deal with the grits and gravy.

I agree that Crouch may be gruff in many of his opinions, but that happens when your mind is operating at a high level. I do not (and will not) condone bad behavior, but it's always a two way street with human beings. Howard Mandel could have kept his mouth shut and dealt with Crouch via the written word. But he chose to voice his opinion at the Knitting Factory. Being from Detroit, I know what it's like being "fronted off" by someone trying to prove a point to other people. Keep in mind that when you take the offensive in dealing with people, always be prepared for a backlash (or slap in this case). My point is two wrongs don't make a right. Howard could have dealt with it in a different forum.

As far as Stanley's viewpoints on Jazz and Culture, he is probably the most insightful writer today dealing with the written word today. His admirers include Saul Bellow, Henry Louis Gates, the late Ralph Ellison, Richard Bernstein, Alfred Kazen, Poet Laureate - Robert Pinsky, and master writer Tom Wolf who himself says "Stanley Crouch is the jazz virtuoso of the American essay, the maestro of startlingly original variations and improvisations upon familiar themes. He is also an American Orwell: a completely independent voice, free of all cant and ideological etiquette." A big part of the problem that I see living outside the New York scene, is that writers like Gary Giddins, Gene Santoro, Howard Mandel, Chip Defaa, and several others are extremely jealous of Stanley's writing ability and influence within the New York jazz and cultural scene. What other reason could there be? Why make one person the focus of everything that you perceive to be wrong in Jazz? If I read it right Crouch is the reason why Wynton Marsalis is the way he is, why Jazz at Lincoln Center is jacked up, why record companies sign muscians who are "neo traditionalists," why Loraine Gordon doesn't book avant garde musicians, and why Mr. Bill had sex with Monica. Come on now, can one person have this much influence on the New York scene?

I don't think so.

In closing, I hope many of the folks who read All About Jazz bring real dialogue to the table in future message postings. I'm more interested in why cats like Greg Osby, Steve Coleman, and a couple of others do not swing when they play the music. That should generate more dialogue than the incident at the New York Jazz Awards.

Always in 4/4


Date: 16-Dec-1998 11:21:23
From: Dr. Bill
typical, borish behavior by people with inflated egos. Their selfishness in wanting not only to be part of the jazz scene, but above it actually takes away from the music. Stanley Crouch is the most obvious (I refuse to read his liner notes, they are self indulging nonsense)but not the only self serving nut that feels the need to be heard and scene (hear me roar!).Shut up so I can hear the music. Please. I will decide whether I like Wynton's playing or not based on his performances, not the ravings of
some self proclaimed expert.


Date: 18-Jan-1999 11:27:26
From: Oliver Stenzel
The problem with Crouch is that he mostly does not talk or write about music, but on jazz-ideology in reference to Albert Murray. Just take a look at his liner notes for Marcus Roberts` "The Joy Of Joplin"...


Date: 07-Feb-1999 12:33:27
From: DW
It could be worse jazz fans. Consider the the fate of fiction and poetry. They're the only arts wherein the academic critics actually claim that their criticism is art-- even worse, they claim that it is superior to "mere" poetry and fiction because "critical discourse" has supposedly "subsumed" both. The hubris of jazz critics pales in comparison to that. Of course, on the brighter side, nobody but other academic critics reads academic criticism, and they have little influence on who gets published. (On the darker side, the marketplace and its dirty little bottom line does.) Perhaps we can all take heart in Barnett Newman's famous one liner: "Artists need critics like birds need ornithologists." Musicians will keep making music, and smart listeners will ultimately find it--just so long as they're smart enough to ignore the hacks and just listen.


Date: 22-Sep-1999 12:40:10
From: Anonymous
Just about the same time Stanley Crouch jumped in Wynton's pocket, he was awarded the MacArthur Prize. Corporate conspiracy? Maybe not. But Crouch wasn't always a big Wynton booster. Looks like Wynton got a powerful and vociferous ally/flack/ghostwriter and Stanley got a big bag of money, prestige and a platform to advance his musical and personal agendas.


Date: 10-Nov-1999 14:06:26
From: Tamsanqa (zozo@intekom.co.za)
So What ? Stanley's is a different voice that is as refreshing or revolting as yours!


Date: 24-Nov-1999 00:52:14
From: Peter Hirst (pghirst@capecod.net)
You said it, Walter; or you appointed your webslavemaster to say it for you: Walter's "Rant". Look up the Webster definition if you must, but consider this one: unresolved anger, indiscriminately and artlessly spewed upon the stage, audience and crew alike, wanting insight.

Hack, is it? Let's put any three lines from Stanley's earliest work with a dropped-stick snare riff and a plagairized lyric up against anything you ever wrote.

Hack this.

Peter Hirst


Date: 29-Oct-2000 22:38:26
From: frankiepop
walter wins.


Date: 06-Mar-2001 14:50:24
From: Andreas
Frank Zappa said:


"Oh no, you gotta go Who do you write for? I wanna know I believe you is the government's whore And keeping peoples dumb is where you're coming from And keeping peoples dumb is where you're coming from

Journalism's kinda scary And of it we should be wary"



Date: 20-Aug-2001 10:32:25
From: pete l. silas (mozfonky@yahoo.com)
So I see that while crouch isn't cutting down cultural heroes of all persuasions he's also alienating himself from the thing he seem's to love the most,Jazz. I've read several of Stanley books, when I was younger I was dazzled by him. With a few years hindsight, simply put, he pisses me off. At first I liked reading someone who referred to Malcolm X as a "bonehead" not because I agreed but rather I was fascinated by such a free thinking black man who would go on to call native americans "savages". That's when I started to wonder about the fat bastard. I'm indian you see and I take pride in a culture that I consider has more value than this mess we're living in. And also Malcolm, Elvis etc.. are people who i consider american heroes. how dare him criticize malcolm, a man who just about any other black man would consider significant. Malcolm is not here to defend himself which i'm sure he would be able to if he had the chance. He used to eat phony pseudo-intellectuals like Crouch for lunch. Somebody has bought and payed for this chump. I don't know what his problem is but I'm glad I'm not the only one he pisses off. Thanks, Pete.

[Darryl Reeves]

You guys love Stanley Crouch . . .

[clifton]

About a year ago, I read a comment by Crouch classifying Coleman Hawkins as an intuitive player whose grasp of harmony did not come from study or an innovative mind. The comment was not only historically inaccurate, but also insulting to the great Hawkins. Crouch was trying to make a point about Don Byas being an underappreciated innovator. True enough, but he made his point at Hawk's expense, thus reducing it to presumptuous nonsense IMHO.

[Darryl Reeves]

Originally posted by clifton
About a year ago, I read a comment by Crouch classifying Coleman Hawkins as an intuitive player whose grasp of harmony did not come from study or an innovative mind. The comment was not only historically inaccurate, but also insulting to the great Hawkins. Crouch was trying to make a point about Don Byas being an underappreciated innovator. True enough, but he made his point at Hawk's expense, thus reducing it to presumptuous nonsense IMHO.


Yeah,

It's interesting to me how some white people I run into can't stand Stanley Crouch. They say he is racist, biased and has no clue of what he is talking about. It's funny because some black people went through this same ordeal when James Lincoln Collier would make assessments about jazz music.

[clifton]

Darryl: I am white and I do not think Crouch is a racist. He is, however, an ideologue who imposes rigid boundaries on jazz. He often poses important premises but his ideology prevents him from following through with thoughtful argument. James Lincoln Collier made judgments about Armstrong and Ellington that are idiotic and arguably racist. His dismissal of Ellington's extended works seems to impose an unpleasant stereotype of what a jazz musician should be. And frankly, you'll find a lot of white people who think Collier's a racist. And if Crouch's dismissal of Hawkins had been said by someone white, it would have been racist.

[Simon Weil]

Crouch is an intellectual bully - a guy without integrity who thumps and blusters his way out of the problems the lack of cohesive thought creates for him.

Great role model. If you can do without your integrity...

Probably he's on the way out.

Simon Weil

[mickey/lynn]

Darryl,

Are you trying to defend Mr. Crouch, or are you just trying to keep the score "even" by mentioning that other doofuss, Collier?

:(

[Darryl Reeves]

Darryl: I am white and I do not think Crouch is a racist.


I said some white people, not all. I know that not all white people think Stanley is racist. I don't agree with stuff that Crouch says either. Why even give Crouch the mental energy? Learn from Collier. You can't control people's opinions. You can choose to ignore them.

[jazzcritic]

I just got a reminder from the Jazz Journalist Association about the upcoming Jazz Awards at B. B. King's in New York City on June 15th. Included in the list of goings on: "no amateur drummers."

[Hardbop]

The "no amateur drummers" couldn't be directed at the Stan-ster. He was a pro. He gigged with and recorded with David Murray.

Meanwhile, the Stan-ster will be appearing on TV in the NYC area anyway tonight at I think 7:30. It is a show on I believe channel 25 called "Cross Currents" or "Cross Talk." I'm gonna tape it. I don't think I've ever watched channel 25 and have never watched or even heard of the show, but the Stan-ster always has something interesting and provocative to say.

[lone_wolf]

According to AMG, Crouch's instrument is "liner notes".

The one album he played on, David Murray's "Holy Siege on Intrigue", got 2 stars from reviewer Eugene Chadbourne, who said:

"On drums, it is Stanley Crouch, who is simply crummy. His decision to quit playing drums is offered up as proof that he has done at least one good thing for the jazz community."

[CGA]

As someone who actually heard Stanley play drums back in the years when he embraced the so-called avant garde (as many mediocre players did), I can attest to the fact that he made a very wise decision when he left that field--perhaps he will one day find a field for which he has talent.

The JJA's assurance re "amateur drummers" clearly alluded to Crouch, a slap for his unprofessional behavior at the organization's awards a couple of years ago.

[jazzcritic]

Crouch's arrogant bulldozing of Howard Mandel into letting him play drums unaccompanied at the Jazz Journalist Association Awards (and Crouch is not a member) took place in 2003. I was there and loved Francis Davis' excellent put down of this unwanted performance (though I don't remember his exact words). Just because he may have recorded in the past doesn't put him in the league of full-time professionals who make their living as musicians.

He also through a punch at Mandel for some imagined offense after being invited as a presenter for the first Awards a few years earlier.

Crouch has NO PLACE being at any JJA function.

[Leeway]

I recently acquired a group of old Downbeat mags (I love to read old jazz magazines), and, lo and behold, I found, in the December 26, 1968 issue, a letter from one, Stanley Crouch, "Lecturer," Pitzer College, Claremont, California. The rather lengthy letter remarks on an interview that appeared in an earlier DB with the drummer, Ed Blackwell, whom Crouch strongly praises. Here's the first paragraph:

"I was very happy to finally see an interview done with Ed Blackwell. He's been slept on too long. Blackwell is and has been one of the most beautiful drummers to touch the instrument. It's really a damn shame that he (who can play circles around most of the drummers your magazine and other magazines are always interviewing and talking about) is so rarely spoken of when anybody decides he has something to say about drums."

Then follows a lengthy and insightful analysis of Blackwell's technique, spiced with some of Stanley's acerbic criticism ("drag cats like Tony Williams").

The letter has a P.S.:

"I must commend Harvey Pekar: He was the first critic I know of who recognized that Blackwell is one of the very great drummers. Thank you Mr. Pekar. Too bad you didn't interview him then.

More than 35 years on, you still have pretty much the same Stanley. Even then, he possessed his distinguising traits: Highly opinionated, sharply critical, often perceptive, with some pungent phrasing, ready to take a quick swipe at someone else even in the act of offering a compliment (e.g., his praise and slam of Pekar).

Does anyone know about Stanley's days out in Claremont? I wonder what that teaching gig amounted to? I checked Pitzer College on the web, found it was started in 1963, so really pretty new when Stanley was there. Was Crouch just getting into criticism at hat time? Anyway, interesting to realize that the man, for better or worse, the man has been at it for at least the last 35 years.

[Hardbop]

I only watched a bit from that show last night where Stanley was being interviewed, but the host mentioned that the Stan-ster was profiled in the august "New Yorker." Anyone know the date that the Crouch profile appeared? I can't remember if I read that article or not.

[clifton]

I actually saw Crouch play drums in 1976 as a member of the David Murray Trio. Murray was about 21, had just arrived in New York, and was already generating a lot of buzz. The trio consisted of Murray, Crouch, and a young Mark Dresser on bass. They played a lot of free or rubato pieces, with some swing tempos in there. Crouch kept steady time, although he was clearly the weak link in the band. Murray was already impressive, and before long he was using drummers like Steve McCall and Andrew Cyrille. Incidentally, Crouch made all the announcements. I wonder if Crouch sought to associate himself with Murray they way he did later with the young Wynton Marsalis. Ah, the possibilities.

[vibes]

Does anyone know about Stanley's days out in Claremont? I wonder what that teaching gig amounted to? I checked Pitzer College on the web, found it was started in 1963, so really pretty new when Stanley was there.

I'd be interested in hearing about this too. Claremont is my hometown, and a I had a few friends that went to Pitzer.

[jazzcritic]

Received from a fellow JJA member today:

http://www.gawker.com/topic/stanley-crouch-punches-critic-the-literary-wars-turn-violent-017590.php

JUL 13, 2004

Stanley Crouch Punches Critic: The Literary Wars Turn Violent

A little after two o'clock today, while novelist and book critic Dale Peck
was lunching with the writer Linda Yablonsky at Tartine in the West Village,
jazz critic/cultural commentator/novelist Stanley Crouch decided to introduce
himself. (Peck had reviewed a novel of Crouch's a few years back; in response to that review, Crouch told Salon that Peck was "a troubled queen.")

At Tartine, Crouch shook Peck's hand, then, as a follow-up, smacked him in
the face, saying "if you ever did anything like that [presumably referring to
the review] again, it'll be much worse."

Crouch once also threw a punch at Howard Mandel, the president of the Jazz
Journalists Association. If two equals trend (or maybe three? Didn't Crouch hit Harry Allen at the Village Voice, back in the day? (And wait, make that four -- didn't he slug the late letters editor Ron Plotkin at the Voice as well?) ) then it's pretty clear Crouch has, at best, some serious impulse control problems. Funny stuff, coming from a guy who's always railed about the "politics of resentment" -- guess he's been carrying around a grudge for years.

It remains to be seen whether assault charges will be filed. [Full
disclosure: As previously mentioned in this space, yes, I share a shitty East Village rabbit warren with Dale Peck.]

JC comments:

It is my hope that Dale Peck not only files charges, but that the next time Stanley Crouch pulls this kind of stunt in public, that the recipient knocks him to the floor.

[sal]

What a piece of shit....I can't stand that guy.

[CGA]

Let's hope Peck sues the hell out of Stanley. His bully behavior is almost as bad as his writing, and he soils the image of the jazz writing profession with both.

Anyone who gave Stanley's novel a less than scathing review ought, perhaps, to be slapped, but I know of no such critic. The book was an abomination that I was unable to read from cover to cover, but just skimming through it became a series of painful experiences.

That this BBS even has a "Stanley Crouch Corner" is ludicrous, but it is not Mike's doing.

[Hardbop]

(And wait, make that four -- didn't he slug the late letters editor Ron Plotkin at the Voice as well?)

The Stan-ster may very well have slugged Plotkin, but I've never heard of that one. Maybe you are conflating Plotkin with "Voice" writer Greg Tate. The Stan-ster clocked Tate and that is why the Stan-ster is now an ex-"Voice" employee.

And don't forget there were some contretemps between the Stan-ster and jazz critic/writer Gene Santoro -- the "NY Daily News" is/was one of his gigs -- and there were some contretemps backstage at one of the Charlie Parker Jazz Festivals that are held every August in Thompkins Square Park in the East Village where the Stan-ster got right in Santoro's face and scared the shit out of him. Santoro actually wrote to Lincoln Center complaining about the Stan-ster's behavior. I don't know what, if anything, LC did about it.

[xricci]

I guess occasionally slugging people is the only way he can keep himself in the news. Does this guy have a job?

[kh1958]

He won a MacArthur Foundation "Genius" grant for Journalism. Should the category have been "Boxing"?

I guess occasionally slugging people is the only way he can keep himself in the news. Does this guy have a job?

[Hardbop]

I guess occasionally slugging people is the only way he can keep himself in the news. Does this guy have a job?

Hmmm. As the owner/administrator I thought you would be heaping opprobrium on Sal for referring to Mr. Crouch as "a piece of shit." Instead of continuing to pile on. Kind of hypocritical of you to let that one go by considering the way you constantly importune me for some of the relatively benign things I've written. Certainly I haven't called anyone -- on this chat board anyway -- "a piece of shit."

I guess there is a double standard in jazz chat though. You can say what you want about people like Stanley Crouch and Wynton Marsalis -- including using the term "a piece of shit."
Hmmm.

Meanwhile, Stanley is apparantly getting more irascible in his old age. The story is no doubt apocryphal but I read somewhere that when Stanley was managing the Tin Palace in a pre-gentrified East Village in the late seventies/early eighties someone challenged him to fight or there was some dispute at the club and Stanley and his protoganist settled it by engaging in a footrace up the street in front of the club.

[xricci]

HB,

I try to keep things civil between board members. Why should I care if a member calls someone like Stanley Crouch a piece of shit?

If you're saying that we should tone down the language, then I can add something to the conduct thread.

[Hardbop]

HB,

I try to keep things civil between board members. Why should I care if a member calls someone like Stanley Crouch a piece of shit?

If you're saying that we should tone down the language, then I can add something to the conduct thread.

So let me see if I am clear on this. It is ok to call someone who doesn't post "a piece of shit" but it is not ok to call a "board member" "a piece of shit?"

So, be nice to fellow board members; say anything you want about anyone else.

[CGA]

Stanley has chosen to make himself a public figure. As such, he is open to comment and criticism. That's just the way the ball bounces.

[jscratch]

So let me see if I am clear on this. It is ok to call someone who doesn't post "a piece of shit" but it is not ok to call a "board member" "a piece of shit?"

So, be nice to fellow board members; say anything you want about anyone else.




I'm not xricci, so I'm just guessing his point is to not start useless quarrels amongst those posting. When that dude called Stanley a piece of shit he was just making a point that was applicable to the conversation taking place. On the other hand, you're just trying to start an argument. Why don't you just let it go?

[xricci]

So let me see if I am clear on this. It is ok to call someone who doesn't post "a piece of shit" but it is not ok to call a "board member" "a piece of shit?"

Correct.


I'm not xricci, so I'm just guessing his point is to not start useless quarrels amongst those posting.

You guessed it, jscratch.

[maren]

The Stan-ster may very well have slugged Plotkin, but I've never heard of that one. Maybe you are conflating Plotkin with "Voice" writer Greg Tate. The Stan-ster clocked Tate and that is why the Stan-ster is now an ex-"Voice" employee.

Hardbop -- Stanley Crouch was fired from the Voice for punching Harry Allen (and breaking his jaw). A year or two ago, on some bulletin board, there was a discussion of Crouch's fisticuffs: someone quoted an article that said Crouch was fired from the Voice for "punching a black music critic" and someone else guessed that it was Greg Tate -- but it was in fact Harry Allen (VV rap critic at the time, later a publicist for Public Enemy). AFAIK, Crouch hit Plotkin and Allen but NOT Tate: I don't believe Stanley punches guys who might actually be able to HURT him....

Bully.

[clifton]

Stanley Crouch has gone from tragedy to farce. While I haven't always agreed with him, I believe he has done some powerful, original writing, and produced some commanding, probing essays. Now, he forces himself into the public eye with juvenile fisticuffs, other displays of contrived rudeness, and clumsy drumming. His writing has likewise deteriorated into nightmarish paranoia. Crouch has squandered his abilities.

[maygar]

Only Skwares fit in Korners

[jazzcritic]

In response to Willard Jenkin's latest article about racism in jazz, in which he once again drags Stanley Crouch into the picture, Scott Yanow replied "Is he considered a heavyweight or super heavyweight?" While I can see Crouch taking a swing at Scott, I doubt that he would do so at anyone 6 foot three inches or more, unless said party was seated. I hope the next time Crouch shows his temper with his fists in public, that he chooses the wrong person and gets carried away--literally.

[yawuh]

Lost excerpt from the PBS Jazz series interview with Stanley Steamer:

"...it's not just a figure of speech, no, 'knock you out', you know, that meant something for real back then. See, if you, if you get that real blues...you can't play this music anyway without getting some of that real church stomping and sweat up in there. And the guys back then would literally knock you out. Come off the stage and if you were clapping they would clock you. Don't kid yourself, people knew what that was about back then. And if you didn't like the music, you'd get smacked even harder. You'd get laid out in front of all your friends. All the folks knew what that meant. The band would play "Tea for Two" and you'd sit up in your seat, right, 'cause it was stomping time. And all the intellectuals at that time started to glom onto that, like, like, you know, this guy over here is too radical - no, let me start over, this guy over here is too safe, too square, and then someone would just walk up and clock him. In a restaurant. Bird would do that. Bird used to tell Miles, hit 'em in the face, make 'em tear up. He would come offstage and find some glitzy white woman and land a punch right on her boyfriend. Bird used to punch out bathroom attendants 'cause they didn't read poetry. Don't kid yourself, that was part of the music, part of the getting the church up in there. I mean, Gil Evans probably never threw a punch you know. Hall Overton might have, but with Gil, it's too perfumey, it's that European boudoir attitude that isn't conducive to swing and the blues holler, you know, that holler where you've just approached some writer in public and sucker-slapped him right in front of twenty people. And then you could challenge him to a race. If those saxophones weren't preaching enough, people would just line up in the street and start footracing. You'd sweat and run it out and then beat them silly. You can do that now, you can hit someone at a club and then make them race you at an awards banquet..."

[Saundra Hummer]

Saw Charlie Parker and Miles a lot and it was nothing like this man has said.

One time I saw Charlie louder and more out there than usual, he was kibitzing with the guys sitting down on the extra bandstand they had set up, not up on it yet, as so many people were there to play that day. Going at it with the audience? You've got to be kidding me? I've seen Miles give his hard looks at fans who weren't paying attention, and being what he considered too loud, or ignoring him, but that was it. The Lighthouse wasn't a raunchey club, just a place where jazz was king, where people went to do some serious listening, so maybe that is why no one ever got out of line, not the audience, (as a rule), or the musicians. I find that a hard to believe statement, how it could be true, I haven't a clue. Never saw anything even remotely close to it. How about any of you out there?

[yawuh]

Um, that "lost excerpt" was of my own imagination. (Not for real, wasn't that obvious?) Just a bit of humor from someone who's read a lot of Crouch interviews. Anyone who's read the actual PBS Jazz interview transcripts might appreciate what I was going for there.

Funny that my off-the-cuff riffing is taken for the real stanley, tho...

I'm ROFL, have to admit. "Footracing"??

[Saundra Hummer]

Um, that "lost excerpt" was of my own imagination. (Not for real, wasn't that obvious?) Just a bit of humor from someone who's read a lot of Crouch interviews. Anyone who's read the actual PBS Jazz interview transcripts might appreciate what I was going for there.

Funny that my off-the-cuff riffing is taken for the real stanley, tho...

I'm ROFL, have to admit. "Footracing"??

Haven't read him that I can remember, out in the country, read Western Livestock Journal. Well, used to! No, I don't know hardly anything of Stanley so just thought he must be wacked to say those things about Charlie and Miles, just wacko! Couldn't believe my eyes, and yep, I fell for it.

[jazzcritic]

Here's another writer's take on Stanley Crouch's bad behavior. Frankly, if I were his editor, he would be fired the first time he hit anyone who criticized his writing, whether he punched or slapped. Obviously, he is not a gentleman, but a bully and a thug.

http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/offtherec.asp

[clifton]

yawuh: your Crouch riff was masterfull. You captured the man's cadences and phraseology, well done, very amusing and very effective.

[Hardbop]

Hardbop -- Stanley Crouch was fired from the Voice for punching Harry Allen (and breaking his jaw). A year or two ago, on some bulletin board, there was a discussion of Crouch's fisticuffs: someone quoted an article that said Crouch was fired from the Voice for "punching a black music critic" and someone else guessed that it was Greg Tate -- but it was in fact Harry Allen (VV rap critic at the time, later a publicist for Public Enemy). AFAIK, Crouch hit Plotkin and Allen but NOT Tate: I don't believe Stanley punches guys who might actually be able to HURT him....

Bully.

Well you learn something new every day. I alwaysthought that it was Tate; that is how I heard Tate's name. I've never heard of Harry Allen. In fact, I remember Stanley talking about how getting canned by the Voice turned out to be the best thing that happened to him. I thought the fisticuffs with Tate was over an argument about electric Miles, but that story is no doubt apocryphal or I'm conflating it with something else.

[128Bit_Encryption]

Sorry Hard Bop, but the beat down at the Village Voice was about rap music. Something bro Stanley has been very open and brazenly unapologetic about, his distain for the violent, sexist and criminal content of gangsta rap lyrics and imagery.

[chris may]

All this violence. Most distasteful. And frankly, a bit too much like rock 'n' roll.....

Years ago (decades ago actually) an acquaintance of mine interviewed Ozzy Osbourne for the British weekly Melody Maker, having slated one of Black Sabbath's releases the week before. On hearing the guy's name, Ozzy wrapped his watch round his knuckles, said "Oivegorrabowntopickwivyow" and punched him in the face.

The next day a package arrived at the MM offices for this guy, by special delivery. It was from the group's management and contained a brand new Rolex (genuine). Worth a black eye we all thought.

More recently, one of the odious Gallagher louts in Oasis challenged a group of fellow diners in a Swiss restaurant to a fight. "I'm in a fooking band, me. You want some?" Turned out they weren't the harmless sales reps Liam or Noel or whichever presumably thought they were - but instead, depending on which newspaper you read, were either Italian gangsters or German brickies. They promptly gave The Gallagher a well overdue thumping, removing several front teeth. If only someone had had a video camera.

But then again, guys, Norman Mailer used regularly to punch out critics and even fellow writers. Does that invalidate 'Armies of the Night'? I don't think so.

Crouch may be a jerk, but IMHO the odd punch doesn't make him any worse than he already is. Actually, I like him a bit better for it!

[xricci]

Check out Bret Primack's latest blog entry...

Stanley the Grouch?
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/wordpress/index.php?p=13

[chris may]

Here Comes The Reaper Man?

[marxmarvelous]

Why the hanging judge can't keep his hands to himself
Crouching Stanley, Hidden Gangsta
by Ta-Nehisi Coates
July 24th, 2004 12:00 PM

I reserve the right to be a nigger.
—Aaron McGruder

Stanley Crouch is a gangsta rapper. Throughout his career, Crouch has moved through black nationalism, bohemia, and places we haven't yet developed the vocab to name. But if there's one thing we've gleaned from Crouch's recent assault on novelist and critic Dale Peck, it is this—we have found Crouch's muse, and his name is Suge Knight.

The backstory is simple, and for Crouch routine. On July 12, out for lunch at Tartine in the West Village, Crouch spotted Peck, who'd trashed his book Don't the Moon Look Lonesome a few years back. After greeting Peck with one hand, Crouch smacked him with the other. "What I would actually have preferred to happen," says Crouch, "was that I had the presence of mind to hawk up a huge oyster and spit it in his face."

Crouch claims he recieved several calls thanking him for the act, which wouldn't be a surprise given that Peck made his name by penning extended negative and, often personal, reviews of other fiction writers.

This was not a moment of hot-headed indiscretion. Crouch may use his perch at the Daily News to inveigh against gangsta rap with all deliberate fury and alarm ("Hip Hop's Thugs Hit New Low," "Hip Hop Gets The Bruising It Deserves," or "Morally, Allen Iverson's a Bad Guy"), but his habit of violent exchanges with writers and editors puts him a notch above Snoop on the ne'er-do-well scale. In most cases gangsta rap is just talk—Biggie and Tupac are the exceptions. But while Crouch has yet to peel caps, the gangsta ethos is realer for him than it is for your average gun-talker.

"The thing is that Stanley will get gangsta on you," says Nelson George, who worked with Crouch here at the Voice, in the 1980s. "There is nothing more gangsta than just walking up and pimp-slapping someone. Not even punching them, just slapping them, almost as a sign of disrespect."

It's almost unfair to accuse Crouch of taking a page from, say, Masta Killa—Crouch was smacking critics when hip-hop was still laceless shelltops and battle raps. Along with being one of the great essayists of his generation, Crouch has always been a man who took Ishmael Reed's Writin' Is Fightin' a little too seriously. During his colorful tenure at this paper, Crouch repeatedly threatened editors and menaced fellow writers. By the time Crouch left, he'd sealed his rep as an iconoclastic curmudgeon and a critic without peer. His litany of incidents usually began with debates over some bit of jazz arcana and ultimately ended in fisticuffs.

"Stanley deserves better than his own temper" says jazz writer Peter Watrous, who also worked here with Crouch. "There are two things that happen at the same time—one of them is that Stanley is a utopian. He strongly believes people should behave in certain way. That combines with an inability to control his own temper, and it makes for a bullying streak."

There was the time Crouch was arguing with jazz writer Russ Musto and told him that if he were a foot taller he'd knock his block off. Musto kept arguing, since he knew he wasn't growing any. Crouch went back on his word, and swung at him anyway. After the two men were separated, Crouch calmed down and offered to buy Musto a drink. Musto says they're friends to this day. Then there's what happened to Guy Trebay, whom Crouch stalked through the Voice's old offices threatening to kill him, relenting only after writer Hilton Als intervened. Another time, writer Harry Allen approached Crouch, hoping to exchange some notes on hip-hop. Instead Crouch, evidently in a bad mood, caught Allen's neck in the cobra clutch, prompting the Voice to give Crouch his walking papers.

By then the Hanging Judge had secured his rep as king of the literal literary brawlers—an accolade that ranks right up there with prettiest journalist. Really now, administering beat-downs to pencil-necked critics is about as macho as spousal abuse, croquet—or gangsta rap.

Much like the acts he derides, Crouch has a taste for swinging that is nothing short of a variation on the "I ain't no punk" theme seemingly encoded on the DNA of all black males. "I have a kind of Mailer-esque reaction to the way some people view writers," Crouch once told The New Yorker. "I want them to know that just because I write doesn't mean I can't also fight." Put another way, Crouch wants you know he keeps it gangsta.

"People perceive writers as being soft and not assertive. And there is a legacy of writers, going back to Hemingway, asserting their masculinity in an overt way," says George. "Maybe it gives Stanley personal satisfaction, but I don't think it's necessary. This is something you'd expect from a rapper in The Source's office because they got three mics in a review."

Crouch's street mojo also adds another layer of mystique, particularly for his white fans. His brand of withering attacks against black nationalism and the black left would normally open the assailant to essentialist charges about his "blackness." But to the frustration of his targets, Crouch is the real deal for the Tina Brown set. From his jazz criticism, to his folksy Southern lilt, down to his willingness invoke the ghost of Joe Louis, Crouch always manages to sound like his ghetto pass is at the ready.

Even if in his writing Crouch derides the ethics of the street, his actions close the distance between him and the gangsta rappers he abhors, making cartoons of them all. Both could live without the electric slide, whop, or moonwalk. Both could give up the cross-over and dunk.

But never let it be said that he who purports to be a black male gives up the beast. That it's all an act, and he really won't kick your ass. That in the middle of politicking over Fitzgerald, Faulkner, and tea, he won't go David Banner, upturn your table of crumpets and coffee-cake, grab you by the collar, drag you out into the darkest alley, and show you that, yes, what you have heard is true. That he will not swing through on his dick and snatch your Jane on a vine like Tarzan. Never let it be said that Jim Brown was not the essence of him. Never let it be said that he—whether Crip or Crouch—failed to be a nigga.

[Saundra Hummer]

Ever heard the saying "Hit him in the pocket book, or hit him in that mouth, as that's the only thing he understands!" ?