The Jazz Times Halloween Scare

xricci · December 30th, 2002, 07:51 AM

In October of 2002, Jazz Times ran a cover story called "Hard Bop, Hard Time: Music, Madness and Roy Brooks." It was good timing, since the article was as dark and scary - and as full of fantasy - as Halloween.

It warns that jazz musicians are especially prone to developing bipolar "disease," a "treacherous" mental "illness" that destroys creativity and careers and kills people. Using the sad story of drummer Roy Brooks as his outline, writer Jim Dulzo paints an overgeneralized picture of the dangers facing creative people, misrepresenting the nature of bipolar diagnosis and treatment. He's probably scared a lot of people, and it's completely unncecessary.

I don't doubt his good intentions; it's important to expose the lack of adequate health care for jazz musicians, and I'm glad to see the wonderful Jazz Foundation get some press. But this article is not only misleading, it's written in crescendo, which makes it sounds even more urgent and dire.

To be fair, Dulzo is no mental health professional. He's a music industry guy who interviewed one expert (Roberta Sanders, Roy Brooks's therapist) and read another (psychologist Kay Jamison, the most passionate proponent of the "mad creative" notion). I believe Dulzo misunderstood his first source and was suckered by the second - as so many are - into assuming her research is the definitive, scientific answer to the ancient questions about creative madness. Moreover, as an outsider, Dulzo would have little idea of the heated, long-term controversy within psychology's walls about the validity of diagnosis in general, the existence of mental "illness" in particular, and whether creative people are necessarily more susceptible to it.

This isn't the place to unspool all these controversies, since my goal is to shed some light on the darkness as quickly as I can (some of my credentials for doing so are at the end of this article). I'm told that Jazz Times might be open to printing a rebuttal, since they traditionally welcome differing opinions, but that process takes time, and the Halloween info has already been out there for two months.

So... let me take it from the top, and first reassure everyone of the following:

People with bipolar disorder - even assuming it's a verifiable medical entity, which is still unproven - are NOT invalids, and they are NOT doomed. Moreover, there is no proof that jazz musicians are more likely to be bipolar than anyone else.

In any case, the problem is usually manageable, whether by therapy, medication, lifestyle changes, exercise, better sleeping habits, greater self-awareness - or some combination thereof. What helps is as individual as the people who get the diagnosis; lithium doesn't do it for everyone, which is why they're experimenting with anti-seizure drugs, such as depakote. Besides, bipolar disorder has a much wider range of severity than Dulzo describes; you can get the diagnosis if you only have one qualifying episode in your life. And many people with that label - including those who've been hospitalized in the past - are living productive, stable, and even contented lives.

For the major inaccuracies in the article, go to...

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/articles/schl0103.htm

~Dr. Judith Schlesinger

clifton · December 31st, 2002, 04:58 AM

I read the Jazz Times article, which I thought was a compelling story as long as it was confined to Brooks himself. I'm not a psychiatrist so I can't claim to know much about bipolar disorder, which I believe used to be called manic-depressive disorder. However, I do know that many psychiatric professionals and lay people speculate that there is a link between artistic creativity and mental illness. I don't know if there is any medical data to support that thesis, although I have read speculation, some informed, some not, that Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, E.A. Poe, Charlie Parker, and Monk, among others, suffered from mental illness.

Dr. J. · January 1st, 2003, 07:01 PM

>I read the Jazz Times article, which I thought was a compelling story as long as it was confined to Brooks himself.

That part was compelling, absolutely.

>I'm not a psychiatrist so I can't claim to know much about bipolar disorder, which I believe used to be called manic-depressive disorder.

Correct: that was the old name for it, although many people still use it, finding it more descriptive than the rather dry "bipolar."

> However, I do know that many psychiatric professionals and lay people speculate that there is a link between artistic creativity and mental illness.

"Speculate" is the operative word here.

>I don't know if there is any medical data to support that thesis,

There isn't.

>although I have read speculation, some informed, some not, that Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, E.A. Poe, Charlie Parker, and Monk, among others, suffered from mental illness.

The list of "mentally ill" celebrities is as long as it is dubious, alas. I think you'd enjoy the Halloween article, which explains more about the speculation as well as the disorder. I'd be very interested in your reactions.

3pointdeli · January 2nd, 2003, 10:39 AM

i believe the percentage of people who are mentally ill (in varying degrees) is far greater than most of us would like to admit.

the list of mentaly ill artists is indeed very long. many artists openly admit that they suffer from some sort of mental disorder. others who are no longer with us are known to have been mentally ill.

being a musician will not lead to mental illness, but being mentally ill probably will make you more creative than the average person. how could it not?

kill the stigma.

(i'm not a psychologist)

jazzypaul · January 2nd, 2003, 10:52 AM

I have to get my two cents in here:

Monk, Mingus, Van Gogh: varying degrees of mental illness.

Kenny G, Boney James: none to be found.

I wish I was crazy...

Dr. J. · January 2nd, 2003, 12:51 PM

>i believe the percentage of people who are mentally ill (in varying degrees) is far greater than most of us would like to admit.

It depends on your definition. The new psychiatric jmanual considers you "mentally disordered" if you're addicted to coffee.

>the list of mentaly ill artists is indeed very long.

The list of stable artists is at least as long, just not as interesting.

>being a musician will not lead to mental illness, but being mentally ill probably will make you more creative than the average person. how could it not?

For one thing, real mental illness interferes with your ability to function. You may have great ideas - or think you do - but are too confused or disorganized to put them together.

>kill the stigma.

I agree with that, but pretending everybody is mentally ill isn't the way to do it.

>(i'm not a psychologist)

I can tell.

If you'd like to learn more about this, you might want to take a look at the Jazz Times Halloween scare story. There won't even be a quiz!

Dr. J. · January 2nd, 2003, 12:58 PM

>I have to get my two cents in here:
Monk, Mingus, Van Gogh: varying degrees of mental illness.
Kenny G, Boney James: none to be found.
I wish I was crazy...

LOL!! Dear Jazzypaul, just because some geniuses had "varying degrees of mental illness" doesn't mean it's a sign of genius to have them.

In the Romantic era in Europe, it was very chic to act bizarrely and make people think you were brilliant. Years ago, too many jazzers got the idea that if they were as doped up as Bird (and wore similar hats), they might sound like him.

3pointdeli · January 2nd, 2003, 01:01 PM

>kill the stigma.

I agree with that, but pretending everybody is mentally ill isn't the way to do it.

please don't put words in my mouth. i would never suggest that "everybody" is the same in any way.

i'm not fooled into thinking that psychologists have figured out the human brain. i stand by my belief that the number of people who are mentally ill is greater than anyone would like to admit.

jazzypaul · January 2nd, 2003, 01:01 PM

"LOL!! Dear Jazzypaul, just because some geniuses had "varying degrees of mental illness" doesn't mean it's a sign of genius to have them."

This is well understood. (a) this was meant as a joke and (b) while I do feel that the greatest artists have had some sort of instability in their lives to drive them to new forms of expression, I do not agree with the NY hipsters that thought that since Bird did smack that everybody should. I do, however, want whatever it was that Monk had.

3pointdeli · January 2nd, 2003, 01:43 PM

">being a musician will not lead to mental illness, but being mentally ill probably will make you more creative than the average person. how could it not?

"For one thing, real mental illness interferes with your ability to function. You may have great ideas - or think you do - but are too confused or disorganized to put them together."

that may be true in some cases, but not all. van gogh and monk, who both had "real mental illnesses," managed to squeeze out quite a bit of material. there could never be another monk or van gogh. on the other hand, music schools are full of kenny gs.

Jazz · January 2nd, 2003, 11:27 PM

I think that oftentimes eccentricity is mistaken for illness. I think that "creative" people are just people that percieve things differently enough to isolate them from other people, and from finding a healthy group to fit into. I do think that if someone does not find a good way to relate to others, it MAY lead to mental illness, but not necessarily. This leads to the illusion that mental illness is what is driving the creativity. Thoughts?

3pointdeli · January 3rd, 2003, 06:51 AM

that is certainly true in some cases.

it seems like most of you have some sort of fear of mental illness. it's not something that should cause shame or be stigmatized any more than cancer or any other illness/disease. some people have it. don't sweep it under the rug.

markvi · January 3rd, 2003, 08:49 AM

many people who are bipolar can be treated, but too many, and many jazz musicians fit into this category, don't have health insurance and can't or won't put out the money for treatment. our mental health care, as well as our general health care system is a disgrace. the american people deserve better. health care for the wealthy and the rest of you be damned. the insurance industry is holding the patients, doctors, and hospitals hostage. if you don't believe it, try to get on an organ recipient list without insurance and a big bank account. you'll die first.

Dr. J. · January 3rd, 2003, 09:17 AM

>while I do feel that the greatest artists have had some sort of instability in their lives to drive them to new forms of expression,

I see your point. If people were totally content with the status quo, there'd be no motivation to search for new perspectives.

>I do not agree with the NY hipsters that thought that since Bird did smack that everybody should. I do, however, want whatever it was that Monk had.

!!!!! One of my favorites, too.

Dr. J. · January 3rd, 2003, 09:23 AM

>I think that oftentimes eccentricity is mistaken for illness. I think that "creative" people are just people that percieve things differently enough to isolate them from other people, and from finding a healthy group to fit into.

Well-said.

> I do think that if someone does not find a good way to relate to others, it MAY lead to mental illness, but not necessarily. This leads to the illusion that mental illness is what is driving the creativity. Thoughts?

I think there's a cultural tendency to link mental illness and creativity. Getting semantic about it, anyone who deviates from the norm - including people who are exceptional in any way - can be viewed as "not-normal." Whether you decide this means "AB-normal" is a matter of choice.

For me, it ain't necessarily so.

December 30th, 2002, 07:51 AM	#1
xricci AAJ's Barrel Roller Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Lansdale, PA Posts: 10,427	The Jazz Times Halloween Scare In October of 2002, Jazz Times ran a cover story called "Hard Bop, Hard Time: Music, Madness and Roy Brooks." It was good timing, since the article was as dark and scary - and as full of fantasy - as Halloween. It warns that jazz musicians are especially prone to developing bipolar "disease," a "treacherous" mental "illness" that destroys creativity and careers and kills people. Using the sad story of drummer Roy Brooks as his outline, writer Jim Dulzo paints an overgeneralized picture of the dangers facing creative people, misrepresenting the nature of bipolar diagnosis and treatment. He's probably scared a lot of people, and it's completely unncecessary. I don't doubt his good intentions; it's important to expose the lack of adequate health care for jazz musicians, and I'm glad to see the wonderful Jazz Foundation get some press. But this article is not only misleading, it's written in crescendo, which makes it sounds even more urgent and dire. To be fair, Dulzo is no mental health professional. He's a music industry guy who interviewed one expert (Roberta Sanders, Roy Brooks's therapist) and read another (psychologist Kay Jamison, the most passionate proponent of the "mad creative" notion). I believe Dulzo misunderstood his first source and was suckered by the second - as so many are - into assuming her research is the definitive, scientific answer to the ancient questions about creative madness. Moreover, as an outsider, Dulzo would have little idea of the heated, long-term controversy within psychology's walls about the validity of diagnosis in general, the existence of mental "illness" in particular, and whether creative people are necessarily more susceptible to it. This isn't the place to unspool all these controversies, since my goal is to shed some light on the darkness as quickly as I can (some of my credentials for doing so are at the end of this article). I'm told that Jazz Times might be open to printing a rebuttal, since they traditionally welcome differing opinions, but that process takes time, and the Halloween info has already been out there for two months. So... let me take it from the top, and first reassure everyone of the following: People with bipolar disorder - even assuming it's a verifiable medical entity, which is still unproven - are NOT invalids, and they are NOT doomed. Moreover, there is no proof that jazz musicians are more likely to be bipolar than anyone else. In any case, the problem is usually manageable, whether by therapy, medication, lifestyle changes, exercise, better sleeping habits, greater self-awareness - or some combination thereof. What helps is as individual as the people who get the diagnosis; lithium doesn't do it for everyone, which is why they're experimenting with anti-seizure drugs, such as depakote. Besides, bipolar disorder has a much wider range of severity than Dulzo describes; you can get the diagnosis if you only have one qualifying episode in your life. And many people with that label - including those who've been hospitalized in the past - are living productive, stable, and even contented lives. For the major inaccuracies in the article, go to... http://www.allaboutjazz.com/articles/schl0103.htm ~Dr. Judith Schlesinger

January 2nd, 2003, 10:52 AM	#5
jazzypaul Pimple on Progress's Ass Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,021	I have to get my two cents in here: Monk, Mingus, Van Gogh: varying degrees of mental illness. Kenny G, Boney James: none to be found. I wish I was crazy... __________________ www.threeblindmiceonline.com

January 2nd, 2003, 01:01 PM	#9
jazzypaul Pimple on Progress's Ass Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,021	"LOL!! Dear Jazzypaul, just because some geniuses had "varying degrees of mental illness" doesn't mean it's a sign of genius to have them." This is well understood. (a) this was meant as a joke and (b) while I do feel that the greatest artists have had some sort of instability in their lives to drive them to new forms of expression, I do not agree with the NY hipsters that thought that since Bird did smack that everybody should. I do, however, want whatever it was that Monk had. __________________ www.threeblindmiceonline.com

January 3rd, 2003, 08:49 AM	#13
markvi Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: northeast pennsylvania Posts: 149	many people who are bipolar can be treated, but too many, and many jazz musicians fit into this category, don't have health insurance and can't or won't put out the money for treatment. our mental health care, as well as our general health care system is a disgrace. the american people deserve better. health care for the wealthy and the rest of you be damned. the insurance industry is holding the patients, doctors, and hospitals hostage. if you don't believe it, try to get on an organ recipient list without insurance and a big bank account. you'll die first. __________________ support your local jazz club

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

December 31st, 2002, 04:58 AM	#2
clifton AAJ's Birdologist Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Clifton Hts., Pa Posts: 2,550	I read the Jazz Times article, which I thought was a compelling story as long as it was confined to Brooks himself. I'm not a psychiatrist so I can't claim to know much about bipolar disorder, which I believe used to be called manic-depressive disorder. However, I do know that many psychiatric professionals and lay people speculate that there is a link between artistic creativity and mental illness. I don't know if there is any medical data to support that thesis, although I have read speculation, some informed, some not, that Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, E.A. Poe, Charlie Parker, and Monk, among others, suffered from mental illness.

January 1st, 2003, 07:01 PM	#3
Dr. J. Confirmed jazzophiliac Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: just north of the Big Apple Posts: 84	>I read the Jazz Times article, which I thought was a compelling story as long as it was confined to Brooks himself. That part was compelling, absolutely. >I'm not a psychiatrist so I can't claim to know much about bipolar disorder, which I believe used to be called manic-depressive disorder. Correct: that was the old name for it, although many people still use it, finding it more descriptive than the rather dry "bipolar." > However, I do know that many psychiatric professionals and lay people speculate that there is a link between artistic creativity and mental illness. "Speculate" is the operative word here. >I don't know if there is any medical data to support that thesis, There isn't. >although I have read speculation, some informed, some not, that Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, E.A. Poe, Charlie Parker, and Monk, among others, suffered from mental illness. The list of "mentally ill" celebrities is as long as it is dubious, alas. I think you'd enjoy the Halloween article, which explains more about the speculation as well as the disorder. I'd be very interested in your reactions.

January 2nd, 2003, 10:39 AM	#4
3pointdeli Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 2,113	i believe the percentage of people who are mentally ill (in varying degrees) is far greater than most of us would like to admit. the list of mentaly ill artists is indeed very long. many artists openly admit that they suffer from some sort of mental disorder. others who are no longer with us are known to have been mentally ill. being a musician will not lead to mental illness, but being mentally ill probably will make you more creative than the average person. how could it not? kill the stigma. (i'm not a psychologist)

January 2nd, 2003, 12:51 PM	#6
Dr. J. Confirmed jazzophiliac Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: just north of the Big Apple Posts: 84	>i believe the percentage of people who are mentally ill (in varying degrees) is far greater than most of us would like to admit. It depends on your definition. The new psychiatric jmanual considers you "mentally disordered" if you're addicted to coffee. >the list of mentaly ill artists is indeed very long. The list of stable artists is at least as long, just not as interesting. >being a musician will not lead to mental illness, but being mentally ill probably will make you more creative than the average person. how could it not? For one thing, real mental illness interferes with your ability to function. You may have great ideas - or think you do - but are too confused or disorganized to put them together. >kill the stigma. I agree with that, but pretending everybody is mentally ill isn't the way to do it. >(i'm not a psychologist) I can tell. If you'd like to learn more about this, you might want to take a look at the Jazz Times Halloween scare story. There won't even be a quiz!

January 2nd, 2003, 12:58 PM	#7
Dr. J. Confirmed jazzophiliac Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: just north of the Big Apple Posts: 84	>I have to get my two cents in here: Monk, Mingus, Van Gogh: varying degrees of mental illness. Kenny G, Boney James: none to be found. I wish I was crazy... LOL!! Dear Jazzypaul, just because some geniuses had "varying degrees of mental illness" doesn't mean it's a sign of genius to have them. In the Romantic era in Europe, it was very chic to act bizarrely and make people think you were brilliant. Years ago, too many jazzers got the idea that if they were as doped up as Bird (and wore similar hats), they might sound like him.

January 2nd, 2003, 01:43 PM	#10
3pointdeli Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 2,113	">being a musician will not lead to mental illness, but being mentally ill probably will make you more creative than the average person. how could it not? "For one thing, real mental illness interferes with your ability to function. You may have great ideas - or think you do - but are too confused or disorganized to put them together." that may be true in some cases, but not all. van gogh and monk, who both had "real mental illnesses," managed to squeeze out quite a bit of material. there could never be another monk or van gogh. on the other hand, music schools are full of kenny gs.

January 2nd, 2003, 11:27 PM	#11
Jazz Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 198	I think that oftentimes eccentricity is mistaken for illness. I think that "creative" people are just people that percieve things differently enough to isolate them from other people, and from finding a healthy group to fit into. I do think that if someone does not find a good way to relate to others, it MAY lead to mental illness, but not necessarily. This leads to the illusion that mental illness is what is driving the creativity. Thoughts?

January 3rd, 2003, 06:51 AM	#12
3pointdeli Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 2,113	that is certainly true in some cases. it seems like most of you have some sort of fear of mental illness. it's not something that should cause shame or be stigmatized any more than cancer or any other illness/disease. some people have it. don't sweep it under the rug.

January 3rd, 2003, 09:17 AM	#14
Dr. J. Confirmed jazzophiliac Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: just north of the Big Apple Posts: 84	>while I do feel that the greatest artists have had some sort of instability in their lives to drive them to new forms of expression, I see your point. If people were totally content with the status quo, there'd be no motivation to search for new perspectives. >I do not agree with the NY hipsters that thought that since Bird did smack that everybody should. I do, however, want whatever it was that Monk had. !!!!! One of my favorites, too.

January 3rd, 2003, 09:23 AM	#15
Dr. J. Confirmed jazzophiliac Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: just north of the Big Apple Posts: 84	>I think that oftentimes eccentricity is mistaken for illness. I think that "creative" people are just people that percieve things differently enough to isolate them from other people, and from finding a healthy group to fit into. Well-said. > I do think that if someone does not find a good way to relate to others, it MAY lead to mental illness, but not necessarily. This leads to the illusion that mental illness is what is driving the creativity. Thoughts? I think there's a cultural tendency to link mental illness and creativity. Getting semantic about it, anyone who deviates from the norm - including people who are exceptional in any way - can be viewed as "not-normal." Whether you decide this means "AB-normal" is a matter of choice. For me, it ain't necessarily so.