Joined
·
10,062 Posts
Stanley Crouch, 74
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Joined
·
35 Posts
This is a bummer. I really enjoyed Crouch's writing. In fact, I just finished "Kansas City Lightning" a few weeks ago, and remarked to a neighborhood friend who has also read it that I greatly anticipated the release of the second part (which was going to pick up with Bird's life at 20 or 21, where "Lightning" left off). Unless another esteemed author/jazz historian is able to carry the torch that Crouch lit, looks like that won't be happening...
Joined
·
351 Posts
He probably did a bunch of other cruel and unnecessary things that you and I will never know about. After all, in addition to being a brilliant author and critic, he was a human being. Thankfully his writing and thoughts on jazz are so interesting that I never stopped to weigh his personal foibles against the value of his output and then figure out how to subtract it from his legacy.
May he Rest In Peace.
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/obituaries/stanley-crouch-dead.html
Stanley Crouch was a galvanizing presence around Claremont when I was a student at Pomona -- you'd see him playing free jazz, declaiming poetry, making thought-provoking remarks about American life & art. I remember him as an intellectually fearless man whose barbed wit skewered folks in all directions, including himself. He once (good-naturedly) told me I was a fool; he was absolutely right!
Stanley Crouch was a galvanizing presence around Claremont when I was a student at Pomona -- you'd see him playing free jazz, declaiming poetry, making thought-provoking remarks about American life & art. I remember him as an intellectually fearless man whose barbed wit skewered folks in all directions, including himself. He once (good-naturedly) told me I was a fool; he was absolutely right!
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
sorry, that's a deal breaker. I've been writing and teaching for 30 years, playing, and engaging with the music and American musical history, teaching at colleges, at Lincoln Center, lecturing in a lot of places and I never did anything that disgusting, never put other people down, as he did, for being less important, never said women "spread their legs while listening to Miles Davis." Truthfully, he was a smart guy but his body of work is patchy and inconsistent. There are far better cultural writers and observers who didn't think Miles was a ***** for playing different music, never assaulted anyone (as he did more than once), never changed their whole musical viewpoints to become more famous and make more money, never tried to blackmail musicians who wouldn't hire them - which he did as a drummer - and there's lots more.
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
From what I've read, the sequel to "Kansas City Lightning" was due to come out sometime in 2021. So I'm thinking that all that was left was the editing process, so we still may see it. I've read five biographies on Charlie Parker and Kansas City Lightning was the best of them. Yes, Crouch was a difficult individual to get along with and had opinions that weren't always popular, but that's whats necessary sometimes to provoke thought and change to the status quo. Anyway, R.I.P. Stanley.
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
Yes, it's always best to wait until someone is dead to put them down.
I'm pretty sure most people who disliked him freely spoke of it when he was alive, too. Sounds to me like he was a pretty crappy person. That said, Al Haig probably killed his third wife (to pick the most extreme example of bad behavior I can think of) and yet his music is still recognized.
In Stanley Crouch's case... He knew traditional jazz every bit as well as someone could, but he should have kept his mouth shut about geniuses like Stevie Wonder that he clearly couldn't understand but felt the need to insult. His legacy is mixed, partly because he was prone to feuds like some of the rappers he dismissed. He did know jazz, though, and he knew how to write.
The best thing I can say is that he influenced Wynton and Ken Burns, which helped bring jazz back into the national consciousness despite the limited scope of the "Jazz" miniseries. Wynton, from everything I have read and seen of him, has grown to be a much bigger man and has had a great positive impact on jazz, especially with the work at Lincoln Center.
Joined
·
351 Posts
Boy - that's a lot of bad stuff he did! Thanks for setting the record straight and best of luck with your cancel campaign.
I've no idea who you are nor can I vet your assertion of how virtuous you claim to be (or how much of a scoundrel Mr. Crouch was). But your suggestion that one's artistic merit hinges on how well behaved they are is a recipe for the celebration of mediocrity. If that's what you're banking on for your own career, you might as well hang it up buddy because no one likes to hear a person denigrating the recently deceased.
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
of course you are completely missing the point. And I love the "cancel campaign" reference, except for the fact that you clearly have no understanding of what it means. Cancel Culture is when we urge people to boycott or stop patronizing something or someone. I urge people to read Crouch's work, which is provocative and engaging, even if I consider it mostly wrong-headed and even as I personally have some extremely strong differences with his opinions. As for myself, I never considered myself to be a paragon of virtue, but anyone who knows me though my 40 years of playing, teaching and recordings knows my reputation for ethical behavior, my good relationships with students and musicians. There are just lines, in this critical world, that you don't cross. And I NEVER suggested that Crouch's artistic merit hinged on his behavior - if you actually bother to read what I wrote, I consider his reputation as a writer and critic to be overblown. Those of us who know well the subjects he wrote about - like jazz and popular music - are aware of how false and exaggerated his perspective often was. I am also aware of the pitfalls of attacking the recently deceased but I cannot sit by and leave false claims unchallenged.
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
just an FYI, unless you've been living in a cave, many of us have been arguing with Stanley for many, many years. Not to mention Wynton, who I have debated with and written about in great detail re: our disagreement on the blues. As a matter of fact, 15 years ago I wrote an entire book about this.
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
Yes, we get it. You're a self proclaimed scholar. Perhaps it's just irony you don't get? Go back and read post #7 until you understand it...
Joined
·
351 Posts
I'm not misunderstanding anything. You attacked his character, not his point of view, and implied that this was reason to reconsider the value of his output. Like him or not, Crouch was a giant in his field and his books will continue to be read by those with an interest in jazz. Being a "jazz critic" yourself, perhaps it's his being so well known that bothers you. Sorry, I'm just not buying your righteous indignation bit - virtue signaling doesn't look so great on someone who's willing to defame a recently deceased author's character.
Joined
·
20,661 Posts
You know what ? This is valid.
I understand those who stake the position - "well, the person was still a great artist who produced some great work and (perhaps) even helped a certain segment of society...soooo.....you gotta separate their oeuvre from their actions, etc, etc."
I don't particularly agree with it. Yes everyone may be human, and everyone may be flawed...but one can certainly argue the degree of certain actions does not necessarily fall under the umbrella of acceptability..
It's perfectly reasonable to hold the position that "despite the person's contributions or brilliance in one or some particular fields....despite how they may have helped and favored a certain segment...the record also shows them to have been a questionable person who did some morally questionable/reprehensible acts of XXX....YYY...etc.."
It is, IMHO, perfectly reasonable for an assessment. legacy, or memory of an individual to include these sorta things. It's also perfectly reasonable that the reprehensible or negative activity of that person be raised when memory of them is raised...and perfectly reasonable for an individual to be of the ilk "I never could value their art or contributions....they never impacted me the same way.... after I learned of the darker aspects of the person which were not as well-publicized".
None of this necessarily = 'reconsideration of the value of his output [production, works)].
It does suggest that output alone does not determine Legacy. Output alone does not nix consideration whether the individual lived as a good or decent human being, in one's opinion . It does not nix consideration of the motives of some decisions in their professional life.
Yes, these considerations may then effect how one wishes to view the individual's memory- it may temper one's opinion of the contributions/output....but raising these things in and of itself are as reasonable as listing the person's accomplishments.
Not trying to start something, just saying, I think allen's comments are as valid. If these things are confirmed, not just the behviours towards others but the perhaps questionable changes in tack during his professional life...then isn't it fair to say: they are also part of a person's Legacy ?
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
