Stanley crouch rip...

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

LA TImes...

"Stanley Crouch... died Wednesday at age 74.
His wife, Gloria Nixon-Crouch, told the Associated Press that he died at a hospice in New York City. He had been in poor health in recent years after suffering a stroke.

In a career dating to the 1960s, Crouch was a columnist for the Village Voice and the New York Daily News, a guest on NPR and Charlie Rose’s show, a jazz drummer, a founder of what became Jazz at Lincoln Center and mentor to Wynton Marsalis and many younger writers and musicians, an aficionado of baseball and American folklore and scourge of Toni Morrison, Spike Lee and Amiri Baraka, among others. ."

[Serial_Apologist]

Perceptive in many ways, never holding back, often controversial, big Stanley was.

Somehow I've always assumed he was a lot older than me.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Perceptive in many ways, never holding back, often controversial, big Stanley was.

Somehow I've always assumed he was a lot older than me.

Not to speak ill of the dead (but hey) , I found his opinions, and particularly his clout, politics and influence pretty appalling. And his book on Parker a rambling mess. There were/are far better writers.

BN.

[Ian Thumwood]

Not to speak ill of the dead (but hey) , I found his opinions, and particularly his clout, politics and influence pretty appalling. And his book on Parker a rambling mess. There were/are far better writers.

BN.

I always enjoy Ethan Iveson's thought on jazz and this essay concerning his friend Stanley Crouch is the best account of the critic's life I have read so far.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/16/913619163/stanley-crouch-towering-jazz-critic-dead-at-74?t=1600370939093

I have to say that I had no idea who Stanley Crouch was when I first encountered his writing on the Wynton Marsalis albums in the 1980s. I tended to read the liner notes once but ultimately reached a point where I had no interest in them whatsoever. I feel the same whenever I read Brad Mehldau's notes to his own albums - the sense of wordy pretentiousness which , if translated in to a solo, would represent the antithesis of the free and open nature of the music.

The issue with Stanley Crouch I have is that I totally agree with about 50% of what he had to say whilst being vehemently against the balance of his diatribes.(The most notorious one I recall is his description of the Gil Evans / Miles Davis collaborations as TV music. ) I am inclined not to dismiss him quite a readily as Bluesnik. When he was right about the importance of someone like Duke Ellington his observations seemed right on the money. I am struggling not to nod my head with regard to some of his assessment of fusion Where a musician's work was contrary to the tenets he held dear, I always sensed he was deliberately provocative and unnecessarily rude. I think Iveson's article seems to be spot on and very perceptive. You sense that musicians respected his opinions even if not in agreement whilst also being aware of the man's faults. the account of Iveson's last encounter with Crouch is actually quite poignant.

I do feel that he was right to make race in jazz an issue yet in doing so I feel that he often got things wrong. Not quite sure quite why he turned against musicians such as David Murray with whom he had previously worked as a drummer but I do feel that some of his prejudices are somewhat artificial. For me, it is difficult to understand that if you are a jazz fan why the likes of King Oliver, Duke Ellington, Pat Metheny, Cecil Taylor, Charlie Parker, Henry Threadgill, etc should not be venerated as one and the same. The strength of jazz lies in it's variety and ability to adjust to reflect the changes in society. To argue against this is rather against the point of jazz but equally, to fit Norwegian saxophonists performing medieval music with choirs or groups influenced by EDM in the same category is perhaps akin to not recognizing those qualities that makes jazz special.

I am never quite sure why some people feel the need to be contrary. I think that Crouch's comments always made good copy even when he was talking drivel. I have to say that I think that Iveson himself probably has a better understanding of the music and is maybe more to-the-point.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

I always enjoy Ethan Iveson's thought on jazz and this essay concerning his friend Stanley Crouch is the best account of the critic's life I have read so far.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/16/913619163/stanley-crouch-towering-jazz-critic-dead-at-74?t=1600370939093

I have to say that I had no idea who Stanley Crouch was when I first encountered his writing on the Wynton Marsalis albums in the 1980s. I tended to read the liner notes once but ultimately reached a point where I had no interest in them whatsoever. I feel the same whenever I read Brad Mehldau's notes to his own albums - the sense of wordy pretentiousness which , if translated in to a solo, would represent the antithesis of the free and open nature of the music.

The issue with Stanley Crouch I have is that I totally agree with about 50% of what he had to say whilst being vehemently against the balance of his diatribes.(The most notorious one I recall is his description of the Gil Evans / Miles Davis collaborations as TV music. ) I am inclined not to dismiss him quite a readily as Bluesnik. When he was right about the importance of someone like Duke Ellington his observations seemed right on the money. I am struggling not to nod my head with regard to some of his assessment of fusion Where a musician's work was contrary to the tenets he held dear, I always sensed he was deliberately provocative and unnecessarily rude. I think Iveson's article seems to be spot on and very perceptive. You sense that musicians respected his opinions even if not in agreement whilst also being aware of the man's faults. the account of Iveson's last encounter with Crouch is actually quite poignant.

I do feel that he was right to make race in jazz an issue yet in doing so I feel that he often got things wrong. Not quite sure quite why he turned against musicians such as David Murray with whom he had previously worked as a drummer but I do feel that some of his prejudices are somewhat artificial. For me, it is difficult to understand that if you are a jazz fan why the likes of King Oliver, Duke Ellington, Pat Metheny, Cecil Taylor, Charlie Parker, Henry Threadgill, etc should not be venerated as one and the same. The strength of jazz lies in it's variety and ability to adjust to reflect the changes in society. To argue against this is rather against the point of jazz but equally, to fit Norwegian saxophonists performing medieval music with choirs or groups influenced by EDM in the same category is perhaps akin to not recognizing those qualities that makes jazz special.

I am never quite sure why some people feel the need to be contrary. I think that Crouch's comments always made good copy even when he was talking drivel. I have to say that I think that Iveson himself probably has a better understanding of the music and is maybe more to-the-point.

I was trying to think who he reminded me of, and then I came up with Norman Mailer; the ego, the assumed attraction to women, the boorishness, the keenish to punch people out, colleagues & critics, (although apparantly Sam Rivers flattened him on one occasion), the provocation and posturing for attention ("Malcolm X, the Evis Presley of race"). I don't think that many people read Mailer now and I suspect Crouch's legacy will go the same way. The act pales.

[Ian Thumwood]

There are plenty of incidents where Crouch has ended up hitting other musicians or has had to be pulled apart from someone who he has criticized. He has also resulted to using his fists against fellow critics. All in all, not a nice person and somewhat beyond the typical view of a contrarian. The Iveson article really gives an insight into him and why his behaviour perplexed even his friends. It is a balanced piece of writing which Crouch himself would probably have been incapable of producing.

The most perplexing element of his engagement in jazz is how he could have been running a club for and performed with musicians associated with the avant garde in the 1970s. On top of that, when he started to write, it was this kind of music and the musicians associated with this movement that he initially championed. Whilst i appreciate that people's tastes change, his involvement at this level would have led you to believe he had an understanding of the music even if his tastes had moved on.

I think the description of him being a "boor" is not inaccurate but under-estimates the fact that he clearly had social skill issues. It is also clear that he was someone now afraid to result to physical violent and had previously been fired from a magazine for putting a fellow journalist in a choke hold. For me, his readiness to use violence or intimidation is disconcerting. We are not talking about isolated incidents.

You sense that people tended to accept him for what he was or simply called him out. There is as much vitriol levelled at him on line as he dished out himself. As I said previously, if you adopt his scattergun approach to jazz, you are going to be right some of the time. The fact he lasted so long is probably attributable to the fact that the controversial views he espoused ensured his writing would become a talking point.

I would be intrigued to read Alyn's take on Stanley Crouch and whether he had any run ins with him.

I am not so sure that we would be quite so tolerant of someone like Crouch in the UK and whether he would have been marginalized much quicker if he had hailed from this country. There is also am element of Trump about him.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

There are plenty of incidents where Crouch has ended up hitting other musicians or has had to be pulled apart from someone who he has criticized. He has also resulted to using his fists against fellow critics. All in all, not a nice person and somewhat beyond the typical view of a contrarian. The Iveson article really gives an insight into him and why his behaviour perplexed even his friends. It is a balanced piece of writing which Crouch himself would probably have been incapable of producing.

The most perplexing element of his engagement in jazz is how he could have been running a club for and performed with musicians associated with the avant garde in the 1970s. On top of that, when he started to write, it was this kind of music and the musicians associated with this movement that he initially championed. Whilst i appreciate that people's tastes change, his involvement at this level would have led you to believe he had an understanding of the music even if his tastes had moved on.

I think the description of him being a "boor" is not inaccurate but under-estimates the fact that he clearly had social skill issues. It is also clear that he was someone now afraid to result to physical violent and had previously been fired from a magazine for putting a fellow journalist in a choke hold. For me, his readiness to use violence or intimidation is disconcerting. We are not talking about isolated incidents.

You sense that people tended to accept him for what he was or simply called him out. There is as much vitriol levelled at him on line as he dished out himself. As I said previously, if you adopt his scattergun approach to jazz, you are going to be right some of the time. The fact he lasted so long is probably attributable to the fact that the controversial views he espoused ensured his writing would become a talking point.

I would be intrigued to read Alyn's take on Stanley Crouch and whether he had any run ins with him.

I am not so sure that we would be quite so tolerant of someone like Crouch in the UK and whether he would have been marginalized much quicker if he had hailed from this country. There is also am element of Trump about him.

"From some writings on the New York Loft Jazz scene by Eugene Chadbourne:

"What some considered the death knell of the loft jazz scene came in the Summer of 1977, which found Sam Rivers and Stanley Crouch organizing festivals scheduled for the same time, on the same street. Rivers noticed that many of the same musicians he was presenting were advertised for Crouch's surprise event, and delivered an ultimatum that anyone participating in Crouch's festival would be cancelled from Rivbea. Since Crouch's was strictly a door-money deal (no guarantees), many musicians bowed out of Crouch's festival. At least one musician opted for Rivbea, not because of the ultimatum, but upon learning of plans to tape his show & possibly make a record (without working out pay for the musicians who'd be recorded).Tensions heightened, and finally climaxed on the streets of Soho when a fight broke out, and Sam Rivers purportedlydelivered a "smooth uppercut" to the competition; an event that some believe to be the source of Crouch's dislike of avant-garde jazz."

And then there's his apparent "outing" of Cecil Taylor ...

BN.