Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6264Re: [RedHotJazz] Jelly Roll Morton's birthdate

Expand Messages
  • Hugh
    Sep 4, 2008
      This is not an easy issue to address. In our society which evolved during the 20th century we have come to accept a 'scientific' view of reality where ascertainable 'truths' emerge as 'reality'. However, this is not an eternal verity. The simple fact is that what people believe to be the truth is, to all intents and purposes, the truth. This holds as much for 'science' as for anything else.
       
      There are alternative views of the world upon which I will gladly expand but I do not feel the present forum apprpriate.
       
      As far as I am concerned, 1885 is the year of Jelly's birth, documentary evidence notwithstanding. 1890 is simply inconceivable. I am aware of all the dates in question - 1902 for New Orleans Blues, for example, cannot believe that the evidence points to a birth in 1890.
       
      I am gratified, however, to see such interest in the person whom I continue to believe is the King of New Orleans (and therefore by definition, all) Jazz.

      --- On Thu, 9/4/08, john schott <john@...> wrote:

      From: john schott <john@...>
      Subject: Re: [RedHotJazz] Jelly Roll Morton's birthdate
      To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 7:44 PM

      On the subject of Reich and Gaines, see Duck Baker's negative reviews of the

      book in JazzTimes and, I believe, Coda, where he finds numerous
      inaccuracies, distortions, and non-attributions.
      I would be sympathetic to a rethinking of Morton shorn of the "liar"
      label,
      if it were more in line with the attitude I spoke of in my previous posts,
      where multiple "truths" can be considered.


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Michael Rader" <Rader.Michael@...>
      To: <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:35 AM
      Subject: Re: [RedHotJazz] Jelly Roll Morton's birthdate


      >>
      >> Clearly Gaines/Reich have chosen to ignore what previous researchers
      >> have
      >> concluded about the family's agenda, but that evidently is a
      matter
      >> for
      >> interpretation.
      >
      >
      > Gaines and Reich have their own agenda expressed clearly in the sub-title
      > of their book, namely to "redeem" Jelly, in particular to show
      that he was
      > not the liar as whom he is often stereotyped. The "study in
      geneaology"
      > incidentally give a date-of-birth for Jelly's mother, which would make
      an
      > 1885 impossible.
      >
      > Michael Rader
      > _________________________________________________________________________
      > In 5 Schritten zur eigenen Homepage. Jetzt Domain sichern und gestalten!
      > Nur 3,99 EUR/Monat! http://www.maildomain.web.de/?mc=021114
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >


      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links








      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic