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

Re: Bernard Wolfe, Mezzrow, and Really the Blues

Expand Messages
  • Tommer
    ... Hi Robert, there are few points about Marxism amd Mezz/Wiggas Mezz: I am not sure it matters what people think about Mezz but what he did. A caricature,
    Message 1 of 79 , Jun 9, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Greenwood" <robertgreenwood_54uk@...> wrote:
      > Tommer
      > As promised, a reply to your interesting post. This does move into areas beyond the remit of this list. Unavoidably.
      > 1. I don't know if Mezz was the first "wigga", or "white negro", but I would distinguish him from blackface acts in that he, unlike them, wished to masquerade as "black" (whatever that is) in every aspect of his life. All he did, of course, was to offer a caricature. Surely black people do not present a monolithic social entity undistinguished by class, age, religion, sex? Mezzrow only helps to perpetuate a debilitating stereotype and no way have the wiggas ever improved the real material position of black people or brought us any closer to moving beyond race (well, they wouldn't, would they?) and towards real equality. The notion that a person's "race", or their "ethnicity", or their "culture" says all that needs to be said about them, or is the most important thing about them, is deeply reactionary and finds fervent approval both from the far right and the far left.
      > White musicians seem to have been involved with jazz right from the start. I don't accept that white musicians are necessarily imitating blacks or stealing from them their "culture." Jazz is American music in origin, and quickly found practitioners the world over.
      > 2. It is likely that Mezzrow's book gets published again and again due to its being a literary work. I think you have a point there. The point I'm making in my article is that Really the Blues is promoted as a counterculture text and displays all the puerile and politically reactionary characteristics one would expect from it as such. Finkelstein was a Marxist and a humanist; as such, his ideas are deeply unfashionable. The intellectual tradition he represents has all but died in the face of the collapse of communism, the defeat of the labour movement, postmodernism, fashionable pessimism, modish misanthropy (A.K.A. Environmentalism) whereby all human aspiration and productivity is seen as destructive, and the so-called end of ideology. The current poster boy for the chattering classes is the arch people-hater John Gray. In this climate no one is going to reprint Finkelstein's books.
      > 3. Yes, Mezzrow encourages and celebrates a reactionary passivity and resignation in the face of racism. Right on, Mezz…Light another joint…
      > 4. The book is puerile, reactionary, and self-serving.
      > 5. See 1 above.
      > Best wishes,
      > Robert.

      Hi Robert, there are few points about Marxism amd Mezz/Wiggas

      Mezz: I am not sure it matters what people think about Mezz but what he did. A caricature, that can be applied to many white artists trying to play Jazz ending up with Mickey Mouse Jazz. Mezz as crude as he was never got there. Mezz was born a Jew, and he was supposed to become a white man. However, this is a process for hundreds of years that Jews became part of whites, or maybe not, maybe they all caricatures? And whites themselves, they had also became something else, they came as savages from Siberia and they became the continuum to Greeks and Romans and Jews ideas. Is it a caricature? I am not sure about all this. If one expected Mezz will grow black skin or genetical features of blacks (which are different between themselves it is just whites that sees all black similar to one another) I think he can be only disappointed. That cannot happen.

      I read a book by elis Cose titled "The Envy of the World" and Cose said how he once saw African character and he realized that character is much more black skin then him. That is a matter of surrounding. The human nature is to change via circumstances. Social and intellectual circumstances are harder to be noticed than 100's of generations of human becoming visually with certain features.

      Mezz did a step, and, he did the social step, not the blackface step, and people from one culture quietly accepts social features from other cultures all the time. At the time Mezz did it, there were only few who admitted this process, but it was a long process in America, there are evidents that for a long time the different cultures were communicating. Mezz just admitted and freed himself to do what many whites wanted but were scared to admit or do.

      I believe a society is never static, it always changes. Even a traditional society changes all the time. There are romantic descriptions that say not but it is just that, romantic descriptions.

      Marxism and Finkelstein: I believe that since the human nature is to change genetically and socially over time, it means that the rules and ways of life he use are changing. Marxism wasn't much fit or accepted with human needs, human aren't ready for it, no where in this world. They still are doing the social cannibalism, they mostly (not 100%) stopped doing the physical cannibalism but the social thing is something maybe for the future. And Marxism was talking about a way to end this, but, in order to do this, there are a lot of things to accomplish that humans are not even in that direction. But I don't see a reason why this should stop finkelstein's book from getting itself published again. The book just is not so much attractvie outside of this list!

    • Howard Rye
      Sadly, I have to report that ³the sweeter side of King Keppard² was a discographical misattribution on which Rudi Blesh built a flight of fancy. This
      Message 79 of 79 , Jun 16, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Sadly, I have to report that ³the sweeter side of King Keppard² was a
        discographical misattribution on which Rudi Blesh built a flight of fancy.

        This particular piece of tosh is to be found in the ŒPostscript¹ appended to
        later editions of Blesh¹s ŒShining Trumpets¹. Keppard isn¹t even on the
        record cited as proto-Beiderbecke, Doc Cook¹s ŒI Got Worry¹. The trumpeter
        is probably Elwood Graham, whose presence is confirmed by his file
        attribution as a member of the vocal trio on ŒHum and Strum¹. As the date
        is 1928 comment on the likely direction of influence is probably
        superfluous. This is a showband doing what showbands do (giving the public
        what it wants). It would be an exaggeration to call ŒI Got Worry² a
        Whiteman-imitation but they are aiming at the same territory and Graham
        plays in the style he or the arranger considered appropriate for that job. I
        seriously doubt that anything more compliacted is happening.

        Incidentally despite what discographies say about the personnel of this
        session, Doc Poston is certainly present since the files name him as one of
        the vocal trio too, unless there really was a musician called ³Postum² in
        the band.

        on 16/06/2009 18:01, Tommer at tommersl@... wrote:

        > --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com <mailto:RedHotJazz%40yahoogroups.com> ,
        > "Tommer" <tommersl@...> wrote:
        >> > I didn't read this Murray but IMO improvisation on Blues texture (hot) is
        >> different than improvising on the something that wraps the Blues (sweet).
        >> >
        >> > IMO Louis' "West End Blues" the piano is sweet. They also don't swing much.
        >> On the other hand the piano on Johnny Dodds' "New St. Louis Blues" is hot and
        >> they swing. I was reffering to the piano but it is more or less what I feel
        >> about the whole of each of the two.
        >> >
        >> > What I prefer? The hot!
        >> >
        >> > Tommer
        >> >
        > I have to add something accordingly. I think that one of the problems in
        > understanding among Jazz listeners the connection between Jazz and Blues is
        > that because unfair argues. Like, saying anything Louis did was hot which is
        > not true. What those that like "West End Blues" is the virtuoso trumpet thing,
        > but in terms of hot music it is not so much.
        > Why I mentioned this is complicated to explain, first because I saw that West
        > End is regarded by Albert and I am sure others think the same as one of the
        > two (with Singin the Blues) most important records of the 1920's, and for me
        > this record is a symbol to the end of the most powerful Blues era in Jazz,
        > because this as well as Singin are records that goes from collective efforts
        > on Blues texture to virtuoso use of Blues for other things.
        > And I don;t mean 12-bar Blues, because 12-bar can play without improvisation
        > on the texture, as much as other forms can be played inside the texture.
        > What I believe is that because assuming everything Louis did was "hot" is why
        > Rudi Blesh claimed that Bix wasn't influenced by Louis but, he was influenced
        > by the sweeter side of King Keppard.
        > Because assuming everything Louis was doing at the time was hot, causes a
        > problem, how can a always hot musician influence so much a musician Blesh
        > believed was sweet?
        > And this is what confuse people! Because there are romantic descriptions to
        > deal with this.
        > So, Murray omitting Oliver or for that same matter any list is questionnable,
        > at the time Bunk and George Lewis were rediscovered they weren't as able to
        > deal with Blues texture too much. That era is over since the 1920's are over.
        > But, Murray could say that on Bunk because Bunk was from the old times!
        > However, Oliver had Jazz Babies Blues and Alligator and Krooked Blues and
        > Canal Street Blues, and other that were some of the best Blues in Jazz ever
        > recorded IMO. I don't believe he omitted Oliver, maybe he didn't hear the
        > right records or just forgot about him or had a short selevtive or
        > representative list.
        > Tommer

        Howard Rye, 20 Coppermill Lane, London, England, E17 7HB
        Tel/FAX: +44 20 8521 1098

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.