"John Coltrane and the Jazz Revolution of the 1960's"

[sonic1]

This book was brought up in another thread. Maybe yal' have already hashed this debate out. I read this some years ago and found it to be one of the most disappointing books on jazz.

#1 because the title suggested being on the topic of Trane which 90% of the print in the book was not, but about politics in jazz

#2 because although I agree with the basic ideology that jazz was a black american creation and that white america had a stranglehold on the industry, his mal-treatment of white artists like Stan Getz et al, claiming them to not withstand the test of time is utterly false no matter what your tastes are.

#3 pinning coltrane as a political artist is not right either. Coltrane named almost all of his tunes spiritual names not political, which suggests he had something else in mind. Just being black in those days was political especially playing such new music as his, nonetheless I wouldn't call his INTENTIONS political, just artistically and spiritually brave. Calling his work political somehow cheapens his intentions for me.

I must not be the only one cause at a local bookstore here in town there are several used copies of this book for sale, and there are hardly any other jazz books, suggesting that people don't feel the need to keep it.

that is my stupid opinion, what do yal' think?

[Il Anto]

In his book "Ascension: John Coltrane and His Quest", Eric Nisenson touches on that exact thing. He criticizes Kofsky for "cheapening" Coltrane's spiritual endeavors through music by calling it political.

However, whether or not Coltrane meant for his post-ALS music to be political even in the most covert manner can be debated to an extent.

But one thing you cannot argue over is the parallel of his music to the turbulence of the times. It is too easy for a man like Kofsky to draw up.

[AntManBee]

Sonic1, I haven't read that one, but I was wondering, have you read "As Serious as Your Life"? If so, what are your opinions on it?

[sonic1]

This book was great, though not complete by any means. There has yet to be a complete book on out-jazz. Every one of them seems to favor a particular period and/or omit very important periods or players.

I also have to admit that having read many of these books my memory of one runs into another.

I like New York Is Now! by Phil Freeman and Avant-garde jazz musicians : performing "out there" by David Such. But you have to piece the whole story together by getting a lot of other books with more specific foci.

Jared

[GodSpeliZed]

I've read some pages from Kofsky's book on his internet site. I agree with Sonic about the fact that the music of Coltrane concerns more spiritual than political issues, but (if I ain't wrong), Kofsky wrote it in a period in which many things were not clear, and made his statements, like Anto wrote, according to his ideology.
Think that; for what I understood, in the 1950s and 1960s for many people involved in social changes was inevitable to run in a logic of juxtaposition (black vs. white etc.). Think that Coltrane was 'used' (conscious or not) by Impulse and labeled in a way to make of him a saint (see the cover of A Love Supreme: the image of Trane on the sleeve speech more than a thousands of words....); he also used his imortance in the business to promove artists like Archie Shepp, who was very involved in political issues, and for many people Coltrane was an icon just like MLK or Malcolm X. From this the confusion.
Same thing with Amiri Baraka. I've read a round table between Cecil Taylor, Baraka and others in the same period and.... guys, a discussion at that time could become inflamed in few seconds.... today we can find ridiculous some extremes, but anyway I find interesting to know more about that (agree or disagree is not important, everyone can decide by himself).
And after all, the chapter "Cold War Secret Weapon" in Kofsky book is not at all despicable.
Just a few days ago I've seen on tv an old movie (don't know the title because it was already begun), about the story of Glenn Miller.... a little cameo of Louis Armstrong and Gene Krupa (the only great moment of the movie), and a plot that confirm the thesis of Kofski......... (only white musicians, a musician patriotic who take his music on WWII to encourage the soldiers and die, so his music will never die and on..... not a word about the true conditions of jazz musicians at that time, only white players in bourgeois milieux, etc.)

..... obviously, this little thing has nothing to do with Kofsky on Coltrane, but not all of what he wrote is wrong, for me.

[sonic1]

I actually agree with a lot of what he wrote. But his tone and use of coltrane was not fair though I totally get where you are coming from. When I was reading what he wrote I felt at first like, damn I am glad someone is saying this. But after a few chapters and some really unfair statements I saw him as more reactionary. And using trane like that really began to anger me, esp. since trane, of all those guys, was one of the nicest, most angelic beings in jazz(him and dolphy). He would never have used the acidic language Kofsky used. I really resented too that instead of talking so much about trane, he pasted an identity to him for political means and spent most of his book talking about rascial politics. He used Trane's name to sell his book and it worked al beit many were sold right back to fill the shelves of used book stores. The book has nothing to do with trane really. If maybe he named the book differently I might have not taken so much offense.

[GodSpeliZed]

Originally Posted by sonic1

He used Trane's name to sell his book and it worked al beit many were sold right back to fill the shelves of used book stores. The book has nothing to do with trane really. If maybe he named the book differently I might have not taken so much offense.

I don't know Kofsky very well, but the way you describe it make him (at least for me) quite similar to Michael Moore (few words, cuz I don't wanna stand two arguments in the same thread: I agree with all of the things Mr. Moore said in "Bowling for Columbine", but something in the WAY he speaks - or films - annoy me: it's that pose like "huh, now I will show you the truth!", that make him quite similar to the politician he attacks.... a French director - Jean Marie Straub, who lives an makes movies in Italy from many years - in a conference this year affirmed that he don't love political movies, because "if you talk about other things, you can touch even political issues, but if you make a political movie, you show only the pornography of politics" - I hope you can understand). Not for instance, even Mr. Moore is accused to make his movies only for money and fame, and not for a personal instance of justice.... va savoir!

From what concerns Kofsky, I see him like a man who has an ideal (he affirmed to be socialist), and, as many others like him, he used what he loved (his adoration for Coltrane I think is unquestionable) lika a support for his ideas..... that's more common than you think. Kofsky worships Coltrane exactly like he worships Malcolm X, and so here we have this equation (Malcolm X=John Coltrane). He makes of those men two icons, and I think it's only logic the way he misenterpreted those very different men.

There's many other things I would write, but now I don't have the time. Hope the discussion could continue (I'm very interested in the way free jazz was perceived, misinterpreted, understood or used in that period, and what the musicians stated discussing about their music)......

[sonic1]

Well I have to say that finishing Kofsky's book was a challenge. I have read many many jazz histories that were just as political making the very same claims as Kofsky but not within a Trojan horse of a book. And the message got accross to me much more effectively. Even just reading the various biographies of Coltrane (there are many good ones) gave me the same impressions. For I do believe that rascial politics took away the very art from blacks that they created. And when they took it, they turned it into another form of slavery, once again using the talents and work of blacks to make rich white people richer. The truth unveiled honestly to me is much more effective than reading through a book halfway before realizing the author is not going to address the subject suggested by the title.

...and the other comments like suggesting that west coast jazz has no importance or lasting quality is also I found rascist. Why else would one claim to believe Stan Getz, Chet Baker, et al were of no importance in jazz despite the opposite in evidence.

...now do I understand why he would be pissed off. Totally. And the political environment in which the book was written, the history and experiences of the author lend a little more leeway for the author? Perhaps. But I am reluctant to do so totally because one could claim history and conditions to justify or forgive rascism going the opposite way, which I am not willing to do. Maybe I could find confort in saying the author and book is reactionary and a product of his time. In that light the book does not seem so offensive. Because in his place, of his race, I'd be pretty pissed off and angry too. I might also take the same cheap shots. Maybe in that light I ought to look over the book again...

Jared

[john williams]

I can't speak for "John Coltrane and the Jazz Revolution of the 1960's", however, I can recommend Lewis Porter's "John Coltrane: His Life and Music".

I was disappointed in "As Serious as Your Life".

[Bill Barton]

This isn't the same book that was published under the title Black Nationalism and the Revolution in Music is it?

Coincidentally I recently picked this up at a used bookstore and am slogging my way through... Slogging is definitely the right term! This guy was an awful writer! He does make some very valid points, but he beats the reader over the head so much with his sanctimonious attitude and convoluted writing "style" (or lack thereof) that reading this is about as much fun as listening to jackhammers at seven in the morning.

[AntManBee]

Originally Posted by JBW

I was disappointed in "As Serious as Your Life".

Why?

[GodSpeliZed]

Originally Posted by Bill Barton

This isn't the same book that was published under the title Black Nationalism and the Revolution in Music is it?

Yes, "JC and the JR of 70" is an expanded and revesited edition of the book you have found.

I have read again that chapter I've quoted.... at least, I haven't found it so bad. I premise that I don't have read any other book about Coltrane, and that I have to 'soften' my verdicts on this (the chapter, not the book or the man....). Kofsky states clearly that he don't want to make of Coltrane a sort of political martyr, and affirm his spirituality like his most great quality (but the equation Trane=Malcolm is omnipresent anyway...).

Sonic 1: yes, I think that in reading a book like that is important to take care of the context it was written. About white musicians, i cannot say nothing cuz I haven't read nothing about it. But the freedom left to black people at that time was very very small, so I agree that a racism-against-white is not a good attitude for nobody, but at that time I think it was comprehensible. Archie Shepp once affirmed "I sing my death from your [i.e. white men] arm" or something like that.

A little excerpt from the panel discussion (round table is direc translation from italian... sorry!) I quoted in my first intervention:

"Overton: LeRoi, did you see the TV show…How about channel 13? Did you see the shows I had last summer? Were they all white? [Jones still talking.] Yeah, I know, let me stick to your point. Well all right were there all white faces there? How many white faces? One white. There was five shows and it was shown three different times during the summer, LeRoi. Let’s stick to your point. Yes, there was one white man and five Negro bands performing.

Jones [from audience]: I’m talking about lives, not just performers. We see your soap operas all day.

Overton: You’re assuming again…like because I’m white, I’m a soap opera.

Taylor: The answer is LeRoi, the answer is LeRoi, it was his program and the creators of the music were put in the role of performers on his program…that’s all. Well, why wasn’t it Thelonious Monk’s program? The man you had such close association with, the man who really created the jazz music that you were presenting, you see. Now Roi brought up a great point. If you want to talk about images, you see, there is no Negro image. Like not even in the world of entertainment. They laud Sammy Davis and they laud Harry Belafonte and Lena Horne, but boy you never see them on any regularly sustained program on TV because they’re just not good enough…"

It's for reasons like that, that many musicians and critics said "white men stole from us our music and make money from that".... then, after many many years of dibates like that and books like "Blues People" (and the movements for equal rights etc.) many musicians made a step over anger an begun to 'automanage' their music (AACM, labels like ESP and BYG etc), who was not only a music revolution, but also a mind revolution (hope I dont't bore you with rethoric......). The music we hear today is a result of those things, and we can accept that time of confusion like a moment of passage (even physiological) from frustration to autoacceptance and automanagement....... and now, if we can state that 'the white man that stole music to the negro' is a cliché (relation between white/black influences in music are more complex)

..... hope you don't regard at me like a fanatic of '68 and flowerpower, anyway...

Ps
In another discussion I affirmed that Chet Baker for me is overrated. The reason is not due to the color of his skin, but only for the fact that he made too albums and not all have the same greatness.... same for John Zorn. I mean... Marlon Brando (RIP) was great in Apocalypse Now.... but..... Superman ????????????????????