The Phil Schaap/Columbia Brouhaha Last Year
Gorgone12345
>studies folks if the rumor is true. It took a while, but this is the
>kind of appointment that really advances the relationship between
>academia and jazz performance in exciting ways.
Like you give a shit about the relationship between academia and jazz
performance (whatever the fuck that means). Your sole motive is to shit all
over Schaap for whatever personal reasons you have. You sound obsessed with
the guy, did he fuck your wife?
Jack Woker
> Merry Christmas to you too. Your defensiveness sounds like a
> projection to me. Maybe you're jealous of my wife. Or maybe you're
> Phil Schaap writing under an alias.
Andrew,
Let me commend you on your thoughtfully written response to the moron
gorgone2035. His immature and vulgar response to your post was all too
typical of the trash talk that permeates so much of our "culture" these
days. My reaction was an immediate addition to my killfile!
jack
Gorgone12345
>And once again, Merry Christmas schmuck
>
>Andy
>
same to you.. and to your wife, who I'm sure Phil Schaap probably enjoyed a
lot more than I did your long ponderous post.
Martin S. Milgrim
Martin
Andrew Fox wrote:
gorgon...@aol.com (Gorgone12345) wrote in message news:<20021223190739...@mb-fp.aol.com>...
Merry Christmas to you too. Your defensiveness sounds like a projection to me. Maybe you're jealous of my wife. Or maybe you're Phil Schaap writing under an alias. Seriously, you reduced my comment unfairly. No, I don't like Schaap's conduct in the public eye. I have a personal interest in jazz scholarship, and I think Schaap did some real damage last year to Columbia University, the jazz academic community, and the relationship between that community and the communities of jazz fans and musicians in New York. And if I'm "obsessed," why has it been a year since I posted on the topic to the group? I was simply reporting an interesting, exciting rumor that CU had hired George Lewis, and using that occasion to follow up on a heated discussion of Schaap's campaign against Columbia last year in which *many* Schaap fans on this group and elsewhere took the perspective that Schaap was somehow the obvious person for a high profile professorship in musicology at Columbia. People claimed his knowledge of and engagement with the jazz world exceeded that of any other possible candidate. I said at the time that this was bullshit, and the rumored hire of Lewis confirms the point. No seriously knowledgable jazz fan or musician or scholar would dispute Lewis' absolute superiority for an academic job in jazz studies over nearly anyone out there, Schaap included. When historians of jazz look back at the late 20th century, Lewis will be an important figure, and Schaap will be a footnote. Which one would you rather have teaching jazz to a large potential audience for the music (college students)? I barely know Schaap personally. I've talked to him twice or three times at the WKCR studios, in passing. And as I said, there are many things about Schaap that I deeply admire and respect. I've learned a lot from listening to him over the years. He may be a nice guy in person. He's certainly brilliant. But his jihad against Columbia and academia last year hurt people I know and care about, and hurt a conversation I care deeply about. Which brings me to the last point. What "the fuck" I mean by "the relationship between jazz performance and academia" may not matter to you or to many jazz fans, but it matters to many of us (including many of us who are like myself both musicians and seriously interested in the history and meaning Jazz in American culture.) Jazz, as it has lost support from the market and the general listening public, has needed to find new institutional settings to survive and thrive. Academia has been one of those settings, but progress in this area has been limited by a series of disconnects between jazz as a performance tradition and jazz as an academic area of inquiry. A lot of very important work documenting and interpreting jazz has come from the academic side, and most serious jazz fans find the academic literature indispensable for historical knowledge and context (even if only via liner notes and essays in Downbeat that are ultimately rooted in scholarly inquiries). Jazz performers, even of high stature, have felt excluded from the academic setting, and jazz scholars have suffered from a lack of intimate contact with the contemporary jazz scene. Both problems are seriously ameliorated when a major university trying to build a jazz studies program that is *not* detached from the jazz community goes out and hires a major figure in the history of jazz performance who is also a major league intellectual. You may not give a shit, but then you sound like someone who doesn't give a shit about a lot of things and thinks that therefore other people who do give a shit are assholes. Your tone is knee-jerk anti-intellectual, a fashionable stance among some fans of vernacular music, but ultimately an ignorant one. Jazz is a musical tradition, but from the beginning it has also been an intellectual tradition, arguing points of great importance in sound, affect, and in the written word as well. It matters who teaches and researches jazz, where and how they are institutionally supported, and how they acquire and maintain their knowledge. George Lewis is simply a monster choice in this respect, a choice that reflects quite positively on the scene at Columbia, and negatively on the various partisan rhetorics that swirled around the Phil Schaap outburst last year. I'm not saying I'm non-partisan. I am saying that I was right in my critique of Schaap and his supporters last year. If you're not interested, you could ignore the issue. But if you have something substantive to say that's not simply an obtuse, profane, and ad hominem diatribe (or is it ad feminam when someone insults your wife?), I'm willing to debate further. Otherwise, I defend my right to express an opinion about Schaap in a public forum, just as he chose a public forum to attack people I care about. And given Schaap's apparent high standing among many who belong to this group, it seemed relevant for me to update last year's arguments with the vindicating news that Columbia has perhaps hired someone superior to Schaap with respect to the very qualities Schaap's fans asserted ought to matter in hiring a professor of jazz studies. And once again, Merry Christmas schmuck Andy
Gorgone12345
>gorgone2035. His immature and vulgar response to your post was all too
>typical of the trash talk that permeates so much of our "culture" these
>days. My reaction was an immediate addition to my killfile!
>
> jack
>
>www.stereojacks.com
>
OK I'm boycotting stereo jacks until jack takes me off his killfile. WE SHALL
OVERCOME
Luke Kaven
should offer Phil a job commensurate with (and in recognition of) his
demonstrated abilities as a documentor/historian.
Andrew, you use an ad-hominem argument to attack an ad-hominem
argument. I find it more satisfying when you're skewering Bush in
alt.radio.talk. I'm not disagreeing about the musicology position per
se, but why labor so? There should have been two jobs, and the
department's failure to recognize that is a matter of spurious
infighting, and subsequent conflagration. Ivys are not the place to
expect mature behavior.
Luke
Piotr Michalowski
All the vitriol aside, I think that one should look at this from the
point of view of academia, as this is not a matter of fan loyalty but of
academic hiring. I have no idea as to what went on inside Columbia, and
I really do not care about such rumors, but presumably a committee was
formed to propose candidates, people were interviewed and the committee
as well as the whole department voted on the final appointment. Various
criteria are evaluated. In this case the choice was between an amateur
historian and producer--no matter how knowledgeble--and an experienced
musician who has held a prestigious academic position elsewhere and has
a proven academic and artistic record. I cannot imagine that there was
much doubt as to who should have a job. After all, a professor has to
teach and administer, and in this case also possibly instruct music. A
department cannot afford to hire someone just because he has certain
knowledge; the person must also know how to teach and the choice is also
dictated by the requirements of the slot. Lewis not only taught, but ran
a whole unit in California. Universities do this dozens of times each
year and never owe any of the other candidates a job. In fact, we not
even know who else was considered; presumably they considered dozens of
people and finally chose from a small list of finalists whose whole work
was carefully read and who were interviewed by the whole department.
There are regulations that govern hiring at each university and this is
not simply a random "political" thing.
Having said this--and I have nothing against Schaap--I will only say
that I think Columbia made a very good decision. The fact is that
George Lewis is an incredible musician, who is not only a master of the
trombone but also a pioneer of electronic music. He is not only a
magnificent performer but also a fascinating thinker about music, and
has been teaching and inspiring students for years. Last September I
heard him at the Guelph festival and an improvisation that he led was
one of the highlights of the weekend (it was recorded for release). He
had with him four marvelous players, pianist Marylin Crispell, drummer
Hamid Drake, and koto magician Maya Masaoka, if memory serves, and the
subtle interplay between these four, without dominance or ego, was
exemplary. He also presented a paper, which I was unable to hear, but
which was praised by everyone who heard it that I spoke to.
Rather than throw nasty insults at each other we should be happy that
someone like Lewis, who knows and respects the tradition (one of his
best works is an ode to Charlie Parker), but who has been actively
involved in exploring new avenues for the music, was hired by a major
university in a town in which the major venues look more to the past and
to recreation rather than to originality and exploration.
I should also say that over the years I have had the opportunity to
speak briefly to Lewis; I cannot therefore say that I know him, but each
time I was completely overtaken by his kindness, warmth, and his deep
intelligence. His students at Columbia will be lucky indeed!
Piotr
Luke Kaven
> > The dispute over a professorship in musicology is misplaced. Columbia
> > should offer Phil a job commensurate with (and in recognition of) his
> > demonstrated abilities as a documentor/historian.
>
> point of view of academia, as this is not a matter of fan loyalty but of
> academic hiring. I have no idea as to what went on inside Columbia, and
> I really do not care about such rumors, but presumably a committee was
> formed to propose candidates, people were interviewed and the committee
> as well as the whole department voted on the final appointment. Various
I'm not disputing the issue of whether Phil should get a faculty
position as a musicologist.
> Universities do this dozens of times each
> year and never owe any of the other candidates a job.
But this isn't relevant. They owe him a job on a separate employment
line, and they should have created a position for him right from the
start with no hesitation. He's volunteered his services to that
university for thirty years without pay, creating an impressive record
as a documentor and biographer. He helped to create the opportunities
that the university is now enjoying out of his own pocket. He should
be funded in his ongoing efforts. Everything else, as I said, is the
same immature Ivy league behavior I've known all my life, which is now
being perpetuated here.
Let's put the argument in its proper context. The question of the
professorship is a red herring. It simply shouldn't bear on the
question of what Columbia's jazz program owes Phil Schaap -- which is
a lot.
Luke
Richard Tabnik
I believe that Phil currently at Rutgers and
Stanley Crouch lectures at Columbia...
Best Wishes for a Peaceful Life in a Happy World in the
New Millennium!
Sincerely,
Richard Tabnik, Jazz Alto Saxophonist
e-mail: <rcta...@inch.com>
WWW: <http://www.inch.com/~rctabnik>
<http://www.newartistsrecords.com>
"Music is the thing of the world that I love most."
Samuel Pepys [1633-1703]
Piotr Michalowski
to get involved in another one of these silly internet ad hominem
arguments, but I am simply trying to point out the practical issues of
university hiring. No one owes a volunteer a permanent job---that is
simply a fact of life. There are limited funds available; this year they
are worse than ever. A university department has extremely limited
funds and must make decisions based on their needs, not on the fact that
someone has volunteered their services and therefore must be rewarded.
That kind of luxury simply does not exist today when universities,
and especially their humanities and arts divisions, are on a financial
diet. Courses have to be filled and curricular needs have to be
resolved. It may be that S. has done wonders, but a department must be
free to make its own decisions and not be limited by what volunteers do,
no matter how great those services might be. No matter how highly you
rate your friend, he is subject to a competitive hiring situation and no
one owes him anything. He knew this when he worked there and that is
that. You cannot work for free and then demand a job--you can only
ask--anything more is simply wrong. Let it go....
TromboneSally
>From: Piotr Michalowski pio...@umich.edu
>Date: 12/25/2002 9:04 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3E0A63BF...@umich.edu>
>
>arg. No one owes a volunteer a permanent job---that is
>are worse than ever. A university department has extremely limited
>funds and must make decisions based on their needs, not on the fact that
>someone has volunteered their services and therefore must be rewarded.
> That kind of luxury simply does not exist today when universities,
>and especially their humanities and arts divisions, are on a financial
>diet. Courses have to be filled and curricular needs have to be
>resolved. It may be that S. has done wonders, but a department must be
>free to make its own decisions and not be limited by what volunteers do,
>no matter how great those services might be. No matter how highly you
>rate your friend, he is subject to a competitive hiring situation and no
>one owes him anything. He knew this when he worked there and that is
>that. You cannot work for free and then demand a job--you can only
>ask--anything more is simply wrong. Let it go....
>
You should be writing editorials for the Wall Street Journal.
Luke Kaven
> Look, I have no idea about the details are
Then why are you interceding?
> I am simply trying to point out the practical issues of
> university hiring.
I'm not at a loss for that knowledge.
> No one owes a volunteer a permanent job---that is
> simply a fact of life.
There you've gone off the map. Of COURSE there are circumstances
where people have moral obligations to reward volunteer service with a
permanent position where they are able. How could you countenance
such a categorical statement -- as if to deny the possibility of moral
obligations at all.
> There are limited funds available; this year they
> are worse than ever. A university department has extremely limited
> funds and must make decisions based on their needs, not on the fact that
> someone has volunteered their services and therefore must be rewarded.
Stop telling me about the academic department that you've chaired at
Michigan. Look at the program that Columbia has set up -- it is an
interdisciplinary center for jazz studies. This is not a stock
academic department. And in fact, they have an opening for an
archivist -- and in fact, they have the capability to attract
significant funding for non-teaching activities. And IN FACT, their
ability to attract funding is greatly assisted by the thirty years of
volunteer work that Phil spent. They helped themselves to the
benefits of his labor. They have every means to provide for him, and
he has every capability to attract enough funding to pay his own way
through. It is not the case you assumed it was:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cjs/
> Courses have to be filled and curricular needs have to be
> resolved. It may be that S. has done wonders, but a department must be
> free to make its own decisions and not be limited by what volunteers do,
> no matter how great those services might be. No matter how highly you
> rate your friend, he is subject to a competitive hiring situation and no
> one owes him anything. He knew this when he worked there and that is
> that. You cannot work for free and then demand a job--you can only
> ask--anything more is simply wrong. Let it go....
Let it go? Not on your life. As an apologist for a corrupt system
that has rewarded you through life, I have to consider you suspect,
and what you displayed here is moral indifference. Though perhaps you
yourself are a perfectly nice fellow, the top universities are a haven
for sociopathic narcissists who have absolutely no consideration for
anyone's lives but their own -- people who exploit and destroy
people's lives out of childish whim, hiding behind tenure, fearing
nothing in the way of punishment. Their victims WILL NOT sit down and
shut up. The moral indifference that you've tried to justify here is
not justified by historical practice.
I'm sorry if this was unpleasant, but in more than ten years on
USENET, few people have touched a raw nerve so much as you did
tonight. I have seen and experienced real horror in the university,
all patly defended by people who had all their own needs tended by the
system in question. Worse, I've seen how they get there...they are
formerly abused cum abusers themselves.
Luke
Someone
"Luke Kaven" <ka...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote in message
news:97bd222b.0212...@posting.google.com...
> I'm sorry if this was unpleasant, but in more than ten years on
> USENET, few people have touched a raw nerve so much as you did
> tonight. I have seen and experienced real horror in the university,
> all patly defended by people who had all their own needs tended by the
> system in question.
>
> Luke
Abused at university and fired by a major corporation for hanging pictures
of jazz musicians. Luke, your life is just full or painful stories. I
hope 2003 is one of your good years.
Piotr Michalowski
I take your point, however, and I suppose I should not have been so
categorical about the volunteering. Sorry. Nevertheless, whatever else
may have happened at Columbia, I still think that the hire of George
Lewis--if the rumor is true--is an inspired choice. Come to think of it,
I am not sure it had anything to do with the other matter, as presumably
those were saparate slots.
Piotr
Piotr Michalowski
> I'm sorry if this was unpleasant, but in more than ten years on
> USENET, few people have touched a raw nerve so much as you did
> tonight. I have seen and experienced real horror in the university,
> all patly defended by people who had all their own needs tended by the
> system in question. Worse, I've seen how they get there...they are
> formerly abused cum abusers themselves.
>
> Luke
I'm sorry if I touched a raw nerve, as it was never my intent to do so,
but you have a very twisted view of academia and I cannot be responsable
for that. Universities are no different from any other organizations;
some people are good and some are bad abd naby are in-between. You may
have a point that the two positions should be kept separate. If the
archivist position is still open, that is still the live issue for them
to determine--not us. I am only interested in the fact that a prominent
jazz musician got the job he deserved, as since most of us who post here
presumably love the music, our first alliegance should be to the artists.
Piotr
Luke Kaven
> "Luke Kaven" <ka...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote
> > I'm sorry if this was unpleasant, but in more than ten years on
> > USENET, few people have touched a raw nerve so much as you did
> > tonight. I have seen and experienced real horror in the university,
> > all patly defended by people who had all their own needs tended by the
> > system in question.
> >
> > Luke
>
> Abused at university and fired by a major corporation for hanging pictures
> of jazz musicians. Luke, your life is just full or painful stories. I
> hope 2003 is one of your good years.
Be careful: I was never fired by a corporation. You seem to be
making things up about me and repeating them even though you have no
reason to believe them. As for the university -- virtually everybody
is abused at the university, especially at the doctoral level. My
distinction is that I grew up inside an Ivy, and I had the experiences
of my parents to draw from before I had any experiences of my own.
The only true believers are those who are still naive, or those who
are abusers. But I am glad that you wish for this to be a good year
for me. I hope this is a good year for you too.
Luke
Luke Kaven
> I'm sorry if I touched a raw nerve, as it was never my intent to do so,
> but you have a very twisted view of academia and I cannot be responsable
> for that. Universities are no different from any other organizations;
> some people are good and some are bad abd naby are in-between.
I take exception to your characterization of my view of academia as
"very twisted". To say that universities are the same as any
organization, there are good people, bad people, and in between is
like saying that "all sentences are the same; some have periods, some
have question marks, and some have exclamation points". This is
vacuuous, as it ignores the content therein.
I would be the last to tout the virtues of other organizations, which
carry their own sicknesses and virtues. But the university is unique
in being a holdover from the medieval system. While I've known many
wonderful people in academia, I've also seen a sickness so pervasive
that it lays waste to many lives without remorse or pity. [Just
because people are hurt in other organizations is no reason for me to
be silent, is it? Why not ask for better?] I'd have to count as
casualties *most* of my graduate school classmates. The ones who
"survived" were either sociopathic narcissists to begin with, or
people who subsequently turned their hostility on their own students.
The cycle of abused-abuser continues unabated. The tenure system,
while it has its merits, allows this to occur with impunity. And
nowhere along the way have I seen a professor who was trained in any
way for the sensitivity needed to manage people in an employment
situation.
Again, Piotr, I have no reason to think that you yourself are not a
virtuous, kind-hearted fellow. But I still have to be suspicious of
defenses of the university that come from the ranks of those who were
given everything they needed by the system. Many such people, in my
experience, do their level best to ignore the trail of victims left
behind, whose numbers are legion.
> You may
> have a point that the two positions should be kept separate. If the
> archivist position is still open, that is still the live issue for them
> to determine--not us. I am only interested in the fact that a prominent
> jazz musician got the job he deserved, as since most of us who post here
> presumably love the music, our first alliegance should be to the artists.
On this we are in full agreement. My purpose here is to counter those
who would argue that Phil Schaap deserves nothing from Columbia.
Luke
Andrew Fox
> Andrew,
>
> Let me commend you on your thoughtfully written response to the moron
> gorgone2035. His immature and vulgar response to your post was all too
> typical of the trash talk that permeates so much of our "culture" these
> days. My reaction was an immediate addition to my killfile!
>
> jack
>
> www.stereojacks.com
Much appreciated. I don't know why some people seem to think being
anti-intellectual is an intellectual position.
You aren't connected to Stereo Jacks in Cambridge, are you? I used to
go there all the time.
Andy
Andrew Fox
> The dispute over a professorship in musicology is misplaced. Columbia
> should offer Phil a job commensurate with (and in recognition of) his
> demonstrated abilities as a documentor/historian.
Columbia might be appropriately urged to do so. But the issue in the
uproar last year was over a specific job in the music department. A
full professorship, endowed chair, etc. This kind of job comes along
very rarely, and the music department was in no position to simply
create a new job. This job existed because a donor gave Columbia
money to hire an inspiring jazz scholar and teacher. And the stupidest
part, as I stressed last year, is that the job was advertised.
Columbia didn't go after any person in particular, didn't seek out
applicants, and didn't have anyone in mind when the job was
advertised.
The fact is that Schaap didn't apply, but then when berserk when he
wasn't considered.
>
> Andrew, you use an ad-hominem argument to attack an ad-hominem
> argument.
How so? I used a substantive argument to skewer the argument that
Schaap and his fans launched last year that he was the best wualified
candidate for a tenured, endowed chair in musicology at Columbia. I
only used ad hominem tactics to reply to the obtusely and vulgarly ad
hominem taunts of someone who goes by the appropriate handle
"Gorgone." I have repeatedly demonstrated that I am not making an ad
hominem argument about Schaap. I think he is really good at what he
does. I don't care for him much because he did behave badly. But my
objections to his assertions of a right to be hired for a specific job
at Columbia are rooted in a substantive critique.
>I'm not disagreeing about the musicology position per
> se, but why labor so? There should have been two jobs, and the
> department's failure to recognize that is a matter of spurious
> infighting, and subsequent conflagration. Ivys are not the place to
> expect mature behavior.
Sorry, Luke, but this is nonsense. Departments don't create jobs out
of thin air. A new tenured endowed chair comes along from outside the
department once in a decade if you're lucky. There was NO infighting
in the department , certainbly not about Schaap. As I've said, his
name never came up (as far as I am aware) in the search process
because he never applied and is completely unsuited to the job in
question. The ONLy source of "conflagration" was Schaap and his
supporters. It took the music department quite by surprise, and it
was totally unfair. Had he applied, the issue might be more subtle.
But he didn't.
I hope this clears up my position.
Best
Andy
Andrew Fox
>presumably a committee was
> formed to propose candidates, people were interviewed and the committee
> as well as the whole department voted on the final appointment. Various
> criteria are evaluated. In this case the choice was between an amateur
> historian and producer--no matter how knowledgeble--and an experienced
> musician who has held a prestigious academic position elsewhere and has
> a proven academic and artistic record. I cannot imagine that there was
> much doubt as to who should have a job.
It's not even so complex. No committee proposed candidates. That is
not how most academic searches work, for legal reasons. The job has
to be advertised and open to all applicants who meet stated criteria.
Schaap arguably met the stated criteria, and he was free to apply but
chose not to. Schaap was NEVER a "choice" facing the search committee
in the CU music department. No harm. No foul. Period.
> even know who else was considered; presumably they considered dozens of
> people and finally chose from a small list of finalists whose whole work
> was carefully read and who were interviewed by the whole department.
Well, reviewed by a search committee until the final short list was
formed. I *do* know who was in the applicant pool, and it was an
exceptional field of candidates. In my opinion, at least half a
dozen of them were more appropriate choices for the job in question
than Schaap would have been *had he applied.* That the eventual
choice appears to be a stupendously important African-American
musician with academic experience, publications, teaching
qualifications, and broad and deep interests beyond "jazz" narrowly
defined proves the point.
>I will only say
> that I think Columbia made a very good decision. The fact is that
> George Lewis is an incredible musician, who is not only a master of the
> trombone but also a pioneer of electronic music. He is not only a
> magnificent performer but also a fascinating thinker about music, and
> has been teaching and inspiring students for years.
Precisely. I'm saying that given that Lewis appears to be the final
winner here, and that Schaap was never even IN THE GAME, means that
Schaap's outburst last year and the concerted effort by his supporters
to shame CU into offering him a job were so much hot air.
Andy
Andrew Fox
> line, and they should have created a position for him right from the
> start with no hesitation.
Who owes him a job. Not the music department. Other than an
occasional adjunct class, Schaap has little to do with the music
department in all the years he has been around Columbia. Why should
the music department have any obligation to him?
> He's volunteered his services to that
> university for thirty years without pay, creating an impressive record
> as a documentor and biographer.
Sorry, but I think Schaap has gained more from his "volunteer" work
than CU has. WKCR has ben his base, his platform. His entire
reputation is based on his exposure to the community through WKCR. He
stays there because he wants to and because there is no other
broadcast platform of similar reach that would be interested in him in
New York. Period. WKCR does not raise money for CU. CU subsidizes
the station. But other than that, there is almost no formal
relationship between the two entitites.
So tell me what Schaap has done for Columbia that his outburst last
year didn't undo in a flash, and on balance made things worse than
they would have been had he never been associated with Columbia?
>
> Let's put the argument in its proper context. The question of the
> professorship is a red herring. It simply shouldn't bear on the
> question of what Columbia's jazz program owes Phil Schaap -- which is
> a lot.
>
Schaap made this particular professorship the issue, with a lie-filled
diatribe published in the New York Times, and never corrected, in
which he claimed he had been somehow passed over for a job he neither
applied for nor was qualified to take.
Andy
Gorgone12345
>go there all the time.
>
Lets see. His name is Jack Woker and he's got www.stereojacks in his sig.
Hmm... could there be a connection to stereo Jacks in Cambridge? I think
you're on to something Einstein.
E.B.
enough to have George Lewis as one of my teachers in college (UCSD 1991). Very
nice man, and great insights into the musical universe. As for Phil Schapp,
although I have never met him, I feel like I know him, because of all the
reissue work on Columbia Records. I love hearing for example, the alternate
takes on the Basie-Ellington meeting. Oh well, enough rambling for today :)
Eric
members.aol.com/theseawall/seawall.html
members.aol.com/steelydanfan1968/danstuff.html
(remove "post" in address above to e-mail)
"The unbending tree branch is easily broken."
Jack Woker
> anti-intellectual is an intellectual position.
I doubt that they think they are taking an "intellectual" position. They
just think it's cool to be crude.
> You aren't connected to Stereo Jacks in Cambridge, are you? I used to
> go there all the time.
I am, hence the sig:
jack
Andrew Fox
> "very twisted". To say that universities are the same as any
> organization, there are good people, bad people, and in between is
> like saying that "all sentences are the same; some have periods, some
> have question marks, and some have exclamation points". This is
> vacuuous, as it ignores the content therein.
>
No it's not. It's like saying all sentences have noun phrases and
verb phrases. And it's true. Universities differ only in some
parameters, and then only by degrees, from corporations, churches, and
other complex modern institutions.
> I would be the last to tout the virtues of other organizations, which
> carry their own sicknesses and virtues. But the university is unique
> in being a holdover from the medieval system.
Unique? You've never heard of, say, the Lutheran church? The modern
labor union is a "holdover" of the medieval guild system. The
American constitution is based on the medieval Magna Carta. Most jazz
fans tend to think that tradition, on its face, is not a bad thing.
Hell, jazz is rooted in presumably ancient African musical performance
practices.
>While I've known many
> wonderful people in academia, I've also seen a sickness so pervasive
> that it lays waste to many lives without remorse or pity.
Ever heard of "corporate downsizing?" How about all those kids who
get cut from the football team? The world is competitive. Academia
is no more remorseless or pitiless than any other competitive
institution. It sounds like you and your grad school friends failed
to compete. Who promised you it was a free ride? Maybe that's why
you think Columbia has piles of money around to hire anyone they like,
, without regard for his qualifications to do something good for the
institution.
>I'd have to count as
> casualties *most* of my graduate school classmates. The ones who
> "survived" were either sociopathic narcissists to begin with, or
> people who subsequently turned their hostility on their own students.
> The cycle of abused-abuser continues unabated.
Pshaw. My graduate committee was uniformly supportive and kind to me.
All five members.
> The tenure system,
> while it has its merits, allows this to occur with impunity. And
> nowhere along the way have I seen a professor who was trained in any
> way for the sensitivity needed to manage people in an employment
> situation.
I don't see too many sensitive CEOs downsizing their companies gently.
> But I still have to be suspicious of
> defenses of the university that come from the ranks of those who were
> given everything they needed by the system. Many such people, in my
> experience, do their level best to ignore the trail of victims left
> behind, whose numbers are legion.
And why were some people "given" success, rather than *earning* what
they achieve? This would be absurd and offensive if said about most
other meritocratic institutions. What I've noticed is that
universities are TOO gentle with graduate students, leading many who
should never be in grad school or who should drop out to continue to
produce useless dissertations that are never published. Yet because
they stayed through to the degree, these people think they are owed a
career.
There are problems with the university as an institution. Tenure may
be one of them, but not because it locks in cruelty. Rather, because
it diminishes competition and closes off opportunities for younger
people to challenge old views. But it sounds to me like you are
generalizing from one particular bad experience -- yours -- and
generalizing most unfairly. It sounds more like a defensive
rationalization than a precise analysis of academia. People who
finish PhDs and publish dissertations and articles generally go on to
careers in the field. The numbers of productive scholars who are cut
loose by academia entirely are NOT "legion." And take a look at the
outcomes for law school graduates sometime. Oh yes,, the law. That
too is a holdover from the middle ages in many respects.
>
> On this we are in full agreement. My purpose here is to counter those
> who would argue that Phil Schaap deserves nothing from Columbia.
I never argued this. One more time, last year and now I am arguing
that Schaap did not deserve to be offered a job for which he did not
apply and for which he was not qualified. The Lewis hire, if true,
confirms the point that there are people out there who are more
qualified than Schaap and that CU is smart enough to hire them.
Schaap can't "deserve" something that was never a possibility for him.
If CU hired him as an archivist, I would not object. If they hired
him to teach courses in radio production, I'd hail it as brilliant.
I haven't seen ANYONE argue that Schaap could not possibly have any
role to play at Columbia. I think you're projecting.
Andy
Andrew Fox
>
> Stop telling me about the academic department that you've chaired at
> Michigan. Look at the program that Columbia has set up -- it is an
> interdisciplinary center for jazz studies. This is not a stock
> academic department. And in fact, they have an opening for an
> archivist -- and in fact, they have the capability to attract
> significant funding for non-teaching activities. And IN FACT, their
> ability to attract funding is greatly assisted by the thirty years of
> volunteer work that Phil spent. They helped themselves to the
> benefits of his labor. They have every means to provide for him, and
> he has every capability to attract enough funding to pay his own way
> through. It is not the case you assumed it was:
Pure nonsense, from the first word to the last. The Center for Jazz
Studies, as a "Center" at Columbia, has NO faculty lines under its own
control. They can only hire staff positions. Schaap wasn't upset
that he wasn't hired as an archivist by the CJS. I have no idea if he
has applied for that job or has been considered for it. He
complained, in the Times, that he hadn't been offered a professorship
in an independent department that is not funded through the budget of
the Center for Jazz Studies (except, I think, for the student jazz
ensemble).
And although the CJS has been very successful at attracting funds from
private foundations and corporations, I am not aware that Phil Schaap
has had anything to do with this, or that he has ever "volunteered" in
any capacity to help build the CJS. I've been to a dozen CJS events
in the last few years and never seen Schaap at any of them, or heard
him announce them on the air (I may have missed this if he did, of
course).
So what on earth are you talking about? CJS was built by Robert
O'Meally, with little or no participation from Phil Schaap.
I maintain that Phil Schaap has done little or nothing of direct
benefit for Columbia University. There might be some good will out
there among fans of WKCR, but I've never heard of someone making a
major gift to the university because of Schaap's show.
This argument is so weird. I only rejoined the discussion last week
to let people know how exciting it was that Lewis might be coming on
board at CU, and to take a little credit for having argued that there
were more exciting candidates for this particular job - tenured chair
in American music in the music department -- than Schaap.
If you hate academia so much, why would you wish it on Phil Schaap?
And why would you work at a university?
Andy
Luke Kaven
> ka...@rci.rutgers.edu (Luke Kaven) wrote
> > But this isn't relevant. They owe him a job on a separate employment
> > line, and they should have created a position for him right from the
> > start with no hesitation.
>
> Who owes him a job. Not the music department. Other than an
> occasional adjunct class, Schaap has little to do with the music
> department in all the years he has been around Columbia. Why should
> the music department have any obligation to him?
I'm talking about the Center for Jazz Studies. As I said, I don't
dispute the hiring decision for the professorship in musicology.
> > He's volunteered his services to that
> > university for thirty years without pay, creating an impressive record
> > as a documentor and biographer.
> Sorry, but I think Schaap has gained more from his "volunteer" work
> than CU has. WKCR has ben his base, his platform. His entire
> reputation is based on his exposure to the community through WKCR. He
> stays there because he wants to and because there is no other
> broadcast platform of similar reach that would be interested in him in
> New York. Period. WKCR does not raise money for CU. CU subsidizes
> the station. But other than that, there is almost no formal
> relationship between the two entitites.
Now the rest of the world thinks of it as Columbia University's radio
station, as well they should -- that is how the station ID reads. It
is scarcely relevant how it is set up adminstratively or where the
money comes from; they devote themselves to Columbia University issues
and broadcast Columbia's sporting events. Phil carries on a tradition
in that station since it was recording live jazz fifty years ago. The
radio station has always been good publicity for Columbia. It's
commitment to jazz history is unparalleled, and it is perhaps the only
such radio station to even attempt a scholarly examination of the
history of the music.
You talk as though Phil makes out like a bandit. How ridiculous.
Don't you understand that in order to be able to do what he does, he
has to put himself forth somewhere for revenue-producing work. You
also talk as though nobody else would want him, as though what he does
is so undesirable. I suppose you'd prefer other jazz stations like
WBGO with their Smooth and watery pop formula that is suspiciously
beholden to all the major record labels, who aren't even putting out
jazz anymore but legislating their own variety of pop under the jazz
moniker? Really are you trying to say that Phil doesn't do us a
service?
Luke
Luke Kaven
> > argument.
>
> How so? I used a substantive argument to skewer the argument that
> Schaap and his fans launched last year that he was the best wualified
> candidate for a tenured, endowed chair in musicology at Columbia. I
> only used ad hominem tactics to reply to the obtusely and vulgarly ad
> hominem taunts of someone who goes by the appropriate handle
> "Gorgone." I have repeatedly demonstrated that I am not making an ad
> hominem argument about Schaap. I think he is really good at what he
> does.
Here are some ad hominem excerpts from your original post:
"Schaap's brainwashed acolytes"
"so lost is he in the past"
"Schaap can't even play a folk song on a piano"
"Schaap's cult followers"
"a glorified record collector"
"the kind of knowledge you can look up if you need it"
"the egocentric Schaap"
What particularly got to me was the charge that Phil is a "glorified
record collector" with "the kind of knowledge you can look up if you
need it". Phil has recorded hundreds of interviews with artists --
the primary sources -- which bring to light information that you could
*never* have looked up otherwise. So many of those artists are now
deceased, which demonstrates that *nobody* other than Phil cared
enough in the first place to see that some of that information was
properly transcribed for posterity. Do not play this down -- this is
scholarly work and Phil is a historian in his own right. This is
exactly what a Center for Jazz Studies needs.
Luke
Richard Tabnik
Hi-
Actually, as unbelievable as it may seem, WBGO once
*fired* Phil Schaap...and what was his transgression?
He was playing Charlie Parker records at a time when
it was politically incorrect to play Bird! Try to imagine that!
Phil is unique and has done so much for jazz! Any
institution that has him [Rutgers currently] is lucky!
ka...@rci.rutgers.edu (Luke Kaven) wrote:
> I suppose you'd prefer other jazz stations like
>WBGO with their Smooth and watery pop formula that is suspiciously
>beholden to all the major record labels, who aren't even putting out
>jazz anymore but legislating their own variety of pop under the jazz
>moniker? Really are you trying to say that Phil doesn't do us a
>service?
>
>Luke
Andrew Fox
>
> "Schaap's brainwashed acolytes"
> "so lost is he in the past"
> "Schaap can't even play a folk song on a piano"
> "Schaap's cult followers"
> "a glorified record collector"
> "the kind of knowledge you can look up if you need it"
> "the egocentric Schaap"
Fair enough. My use of such phrases was ill-considered and incivil,
reflecting the fact that I am still hurt and angry at the nonsense Mr.
Schaap perpetrated last year. That flap caused extensive
consternation, hurt feelings, and negativity. The music department, I
was told, received hundreds of rude and bitter emails attacking
especially the department chair, a renowned Haydn scholar, for not
hiring Schaap. The scholar originally offered the job was embarassed.
She now works at Harvard. So I was and remain personally angry at
Schaap and some of my bitterness found its way into my prose.
I do think Schaap's boosters acted, almost to a one, somewhat
brainwashed, however. Never have I seen so many otherwise intelligent
people accept the questionable story told by one person as the gospel
truth. It wasn't, and my purpose on this group a year ago (where I
joined a Schaap discussion already in process) and recently was to set
some facts straight that were the subject of outright lies as well as
dubious misrepresentations among Schaap's fans and especially in his
own statements in the New York Times.
And frankly, "egocentric" may be ad hominem, but sometimes an ad
hominem charge can stick. I think someone who acts like he should
have been sought out for a job he expressed no interest in, and for
which he was only dubiously qualified, and who takes his chagrin at
not being knighted into the major media via a pack of lies is, at a
minimum, acting in an egocentric manner. And come to think of it,
when was the last time Schaap gave the time of day to free jazz? Yes,
he is a guardian of the past. But that makes for a problem when one
is interested in the future. Finally, as far as I know, Schaap is not
a musician and doesn't claim to be. Don't you think that might matter
in the context of a job in a department of *music*? So those phrases,
while ad hominem, I would defend.
Even so, your original claim was that I used an ad hominem response
alone. Hardly. In every post here I have layed out substantial,
provable facts as the basis for my argument that the record vis a vis
Phil Schaap and Columbia needs to be corrected.
>
> What particularly got to me was the charge that Phil is a "glorified
> record collector" with "the kind of knowledge you can look up if you
> need it". Phil has recorded hundreds of interviews with artists --
> the primary sources -- which bring to light information that you could
> *never* have looked up otherwise. So many of those artists are now
> deceased, which demonstrates that *nobody* other than Phil cared
> enough in the first place to see that some of that information was
> properly transcribed for posterity. Do not play this down -- this is
> scholarly work and Phil is a historian in his own right. This is
> exactly what a Center for Jazz Studies needs.
All true except the last point. "Glorified record collector" was the
most uncivil and least fair or warranted of my ad hominem utterances,
and I apologize for it. I have repeatedly said that I admire Mr.
Schaap as a producer, broadcaster, and oral historian. That he has
enriched the documentary record of jazz history in ways that will
benefit scholarship and curation for posterity is not in question.
Personally, I find Schaap's interpretations of his data frequently
curious and questionable (in his on-air narrations and his annotations
of recordings), and frankly, I find his interview technique
problematic. That said, we all have our limits and failings, and I
value Schaap almost as much as I value someone like, say, Alan and
John Lomax, both of whom were arrogant field researchers, producers of
bizarre cultural interpretations, and heroic documentarians of
American musical history.
The question of what the Center for Jazz Studies "needs" is not a
matter to be decided by the general public. It is decided by members
of the Center and by the Center's board and its funders (Ford
Foundation, Verizon, etc.). The CJS is a visionary idea,
interdisciplinary and broadly cultural rather than documentarian and
narrowly performance-oriented. It's a good thing for different
academic centers of jazz scholarship to have different styles and
goals. Rutgers has a serious lock on a certain kind of documentarian
historiography. Wesleyan has a certain kind of lock on free and
avant-garde jazz/electronic jazz. Columbia is doing something really
different and path-breaking, using jazz as a lens to understand both
American culture and the African diaspora. Why this entails a "need"
for a deep historical documentary effort on site is certainly
arguable. Whether that should be a *priority* (rather than, say,
hiring someone who represents an avant garde or Latin Jazz
perspective) is even more arguable
And to answer a point you raised in another post, I don't have any
idea why you'd link me to a taste for "smooth Jazz" a la WBGO.
Personally, I'm more oriented toward the blues traditions, but my jazz
heros are Sidney Bechet, Steve Lacy, and Earl Hines, not necessarily
in that order. I have repeatedly said I admire Phil Schaap as a
broadcaster, which certainly implies that I listen to his shows and
dig the kind of music he plays and discusses and documents. But there
IS NOT other forum in the New York area where he could do what he does
on the air on a weekly basis for a large audience (and that's "large"
by the micro standards of college radio.) Schaap has gained a lot from
his association with WKCR, just as WKCR has benefitted handsomely from
Schaap's presence (which violates the station policy of using only
undergraduate on-air talent to host shows, an exception the station
justifies as "training"-oriented). Schaap is the top fund-raiser for
the station. But if you think he would have the public profile and
career opportunities (and crucially, *access to musicians*) he has had
without his WKCR show and audience, you're mistaken.
What I haven't mentioned in the latest flare-up here, which I take the
blame for starting of course, is that I worked in non-profit broadcast
for years. That is, in fact, the reason I have met Schaap in the
past. I've done quite a bit of air work on WKCR over the past few
years. though it wasn't my own gig (I'm not an undergraduate). I know
what Phil Schaap does, how damn hard it is to do it at his level, year
in and year out for no money, and how frustrating it can be to be
trapped in a narrow demographic when you're good enough to fly the big
jets. I have *never* taken away from him as a broadcaster. I said,
in fact, that if CU hired him to teach broadcast production, say in
the J School, or to produce media for the Center for Jazz Studies, I'd
hail it as a brilliant hire. But Schaap should have the grace to
approach CJS with such an idea, or to find backing and financial
support outside the university (the way the last few hires affiliated
with CJS have worked, by the way) rather than having a public tantrum
on a totally unfair basis. He did the harm here, not Columbia
University and not the CU music department and not the Center for Jazz
Studies. So anyone who still thinks Schaap got "shafted" or passed
over for something BY any of these latter agents is ignoring the facts
of the situation.
That's all I have to say on the matter, so I'll shut up and let the
arrows fly unanswered. I would just enjoin you to consider the facts.
Andy
Luke Kaven
response to you. Rather than take it on a paragraph at a time, I
think it better to digest it:
Universities have their own unique character, and yes, I know they are
not necessarily unique in being medieval. As I said, I would be the
last to tout the virtues of other kinds of organizations, many of
which I'm also familiar with. The fact that you personally had a
supportive committee at UT is nice, but evidence of nothing as a
sample of one. You shouldn't presume to know the dynamics in other
departments and institutions besides your own. My advisor was an
abusive alcoholic; the dean warned me emphatically to avoid working
with him at all costs soon after I arrived, but it was too late by
then. When I took classes with another philosopher, he secretly
changed the As he had given me into Fs out of pure spite, effectively
ruining my career (and then...well, that's another story). You know
nothing about my classmates or my department. Your suggestion that,
among other things, I and my classmates "failed to compete" or felt we
deserved a "free ride" is presumptuous and cruel without mitigation.
If only you knew the facts. I must consider the possibility that you
are a case in point. It is a shame, because we could have otherwise
had quite a productive exchange on the subject of semantics and music.
Better you should turn your aggression back towards the Bush
Nightmare.
Luke
Gorgone12345
> She now works at Harvard
Poor dear, imagined being forced to take a job at Harvard. How can she face her
family?
Luke Kaven
> reflecting the fact that I am still hurt and angry at the nonsense Mr.
> Schaap perpetrated last year. That flap caused extensive
> consternation, hurt feelings, and negativity. The music department, I
> was told, received hundreds of rude and bitter emails attacking
> especially the department chair, a renowned Haydn scholar, for not
> hiring Schaap. The scholar originally offered the job was embarassed.
> She now works at Harvard. So I was and remain personally angry at
> Schaap and some of my bitterness found its way into my prose.
It's only human. And I do understand that innocent people were thrust
into an emotional conflagration.
> And frankly, "egocentric" may be ad hominem, but sometimes an ad
> hominem charge can stick.
Agreed, in which case it would not be merely ad hominem.
> And come to think of it,
> when was the last time Schaap gave the time of day to free jazz? Yes,
> he is a guardian of the past. But that makes for a problem when one
> is interested in the future.
Free jazz as a concept is over forty years old, and very much arriere
garde these days. And I'm sure you'll agree that many of its
theoretical underpinnings go back to early 20th c. I don't consider
it an advancement over bebop (broadly construed), and it certainly
didn't supplant bebop. Charlie Parker was very much underappreciated
in the late 1970s before Phil began impressing people with Bird's
importance. In a time when the tendency towards mere eclecticism is a
tendency towards simplification, it is important to be reminded of one
of the most sophisticated and refined musical forms. If future jazz
cannot meet or exceed that level of achievement, then it doesn't have
much of a future as a serious art form.
> Finally, as far as I know, Schaap is not
> a musician and doesn't claim to be. Don't you think that might matter
> in the context of a job in a department of *music*? So those phrases,
> while ad hominem, I would defend.
Sometimes. This is radically dependent upon context. Musicianship is
only one dimension of music, as you'd readily agree I think.
Nevertheless, I have not been saying that Phil was qualified for or
should have been offered a professorship in musicology.
> All true except the last point. "Glorified record collector" was the
> most uncivil and least fair or warranted of my ad hominem utterances,
> and I apologize for it. I have repeatedly said that I admire Mr.
> Schaap as a producer, broadcaster, and oral historian. That he has
> enriched the documentary record of jazz history in ways that will
> benefit scholarship and curation for posterity is not in question.
> Personally, I find Schaap's interpretations of his data frequently
> curious and questionable (in his on-air narrations and his annotations
> of recordings), and frankly, I find his interview technique
> problematic. That said, we all have our limits and failings, and I
> value Schaap almost as much as I value someone like, say, Alan and
> John Lomax, both of whom were arrogant field researchers, producers of
> bizarre cultural interpretations, and heroic documentarians of
> American musical history.
Thank you. This adds a much-needed positive note to the discourse.
> The question of what the Center for Jazz Studies "needs" is not a
> matter to be decided by the general public. It is decided by members
> of the Center and by the Center's board and its funders (Ford
> Foundation, Verizon, etc.).
Of course members of the jazz community are not the same as members of
the general public. We are the constituents of your subject. And in
many cases, we note, jazz is sometimes rendered into a lifeless object
by academic jazz programs (much as I do think jazz is also appropriate
for academic research in good measure). It is our obligation to speak
up at times. CJS obviously has prerogative within their own
administrative domain.
> The CJS is a visionary idea,
> interdisciplinary and broadly cultural rather than documentarian and
> narrowly performance-oriented. It's a good thing for different
> academic centers of jazz scholarship to have different styles and
> goals.
Yes, agreed. I am encouraged by the interdisciplinary approach. I
was a follower of Dewey, a major proponent of interdisciplinary
scholarship, and one of the most distinguished members of your
institution in its history.
> And to answer a point you raised in another post, I don't have any
> idea why you'd link me to a taste for "smooth Jazz" a la WBGO.
I was being facetious to make the point; little do I think that your
tastes actually run that way. Because if someone doesn't support jazz
presenters like Phil Schaap and stations like WKCR, then all we have
left is WBGO, which is a non-starter.
> Schaap is the top fund-raiser for
> the station. But if you think he would have the public profile and
> career opportunities (and crucially, *access to musicians*) he has had
> without his WKCR show and audience, you're mistaken.
All the more reason to support his activities in a substantive way,
under whatever adminstrative line that might be...which I think you
agree on in the following.
> I know
> what Phil Schaap does, how damn hard it is to do it at his level, year
> in and year out for no money, and how frustrating it can be to be
> trapped in a narrow demographic when you're good enough to fly the big
> jets. I have *never* taken away from him as a broadcaster. I said,
> in fact, that if CU hired him to teach broadcast production, say in
> the J School, or to produce media for the Center for Jazz Studies, I'd
> hail it as a brilliant hire.
Glad to hear it.
> But Schaap should have the grace to
> approach CJS with such an idea, or to find backing and financial
> support outside the university (the way the last few hires affiliated
> with CJS have worked, by the way) rather than having a public tantrum
> on a totally unfair basis.
Perhaps so.
Luke
Andrew Fox
You take the cake as the most obtuse interlocutor on this group.
Now I'll say it more slowly so you can grasp the point: the loss was
COLUMBIA'S, not the candidate's. She would have been a full professor
in either case, meaning she would be earning over $100K in either
case.
Just to be clear, the person in question did not choose to go to
Harvard because of the Schaap nonsense. But that didn't help CU to
woo her. She is a remarkable scholar and would have been a credit to
Columbia.
To imagine someone might think I was playing for pity on her behalf.
I didn't know people as stupid as Gorgone were jazz fans.
Andy
PS I know, I said I'd drop it.
Gorgone12345
>Harvard because of the Schaap nonsense. But that didn't help CU to
>woo her. She is a remarkable scholar and would have been a credit to
>Columbia.
Listen Fox or Fuchs or whatever name you choose to use. I squat, spread my
scrawny asscheeks and take a big dump on the whole world of academic politics
and infighting which you seem to find endlessly fascinating. Columbia means as
little to me as Chico State or Fucknut Jr College. All I know is that for some
reason Phil Schaap drive you nuts and if that raises your blood pressure and
helps contribute to an early death than I'll be forever gratefuls
Andrew Fox
>
> It's only human. And I do understand that innocent people were thrust
> into an emotional conflagration.
Graciousness appreciated.
>
> > And frankly, "egocentric" may be ad hominem, but sometimes an ad
> > hominem charge can stick.
>
> Agreed, in which case it would not be merely ad hominem.
Thus, in the case of those particular complaints about Mr. Schaap, my
arguments were not ad hominem.
> > And come to think of it,
> > when was the last time Schaap gave the time of day to free jazz? Yes,
> > he is a guardian of the past. But that makes for a problem when one
> > is interested in the future.
>
> Free jazz as a concept is over forty years old, and very much arriere
> garde these days. And I'm sure you'll agree that many of its
> theoretical underpinnings go back to early 20th c.
This only makes Mr. Schaap's relative dispreference for the
free/electronic/etc. traditions a matter relevant to judgments of
adequacy for a position meant to connect jazz historiography with a
cutting-edge jazz vision, in a music department with a prominent
computer music and electronic music program especially. The fact is
(or fact are?) that what is conceptualized now as "free jazz"
arguably has many of its roots in African musical performance
practices, both directly by conscious emulation and indirectly through
the African roots of blues improvisational languages, as well as a
history in the 20th century that parallels many other avant-garde
artistic movements of early modernism. There are some powerful
cross-currents, including via Africanist anthropology and
ethnomusicology, that connect "free jazz" and academia, as well. It's
surprising how many leading ethnomusicologists of the present senior
generation were jazz musicians in their youth, drawn to African music
through the jazz avant-garde of the 50s and 60s. One of them -- Paul
Berliner -- came back to jazz with what most Jazz scholars consider
the most serious ethnography of jazz musical culture to date
(*Thinking in Jazz,* a massive tome not suitable for the average
non-specialist, but worth the slog). He was, prior to this, the
leading scholar of Zimbabwean *mbira* music. The circle comes around,
which is why "free" and avant-garde jazz are so important to what the
CU JCS is doing trying to connect jazz and scholaship on a cultural
rather than music-historiographic level. This is why the first
candidate offered the job was an ethnomusicologist trained in African
musics, though now a jazz scholar, and the second appears to be
perhaps the leading avant-garde jazz musician with an academic career.
And this brings me back to the challenge first posed to me by Gorgone,
in his/its usual grotesque and barbaric tones, to show why I do "give
a fuck" about the relationship between jazz and academia. The
relationship is and has long been THERE. What I'm talking about is
how important it has been for both sides of the conversation, how much
traffic has gone between them, and what needs to be done to improve
things. In other words, this is why I think it matters that subjects
such as this are discussed in public forums devoted to jazz, and why I
am so appalled at what people on this list seem to believe about
academia, which makes them willing to believe Phil Schaap was
"shafted" by some set of "powers that be."
> I don't consider
> it an advancement over bebop (broadly construed), and it certainly
> didn't supplant bebop.
Free jazz signifies on bebop which signifies on swing which signifies
on classic blues which signifies on field hollers which signifies on
African ritual music which signifies on free jazz. Nothing supplants
anything in postmodernity. It's one of the few good points of the
epoch, since it means you can listen to almost anything you can
imagine.
> Charlie Parker was very much underappreciated
> in the late 1970s before Phil began impressing people with Bird's
> importance.
This I disagree with. Parker's legacy is hardly dependent on Phil
Schaap. One might even argue, provocatively, that he has become
"over-appreciated" to the extent that his legacy is rather frozen,
unlike, say, Monk's.
>If future jazz
> cannot meet or exceed that level of achievement, then it doesn't have
> much of a future as a serious art form.
I never worry about creative people advancing the art. I worry more
about whether they will be supported and appreciated. Again, this is
why I think jazz fans have an investment in the academic
institutionalization of jazz.
>
> > Finally, as far as I know, Schaap is not
> > a musician and doesn't claim to be. Don't you think that might matter
> > in the context of a job in a department of *music*? So those phrases,
> > while ad hominem, I would defend.
>
> Sometimes. This is radically dependent upon context. Musicianship is
> only one dimension of music, as you'd readily agree I think.
Of course, on one level, this is true. Music scholars are rarely
great musicians, though there have always been exceptions and in the
last few decades there have been quite a few examples, mostly in
classical music but occasionally in jazz and pop music. But one
extremely desirable combination of skills is indeed the
performer/scholar figure. Such figures are engaged in the living
growth of their art as they are teaching and communicating about it.
Absent that, an academic setting is likley to favor someone who is a
superb scholar, but also a competent general musician (still the case
for most music department faculty). In the old days, any faculty
member had to be able to teach basic music theory to undergraduates,
and to demonstrate musical examples at a keyboard in class. That is
still broadly the case in the field of historical musicology, in which
the Columbia professorship was disciplinarily located. I know only
very few music professors who self-identify as non-musicians.
Musicianship is a basic frame for community in a music department.
That may not be unequivocally a good thing -- it leads to significant
anti-intellectualism in departments dominated by performance programs.
But it's simply the case. Phil Schaap, all his amazing
accomplishments aside, is neither an *academically* prolific scholar
nor a serious musician. George Lewis is both with a bullet.
> Nevertheless, I have not been saying that Phil was qualified for or
> should have been offered a professorship in musicology.
Then we are completely agreed. But the logical consequence of that is
that Phil Schaap was not shafted or dissed by the search process for
that professorship last year. And that's exactly what he claimed, and
what his supporters on this group and elsewhere claimed, last year.
Ergo, he slandered a fair process and fair people with a charge of
unfairness. I returned to this group to show the Schaap supporters
here that the apparent outcome of the search demonstrates that the
process was certainly fair if the goal was to hire the best person for
this particular job.
>
> Thank you. This adds a much-needed positive note to the discourse.
I believe I have said positive things about Phil Schaap in every post
I have made. And I mean them sincerely.
> Of course members of the jazz community are not the same as members of
> the general public. We are the constituents of your subject. And in
> many cases, we note, jazz is sometimes rendered into a lifeless object
> by academic jazz programs (much as I do think jazz is also appropriate
> for academic research in good measure).
The conscious and aggressively pursued goal of the CJS enterprise is
to avoid turning jazz into a lifeless object, but rather to be engaged
in the contemporary life of the "object" (jazz) across many different
conversations and fields of practice, including performance and
scholarship in many disciplines, the other performing arts, the
business of jazz, and jazz media. Anyone who has attended a few
events sponsored by CJS over the past few years (there have been
dozens of lectures, performances, conferences, film screenings, etc.)
can see something brilliant emerging there, something that does not
replicate any other institutional scene or resource in the world.
George Lewis advances that goal spectacularly.
>
> Yes, agreed. I am encouraged by the interdisciplinary approach.
It's the key thing at CU.
> Because if someone doesn't support jazz
> presenters like Phil Schaap and stations like WKCR, then all we have
> left is WBGO, which is a non-starter.
Then the moral argument ought to be directed to the NPR affiliate
stations, national NPR, or cable television, and other private media
enterprises that ought to be presenting jazz at a high level with the
aid of someone like Phil Schaap. And since there is no one "like" him
except him, well, you get the point. That infrastructure is crucial
for jazz to continue to be available to the public, and it's
crumbling. Yes, "someone" should support presenters (I still say DJs)
like Schaap. But why that "someone" must be the music department at
Columbia University has never been made clear to me.
Thank you for turning this into an interesting conversation. I
apologize if I have used an incivil tone with you in any previous
postings.
Sincerely
Andy
Luke Kaven
> This only makes Mr. Schaap's relative dispreference for the
> free/electronic/etc. traditions a matter relevant to judgments of
> adequacy for a position meant to connect jazz historiography with a
> cutting-edge jazz vision, in a music department with a prominent
> computer music and electronic music program especially.
We're not disputing issues with the music department per se. And much
as though I may seem like a bebop purist, I'm actually more of a
pluralist. [I studied for a time with Roland Wiggins, who studied
himself with Henry Cowell and Vincent Persichetti, and who was
responsible for teaching a number of artists elements of esoteric
theory, Yusef Lateef (his PhD student), John Coltrane, and Donald Byrd
among them. If anything, he impressed upon me a sense of scope.] My
objection to eclecticism concerns what I call "mere eclecticism". I
don't criticize the experimenting nature of eclecticism, but rather
the tendency among many artists today to employ eclecticism without
synthesis. Only on the very rarest occasions do I ever hear music
that approaches the richness of bebop (again, broadly construed).
[Sun Ra comes to mind, and more recently, Omer Avital's earliest
sextet experiments from 1996.] So I am concerned that these elements
of history, and the lessons that they offer us, are not forgotten.
And I think they would be forgotten due to ignorance -- rampant
ignorance -- among musicians and listeners alike. Some of the
ignorance among artists I would ascribe, ironically, to their academic
education. In most cases, the academy has not achieved a continuity
with the artistic community. Perhaps Columbia will fare better. I
would certainly avail myself of any opportunity to assist in that if
given the chance. As this concerns Phil Schaap, I would say that he
has done a lot to see that certain literature is still disseminated to
the listening community, and I do credit him with contributing a lot
in the last twenty years to the ongoing popularity of Charlie Parker,
who is still largely underestimated. [I hasten to add that Sid
Gribbetz and Loren Shoenberg should also be commended highly for their
contributions.] If Phil does not concern himself with these other
worthy idioms, I cannot fault him; one can only encompass so much in
one's lifetime with any degree of comprehensiveness. And I'd also
note that the experimenting forms of music seem to be doing relatively
well economically, whereas artists like C Sharpe and Frank Hewitt die
in relative obscurity, due to ignorance among the listening audience,
among producers, and among funding agencies.
There is a sense that people are always dividing the world between
"the new thing" and "the old thing". As much as you might be right in
some regards about the postmodern condition, it isn't without its own
pathological tendencies. [We differ somewhat on metaphysics and
epistemology, me taking after the latter-day Deweyans and a
naturalized aesthetics. But probably we agree more than it might
superficially seem.] Even though styles are not entirely supplanted,
what is perceived as "the new thing" seems to achieve hegemony. But
really, the "new thing" isn't new at all, and the "old thing" isn't
old at all (certainly no older than the "new thing") except for the
tendency of young players, coming out of the academy, to turn it into
an petrified form. Why is this? Because they didn't come into their
own musically through being engaged with the community of artists, but
rather through their academic history lessons, several steps removed.
No wonder they sound like Berlitz to me.
And the so-called "new thing" has some pathological tendencies that
contribute to its hegemony, depriving it (perhaps undeservedly) of
some verdicality. First, touting it as the "new thing", as "avant
garde", tends to induce the false belief in people that it is so and
that thereby they should favor it over other things that are
putatively "old". This is pure marketing. Very little in the way of
new musical styles or resources that weren't in existence forty years
ago have come about. Second, almost anyone can pass themselves off as
an "avant garde" musician with very little musical training. This is
not to say that there are not virtuosic avant-garde (really, I should
stop using that term myself, but it is hard to, which is testimony to
its force) musicians, because there are a number of them. But it's a
club one can join as soon as one is warm. [I hasten to add that I
don't count it's democratic nature entirely against it.] Even the
most neophyte practitioners seem to have become adept at posturing a
mystique that will fool some number of listeners, who take to anything
they don't understand that is passed off as to them as hip.
Sometimes, the emperor has no clothes.
I was convinced of most of what you say here many years ago with the
help of Roland Wiggins (and Yusef Lateef, to an extent). [Now there
are two of the most worthy candidates for your program, if only they
were a bit younger.] Roland was very much sought out by artists, and
very well integrated with an active scene. I think he exemplified
academic practice and interdisciplinary scholarship. He brought
esoteric theory into the community of artists. Aside from his
personal relationships with some of the artists in question,
interestingly enough, he was able to do this most effectively at
Hampshire College, a school built on Deweyan philosophy from the
ground up. This would have been nice, were it not for the arrival of
Pres. Adele Simmons, a conservative who was determined to turn
Hampshire into a pseudo-Ivy, as though it needed that to be
respectable. She fired Roland, and would not answer to 500 of his
former students (and the Rev Jackson) who (enraged) protested her
actions. Ironically, many years later after Adele was gone, Yusef
would succeed his mentor in that position.
> I never worry about creative people advancing the art. I worry more
> about whether they will be supported and appreciated. Again, this is
> why I think jazz fans have an investment in the academic
> institutionalization of jazz.
Agreed...mutatis mutandis. The arts community is still the lynchpin.
The notion of "a life in the art" (to quote Stanislavsky) is still the
most important thing, and the academy should be an adjunct to that.
The notion of "a jazz life" still has significance.
> The conscious and aggressively pursued goal of the CJS enterprise is
> to avoid turning jazz into a lifeless object, but rather to be engaged
> in the contemporary life of the "object" (jazz) across many different
> conversations and fields of practice, including performance and
> scholarship in many disciplines, the other performing arts, the
> business of jazz, and jazz media. Anyone who has attended a few
> events sponsored by CJS over the past few years (there have been
> dozens of lectures, performances, conferences, film screenings, etc.)
> can see something brilliant emerging there, something that does not
> replicate any other institutional scene or resource in the world.
> George Lewis advances that goal spectacularly.
If you think there is any way I should become involved with this, feel
free to suggest it. Because my artists are dying before I can get
their records released. And I'm starving.
> Then the moral argument ought to be directed to the NPR affiliate
> stations, national NPR, or cable television, and other private media
> enterprises that ought to be presenting jazz at a high level with the
> aid of someone like Phil Schaap. And since there is no one "like" him
> except him, well, you get the point. That infrastructure is crucial
> for jazz to continue to be available to the public, and it's
> crumbling. Yes, "someone" should support presenters (I still say DJs)
> like Schaap. But why that "someone" must be the music department at
> Columbia University has never been made clear to me.
Yes, you are right that the moral argument ought to be directed, at
least in part, to NPR. The siege on public radio by the conservatives
has succeeded in destroying all the experimenting, instructive, and
risk-taking elements that made it so superb in the first place. The
NPR affiliates have caved in to commercial interests (some embarking
on questionable business relationships inappropriate for a
not-for-profit in my view) for the sake of their own financial health.
Listener-funding is responsible for the ever-narrowing artistic scope
of repertoire; students are among the least qualified to decide what
books will be in the literature course. Now all you can get is
Smooth, and as a consequence, that is what people at large think jazz
IS. No wonder they're bored. [I've gone on at length about that
earlier in this forum.] WKCR is a notable exception to this, and it's
taken some guts and determination to keep it that way.
I think we've put the issue concerning the music department to rest.
Now let's get on with the work that has to be done, which also
includes helping Phil, among other people.
Best wishes, Luke
void
> ka...@rci.rutgers.edu (Luke Kaven) wrote in message
> news:<97bd222b.02122...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> It's only human. And I do understand that innocent people were thrust
>> into an emotional conflagration.
>
> Graciousness appreciated.
I want to thank both of you for putting forth your time and
broad-mindedness to steer this thread out of flame-war territory.
I have been reading it with interest.
--
Ben
"An art scene of delight
I created this to be ..." -- Sun Ra
Robert Schuh
> For those who remember Schaap's egregious campaign to secure a full
> professorship in the Columbia University Music Department last year,
> including the outright lies propagated in the New York Times about the
> department and the search process, in an article (hatchet
> job/hagiography) written by one of Schaap's brainwashed acolytes,
> here's a piece of news.
>
> Columbia has apparently (I hear it's all but a done deal) filled the
> position in question with George Lewis, a leading figure in free jazz
> improvisation, one-time Count Basie trombonist, founder of a
> pioneering electronic jazz studio program at UC San Diego, author, and
> most recently winner of a Macrthur "genius" grant. Oh yeah, he's also
> an African American.
>
> Phil Schaap couldn't hold a candle to Lewis, at any level that matters
> in assessing knowledge of and contributions to jazz. Lewis lived the
> history Schaap only talks about (in fact, Schapp knows little about
> the more recent history Lewis has largely shaped, so lost is he in the
> past). Lewis can blow a trombone like a monster, playing everything
> from Dixieland to way out there free jazz, whereas Schaap can't even
> play a folk song on a piano. Lewis has appeared on more recordings
> than Schaap has produced. But he's also written more articles and has
> a major book nearly in press. Lewis is hardly some dessicated academic
> scribe, but a real, practicing, writing, touring jazz genius. After
> all the nasty slander tossed at Columbia and especially its music
> department last year by some on this group and many of Schaap's cult
> followers, I'd like to ask if anyone thinks Columbia would really
> have been better off hiring a glorified record collector rather than a
> leading and cutting-edge figure in the history of jazz performance and
> theory. Gimme a break, and show me your argument. The kind of
> knowledge Schaap has, while impressive in a single mind, is the kind
> of knowledge you can look up if you need it.
>
> And the heck of it is, Lewis is also a nice guy, the kind of man I
> think his fellow profs would enjoy having as a colleague -- unlike the
> egocentric Schaap. He's open to every kind of music and musician, not
> obsessed with any kind of authenticity politics, and concerned more
> with the future of jazz than its past.
>
> So I say kudos are in order to Columbia's music department and Jazz
> studies folks if the rumor is true. It took a while, but this is the
> kind of appointment that really advances the relationship between
> academia and jazz performance in exciting ways.
>
> Andy Fuchs
It is nice to see a player getting a position like that. Arizona State
hired a guy by the name of Chuck Marohnic 20 years ago. While Marohnic was
a strong player, he never cared about the program nor his students. I have
never seen one person ruin a program so thoroughly.
--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche
"The meek shall inherit nothing" - Zappa
Robert Schuh
> >So I say kudos are in order to Columbia's music department and Jazz
> >studies folks if the rumor is true. It took a while, but this is the
> >kind of appointment that really advances the relationship between
> >academia and jazz performance in exciting ways.
>
> Like you give a shit about the relationship between academia and jazz
> performance (whatever the fuck that means). Your sole motive is to shit all
> over Schaap for whatever personal reasons you have. You sound obsessed with
> the guy, did he fuck your wife?
Why don't you at least have the balls to put your name to your words? You are
the typical anonymous AOL pussy.
JC Martin
news:aued80$o47$1...@nwall1.odn.ne.jp...
>
> "Luke Kaven" <ka...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote in message
> news:97bd222b.0212...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I'm sorry if this was unpleasant, but in more than ten years on
> > USENET, few people have touched a raw nerve so much as you did
> > tonight. I have seen and experienced real horror in the university,
> > all patly defended by people who had all their own needs tended by the
> > system in question.
> >
> > Luke
>
> Abused at university and fired by a major corporation for hanging pictures
> of jazz musicians. Luke, your life is just full or painful stories. I
> hope 2003 is one of your good years.
I doubt you mean that sincerely given your compulsive need to insult.
-JC
EJs Daddy
Jazz
>>studies folks if the rumor is true. It took a while, but this is the
>>kind of appointment that really advances the relationship between
>>academia and jazz performance in exciting ways.
Mr. Fuchs,
Thank you so much for your rmb post concerning the good news that master
musician George Lewis is about to attain a prestigious post in the music
department at Columbia University in NYC.
I wasn't aware of the competition being brought to bear by Phil Schaap
over the position nor the public nature of the politicking involved but I must
say that I am not surprised.
For many years I enjoyed reading Mr. Schaap's writing on the research he's
done on the "dim and distant past". When I finally began to listen to his
radio show via web stream from WKCR a couple of years ago (I live in Boston,
MA) I began to have serious misgivings about his prominence within the field.
His egotistical manner and outright arrogance became unbearable the night I
heard him hosting an "interview" with Yusef Lateef who was present in the radio
station studio to promote an upcoming gig in New York.
Phil Schaap represents a very insidious form of what my father's
generation would call an "ofay". There have always been insiders of his ilk in
the business and we can only thank the creator for making musicians powerful
enough to triumph over the ugly adversities they represent.
Your account of the happy ending to what I'm sure was a particularly
distateful episode is one of the most encouraging bits of news I have ever read
on rmb. Thanks again for your courage and conviction.
Bill McLaurin ( a simple fan who lives in Boston)
Someone
"JC Martin" <jcma...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:Ob_Q9.58075$Ik.19...@typhoon.sonic.net...
Then doubt no more.
Gorgone12345
> Phil Schaap represents a very insidious form of what my father's
>generation would call an "ofay". There have always been insiders of his ilk
>in
>the business and we can only thank the creator for making musicians powerful
>enough to triumph over the ugly adversities they represent.
Schaap's done more good things for musicians than an petty lil poseur like
yourself could do in a hundred years.
void
> Phil Schaap represents a very insidious form of what my father's
> generation would call an "ofay".
Nothing like a little race-baiting to liven up a thread. What exactly is
your problem with him? All I'm hearing is that you think he's arrogant.
Herb Levy
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
> I doubt you mean that sincerely given your compulsive need to insult.
>
> -JC
You make a very EXCELLENT point here.
The two people who have written about half of posts in this thread have
gone from posting some pretty hateful stuff to developing an actual
reasoned dialog about the topic under consideration.
Obviously this is is too civil, not to mention dull, for rmb, so it's
quite necessary to dig back more than a week to retrieve a
non-substantive comment in an attempt to resume the more usual level of
irrelevant ad hominem arguments we're used to reading here.
Good work, indeed.
Andrew Fox
> Mr. Fuchs,
> Thank you so much for your rmb post concerning the good news that master
> musician George Lewis is about to attain a prestigious post in the music
> department at Columbia University in NYC.
I should stress that this is not a confirmed fact, but I appreciate
the thanks.
> I wasn't aware of the competition being brought to bear by Phil Schaap
> over the position nor the public nature of the politicking involved but I must
> say that I am not surprised.
I guess I'm saying there never *was* a "competition." What happened,
again for those who might not have followed this thread or events the
past two years is as follows:
Columbia lost Mark Tucker, a marvelous Ellington and Monk scholar, who
went to William and Mary (and subsequently died of cancer, by the way
-- a huge loss for the field as well as for his colleagues at both
institutions.)
Tucker had been such a fine professor that he had in fact attracted
the million-dollar endowment of his position. The endowment (Case
Chair in American Music), in other words, was created for Tucker.
Tucker's decision to leave, which is a tale in itself of academic
Byzantium, meant that CU had to search for his replacement, under the
specific terms of the endowment. The position was in Historical
Musicology, a discipline which focuses on the history of western
european classical/art music, but which has also embraced jazz in
recent years. the mandate of the search was to find a great
undergraduate teacher (specified in the endowment), and preferably one
who specialized in jazz, broadly defined. The CU center for jazz
studies was advisory to the search process, and since Tucker had been
a prominent figure in the CJS's development, it was likely CJS would
also be a home for anyone hired to fill his chair. However, CJS has
no faculty lines, per se. All CU lines are in departments, not
centers. Therefore, Centers like CJS do not hire faculty directly.
An ad was run in the academic press asking for a great undergrad
teacher with an emphasis on jazz, and a background either in
historical musicology or possibly ethnomusicology or music theory, and
ability to teach beyond jazz studies.
CU brought in four or five candidates out of a pool of , I would
guess, around 100 applicants (I've been on other such search
committees in my career). The candidates they brought in for talks
and lectures included several prominent scholars with major books out
and second books in progress, and plenty of articles in refereed
journals. I went to most of the talks. I agreed with the final
selection of the search committee, a fine ethnomusicologist trained in
both jazz and African music, with an important book on jazz out and a
forthcoming book (now out, I think) on jazz and the civil rights
movement.
Near the completion of a lengthy and extensive search process, after
the job had been offered and was in negotiation with the final choice
of the committee, an article appeared in the Sunday New York Times --
I believe in the flashy *City* section, occupying two thirds of a page
and topped by a giant picture of Schaap spinning a record -- that
implied and even claimed explicitly thaat Schaap had somehow been
passed over for this particular job. Schaap was quoted saying some
utterly untrue and incorrect things. Rather unfair things were said
by the reporter about the music department's chair (who is a lovely
person as well as a major-league Haydn scholar), and the whole thing
read like an expose of a back-stabbing.
This triggered an outpouring of nasty emails, letters, and phone calls
to the department of music -- and the chair personally -- to the
Center for Jazz studies, and to the president's office at Columbia,
from enraged Schaap fans who felt Schaap had been "shafted" somehow.
Much of the discourse in the NY jazz world took an anti-academic and
anti-intellectual tone, of the sort displayed by our friend Gorgone on
this list. On this list, several people embroidered and extended the
whole story to make it sound like members of the music department and
the CJS were a bunch of total bastards, when nothing could be further
from the truth. The author of the piece, apparently a one-time
undergrad student of Schaap's whom I believe Schaap recruited to do
this hatchet job on Columbia, interjected plenty of his own pro-Schaap
opinions, exempt from the usual standards of journalistic objectivity
because, apparently, this piece was in the gossipy and
lifestyle-oriented City section. Columbia administrators, I'm sure,
were seriously concerned about threats (I heard several, including
indirectly from Woody Allen) among wealthy NY jazz fans never to give
money to CU again. The following week, the Times did publish letters
setting some facts straight from several people, and at least some
people in the NY jazz community started to settle down and see what
the real story was.
All on the basis of a pack of lies. The facts were as follows:
1) The job in question, which was the specific job at issue in the
Times article, was a standard academic gig. There was an ad. No
candidates were considered who did not apply for the job. All
candidates who did apply were seriously considered in an orderly
process. Since the job was an academic position in a conservative
field (Historical Musicology), there were very high standards.
Candidates were expected to have the PhD in music or -- in rare cases
-- a related field, and to have extensive publications in the
academic literature, or to have an equivalent level of professional
accomplishment in performance. There was, as in most academic
searches, a concerted effort made to attract the largest possible
number of applicants, and especially to get the largest number
possible from women and minorities. But there was no "fix," and as
far as I know the committee never asked anyone in particular to apply.
The final choice decided to go to Harvard instead, for a number of
reasons. The search was re-opened last year. A new ad was run.
Another batch of applications came in (again, none from Schaap, I
don't think). Another top notch slate of candidates came through.
George Lewis was the clear stunner in the set. I've heard the
negotiations to get him to CU were well along when Lewis was awarded a
MacArthur "genius" fellowship, which probably necessitated
re-negotating things like arrival date, salary, and leave time.
Since Schaap never applied, the fact that he is also less qualified
for this particular job than the eventual choices of the search
committee is almost irrelevant. But his conduct in making his imagined
grievance public was hurtful to people I care about. I am
concernedhere with restoring their reputations and forcing Schaap's
reputation to bear the consequence of his inappropriate conduct.
> For many years I enjoyed reading Mr. Schaap's writing on the research he's
> done on the "dim and distant past". When I finally began to listen to his
> radio show via web stream from WKCR a couple of years ago (I live in Boston,
> MA) I began to have serious misgivings about his prominence within the field.
> His egotistical manner and outright arrogance became unbearable the night I
> heard him hosting an "interview" with Yusef Lateef who was present in the radio
> station studio to promote an upcoming gig in New York.
> Phil Schaap represents a very insidious form of what my father's
> generation would call an "ofay". There have always been insiders of his ilk in
> the business and we can only thank the creator for making musicians powerful
> enough to triumph over the ugly adversities they represent.
With apologies, I find this unnecessarily and inaccurately harsh, and
cannot accept the implication that these views are in agreement with
mine. I have repeatedly said that I consider Schaap among the best at
what he does. I listen to his shows and read his writing. I detailed
my problems with some of his opinions and approaches in earlier
messages, but I also think every approach has its limitations, and no
opinion is uninteresting if it's informed and serious, as Schaap's
tend to be. I am not accusing you of this, necessarily, but there is
a whiff of anti-Semitism in the term "ofay," as well as a generally
negative evaluation of whiteness. I see no reason to make "race" a
significant variable in this discussion. CU had both Black and White
candidates in the finalist lists for its professorship. Every one of
them had plenty to recommend them as potential choices. That the
eventual choice was an African-American musician is worth applauding
because African Americans are under-represented in academic
musicology, but for no other reason I can see (that the choice was a
musician, on the other hand, is worth applauding for more substantial
reasons).
I don't think your negative view of Schaap's work is uncommon in the
jazz community. I've run into it from several musicians, sometimes in
similarly bitter terms. It's hard to do what he does without offending
some people, although Phil Schaap has a knack for engendering
polarized responses. But in my view this is no better than the
rabidly pro-Schaap offensive that followed the publication of the
Times article. Schaap is a fine DJ and producer, with a distinctive
style that some fans like and some find overbearing. He's certainly
made a major lifelong contribution to Jazz, though his legacy is not
without flaws (whose is?). He's a rare survivor on the public
ariwaves, and since what he does is rare and valuable, we should all
be grateful for his efforts and sacrifices, and appreciative of his
contribution. There have been plenty of times when I've been stuck in
traffic and been delighted to discover Schaap on the radio, doing
something compelling and informative and entertaining. I don't make a
point of catching his show, but if my day intersects his broadcast I'm
there.
> Your account of the happy ending to what I'm sure was a particularly
> distateful episode is one of the most encouraging bits of news I have ever read
> on rmb. Thanks again for your courage and conviction.
I appreciate that. I just want to stress that your views and mine
differ here. It was a distasteful episode, and I'm sure many involved
have regrets. There were far better ways for Schaap to let CU know he
was looking for some role in the CJS than a slanderous accusation in
the paper of record. I'm not saying CU people might not be remiss for
neglecting to seek out a role for Schaap in the burgeoning jazz scene
at Columbia, but I see Schaap's conduct in this episode as
inappropriate, and I am not aware of any similar conduct from any
specific person on the CU side, and certainly not in the CU music
department, where Schaap had previously been periodically hired as an
adjunct professor to teach jazz courses.
Sincerely,
Andy