"Lost Chords" by Richard Sudhalter..."IT'S OK TO BE (A) WHITE (JAZZ MUSICIAN)"

One of the best books on jazz ever written in my ever-so-humble opinion is Richard Sudhalter's "Lost Chords - White Musicians And Their Contribution To Jazz, 1915-1945". To me better than even Gunther Schuller's "Early Jazz" & "The Swing Era", maybe because Sudhalter was an actual performing jazz player*.

But, this book is sacrilege nowadays**. Why, the gall! Doesn't the author know that since the 1960s it has not been very HIP to even imply that white musicians had any real impact on jazz? Sure, you had Bill Evans...err... (But have you read up on the trouble he had as a white musician playing in Miles' band? So bad he had to leave. Black audiences were saying: "why the whitey on piano?")

Because, if you haven't noticed, in 'legit' jazz history, the line is all about how jazz is only black music - end of story. So if you try pushing this book as a college lecturer, or even on a street corner, I'd say you'd stand a good chance of being lynched, the modern way. But...

Well, if you haven't noticed, there's a psychological war against white men going on at the moment, and a corresponding desecration and diminution of everything good Western civilization has achieved, the best of our accomplishments, throwing it all away. The war is against women as well, but contrary to their cries of patriarchy, we seem instead to be turning into a matriarchy where feelings outweigh facts, and good music cannot be discerned because everyone's an idiot now who knows nothing, about music and especially about jazz. As if it's some strange thing. But the strangest thing of all is that it's never been easier to hear great jazz, anything you want, on YouTube and at any second of the day. A Music Library at one's fingertips! But even 20-year old jazz musicians haven't heard the classics...they start with Coltrane and work backwards, if they go backwards at all.

It's simple! The dumber the people are, the easier they are to control. If their history is limited to about 20 years, that's great for the oligarchy. If the average person, man or woman, black or white, doesn't even get a chance to investigate the most basic things because they are so overworked, so much the better for the slaveowners. They want us all to be compliant sheep, with the full set of blinkers on.

What's worse, even more than admitting white men did anything worthwhile in [his]tory (haha) of jazz, is the idea - outrageous in its audacity - that for a short time in the 1920s to the 1950s black and white people came together through a shared language, even a shared way of life that crossed the gulf separating their two sides of American life: and created some fantastic music which will live forever.. This is the shining light of jazz, the power of pure music to bring a universal spirit of love and respect, which I'm afraid has to be stamped out today by our Controllers, "for our own good", no doubt.

See, our rulers, the Oligarchs, hate unity. They love division, So they can't have blacks and whites mixing, let alone coming up with something that is greater than the individual. They want desperately to deny it ever happened, they're frantically back-pedalling, and making it so that you won't ever see this book placed anywhere prominent. They don't want you to know about the real situation between white and black jazz musicians, that you'll read about in this book; stories of the golden period where music was color-blind, for a few, short years.

They don't want you to know that some of the greatest tracks ever recorded were with mixed bands. Think of Louis Armstrong and Jack Teagarden; Benny Goodman and Teddy Wilson. Miles Davis and Gil Evans. Artie Shaw and Willie the Lion Smith. Thad Jones and Mel Lewis. Lester Young stating more than once that he had to chose from his two heroes - both white - Jimmy Dorsey or Frankie Trumbauer.

But, I hear the SJWs yell, poor old Lester was a black man and only the white man could make records, so they were all he could get to listen to, that's all that was available to him. Now, think about that for a minute. The black community is thick - do you honestly think Lester didn't hear, personally, every good black sax player that was anyone? Do you think he just made it all up for the white interviewers, even weeks before his death, still repeating the line that he had to choose between Tram and Dorsey?

And let me add to that list Dodo Marmarosa on piano giving Lester Young the most perfect, the most beautifully simply intro to his rhapsody on "These Foolish Things":



Here's the whole track:



Oh yeah, Dodo Marmarosa was Italian. Go figure.

Then there's another line, the line straight from Lester to Charlie Parker. So that means that since Bird comes from Lester, and Lester came from these white guys...

WE CAN'T HAVE THIS! THEY KNOW, TAKE IT DOWN!

So just have at the back of your mind that all this division shit is put there by our enemies to fuck us up. You should be able to see that a big part of the Charlie Parker concept comes indirectly (or is it directly?) from - shock horror - a few white dudes. And we all know of course that Bird then led straight to John Coltrane, the current God of Black Jazz.

So, just remember...

It's OK To Be ((A)) White ((JAZZ MUSICIAN))!

* yeah, I know Schuller played on Birth of the Cool. But his field was much wider - conductor, third-stream composer (didn't he invent the term?). Sudhalter was a Bix fanatic and played the music he's talking about over a lifetime.
** if you happen to be interested in reading this heresy, you can get a copy here:
https://biblio.co.uk/search.php?author=&title=Lost+Chords+-+White+Musicians+And+Their+Contribution+To+Jazz%2C+1915-1945&keyisbn=

Belief vs.Thinking

 

'Belief' and 'Believe'

Belief:

"Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" (Dictionary.com)

"The state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.  (Wikipedia)

"A feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true." (Merriam-Webster.com)

Believe:

"To have confidence or faith in, and consequently to rely on or trust to, a person or a god or the name of a god." "To have confidence in the truth or accuracy of a statement, doctrine, etc" (Oxford English Dictionary)

"To accept as true or real" (The Free Dictionary)

"To have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so" (Dictionary.com)

Often the objects right in front of us, in plain sight, have more significance than we realize, such as the words and numbers we see and use everyday. The clues to the truth could be right under our noses, the 2+2=4 connections may be literally staring us in the face—but we don't see it. As we grow up we are 'educated'; gently diverted away from learning the truth about our world, through school and the media, and we're taught from an early age to gloss over apparent inconsistencies, ignore obvious connections, leave correlations unexplored. That's why real educators say the best questions are asked by the youngest of children.

Let's now take a fresh look at this word 'believe', see if the letters within the word itself can give us a clue. Without too much effort we can see that 'believe' has the word 'lie' embedded within:

be/lie/ve

If we further break it down into belie/ve and be/lieve, we gain additional clues. We all know what the word 'lie' means. Likewise, 'belie' means to give a false representation, to misrepresent. 'Lieve' is an archaic word meaning glad or willing. It's a kind of amalgam of 'lie' and 'live'...to live a lie?

The best way to control people is to get them to believe something. Whatever you want them to believe. It's so much easier and smarter than trying to physically force them to do your bidding; it just requires a thorough understanding of the human mind—what they call 'psychology' and what others call mind control. And, importantly, a turtle-like appreciation of just how long it takes to achieve certain outcomes in the belief system of the general public.

The human mind is plastic, malleable, has an inherent herd-like mentality, and above all is easily lead by authority figures that they themselves invest with that authority.

In only one generation, 25 years or so, the relatively smaller propaganda agendas can be accomplished—such as getting women to smoke (1920s), or men to suddenly stop wearing hats and embrace long hair (1960s); in the '40s getting women to work in factories in WWII riveting warplanes and ten years later getting them all to be nice little housewives, thumbing through Home Beautiful magazine while they're getting their hair done. Or everyone in the western world to like wearing jeans and a t-shirt (still with us).

Unfortunately for us, in that short span of a generation it's actually possible to get a whole society to forget some pretty basic decent human values, and completely turn things about. This is what we are seeing now. The whole agenda or societal meme of 'kids rebelling against their parents', for example: that project's been running for at least 50 years if not much longer, and can now be seen for what it was/is: the goal of our Rulers to break up the family unit structure, their biggest enemy, at least in Western countries where the resistance is strongest.

The truth is that far too much human effort, not to mention large swathes of the human race at all stages of history including the present time, has been invested in, and sacrificed upon, the altar of 'belief'.

The people who really control this planet know exactly how our minds work, even better than we do. They know that the vast majority of us yearn, deep down, for some authority figure to structure our lives, give us a framework, a Matrix. Tell us when to work, when to play, what to eat, what to watch on TV. What to buy, when to go out, what to think. A Big Brother. They are all too aware of our basic human tendency to acquiesce to a supposed higher power, whether it be 'Rock Star', 'Football Hero', 'Movie Star', 'Celebrity', 'Banker', 'Doctor', 'Politician', 'Lawyer', even 'Messiah', and ultimately 'God'. That's why they push their beloved TV on us so heavily: a wonderfully efficient way to reinforce their programming.

The big question is whether they are right: are we are forever destined to be blind slaves, loving our prison (to paraphrase Plato's Cave and Aldous Huxley)? Or can we handle the truth?

What Art Should Be

"Sundown Over A Marsh", 1871.

Alexei Savrasov 1830-1897, Russian painter. The best painter you never heard of. Nobody paints mud like Savrasov.

He's equally at home with ice and snow, just great with sludge:

"Sea of Mud", 1894.

And he's excellent with birds, either coming or going:

"The Rooks Have Come Back", 1871.

"Evening. Birds Flying Away.", 1874.

Do people still paint like this anymore? Can they?
If so, why don't we see any of their work? Anywhere?

Ar should be about the beautiful, not the ugly. It should be about regeneration rather than degeneration. I'm sorry if that offends people, but as I say, you can quit reading this page at any time.

The sad truth is that all of 'modern' art lumped together, isn't as good as one of Savrasov's paintings. Of course, this is purely my opinion, but that's the point. Art is meant to make one feel something, uplifted, moved, inspired, yes - but not physically ill. And it's not meant to be something that one first has to read about to be able to 'understand' it. No matter how many times one has seen, heard, read a great work of art; no matter how much time they have spent studying its every aspect, it will always retain its own almost undefinable magical quality - which is precisely the power that it has to raise the human spirit, for the better.

I suppose there are many people nowadays who wouldn't see or feel anything looking at these pictures. Like the Communist accusation of 'formalism' against Russian composers of the '50s, these people would probably call this 'realism' or some other label. They're the same people who can't really tell if a musical work is any good or not. Before they have an opinion, they have to wait, look around, check what 'informed' people have written or said about it. Pedestrians. They check to see if anyone else thinks it's good or not. This phenomenon has always been around, but now seems even more prevalent. Another alarming feature of our present world.