Posted 6:42 AM by Gene

A jernalist (and the son of a jernalist) writes a biography of the great A&R man John Hammond, and the reviewer, Mr. Keepnews (himself a record producer) offers a rare Paper-of-Re-CORD insight:

[O]nce his narrative enters the 1960’s — shortly after Mr. Hammond rejoined Columbia Records, where he had first made his mark as a producer, and began shifting his focus from jazz — Mr. Prial seems much more engaged than when writing about the musicians Mr. Hammond recorded in the 30’s. He understands that these earlier artists were important but has a hard time explaining why.

For example, he writes of Lionel Hampton: “His music alone was enough to startle even virtuoso musicians of Benny Goodman’s caliber. When Hampton’s mallets struck the metallic bars of the vibraharp, a spray of notes burst forth. And each one made perfect sense, one note following another impossibly fast but never forced.” A spray of notes? This is colorful writing, but it doesn’t shed very much light.

To the JERNALIST, anything before the sixties is not of HIS TIME. The hack still daydreams of the Napalm girl; that explains why on matters cultural other than today's ENTERTAINMENT GENIUS, he is hopelessly tongue-tied. He can make the usual condescending noises about great artists long in the past ("Gershwin was blahblahblahblah"), but his heart is not into it, and that's because he doesn't have a brain to go along.