From: mingus@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Damballah Wedo)
Subject: Re: On Drugs, Bebop and The Wire
Organization: The Poto Mitan in the Houmfor
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:07:38 GMT

> rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro):
>                                                  The implicit claim of
> the Wire articles is that we can best answer this question by avoiding
> moral judgements and looking at drug use as a cultural fact rather
> than a moral one. I agree with that assessment. There are undeniably
> strong links between the jazz subculture and the drug subculture,
> links that I'd like to see examined coolly and rationally.

Fair enough. Let's examine Lewis' article again. IMO he makes the following
points:

- heroin came into widespread use among jazz musicians after WW2
- this was primarily due to a desire to emulate Bird
- addicts formed a subculture (expressed in tune names, choice of other
  addicts as sidemen, etc) around their addiction, a kind of club
- musicians were attracted to heroin because they felt it helped them
  hear, and focus
- drug use peaked around 1955, the year of Bird's death
- musicians tended to stop using drugs around their mid-30s, as part of
  the general process of maturing
- by the mid-60s the drug subculture in jazz was not nearly so prominent

If anyone disagrees that these are the main points Lewis is making, I welcome
their views. After all, this is what critique is all about...

The first point is factual. It coincides with availability of heroin from
Turkey and other points in the Middle East, and with involvement by organized
crime, and their targeting of the black community as 'customers.'

The second point is also factual, albeit shallow. Lewis does not examine the
question of *why* musicians should construct a cult of personality around
Bird and not, say, around Diz or Monk.

The third is rather obvious, given human nature. Similar impulses are at
work when teen-agers begin dressing just like one another, or construct
their own slang. Jazz musicians are no different, fundamentally.

The fourth is useful information, given what Richard is talking about.
Not by itself, but because it gives insight into the larger question of why
musicians continue to choose narcotics in the face of overwhelming negative
information on their use. But Lewis does not probe at this more fundamental
question. Indeed, he *actively* ignores it, given the fifth, sixth and seventh
points, all of which state or imply that drug use is no longer a significant
part of the jazz culture.

These last three points are why I call Lewis irresponsible. They are either
factually incorrect, or Lewis weaves them ambiguously, to mislead his audience.
Moreover, his focus on them obscures, once again, the larger question of why
hghly intelligent, well informed musicians choose *and continue* to choose
narcotics.

Lewis' treatment of the fourth point is also rather lame. For instance, his citing
of Powell and Stitt as musicians who managed not to OD could be reflecting a
rationalization on the part of other musicians who were using, a way to say
"see, you can function on heroin." But Lewis does not say whether he is reflecting
the views of othes, or his own. Moreover, a responsible critique of such a
rationalization should (IMO must) examine whether addicts who manage their habit
continue to produce quality music, as a way of evaluating the rationalization
itself. Lewis does not such thing, simply making the rather empty statement that
some managed not to OD.

> the *last* thing we need is some kind of unstated requirement that
> all such discussion, if it's to be considered "responsible", must
> include a moral judgement of the form "drugs [or drug category X] is
> intrinsically evil".

The very reason for the critic to exist is to pass judgement. He does so either
actively ("this is good")  or indirectly, by selecting which facts to include in
the exposition of his thesis. A writer always has a thesis. An honest writer
will abandon a thesis that is not supported by the fact. Lewis failed to
develop (or at least to expose) a thesis around the real question, and obfuscated
the data to support the shallow question he did explore. All in all, I say he
did a lousy job.
-- 
Marcel-Franck Simon             	mingus@usl.com, usl!mingus

	" Papa Loko, ou se' van, ou-a pouse'-n ale'
	  Nou se' papiyon, n'a pote' nouvel bay Agwe' "
Newsgroups: rec.music.bluenote