One of my biggest frustrations in my many years of researching and teaching about jazz is that most people hold on to their ”good stories” even after they have been proven false. So I will be pleased, but also surprised, if this post results in ending one of these falsehoods.
Sep 12, 2022·edited Sep 12, 2022Liked by Lewis Porter
Everything you're saying could be true. But with three alleged drug users in one car, it is possible that even they were unaware of who actually owned the bag of heroin. As someone who practices criminal defense I can tell you that pleading not guilty at arraignment means almost nothing in terms of substantive guilt - (I've seen judges even unilaterally change pleas from guilty to not-guilty on the premise that it's simply neglect to allow otherwise).
Further, the attorney assigned to Monk could have known full well that if Monk simply accepted the guilty charge, his license would have been suspended - but if he pleads not guilty it gives him a chance, albeit slim, to be able to negotiate a plea that may not impact his cabaret license (for instance in lieu of trial, pleading guilty to Obstruction for tossing the drugs rather than Possession). As you mentioned, this impact was not a slap on the wrist, but a 6 year suspension (a lifetime for a jazz musician! :) Any chance at avoiding or mitigating that economic impact would be worth the not guilty plea.
Personally, I think he pleaded not guilty because his attorney told him to. I think he kept his mouth shut because he loved Bud and he was a good guy who didn't throw his friends under the bus. I wouldn't say that is taking the rap per se, but the result ethically, socially and legally are all practically the same.
Hello Evan, I really appreciate your informed point of view. It's great to have this information. One thing I want to make clear is that the cabaret license was not taken away for a specific length of time (such as six years). The way it worked--or did not work!--is that one simply had to keep re-applying for it, and with some advocates helping, Monk finally got it restored in 1957. To put it differently, without their help it could have been longer!
After studying your very well-put points, I still feel that the statement "Monk took the rap for Bud" is a misleading way to describe what happened. Wouldn't it make more sense to say that Monk and Bud were two separate cases, each case going its own way?
Ah, I didn't know that. It sounded extremely harsh but I know licensing back then was often used to unfairly ruin people's careers so not out of the realm of possibilities. Good to know it wasn't overly severe.
Anyhow, yes I agree with your conclusion, I don't think he took the rap for Bud. But the real life result may have ultimately been the same. On a positive note, I believe they recently closed the Tombs.
Lewis, nice post, open our eyes to how history can be misstated. And Thelonious did pay a price. As to the cabaret law, what I remembered, and found a link to substantiate it, the deal was places that served alcohol and food and allowed dancing. And both the establishments and their entertainers needed that license. Small point, I know. Cheers on your latest efforts. ZS
Yes, that is absolutely correct about the cabaret card. I believe that even the waiters needed that card. I didn't say anything to contradict what you wrote, but I simply didn't go into those details. I decided not to open the very long can of worms about "what exactly was the cabaret law?"--because it was a tangent to begin with, after all. Some other time I might get into that more deeply. Thanks for the comment--and for reading!
Absolutely--the cabaret law is a study in itself. There are books and articles on it, for example Chevigny, Paul , Gigs: jazz and the cabaret laws in New York City, and one by a lawyer who helped to win the fight against cabaret cards: https://www.amazon.com/Police-Card-Discord-Maxwell-Cohen/dp/0810826380
I actually considered omitting any mention of the cabaret card, since it is such a detour, but then decided it would be too major of an omission. THANKS ZAN!
Most welcome, bro. It is clearly very important. Just look what it did to Monk and Lady Day, to mention only two. Really good it is gone. Look forward to what's next on that fertile mind of yours.
A fine and well-researched piece on Bud + Monk, Lewis. But you seem to be a victim of "unconscious racism". Why is Maely Dufty identied as a "European Jew"? No other person is described by race or religion in the article. If you were trying to make a point about prejudice you've certainly landed on the wrong note.
Hello Ken, there is nothing racist or unconscious going on here. I am Jewish (birth name Portnoff--my father changed it when I was a toddler) and I sometimes like to indicate that someone is Jewish. In this case it's because Maely is such an interesting person and there's very little known about her origins. If you think I should clarify something there I can still do it. Thanks!
Hi Lewis: Thanks for a quick reply. It's just that the identification stands out like the proverbial sore thumb. I once edited a piece of copy where the writer stated that so and so was the Black, crippled (this was the late 1970s) conductor of a symphony. I cut both out since it added nothing to the story. I feel the same way about the Maely adjectives, but I'm not your editor. Maybe she and Duffy, who did more to make up the Billie Holiday legend than anyone else deserve an entry on their. own. BTW when I read the extensive day-by-day in your Coltrane book I found out that had he lived he had booked a date at a Montreal college near me. Since I was underage it would have been my one chance to see him play in person. Another missed opportunity.
Hi Lewis: Yep it reads more logically now. Time for more research into Mr+ Mrs. Duffy though. You know that following his divorce Duffy became Gloria Swanson's 6th husband. Oh and sadly because he died too soon Trane never gave that Montreal concert I could have attended.
Glad you like the rewrite. Yes I know about Swanson--an interesting couple for sure! And I didn't realize that Montreal concert was one that never happened. Too bad!
Everything you're saying could be true. But with three alleged drug users in one car, it is possible that even they were unaware of who actually owned the bag of heroin. As someone who practices criminal defense I can tell you that pleading not guilty at arraignment means almost nothing in terms of substantive guilt - (I've seen judges even unilaterally change pleas from guilty to not-guilty on the premise that it's simply neglect to allow otherwise).
Further, the attorney assigned to Monk could have known full well that if Monk simply accepted the guilty charge, his license would have been suspended - but if he pleads not guilty it gives him a chance, albeit slim, to be able to negotiate a plea that may not impact his cabaret license (for instance in lieu of trial, pleading guilty to Obstruction for tossing the drugs rather than Possession). As you mentioned, this impact was not a slap on the wrist, but a 6 year suspension (a lifetime for a jazz musician! :) Any chance at avoiding or mitigating that economic impact would be worth the not guilty plea.
Personally, I think he pleaded not guilty because his attorney told him to. I think he kept his mouth shut because he loved Bud and he was a good guy who didn't throw his friends under the bus. I wouldn't say that is taking the rap per se, but the result ethically, socially and legally are all practically the same.
Hello Evan, I really appreciate your informed point of view. It's great to have this information. One thing I want to make clear is that the cabaret license was not taken away for a specific length of time (such as six years). The way it worked--or did not work!--is that one simply had to keep re-applying for it, and with some advocates helping, Monk finally got it restored in 1957. To put it differently, without their help it could have been longer!
After studying your very well-put points, I still feel that the statement "Monk took the rap for Bud" is a misleading way to describe what happened. Wouldn't it make more sense to say that Monk and Bud were two separate cases, each case going its own way?
Ah, I didn't know that. It sounded extremely harsh but I know licensing back then was often used to unfairly ruin people's careers so not out of the realm of possibilities. Good to know it wasn't overly severe.
Anyhow, yes I agree with your conclusion, I don't think he took the rap for Bud. But the real life result may have ultimately been the same. On a positive note, I believe they recently closed the Tombs.
Very helpful, Evan. That's good that the infamous Tombs is finally closed down. Thanks again for your informative comments!
Lewis, nice post, open our eyes to how history can be misstated. And Thelonious did pay a price. As to the cabaret law, what I remembered, and found a link to substantiate it, the deal was places that served alcohol and food and allowed dancing. And both the establishments and their entertainers needed that license. Small point, I know. Cheers on your latest efforts. ZS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Cabaret_Law
Hello Zan,
Yes, that is absolutely correct about the cabaret card. I believe that even the waiters needed that card. I didn't say anything to contradict what you wrote, but I simply didn't go into those details. I decided not to open the very long can of worms about "what exactly was the cabaret law?"--because it was a tangent to begin with, after all. Some other time I might get into that more deeply. Thanks for the comment--and for reading!
Lewis,
I figured I was adding too much to the pie but that was the afterthought, not the forethought, lol.
That law was really oppressive, hurt so many performers.
Cool post.
Cheers,
ZS
Absolutely--the cabaret law is a study in itself. There are books and articles on it, for example Chevigny, Paul , Gigs: jazz and the cabaret laws in New York City, and one by a lawyer who helped to win the fight against cabaret cards: https://www.amazon.com/Police-Card-Discord-Maxwell-Cohen/dp/0810826380
I actually considered omitting any mention of the cabaret card, since it is such a detour, but then decided it would be too major of an omission. THANKS ZAN!
Lewis,
Most welcome, bro. It is clearly very important. Just look what it did to Monk and Lady Day, to mention only two. Really good it is gone. Look forward to what's next on that fertile mind of yours.
Thanks friend!
A fine and well-researched piece on Bud + Monk, Lewis. But you seem to be a victim of "unconscious racism". Why is Maely Dufty identied as a "European Jew"? No other person is described by race or religion in the article. If you were trying to make a point about prejudice you've certainly landed on the wrong note.
Hello Ken, there is nothing racist or unconscious going on here. I am Jewish (birth name Portnoff--my father changed it when I was a toddler) and I sometimes like to indicate that someone is Jewish. In this case it's because Maely is such an interesting person and there's very little known about her origins. If you think I should clarify something there I can still do it. Thanks!
Hi Lewis: Thanks for a quick reply. It's just that the identification stands out like the proverbial sore thumb. I once edited a piece of copy where the writer stated that so and so was the Black, crippled (this was the late 1970s) conductor of a symphony. I cut both out since it added nothing to the story. I feel the same way about the Maely adjectives, but I'm not your editor. Maybe she and Duffy, who did more to make up the Billie Holiday legend than anyone else deserve an entry on their. own. BTW when I read the extensive day-by-day in your Coltrane book I found out that had he lived he had booked a date at a Montreal college near me. Since I was underage it would have been my one chance to see him play in person. Another missed opportunity.
I rewrote it--see if you think it's better now. That's cool that Trane performed near you in Montreal. THANKS!
Hi Lewis: Yep it reads more logically now. Time for more research into Mr+ Mrs. Duffy though. You know that following his divorce Duffy became Gloria Swanson's 6th husband. Oh and sadly because he died too soon Trane never gave that Montreal concert I could have attended.
Glad you like the rewrite. Yes I know about Swanson--an interesting couple for sure! And I didn't realize that Montreal concert was one that never happened. Too bad!