All Wrong Information About Bix Must Be Corrected.
by
There has been more crap written about Bix than about any other musician from the 1920s. So much so, that a word was invented to refer to this phenomenon: Bixing. In his article ""BIXING" Myths, Lies, and Political Correctness in Jazz Research,"
"So, what's bixing? It's a common habit in jazz history both written and oral, of passing off rumor and opinion as fact. It's named for Bix Beiderbecke because people have probably used more smoke and mirrors to augment and glorify his particular legend than anyone else's. The harm that results is usually minimal and often risible, but bixing creates a folklore tradition that newcomers to our music hear and believe at the expense of truth."
I do not agree that the harm is minimal. Any incorrect information about any subject is intrinsically an abomination and, furthermore, can have profound nefarious consequences. I have, in my professional career as a research chemist, had to make several corrections to scientific papers in the literature. In one case, I had so much trouble in getting my correction published (it took a year of fighting with peer reviewers and editors before my article was published) that another scientist and I wrote an account in the prestigious British publication "Nature" of our respective dificulties in getting our papers published.
Moreover, as an educator I have fought attempts to simplify the teaching of elementary chemistry in first year university courses to the point that difficult concepts are presented in incorrect form. I have always maintained that it is better to be in possession of no information than of incorrect information.
I follow this approach in my research about Bix. I have made a point of correcting all wrong information about Bix that I come across.
Now to the specific question at hand. First, the quote from Sudhalter is not from "Man and Legend" but from "Lost Chords." Second, my criticism was not of just Sudhalter's assertion, but in general of the myth often encountered in Bixology that Bix was a passive individual, a follower, conducting his life via paths of least resistance. Indeed, as you point out, any normal reader after finishing the magnificent book "Man and Legend" should be able to infer that Bix was a most active musician. Unfortunately, what "should be" and what actually "is" are often not the same. And "Bixing" goes on and gets propagated like wildfire.
I disagree with you that "To single out formulations from fundamental works by extremely diligent jazz scholars like Gunther Schuller and Richard Sudhalter and then criticize them do not seem very decent to me." On the contrary, it would be irresponsible to find incorrect information in any writing -no matter how diligent and prestigious the author may be- and remain silent. On the other hand, I agree with you that "Had there been some factual faults to correct or had some new information come up it would have been another case." In fact, there were factual errors in the quotes I provided, and I made that abundantly clear in my first post as well as in the follow-up posts. Several writers asserted that Bix was a passive individual, contrary to the incontrovertible documented facts. I decided that it was incumbent upon me to publicize this factual error and I uploaded a posting on the subject. Finally, no I don't tell anyone what he/she must include or omit in his/her writings. As I made abundantly clear in my postings, I am vigorously against censorship and book-burning. But if I see what I believe on the basis of available documentation to be incorrect information, I will have no hesitation in providing corrections.
The problem with Sven is that he does not when to admit that he is wrong. He goes on and on sinking himself into a deeper and deeper hole. In addition, in his latest series of posts in this thread, he accused me of intellectual dishonesty. His point was that I had deliberately given incomplete quotes to bolster my arguments and, in doing so, I was misleading readers. Sven wrote, "you consciously gave the false impression that Hadlock was using the words “a tendency toward laziness” as an overall description of Bix." I stated that he was being malicious and was trying to discredit me. He responded by playing innocent with the risible excuse, "I commented, "you have not even bothered to give page numbers". If you found this comment malicious, I do beg your pardon." Who does he think he is kidding? Perhaps you ought to talk to him and explain that he has made valuable contributions to the forum, but that he ought to learn when to accept that he is wrong and, at that point, stop wasting everybody's time. Being wrong is not a sin. The most intelligent people make errors. As Linus Pauling (winner of two Nobel Prizes, Chemistry and Peace, awarded by the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm, Sweden) said (in jest), "I once made an error; I thought I was wrong."