I think babble is the wrong idea here, as though this were just harmless nonsense. It isn't harmless. It's telling people that true freedom comes from not being free, but from obeying an undefined moral standard. He's really saying Bird had no morality, otherwise he would have disciplined himself in life the way he did in music. So true morality for this guy is behaving yourself the way we all agree you should behave, except we don't agree at all. But since this writes for Times he gets to gets to tell us how Bird should have behaved. Bird alas can't get the benefit of this guy's invaluable advice, and this guy knows it, so it's really people who can afford to read the Times he's preaching to. Presumably people who need to be told what "real freedom" is?