came to be built upon improvisation,nnot because of a “primitive” ideal, butnbecause the players could not read musicnand had no formal training. Lewis nevernlearned to read a score, although interestinglynin some of the quoted materialnhe uses such expressions as “playing innthe staff.” And the “liberation” idea isnrevealingly borne out by the musicians’nconscious and unconscious aversion tonthe blues. Thus William Russell, whonmade the first recordings of the Lewisnband in the ’40s, records a conversationnwith drummer Baby Dodds in his diary:n”Russell makes the unexpected observationnin his diary that the band oftennseemed reluctant to play the blues.nHe asked Baby Dodds why this wasnso. ‘You see, it’s this way,’ Baby replied,n’Our people have been raisednwith the blues and heard them allntheir lives,’ and went on to imply,nRussell said, that they didn’t seem sonspecial to black people …”nYet even this music of liberated spiritsnhas its discipline, its canons and rubric.nThroughout the book, in quoted passagesnand in the author’s own statements,nthere are reactions ranging fromncondescension to disparagement fornmusicians who could not “fake” (improvise).nWhere the author is concerned, thisnpoints up a certain weakness of thenbook: an occasional but irritating parochialism,nwhich is at times merely anquirk but at other times creates distortion.nAt one point, Bethell haughtilyndismisses Vivaldi; at another he beratesnAaron Copland and sulks about “thenderogatory remarks about jazz he hasnoccasionally made.” This observationnis inserted in the narrative of the GeorgenLewis-Bunk Johnson band’s appearancesnat the Stuyvesant Casino in lowernManhattan in 1945, some of whichnCopland attended. In point of fact, thisnis not only parochial but wrong. Notnonly has Copland been influenced bynjazz forms throughout his career, butnat this very time he was presumablyndelving into jazz forms. Two of hisnSOinChronicles of Culturen”Four Piano Blues” appeared in 1947nand 1948.nBethell is also led by his bias to entirelynomit all but the most general discussionnof Lewis’ playing in Europe afternthe mid-’50s—for this one must readnFairbairn—and he spends an entirenchapter grousing about the deteriorationnof Lewis’ sound (and that of hisncolleagues) in the last years. True, therenwas the ballyhoo and public adoration,nwhich uprooted and isolated the music.nBut there were other factors: the musiciansnwere growing old, public tastesnwere changing (for better or worse),nand youngsters who formerly picked upncornets and clarinets in New Orleansnnow turned on record players and tele­nPolish & Irish JokesnA debate is going on in the sacrednabode of our national legislative bodynon the limits of tax deductions for ournselfless public servants. Those pure-intentionednidealists are now clamoringnfor an additional deduction of f3000nfor business (?!?) expenses. Rep. DannRostenkowski, D. Illinois, had this tonsay:n”The expenses one incurs for servingnhis country in the halls of Congressnfar exceed 13000.”n]s Mr. Rostenkowski for real? Hensounds like an ancient Roman senator,nor an antebellum Southern gentlemanfarmer,nor anyone else who serves hisncountry for free, motivated solely bynpatriotism, a democratic spirit of sacrificenand other assorted civic virtues.nWhat about the $57,500 that he receivesnyearly—not counting fringe benefits,nperks, freebies, peccadillos, etc.nHe was joined by a wailing choir ofnother mendicants, in both the Housenand the Senate, lamenting their desti­nThe American Scenennnvision sets. Perhaps Lewis and his fellowsnprostituted themselves. But onlyna dogmatic purist can begrudge them anmeasure of prosperity and prominence,nand us an echo of their unique, dynamicnart form.nNotwithstanding the grammaticalnstyle which occasionally lapses intonthe rustic usage of the quoted material,nBethell’s work is a useful piece of researchnfor specialists and an equallynuseful insight for general readers. Thenmain approach to music and musiciansnis to listen, of course, but books suchnas this are necessary to create the largerncontext. By this criterion, this booknserves worthily. Dntution. The most unexpected — SenatornPatrick Moynihan, in whom we saw,ntill now, a serious man. We were cruellyndisappointed when we read his wordsnon the matter:n”You just simply shouldn’t have anSenate that’s filled with people worryingnall the time about financial reservesnand whether they can make itn. . . that’s not a good situation.”nWhy should Senators not have tonworry about what deeply worries 90 7onof the rest of America? Is this sensenof humor prevalent in our corridors ofnpower? And who has created this “nongood situation” in the first place? Isnan indigent Senator’s impossibility ofn”making it” on almost sixty grand anyear an Irish burlesque act —or what?nIdeological Center that Would HoldnThere is an angry rumbling on thenAmerican left, and some of the morenimpatient circles of organized labor andnthe radical intelligentsia are workingnon the formation of an ideological cen-n