It's true. 52nd Street was falling apart by 1950-51, as a club district. They had to have someplace to go. And besides, speakeasies were almost always in warehouses and apartments, no matter how good the club scene was.

That's the crazy thing about jazz. You can look to the recording sessions and say, "The albums where this guy or that guy played live in a club is even better," but then think about the fact that NO ONE captured these giants in apartments or other speakeasies.

We will always be left to wonder what Buddy Bolden sounded like. Sigh...

There are no recordings known of Bolden, are there?

Negative.

Dan, the best public info on this is in a Net54 thread. go to:
http://tinyurl.com/ybe96ry

scroll down to #14. There is a bit more to this, but confidentially prevents me from saying more about it.

BTW - I have since found another good image of Cummings, but that is way O/T.

"....everything to do" - How do you know that? How do you know that it was primarily Landis alone that stopped Rickey? You've said nothing to support that.

History is rarely that simple. Landis's parents and grandparents were abolitionists, and his brothers actively opposed Klan candidates for congress. None of that makes him a hero - he wasn't. Nor was he the primary cause of the problem.

One can only go by the letters and statements made by Happy Chandler with regards to soldiers fighting in the war, and that those good enough to fight should be good enough to play in MLB. Also the fact that Robinson broke in during the Chandler era.

As for Landis, enough attempts were made to integrate baseball during his era to affirm that either he flat out rejected their entry, or else he was passive and upheld the owners' sentiment.

But I know history is never that simple. If it could be proven beyond a doubt that he was instrumental in upholding segregation in baseball, then he would (IMHO) be a major blot on the Hall of Fame's reputation.

[quote=Brian-Chidester;783394]
As for Landis, enough attempts were made to integrate baseball during his era to affirm that either he flat out rejected their entry, or else he was passive and upheld the owners' sentiment.quote]

I agree with that statement as it leaves the question open.

Yep, my problem is that Burns seems to take a beating every time someone brings this issue up, but Corey can't even remember if he told Burns or the producer. And as far as confidential sources go, as long as they remain confidential I remain skeptical about when and if they notified Burns. What's the point in remaining confidential about such a triviality??

There seems to be such a dislike for Burns's Baseball documentary among SABR types, but as far as I can tell there has never been an undertaking to showcase the history of the game in such a grand way. Mistakes were made, but none so egregious as to ruin a really great documentary.

Hell, I didn't even know until this thread that some folks had found enough of a political bent in it as to turn them off. I can understand that they may not like Doris Kearns-Goodwin, or Mario Cuomo, but these people were all talking about the game as it related to them or to America...they weren't discussing Health Care or National Defense.

Dan: There seems to be such a dislike for Burns's Baseball documentary among SABR types...

That is true - it's because we tend to be overly obsessive as to details (kind of anal-retentive I guess)

Dan: "but as far as I can tell there has never been an undertaking to showcase the history of the game in such a grand way. Mistakes were made, but none so egregious as to ruin a really great documentary."

I agree. What I disagreed with was Brian's citing of Burns as providing a simple conclusive answer to the cause of the continuation of MLB segregation thru the 1940's. I am not even sure if Burns intended that.

Dan: "And as far as confidential sources go, as long as they remain confidential I remain skeptical about when and if they notified Burns."

That's a fair statement, but the confidentiallity is not my choice. All I can say is that more than one very knowlegable consultant to Burns' project advised against using the photo. The person who wanted it used (also a consultant) was the owner of the photo and either had recently sold it or would relatively soon sell it (I don't recall the exact date of the sale). It was a really bad choice made from competing consultants, one of whom clearly had a $ interest in the photo being used as Cummings.

Clearly then the fault lies with competing consultants. Highly doubtful Burns had any interest in misrepresenting a photo he had no investment in.

[quote=slidekellyslide;783419]Clearly then the fault lies with competing consultants.../quote]

On that we'll have to agree to disagree - a historian will always be confronted with experts who differ (that is certainly the case with how much continuing segregation was the fault of Landis - experts do disagree).

In this case Burns or his producer made a bad choice - the fact that experts disagree should mean you don't portray the photo as positively identified - you find another photo that everyone agrees on or you just skip it. I have advised some authors to do just that.

Eh...filmmaker or historian? Burns went with a photo that had already appeared in a SABR publication identified as Cummings. We still have NO proof that Burns was even aware of the controversy surrounding the photo when he made the film.

He is a great story teller and somewhat of a historian. I don't get the political agenda at all, he made a great starting point, now it's up to others to build upon that. It's his choice to do whatever he wants. Sounds like he made a mistake on a photo and maybe a few other things, but when you look at the overall project it was a success.

Placed there (and at least 6 other publications both prior and subsequent to Burns) by the same person/owner who wanted it used in Burns' project.

Are you saying that Ken Burns was aware of this decade long evil plot by Mark Rucker to make millions on an anonymous 19th century baseball photo?

For the record Ken Burns and Mark Rucker became pretty good friends during the making of the documentary, and he counted on Mark's photo library a great deal. If Mark told Ken that the tintype pictured Candy Cummings, I doubt Ken had the inclination to do independent research. If Ken was told by others it was not Cummings, he then had to make a decision. I'm not sticking up for or condemning anyone, I just think that verifying that particular image was not of paramount importance to Burns. I think he took Mark's word and went with it.

I know Mark always believed it was Cummings, but I think he now realizes that the general consensus is that it is not. I have certainly given him my opinion on several occasions.

think that piture of Cummings, which really isn't a picture of Cummings, was used on the 2009 Obak series. So, even 15 years after Burns used the image, it's still being labeled as Candy Cummings. I think that's a shame.

Brian - I am 100% with you on that one :)

This "new" to me photo of Cummings appeared in the McFarland reprint of the 1914 Richter's History and Records of Base Ball.

Barry - if you need to - feel free to draw a mustache on him.:D

I had the great fortune to meet Mr. Burns and talk with him at length about his baseball effort when he attended the Hot Springs (AR) Documentary Film Festival.

During that visit he stressed that all of his films, which he considers a continuous series, are intended to explain what makes us Americans. His intent is to weave a fabric of human traits that show how we are part part of the other nations that we come from but distinctly different. Thus very American subjects like baseball, jazz and OUR national parks. Of course I am still not happy that he ignored the first National Park-Hot Springs in his latest film.

The good news-bad news is that for the first time he is revisiting a film when he releases The 10th Inning this Fall. He feels that baseball has changed so much since the original release that he needed to add a couple of hours. I am afraid that will mean the strike and of course steroids.

During our visit I asked him about films on other sports and he said that he has no plans for any others. The next day he approached me and said he is still not sure where football fits and how it has influenced American life. He then said maybe in the future?

I guess what I am getting at in this post is that politics, race and sport all are all factors in how baseball has helped shape America.