#erroll garner tuesdays

[pittarchives]

Drama in Paris

This post was written by Adam Lee, graduate student, Jazz Studies.

On December 2, 1957, Erroll Garner’s trio flew to Paris, France for an extended engagement. Garner’s manager Martha Glaser arranged via telegram for Bruno Coquatrix of the Olympia Theater to make arrangements for Garner, Eddie Calhoun, and Kelly Martin. The tour was apparently arranged by Russian-born American impresario Sol Hurok but outsourced to a French division of the Dutch company, Philips. According to bassist Calhoun, as quoted in James Doran’s Garner biography, this tour went well:

She [Martha Glaser] must have respected him [Sol Hurok] very highly because we never had any problems. Erroll was under Sol's concert tour for two years, somewhere in 1957-59. During that time it was a pleasure because everything was first class: traveling, hotels, etc. We were still under Sol Hurok when we went to Europe. They have their own impresarios over there like they do here, and then they hook you up to one of the offices that they are affiliated with, and then you go under them over there. When we were in Europe, we were always under the booking office of Philips. Philips usually handled our whole tour, and then they subcontracted out along the way, but it was still under Philips' tour (Doran 1985, 92).

There must have been some drama on the organizational side of things however, as shortly after Garner’s arrival in Paris, his manager Martha Glaser sent a handful of scathing telegrams to various people telling them in no uncertain terms of her displeasure in some aspect of how the companies were handling Garner on the French side. The first target of her ire was Aram “Al” Avakian, brother of Columbia Records producer George Avakian, whom she telegraphed on December 6, 1957.

Image from folder “Telegrams,”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 3, Folder 1, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

This telegram—which is admittedly difficult to parse due to the nature of telegram correspondence—contains language such as “Your goof cost me every deadline and break in town nice work,” imparting a very sarcastic and aggressive tone. It ends with the very disappointed “I depended on you.” Kelly Martin also sent Glaser a handwritten letter from France at some point on the tour, in which he says, “Al is a very nice fellow, but he don’t know the angles to get things done.” While the letter is undated, one can expect that international mail correspondence is slower than telegram transmission, and likely Glaser would not have received this letter prior to sending her critical telegram.

Image from folder “Martha Glaser Incoming Correspondence,”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 69, Folder 8, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Glaser’s second telegram is dated two days later, December 8, 1957 to Goddard Lieberson, President of Columbia Records. This note provides additional detail as to the circumstances of Glaser’s disappointment in Avakian. The Philips company had mishandled Garner; some of the ways this played out is shown in Irene Monteverde’s 2017 thesis on this tour. Glaser implies that Garner was to be presented at the Olympia Theatre, but the Philips company’s representative Jacques Canneti had a stake in the Alhambra Theatre’s success and perhaps failed to promote the Garner concerts appropriately. Glaser asks Lieberson to step in directly to put Columbia’s weight behind her grievance and specifies that if Philips cannot uphold their part of the contract then another label should take over handling Garner in France.

Image from folder “Telegrams,”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 3, Folder 1, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Glaser subsequently sent a pair of further telegrams to Avakian, asking him to contact Gene Moskowitz, an American working for the Paris bureau of the entertainment magazine Variety. Moskowitz would be taking over promotional activity for the Garner tour from that point on, with Glaser requesting that Avakian and Garner “treat him like [sic] friend” since he “knows everyone in show business in Paris.” She seems to have forgiven Avakian for the initial mishaps by this time, signing this telegram with a casual post-script “Columbia top brass checking Phillips goof. Will advise, keep cool and swinging, everything will work out” [punctuation mine].

Image from folder “Telegrams,”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 3, Folder 1, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Eventually everything seems to have been smoothed over on a surface level, as a few days later (December 10) Glaser sent a telegram which states that Garner was to receive the prestigious “Grand Prix du Disque” award, which she claims is “equivalent to our Academy Award.” She also notes that Garner was “currently headlining at [the] Olympia Theater through December 26…concert dates already sold out.” It is impressive to see how quickly Glaser rose to fight for her client, despite being an ocean away, and managed to smooth out the business side. In a subsequent December 21 letter to someone named only as “Frances,” Glaser indicates that Garner himself was quite disquieted by the events at the Olympia, including a fear of unauthorized recordings of the Olympia sessions.

Image from folder “Martha Glaser Outgoing Correspondence 1957,”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 68, Folder 8, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Much of this information can be seen laid out in Monteverde’s thesis, including information on the leadup to this tour as well as further details about the tour outside Paris, so for additional context it is highly recommended to follow up with a close reading of that document.

Work Cited

James M. Doran, Erroll Garner: The Most Happy Piano (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1985), 83-5.

Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, AIS.2015.09, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Monteverde, Irene. “Paris Impressions: Critics and Gimmicks in the Art World of Erroll Garner, 1957-58”. Thesis (MA) –University of Pittsburgh, 2017.

[pittarchives]

Memories Arise, Digging in the Archive

This post was written by Warner Sabio Sr., Graduate Student, Jazz Studies, University of Pittsburgh. 

On October 16, 1959, Pittsburgh pianist Erroll Garner made a pivotal Carnegie Hall appearance.  The concert was sold-out, and his tune “Misty,” performed by both Johnny Mathis and Sarah Vaughan, was climbing the charts. Accompanied by bassist Eddie Calhoun and drummer Kelly Martin, Garner worked his magic. According to Billboard Magazine’s Bob Rolontz, in a review of the concert, “There are few pianists, even including classical artists, who can pack a hall the size of Carnegie and also carry an entire concert alone. … Garner was at his peak for this performance,” (Rolontz, 16). Despite a lukewarm review from the New York Times (Wilson, 26), the concert was an overall success, and Garner must have been feeling pretty good.

On that day at 2:44 p.m., Garner’s manager, Martha Glaser, received a telegram from a person identified only as “Debbie.” Perhaps a friend, the telegram sent a straightforward message of good luck on the cusp of the performance: “Congratulations on your Carnegie Hall stage mother debut, Bestest, Debbie.”

Image from folder “Telegrams,”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 3, Folder 1, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Interestingly, four days later, Debbie sent another telegram, this time expressing a very different sentiment: “Cops is cops but Garner is Garner and Glaser is Glaser and we still love you both.”.

Image from folder “Telegrams,”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 3, Folder 1, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

It was the words “cops is cops,” that stopped me in my tracks and aroused unsettled emotions within me. Those words made me wonder if Garner had experienced a situation with the police in 1959.

Earlier that year, on August 25, fellow jazz musician Miles Davis was involved in an incident with New York City police officers. The episode took place just a few blocks from Carnegie Hall, right outside of the Manhattan jazz club Birdland, where Davis was headlining that night. According to Davis, a police officer threatened to arrest him after asking him to relocate. Davis informed the officer that he was performing at the club and saw no reason to move. The officer went to arrest Davis; however, before he could, another officer hit Davis over the head with an object. Davis was arrested, and the altercation left him bloody and hurt (Matthews, 1).

“Cops is cops.” I had heard words similar to these when I was a child. An older cousin sat me down along with my older brother, Rudy—who must have been eleven at the time—to discuss the importance of “keeping safe” in New York City. He asserted, “Cops will be cops” and that we needed to be very careful in dealing with the police; otherwise, things could turn out badly if not fatal. My nine-year-old self did not fully comprehend this message, and I was left confused. Four years later, I would completely understand this warning.

In the fall of 1984, as I returned home from school, I was confronted by a New York City police officer. I was waiting in a stairwell for the number 7 train as wind and rain pounded the elevated platform. The officer asked me to, “Get off the stairs and go up to the platform.” I explained that I was simply seeking some shelter, and when the train arrived, I would move on. I made the mistake of suggesting that he was doing the same. It would be ridiculous for him to keep safe and dry while I, a child, risk getting wet and potentially become ill. The suggestion elicited laughter from two classmates of mine who took the same train home and were standing nearby on the stairwell. Now only two feet away, the officer drew his service revolver. He pointed the pistol at me: “Now, I’m sure you won’t mind standing on the platform, right?” The other two students and I quickly moved to the platform, and thankfully the train soon arrived.

We did not speak for most of the trip home, only to say goodbye as we transferred for other trains at 42nd Street. We continued to ride the subway home together throughout the year, but we never spoke of the incident. Seven years ago, at the age of 43, I finally told my parents about my encounter with the police on that day. I held back telling them for years because I did not want them to worry. But who am I kidding? They worried then and they still worry now.

The circumstances surrounding Debbie’s telegram are not specified. The telegram alone does not provide enough information even to speculate as to what she meant by the phrase, “cops is cops.” Perhaps other bits of information can be found in the archive that can shed light on this event. If so, that would be great. If not, I think it is still fruitful to ponder Garner’s ability to navigate his success while simultaneously negotiating the harsh realities of intolerance, racism, and discrimination.

Works Cited

Matthews, Les. “‘It Was Police Brutality’: Miles Davis' Own Story: They Beat on My Head Like A Tom – Tom.’” New York Amsterdam News, Aug 29., 1959, p. 1.

Rolontz, Bob. “Concert Review: Garner Great in Carnegie Debut.” The Billboard, Oct. 26, 1959, p. 16.

Wilson, John S. “Erroll Garner, Jazz Pianist, Plays Carnegie Hall Program.” The New York Times, Oct. 17, 1959, p. 26.

[pittarchives]

John Hammond and Martha Glaser: A Cold Correspondence

This post was written by Adam Lee, graduate student, Jazz Studies.

Erroll Garner famously won a lawsuit against record production titan Columbia Records in the early 1960s, which allowed him to launch his own label Octave records. While the details of this lawsuit have been covered by news outlets such as Variety (The True Story of Erroll Garner, the First Artist to Sue a Major Label and Win), the fallout of this suit would continue to echo throughout history in the form of a feud between Garner’s manager Martha Glaser and Columbia Records producer John Hammond.

John Hammond was a scion of the Vanderbilt family through his mother and by the 1930s had become one of the most influential promoters and producers of jazz, acting as a patron to such jazz legends as Count Basie, Billie Holiday, and Benny Goodman (who became his brother-in-law in 1942). He is often lauded for his staunch stance against racism through his promotion of jazz in a time in which it was considerably less common to find white people of status working to promote Black artists. Not all jazz artists would receive Hammond’s full support, however, as is made clear with his lukewarm response to Erroll Garner’s work.

Hammond was the producer working for Columbia when the events that led to Garner’s lawsuit came about, and later would become involved again in a Garner reissue project in 1975. Martha Glaser, writing on behalf of Garner, wrote to Hammond expressing her disdain for the way Columbia, and thus Hammond himself, was handling this project in the last few years of Garner’s life.

Image from folder “Correspondence from John Hammond,” Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 1, Folder 62, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Glaser writes that Garner and she were reluctant to be involved in a Columbia production, understandable from their previous contentious relationship, but initially thought that Hammond would be supportive of the project: “It was with considerable trepidation that we got into the PLAY IT AGAIN, ERROLL project, because of past experiences at Columbia. However, with your reassurance, and Jim Brown’s support, we thought there would be no problems.” Clearly, there were problems and Glaser had no reservations expressing her feelings later in the letter writing: “We are most dismayed that our good friends at Columbia have so little regard for Erroll or myself, that we can’t reach them, or get a reply.” The venom in her language is clear, the Columbia producers are no friends of theirs.

Image from folder “Correspondence from John Hammond,” Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 1, Folder 62, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Several years later, after Garner’s passing, Glaser and Hammond got into another conflict via letters sent between them. We do not have every record in the archive of this correspondence, but by looking at the letters we do have we can extrapolate some of the content, and it is increasingly hostile. The conflict seems to begin with Glaser’s objection to a quote in George Goodman Jr.’s June 28, 1981 article about Miles Davis titled  ”Miles Davis: I Just Pick Up My Horn And Play.” In the article, Goodman attributes a statement to Hammond (which Glaser notes is not written as a quote, but more as a statement of fact): “To John Hammond, the authoritative critic and jazz patron credited with the ‘discovery’ of such greats as Bessie Smith and Louis ''Satchmo'' Armstrong, Mr. Davis is the only major performer of his generation who broadened rather than contracted the appeal of jazz music.” Glaser vehemently objects to this characterization, and overtly questions Hammond on it in a letter dated the next day, June 29, 1981: “Whether it accurately states your opinion, I can’t tell – but I certainly wonder about it.” Glaser goes on to contradict the assertion that only Davis expanded jazz appeal, referring to Garner’s public success with scathing and sarcastic language: “… if he was ‘contracting’ the appeal of jazz, then I wonder who all those people were in all those SRO audiences through the world for all those years…,” and “Indeed, he was sock box office…despite the heavy-handed treatment of CBS Records, and the subsequent results. I can fill you in, but I am sure you know much of what happened.” Obviously Hammond knows what happened, as he was the head of A&R (Artists and Repertoire) for CBS/Columbia Records at that time.

Image from folder “Correspondence from John Hammond,” Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 1, Folder 62, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Hammond’s response is dated July 16, 1981 and specifically refutes the Goodman article for the Times, attempting to redirect the ire against him to the Times itself saying, “Why the Times is so sloppy in its music coverage and quotes is beyond belief.” While he could have continued to play diplomat, he instead doubles down on the conflict and writes some very specifically cruel things about Garner and Glaser “…the greatest mistake he ever made was in leaving CBS for purely financial reasons. When I came back there in the very late fifties, I did my best to patch things up, but I must say that I found both you and Erroll greedy, to say the very least.” He follows this with an attack on Glaser alone: “Unfortunately, the nit-picking that went on by you (acting on behalf of Erroll) left you with very few friends in the company. When I tried to sign Erroll in the mid-sixties, I was warned that if I did, I would probably suffer another heart attack and was ordered to cease and desist my efforts.”

Images from folder “Correspondence from John Hammond,” Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 1, Folder 62, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Glaser counters the attacks directly: “’Greed’ was not the reason for the litigation. It was at a great sacrifice – including a financial one – that Erroll was pressed into this litigation by some substantial violations of his contract.” Ever the stalwart defender of Garner, Glaser accuses Hammond of hiding this opinion from Garner behind a smiling face: “I wish you had told Erroll, at the time, or in the almost 20 years subsequent to the litigation, that you thought he and I were motivated by ‘greed’. This might have put a different face on how he reacted to the entire situation, and to you, since he always said – ‘Don’t put John in the middle’, and was concerned about your well-being.” Glaser continued to take issues with Hammond’s specific phrase “nit-picking,” and notes the implications of such language: “I sometimes wonder where such an appellation might be sexist. When a man works as hard and carefully as I have to maintain quality standards, he is considered to be on top of things.” The jarring final statement is loaded with a sarcastic feel, like Glaser is writing pleasantries because these things are included in letters by practice but not by meaning: “I hope we can talk one day. In the meantime, thank you for your attention and response. Wishing you the best with your new enterprises. Sounds most exciting.”

Image from folder “Correspondence from John Hammond,” Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 1, Folder 62, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

To this letter we do have Hammond’s response, dated September 19, 1981. And once again, venomous statements are bookended with pleasantry. Hammond first apologizes about the greed comment, but by the third paragraph he outright tells Glaser that Garner would have been more financially and professionally successful if they had stuck with him and Columbia Records.

(Above) Images from folder “Correspondence from John Hammond,” Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 1, Folder 62, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.   

The final document in this record appears to be a draft of a letter typed by Glaser before the final version dated September 9,1981. While this document does not have a date, it does follow many of the same points of the dated letter and responds point by point to Hammond’s July 16, 1981 document. This draft has numerous redactions and corrections, and the language in it is much stronger than the one that eventually replaced it, (including one parenthetical where Glaser notes “have to change this” after expressing that Hammond’s letter was “character assassination.”) And it is perhaps for the best that it wasn’t sent, but in it we can see the rage that Glaser had for Hammond and the industry, and the vigor by which she was ready to protect Garner’s reputation and status. This draft letter too shows some significant insight into the things that Glaser thought were important, but (in contrast with the final letter) chose to hold back, almost certainly as a result of professional considerations. She writes “That Mr. Garner, a Black – jazz – artist – with a female manager – in those pre-consciousness raised days – both in the fields of race and sex – had the audacity to go up against a major corporation to defend his artistic rights – apparently didn’t sit well with the corporate heads. It was a ‘first’ and they made it clear he had to be broken and punished. Surely, you were aware of that.”

All in all, through these letters, we can see the conflict between Glaser and Hammond, and the not-so-subtle attempts by both of them to conceal resentment and animosity. Hammond’s position of power and reputation in the industry allowed him to feign magnanimity, but Glaser had neither the luxury nor the desire to sugar coat her arguments, although we can see from the differences in her brutal draft letter from her significantly more (but not entirely) diplomatic final letter version that she did take these things into consideration. In the end, Glaser once again proved that she would stand up for Garner against even industry giants like John Hammond, in a way that was uniquely her own.

Works Cited

Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, AIS.2015.09, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Goodman, George. "MILES DAVIS: 'I JUST PICK UP MY HORN AND PLAY'." The New York Times. June 28, 1981. Accessed April 27, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/28/arts/miles-davis-i-just-pick-up-my-horn-and-play.html.

Ouellette, Dan. "The True Story of Erroll Garner, the First Artist to Sue a Major Label and Win." Variety. December 02, 2019. Accessed April 27, 2021. https://variety.com/2019/music/news/the-true-story-of-erroll-garner-the-first-artist-to-sue-a-major-label-and-win-1203413083/.

[pittarchives]

“WILL THERE BE ANOTHER YEAR FOR US?”: Martha and Erroll’s First Anniversary

This post was written by Deanna Witkowski, pianist-composer, graduate student in Jazz Studies at the University of Pittsburgh, and author of Mary Lou Williams: Music for the Soul (Liturgical Press, August 2021).

Image from folder “Correspondence between Erroll Garner and Martha Glaser,” Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 3, Folder 2, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Martha Glaser wrote this letter to Erroll Garner on May 14th, 1951, one day shy of their first anniversary of working together as manager and artist. By this point, Glaser had been on the West Coast for ten weeks on behalf of Garner, and likely wrote to him while he was on the road with his trio. Her question, “Will there be another year for us?,” may mark a renewal point in Garner’s contract where he had to decide whether or not to continue having Glaser represent him. Without knowing the history of their initial agreement, it is just as possible that Glaser is asking her question in a half-teasing tone reminiscent of a romantic couple. Throughout the letter, Glaser takes stock of the pair’s accomplishments, states her satisfaction in their work thus far, and details the minutiae of daily work she undertakes on Garner’s behalf.

In their first year together, Garner and Glaser had established goals for the pianist’s career, goals that helped to define some of the work that Glaser undertook on his behalf. She calls Garner “the number one piano talent in the jazz field” and details how she has been working tirelessly to procure bookings, to find artists to record Garner’s compositions, and to manage some of Garner’s touring logistics. She expresses the hope that he will “soon occupy a position commensurate with [his] talent.” Indeed, just five years later, Columbia Records would release Garner’s breakout live performance recording, Concert by the Sea, which would sell over one million copies in its first three years of release. Glaser was instrumental in bringing the tapes of the live recording to Columbia executives and convincing them to release the album. While Garner had been steadily moving away from club appearances to larger concert stages, Columbia had not had the foresight to record any of his live appearances. In his liner notes to the album, Columbia producer George Avakian explains, “The reason for the delay [in a live concert release] is simple. No one ever thought of recording a Garner concert before” (George Avakian, liner notes to Concert by the Sea). We can divide the types of labor outlined by Glaser in this letter into several categories: booking performance dates; advising Garner in regard to his composing, tour routing and finances; and inviting other performers to record Garner’s compositions.

Glaser tells Garner that she is adjusting her managerial style to accommodate him, conducting her work “with a little less ‘mothering.’” Yet she also has to take on the necessary role of prodding Garner: she is waiting for him to send a list of his original compositions, presumably so that she can share them with other artists. Towards the close of the letter she asks Garner, in all caps, “ARE YOU COMPOSING?” She also thanks him for sending a $600 check to fulfill their business agreement (leaving the details vague). In a separate letter dated two months later on June 17, Garner authorizes further payment to Glaser of $900 in back salary, as well as reimbursement for “all of her travel, housing, and publicity expenses since leaving New York City for the West Coast” on March 28. Later on in their relationship, Garner would have more direct authorization of Garner’s financial accounts, but in 1951, she notated each detail of financial business to Garner.

Image from folder “ Correspondence between Erroll Garner and Martha Glaser,” Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 3, Folder 2, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Glaser also takes on the role of financial adviser when mishaps arise on the road. Glaser assures Garner that a cleaning company that ruined his clothes must be insured, asks him to send a receipt, and advises him to not “be a jerk” about the affair. She also suggests that Garner have his side musicians take a train from Portland to avoid overweight charges (probably related to flight charges for a drum kit and an acoustic bass enclosed in a heavy travel case).

It seems surprising that if Glaser was indeed functioning as Garner’s tour manager as well as his business manager that certain details were not under her purview, such as the choice of travel from Portland. Perhaps—as this was still only a year into their professional relationship—Garner had given her control over some aspects of his professional work, but withheld others.  Glaser also asks if Garner is fulfilling his scheduled in person radio and television visits, something that would again be taken care of by a tour manager. Imagining Glaser overseeing all of these details while not traveling with her client gives a sense of the many obligations that both she and Garner had to fulfill on a daily basis.

In many ways, Glaser’s role as artist manager is similar to that of a bandleader: articulating a vision; negotiating different personalities in the service of that vision; and juggling many non-musical details that make stepping onto the stage possible. From this letter, it is apparent that Glaser is working relentlessly for Garner. Going deeper into the archives, it is my hope that we will learn more from Garner regarding his feelings toward Glaser and will understand more fully the uniqueness of this particular decades-long relationship between manager and artist.

Work Cited

George Avakian, liner notes to Erroll Garner, Concert by the Sea (Columbia Records, 1956). CD and LP. Accessed February 9, 2021. https://www.cdandlp.com/en/erroll-garner/concert-by-the-sea/lp/r117444600. Permalink: https://perma.cc/32JV-NXMT 

[pittarchives]

His Old Tribulations, Our Current Struggle: Remembering Garner in the Current Call to Reform Cannabis Laws

This post was written by Warner Sabio Sr., Graduate Student, Jazz Studies, University of Pittsburgh.

Recently, on April 7th, Virginia’s legislature passed a bill legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana, making it the 16th state to do so. Under Virginia’s law, adults can possess an ounce or less of marijuana beginning July 1. Several weeks before, New York passed the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act, legalizing the recreational use of marijuana in the state. New York’s legislation also expunges the records of people convicted on marijuana-related charges that are no longer criminalized. These two drug-policy reforms concerning marijuana are a few of the many looking to respond to the disproportionate and often tragic impact previous legislation has had on communities of color.

For Erroll Garner, the drug policies regarding marijuana and the enforcement of those laws affected him personally and professionally. On January 26, 1946, Garner was arrested in Los Angeles and charged with violating section 11500 of the California Health and Safety Code—a felony at the time. The State accused Garner of possessing “flowering tops and leaves of Indian Hemp (Cannabis Sativa)” and set bail at $500. According to dollartimes.com, adjusted for inflation, $500 in 1946 is equal to $7,156 in 2021. An excessive amount, it seems, for the non-violent crime he was accused of committing. Nevertheless, on April 10, 1946, Garner pled guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 90 days in the county jail. This incident would mark Garner as a felon and a “dope addict,” in the problematic wording of the language that circulated in press accounts. The distinction would continue to cast its shadow and haunt the pianist for at least another decade, if not the rest of his life.  

(Above) Page 1, (Below) Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, and Page 11 from folder “Erroll Garner Personal,” Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, AIS.2015.09, Box 3, Folder 18,  Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System. 

Six years later, after a performance at Mack’s Tavern in Atlantic City on September 12, 1952, the pianist was again arrested and brought up on charges surrounding a marijuana-related drug bust. According to The Baltimore Afro-American, Garner was held “for failure to register as a convicted addict under the state’s narcotics registration law and not for being an actual user of narcotics.”[1] The conviction referred to by New Jersey law-enforcement authorities was based on Garner’s 1946 Los Angeles arrest, which he reportedly informed authorities of at the time. Interestingly, Garner, convicted of possessing marijuana in the initial Los Angeles case, was now branded a “dope addict” in press coverage revolving around the Atlantic City incident.

(Above) Image of the article from The Baltimore Afro-American, Sept. 13, 1952.

The headline on the front page of September 13, 1952, Pittsburgh Courier read: “ARREST ERROLL GARNER FOR DOPE.” The subhead for the article noted that Garner was “Part of Big-Time Roundup.” The lede stated:

ATLANTIC CITY – Erroll Garner, Pittsburgh’s significant gift to jazz and dexterous piano-playing, was nabbed here in a post-Labor Day roundup of alleged dope addicts and suspects.”[2]

(Above) The Pittsburgh Courier, Sept. 13, 1952.

The Courier also reported that forty-one other suspects were also arrested. One of those arrested included Garner’s roommate and valet, Frank (Tons) Randolph, who was accused of “being a dope peddler.” The Afro-American reported Randolph “was placed under $25,000 bail after two witnesses testified in Municipal Court on Monday that they bought marihuana in $10 and $20 lots from him.” According to dollartimes.com, adjusted for inflation, $25,000 in 1952 is equal to $245,730 in 2021. From the reports, it does not appear that authorities found any weed on Garner or Randolph. Nevertheless, it seems the testimony was enough to warrant the arrests.

It is also interesting to note that the Courier report hinted at a possible ulterior motive for the arrest.  Perhaps stemming from the practice of racial profiling of Black men driving nice cars, the paper reported, “police are alleged to have stated that Garner has been driving around Atlantic City in a 1952 Cadillac and a woman, described by some as his wife has been driving a Chrysler.”

In a follow-up story on September 20, The Afro-American interviewed Garner about the arrest. The headline read: “GARNER SHRUGS OFF DOPE COUNT ARREST: ‘Just One Of Those Things,’ Pianist Says of Shore Incident.”[3] Garner discusses the Los Angeles case in the piece, affirming his conviction (saying it took place in 1943) and stating he was “sentenced to 45 days to an honor farm.” Garner elaborated:

“It was all a ‘frame.’ I was turned in by a fellow whose job I took in a night club in which I was playing. The guy was salty and squealed. But I am not complaining because it did happen. At the time, I was a youngster and went around with a bunch of wild guys.”

(Above) Headline from The Baltimore Afro-American, Sept. 20, 1952.

As for the Atlantic City incident, Garner was quoted as saying he “was through with that kind of stuff now” and had “too much to lose.” However, he was critical of the publicity, stating, “the only thing is that I was the least involved and got most of the publicity. This is one time that I wished I was digging ditches.”

Almost a month after the Atlantic City arrest, on October 11, 1952, The Afro-American reported that Garner was fined $50 for failure to register as a dope addict.[4] The case was thereafter dismissed, and Garner “filed the necessary registration forms in compliance with the local ordinance. According to the paper, the incident had left Garner feeling “disturbed” and “embarrassed.” Garner was forced to cancel several weeks of bookings “in order to permit him to rest” because he was “suffering from nervous exhaustion.” As for Randolph and the others arrested that night, my limited search came up empty as to how they fared.

On Jan.17, 1953, the Courier reported that a case involving Garner’s arrest in St. Louis on New Year’s Eve was tossed. Garner was charged with possession of narcotics.[5] The paper said, “Garner’s case was thrown out of court because the officers did not have a warrant when the arrest was made.” Garner’s attorney, however, clarified that the basis of the arrest was “a crank telephoned St. Louis police that the pianist had carried narcotics from New York to St. Louis in his automobile. It was revealed that Garner had arrived in this city by plane.”

For Pittsburgh-born Garner, professional success could not shield him from the insatiable appetite to punish that has driven much of the nation’s drug policies for decades. Major players in the formation of these early policies are uniquely linked to Garner geographically. Harry J. Anslinger, who served as the first commissioner of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Federal Bureau of Narcotics, was an Altoona, PA native. Pittsburgh’s-own Andrew Mellon, the uncle of Anslinger’s wife, appointed him to the post. Mellon, at the time of Anslinger’s appointment, was the Treasury Secretary.

According to The Economist:

“The drafters of the Harrison Act of 1914, the first federal ban on non-medical narcotics, played on fears of ‘drug-crazed, sex-mad negroes.’ And the 1930s campaign against marijuana was coloured by the fact that Harry Anslinger, the first drug tsar, was appointed by Andrew Mellon, his wife’s uncle. Mellon, the Treasury Secretary, was banker to DuPont, and sales of hemp threatened that firm’s efforts to build a market for synthetic fibers. Spreading scare stories about cannabis was a way to give hemp a bad name. Moral outrage is always more effective if backed by a few vested interests.”[6]

According to law professor Michael Vitello, “while the Harrison Act did not include a prohibition against marijuana, its framework would become the model for Congress’s first efforts to criminalize marijuana.”[7]

(Above) Harry J. Anslinger served as the first commissioner of Treasury Department’s Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Image from the Associated Press. 

Driven by stereotypes, some framers of early U.S. drug policies linked the usage of both marijuana and cocaine to marginalized communities and racialized “fringe groups like pimps, prostitutes, and day laborers” and “uppity Southern blacks and race-mixing drug parties.”[8]  Concerning Anslinger’s beliefs, Vitello states:

“Finding racist quotations attributed to Anslinger is easy and a reminder of how ingrained racist language was in this country. Here are a few choice quotations: “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men”; “Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice”; and “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”[9]

These antiquated and racist beliefs would vibrantly pulsate through the heart of drug laws for generations. Unfortunately, Garner’s experience was not isolated or rare. For Garner, the arrests and court cases must have been taxing. His experience speaks for many people caught up in the web of draconian drug laws pervading the justice system. The growing frustration has led to calls for change.

As previously mentioned, recent efforts have yielded changes to drug policy concerning marijuana across the United States. To date, sixteen states, two territories, and the District of Columbia have legalized small amounts of marijuana for adult recreational use. Twenty-seven states have decriminalized weed, meaning, “small, personal-consumption amounts are a civil or local infraction, not a state crime (or are a lowest misdemeanor with no possibility of jail time).”[10] However, more needs to be done to undo the gross injustice that lopsided enforcement has produced. It is a flawed system of policies and laws that impacted Garner then and thousands today. We must resolve the discordant tones struck by the framers of foundational drug war policies, the effects of which still resonate and impact civil society today.

Works Cited

Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, AIS.2015.09, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

“Arrest Erroll Garner For Dope: Pianist Part of Big-Time Roundup.” Pittsburgh Courier (Pittsburgh, Pa.), September 13, 1952: 1.

Bender, Steven W. “Joint Reform? The Interplay of State, Federal, and Hemispheric Regulation of Recreational Marijuana and Failed War on Drugs.” Albany Law Environmental Outlook 6, no. 2 (2013): 359–.

“Errol Garner Case Thrown Out of Court.” Pittsburgh Courier (Pittsburgh, Pa.), January 17, 1953: 1.

“Errol Garner Pays $50 Fine: Failed To Register As Dope Addict.” Baltimore Afro-American (Baltimore, Md), October 11, 1952: 9

“Garner Shrugs Off Dope Count Arrest: ‘Just One Of Those Things,’ Pianist Says Of Shore Incident.” Baltimore Afro-American (Baltimore, Md), September 20, 1952: 3

Gootenberg, Paul. Andean Cocaine: The Making of a Global Drug. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2008.

“‘How did we get here?’ A Survey of Illegal Drugs.” Economist, July 28, 2001, p. 4. The Economist Historical Archive, 1843-2015 (accessed April 13, 2021). https://link-gale-com.pitt.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/GP4100323851/ECON?u=upitt_main&sid=ECON&xid=779492d4.

“Pianist Under Bail For Not Registering As Addict; Shore’s Raids Called Biggest.” Baltimore Afro-American (Baltimore, Md), September 13, 1952: 1

National Conference of State Legislatures website, https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/marijuana-overview.aspx

Vitiello, Michael.  “Marijuana Legalization, Racial Disparity, and the Hope for Reform.” Lewis & Clark Law Review 23, no. 3 (2019): 789-822.

[1] “Pianist Under Bail For Not Registering As Addict; Shore’s Raids Called Biggest,” Baltimore Afro-American (Baltimore, Md), September 13, 1952.

[2] “Arrest Erroll Garner For Dope: Pianist Part of Big-Time Roundup,” Pittsburgh Courier (Pittsburgh, Pa.), September 13, 1952.

[3] “Garner Shrugs Off Dope Count Arrest: ‘Just One Of Those Things,’ Pianist Says Of Shore Incident,” Baltimore Afro-American (Baltimore, Md), September 20, 1952.

[4] “Errol Garner Pays $50 Fine: Failed To Register As Dope Addict.” Baltimore Afro-American (Baltimore, Md), October 11, 1952.

[5] “Errol Garner Case Thrown Out of Court.” Pittsburgh Courier (Pittsburgh, Pa.), January 17, 1953: 1.

[6] “‘How did we get here?’ A Survey of Illegal Drugs,” Economist, July 28, 2001.

[7] Michael Vitiello,  “Marijuana Legalization, Racial Disparity, and the Hope for Reform,” Lewis & Clark Law Review 23, no. 3 (2019), 794.

[8] Paul Gootenberg, Andean Cocaine: The Making of a Global Drug, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2008, 193.

[9] Vitiello,  “Marijuana Legalization,” 799.

[10] National Conference of State Legislatures website, https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/marijuana-overview.aspx

[pittarchives]

The “Swinging City Revolution”: Garner in the Land of the Rolling Stones

This post was written by Deanna Witkowski, pianist-composer, graduate student in Jazz Studies at the University of Pittsburgh, and author of Mary Lou Williams: Music for the Soul (Liturgical Press, August 2021).

In May and June of 1966, Erroll Garner played in London for several weeks with his longtime triomates, bassist Eddie Calhoun and drummer Kelly Martin. Leslie (Les) Perrin and Associates, publicity firm for the Rolling Stones and other big name pop acts, served as Garner’s publicist for his English tour dates. In many photos from 1966-1970, Perrin is seen with the Stones, Frank Sinatra, and Joni Mitchell. Mitchell’s website includes a feature page on Perrin with this article from a tabloid-looking paper entitled “Weekend— Feb. 25-Mar. 3, 1970.”

On June 12, after Garner had already been in England for over two weeks, Glaser typed a letter to Perrin, chastising him for not contacting her with any press coverage of Garner’s tour dates thus far—or, for that matter, with any news at all. Dispensing with formal niceties, Glaser begins her correspondence using all capital letters: “ABSOLUTELY NOTHING RECEIVED FROM YOU (EXCEPT BRIEF CABLE THIS WEEK) since tour began. Our disappointment beyond expression. We needed reviews for Variety ad. Blew the space reservation since you didn’t send reviews.”

Image from folder “Correspondence from Leslie Perrin (Associated LTD. UK Bookers),”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 1, Folder 119,  Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

As in my earlier post on his 1959 date at Kleinhans Music Hall in Buffalo, Glaser’s letter shows the interdependence of multiple behind-the-scenes players in shaping Garner’s career. Glaser cannot move forward with future publicity needs until Perrin generates publicity for the current tour and communicates the results of that publicity with her.

Glaser pulls no punches in her critique of Perrin—and is compelled to fight these battles so that Garner can focus on his own labor: creating music. Two-thirds of the way through her letter, she writes, “I can only surmise that with the ‘swinging city revolution’ of London, as we keep reading, your office has become too busy to write us . . . Leslie—I don’t know how or why this tour is different—but your silence and the lack of any written word from [Jack] Higgins or Harold [Davison] leads me to conclude that your operations now have bigger-money projects, and that is that.”

The two other names that Glaser mentions, Jack Higgins and Harold Davison, are additional players in Garner’s British tour production and publicity. Both names appear on the final page of this program from June 11, 1966:

(Above) “Erroll Garner Souvenir Brochure London, November 6, 1966.” PicClick UK. Accessed April 5, 2021. https://picclick.co.uk/1966-Erroll-Garner-Souvenir-Brochure-London-11-06-1966-373506567730.html.

Davison is listed as being the concert presenter, with Higgins handling “promotion direction” and Dougie Tobutt handing “tour direction.”

Enclosed with her letter Glaser includes a marked-up copy of a document titled “Backgrounder to Erroll Garner,” a one-sheet apparently created by Perrin for local press reporters. Claiming to provide “a fact-a-phrase for journalists-in-a-hurry,” the document is a list of twelve bullet-point facts about Garner.

Image from folder “Correspondence from Leslie Perrin (Associated LTD. UK Bookers),”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 1, Folder 1119,  Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

In response to two of the points, Glaser pens handwritten corrections:

Where the one-sheet reads: “ERROLL was a classmate of Dodo Marmarosa, brilliant contemporary of Charlie Parker at the advent of the bop era.”

Glaser responds:

“Garner had nothing to do with the “bop” scene—“ and “Why do you keep repeating Parker in the Garner bio?’” The truth is that Garner was indeed a childhood friend of bop pianist Marmarosa, who recorded with Parker on numerous occasions. Garner recorded with Parker as well, but was not a bop pianist, while Marmarosa was closely identified with that musical style.

 And where the sheet reads: 

“GARNER was also an early associate of Ellington’s colleague Billy Strayhorn.”

Glaser simply writes: “False info.”

In her letter, she goes into further detail on each point, writing, “I don’t know where this junk about being a contemporary etc of Parker in bog (sic) reveolution (sic) days keeps cropping up from . . .out of context, it is totally misleading.” And to the second point: “Garner and Strayhorn friends—never associates or associated, in any music situation.”

Perrin did respond to Glaser. Although his reply is undated, it likely followed soon after, as he references recent British concert dates and signs off promising “more tomorrow.” Most importantly, he sends ten quotes on Garner’s appearances from press including Melody Maker, the Evening News, and New Musical Express. He only includes this material, however, after making a snide comment: “My dear Martha, It is a warm afternoon, the shadows are creeping across the desk, and I am asking myself, “Do you think that Martha came to the Albert Hall after all? Because the concert was at the Royal Festival Hall?”

Image from folder “Correspondence from Leslie Perrin (Associated LTD. UK Bookers),”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 1, Folder 119,  Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Snide comment or not, Perrin produced the results that Glaser was asking for. This snapshot of two documents shows how sharp and direct she had to be in order to acquire the material she needed to continue her own work in moving Garner’s career forward.

————————

For additional listening:

Check out some of the the Garner albums included on the final page of the concert ad shown in the concert program shown above:

CBS ad:                                                                                                                Concert by the Sea 1955                                                https://www.errollgarner.com/listen-new (scroll down)

The Most Happy Piano 1956 

(Above) Audio for “Full Moon and Empty Arms” off The Most Happy Piano by Erroll Garner, originally released in 1957 by Columbia Records. 

EMI ad: A Night at the Movies 1965— original liner notes and audio samples at https://www.errollgarner.com/anightatthemovies-ors

Listen to the all-of-five-seconds “Newsreel Tag (Paramount on Parade)”

(Above) Audio for “Newsreel Tag (Paramount on Parade)” off A Night at the Movies by Erroll Garner, re-relseased by Octave Records in 2019. 

Works Cited:

Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, AIS.2015.09,  Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Erroll Garner - Topic. “Full Moon and Empty Arms.” YouTube Video, 4:19. July 30, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxlVnUXJApY.

Erroll Garner - Topic.  “Newsreel Tag (Paramount on Parade).” YouTube Video, 0:08. October 17, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0hqVABcPSk

prettyjohn888. “1966 Erroll Garner Souvenir Brochure London 11/06/1966 • £4.00.” PicClick UK. Accessed April 5, 2021. https://picclick.co.uk/1966-Erroll-Garner-Souvenir-Brochure-London-11-06-1966-373506567730.html.

[pittarchives]

Martha Glaser fights for Garner’s ASCAP holdings

This post was written by Adam Lee, graduate student, Jazz Studies, University of Pittsburgh.

Martha Glaser continued to manage Erroll Garner’s business affairs long after the pianist’s death in 1977. Contained in the Erroll Garner Archive are records of correspondence between Garner and the American Society of Composers, Authors, & Publishers (ASCAP), many of which cover decades of rights management for Garner’s estate. Many of these records are handwritten notes referencing which compositions are held by which rights management companies, and what the exact reference numbers are. Others are official typed documents with similar information addressed to or from Martha Glaser in reference to the legal copyright standing of various Erroll Garner compositions. These all show a carefully hands-on approach that Glaser took to managing the rights and royalties of these pieces for Garner, she knew exactly which pieces were held by ASCAP down to their catalog number and kept records of this information. Other documents exist in the archive that support Glaser’s protection of these rights pertaining to companies other than ASCAP, although in the interest of focus I have only chosen to use ASCAP documents for today’s post.

Glaser not only managed Garner’s works, but on at least one occasion, she protected another artist, Red Callender, when his composition “Pastel” was misattributed to Garner in an ASCAP copyright statement. Glaser reached out to ASCAP and had them attribute the piece correctly, and corresponded with Callender on January 18, 1978 about the mistake, inquiring if he was registered with ASCAP or not. This same document reveals that, at least as of 1978, no Garner pieces were held by rival rights company Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI).

Image from folder “Correspondence from Red Rodney,”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 1, Folder 126,  Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Glaser not only protected Garner’s holdings during his life, but also posthumously managed and protected his copyright ownership. Take for example, this notice to ASCAP assigning rights administration to “WB MUSIC CORP.” from January 1, 1983 of what is most certainly Garner’s most famous composition “Misty”:

Image from folder “Correspondence from ASCAP,”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 1, Folder 5,  Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Glaser also oversaw the termination of that above agreement with WB Music Corp a full fifteen years later, with correspondence detailing the cessation of the contract going to both WB Music and ASCAP effective March 31, 1996.

Image from folder “Correspondence from ASCAP,”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 1, Folder 5,  Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

It is notable that Glaser uses her own archive of these documents in order to be able to support her rights management claims. She is able to refer to the exact dates and recipients of previous letters, and calls them up in order to clear up discrepancies in her correspondence with the ASCAP administration, as she does in a July 21st, 1996 letter:

This letter was sent to numerous persons at ASCAP at the time, including Carmella Reilly, Paula Perry, Maria Sotomayer. That you only have learned of the re-assignment now is puzzling. In any event, we trust that your computers show the correct accreditation.

Image from folder “Correspondence from ASCAP,”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 1, Folder 5,  Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

There was clearly some delay in handling of the paperwork properly on ASCAP’s part, and Glaser didn’t hesitate to point out that she was aware of the problem and not going to let it slide any further.

Eleven years later, in 2007, the archive contains a detailed breakdown of broadcast performances of “Misty” and the royalty credits earned per broadcast, as collected by ASCAP. It also includes an image of a check to the Garner trust in the sum of $3044.09 for the 2006 quarter spanning from October to December. These documents also contain a letter with a tantalizing reference to the beginnings of internet streaming as a method of content delivery:

On May 8, 2007, John LoFrumento posted a letter on ASCAP’s website to all our members. It addressed the recent court decision concerning the existence of a performing right in a download…ASCAP’s position, as always, was and is to ensure that you receive all the compensation to which you are legally entitled.

Image from folder “Correspondence from ASCAP,”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 1, Folder 5,  Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

The above breakdown of royalty rights for “Misty” indicates that Garner was entitled to .747 credits worth of royalties from “Internet – Streaming” as the source. I am unclear exactly how the number of credits accrued from this source was calculated, but I am curious as to how this stacks up against the streaming giants of 2021 in terms of royalties received? The letters indicate this would have been about $5.42 in 2007. The website visualcapitalist.com suggests that it would take around 1400 streams to make that amount (not adjusted for inflation) in 2021.

Glaser was also careful to make sure that the royalties from ASCAP were paid to the correct people and in the correct accounts. A letter on behalf of Glaser is sent to ASCAP by CPA Steven Smallowitz on September 21, 2007 which asks ASCAP to ensure that payments are going to the correct accounts, split between the publisher and the composer’s estate properly.

Image from folder “Martha Glaser, Legal; banking,”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 2, Folder 35,  Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

These documents all serve to demonstrate a careful attention to the financial details of Erroll Garner’s copyrights and royalties. This is in sharp contrast to the long-held narrative within jazz history canon of companies and managers taking advantage of artists for their own profit. Glaser both proves through her action, and the documentation supporting that action, that she was acting in Garner’s best financial interests, even three decades after his passing.

[pittarchives]

In a night of stars, Garner sparkles in his support of the NAACP

This post was written by Warner Sabio Sr., Graduate Student, Jazz Studies, University of Pittsburgh.

On Monday, March 23, 1953, Erroll Garner took part in a star-studded affair held at New York City’s Madison Square Garden. The event was the NAACP’s Second Annual “Big Nite,” which featured a host of artists from cinema, TV, radio, and theater. Joining Garner and his trio were Lena Horne, Cab Calloway, W.C. Handy, Ossie Davis, Eartha Kitt, the Nicholas Brothers, Danny Thomas, Ed Sullivan, Imogene Coca, and Pearl Primus, along with other entertainers that came together to raise money for the organization.[1] According to the Amsterdam News, the arena was filled with 10,000 supporters and well-wishers surrounded by large banners announcing, “FOR A FREE AMERICA,” “JIM CROW MUST GO … NOW.”

On July 13, 1953, Rufus W. Smith, chairman of the Madison Square Garden Benefit, wrote to Garner, in care of Martha Glaser, thanking him for his performance and donation. Smith stated, “Your participation in our Second Annual Madison Square Garden Benefit was indeed an enjoyable occasion to the thousands present. Your performance was a highlight to the occasion.”

Image from folder “Erroll Garner Personal,” Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 3, Folder 16, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Enclosed was a receipt dated June 22, 1953, for Garner’s contribution, in the form of a refund, of $107.25 to the organization. The value of that contribution today, adjusted for inflation, would be approximately $1,046.29.[2]

Image from  folder “Erroll Garner Personal,” Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 3, Folder 16, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

The receipt and letter from Smith found in the Garner archive is one item that points to the musician’s engagement with the Civil Rights Movement of the era.

Notably, in 1953, the NAACP was firmly committed to ending segregation in the U.S. by adopting a litigation strategy targeting Jim Cow legislation. Led by then-attorney Thurgood Marshall, who worked with the organization in tandem with NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the civil-rights group was litigating Brown v. Board of Education at the U.S. Supreme Court. Garner’s Madison Square Garden appearance, and his subsequent donation,  helped provide much-needed funds for the group to continue legal battles and other civil-rights efforts. Within a short period, the NAACP would win a decisive decision that would dramatically shift the country. More than a year after the benefit show, on May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that racial segregation of children in public schools was unconstitutional. This ruling would serve as a cornerstone in the fight to end segregation.

Garner was no stranger to this fight. He quietly made efforts to take on segregation and push for equality and racial harmony in his personal and professional life, as detailed by his manager Martha Glaser. Shortly after he died in 1977, Glaser responded to a February 10th, 1977 obituary in Rolling Stone magazine. Nat Hentoff, the famed jazz critic, penned the piece, which Glaser appreciated yet felt was incomplete and lacking in depth.

Image from folder “Martha Glaser Outgoing Correspondence,”  Erroll Garner Archive, 1942-2010, Box 68, Folder 26, Archives & Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System.

Writing to the editors, Glaser stated, “Garner also had a clause in his contracts BEFORE the 1954 Supreme Court decision, forbidding segregation of any kind in the audience, backstage, facilities, etc., at any appearance. He always wanted a ‘salt and pepper’ audience. There is much to be told about how this quiet man fought many battles which cleared the way for other performers. He did it without fanfare or awards.” I hope that Garner, through the efforts of scholars engaging with the archive, gets his due.

[1] “All Roads Lead to Madison Square Monday: Stars Will Shine at NAACP 'Great Night'” New York Amsterdam News (1943-1961), City edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]21 Mar 1953: 26; Alvin Chick Webb, “There Were Stars Galore at NAACP Benefit: Canada Would've Loved NAACP's 'Great Night,'” New York Amsterdam News (1943-1961), City edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]28 Mar 1953: 28.

[2] Value determined on March 17, 2021 using https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation calculator.

Works Cited

“All Roads Lead to Madison Square Monday: Stars Will Shine at NAACP’s ‘Great Night,’” New York Amsterdam News, 21 March 1953, pp. 26.

Alvin Chick Webb, “There Were Stars Galore at NAACP Benefit: Canada Would’ve Loved NAACP’s ‘Great Night,’” New York Amsterdam News, 28 March 1953, pp. 28.