ber of visuals including a photo taken during the 1943 performance, Alston's watercolor had long graced oblivion. Views vary on why the Ellington/Alston collaboration was aborted and if it, indeed, ever existed. Describing an "intervention" by record producers that undermined the artists' cooperative intent ("they interrupted an important relation--the artists were trying to visualize the rhythms"), Corrine Jennings cites photographer Al Hicks' experience as an example. In the 1950s or early '60s, Al Hicks photographed Art Blakey's group for the album, "Art Blakey Big Band," but the photo was not used. Hicks told her that people would "rush around" and make plans for cover art that sometimes was initially accepted by the recording companies but never used. Jennings also feels that the strong African imagery in the Alston painting was a factor in its rejection. She traced the close ties that could have led Ellington to commission or recommend the Alston painting as cover art: Duke's sister Ruth and Alston were friends. Ruth Ellington owns works by Alston. And Alston was married to the sister of Duke's close friend and personal physician, Arthur Logan. Veteran jazz critic Dan Morganstern surmises that the Alston painting may not have ever been intended as cover art. He points out that the "Black, Brown and Beige" suite was not subtitled "A Tone Parallel" as is stated in the painting and that recordings of the suite were not released by Columbia (as suggested by the hand lettering on the painting). "Ellington had sufficient clout (with the recording company)," he says. "They would have put the painting on the album if he had wanted." Now director of the Rutgers University Jazz Institute, Morganstern thinks that Alston's painting might be an "impressionistic interpretation of Duke, his music, and Columbia." Sylvia Harris, a graphic designer practicing today, offers a background explanation. "There were almost n...
