The Critics / Analysing jazz

[Jazzinitup]

Hey guys ,

I have been thinking about this for a long time now .
How do these jazz critics analyse jazz , have they all been studying for it ? Is it true that one learns to be able to distinguish finer differences in playing only after one has listened to it for a longer while ? Can you really "critise" the music if you don't play in a jazz band ?

Feel free to answer one of the above (just some question that have been on my mind )

Jazzinitup
"What we play is life."

-- Louis Armstrong

[Coypu]

Longer listening is required to discover finer differences, you are not going to be able to absorb and analyse jazz after only a few listenes, it takes time.

I have no idea if they have all studied for it but I'm pretty sure that most proffesional critics have atleast some form of music knowledge since they so often seem to know about the theory behind the music that the review.

[jazzcritic]

I frequently compare critiquing jazz to wine tasting (and this isn't the guy who does the wine with jazz column for AAJ!). The more artists, compositions and interpretations you sample, the better your ears tend to develop some grasp of the music. Most fellow critics I know don't rely exclusively on promos but spend substantial amounts of money each year purchasing records + CDs.

What's more important to realize is that any critic is speaking for himself or herself and not the entire jazz audience.

[Herb]

music critics come from all walks of life. many (as the stereotype goes) are failed musicians. stanley crouch (who used to be a drummer) is an example people cite for the latter. the advantage of coming from this angle is you have a better sense of the inner workings of the music (having worked in it personally).

then there are rabid fans, people who have thousands of records and can't get enough. these people have a certain degree of literacy from all this exposure that allows them to draw connections between a particular piece of music and its antecedents/contemporaries. in some sense they are experienced *listeners* which distinguishes them in a different way.

some people have a scholarly interest, which may manifest itself in a particular focus on an artist or genre. most critics have their preferred forms of music, and they may know quite a bit about the players and music from that particular tradition.

the most important thing, all said and done, is that critics have to reconcile the need to be objective about the qualities of the music with their own gut feeling, instinct, and opinion. in some sense those are contradictory, but in another they are complimentary. the best critics do this very well.

[clifton]

I have no idea what standards and criteria are used by jazz critics. I only know what I'd like the standards to be. First, keep in mind that criticism is basically one person's opinion. But it should be an informed opinion. By which I mean: While a critic doesn't necessarily have to be a musician,a critic ought to know something about music. He or she ought to be able to tell a blues from a 32-bar standard, ought to be able to tell open or modal improvising from chord progressions. A critic should be able to clearly describe the music he or she is writing about. Does it swing? Do the rhythms derive from bop or funk or hiphop or something else entirely? Is the time stated (swing) or implied (free)? Do the horns use noise elements extensively? That is, do the saxes squeal or overblow? Do the trumpets use half-valve effects or smears extensively? I've read too many CD reviews that told me nothing substantial about the music. Even a writer as knowledgable as Gary Giddins has been inadequate in describing some musicians, most notably Charles Gayle and David S. Ware. I don't know how much preparation goes into a CD review, although I'm pretty sure that most critics listen to a CD several times before reviewing it.

[Pharaohrock]

.....the way I respond to this, is that musical subtleties- either hip things OR flaws, are going to go over critics' heads all the time. That's just inevitable when you don't have the intimate connection with the music that a musician would have.....

But that's okay- because the main function of a critic as I perceive it is to judge something within the context...e.g. you listen to enough bebop, and whether you understand how bebop is created or not, you're eventually going to be able to discern a good bebop record from a so-so one. It's when you get out of strict subgenres like bop/ hard-bop/ free where you're going to get problems though....where critics fuck up is when there's nothing to reference a record to for a similar sound and therefore, nothing to use as a relativistic crutch.

It should go without saying however......that one thing which cannot be hidden in music and which requires no musical knowledge to detect is the amount of sincerity put into the
expression. I think anyone who's listened to enough records can tell when someone is faking it or just going through the motions.

[clifton]

While critics may have different tastes, there is no excuse for ignorance in a critic. I remember a few years ago a critic (I forget who) described "So What" as a blues. Huh? (I will provide info on the tune's structure if requested). More recently, in a favorable review of Branford Marsalis' "Footsteps Of Our Fathers", a critic described the music as "freebop", that is, swinging time with no changes. But on most of the tracks, Branford"s playing on changes, albeit with considerable sophistication. For one example, Trane's "Pursuance" is a minor blues. Ornette's "Giggin'" is also a blues, albeit with an extra bar (or so) added. I don't think it's asking too much for a jazz critic to be able to hear these things. For example, the late Martin Williams, who was the greatest critic IMHO, was not a musician, but his ear was astute and his mind was open. You could trust what he wrote, although I didn't always agree with him, particularly in his view of Coltrane. Another critic I find reliable is Down Beat's John McDonough, because of his conservatism. He will pan anything with rock or funk beats, squealing saxes, or that doesn't swing. If he disses a Coltrane CD, you know it's late period Trane. He savaged Miles' fusion CD "It's About That Time". But McDonough gave Fred Anderson's "The Birdhouse" 4 stars, so you have to know that album must cook. With a McDonough review, you know what you're getting. Generally speaking, other critics I enjoy are Gary Giddins, Scott DeVeaux, Howard Mandel, and Ben Ratliff. I don't like Stanley Crotch or Jim Macnie, and I lost a lot of respect for Nat Hentoff after he savaged Diana Krall and Jane Monheit in Jazz Times. Any other thoughts on jazz critics, generally, or naming names? This could get interesting.

[Pharaohrock]

I like Greg Tate because he's one of the only cats out there bringing a young, urban perspective on the music to the table.

By and large most critics are aging white men speaking to other aging white men, and this leads to a homogeneity in the style of criticism in my view. The conclusions they come to about discs may be different, but I have trouble reading them because the writing style is so bland and tends to reduce appreciating the music to an intellectual exercise.

Tate doesn't hesitate to use the hip-hop idiom in his speech, and because of this stylism his reviews come across as more impassioned and youthful IMO. Now this would mean nothing if he wasn't also quite perceptive, but he's got that down too. Especially when it comes to appreciating the finer points of straight-ahead.....

We need more critics like Greg Tate. People in my generation, whether they are white, black or green, are going to understand where he's coming from better than where all the old white guys are coming from...(and no dis to them as I know they've made their contributions.)

[Pharaohrock]

All that said, I do appreciate the work of Francis Davis, whom I think does a better job of staying in touch with young folks than most critics do.

[clifton]

Greg Tate has been writing about music for over 20 years. He's also a musician who plays avant funk/rock guitar, sounds a bit like Vernon Reid or maybe Eddie Hazel. Tate's writing about Miles Davis' electric music is very perceptive. Speaking of black music critics, Ralph Ellison wrote some astute criticism but it was evident, at least to me, that he favored pre-bop music. Frankly, other than Tate, Albert Murray, Gerald Early, and Stanley Crotch, I don't know which other critics are African-American. BTW I also like Francis Davis. Like Howard Mandel he focuses on younger musicians.

[Pharaohrock]

I believe K Leander Williams is black.

Re: Gerald Early, if you saw the Ken Burns fiasco, is a sociologist first and a jazz critic second, by far. Like Amiri Baraka, jazz is just a pretext for him being able to drive home what a racist and unforgiving culture this is. I was not impressed with him at all. Thought he brought very little to the table in that but some very typically overstated "truths" about "society." Also, his criticism of white musicians was over the top. He went out of his way to try and discredit them.

Did anyone else have the same reaction?

[clifton]

K. Leander Williams is black and now that I think about it, so is the estimable Willard Jenkins. I knew of Early mainly by his reputation as a novelist. I agree he didn't exactly distinguish himself on the Burns show. Baraka is a doctrinaire Marxist and an a vicious anti-Semite, enough said. BTW I liked parts 1-9 of Ken Burns' "Jazz". I thought the fiasco was part 10, in which Marsalis, Crouch and Early preached doctrine instead of discussing music. I have other criticisms but overall I thought Burns did more good than harm. I was pissed off, however, at what I felt were inaccuracies by Gary Giddins about Ornette Coleman's music. Contrary to Giddins, much of Ornette's music does indeed have form and chord changes. Ornette never merely ignores form or changes, although he does conceive of harmony as something that reacts to melody rather than comfining or limiting melody. Giddins is usually pretty sharp, and he should have known better.

[groovinhigher]

For what it's worth, most of the greats had no use for critics. Food for thought anyway.

[clifton]

groovinhigher: what you say is true. However, for the novice jazz fan, a critic can have a lot of power. A favorable review in "Down Beat" can pump up a musician's reputation or a CD's sales figures. Similarly, a negative review can do a musician unwanted and unwarranted damage. When I was a jazz newbie, "Down Beat" was my Bible. (Okay, this was back in the day, I admit). This is why it's so important for a critic to be open-minded and imformed; their importance may be inflated but it is very real. Small wonder Miles and Horace Silver despised jazz critics, or Coltrane rarely discussed his music. However, I believe jazz critics are a necessary evil. I just hope they take their responsibilities seriously.

[groovinhigher]

"Well said Clifton... I couldn't agree more... Unfortunately, too many of them don't take their responsibility seriously, or don't know what they are talking about. Anyone with a keyboard or typewriter can call themselves a critic. Funny, I have never heard a critic whose playing I admired, lol..."

[Dr. J.]

>music critics come from all walks of life. many (as the stereotype goes) are failed musicians.

And some are not exactly failed, Herb: maybe they had talent, but not enough commitment to deal with the special demands and ambiguities of a musical life.

> the advantage of coming from this angle is you have a better sense of the inner workings of the music (having worked in it personally).

I'd agree with you there. At the same time, nobody expects ballet critics to look good in tutus.

>the most important thing, all said and done, is that critics have to reconcile the need to be objective about the qualities of the music with their own gut feeling, instinct, and opinion.

Another good point. You might enjoy reading the "Critical Conditions" article, one of my new Shrinktunes columns on this site. I've been trying to puzzle this stuff out for years.

Dr. J.

[clifton]

In all fairness I should point out that sometimes musicians have been critics as well. Musician/critics over the years have included George Simon, Eddie Condon, Benny Golson, Marian McPartland, Don DeMichael, Don Heckman, Kenny Dorham, Bill Milkowski, and Duck Baker, and of course Leonard Feather. This isn't always a good thing. Condon was witty but impossibly narrow-minded. McPartland wrote well but was stingy with the stars (she wrote for Down Beat and would write very lucidly about Wayne Shortyer records that are now considered classics, and then give only 3 stars. I love you, Marian, but only 3 stars for "Night Dreamer" and "Speak No Evil"?) K.D. described the music well and was able to maintain objectivity even if he didn't necessarily like the record under review. But let's face it; ultimately, criticism is one person's opinion. I just think it should be informed opinion.

[markvi]

the internet has made it easier to double check a reviewer. if i see a very good review and the personnel on the cd is interesting, i'll go to a cd cyber store and find the album, and see if i can listen to any of the tracks. most of the time i can find decent examples of the cd before i make a purchase. the reviewer, the personnel on the cd, the actual review and then checking it out aurally helps my decision to purchase or not to purchase. my most reliable reviewer---my son who keeps me well informed. he constantly checks out new groups and releases and it helps me having a 20 year old who stays current dragging me along into the 21st cetury.

[Pharaohrock]

Clif, "stars" appeals to a moron mentality anyway. You can't equate music or art to quantity.

[clifton]

Pharoahrock: I agree about stars. It's hard to quantify art. Yet, if administered intelligently, a stars rating can provide a concise, generalized guide to quality music. On the other hand, here are some sad-but-true original Down Beat ratings (I am not making these up): Charlie Parker "Now's The Time" b/w "Billie's Bounce" 0 stars, Ornette Coleman "This Is Our Music" 1 star, John Coltrane "Ballads" 2 stars.

[Pharaohrock]

I much prefer characterizations like a "very good" "good" or "ordinary" rating than stars. Stars gets you thinking everything can be rated on a numerical scale..... Is Andrew Hill's Black Fire a 93. 7 out of 100 or a 94.1? I'm divided on that one, although I'm sure the folks at Penguin Guide have an answer.

[clifton]

I'll give "Black Fire" an 88. It's got a good beat and you can dance to it. But seriously, folks...If "Jazz At Massey Hall', "Far East Suite", "Miles Smiles" and Love Supreme" are five star albums (and they are), it sets such a high standard that you can't give that rating to very many albums, so work by younger musicians may always be undervalued.

[Pharaohrock]

True, true....and I think the sad reality of now is that the critics haven't learned from past mistakes and there is a lot of current or recent music that is being seriously undervalued.

[markvi]

i totally agree that a lot of the current releases are undervalued both by the critics and the listeners. there are a number of great young musicians playing exciting and inventive music and yet most of the discussion in the media and even in this and similar boards are about the good old days and the greats of the past. jazz fans are surprisingly reluctant to accept new ideas that may alter the direction jazz is going. nils petter molvaer, dj logic, graham haynes, cuong vu, steven bernstein, bob belden, tim hagans, jane ira bloom, esbornn svennson, john zorn, and others have a lot to give to the jazz medium. it's time for them to get some critical recognition.. for a change, new york jazz listeners may want to get away from "the blue note" once in a while and visit "tonic" to see what's on the cutting edge.

[bombastic]

some of these critics think they know it all. look, it's just another human being. look at the reception john coltrane got from critics in the '50s! the guy turned out to be one of the most interesting musicians in the history of jazz! use your ears! we all know good music when we hear it.....does it move you emotionally? does it make your foot tap? does it swing? does the sound astonish you?! that's what great music will do! you don't need some academic stuffed shirt to tell you what moves you! sometimes i like to read a review just to see what another human being thinks. never take it too seriously if you dig it and they don't.:cool: