Jazz Magazines And CD Promotion

[clifton]

It seems that the American jazz press, by which I mean Jazz Times and Down Beat, have become promotional arms of the record business. Most of the articles discuss someone's latest CD, and both magazines cover the same musician around the same time. (I can't comment on Jazziz because I don't read it). But when I see corresponding articles on Regina Carter and Paganini's violin, Nicholas Payton and "Sonic Trance", or Roy Hargrove and "Hard Groove", with identical quotes in each magazine, as if drawn from the same press conference, I have to wonder. Music journalism ought to maintain some distance from the musicians that are covered. It's as if the corporate media consolidation that has so damaged independent journalism in America has even infected the relatively tiny jazz press. Am I alone in feeling this way, and does this phenomenon appear in the international jazz press? Please comment.

[GA Russell]

I'm going to take a guess that may be flat out wrong.

As I understand it, there is no scene the way there was in the 50s. As a result, the mags have less to talk about. Musicians have nothing to discuss except when they have a new album. When they have the new album, they tell everybody the same thing.

And I think that's what most people want to read about - a new CD.

[Tenorman]

I had a bit of a rant about this a couple of months ago, when Stacy Kent was the featured artist in two out of the big three UK Jazz Magazines.

OK 1 magazine does it, fine. We have all seen assorted unknowns plugging their latest book/film/CD on talk shows, but when you start tripping over it every time you pick up anything Jazz related, that's SPAM. The fact that these articles were illustrated with at least 1 full page shot is also annoying and irrelevant. I have no intention of trying to work out if she has got any older since her previous release and 4 page advert.

Come on publishers. Stop bowing to those with money to spend on publicity, unless of course they are paying you handsomely for this and keeping the magazine price down:laugh:

[snoutinator]

Originally posted by Tenorman
Come on publishers. Stop bowing to those with money to spend on publicity, unless of course they are paying you handsomely for this and keeping the magazine price down:laugh:

come on ignorant readers, wake up to the fact that jazz is one of the least profitable subjects to ever grace the publishing industry.

if you educated yourself about the financial aspects of this music, you'd realize that there has to be some cooperation between industry and magazines for any of it to work. there's no excuse for these publications pouncing on exactly the same subject like vultures after the kill, but you need to be more realistic about the costs of running a magazine in this economic climate. nobody's getting rich. that is an iron-clad fact.

[Andy D]

I guess jazz, like most other forms of 'art', has people, organizations etc that promote it. So here in the UK we have people like Jamie Callum, Soweto Kinch etc who are 'promoted' in many different ways.

I subscribe to 'Jazzwise' which I think is a very good publication, but sometimes I feel the same way, that some artists, from some companies are promoted very aggressively and I guess there is money for all concerned.

On the other hand jazz is not that 'economical' and sells relatively few units, and it needs to promote itself in any way it can. So people like Roy Hargrove and Soweto Kinch become commercial, they potentially appeal to the 'urban' youth, to the 'street' kids of Brixton and New York.

To 'sell' jazz you need to appeal to a wider audiance than you and me ;)

Regards

Andy D.

[Tenorman]

Snoutinator
I am WELL aware of magazine finances. The frequency of album issue matching 4 page spread for certain artists, raises in my suspicious mind (goes with the profession) the suggestion that magazines are being told to do a feature or lose advertising revenue, which to my way of thinking prejudices any independence the magazine may have. Let me make clear that I have no evidence or even a sniff of a suspicion of any evidence that this goes on.

The problem with all media that relies on advertising for all or part of its income comes when they wish to make a comment adverse to the interests of one of their big advertisers.

I think I might do some research into the frequency of album / article in the UK mags.

[Bev Stapleton]

I'm always amused by 'Jazz Review.' Now don't get me wrong, I think it's a great magazine and one of the least industry swayed of all.

It adopts a rather snooty tone at times and seems to go out of its way to have low production values. Again, I'm not quibbling. It's what's written that counts and it has great range.

Yet every now and then it seems to defy its own puritanism and front a 'glamour' cover - Diana Krall's been on twice (out of 50 odd issues) and Stacey was there a few issues back.

Which might just back Tenoman's conspiracy theory!

I have visions of Richard Cook surrounded by East End gangsters, matchsticks under his finger nails spitting down the phone, "OK, damn you, roll the Krall cover..."

[snoutinator]

Originally posted by Tenorman
Snoutinator
I am WELL aware of magazine finances. The frequency of album issue matching 4 page spread for certain artists, raises in my suspicious mind...

why is that a surprise? honestly. that's universal. who supports jazz magazines? the record labels, the industry people. if you do an interview with miroslav vitous, you better bet ECM is gonna drop the cash for a full page ad. sorry, that's the way it works. you can argue whether it's ethical or not, but in the end there's absolutely nothing wrong with you covering WHAT YOU WANT and letting the folks on the other end do what they will. conflicts of interest become tricky business, of course. but because of financial reasons, the major jazz magazines (that is, DOWNBEAT, JAZZIZ, JAZZ TIMES) are all going to play this game in order to survive. it's naive to expect otherwise.

of course, there are zines like THE WIRE, which goes out of its way to be utterly and completely obscure, and thus thoroughly skirts any commercialism whatsoever. i think european magazines in general are different. bev's onto something there. that may have something to do with the market there, and to be honest (creative) jazz is several times more appreciated in europe than it is in the states. american artists are always touring over there.

anyway, THE WIRE is a freak show all its own, maybe not the best comparison in this case.

and finally, it's interesting to see how the online magazines handle this sort of thing. i think internet jazz publications are the least commercial out there, with the exception of that nasty hunk of vomit known as jazz online. that's because they are running in the red and don't have a profit margin to look forward anytime with the next couple years.

[Tenorman]

From Jazz Review

Dave Weckl Live (and very plugged in) Stretch
Review -- "Oh Be quiet"

Archie Shepp I Know About Life (Hatology)
Review ends "Too bad that Bill's eloquence is undermined by the music itself, which is frankly bloody awful"

If magazines (not just Jazz Review) are capable, and do similar reviews when warranted on albums from the majors - fine. However, if poor reviews of majors are edited or removed, because of the threat to income, that is dishonest, and downright unfair on the small labels.

The advertisers put a lot of money in. So do the readers. They are entitled to an honest magazine for their £3 odd. Jazz Journal manages to survive (since 1948) without plugging.

[bubber]

What's the point of using lots of space on records with little or no value? Most Jazzmags receive hundreds, maybe thousands of records they never review. Some of those deserve wider attention, many of them don't.

My editor tells me that the records I don't want to write about should be sent back to him. I don't want to write about indifferent music, so I send a lot of records back. Some of them will be reviewed by other writers, some of them not.

Of course, if there's a new record by an established artist, like say Cassandra Wilson, whether I like it or not, I have to write about it because there's an established fan base out there and it's the magazine's duty to keep them updated.

That way, you can say that the majors get more exposure and can co-ordinate their advertising and promotion by interviews (if the mag in question agrees), while small independents do'nt even get their product of (sometimes) much greater value reviewed at all.

I'll say, though, that mags like Cadence and a couple of websites, like AAJ, do a good job, covering more than most, even if the quality of the reviewers vary.

[Clunky]

Originally posted by Bev Stapleton
and Stacey was there a few issues back.

I have visions of Richard Cook surrounded by East End gangsters, matchsticks under his finger nails spitting down the phone, "OK, damn you, roll the Krall cover..."

Check out what the Cook wrote about our Stace and it made her look like a control freak with an ego to match. It was pretty hard nosed really.

[nwabhu]

Originally posted by Tenorman
From Jazz Review
Archie Shepp I Know About Life (Hatology)
Review ends "Too bad that Bill's eloquence is undermined by the music itself, which is frankly bloody awful"
The album is indeed quite mediocre, but that is mainly due to Shepp, as the rhythm section (Kenny Werner, John Betsch and...?) do a nice job under the circumstances.

[Bev Stapleton]

Originally posted by Clunky
Check out what the Cook wrote about our Stace and it made her look like a control freak with an ego to match. It was pretty hard nosed really.

Ah, but the cover did not say, 'Stacey: The Horrible Truth.' You found that out after you bought it! [I suppose 'Richard Cook trades punches with Stacey Kent' might give you some idea what was inside.]

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of the article. Cook was in his best 'Grumpy Uncles' mode, a house style for Jazz Review. It struck me that he had an interview and then wrote his disapproval around it.

Stacey didn't sound like a control freak to me...just someone with a single-minded idea of how to approach her career. No different to a David Murray in that respect.

Cook's contextualising of her comments made her appear much more rigid than I suspect is the case. In every other interview I've read she's always come across as pretty easy-going and unpretentious.

Look at the Penguin review and you'll see Cook (or Morton) have long had a coolness to Stacey Kent. Which is fine. We all react differently. I don't suppose Cook's 'I'm too cool for Kent' article was any more distorting than the sort of sycophantic gush that often surrounds her interviews.

[clifton]

Of course we have to concede the point that a magazine depends on advertising revenue for its survival. But when a magazine article, ostensibly about a musician, raves about the latest CD, I view it with some suspicion. It's really not too far from payola, you know, write about a musician and plug the CD while you're at it. This may be necessary to generate advertising revenue but where does one draw the line?

[Clunky]

Originally posted by Bev Stapleton


I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of the article. Cook was in his best 'Grumpy Uncles' mode, a house style for Jazz Review.


Good points Bev as ever, the way I read it was that he was mocking her not in a nasty way but enough to show that she's not as saccaharine as press might otherwise suggest.

I like Jazz Reviews style , this article didn't diminish my respect for Kent it's just she's not my cup of tea.

[Bev Stapleton]

I like Jazz Review too - though I find their reviews overharsh at times. That 'Go on punk, impress me!' style. But any magazine that can publish a mammoth interview with Lee Konitz who has no major label product around currently - and put him on the cover - gets my admiration.

I didn't mind Cook's interview - it made a change from the usual gush. The style Kent and her band play in generally does little for me - but for some reason I love her recordings.

[bubber]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again - that Konitz interview was excellent - long, interesting interviews like that is one of the reasons I pay the (a little heavy) subscription prize.

[snoutinator]

Originally posted by nwabhu
The album is indeed quite mediocre, but that is mainly due to Shepp, as the rhythm section (Kenny Werner, John Betsch and...?) do a nice job under the circumstances.

santi debriano.

lest everyone walk away thinking the record is totally unworthy, let me render at least one enthusiastic opinion. shepp's got a good angle on this one, a nice complement of tone and tune. this record is most definitely one of the best reissues of the year. are we being especially harsh on archie shepp because he's archie shepp? or is it just convenient to agree with the critics? maybe nobody has a use for accessible music from free jazz players. whatever.

[bubber]

Is'nt it a long time since Shepp was a free jazz player? I'm sorry to say that one of my heroes from the sixties seems to have had a career during the last 25 years or so gradually loosing his creativity and to a certain extent even his means of expression. His horn used to be an extension of the man, to used a tired expression.

And this IMO has nothing to do with angry young men mellowing, maturing, nor with change of musical intention or style.

Of course his later works have to be considered for what they are, not what Shepp used to be, but even then they fall flat.
I don't know what happened to Archie Shepp, but I'll cling to my old Impulses forever, and I'm grateful for what he contributed in his prime.

[snoutinator]

Originally posted by bubber
I don't know what happened to Archie Shepp, but I'll cling to my old Impulses forever, and I'm grateful for what he contributed in his prime.

he certainly lost the spark, but "i know about the life" is a real exception to the kinder-and-gentler (and weaker) style of shepp's later music.

[Bill Barton]

This is news? More like history, IMHO. Down Beat has been doing this for years, Jazz Times too (at least since they "graduated" to becoming JT from Radio Free Jazz.)

It comes with the territory. The more independent publications provide balance (Coda, Cadence, etc., etc.)

With the enormous amount of material now available on the Internet, I have little interest in subscribing to any of the "glossies" these days.

[Tenorman]

Of course it is not news, but we can still object to it. Jazz Journal, which I believe is the second longest continuously published Jazz magazine in the world -- started 1948, has never done it (to the best of my knowledge).

Why shouldn't we expect our information sources to be independent.

[clifton]

Actually, viewed contextually, this is news. I've been reading Jazz Times since it was Radio Free Jazz, and Down Beat since 1966. Until very recently, jazz articles would discuss a musician's latest CD in the context of biographical and musical information. Now, the articles focus entirely on the CD, with extended production details and a rave review built in. It's journalism reduced to record company press release and it's now very widespread. And in the States, your alternatives are Cadence, foreign publications, or the internet. And while the internet has insured the survival of jazz, it is of no help to those Americans without computers who must rely on the magazines.