Dance of the Infidels: Some Jazz Musicians Take Aim at Critics

[xricci]

I just posted this...

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=232

Any thoughts?

[Hardbop]

You need to come up with better examples than this. Al Dimeola? You have to be kidding me. He deserves all the opprobrium he receives considering his shallow body of work. No one takes him seriously.

And dumping on a student critic for the University of Idaho -- I don't know if I even know where Idaho is -- is really a stretch. Russell Malone, who has a reputation of being a bit of a cad himself, was way out of line to write some of that stuff. You can't hold a student critic for some obscure university to the same standards you would hold a professional critic.

[bubber]

There was a discussion on diMeolas Jazz Times letter on BNBB a couple of months ago, and as far as I remember most posters (I was one of them) tended to agree with the record review and considered diMeolas letter immature.

[Leeway]

Dimeola is a 3rd rate talent. The review nailed that fact clearly. If Dimeola put as much passion into his music as he does into his "letter to the editor, " his music would be better.

As for Russell Malone, I checked out the CD in a listening station at Border's (before I read of this controversy), and I thought it was vapid, uninspired music. The term "elevator music" actually popped into my thoughts. The U of Idaho critic might not be the most sophisticated or knowledgable critic, but she has the benefit of something many more "sophisticated" critics lack: an honest, personal reaction to the music. To sugar coat the review just because Malone was in town is the sort of critical cowardice practiced by too many magazine writers these days.

[shawn·m]

If a critic doesn’t appear to respect the music they review, then I think any musician directly involved is entitled to respond in kind. Although, by the same reasoning, I’d best prepare my BB-ing self for a strain of coarse language delivered by Kenny G.

Now, I have nothing against a little defensive feces flinging, but a crafty musician might respond to a critic with an explanation of what he/she was attempting to do with a project. Doing so may redeem the recording and imply the reviewer isn’t terribly perceptive. Two birds, one stone —sweet!

Kinda wish I’d seen the reviews and the retorts first-hand.

[freejazz]

I think that some of the point of the piece was missed. I certainly don't condone the response of these artists, nor do I think that they responded in a manner that allows or invites dialogue or is going to win anyone over. One thing I was trying to express was understanding of the emotion--anger--that one might feel when reading a review that displayed blatent disrespect for one's work. Should these artists have responded based on that emotion? I think the end of my piece makes it clear that I don't think so.

I don't think that Ms. Gannon demonstrated an "honest personal reaction to the music" that could be of value to anyone...I think that she expressed an opinion. An opinion is different than a review. I also never suggested "sugar coating" the review merely because Malone was in town. A negative review is fine, but it should have been one that offered an actual critique, not a lazy attack.

Hardbop, I'm sorry you find Idaho unworthy of your notice. However, I don't think that it is a "stretch" to hold someone to professional standards. As a journalism student or major, this is someone who may very well be a professional journalist one day, and who may think they can write the same kind of piece for any outlet. It's sad that we find commentary like "hey, it sucks" to be acceptable criticism. Leeway's assertion that "Di Meola is a third rate talent" is an opinion, but it is not a critique, and the Argonaut should have held itself to a higher standard.

I guess the final point I was attempting to make is that both sides, musicians and critics, should raise their standards. I completely agree with hadiblues that if one throws rocks, one should expect a few boulders coming back in the other direction, but that ultimately, the best defense is a well-written response rather than an emotional screed.

[Leeway]

Originally posted by freejazz
I think that some of the point of the piece was missed. I certainly don't condone the response of these artists, nor do I think that they responded in a manner that allows or invites dialogue or is going to win anyone over. One thing I was trying to express was understanding of the emotion--anger--that one might feel when reading a review that displayed blatent disrespect for one's work. Should these artists have responded based on that emotion? I think the end of my piece makes it clear that I don't think so.

I don't think that Ms. Gannon demonstrated an "honest personal reaction to the music" that could be of value to anyone...I think that she expressed an opinion. An opinion is different than a review. I also never suggested "sugar coating" the review merely because Malone was in town. A negative review is fine, but it should have been one that offered an actual critique, not a lazy attack.

Hardbop, I'm sorry you find Idaho unworthy of your notice. However, I don't think that it is a "stretch" to hold someone to professional standards. As a journalism student or major, this is someone who may very well be a professional journalist one day, and who may think they can write the same kind of piece for any outlet. It's sad that we find commentary like "hey, it sucks" to be acceptable criticism. Leeway's assertion that "Di Meola is a third rate talent" is an opinion, but it is not a critique, and the Argonaut should have held itself to a higher standard.

I guess the final point I was attempting to make is that both sides, musicians and critics, should raise their standards. I completely agree with hadiblues that if one throws rocks, one should expect a few boulders coming back in the other direction, but that ultimately, the best defense is a well-written response rather than an emotional screed.


1) A critique is, essentially, an opinion, albeit one that is more detailed and supported than a simple statement of taste or appreciation. There is no measuring device or slide rule to evaluate art in a completely objective way. The taste, background, interests, ideas, and expectations (and many other factors) of the reviewer are all in play. This is as it's always been.

2) Obviously, I wasn't trying to offer a critique of DiMeola. I was, admittedly, offering an opinion. The purpose was to show that, at least for some of JT's readers, the original review wasn't off base, or beyond the pale, and spoke for some of us.

3) The university reviewer did offer an honest reaction to the music-- that it wasn't of any "value" -- to you-- is unfortunate, but that doesn't take away from the candor of her review. It would have been easier for her to write a puff piece knowing that Malone was in town.

4) Some music (or art, or lit, or any other created work) deserves extended thought and discussion; some doesn't. Sometimes it's healthy to just say- "It Sucks!" and be done with it. Actually, Ms. Gannon offered more than that; she's probably just too nice to say "Hey, this sucks!" Maybe she did offer a "lazy attack." Boy, would Malone yell if it was a vigorous attack :p

5) If Malone's appearance in town wasn't an issue, why did you raise it?

6) I'll let Hardbop speak for himself, but I took his (facetious) point to be that one has different expectations for the critic for The New Yorker or the NY Times, than for a student paper in Idaho.

7) We've spent a lot of time and type on a truly mediocre album. :(

[Joel]

That JT article seems interesting to read along with DiMeola's reply....but apart from that, I liked Flesh On Flesh and consider it one of my best buys last year.

To each his or her own as most say, my ears are attuned to the guitar and add to it my interest in latin influenced jazz guitar.

Flesh On Flesh is a great album that came out last year, in the end its only your ears that you can trust......reviewers are just clinging on to a an antiquated career (or hobby) when one can listen to previews and even full length tracks on the internet and be the judge themselves.

[Pure]

DiMeola is fantastic.
I love to hear these critics that don't have 1/100 of the musical talent he has, try to tear him down.
No one takes them seriously but themselves.
I don't mind critism of our LPs, but I'd rather it come from someone who purchased the LP. They have that right. Not someone who had a little listening session at Borders.
dennis

[Noj]

http://image.allmusic.com/00/amg/cov200/drc300/c314/c3140899w0x.jpg

I found this for $0.79 at a used record store and was pleasantly suprised by the music.

[Leeway]

Originally posted by Pure
DiMeola is fantastic.
I love to hear these critics that don't have 1/100 of the musical talent he has, try to tear him down.
No one takes them seriously but themselves.
I don't mind critism of our LPs, but I'd rather it come from someone who purchased the LP. They have that right. Not someone who had a little listening session at Borders.
dennis :D


Hey, you can get to hear quite a bit in a listening session at Borders :D Enough to know that you don't like it , anyway. ;)

I see the Di Meola fans have some of their musical hero's, er, style. :rolleyes:

[Joel]

just Read the JazzTimes review (search for Flesh On Flesh)

All I can say is the forum members and their posts are much more worthy of anyones time than that one sided review.

I hope Mr Aaron Steinberg has eclectic ears in jazz to be able come up with that write up, if not then he's just another cave dwelling,one-genre,necrophiliac labcoat...(i hope I'm wrong). A lot of people never gave the damn about the "acoustic - electric" switching, I do aggree that the sidemen especially Rubacalba should have been given more space, but I guess this aint the "Al Dimeola Band" but just Al Dimeola.

As for Mr DiMeola, flying off with an email full of obscenities might be way off his stature as a musician.
He has a thousands of fans across the globe who can do the thrashing for him.....that would not have been a problem at all.... ;)

[davidradler]

My take on is this simple: the dismissive review of Malone/Green infuriated me too. But for Malone to call the reviewer "vermin" is inexcusable. Certainly there are standards of decency that apply to Malone as well. He should be able to express strongly felt opinions without stooping so low.

About opinions versus reviews, responsiblity lies with the editor. Having this person review the Malone/Green record is like having my mom review one of the Judas Priest records I used to blast in my bedroom.

David Adler

[jazzcritic]

Both Di Meola and Malone missed the chance to use a bit of wit in their replies to questionable reviews. One writer replied to a critic: "I have your review before me; soon it will be behind me."

I'll have to admit I'm no fan of much of Di Meola's body of work, then again, if I don't care for an artist's recordings, I find something else to cover. Although I'm not opposed to negative reviews, it is pointless to dismiss someone you already don't like or are unfamiliar with, particularly since Di Meola, Malone (and Benny Green , too) have all been on the scene for some time.

Regardless of the site or publication, I grade critics over a period of reviews. As a result, the reviews of some can be dismissed out of hand, some (like the overly praised Ralph Gleason) who have prejudices against certain artists, need to be rated one review at a time while realizing their blind spots, while others can be counted on to be open-minded in most cases.

When a critic isn't really familiar with an artist's previous work, time should be taken to do extra research before dismissing a release out of hand. If one expects Cecil Taylor to play like Erroll Garner, there's bound to be a letdown.

[Pharaohrock]

I'm not sure you guys have read the full spiel from Russell Malone. It's a real piece of work. Read below.....

Dear Editor: I am writing in response to Annie Gannon's review of the recording "Jazz at the Bistro" by Benny Green and yours truly, Russell Malone. I find it disturbing that you would hire someone of such low intellect to review anything. She even admitted herself that she doesn¹t know that much about jazz. I have nothing against critics, but it's vermin like her that give critics a bad name. She had absolutely nothing constructive to say. Instead of writing an insightful, constructive critique, she came off as if she was making a personal attack. I get the sense that she knows just enough about music to be a pain in the ass, and she has just enough influence to be dangerous. In my opinion, she's a waste of sperm. She's a load that should've been swallowed. Hopefully in her next life she'll marry O. J. Simpson. (Signed) Russell Malone

- I am personally boycotting Malone's records until he apologizes through a public jazz medium for this outrageously over-the-top response.

No matter what the reviewer said about the music, nothing could have justified such an intensely personal attack rife with lewdness and shock value. This is frankly an affront not only to the writer in question but to all music writers, everywhere. No one's asking musicians to kiss the media's ass, but at least show the bare minimum of respect by not blatantly spitting in their face like this.

Not to mention the fact this is a severe overreaction in the context that the review occurred in a student newspaper. "Just enough influence to be dangerous"?? Somehow I doubt there is this great unexploited contingent of Russell Malone fans at the University of Idaho, let alone jazz fans.

I've never met Russell Malone, but from this performance alone I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he sounds like a real S.O.B., a royal dickhead. What do you think?

[Pharaohrock]

- And he clearly DOES have a problem with critics. How disingenous of him to say that this is only confined to the writer in question.

[jazzcritic]

I hardly implied that I approved of Malone's choice of words, as I read the entire contents after doing a google.com search to verify and contacting someone at Telarc to verify that he actually wrote such a scathing letter. There is no excuse for horrendous bad manners, and it is also rotten p.r. on Malone's part to compose such a thoughtless letter to the editor. The personal attacks came across as if written by a twelve-year-old.

I'm unaware of Malone's problems with any other writers.

After hearing about some of the amateurish sniping by editors and staff of JazzTimes, I don't regret in the least that I had already dropped my subscription last year. There is something to be said for civility by all parties, though not everyone practices it.

[Pharaohrock]

The weird thing about all of this is that Malone has a very classy stage demeanor, and I frankly would have never expected this from him.

I'm more disappointed than when Osby and Roney had their pathetic little sandbox fight on the pages of DownBeat. Osby said Roney was fat, and Roney dignified that by saying "I'm leaner these days...." Oh god, that was ridiculous.

[kdd]

That was Frank Lacy and Wallace Roney not Osby. In that case as with the Malone, I would hope the editor would contact the musician and make sure they wanted the letter to run in case it was written in the heat of the moment and give them a chance to back out of it.

[Dan Gould]

All I can say is, I am now giving serious consideration to attending the Russell Malone show in West Palm Beach this Sunday as a show of support.

Not for his poor manners, mind you. His choice of words were atrocious and offensive.

But a show of support for his fine talents. It is outrageous to assign a jazz cd to such a complete dolt. The editor who said that anyone can review anything obviously has never noticed that in almost every paper in the country, pop reviewers write about pop and classical write about classical and jazz knowledgeable reviewers write about jazz.

She shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a jazz record for review, period.

[Pharaohrock]

Yes, and all of this unspeakable trashing for what.....a college newspaper??? The fact is folks, Russell unwittingly makes jazz musicians look small-time by bothering to respond (and so passionately) to some kids paper out in potato land.

[Pharaohrock]

I'm pretty sure it was Roney and Osby. Know what issues those were in?

[shawn·m]

Originally posted by Dan Gould
All I can say is, I am now giving serious consideration to attending the Russell Malone show in West Palm Beach this Sunday as a show of support.

Hey Dan, I dare you to shout “Eff-ing Vermin!” at the close of each number.

[Jazzmoose]

Amazing. Get a bad review from an unqualified reviewer and possibly miss a few ticket and CD sales. Then become a public asshole to make sure you alienate the people that are still interested. Perhaps someone could send Russell a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People...

[jazzcritic]

It's a safe bet that Russell hasn't read Dale Carnegie, then again,
many folks have forgotten what they read...Where is my copy, now that I think of it????

[closer250]

Not for his poor manners, mind you. His choice of words were atrocious and offensive.

But a show of support for his fine talents. It is outrageous to assign a jazz cd to such a complete dolt. The editor who said that anyone can review anything obviously has never noticed that in almost every paper in the country, pop reviewers write about pop and classical write about classical and jazz knowledgeable reviewers write about jazz.

She shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a jazz record for review, period.


__________________
Dan


I am of this same opinion (including not approving of Mr. Malone's lowering himself by dignifying such an inept commentary with an equally immature response). The reviewer in cases like this can often look worse than the artist or work they trash...

As far as Mr. DiMeola and his body of work go, it is difficult for me as a musician to read disrespectful comments about someone who has been successfully recording professionally since circa 1976 - like his style or not...

A good friend once told me to not consider a musician's personality, only their music because many outstanding artists are not very nice people...

Peace, Cb

[jav]

The idea that many artists who make beautiful music are not very nice people seems to be far too often valid. How could such tender and moving sounds come out of the horns of Miles Davis, Chet Baker and Stan Getz and yet when you read about these individuals they could be so vitriolic and self absorbed. Likewise Russell Malone, whom I met in Monterey at the Jazz Festival and for all appearences seemed a warm and intelligent gentleman and yet could spew such vile language when angered. Perhaps it is all just a shell game and there is only so much good without being balanced by the bad, in which case these gentlemen are evening things out for all the beautiful and moving sounds they create with their instruments.
Whatever the case, artists like Malone and Al Dimeola should take the higher road and not allow themselves to be dragged into the gutter by inconsequential reviewers. They only demean and assassinate their own characters by responding in such a manner.
jav

[jazzofonik]

The artists' responses, especially Malone's, were as unworthy as the reviews. Its understandable that he feels wronged, but to match the ignorance displayed by Miss Gannon with the kind of vicious emotionalism found in his letter doesn't help his case. I haven't heard the Cd in question but I have his latest benny Green collaboration (Bluebird) and there's no gainsyaing hsi musicality; his personal decency may be another issue.

That said, I'm appalled that Miss Gannon's editors could be upholding the kind of juvenile slop offered in the article excerpts - if that's what can be expected out of the Univ. of Idaho, hen that program has little relevance and shouldn't be continued, at least not under that kind of (non)leadership

[tpt1]

I have a general disregard for people who make a living criticizing the work of accomplished musicians.

As Dave Liebman pointed out, you have to take a test to become a bus driver, but nobody took a test to become a jazz critic.

And those comments by Stanley Crouch in the Electric Miles DVD are laughable. Does he really expect anyone to take him seriously?

[kenny weir]

I have a general disregard for people who make a living criticizing the work of accomplished musicians.

As Dave Liebman pointed out, you have to take a test to become a bus driver, but nobody took a test to become a jazz critic.

I'm always interested in exploring these sorts of issues, being a writer and broadcaster. Notice I say writer, rather than critic. Despite sometimes writing for a mass-circulation newspaper; after three decades or so I still feel that I come from a fan's point of view. My stories are those of the players themselves; my reviews are short and broadly phrased.

So as a writer with a crusading bent, I find the views of Dave Liebman perplexing. I recently interviewed him as a preview to Australia's Wangaratta Jazz Festival, of which he was the main international attraction this year.

It was a short phone interview with a terse somewhat and uncommunicative man, but gave me more than enough for a fine story promoting Liebman and the festival.

Silly me - as an untutored, ignorant "critic", maybe I should've pulled my head and told Dave and the festival to go hang. Get the musos to promote it instead. Sure. Right. What a joke.

Expecting, rightly, high standards in the jazz media should surely not blind hoity toity musicians to the mostly volunteer efforts of eloquent fans on radio stations, publications and websites around the world.

My love of the music far outweighs my occasional disgust with the surly, smug, unjustifably superior demeanour of some players, but they still fuck me off sometimes. :barf:

[Phil Kelly]

In general, I prefer reading blindfold tests where musicians are reacting to musicians ..some are better than others, some tend to take the "everything-is-great-four-stars -done-piss-anyone-off" route, and these are of little help ..

Others, ( like Branford M ) are very articulate and not afraid to express their opinion.

Having said that, there are a handful of *real* jazz writers that while not actual performers ,have a real feel for the music and often have valid points to make.

Many , however, seem to have fallen hopelessly in love with their own word processors ..and the flowery prose that gushes from them that seems designed more to impress other writers than be of import to the musicians ..

:yeahthat:

[tpt1]

I'm always interested in exploring these sorts of issues, being a writer and broadcaster. Notice I say writer, rather than critic. Despite sometimes writing for a mass-circulation newspaper; after three decades or so I still feel that I come from a fan's point of view. My stories are those of the players themselves; my reviews are short and broadly phrased.

So as a writer with a crusading bent, I find the views of Dave Liebman perplexing. I recently interviewed him as a preview to Australia's Wangaratta Jazz Festival, of which he was the main international attraction this year.

It was a short phone interview with a terse somewhat and uncommunicative man, but gave me more than enough for a fine story promoting Liebman and the festival.

Silly me - as an untutored, ignorant "critic", maybe I should've pulled my head and told Dave and the festival to go hang. Get the musos to promote it instead. Sure. Right. What a joke.

Expecting, rightly, high standards in the jazz media should surely not blind hoity toity musicians to the mostly volunteer efforts of eloquent fans on radio stations, publications and websites around the world.

My love of the music far outweighs my occasional disgust with the surly, smug, unjustifably superior demeanour of some players, but they still fuck me off sometimes. :barf:

Kenny, why so defensive of my comments? I was certainly not referring to someone such as yourself -- a writer and journalist that generally fosters and promotes jazz and the musicians that create it in a positive spirit. You certainly don't seem to fall into the "critic" category.

I was referring to those that write the reviews I've read over the years that blast or dismiss many great musicians and their accomplishments and use their typewriters as a weapon.

Thankfully, I think Liebman is probably the exception rather than the rule. Take someone like, for example, Mike Stern and you have the complete opposite attitude, which I hope is more common towards those of you who are genunine fans and promotors of the music that sacrifice much time and effort in doing so. I have several close friends that do what you do, often without pay or recognition.

[jkelman]

Thankfully, I think Liebman is probably the exception rather than the rule. Take someone like, for example, Mike Stern and you have the complete opposite attitude, which I hope is more common towards those of you who are genunine fans and promotors of the music that sacrifice much time and effort in doing so. I have several close friends that do what you do, often without pay or recognition.

With incredibly rare exception, the musicians I've had the pleasure of interviewing have been generously forthcoming, cordial folks. Some I've been fortunate enougnh, through the interview, to generate a relationship that has gone beyond interviewer/interviewee - there are a number that I now keep in touch with on a regular basis, where the relationship has grown beyond.

It would be incorrect to say that there aren't egos in play at times - and why shouldn't there be? - but there is also a pervasive humility in the fact that there is always something more to learn, new areas to pursue.

In fact, the most difficult interviews I've had to do have been the ones where the artist is so humble that they don't appreciate the value of what they do and, consequently, don't have a lot to say about it. A perfect example is Kenny Wheeler. Great guy, ready to talk at length about, for example, the music scene here in Canada. But start in about his own work and he clams right up. The day before I interviewed him I had been speaking with singer Norma Winstone, and when I said I would be interviewing him the next day she made a comment about how I'd be interviewing the Ellington of our times (a good comparison, I think). Well, speak to the "Ellington of our times" the next day and he just doesn't see the significance of his work.....it was like pulling teeth to get him to talk about his own work, whereas he was totally forthcoming about anyone else's.

And if that's the worst I have to deal with, then I can unequivocally say that interviewing artists is really a true pleasure. I feel very fortunate in that regard.

Best,
John

[allenlowe]

Let's keep in mind that there are bad reviews and there are bad reviews...as a musician/writer I've seen both ends of this, and I've received bad reviews. It's always difficult, but it's made more annoying when the reviewer hasn't done their work; Eg; a book I wrote got a bad review from a famous critic (initials G.G.) It was clear from the review that this reviewer had not read the entire book but had actually read, primarily, the liner notes on the CD set that accompanied it (which were edited to about half the length); I knew this because he cited things that he claimed I had not mentioned, when in fact they were in the book but not the notes. When I wrote a letter pointing this out, he replied in print by calling me a plagiarist. Very nice.

It's also galling, from the MUSICIAN's standpoint when a reviewer makes some glaring technical mistakes in a bad review - I don't expect reviewers to have detailed tech knowledge, but if they make a technical comment, than it damn well better be accurate (from a technical standpoint) -

[jazzofonik]

I have a general disregard for people who make a living criticizing the work of accomplished musicians.

As Dave Liebman pointed out, you have to take a test to become a bus driver, but nobody took a test to become a jazz critic.

And those comments by Stanley Crouch in the Electric Miles DVD are laughable. Does he really expect anyone to take him seriously?


,many musicians rightly acknowledged as great never took a test of any kind (except the acid test of performing) so that whole credentials argument doesn't quite hold water with me

[clave]

Um, all this fuss over something a college student (who is just learning the ropes) wrote in a school newspaper????!

I'm amazed by the pettiness. Malone needs to get over it!

[tpt1]

,many musicians rightly acknowledged as great never took a test of any kind (except the acid test of performing) Well, there you have it: the "acid test". After spending hours, days and years toiling and laboring in the solitude of the practice room and spending every other waking moment thinking, listening, working and toiling to improve your craft... then standing up on a stage, baring your soul for all to see and hear, knowing damn well that you will be scrutinized and judged by your peers and those you have looked to for inspiration, who have been down the same lonely road paved with hardship, poverty and self-doubt... just to be "criticized" by some nerd in an armchair in his living room who's only real talent is using a word processor...

OK, ok. I got overly dramatic there, but you get my point, I hope. :)

[jazzcritic]

It seems that the acid test analogy is iffy. Does one have to make his/her own film to critique a movie, or write a book before reviewing another author's book?

One of the goals of the Jazz Journalist Association is to encourage professional development and learning from one's peers. Every critic has a bad day now and then, some more than others. Just like every performer.

I've lost track of how many recordings I've heard made on out of tune pianos (the Five Spot was notorious for this problem) and I recently watched a DVD of Duke Ellington where tenor saxophonist Paul Gonsalves looked and played like he was 2.5 sheets to the wind. The less said about the finale, "One More Time For the People," easily Ellington's most forgettable composition, the better.

Remember that a critic's opinion is only one voice, his/her view is not written in stone (though Stanley Crouch likely thinks his should be).

[tpt1]

I've lost track of how many recordings I've heard made on out of tune pianos (the Five Spot was notorious for this problem) and I recently watched a DVD of Duke Ellington where tenor saxophonist looked and played like he was 2.5 sheets to the wind. Well, you do make a point there. Once I saw a very famous trumpeter at the Village Gate, and it may have been the most exciting, thrilling and swingin'est live jazz I have ever heard in 30 years of listening to live jazz in NYC. On another night, many years later... well, he was probably quite a few more than 2.5 sheets to the wind, not to mention the chop problems... need I say more? I guess if I was a journalist reviewing the latter performance for a magazine or newspaper, then I would have to be honest.

I know some people who belong to the JJA, and I've been to some affairs as a guest where many of them are present. I think it's a very good organization, dedicated to honoring and promoting the world of jazz. I do make a distinction between "Jazz Journalist" and "Jazz Critic". I've only come across a few "critics" over the years, and that's just a few too many.

[jazzcritic]

tpt1:

I do call myself a jazz journalist in spite of the moniker I hung on myself in this forum. I don't enjoy doing negative reviews, but fortunately, they are rare. I try to be honest about performances (live or studio). I've been active in JJA for a number of years.

[Phil Kelly]

My one jazz critic story:

Many years ago, I was playing a club gig in LA with the Terry Gibbs Quartet ( moi being the drummer )It was a good energetic group ( the way Terry likes it ) and we weren't "holding back" ..

Okay ..Leonard Feather comes in to review the group, and sits down at a table TWO FEET away from the drum kit ( which was a the side of a very small bandstand ..) and there were several much better tables in front of the group to get a better balanced perspective ..

Well, you guessed it:

When the review came out , "the group was basically very swinging, only somewhat marred by the drummers overly loud approach " ( quote approximate )

[jazzcritic]

Leonard Feather had his share of problems. Even his daughter Lorraine was exasperated with him going to review styles of jazz that he did not care for.

If you don't like it to begin with, why bother?

[clifton]

A critic offers an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. I strongly believe it should be an informed opinion. The above is an oversimplification, to be sure, but I review CD's for AAJ (as Marc Meyers), and "informed opinion" is my rule of thumb. I hesitate to give negative reviews, largely because most of the music I've heard has been damn good, but a bad review can impact CD sales, and therefore, however modestly, an artist's career. This can be particularly, and unnecessarily, harmful to a young artist, and I'm not willing to inflict what might be unwarranted damage on an artist in the guise of my opinion. There are constructive ways to write a negative comment, and I try to use them.

[Bev Stapleton]

There are many different types of criticism.

I like the 'reaction' type of reviewing. One listener, faced with a recording, describing how it affected him/her. The outcome can be positive or negative...but needs to be handle humbly. That's what is so valuable about boards like this - you can read the responses of people in a similar situation to yourself and be really inspired by their enthusiasm.

I also like the more expert criticism - by someone schooled in the music or with an in-depth knowledge of a particular performer. This sort of criticism can inform and explain, help you make choices when meeting an unfamiliar performer.

What I don't care for is the critic who projects his/her own agenda into a review, onto the music. Spirituality, socio-economic or political elements are 'revealed' in the music to suit the writers obsessions. Or a personal dislike with certain things is used to beat the recording with. The review becomes less about the recording, more about the reviewer and his/her fine thoughts. Some reviewers with little or no musical knowledge but with a background in another academic discipline can fall victim to this.

[maygar]

"If you don't like it to begin with, why bother?"

Because knowing why somebody DOESN'T like something can be just as informative as knowing why they DO. A critics job isn't just going to stuff that he/she already likes, that is a fans job.

[marxmarvelous]

Well, there you have it: the "acid test". After spending hours, days and years toiling and laboring in the solitude of the practice room and spending every other waking moment thinking, listening, working and toiling to improve your craft... then standing up on a stage, baring your soul for all to see and hear, knowing damn well that you will be scrutinized and judged by your peers and those you have looked to for inspiration, who have been down the same lonely road paved with hardship, poverty and self-doubt...

Isn't it the same "acid test" process for the writer.....studying criticism/literature/music/film (whatever), writing countless drafts that no one sees, developing original thoughts/arguments/viewpoints about the topic, struggling to find his voice and finally having his/her work published?

I'm struck by some preliminary remarks Ellery Eskin included in a recent Call & Response column (which I think is a really interesting take on cd reviews) here on AAJ:

We all approach music in one fundamental way...with our ears. I don't think that any assessment of music should get too far removed from that idea. As for understanding jazz (or any kind of music) the way a musician understands it, I don't think that's prerequisite for a writer nor do I feel that reviewers should be required to play an instrument or even know the nuts and bolts of music theory. If that were a prerequisite then musicians would be the best reviewers and that's clearly not the case. Writers write. Reviewing music isn't easy. I don't think I could do a good job of it. So I would like to feel that the writer is as dedicated to their craft as most musicians are to theirs.

With that said:

Who does the review serve and how does a writer serve readers who's tastes or opinions may differ from their own? Is it possible for the writer to remove themselves from the review and is that even desirable? How presumptive should the writer be about the artist's intentions and whether the artist has achieved their goals?

And a few stray thoughts:

A review based on opinion is a review about the reviewer.

It's not my job to please a writer. I'd go farther and posit that it's not even my job to please listeners, at least not in a way that would influence the honesty of my work.

Whether positive or negative, our reactions to the music and the music itself are two different things.

[jazzcritic]

Maygar:

I'm afraid you misunderstood my "If you don't like it, why bother?" comment.

Leonard Feather would attend shows by artists he openly disliked or styles he did not care for at all. Suffice to say, it would make no sense for me to review Kenny G, Jane Monheit, acid jazz artists, etc. for AAJ or any other website or publication. I don't care for them and my bias would be apparent, not helping fans of the respective subgenres or people who are unfamiliar with them. It is possible for someone to release a CD I don't care for or play a disappointing concert, yet I might give him or her a second chance.

I am not saying you have to like the artist prior to hearing the CD or concert. You've got to go in blind at least once in awhile, even if you've been listening and collecting jazz for decades, as I have.

By the way, I did review Classics in the Key of G for another website, but my one star rating and scathing comments were probably too much for the editorial staff. It was replaced with a glowing review by an editor, though I did get paid for my unused submission.

[Saxman]

By the way, I did review Classics in the Key of G for another website, but my one star rating and scathing comments were probably too much for the editorial staff. It was replaced with a glowing review by an editor, though I did get paid for my unused submission.

Interesting! Reminds me of the story of a pop critic who was canned by Rolling Stone for writing a scathing review of an R.E.M. album. The "great" Jan Wenner wrote the published review himself under this guy's name and gave the album 5 stars, because it WAS R.E.M. in their heyday and they moved a lot of mags back then. Their record company also spent significant $ on promo ads in the mag, plus there was a several page interview with the "great" Michael Stipe, so much was at stake. Said critic is once again writing for a Chicago newspaper, damning any artists over the age of 40. It will be interesting to see his take on things when he becomes that "ancient." I can say this: I'm 45.

Oh yes, the new U2 gets 5 stars, of course (I peeked on the news stand out of curiosity). It IS U2 after all. There's a tour, interview, blah, blah, blah to consider. Can't say anything negative about them. I found Bono to be insufferably self - absorbed since Live Aid and haven't looked back. Phooey.

I'm sure CBS/Sony threw a bucket of cash at Downbeat to put Jane Monheit on the cover of a recent issue, even though she's key challenged but supposedly hot to look at.

Crabby Old Saxman

[jkelman]

I'm sure CBS/Sony threw a bucket of cash at Downbeat to put Jane Monheit on the cover of a recent issue, even though she's key challenged but supposedly hot to look at.

Crabby Old Saxman
But of course, any interview with Monheit will bemoan the fact that people look at her as nothing more than a sex kitten with a contract. Mind you when you ask her about all those lurid, pouty poses she does for the trades, she says "that's who I am." Go figure. I heard her from the backstage at this past summer's festival in Ottawa and could only scratch my head and wonder how the hell she ever got recorded. Then I remembered the pictures and went "oh.....yeah....."

Equally crabby,
John

[Saxman]

But of course, any interview with Monheit will bemoan the fact that people look at her as nothing more than a sex kitten with a contract. Mind you when you ask her about all those lurid, pouty poses she does for the trades, she says "that's who I am." Go figure. I heard her from the backstage at this past summer's festival in Ottawa and could only scratch my head and wonder how the hell she ever got recorded. Then I remembered the pictures and went "oh.....yeah....."

Equally crabby,
John

John,

We are on the same page, for sure!

Some members of the coffee house house jazz combo I jam with and I were talking about all this last night. Case in point: Diana Krall. Much better pianist than vocalist. BORING vocalist, IMHO. How about those skimpy costumes she wore on most of her album covers?

The wife of the bassist of the band can sing RINGS around her, but she's already in her early 30s, two kids but STILL trim and attractive. She's also better than all of the idiots on "American Idol," too. No justice.

BTW, notice now that Krall has married Costello, the sexy outfits are back in the closet? I guess now she's a "serious artitst" like her husband. I never made it past the first few tracks of her new (mostly self-composed) album without falling asleep....good thing I borrowed it (not BURNED it, mind you) from the library.

[Kerry]

I think that sometimes critics overstretch their critiques, criticizing more than the actual album. Recently I got a review that said - being able to express my feelings about 9/11 in a musical way was beyond me (there's a song about my experience on that day on my latest album). I think that's going too far. I did have an experience on 9/11 (was next to the burning buildings, fled as the south tower collapsed, ran away through the dust, climbed over cars and got onto the Brooklyn Bridge while half the sky was black with smoke). The song I wrote is what came to mind when I thought about that day. I don't think someone can tell me whether my song expressed what I felt or not.

Of course, a critic can say whether an album "spoke" to him or not. And of course, technical critiques and comparisons to other musicians are always interesting. But in the end it's all subjective.

[Gcolligan]

As a musician who gets occasional print reviews, I am increasingly frustrated with some (not all) reviews of my work by writers who just don't understand music enough to make a worthy critique. If you are in the press corps at the White House, or on assignment in Iraq, you are supposed to have journalistic credentials, which not only included being able to write in your native language in an engaging manner, but also include understanding of the issues. So if you were to do a story about the Abramoff scandal and not know how the Senate and the House of Representatives make laws and act as a balance to the White House and the Supreme Court, then you would probably not understand why Abramoff would be accused of anything improper by buying trips for Congressmen so as to influence them as they make the laws. I'm not spouting politics, I'm trying to make an analogy. My point is, you have to know what you are talking about to be a journalist.

Unfortunately the standards are not high with some of these jazz magazines.
I got a review of REALIZATION from someone named Andrew Malone( I think)in JazzTimes.
He spent most of the review criticizing the titles of my tunes, and didn't think they fit the sound of the tunes, which in my opinion is totally subjective. it would be akin to doing a story on TOm Delay and talking about his taste in clothes for the entire article.IT ISN"T RELEVANT. I think Mr. Malone just was not familiar enough with my influences to make a qualified judgement. I wouldn't write a piece about the White Stripes or the Strokes because, although I am a musician, I don't know enough about their stylistic influences to comment in an intelligent manner. I was bugged about the juvenile nature of the review , and yes, in my emotional haste, I tried to find Mr. Malone on the web. I found his site. It was full of writings about hip hop and classical music. So he is obviously into music. But it seemed as though his free time musings were suspiciously devoid of reference to jazz. My theory is that Malone was contracted by jazz times because he is an exceptional writer, but sadly, I don't think he understands the subject matter well enough to write any worthy critique of jazz. (I hope i've made my point.) And I wrote Mr. Malone a private letter telling him of my displeasure with his review. I would have been happier if he had said that I was not a convincing organ player, or the compositions were to simplistic, or something of that nature. AT LEAST TALK ABOUT THE MUSIC AS IF YOU REALLY LISTENED TO IT! Is what I am looking for.
I could go on about the many terrible reviews I've seen over the years but I have to go right now.
GC

[jkelman]

I could go on about the many terrible reviews I've seen over the years but I have to go right now.
GC
Hopefully you feel better treated here at All About Jazz. I know that both Michael Ricci (publisher) and Nils Jacobson (Managing Editor) do their darndest to match promotional copies received with contributors who are best suited to the material. Doesn't mean they'll always like it, but hopefully, at the very least, they've got the necessary context to appropriately assess the material - as opposed to, say, giving a jazz purist who hates electric music a copy of Realization (which was a damn fine record!). And speaking for myself I've worked hard to align myself with labels, publicists and artists who are within my frames of reference. Certaintly can't say I always succeed, and that I haven't made some gaffs, but the intention (as is the case with many of the contributors I've dealt with) is always to review a record for what it is, rather than what I think it should be.

Best!
John

[peter rh]

And speaking for myself I've worked hard to align myself with labels, publicists and artists who are within my frames of reference. Certaintly can't say I always succeed, and that I haven't made some gaffs, but the intention (as is the case with many of the contributors I've dealt with) is always to review a record for what it is, rather than what I think it should be.

are you a critic or a PR man ?

[jkelman]

are you a critic or a PR man ?
Cheap shot. My point is I've established a network of labels, publicists and artists whose music is, as I said, within my frame of reference - which, if you've read my reviews, is pretty varied (as is the case with many of the aaj contributors - check out Chris May, Paul Olson, Budd Kopman, to name but three). The idea is that these folks know not to send me things that I am not really qualified to even consider writing about (eg. most vocal jazz).

As I said - and if you'd included my entire quote and not just the section you chose to take out of context: "Doesn't mean they'll always like it, but hopefully, at the very least, they've got the necessary context to appropriately assess the material."

As George Colligan said: "I wouldn't write a piece about the White Stripes or the Strokes because, although I am a musician, I don't know enough about their stylistic influences to comment in an intelligent manner." Similarly, despite my suspicion that they are all very fine artists, sending me material by Sarah Vaughn, Cassandra Wilson or Christine Tobin would serve no purpose, as I can't contextualize them properly - and I happen to think that one of the responsibilities of someone reviewing material is the ability to place material within a broader context, in order to help readers understand where it fits and, therefore, whether or not it would interest them.

Again, as George so rightly said: "...you have to know what you are talking about to be a journalist..." and, in reference to the review of Realization by Andrew Malone: "I don't think he understands the subject matter well enough to write any worthy critique of jazz."

That was what I was speaking to. There is no point in sending me, for example, traditional big band records, because it's a style that I don't follow and, consequently, without a good frame of reference, am unable to assess for what it is. And, consequently, there's nothing wrong with making sure that the material I am sent for review is in the portion of the jazz continuum I am conversant with (or, at least, like to think I am). Promos cost artists and/or labels money, and it's a total waste of their time and money to send me material that I'd be unlikely to review because it's outside my personal scope.

When these folks send me material they are by no means assured a good review, but I'd like to think that they are guaranteed a fair one.

There, are we clear?:rolleyes:
John

[Kerry]

You make perfect sense to me, John, and sound very considerate of the artist. I think that's all we are asking for - a chance to be heard and judged fairly.

[Marcello]

Unfortunately the standards are not high with some of these jazz magazines.
I got a review of REALIZATION from someone named Andrew Malone( I think)in JazzTimes.
He spent most of the review criticizing the titles of my tunes, and didn't think they fit the sound of the tunes, which in my opinion is totally subjective. it would be akin to doing a story on TOm Delay and talking about his taste in clothes for the entire article.IT ISN"T RELEVANT. I think Mr. Malone just was not familiar enough with my influences to make a qualified judgement. I wouldn't write a piece about the White Stripes or the Strokes because, although I am a musician, I don't know enough about their stylistic influences to comment in an intelligent manner. I was bugged about the juvenile nature of the review , and yes, in my emotional haste, I tried to find Mr. Malone on the web. I found his site. It was full of writings about hip hop and classical music. So he is obviously into music. But it seemed as though his free time musings were suspiciously devoid of reference to jazz. My theory is that Malone was contracted by jazz times because he is an exceptional writer, but sadly, I don't think he understands the subject matter well enough to write any worthy critique of jazz. (I hope i've made my point.) And I wrote Mr. Malone a private letter telling him of my displeasure with his review. I would have been happier if he had said that I was not a convincing organ player, or the compositions were to simplistic, or something of that nature. AT LEAST TALK ABOUT THE MUSIC AS IF YOU REALLY LISTENED TO IT! Is what I am looking for.


This same reviewer gave Joe Locke's "Dear Life" such a lame, sophmoric review that bassist Dave Finck wrote Jazz Times a scathing letter that they published. Mr. Malone called one of the beautiful ballads on the cd ("Eva"), "make-out music"! What a sniveling twerp!

I had hoped that I would never see his byline again, but alas, he's still there.

Editors must have a higher standard of who they trust with the responsibility to judge this music. After the artists put their heart and soul ( and sweat ) into their projects, it the right, and yes John, fair way to do business.

[Bev Stapleton]

As a musician who gets occasional print reviews, I am increasingly frustrated with some (not all) reviews of my work by writers who just don't understand music enough to make a worthy critique.

I think the question needs to be asked, what are the purpose of reviews? I'd say they exist to assist potential listeners to decide if this is music they'd like to hear/buy. The interest of the performer come second...they must be considered, but are secondary.

If that is the case I'm not sure a great 'understanding' of music is necessary. A love of it, yes; an ability to articulate a response, undoubtedly. If we are talking about in-depth critiques then, yes, you need someone versed in the mechanics of music. But most reviews do not attempt to analyse in that way. In fact I suspect the average listener would find a review by an enthusiastic non-musician of more use than the expert analysis of someone well versed in musical theory...I know I often find the latter incomprehensible.

I very much agree with John, however, that reviewers should have some listening background in what they are reviewing. The scathing (or lukewarm) review by someone unsympathetic with a particular artist or genre always strikes me as a complete waste of time and extremely damaging to the performer. These often become vanity exercise for the reviewer to show off his 'humour' or superior taste.

At this point the review ceases to be of any help to the listener; and causes the sort of harm to the musician that elicits a quite rightful frustration as expressed by George above. No-ones interests are being served beyond the reviewer him/herself.

[Lee Gato]

I think the question needs to be asked, what are the purpose of reviews? I'd say they exist to assist potential listeners to decide if this is music they'd like to hear/buy. The interest of the performer come second...they must be considered, but are secondary.That's a much too narrow view of the purpose of reviews, which may have other purposes and attractions, depending on the writer, the publication, and the readership. These purposes include not just being a guide to consumers, but also contributing to the discussion of the art regarding both the specific performance and artist being reviewed and in more generality too, and providing literary entertainment, which includes expression of the critic's own point of view and wit not just limited to music but rather ranging over many subjects that relate to art and music.

If you make reviews fit exclusively (and in some contexts, even primarily) into a consumer guide mode, then you've done quite a lot to make music reviewing indeed just as banal as Consumer Reports magazine.

[RainyDay]

It's not unusual for the pop critic to be the person to review jazz perormance. The SF Chronicle pop critics write reviews for jazz and it's pretty awful stuff. Norah Jones, who by her own admission is not a jazz artist, is heralded as a great new jazz find. Often, jazz "critics" don't know what they are talking about. I'd rather hear or read about an artist discussing his work any day than a writer, even if the artist is having a meltdown in his commentary.

Someone should do a Reality Series "When Jazz Musicians Fire Back." I'm glad they do, even when I don't agree with them. Also, just because a musician writes a caustic response to a review or critique, even if it isn't about their music, doesn't mean they are a bad person. Pat Metheny's hissy over Kenny G's remake of "A Wonderful World" comes to mind. It was an awful song when Pops made it and G's version was also pretty awful. I cannot understand how person #1 who makes dreck out of dreck by person #2 has somehow desecrated the memory of person #2. But Metheny's comments were interesting, actually sort of amusing, nonetheless. A jazz musician talking about music is interesting to me. More interesting than a writer talking about music.

As for Al DiMeola, I saw him perform with Jean Luc Ponty and Stanley Clarke about a year ago and the crowd was exceedingly appreciative and DiMeola was visibly moved and so stated to the audience. Didn't strike me as a crazy asshole at all. Between their mini sets, members of the audience, middle aged and young folks, came up to the stage and shook the musicians' hands, to the point that it got in the way of the music. The musicians walked around shaking hands and were clearly touched. Even if DiMeola is a big asshole, he's still entitled to his opinions, I should think, especially about his own work. I happen to like DiMeola. I understand that some people don't. Doesn't mean his music is crap, just means you don't like it. That's really all it means.

[jkelman]

I happen to like DiMeola. I understand that some people don't. Doesn't mean his music is crap, just means you don't like it. That's really all it means.
That would be true. But when DiMeola writes a letter to the editor at JazzTimes that the critic who didn't like his newest record "better not quit his day job at MacDonalds," he demonstrates a horrific elitism. In other words, there's something substandard about people who work at MacDonalds. Personally, if I were a MacDonalds employee who happened to like DiMeola before the letter, I'd never buy a record by him again after.

You can like DiMeola's music all you like, that's certainly your (and anyone's) prerogative, and just because I don't doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you (or me!). Personally, I have never really liked him. I went to see RTF in whatever year it was in the 70s, thinking I'd be seeing Bill Connors, and when I saw Al, I immediately just didn't warm to his approach. I've always found him full of style, lacking in substance; cold, clinical and just oozing technique but saying nothing at all to me. And I've heard plenty over the years that hasn't done a thing to change my mind.

Still, that's personal taste - and, by the way, I'd never review a DiMeola disc, because I think I'd be unable to separate my personal feelings from objectivity, which means my review would be less than worthless. Instead of objectively assessing his music, I'd be fronting too much of a personal agenda.

That said, there's no doubt DiMeola is a talented guitarist. But I've heard enough horror stories - and read enough verbage from the man himself, to think he's an arrogant guy who does believe he's a step above most others...and is bitter that, for some reason, he's been hard done by in the jazz community - although he certainly has a fan base. Frankly, the stories I've heard about the DiMeola/de Lucia/McLaughlin trio tour would be humourous...if it weren't true.

And what, by the way, is wrong with a job at MacDonalds anyway?
John

[RainyDay]

That would be true. But when DiMeola writes a letter to the editor at JazzTimes that the critic who didn't like his newest record "better not quit his day job at MacDonalds," he demonstrates a horrific elitism. In other words, there's something substandard about people who work at MacDonalds. Personally, if I were a MacDonalds employee who happened to like DiMeola before the letter, I'd never buy a record by him again after.

You can like DiMeola's music all you like, that's certainly your (and anyone's) prerogative, and just because I don't doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you (or me!). Personally, I have never really liked him. I went to see RTF in whatever year it was in the 70s, thinking I'd be seeing Bill Connors, and when I saw Al, I immediately just didn't warm to his approach. I've always found him full of style, lacking in substance; cold, clinical and just oozing technique but saying nothing at all to me. And I've heard plenty over the years that hasn't done a thing to change my mind.

Still, that's personal taste - and, by the way, I'd never review a DiMeola disc, because I think I'd be unable to separate my personal feelings from objectivity, which means my review would be less than worthless. Instead of objectively assessing his music, I'd be fronting too much of a personal agenda.

That said, there's no doubt DiMeola is a talented guitarist. But I've heard enough horror stories - and read enough verbage from the man himself, to think he's an arrogant guy who does believe he's a step above most others...and is bitter that, for some reason, he's been hard done by in the jazz community - although he certainly has a fan base. Frankly, the stories I've heard about the DiMeola/de Lucia/McLaughlin trio tour would be humourous...if it weren't true.

And what, by the way, is wrong with a job at MacDonalds anyway?
John

This is your best shot? He knocked MacDonald's employees? :confused2

I'm not sure what that has to do with his playing. I seem to recall that Miles, Monk, and Mingus could be rather unpleasant in the extreme. What does that have to do with their playing? And isn't Keith Jarrett supposed to be a big jerk? I've met Joe Zawinul and thought the stick up his butt must have made it hard for him to take a poop but I still like his playing. Oh, well.

[Kerry]

Someone should do a Reality Series "When Jazz Musicians Fire Back." I'm glad they do, even when I don't agree with them.

I just wrote JazzTimes a letter. I'm sure they won't read it, but I felt sufficiently insulted by the reviewer taking the liberty of assuming that I had no particular experience on 9/11 that I just had to write in.

This particular critic just seems to go out of his way to be nasty. He wrote the most insulting review of E.S.T. that I've ever seen, intimating that their music caused mental retardation. To me, this just goes beyond fair criticism and makes me think... who appointed this person as Jazz Authority?

[Bev Stapleton]

To me, this just goes beyond fair criticism and makes me think... who appointed this person as Jazz Authority?

This is the heart of it, for me. Critics who make cut-and-dried pronouncements, with absolutely no sense that music can be appreciated in different ways.

To use the old cliche, we're all blind people trying to describe the elephant from the bit we can feel. What makes a critic so presumptuous to believe that he/she comprehends the whole elephant?

I'd never review a DiMeola disc, because I think I'd be unable to separate my personal feelings from objectivity

I heard the same thing expressed by a book critic a few months back. "What words do you use to write a scathing review?" "I don't write scathing reviews. I send the book back."

Very wise words.

[jkelman]

This is your best shot? He knocked MacDonald's employees? :confused2

I'm not sure what that has to do with his playing. I seem to recall that Miles, Monk, and Mingus could be rather unpleasant in the extreme. What does that have to do with their playing? And isn't Keith Jarrett supposed to be a big jerk? I've met Joe Zawinul and thought the stick up his butt must have made it hard for him to take a poop but I still like his playing. Oh, well.
My best shot? Personally, I think anyone who publishes something that insults a whole group of workers, and effectively says that what he does it better, is an arrogant prat.

That said, that was hardly my best shot. My entire post described exactly why I don't particularly like his music but that, despite that, I respect his talent and would never knock someone for liking it (or anything I don't like). I also alluded to some comments I've heard from reliable sources (but cannot quote) regarding his behaviour on the tour with McLaughlin and de Lucia. So I'm not sure why you're focusing on one aspect of my post when clearly the rest of it had things to say about him as well.

Still, my point about the MacDonalds quote was simply that it's incredibly rude and arrogant to say that kind of thing. We can't all be creative musicians like Al likes to think he is (despite the critical community not always seeing it that way). Every job has a purpose, and every job is necessary. So for DiMeola to publicly make a comment like he did shows a basic lack of respect for people that I find offensive.

Clear? :shrug:
John

[jkelman]

This is your best shot? He knocked MacDonald's employees? :confused2

I'm not sure what that has to do with his playing. I seem to recall that Miles, Monk, and Mingus could be rather unpleasant in the extreme. What does that have to do with their playing? And isn't Keith Jarrett supposed to be a big jerk? I've met Joe Zawinul and thought the stick up his butt must have made it hard for him to take a poop but I still like his playing. Oh, well.
Oh, and one more thing. Are you seriously placing Al in the same community has Monk, Mingus, Zawinul, Jarrett and Miles? Pulease.

Miles released so many seminal recordings it's hard to count, but here are a few that will be remembered in centuries to come: Kind of Blue, Sketches of Spain, In a Silent Way, Bitches Brew.
Zawinul, even if Weather Report doesn't have the longevity of Miles, will be remembered, if for nothing else, as the guy who wrote In a Silent Way (though I do think certain aspects of Weather Report will stand the test of time).
Jarrett has, if nothing else (and there's lots): Koln, Belonging and the Standards trio.
As for Mingus and Monk? I don't think I need to go any further.

Name a single DiMeola album that can be considered in the same breath as any of those above. That doesn't mean Al doesn't have talent, but I hardly think he'll go down in the history books as a guitar (or musical) innovator like contemporaries including McLaughlin, Scofield, Metheny and Frisell will. Being an innovator doesn't justify bad behaviour, by the way, but putting Al in the same group as Miles, Monk (and, by the way, Monk had a mood disorder, which at least explained some of his behaviour) and Mingus is like saying Tiny Tim should be considered as lyrically innovative as Bob Dylan.

There's nothing to say that being a contrary person precludes you from being artful - and, in fact, every one of the examples you cite is valid. But the vitriolic nature of Al's response in that JT letter to the editor was on a different level entirely (if I could dig it up I'd post it) - we're talking a petulant child who is striking out because someone didn't like his disc.

I'm not saying that an artist hasn't the right to write in and counter a critical review in a publication; but the response should be reasoned, not hateful and insulting. And even if a bad critic doesn't take the high road, the artist stands to gain nothing by responding in kind - a reasoned response will ultimately go a long way to discrediting the critic far more than insults (and I'm talking about Al calling the guy a F*cking assh*le). I've seen plenty of artists write in who make me go "yeah, I understand and they have a point." Al's response was nothing more than a slew of invectives. Didn't say *why* the critic got it wrong in fact. Simply stated that he *was* wrong, as if that was an incontrovertible fact (read Bev's post on cut-and-dried pronouncements). And you get nowhere slinging insults. The appropriate response to a bad review is something that doesn't make *you* look foolish, and while I've read many artists' responses and both understood and respected their points of view (even if I haven't always agreed), Al's letter to JT was the puerile rant of a developmentally-arrested, immature and unsupportively egotistical brat.
John

[jkelman]

I just wrote JazzTimes a letter. I'm sure they won't read it, but I felt sufficiently insulted by the reviewer taking the liberty of assuming that I had no particular experience on 9/11 that I just had to write in.

This particular critic just seems to go out of his way to be nasty. He wrote the most insulting review of E.S.T. that I've ever seen, intimating that their music caused mental retardation. To me, this just goes beyond fair criticism and makes me think... who appointed this person as Jazz Authority?
And furthermore to my response to Rainyday, I am quite sure, based on the kinds of posts that Kerry has made here, that her response will be a rational and reasoned one.

I absolutely do not support critics who seem to feel that it's their purpose in life to score points off artists who are working hard to do what they do. The kind of comments about EST that she cites are, of course, just as insulting as my friend DiMeola. But the response that would get people to realize just how much of a birk the critic is, would be the one that doesn't stoop to the same level.

In a previous life, where I was dealing with people who could sometimes be irrational, was to (to quote Monty Python) "run rings around them logically." Stoop to their level and you don't achieve anything. Remain rational and reasoned and they just look even worse.

And Kerry, don't think JT won't read (or even, perhaps, publish) your letter - they've done so in the past, so there's no reason to believe they'll ignore it on principle. Personally, I hope they read it and publish it because, despite my rants against the Al-man, the fact is also that the critic who reviewed Al's disc *was* not particularly informed. It wasn't a great review, no doubt about it. But Al would have achieved a better result - and more respect for himself - had he gone for higher ground. Sadly, I can't find my copy of JT with the review of your disc, so can't comment. But what you say about the reviewer's comments make me think he/she was one of those more interested in scoring points than writing about the music, so go for it! I'll be watching those Letters to the Editor pages!
Best!
John

[Kerry]

Thanks John. My response was something along the lines of what I posted here, so it was definitely somewhat reasoned. :) And for what it's worth, the review is in the Keys section of February's issue. (I was already not very thrilled about it, but the 9/11 comment is what really riled me, as someone who, like many New Yorkers - and Washingtonians - was pretty traumatized by that event.)

You sound like a much more thoughtful reviewer. Musicians don't expect to be coddled, just given a fair and considerate assessment, and it sounds like that's what you do.

And to Bev... I really agree with your whole elephant comment.

[jkelman]

Thanks John. My response was something along the lines of what I posted here, so it was definitely somewhat reasoned. :) And for what it's worth, the review is in the Keys section of February's issue. (I was already not very thrilled about it, but the 9/11 comment is what really riled me, as someone who, like many New Yorkers - and Washingtonians - was pretty traumatized by that event.)

I thought I'd seen it - and just went back and read it. While the overall tone of the review is good, but it'd be nice to know a little more about what it sounds like. And yes, I'd say the 9/11 comment is not only pointless, I could see how it would be upsetting to someone who was there on that day (geez, I live in Ottawa, Canada, and was emotionally wrecked for literally a couple of months before I was able to drag myself out of it while, of course, never forgetting it).

You sound like a much more thoughtful reviewer. Musicians don't expect to be coddled, just given a fair and considerate assessment, and it sounds like that's what you do.
Thanks Kerry, I try. I assume you've seen my review of Labyrinth on the site: http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=19001, an for what it's worth, I don't think Conrad's description of "Rhodes Rage" as a "samba-with-a-limp" is at all fair. And, in fact, while I don't like to specifically criticize writers (kinda like doctors who try to avoid the same thing), that kind of rhetoric fairly smells of the kind of "scoring points" thing I was referring to. I know that that there are countless writers who are better and more insightful than I (and many of them on this very site), but the one thing I'll say is that I don't go into listening to a record with a chip on my shoulder, or a personal agenda to forward. I think writers (hate the term critic) have a responsibility to be open-minded and, if a particular style of music is one they have neither taste for or experieince with, then they should write nothing rather than try to assess it with their clearly uninformed frame of reference. I've probably made the mistake of thinking I *got* something when I really didn't, but at least I can say (and can say this without reservation about, at the very least, the writers whose names crop up regularly at AAJ) is that my intentions are good.

And to Bev... I really agree with your whole elephant comment.
You can always trust Bev to come up with a great way to describe things. Conrad should have contented himself with assessing the music for what it was, rather make the arrogant assumption that, just because he's heard one of your records, he can get right inside your head.

Good luck with the letter though - I'll keep my eyes open!
John

[clave]

"samba-with-a-limp"

What an absurd comment, period. (In or out of context!) That said, I wonder if the review is available on the web? (I killed my subscription to JazzTimes many years ago, though I read it from time to time.)

And thanks, Kerry, for the mention of Washington-area folks re. 9/11.

[Kerry]

Thanks John, I did see that and thought it was an informed and well-researched review. I really got the sense that you really listened to what you were reviewing... your accurate characterization of Paloma as an odd-metered bossa came to mind. Also, you were versed in the background of the different players (as in Colligan's large body of work as a pianist). Finally, I felt that you really "got" what I was trying to do.

Also... I just went back over my words, and I really didn't mean to imply that only New Yorkers and Washingtonians were affected by 9/11. I'm sorry you were also so traumatized!

Clave, I'm listening to your great Brazilian jazz radio station right now! :)
As for the mischaracterized "samba with a limp," it's actually a samba with a baiao hook.

[Bev Stapleton]

Taking the elephant analogy one stage too far, some critics seem to invariably find themselves fumbling with their hands up the elephant's...

[clave]

Thanks John, I did see that and thought it was an informed and well-researched review. I really got the sense that you really listened to what you were reviewing... your accurate characterization of Paloma as an odd-metered bossa came to mind. Also, you were versed in the background of the different players (as in Colligan's large body of work as a pianist). Finally, I felt that you really "got" what I was trying to do.

Also... I just went back over my words, and I really didn't mean to imply that only New Yorkers and Washingtonians were affected by 9/11. I'm sorry you were also so traumatized!

Clave, I'm listening to your great Brazilian jazz radio station right now! :)
As for the mischaracterized "samba with a limp," it's actually a samba with a baiao hook.

Ah - that makes a little more sense (about the baião section) but still...

And thanks for your kind comments! Am still working on little quirks in the playlist and track titles. (The track by Quarteto Maogani is spelled correctly now.)

[Lee Gato]

This is the heart of it, for me. Critics who make cut-and-dried pronouncements, with absolutely no sense that music can be appreciated in different ways.It's pretty much a given that music can be appreciated in different ways. A critic doesn't have to state or even hint that. Readers can surmise for themselves that a critic is evaluating on the bases of what he considers to be the more important senses of appreciation, whether for himself or for whomever shares in his ordering of importance.

To use the old cliche, we're all blind people trying to describe the elephant from the bit we can feel. What makes a critic so presumptuous to believe that he/she comprehends the whole elephant? It would be boastful to claim such comprehension, but I don't see so many critics making that claim.

I heard the same thing expressed by a book critic a few months back. "What words do you use to write a scathing review?" "I don't write scathing reviews. I send the book back." Very wise words.That's fine for some critics, but the history of letters would be much poorer if there weren't also critics who do write scathing reviews.

[Lee Gato]

Taking the elephant analogy one stage too far, some critics seem to invariably find themselves fumbling with their hands up the elephant's...Such a scathing review of these critics.

[Kerry]

A scathing review is one thing, but an uninformed review that makes unfair assumptions with no rational basis is quite another. As is a review by someone whose motivations seem to be more of an attempt to insult than to educate.

[clave]

Right you are, Kerry!

It takes a lot of work to get the right balance in reviews, also to describe things in meaningful ways. I remember reading something years back in JazzTimes where the writer said that Kenny Drew, Jr.'s playing was "as smooth as peanut butter." I mean, ????????????!

[Lee Gato]

I remember reading something years back in JazzTimes where the writer said that Kenny Drew, Jr.'s playing was "as smooth as peanut butter." I mean, ????????????!Maybe Skippy peanut butter. I hear it does spread more smoothly than other commercial brands.

[jkelman]

Also... I just went back over my words, and I really didn't mean to imply that only New Yorkers and Washingtonians were affected by 9/11. I'm sorry you were also so traumatized!

Not to worry Kerry - my comment wasn't to suggest that you were suggesting that only those in NYC and Washington were traumatized. What I was trying to say (and geez, I'm a writer?!?!?) was that given how severely affected my wife and I were at such a distance, I don't even know if I can imagine what it was like to be closer to where the events actually took place.

John

[jkelman]

Taking the elephant analogy one stage too far, some critics seem to invariably find themselves fumbling with their hands up the elephant's...
OK, I passed kind comment on how I can always count on your ability to articulate things just the right way....and now this? :cheers :eek2:
John

[jkelman]

Maybe Skippy peanut butter. I hear it does spread more smoothly than other commercial brands.
Yeah, but the damn stuff keeps getting stuck to the roof of your mouth (a source of endless personal amusement, I'm a little embarassed to say, when I give a spoonful to each of my dogs. I don't know about them, but it keeps me entertained for a good half hour).:D

[Lee Gato]

I think you've suggested just the right turn of phrase:

"Kenny Drew Jr.'s piano playing sticks to the roof of your mouth like premium brand peanut butter."

[clave]

Thinking back, I believe that the writer said that KD Jr.'s playing *was* "like peanut butter," but what does it matter? The point is that a lot of writers come up with meaningless (or unneccesarily derogatory) descriptions and comparisons. This one's meaningless - and I've seen too many character assasinations for comfort. An all-out personal attack on singer Kendra Shank - also published in JazzTimes - is, hands-down, the nastiest "review" I've ever read. And she responded thoughtfully, and they printed the letter... I can only hope the writer in question apologized!!

At any rate, to go back to something George said on a previous page about journalists being qualified: well, lots aren't, whether they're covering current events or music. It's very unfortunate, but I don't expect it to change anytime soon. A recent case in point: a deliberate misquotation of AAJ writer Elliot Simon - also in JT - on an artist whose politics are, to put it politely, highly controversial. (Gilad Atzmon is the artist. See the Dec. 2005 JT letters to the ed. for a response and correction.)

[maceo]

I say fair play to DiMeola abd Malone.

[Bev Stapleton]

OK, I passed kind comment on how I can always count on your ability to articulate things just the right way....and now this? :cheers :eek2:
John

I'm lucky. I always get the fluffy bits on the ears.

[Hot Ptah]

Let me throw out a point for discussion-is the jazz scene so fragile in many American cities that a critic has an obligation to not kill it off entirely with negative reviews?
For example, some American metro areas of one million or more people have no national jazz clubs, and one or two national jazz concert series which are subsidized by a combination of private donations and government grants. These jazz series are often not very well attended. Attendance can be improved by a big splash in the local newspaper, such as a positive cover story in the Arts section. Such an attendance boost can be the difference between the national concert series surviving or not.
Often in such cities, the amount of jazz on radio is also dwindling. In these circumstances, should a critic write a non-committal review of a less than stellar performance, and try to keep the jazz scene alive with as many positive pieces as possible? Or does the critic continue to call it as he or she sees it, and write negative reviews of one or more of the five to ten national concerts which will come to the city in the next twelve months?

[Kerry]

That's a very interesting question that throws a new light on the debate.
I think most people respect critics' opinions (I always look at the movie critics, for example). But do you think jazz is becoming such a niche market that those who aren't interested in it probably wouldn't read reviews pertaining to it?

[QUOTE=Hot Ptah]Let me throw out a point for discussion-is the jazz scene so fragile in many American cities that a critic has an obligation to not kill it off entirely with negative reviews?

[RainyDay]

My best shot? Personally, I think anyone who publishes something that insults a whole group of workers, and effectively says that what he does it better, is an arrogant prat.

That said, that was hardly my best shot. My entire post described exactly why I don't particularly like his music but that, despite that, I respect his talent and would never knock someone for liking it (or anything I don't like). I also alluded to some comments I've heard from reliable sources (but cannot quote) regarding his behaviour on the tour with McLaughlin and de Lucia. So I'm not sure why you're focusing on one aspect of my post when clearly the rest of it had things to say about him as well.

Still, my point about the MacDonalds quote was simply that it's incredibly rude and arrogant to say that kind of thing. We can't all be creative musicians like Al likes to think he is (despite the critical community not always seeing it that way). Every job has a purpose, and every job is necessary. So for DiMeola to publicly make a comment like he did shows a basic lack of respect for people that I find offensive.

Clear? :shrug:
John

In response to your several posts to me, your dislike of Di Meola seems just a teensy bit over the top. He isn't a mass murderer, just someone who's music you don't like. I'm not even aware of him physically assaulting anyone. Your comments go well beyond however much his music makes your skin crawl.

My post wasn't comparing Di Meola to anyone. The point of the post was that three jazz musicians who are known for their unpleasantness don't get judged on their personal habits but on their music.

As for his comments about MacDonald's workers, jeez, Louise, who cares?

The post about the obligation (or not) of critics not to kill jazz in areas where it is on life support is an interesting one. I think critics should be honest about the music. However, I don't think reviewers/critics have to get personal.

I don't pay any attention to critics. For example, I don't care how many rave reviews Roy Hargrove gets, I won't go see him until he's clean and sober. Not because junkies are bad people but because I don't appreciate spending money on an artist that is too loaded to perform. Once was enough. And no matter how much and how often someone slams Kenny Garrett, I'm going to see him whenever he comes to town until his playing should deteriorate to a point that I decide I don't want to see him anymore. Critics mean nothing to me. Honestly. Nothing. I'm sure they must serve a useful purpose. Occasionally I will read a review of an event I attended. More often than not, I end up wondering if we were at the same event.

[Bev Stapleton]

In these circumstances, should a critic write a non-committal review of a less than stellar performance, and try to keep the jazz scene alive with as many positive pieces as possible? Or does the critic continue to call it as he or she sees it, and write negative reviews of one or more of the five to ten national concerts which will come to the city in the next twelve months?

My introduction to jazz came partly through the jazz pages of the Melody Maker (a rock/pop weekly) in the mid 70s. I can distinctly recall seeing celebratory reviews of Mike Westbrook and John Surman, people I did not know, and chancing albums by them as a result.

There must have been negative reviews as well, but I don't recall them. I certainly wouldn't have been encouraged to experiment with jazz through reading a critic whining about how awful X was and how much better Parker or Ellington were.

[Lee Gato]

A critic need not be a publicist for the cause of jazz at large.

[Hot Ptah]

A critic need not be a publicist for the cause of jazz at large.

That is my question. In New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Seattle and perhaps a few other metro areas in the U.S. which I am not thinking of, it would not matter. There a critic can write anything and it will not destroy the jazz scene in that city.
I am thinking of the jazz situation in Milwaukee and Kansas City, in particular. I can see how a series of negative reviews in the daily newspapers could kill off any national jazz audience in those cities. Does a jazz critic have any obligation to take that into account, or not?
Another question comes on large university campuses, where interest in jazz is variable at best. Should a journalist try to write positive pieces which would tend to interest students in jazz, to open the jazz door for young people with a bent toward off-the-beaten-path rock music? Or should a journalist in a college town blast away with negative reviews of jazz and confirm for many young people that jazz is not something that they want to get involved with?
How healthy is jazz in America? Can it withstand negative critics outside of the largest cities?

[RainyDay]

That is my question. In New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Seattle and perhaps a few other metro areas in the U.S. which I am not thinking of, it would not matter. There a critic can write anything and it will not destroy the jazz scene in that city.
I am thinking of the jazz situation in Milwaukee and Kansas City, in particular. I can see how a series of negative reviews in the daily newspapers could kill off any national jazz audience in those cities. Does a jazz critic have any obligation to take that into account, or not?
Another question comes on large university campuses, where interest in jazz is variable at best. Should a journalist try to write positive pieces which would tend to interest students in jazz, to open the jazz door for young people with a bent toward off-the-beaten-path rock music? Or should a journalist in a college town blast away with negative reviews of jazz and confirm for many young people that jazz is not something that they want to get involved with?
How healthy is jazz in America? Can it withstand negative critics outside of the largest cities?

If jazz can withstand the vitriol found on the internet, it should be able to withstand some bad reviews. :p

Seriously, for people who are new to jazz or exploring jazz, maybe a bad review will scare them off but for the diehards, I would hope not. I'd be interested in hearing about the local jazz scene in places where not many jazz artists visit.

In the SF Bay Area, the hills are alive with the sound of jazz. Lots going on all over from small burgs in the North Bay down to San Jose. Also a very vibrant local jazz scene.

[Hot Ptah]

If jazz can withstand the vitriol found on the internet, it should be able to withstand some bad reviews. :p

Seriously, for people who are new to jazz or exploring jazz, maybe a bad review will scare them off but for the diehards, I would hope not. I'd be interested in hearing about the local jazz scene in places where not many jazz artists visit.

My thought is that there are few diehards in most cities in America now, outside of the largest metro areas.
For example, there are not enough in Kansas City to support a lot of national jazz programming, without corporate and public funding of concerts. Excellent national jazz concerts are put on by sophisticated, caring presenters. The auditoriums are usually about half full. There is no jazz programming on the Kansas City public radio station--none, ever. There is some jazz programming on a Kansas City community radio station and on the public station of Lawrence, Kansas, which has variable reception in the Kansas City area, depending on what part of the city you are in. The summer Blues and Jazz Festival died a few years ago. A smaller festival was started this summer, again subsidized by both public and corporate money. No commercial jazz club can survive in Kansas City with a steady lineup of national acts.

[clave]

Unless things have changed significantly in the past year and a half, there's not much of anything in the way of a true jazz scene in the D.C. area, either. That's not to say there's no jazz at all, but so many clubs have closed over the past 8 years or so, and it's not a jazz-friendly area anymore. (To my mind, at least.)

However, I think these problems are not unique to jazz - most "niche" music seems to be in jeopardy these days.

[jkelman]

In response to your several posts to me, your dislike of Di Meola seems just a teensy bit over the top. He isn't a mass murderer, just someone who's music you don't like. I'm not even aware of him physically assaulting anyone. Your comments go well beyond however much his music makes your skin crawl.
YOu're probably right RainyDay - but certainly the reason why, since I like to think I am a responsible critic, I'll never review anything he releases. But my problem is when people show utter disrespect for people. Had Al not written that letter to JT, I'd not feel so strongly, but it just smacked of the kind of elitism that has no place anywhere.

My post wasn't comparing Di Meola to anyone. The point of the post was that three jazz musicians who are known for their unpleasantness don't get judged on their personal habits but on their music.
And my point is that - while I agree to a point, it's a lot easier to look past someone's deficiencies when they are truly monumental artists - as all of your cited examples are. As opposed to Al who, I'll not dispute, has a certain degree of talent, but certainly not what it takes to see him go down as a real innovator, either as a performer or composer.

As for his comments about MacDonald's workers, jeez, Louise, who cares?
As a matter of fact, I do, and I believe I've made that clear. If artists get mad at critics for disrespecting them, what are we to make of artists who disrespect an entire (and rather large) group of people who have a job that may not be as high art as theirs, but is good, honest work. The fact that you don't think there's anything wrong with Al's comment--disrespecting a while group of people who work hard for minimal pay just to keep bread on their table and a roof over their heads (hopefully)--frankly, speaks volumes. If you don't care, fine. But I do. And I'm sure I'm not alone. So there's your answer.

The post about the obligation (or not) of critics not to kill jazz in areas where it is on life support is an interesting one. I think critics should be honest about the music. However, I don't think reviewers/critics have to get personal.

On this I agree 100%. For a critic to get personal is abusing the privilege. A review should be about the music. Because, unless the critic happens to know the artist personally, as Kerry has pointed out, they know absolutely nothign about what's in their heads. And, frankly, as someone who's done his share of interviews, even then I'd not presume to know any more about them than what they've said to me in an interview. Some artists get quite open and personal, so you get a feel about them on a larger scale; others don't. But you're absolutely right that critics can and should be honest about the music, and that can absolutely be done without getting personal. Frankly, to get back to our particular bone of contention, if I found myself in the position of having to review a DiMeola release, I can tell you I'd absolutely distance my personal feelings about the guy from the music. The fact that I don't particularly like what he does musically is, really, more the reason why I don't want to review his music. Unless I hear he's put somethign out that is a really radical departure, I know enough to know I don't particularly like where he is artistically, and so any review I write would be coloured by that. And that ain't right.

I don't pay any attention to critics. For example, I don't care how many rave reviews Roy Hargrove gets, I won't go see him until he's clean and sober. Not because junkies are bad people but because I don't appreciate spending money on an artist that is too loaded to perform. Once was enough. And no matter how much and how often someone slams Kenny Garrett, I'm going to see him whenever he comes to town until his playing should deteriorate to a point that I decide I don't want to see him anymore. Critics mean nothing to me. Honestly. Nothing. I'm sure they must serve a useful purpose. Occasionally I will read a review of an event I attended. More often than not, I end up wondering if we were at the same event.
Well, I'm glad we mean nothing to you. Honestly. Nothing. But given the readership numbers at AAJ, we clearly mean something to some people. And that means that we have certain responsibilities. And, at the end of the day, the primary one is that of assessing music fairly, and without hidden self-promoting agendas. I've mentioned a few reviewers at the site who I think are exemplary - Paul Olson, Budd Kopman, Michael McCaw; but there are more. So whether or not we serve a purpose to you is neither here nor there. There's a large number of people who want to read what we have to say, and speaking for myself, that's a responsibility I (and most here, to be honest) take very seriously. People may not always agree with what we write, but hopefully they think that we are being fair and assessing the music. first and foremost.
John

[RainyDay]

My thought is that there are few diehards in most cities in America now, outside of the largest metro areas.
For example, there are not enough in Kansas City to support a lot of national jazz programming, without corporate and public funding of concerts. Excellent national jazz concerts are put on by sophisticated, caring presenters. The auditoriums are usually about half full. There is no jazz programming on the Kansas City public radio station--none, ever. There is some jazz programming on a Kansas City community radio station and on the public station of Lawrence, Kansas, which has variable reception in the Kansas City area, depending on what part of the city you are in. The summer Blues and Jazz Festival died a few years ago. A smaller festival was started this summer, again subsidized by both public and corporate money. No commercial jazz club can survive in Kansas City with a steady lineup of national acts.

That's interesting. Here, the SF Jazz Festival, which is actually a string of concerts at various venues over a few weeks or months in the Spring and Fall, is a non profit. The 24-hour jazz radio station is actually part of PBS, a non profit. The San Jose Jazz Festival is a non profit. There are other jazz related non profits. The clubs here are for profit but one of LA's main jazz club is a non profit, the Jazz Bakery.

[Saundra Hummer]

I can see Rainy's point, I've been to several gigs where drugs killed the edge the band would have had, had a musician or two not been so far gone. I've been at performances, where some had to leave the stage and pull themselves to gether or at least quit pouring sweat until they were drenched after only less than a minute of play. This from our best, and it's not something which fills you with joy to see. A good band covers, but it is still a disappointment. Sad.

I've read rave reviews about these mens music and have had others wonder why some of them never received what was believed to be their due from the public and sometimes from the the critics as well. Could be this is it in a nutshell. They got the reviews and audience participation and support they deserved.

It's not a good thing to wonder if someone is going to die in front of you at any minute, and I'm not stretching this thought, or wonder if they will be alive for the next performace the following day or night.

Addiction is a monster; one we don't all enjoy having exhibit itself in front of us. Too depressing, and the cost of admission these days is way too high for that experience as well. Sorry there's this problem, I feel terrible that there are musicians or anyone else having their lives destroyed by it, but I'm with Rainy, not sure I would be paying top dollar to have that disappointment play itself out in front of me.

[RainyDay]

Addiction is a monster; one we don't all enjoy having exhibit itself in front of us. Too depressing, and the cost of admission these days is way too high for that experience as well. Sorry there's this problem, I feel terrible that there are musicians or anyone else having their lives destroyed by it, but I'm with Rainy, not sure I would be paying top dollar to have that disappointment play itself out in front of me.

Fortunately, I'd seen Hargrove play with H Hancock and he was fine, and played well, but when I saw him with his band, he was waaaaay out of it. Perhaps this would be an opportunity for reviewers to state how his playing is impaired. Surely that would be more relevant than whether or not he's a nice guy. It's hard to believe I'm the only person who has noticed it. He's so talented but he is killing himself.

[jkelman]

Fortunately, I'd seen Hargrove play with H Hancock and he was fine, and played well, but when I saw him with his band, he was waaaaay out of it. Perhaps this would be an opportunity for reviewers to state how his playing is impaired. Surely that would be more relevant than whether or not he's a nice guy. It's hard to believe I'm the only person who has noticed it. He's so talented but he is killing himself.
Taking a devil's advocate position, do we actually have incontrovertible proof that Roy is under the influence, or is it only that his behaviour is suggestive of it? The reason I ask is that there can be other reasons for the appearance of being "out of it" that can include suffering from a mood affective disorder where the disorder itself can give the appearance of being disoriented; or the medications used to try to control the illness impair the person.

Personally, I'd never suggest writing about that kind of thing unless I knew for certain it was a fact. And even then, maybe it's not really necessary. Maybe all that's necessary is to discuss how the music is. After all, if he's really that out of it as you say, then the music is suffering and that's really what counts - not reporting on a person's personal issues with either drugs or mental illness.

Not saying I know the situation with Hargrove either way. Just presenting some possibilities, which would explain why I'd certainly not go there. Instead I'd just talk about whether the performance was solid or not rather than try to suggest why.

John

[clave]

Taking a devil's advocate position, do we actually have incontrovertible proof that Roy is under the influence, or is it only that his behaviour is suggestive of it? The reason I ask is that there can be other reasons for the appearance of being "out of it" that can include suffering from a mood affective disorder where the disorder itself can give the appearance of being disoriented; or the medications used to try to control the illness impair the person.

Personally, I'd never suggest writing about that kind of thing unless I knew for certain it was a fact. And even then, maybe it's not really necessary. Maybe all that's necessary is to discuss how the music is. After all, if he's really that out of it as you say, then the music is suffering and that's really what counts - not reporting on a person's personal issues with either drugs or mental illness.

Not saying I know the situation with Hargrove either way. Just presenting some possibilities, which would explain why I'd certainly not go there. Instead I'd just talk about whether the performance was solid or not rather than try to suggest why.

John

A case in point (medical problems and medication side effects): Tom Harrell. He's been very brave and forthright about his problems, but hey, I'd rather talk about his music. Somehow the idea of critic as narc bothers me a lot...

If someone is writing a bio. of Harrell, then I'd see a logical reason for discussing his schizophrenia. But it doesn't need to be discussed in a review of a CD or gig.

[jazzcritic]

I've seen Tom Harrell perform and there's absolutely nothing wrong with his playing. His schizophrenia probably requires a very powerful prescription and it takes all of his concentration just to play. Who cares if he hangs his head and slumps between solos and ensemble passages? But an ignorant critic who wasn't aware of his condition would write a scathing review.

I thought George Adams was rather drunk the only time I saw him, but he died a short time later, so it may have been the illness that killed him.

I try to avoid reviewing artists that I don't care for at all, but there are those whose performances on CD and in concert can vary widely in quality. There's no sense in me covering Jamie Cullum, for example... Again, each writer has to establish credibility with readers over time, then it is easier to decide if a particular journalist's opinion is likely to jive with yours.

[clave]

Exactly (Tom Harrell). But some writers have, in the past, seemed to feel it was necessary to say something. I mean, ???

[J_Deighton]

About once every two years I break down and buy a jazz magazine because they'll have a profile on one of my handful of favorites, and after reading the damn thing cover to cover and hating every minute of it I swear never again. Irony of all ironies- I just sprung for the Feb. issue of JazzTimes because of the profile on Roswell Rudd. I hated the whole magazine, but was surprised to find out that this issue was indeed the one in question regarding the crap review of Kerry's record, and I hate to confess this, having got caught up with this thread after I read the review, but I had no idea when I read it that it was that review.
I don't really know what a samba with a limp is, but I felt that the review as a whole was rather possitive. And just reading the review I had a very different reaction to the troublesome 9-11 reference. I don't think Conrad ever questions the impact 9-11 had on you as a person. Seeing as he thoiught that your 9-11 piece was the weakest on the session he concludes that a theme like 9-11 may be outside your grasp as an artist. He's jumping to conclusions, but it doesn't read to me like the vicious personal attack you took it as.
On the other hand his review of the new E.S.T. album is needlessly vicious. (And I say this as no fan of E.S.T.) Beyond his usual flippant tone, he comes across as a bitter old fart, (if you listen to them with out drugs, you could experience brain damage,) and as such he loses his credibility as far as I'm concerned.
I have no way of substantiating this, but often times I feel as though jazz critics (I like the term!) tend to do the journo equivalent of playing to the band- they riff on things in a way that will make their jazz writer friends chuckle, but end up saying almost nothing about the music and everything you need to know about them.

[Saundra Hummer]

Going back to to what Rainy was saying and me seeing her point, I have to say that there were a large number of musicians who were my all-time favorites who were hopelessly strung out on heroin, and at times with some of them, it was all so obvious, and it was sad to see, but the music of a Charlier Parker, still picked me up and took me off to places he would have never imaginaed. I heard him do amazing things, and then at the last, when he was on his way out, he still, with the drugs slowing him down and changing how he played, was still the one I wanted to go and see, I could sit and listen to him forever.

There were others, but it was Charlie who broke your heart, but I couldn't stay away.

After so many years and after seeing so many people ruin their lives, their families lives, I have lost my tolarance for what drugs do to people, for it being glamorized in any venue. For anyone to laugh and think it and they are cool, well, sorry, I just can't see it that way. We've learned too much about it over all these years, and what we saw and what we're seeing isn't a pretty happy picture. But some of the best music we have ever heard had musicians playing it that were part of the drug culture, it was pretty pervasive, not always obvious, but it was known of, but it also ruined and shortened too many great musicians careers and in several instances, their live's. They lost out, their families and friends lost out, and so did we because of it.

[clave]

About once every two years I break down and buy a jazz magazine because they'll have a profile on one of my handful of favorites, and after reading the damn thing cover to cover and hating every minute of it I swear never again. Irony of all ironies- I just sprung for the Feb. issue of JazzTimes because of the profile on Roswell Rudd. I hated the whole magazine, but was surprised to find out that this issue was indeed the one in question regarding the crap review of Kerry's record, and I hate to confess this, having got caught up with this thread after I read the review, but I had no idea when I read it that it was that review.
I don't really know what a samba with a limp is, but I felt that the review as a whole was rather possitive. And just reading the review I had a very different reaction to the troublesome 9-11 reference. I don't think Conrad ever questions the impact 9-11 had on you as a person. Seeing