Do We Even Need Jazz Critics?

[medjuck]

I started thinking about this after hearing one of the musicians on the Miles IOW DVD complaining that no-one needs a license or takes a test to become a critic. Then on this forum I had a tiff with Larry Kart over his put down of Oscar Peterson and post-Scott Lafaro Bill Evans, and went on to read the Francis Davis threads that Clem started with his rants.

Ironically I agree to some extent with the critics whose work I'm questioning: I don't own any Oscar Peterson recordings (except of course as an accompianist), didn't like the Evans trios with Gary Peacock (unfortunately the trio I heard the most often live) and can't think of one pre- 1970 Miles recording I'd trade for anything he did after 1970.

But, so what? I hope I would feel the same no matter what the critics say.

Monk once physically attacked Leonard Feather, accusing him of taking the food from his family with his criticism. Many of the jazzmen we all love barely made a living and some gave up playing to work at (amongst other places) the post office! So who needs even more negativity in this field.

This may sound like I'm saying that critics should only be positive. Well maybe I am. Isn't there enough good stuff out there to write about that you don't need to try to keep us away from any

music? I don't have to be told not to like Kenny G. I only need to hear him. And that doesn't make me morally or intellectually superior to his fans.

And after listening to Jazz for 40 years I can remember only a few the times I've been turned on to something I liked by a critic rather than by a friend or just by listening. (Or by a recommendation on this board.) I have a gotten a lot out of reading musicians bios and by some histories of the music.

Now I've been a critic in a way myself: I wrote a column for my college newspaper which got me in free to a lot of shows at clubs but the only thing I'm now embarassed to have written is something I thought was very cool at the time: In reviewing a performance of the 2nd Miles quintet I made reference to Wayne Shorter having "recently escaped the confines of Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers". At the time the critical consenus was that the Messengers had become commercial funk meisters and I wanted to seem as hip as everyone else. Which is what I think a lot of critics do.

I don't think I'm being very articulate about this and I've got to go take my son to volleyball practice. And as I said in the subject line "this is not a rhetorical question": i.e. I don't know the answer.

[wolff]

I keep it simple: either I like the music or I do not. I could care less what others think, either way.

I like liner notes and informative/educational articles that critics sometimes write(like Larry Kart's Tristano Mosaic article that I'm reading now)), but when it gets into how good the the mucic is, that's up to me to decide and I do not need/want a critic evaluating my likes/dislikes.

Listening to and really enjoying a bunch of Pablo titles at the moment. I could GAS if critics do not like them.

There is an audiance for critics, but I'm not in attendance.

Edited January 3, 2005 by wolff

[GregK]

sometimes a critic will say "this is like that", which can be useful for pointing me in new directions

[mikeweil]

I'd say yes, we need critics, but only after musicians and fans, although and because musicians can be, and some of them quite often were, too self-indulgent, and fans blinded by their love for the music. But I expect them to be fair, and not annoying in their choice of words. You can't argue about taste, and every criticism should be substantiated.

[Chuck Nessa]

I have been informed by critics since high school. If I had not discovered Down Beat in 1961 I would probably be a doctor or working at Wal-Mart.

I had been led to jazz by my dad's love of the big bands and developed a thirst for more info. Martin Williams, Nat Hentoff, George Hoefer, Leonard Feather, John Tynan, Ira Gitler, Gilbert Erskine, Barbara Gardner, Ralph Gleason, Donal Henahan, Don DeMichael, Bill Mathieu, Pete Welding, John S Wilson, etc.

We all need "somewhere" to test our opinions and attitudes. These folks did this for me. I do believe we all grow when we are challenged.

Later in my life as my toes dipped into the water Terry Martin, Larry Kart, John Litweiler and others provided "nudges" worth gold.

Sorry to say most current "jazz journalism" and opinions from the internet community do not seem to be as "eye opening" as journalistic messages from a remote scribe with no need for quick "appreciation".

My edit is to add the names jazz writers Max Harrison, Michael James, G E Lambert, Albert McCarthy, Burnett James, Paul Oliver and Charles Fox to the list of "influences". Jack Cooke was a MoFo as well. Shit! I'm sure I forgot some.

Unfortunately my influences were constrained by my typically American "monolingual" situation.

Thanks to all.

Edited January 3, 2005 by Chuck Nessa

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Not all writing about jazz is criticism. Not all jazz writers are critics. I love this piece by Dan Morgenstern (not included in his recent book as far as I can see):

=============================================

The Role of the Jazz Critic

By Dan Morgenstern

[Originally published in 1984 in the program for the twenty-sixth annual Notre Dame Collegiate Jazz Festival]

Criticism is properly the rod of divination: a hazel-switch for the discovery of buried treasure, not a birch-twig for the castigation of offenders. — Arthur Symons

The role of the critic in jazz is the same as in the other arts: to serve as a bridge between artist and audience. At its rare best, criticism enhances appreciation and understanding and facilitates the development of perception and taste.

Music, the most abstract of arts, is perhaps the most difficult to criticize. Words are not equivalent to notes, but frequent use of musical notation and technical terminology-aside from restricting the critic's audience to those familiar with them-is not a substitute for insight.

Before discussing the critic's role, however, it is necessary to briefly distinguish between criticism and other forms of writing about music. In the jazz world, unfortunately, almost anyone who writes about the music is reflexively called a critic, though only a small percentage of the published words about jazz can legitimately be defined as criticism. A record or performance review in Down Beat or a college newspaper, for example, is almost always just that — a review. Which is to say, a reflection of the writer's personal opinion, without reference to a larger judgmental framework and bereft of historical or aesthetic context. Such writing is useful only insofar as it contains specific information, such as how well a particular artist is featured, how good or bad the recorded sound is, when the music was recorded, etc. Everything else depends on prior acquaintance with the writer's work, which enables the reader to determine to what extent his own taste overlaps with that of the writer.

Nor is the kind of interview with an artist that makes up the bulk of articles in jazz periodicals representative of criticism. It is a species of reporting, in which the writer/interviewer's voice and opinions are secondary to those of the subject. Reviewing and reporting are facets of journalism, not of criticism as such.

True criticism is as rare in jazz as in other fields. It is a discipline that requires thorough acquaintance with general principles of aesthetics and the specific nature and history of the music, as well as the writing skills necessary to clarify and explicate the critic's ideas. And these ideas need to be original and stimulating. Clearly, it is impossible to become a critic overnight. It is impossible to take seriously the opinions of a writer on jazz whose listening experience begins with John Coltrane, or even with Charlie Parker.

The bulk of writing on jazz, even in books, is not criticism in the sense I'm defining the term. Much of it is biography and history, some of it is musicology and analysis. Many jazz fans are acquainted with at least the outlines of the life of Charlie Parker; few have any genuine understanding of his contribution to the art of improvisation. A book like Bird Lives!, which tells you plenty (much of it untrue) about the former and next to nothing about the latter, is fairly representative of the bulk of jazz literature.

What, then, is a true work of jazz criticism? The list is not long: Andre Hodeir's Jazz: Its Evolution And Essence, Gunther Schuller's Early Jazz; Martin William's The Jazz Tradition (recently revised and enlarged) and The Art Of Jazz (a collection of essays by various writers, edited by Williams); some of the pieces in the many collections of Whitney Balliett's New Yorker essays; Albert Murray's Stomping The Blues; Gary Giddins's Riding On A Blue Note; the pieces on jazz and jazz musicians in Ralph Ellison's Shadow And Act, and a few more.

The writers represented in this admittedly personal selection by no means always agree with each other, but they share a solid knowledge of the music's history, an understanding of its nature and aims, and — not least — good ears and writing skills. They also share the ability to distinguish between the timeless and the ephemeral, and a sense of the place of jazz in the artistic and social scheme of things. No one who reads these critics can fail to come away with an urge to hear or re-hear the music they write about, and with an enhanced appreciation of that music.

That, in a nutshell, is what the role of the critic should be: to guide the listener (who of course may also be a player) to the best the art has to offer, and to make the listener aware of what to listen for — and why. Hearing and responding to music is not a passive act, and should not be only an emotional and visceral reaction. The true critic must have an intense commitment to what he writes about and be able to transmit his sense of its value.

This is not to say that other forms of jazz writing have no significance. We want to know what musicians think about their own (and others') music and what motivates them. We want to read about the lives of the great jazz creators, just as we want to read about other extraordinary people. And we need the day-to-day reviews in the jazz and general press as a guide to keep up with what is going on and coming out. The duties of writers in these areas are clear and simple: to report fairly and factually and not to misquote or misrepresent. Do your research diligently and present it clearly if you're writing a biography or biographical essay; be fair and keep in mind what the artist's intention is when reviewing a performance, live or recorded. And never patronize your subject (or your reader) or assume the mantle of omnipotence.

In fairness to the jazz journalist, it must be pointed out that a critic has the advantage of selectivity; he can concentrate on masterpieces and draw on years of leisurely listening, while the reviewer must deal with what he is assigned to cover, be it good, indifferent or bad, and has to write against a deadline. But that is good discipline and training. Most critics began as journalists, and the best journalists are careful and conscientious craftsmen.

Ultimately, it is the fault of critics and reviewers that the term criticism has acquired essentially negative connotations. To criticize is not synonymous with pulling apart or finding fault — to the contrary, as I have tried to show, it ought to be synonymous with discovery or illumination. The true role of the critic is to lead the listener to the best, and to explain why it is the best —to be a guide, not a judge.

=============================================

For myself, I use my own ears and my own background - as a player, listener, composer, arranger, reader, consumer - I'm a record-buyer just like the rest of you. When I do write, I write something that I would like to read. Mostly it's toward the goal of sharing information and as Larry Kart recently put it, "complete contextualization" - knowing the big picture and the place of whatever or whomever in that picture.

Mike

[AllenLowe]

We need to broaden our horizons here and understand that important works of criticism have informed all arts and fields - think Walter Benjamin, Richard Gilman, Stanley Kauffman, James Agee, Roland Barthes, Eric Bentley, Susan Sonntag, Stark Young, even Beckett ( his book on Proust), Lionel Trilling, Isaac Rosenfeld, the list goes on and on. A good or great critic makes as great a contribution to the field as an artist - as a matter of fact great criticism is an art form - and sometimes more so. To make this more personal, I got more out of Larry Kart's recent book than about the last 10 new CDs I listened to - and I do not exaggerate. The problem isn't crticism but bad critics, and jazz is not unique in this way.

[JSngry]

Critics (and reviewers too - there's a BIG difference, imo) are like the things they critique - some really are provocative and rewarding, some are useful to a point but ultimately disposable when push comes to shove, some are workmanlike and take up space in a neutral manner, and some just plain stink.

I don't need a crtic to tell me what's good or not, but I sure as hell have gained insight and appreciation as to why I may or may not find something good by reading some of the better jazz writers (that's a better term than either critic or reviewer) over the years, plus I've gotten hipped to some stuff I'd have never heard (or not heard as quickly otherwise).

Hey - writing about music has the potential to be as creative and self-examining an act as playing it. The best (that is to say, my favorite ) writers realize that and proceed accordingly. Certainly the music would exist without them, but that's not the point. Good writing can and does affect my perception of life (not just music) as much as good music can, just in a different way.

The musicians who say "we don't need no stinkin' critics" are right. We don't. But we do need lively intellects and beautiful souls contributing whatever it is they have to contribute in whatever form they have to contribute it in. If there's not that many "critics" who operate at that level, well...there's not that many musicians who do either, not in terms of the big picture.

Write on!

[marcello]

In some cases, I regard Jazz Critics views in the same light as I do newspaper editorials or a good friend's opinion. In many cases, they open your eyes to something new, in some cases the writing can express views that you cannot put into words yourself like any good writer.

If I may refer to two authors that have been subject to threads here recently: Ralph J. Gleason's chapter on Carmen MacRae captures her spirit and appeal to me better than I could ever express and, I'm sorry to say to you, Larry Kart's observation and description of Oscar Peterson dead-on ( and NOT mean spirited ) essay that made me say to myself; "yeah, that's what I've been hearing!".

Now sometimes, you see a downright evil review. That's as bad for the music as Kenny G being touted as a jazz artist ( not to mention Queen Latifa, "the jazz singer", my God!). A good, honest review does not have to degrading, if the writer has any talent, and a good one can give the right kind of publicity to deserving artists.

Now if you REALLY didn't care about the views of others in the jazz community ( and it is a community!), then why do you post and read posts here?

[wolff]

Now if you REALLY didn't care about the views of others in the jazz community ( and it is a community!), then why do you post and read posts here?

Probably, because there is a lot more here than critiques.

[Chuck Nessa]

Monk once physically attacked Leonard Feather, accusing him of taking the food from his family with his criticism

I have never heard of this. Please site sources - even if you need to quote a critic.

[Christiern]

medjuck: "Monk once physically attacked Leonard Feather, accusing him of taking the food from his family with his criticism."

• A pantry raid?
  
  
  
  

[Chuck Nessa]

I suppose I should admire those with no need of tutors. Nah.

[medjuck]

Now if you REALLY didn't care about the views of others in the jazz community ( and it is a community!), then why do you post and read posts here?

If you're talking to me you'll note that I said this forum was one of the places I do look to for recommendations.

Actualy i've bought a lot more cds since I started reading this forum than I ever did when I read Downbeat regulalry.

[medjuck]

Monk once physically attacked Leonard Feather, accusing him of taking the food  from  his family  with his criticism

I have never heard of this. Please site sources - even if you need to quote a critic.

I'll try to find it. As I vaguely remember reading it Monk grabbed Feather in a bear hug.

[marcello]

medjuck and wolff -

I agree with you but where do you draw the line as far as critical points of view? I don't mean to argue, but we take it all in, professional critics and fans alike. Of course the great innovation here is that there is instant discourse in the most civil way, in most cases.

But hey, look, I can't count how many times I've been influenced by say a glowing recording review only to be let down by what I hear for myself. Jazz Politics can be the the most corrupt kind.

[Larry Kart]

Medjuck: You seem to think of critics as would-be lawgivers, which would be annoying; I tend to think of them as thinker/talkers -- interesting, knowledgable ones at best -- and I couldn't live without them when they're good at it. As an inherently verbal person who tends to get VERY interested in the things that interest me, it always seemed completely natural to think and talk about the things I was interested in to others who shared my interests, and of course, to listen to what those others had to say. Is it really much more complicated than that? Yes, it can get nasty for a while if a fool or a jerk is hogging the stage, but don't such people tend to get found out sooner or later (see Leonard Feather)? I don't see anyone saying that it corrupts the nature of baseball to talk in detail about why you prefer Roger Clemens to Sandy Koufax or Willy Mays to Mickey Mantle. If you care about a thing at all, you want to make (or try to make) distinctions. As the late Clement Greenberg said: "I am willing to like anything, provided I enjoy it enough."

[wolff]

medjuck and wolff -

I agree with you but where do you draw the line as far as critical points of view? I don't mean to argue, but we take it all in, professional critics and fans alike. Of course the great innovation here is that there is instant discourse in the most civil way, in most cases.

But hey, look, I can't count how many times I've been influenced by say a glowing recording review only to be let down by what I hear for myself. Jazz Politics can be the the most corrupt kind.

Sure, I take it all in. I draw the line when a person thinks his opinion is fact or something that is important beyond his own universe. I respect all reviewers/critics opinions, but that's all they are, opinions to me.

There was a thread about a Grant Green album that most hated or thought was one of his worst. We were all being critcs. That is fine, and I took it all in, but in the end it's just a subjective opinion and I kept right on enjoying the album. Zero basis in fact, unless a consensus of opinion makes it a fact.

I like writers that inform, describe, etc., but leave the final analysis up to me.

Once again, I keep it simple, do I or don't I enjoy the music.

Morgenstern put it very nicely.

I wish all reviews ended with, "Your mileage may vary".

[medjuck]

Medjuck: You seem to think of critics as would-be lawgivers, which would be annoying;  I tend to  think of them as thinker/talkers -- interesting, knowledgable ones at best -- and I couldn't live without them when they're good at it.  As an inherently verbal person who tends to get VERY interested in the things that interest me, it always seemed completely natural to think and  talk about the things I was interested in to others who shared my interests, and of course, to listen to what those others had to say. Is it really much more complicated than that? Yes, it can get nasty for a while if a fool or a jerk is hogging the stage, but don't such people tend to get found out  sooner or later (see Leonard Feather)? I don't see anyone saying that it corrupts the nature of baseball to talk in detail about why you prefer Roger Clemens to Sandy Koufax or Willy Mays to Mickey Mantle.  If you care about a thing at all, you want to make (or try to make) distinctions. As the late Clement Greenberg said: "I am willing to like anything, provided I enjoy it enough."

All good points. My only defence is that most baseball players get paid more than most jazz musicians. I think when you're working in a field in which it's so difficult to make a living, to read someone explaining to the general public why they shouldn't like your work must be very discouraging. It might be argued that no-one's telling the reader not to like Oscar Peterson but rather that maybe they should listen to Art Tatum too. (And of course, OP probably does make more money than many baseball palyers-- actually now that I think of it, I doubt it.)

BTW Do you include the last two recorded box sets of Bill Evans in your critique? (Turn Out the Lights, and Last Sessions, I think they're called.) I may not have liked the Gary peacock Trio, but I really like most of this.

And I've probably read more critics-- and been influenced by them-- than one might infer from what I've written here. And the next time they're offering the old people's discount at my local Borders I'll get a copy of your book.

Edited January 3, 2005 by medjuck

[wolff]

Here is another way I look at my need for critics.

I'm too busy listening to the music.

Why do I need a review to see if I like OP or Bill Evans?

At times I would like an educator to tell me what the hell Tristano, Marsh and Konitz are doing that is so different. I figured the enjoyable part out for myself.

Sometimes, I like a writer to tell me stories, but not too much about a musicians private life.

This is the simplest part: The musicians are communicating to me, not to me via a review or critic. I think the musicians want it this way.

That's just me, for the most part. If others think something different, that's great for them and I hope the review and critic help them.

[Larry Kart]

Yes, I talk about the "Turn Out the Stars" and "The Last Waltz" box sets. I much prefer the more relaxed and lyrical "Last Waltz" to the (to my mind) rather harried Evans of much of "Turn Out the Stars," even though Evans understandably begins to wane toward the end of the "Last Waltz" engagement; he died eight days after it ended.

[Simon Weil]

I like that line from Primary Colors where the Kathy Bates character points at (the beauty of) the moon and says "But it's only reflected light". That's how I look at the Jazz critic - the source of (reflected) light on the music. Do we need the moon? Nope.

But when the sun is down it's the source of some light.

Simon Weil

[in the movie Kathy Bates plays a, very effective, political fixer for a Clinton-like presidential candidate. You can look for a parallel to critics in that as well - who, in the ideal, do everything to further the music that they love.]

Edit: I confess to feeling that a role for the Jazz critic is to introduce the music to the outside world - but that, because of a pronounced anti-intellectual trend in Jazz, one of the avenues for that is cut off.

Edited January 3, 2005 by Simon Weil

[A Lark Ascending]

I like to read how others react to music. It is interesting in itself; but it can also suggest other things to focus on which can, sometimes, lead you into music you don't get.

I find some writers worth reading because they have a musical (or musical -historical) knowledge that can explain things that I don't understand.

What I don't care for are the writers who assume they have the complete picture of what music should be and then pronounce, without humility, without recognition that they are only seeing part of the picture; or those who take an intellectual dislike to a particular style of music and use reviews to grumble about that dislike.

Above all I have no time at all for the writer who, rather than trying to explain what the musicians are doing, attempts to project his/her obsessions onto the music. Alarm bells start sounding the moment grandiloquent social or 'spiritual' theories start being expounded.

Do we need critics? Probably not. But I think we need people to write about their reactions to music, just as long its the music they're writing about and ever mindful that, however much music they might have listened to, they are only seeing things from one particular viewpoint.

[AllenLowe]

I for one would probably not have been able to get to the point where I feel I am now without critics helping to show the way - in my early days, particularly, Dan Morgenstern (primarily through liner notes) and Martin Williams, and than Ira Gitler (per-Jazz Masters of the 1940s); also Dick hadlock's book on the 1920s; and the collection Jazz Panorama. A critic who is good enough will send me back to the source, especially if he does not like something that I have liked (Larry and Bill Evans is a good example here); or will illuminate something clearly: read Mike Wellstood's notes to the Donald Lambert LPs. This, as I mentioned, has also been crucial to my understanding and enjoyment of film and theater (Stanley Kaufman and Richard Gilman). You might also, related to this topic, read the brilliant Susan Sonntag essay "Against Interpretation" which deals with many of the issues we are dealing with in this thread. Her point is that many critics, rather than accepting a work on its own terms, often apply very personal, and often irrelevant, standards in an attempt to make a work personally understandable. The mediocre critic, rather than get inside a work, will reduce it to the conventional, applying conventional concepts of meaning in place of a true depth of understanding. Here's a few relevant quotes: 1) from Beckett, I believe, on the requisite meaning for an artist: "He has nothing to say, only a way of saying it." 2) Poet Charles Olsen: "An object is its own meaning."

Words to live by.

Edited January 3, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Joe]

In my mind, good criticism isn't a heavy gate which requires a good deal of force to open and whose posts run deep and sturdy into a bedrock of accumulated "facts" and knowledge. Criticism is much more dynamic that that, a place that could be an entry but may not be, and, at its best, criticism takes on some of the untrustworthy and "useless" qualities of artistic work.

To me an excellent and honest "critique" expresses one individual's experience of interacting with a work -- listening, reading, viewing -- and any explication it offers grows from this remaining true to the individual's experience. If I did not think "critical writing" offered those freedoms -- one of which is the freedom to be who you are, whether that is an amateur, a simple fan, a practicing musician, a scholar, someone with an axe to grind, whatever -- I wouldn't even bother with it.