Jump to content

Do We Even Need Jazz Critics?


Recommended Posts

As someone who has been listening to jazz for less than 10 years (which I guess makes me a newbie in this thread), I generally subscribe to what wolff generally said. I know what I like and I don't like. However, critics do help and have helped to guide me, as Dan Morgenstern said. What he said about guiding the listener and to make the listener aware of what to listen for and why they're listening to is the essence of it all. I would also what they're listening as well. To guide is the most important. I think Larry does this well in his job and that is why I find liner notes and analyses (esp. of the Mosaic type) important. That is why I pay special attention to what he, Allen Lowe, Chuck and Jim S. have to say. The most important thing is not the what (that I can figure out myself) but the why and the context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 4 years later...

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.

Page 150 of the Robin D.G. Kelley bio. I couldn't find where I originally heard/read this. Kelley cites Monk family interviews and says it was also mentioned in a bio by Leslie Gourse but I've never read that. Could it have been told in the Straight No Chaser film?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And since I've re-upped this thread let me add that my (fairly shallow) research on early critical reaction to Bird (verses how musicians claim they first reacted) has certainly not convinced me to rethink my position: even though critics liked Bird they don't seem to have understood his importance. (eg. The Downbeat review of Koko gave it a B-- which was a higher rating than most of Bird's records got, even though those reviews I've read are by critics who were sympathetic to Bop. )

Edited by medjuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a generation or so of good and great jazz critics. I would argue that with the internet, we have far less of a need for critics in general. It's much easier with on-line consumer reviews, message boards, and sound samples to decide if something interests you or not. There are many people whose opinions I value - some of them post on this site. There are also a lot of hack critics right now, some of whom post on that other site and use embarrassing cliches like "muscular" and "respect for the tradition." Yechh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's much harder for a critic to be omnipotent now. When things happened in print it would take ages for a response to return; and the journal the critic wrote for could simply choose what it printed or did not print. The worst examples I saw were magazines where public rejoinders were printed in a letters page and then openly mocked. A critic now has to think twice about adopting an extreme position...unless, like quite a few, the like the cut and thrust of a full on flame-war.

I've been really interested to read some critical hand-wringing about the dumbing-down brought about by the web, blogs etc. Sounds very much like sour grapes now that they've lost their monopoly of comment.

It's still very early days for the web. Over time we'll all find places on the web where we find comments we value and just learn to wade through the nonsense. But I welcome the greater range of comment...and the interaction...that the web has brought.

One thing I have found is that I'm much more interested in the reactions of the ordinary listener than the expert opinion of the established critics. I don't discount the latter and can find what they say interesting and informative; but I'm always more drawn to the openly subjectvie, personal response to music rather than those commentators who claim an objective position in order to assert a very narrow interpretation on music.

Anyway, the genie is well out of the bottle now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with intelligent commentary on music. A lot of it isn't, though, and listeners often buy uninformed opinions. Also, a lot of reviews on publications such as All About Jazz seem superficial and to give everyone a rubber stamp thumbs up. Not sure what's up with that, but if you are giving your opinion better to get more in-depth and if you don't like something have the balls to say so---as long as you can defend your position knowledgeably.

In the end critics are most valuable to say who is playing in town and where. They are not promoters and have also never been able to outvote popular opinion on people like Chet Baker, Miles, Getz, etc. who many of them railed against the minute they became popular. 'Spell my name right' and let the people make up their own minds once they hear the music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with intelligent commentary on music. A lot of it isn't, though, and listeners often buy uninformed opinions. Also, a lot of reviews on publications such as All About Jazz seem superficial and to give everyone a rubber stamp thumbs up. Not sure what's up with that, but if you are giving your opinion better to get more in-depth and if you don't like something have the balls to say so---as long as you can defend your position knowledgeably.

Advertising dollars. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advertising dollars. :lol:

Not always. It can be a publication's policy.

The wisest thing I ever heard from a critic was in a radio broadcast about the words critics used to write a damning review. A couple enjoyed themselves picking their favourite assassin words. Then historian Lisa Jardine was asked what words she favoured for bad reviews. She replied, ' I don't write bad reviews, I send the book back.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advertising dollars. :lol:

The wisest thing I ever heard from a critic was in a radio broadcast about the words critics used to write a damning review. A couple enjoyed themselves picking their favourite assassin words. Then historian Lisa Jardine was asked what words she favoured for bad reviews. She replied, ' I don't write bad reviews, I send the book back.'

Wise - maybe, but a disservice to the readers/listeners.

If the reader/listener is left deliberately clueless when trying to decide whether a book, recording etc. not being reviewed really is poor/worthless or just happens to be off the radar of the reviewers (you just CANNOT review everything that is out there) then this is not what I would call a good service to the public. And a reviewer who does not dare to publicly blast something that after well-founded consideration by his/her standards deserves a bad review is just lacking in guts IMHO.

(I know that from a "Don't bite the hand that feeds ya" stance that's easier said than done - especially in today's ad-driven world - but that's no excuse at all if the rights of the public are to be upheld - and they need to be upheld. Flattering pseudo reviews abound but what good do they really do?)

Edited by Big Beat Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advertising dollars. :lol:

The wisest thing I ever heard from a critic was in a radio broadcast about the words critics used to write a damning review. A couple enjoyed themselves picking their favourite assassin words. Then historian Lisa Jardine was asked what words she favoured for bad reviews. She replied, ' I don't write bad reviews, I send the book back.'

Wise - maybe, but a disservice to the readers/listeners.

If the reader/listener is left deliberately clueless when trying to decide whether a book, recording etc. not being reviewed is bad/worthless or just happens to be off the radar of the reviewes (you just CANNOT review everything that is out there) then this is not what I would call a good service to the public. And a reviewer who does not dare to blast something that after well-founded consideration by his/her standards deserves a bad review is just lacking in guts IMHO.

(I know that from a "Don't bite the hand that feed ya" stance that's easier said than done - especially in today's world - but that's no excuse at all if the rights of the public are to be upheld - and they need to be upheld. Flattering pseudo reviews abound but what good do they really do?)

I don't think there's any need to blast anything. A mild indication that the record is not very original or well played or whatever is fine. It gets the job done.

Too many critics (though by no means all) seem to delight in savaging a recording. And then you get the critical practice of taking something that the critic doesn't care for and lambasting it as if there is something objectively wrong with it.

Savage reviews also make good entertainment...but that has nothing to do with evaluating the music.

Give me a writer who can tell me why I should be listening to a piece of music; I've no interest in hearing why I shouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advertising dollars. :lol:

Not always. It can be a publication's policy.

Maybe...I was in the magazine business for 18-19 years. The publication's policy could be...money makes it or breaks it. Try counting how many pages are covered with ads, check what percentage of the book is advertising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too many critics (though by no means all) seem to delight in savaging a recording. And then you get the critical practice of taking something that the critic doesn't care for and lambasting it as if there is something objectively wrong with it.

Which is why I said "after well-founded consideration". Of course I expect a good critic to be careful when it comes to a matter of personal preferences instead of shortcomings that remain shortcomings even after close scrutiny that is as objective as it could possibly be.

Savage reviews also make good entertainment...but that has nothing to do with evaluating the music.

You don't have to be "savage" to be outspoken, but that definitely is a very, very far cry from "mild" criticism.

Give me a writer who can tell me why I should be listening to a piece of music; I've no interest in hearing why I shouldn't.

If a critic tells me in terms and by criteria that I can relate to why a recording (or a book) would not be what I'd expect it to be and why I better steer clear of it then I am just as grateful to this critic for helping me save my bucks from a wasted purchase as I am to one who alerts me of a great, essential buy.

And again, in today's world of rampaging P.C. everywhere a good, liberal dose of outspokenness and "calling a spade a spade" can never do any harm provided that the critic really can back up his (negative) opinion with substantive evidence.

Edited by Big Beat Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with intelligent commentary on music. A lot of it isn't, though, and listeners often buy uninformed opinions. Also, a lot of reviews on publications such as All About Jazz seem superficial and to give everyone a rubber stamp thumbs up. Not sure what's up with that, but if you are giving your opinion better to get more in-depth and if you don't like something have the balls to say so---as long as you can defend your position knowledgeably.

Advertising dollars. :lol:

Is that a joke or do you mean that reviewers are really under economic pressure to give everyone they review a pass in these ezines? B/c if that's the case it was be almost equal to payola.

Did anyone else notice that particulary in All About Jazz the reviews all seem friendly to the point of approaching sugar-coated? There are scores of CDs reviewed every month. How can all these people be so great? No disrespect to my fellow musicians, but it makes you wonder.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with intelligent commentary on music. A lot of it isn't, though, and listeners often buy uninformed opinions. Also, a lot of reviews on publications such as All About Jazz seem superficial and to give everyone a rubber stamp thumbs up. Not sure what's up with that, but if you are giving your opinion better to get more in-depth and if you don't like something have the balls to say so---as long as you can defend your position knowledgeably.

Advertising dollars. :lol:

Is that a joke or do you mean that reviewers are really under economic pressure to give everyone they review a pass in these ezines? B/c if that's the case it was be almost equal to payola.

Did anyone else notice that particulary in All About Jazz the reviews all seem friendly to the point of approaching sugar-coated? There are scores of CDs reviewed every month. How can all these people be so great? No disrespect to my fellow musicians, but it makes you wonder.......

I'm not joking, but I'm also not sure...I never had a Jazz magazine as a customer. Guitar magazines, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with intelligent commentary on music. A lot of it isn't, though, and listeners often buy uninformed opinions. Also, a lot of reviews on publications such as All About Jazz seem superficial and to give everyone a rubber stamp thumbs up. Not sure what's up with that, but if you are giving your opinion better to get more in-depth and if you don't like something have the balls to say so---as long as you can defend your position knowledgeably.

Advertising dollars. :lol:

Is that a joke or do you mean that reviewers are really under economic pressure to give everyone they review a pass in these ezines? B/c if that's the case it was be almost equal to payola.

AAJ pays? News to me. There are probably less nefarious reasons why the level of music journalism there is generally so terrible (with a few exceptions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with intelligent commentary on music. A lot of it isn't, though, and listeners often buy uninformed opinions. Also, a lot of reviews on publications such as All About Jazz seem superficial and to give everyone a rubber stamp thumbs up. Not sure what's up with that, but if you are giving your opinion better to get more in-depth and if you don't like something have the balls to say so---as long as you can defend your position knowledgeably.

Advertising dollars. :lol:

Is that a joke or do you mean that reviewers are really under economic pressure to give everyone they review a pass in these ezines? B/c if that's the case it was be almost equal to payola.

AAJ pays? News to me. There are probably less nefarious reasons why the level of music journalism there is generally so terrible (with a few exceptions).

It must be the free CDs. Gotta support the habit, you know. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with intelligent commentary on music. A lot of it isn't, though, and listeners often buy uninformed opinions. Also, a lot of reviews on publications such as All About Jazz seem superficial and to give everyone a rubber stamp thumbs up. Not sure what's up with that, but if you are giving your opinion better to get more in-depth and if you don't like something have the balls to say so---as long as you can defend your position knowledgeably.

Advertising dollars. :lol:

Is that a joke or do you mean that reviewers are really under economic pressure to give everyone they review a pass in these ezines? B/c if that's the case it was be almost equal to payola.

AAJ pays? News to me. There are probably less nefarious reasons why the level of music journalism there is generally so terrible (with a few exceptions).

All the interviews are long tongue kisses. The reviews are just as I said. It really is basically an adzine. So the reviews and interviews seem in keeping with the purpose of the zine. Fred Jung is good, though. Nice interviews with Tom Harrell and Phil Woods over the years. But generally this is not a very in-depth site. But, hey, they have a musician listing and I actually got a student through it---after 5 years or so! So there's some free ad space for me........

The only lesson here: the power of the web to reach people cuts deep indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too many critics (though by no means all) seem to delight in savaging a recording. And then you get the critical practice of taking something that the critic doesn't care for and lambasting it as if there is something objectively wrong with it.

Which is why I said "after well-founded consideration". Of course I expect a good critic to be careful when it comes to a matter of personal preferences instead of shortcomings that remain shortcomings even after close scrutiny that is as objective as it could possibly be.

Savage reviews also make good entertainment...but that has nothing to do with evaluating the music.

You don't have to be "savage" to be outspoken, but that definitely is a very, very far cry from "mild" criticism.

Give me a writer who can tell me why I should be listening to a piece of music; I've no interest in hearing why I shouldn't.

If a critic tells me in terms and by criteria that I can relate to why a recording (or a book) would not be what I'd expect it to be and why I better steer clear of it then I am just as grateful to this critic for helping me save my bucks from a wasted purchase as I am to one who alerts me of a great, essential buy.

And again, in today's world of rampaging P.C. everywhere a good, liberal dose of outspokenness and "calling a spade a spade" can never do any harm provided that the critic really can back up his (negative) opinion with substantive evidence.

I wouldn't disagree with anything you say. If critics can be that detached about it, make their points of criticism without resorting to mockery or personalised ridicule, then fine.

The sort of thing I have no time for is where the critic gets a joy from rubbishing something; or some sort of thrill from being too discerning to be taken in by X, Y or Z. It happens all too frequently; sadly I've met it all to often by posters on websites taking their cue from what they've read in magazines.

I probably see this differently because of my background - the good historians are those who can present an argument based on rigorous research and then reach judgements that are tentative, aware of the need to be open to alternative interpretation or fresh evidence. And in the world of education a negative put-down never achieves anything with a student apart from relieving the teacher's frustration. Start from what has been done well and then build to where improvements are needed.

Maybe not appropriate to the world of music criticism. But I see no reason to cause undue hurt, even amidst the the untalented or pedestrian. Confining a recording to one of those back column pages where it gets a two liner, instead of putting it in the main review section will be all the warning any listener needs to tread cautiously.

I'm no fan of Simon Callow or Alan Sugar either!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think critics are at there best when looking at a body of work they have some time for, rather than the isolated recording that they probably have limited time to absorb but have to somehow relate to the vast history of jazz.

Someone exploring, say, the Miles recordings of the 60s who sets out to make judgements about which are the more successful or enjoyable records. It's really worth reading something like that, written by someone who is basically onside with the performer, has listened thoroughly and has a wide knowledge of the context and, perhaps, a musicological understanding; but will then reach substantiated judgements about which ones really work.

One of my favourite jazz books is the one Humphrey Lytttleton wrote on the jazz of the 20s and 30s. There's never any one upmanship at work there. He makes judgements by selecting a couple of dozen recording that, in his ears, deserve special consideration and then tells you why in layman's terms.

My award for the worst critical writing from an erudite scholor must go to Adorno on Sibelius. Pure poison based on a bunch of preconceptions.

Edited by Bev Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AAJ pays? News to me. There are probably less nefarious reasons why the level of music journalism there is generally so terrible (with a few exceptions).

Not one red cent. But virtually anyone can publish a review there (unless they're an obvious shill), so...

Edited by seeline
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting comment from a (clearly irritated) Bill Bruford on his blog:

The pungent aroma of revisionism is once again in the air. You know-King Crimson / Progressive rock / the Impressionists / the Pre-Raphaelites were brilliant, then crap, and then brilliant again. We ‘creatives’ are all hanging around for so long now that we can guarantee to see at least three or four of these shifts from the warm sunlight of acceptance to the drafty damp of disapproval and back again in our lifetimes. Pity the poor creative who died young in penury – if only he could have hung on for the surround-sound remaster and the deluge of fashionably revisionist reviews that once again hail the quality of the artwork.

Someone called Paul McGee at the Word Magazine tells us: “Listening to it now (King Crimson’s music) I can’t quite believe I was ever daft enough to denounce something this good: so much for the unwavering certainty of youth. All of which goes to show that, sometimes, the process of critical re-evaluation is simply a matter of admitting you were wrong” How true, Paul, how true. No problem at all really, except the poor bloody musicians who’d had the temerity in the first place to produce this thing you like / loathe / like / loathe, has to suffer the onslaught of the barbed pen with no right of reply until you make up your mind that, actually, we were OK after all. Thanks a lot! Which all goes to show that, as is well known, the review of the art work too often tell us more about the reviewer than the thing he’s reviewing.

http://www.billbruford.com/blog.asp?DoActi...amp;EntryID=164

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the truth is that the average jazz critic is no worse than the average jazz musician.

Neither is more nor less essential than the other, in my opinion.

I'll take one Larry Kart for about 12 Diana Kralls.

(and a bass player to be named later)

Ok -- but can I borrow Krall (or someone who kinda looks like her) for an evening, with an option to renew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...