Do We Even Need Jazz Critics?

[AllenLowe]

you'll have to get permission from Gene Lees.

[Larry Kart]

you'll have to get permission from Gene Lees.

I thought it would be Elvis Costello.

[AllenLowe]

Lees wrote an incredibly embarrassing interview with her a few years back in Jazz Times, I think it was, in which he spent the whole time telling her how good looking she was. It was a very bizarre episode.

[papsrus]

Culled from elsewhere, a reappraisal of sorts of hard bop by David H. Rosenthal.

PDF LINK

Not sure how much it might add here, but Rosenthal talks at some length about the general disdain critics had for hard bop during the time of its emergence.

Edited November 16, 2009 by papsrus

[J.A.W.]

Culled from elsewhere, a reappraisal of sorts of hard bop by David H. Rosenthal.

PDF LINK

Not sure how much it might add here, but Rosenthal talks at some length about the general disdain critics had for hard bop during the time of its emergence.

The link doesn't work.

[AllenLowe]

it's funny but every time I get into some heavy critical discussion (not just here but on places like the blindmans blues forum) somebody comes in and tells us this is all just b.s. enough intellectualizing by elitist academics, let's just listen to the music. I find it to be a bit of a Sarah Palin technique, a kind of anti-intellectualism. I also find it discouraging and dishonest, because the people who post like this are usually fine until they disagree strongly - THEN it's all intellectual masturbation. As long as it goes their way, everything's fine.

but as someone who for years has been engaged on all sides of the arts (performance and criticism) I regard criticism as an INDISPENSABLE part of the art form. Not as some adjunct, but as just as expressive and important. Sure there are bad critics but there's as many bad artists.

Edited November 16, 2009 by AllenLowe

[papsrus]

The link doesn't work.

Fixed. Thanks.

[Ken Dryden]

AAJ the website doesn't pay, though AAJNY the newspaper does.

When everyone is only assigned to review artists and CDs they are already comfortable hearing, then you will rarely have negative reviews in a website or publication. I frequently pitch artists I haven't yet heard, sometimes, I'm surprised, sometimes I'm disappointed.

One thing I learned: All Music Guide only licenses out good reviews. 1 1/2 star scathing reviews aren't shared with sites like Barnes & Noble, Swapacd, etc.

[papsrus]

it's funny but every time I get into some heavy critical discussion (not just here but on places like the blindmans blues forum) somebody comes in and tells us this is all just b.s. enough intellectualizing by elitist academics, let's just listen to the music. I find it to be a bit of a Sarah Palin technique, a kind of anti-intellectualism. I also find it discouraging and dishonest, because the people who post like this are usually fine until they disagree strongly - THEN it's all intellectual masturbation. As long as it goes their way, everything's fine.

but as someone who for years has been engaged on all sides of the arts (performance and criticism) I regard criticism as an INDISPENSABLE part of the art form. Not as some adjunct, but as just as expressive and important. Sure there are bad critics but there's as many bad artists.

I would agree. Rosenthal's basic position seems to be that critics at the time largely missed the mark on the hard bop period of the mid-50s to mid-60s, preferring instead to save their stars for music that was generally safer and more inline with "the tradition." There's a cultural aspect to the criticism as well, he says, where the largely black musicians felt their music was not being properly understood by the largely white critics.

But there are insightful critics and bad critics alike, certainly. It's of little use to paint the whole enterprise with a broad brush of dismissal.

Edited November 16, 2009 by papsrus

[J.A.W.]

Culled from elsewhere, a reappraisal of sorts of hard bop by David H. Rosenthal.

PDF LINK

Not sure how much it might add here, but Rosenthal talks at some length about the general disdain critics had for hard bop during the time of its emergence.

Where was this article published, other than on that website? Must have been before 1995, the year Rosenthal died.

[medjuck]

it's funny but every time I get into some heavy critical discussion (not just here but on places like the blindmans blues forum) somebody comes in and tells us this is all just b.s. enough intellectualizing by elitist academics, let's just listen to the music. I find it to be a bit of a Sarah Palin technique, a kind of anti-intellectualism. I also find it discouraging and dishonest, because the people who post like this are usually fine until they disagree strongly - THEN it's all intellectual masturbation. As long as it goes their way, everything's fine.

but as someone who for years has been engaged on all sides of the arts (performance and criticism) I regard criticism as an INDISPENSABLE part of the art form. Not as some adjunct, but as just as expressive and important. Sure there are bad critics but there's as many bad artists.

I would agree. Rosenthal's basic position seems to be that critics at the time largely missed the mark on the hard bop period of the mid-50s to mid-60s, preferring instead to save their stars for music that was generally safer and more inline with "the tradition." There's a cultural aspect to the criticism as well, he says, where the largely black musicians felt their music was not being properly understood by the largely white critics.

But there are insightful critics and bad critics alike, certainly. It's of little use to paint the whole enterprise with a broad brush of dismissal.

Well, reading the Monk bio makes me think they sure missed the mark on him.

[AllenLowe]

absolutely - look, I get the same thing from a good work of criticism that I get from a good jazz performance - a fresh look at familiar material, or a new perspective, or just plain exhilaration at a virtuoso grasp of language.

[papsrus]

Culled from elsewhere, a reappraisal of sorts of hard bop by David H. Rosenthal.

PDF LINK

Not sure how much it might add here, but Rosenthal talks at some length about the general disdain critics had for hard bop during the time of its emergence.

Where was this article published, other than on that website? Must have been before 1995, the year Rosenthal died.

I'm not sure, I'm afraid. I suppose I should have tried to track that down before linking it, but the article seemed interesting enough on its own.

[JSngry]

hmmm....I'll certainly agree that criticism is an art unto itself, and that good writing is as stimulating (in its own way) as good music, but...

...to say that criticism is "an indispensable part of" the music itself....not so sure about that...for publicity, yeah, but most of the people who move things ahead do it in spite of/without a critical impetus or lack thereof. Other than, of course, in terms of career enhancement, which is, of course, a sometimes thing at best, and only partially "musical", sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

Don't get me wrong - Larry Kart is a great artist indeed, but he is not a musician, just as Charlie Parker was not a great writer. Different arts altogether. Even though they have a pretty healthy intersection along the way, ultimately they diverge.

[7/4]

Sort of like how the sound man isn't a member of the band.

.

[JSngry]

Well, I daresay there's more good critics than there are good soundmen, and I don't necessarily mean that as a tribute to critics...

[Guest Bill Barton]

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.

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.

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...

In defense of AAJ (probably not a popular position around here) I'd venture the opinion that those few exceptions (Clifford Allen and Lloyd Peterson are the names that immediately spring to mind) justify the site's existence. Peterson's take on the Amiri Baraka book is as good a piece of critical writing as I've read anywhere.

Peterson on Baraka

Allen on Bill Dixon

And I can relate to Chuck's comments earlier in this thread. Growing up in a very small town in New England, my journey into the jazz world would have been via an even more circuitous path had it not been for Down Beat, Jazz & Pop and other magazines back in the late 1960s through the 1970s. Admittedly, it's a very different world now, with every bozo on the bus dispensing wisdom and "insight" via the Internet.

[fasstrack]

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.

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.

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...

In defense of AAJ (probably not a popular position around here) I'd venture the opinion that those few exceptions (Clifford Allen and Lloyd Peterson are the names that immediately spring to mind) justify the site's existence. Peterson's take on the Amiri Baraka book is as good a piece of critical writing as I've read anywhere.

Peterson on Baraka

Allen on Bill Dixon

And I can relate to Chuck's comments earlier in this thread. Growing up in a very small town in New England, my journey into the jazz world would have been via an even more circuitous path had it not been for Down Beat, Jazz & Pop and other magazines back in the late 1960s through the 1970s. Admittedly, it's a very different world now, with every bozo on the bus dispensing wisdom and "insight" via the Internet.

I don't hate AAJ, BTW---just call it what it is: a promotional 'zine. Like 99% of the jazz press. Understandable, since the music is so damn impoverished. Hot House is the same deal: ad after ad for CDs by their performers and/or management, and no real content besides who's in town. It's OK for that, that's why I read it, it does perform a service and it's free. I appreciate that.

And I must say DownBeat and JazzTimes have really diminished in quality as journalistic arms so much as to be hardly worth reading. The writers seem very concerned with jumping on the hottest trends and players, while ignoring very worthy musicians IMO. I never read a word in DB about Chris Anderson, except for his obit, maybe. They have become bullshit rags, And it gives me no pleasure to say that.

Edited November 26, 2009 by fasstrack

[Shrdlu]

To answer the original question, no.

But I do like Leonard Feather, Nat Hentoff, Dan Morgenstern and several others.

[Christiern]

Shrdlu: But I do like Leonard Feather, Nat Hentoff, Dan Morgenstern and several others.

I bet they're glad they weren't Protestants 6 or 7 decades ago!

[AllenLowe]

well, Martin Luther was always my favorite critic -

[JSngry]

He was on the Worm Diet, ya' know...