Are rock critics unfairly biased toward jazz-rock?

[Guy Berger]

I was reading AMG's reviews/ratings for Joni Mitchell's mid-70s music (Hejira, Don Juan's Reckless Daughter) and they were quite negative. That said, my understanding is that the albums are quite popular among Mitchell fans. (I haven't heard them myself.) It made me wonder if AMG's writers/editors weren't willing to approach this kind of "fusion" (with a small f) music on its own terms, and whether this is a problem with rock critics in general.

Guy

[Ken Dryden]

Don't take any critic seriously until you have evaluated his or her work over a range of reviews.

'nuf said...

[shrugs]

If I have learned anything it's stay away from reviews.

And I think the latest generation of reviewers are doing it for the free cd's if you ask me...

There are a few exceptions though and they probably know who they are.

[clifford_thornton]

I disagree, but there are certainly those reviewers out there who do more harm than good. Still, I find most music writers write about it because they a) love music and b) want to feel like a part of the community as it moves in different directions.

[shrugs]

I disagree, but there are certainly those reviewers out there who do more harm than good. Still, I find most music writers write about it because they a) love music and b) want to feel like a part of the community as it moves in different directions.

Well, for the most part, they don't really do a very good job. And the writing exercises they conduct get a little old....

[Alexander]

I was reading AMG's reviews/ratings for Joni Mitchell's mid-70s music (Hejira, Don Juan's Reckless Daughter) and they were quite negative. That said, my understanding is that the albums are quite popular among Mitchell fans. (I haven't heard them myself.) It made me wonder if AMG's writers/editors weren't willing to approach this kind of "fusion" (with a small f) music on its own terms, and whether this is a problem with rock critics in general.

Guy

I have both albums (along with "Mingus") and I love them, although it took time for me to appreciate them. When I was listening to them as a Joni Mitchell/rock music fan, I tended to find them pointless and full of instrumental noodling. When I approached them years later, as a jazz fan (and in particular having been hipped to the music of Wayne Shorter and Jaco Pastorus), I found these albums to be a brilliant fusion of jazz improvisiation and singer/songwriter/folk-rock.

[clifford_thornton]

I disagree, but there are certainly those reviewers out there who do more harm than good. Still, I find most music writers write about it because they a) love music and b) want to feel like a part of the community as it moves in different directions.

Well, for the most part, they don't really do a very good job. And the writing exercises they conduct get a little old....

For the best writers, these "exercises" are analogous to working through a solo or a composition for a musician. Writing is an art form itself, a difficult one, and just because it takes music criticism as its jumping-off point does not mean it isn't valid on its own terms. There are bad writers out there just like there are bad painters and bad musicians, but hopefully with time, those writers will become very, very good or even great.

[shrugs]

I disagree, but there are certainly those reviewers out there who do more harm than good. Still, I find most music writers write about it because they a) love music and b) want to feel like a part of the community as it moves in different directions.

Well, for the most part, they don't really do a very good job. And the writing exercises they conduct get a little old....

For the best writers, these "exercises" are analogous to working through a solo or a composition for a musician. Writing is an art form itself, a difficult one, and just because it takes music criticism as its jumping-off point does not mean it isn't valid on its own terms. There are bad writers out there just like there are bad painters and bad musicians, but hopefully with time, those writers will become very, very good or even great.

I respect your admiration for reviewers.

Are you one?

[chris olivarez]

The impression I get is that rock critics as a whole aren't well rounded musically but it could be a false impression.

[JSngry]

The Hissing Of Summer Lawns was brutally, brutally savaged by the rock press on its release. Seems like the folkie Joni was their heroine, and the light L.A. Pop queen of Court & Spark was their darling, but once she got all moody and musically intricate, they felt betrayed in a way that must have gone beyond the music, which I think is very good. This backlash carried over into the subsequent albums, and by the end of the 70s, Joni's sales had dropped, & her critical reputation was that of somebody who had gone off into left field w/little or no hope of ever returning.

Myself, I feel that Hejira remains one of the great albums of the 70s, as well as Jaco's most musical playing. That's a damn fine piece of work right there. Don Juan & Mingus each tail off from the other (I found Don Juan erratic but involving, & Mingus to be pretty much unlistenable), but the reviews in the rock press showed no discernment between albums or musical awareness of just how new and interesting it all was whatsoever.

I suspect that some of this was due to Mitchell's seemingly sudden turn to more consicously "arty" ambitions which occurred concurrently with the whole "back to basics" movement of punk & new wave (which most of the rock press was all over like white on rice), & some of it due to one of the oldest pitfalls in the business, namely, an artist who has established an "identity" that the critics feel a "personal" relationship with suddenly disowning that image and going off into something completely different.

The best critics don't fall prey to this, but there's a lot of critics who are really just avid fans living vicariously, in some form or fashion, through the artists they champion (especially, it seems, female artists). I could never prove it, but I suspect that Joni had cultivated a certain "girlfriend" vibe with a lot of male critics (just as she certainly cultivated more than just an image as a, uh... "adventurous" sexual type among her male peers - the Neil Young story is one I haven't heard before, but it would not at all surprise me if it was true, although maybe it's a Canadian thing & I wouldn't understand ), and her sudden turn from "woman/child" into serious female musical innovator probably produced the same reaction from a lot of critics as occurs any time an insecure/inadequate male loses a girlfriend that they were unworthy of & lucky to have in the first place.

[clifford_thornton]

I respect your admiration for reviewers.

Are you one?

Yup.

[John L]

Some prominent rock critics feel qualified to stand judgement over all American music - jazz, soul, blues, country, whatever - even though they have extremely limited exposure outside of rock. Why even listen to them?

[Simon Weil]

I disagree, but there are certainly those reviewers out there who do more harm than good. Still, I find most music writers write about it because they a) love music and b) want to feel like a part of the community as it moves in different directions.

Well, for the most part, they don't really do a very good job. And the writing exercises they conduct get a little old....

For the best writers, these "exercises" are analogous to working through a solo or a composition for a musician. Writing is an art form itself, a difficult one, and just because it takes music criticism as its jumping-off point does not mean it isn't valid on its own terms. There are bad writers out there just like there are bad painters and bad musicians, but hopefully with time, those writers will become very, very good or even great.

I think you're right about reviewers loving music and wanting to be part of the community. I also think you're right that they indulge in writing exercises in the hope of getting better. The trouble is this rather misses the point. Are the reviewers any good at their core enterprise, that is judging music and presenting that judgement to the public?

No.

There needs to be a kind of solidity at the core of a good critic. I mean he needs to be clued into what he's listening to and get it right for the public. It's that discipline - of getting it right for the public - which differentiates a critic from someone who just wants to be part of the community, in my opinion. I think there's some self-criticism in there - like "Am I getting it right?" is the core question. The wanting to be part of the community is more about "Do they like me?" - personal validation.

The critic (theoretically) serves the community; the wannabee reviewer looks for the community to validate, serve, him.

See everyone wants to be part.

Simon Weil

[etherbored]

then there are the critics, such as the ones whose work used to populate jazz times (which i haven't read in years), that seem to take every assignment as marching orders write much and say nothing. i find the reviews at AAJ to be like this, too. work like this is at the opposite end of the scale.

from my experience, the quality of the writing, more often than not, seems directly correlative to the reputability of the periodical you're reading it in.

-e-

[Ken Dryden]

I remember hearing Bill Milkowski bragging that he had gotten JazzTimes contributors fired on two different occasions for demonstrating an obvious lack of depth in their knowledge of jazz (One comment was something like, "Gee, Wayne Shorter is great, has he done anything else?").

Yet some of the pop critics they've hired masquerading as jazz critics repeatedly demonstrated a rather shallow jazz background. That's why I dropped my subscription a few years back, after taking it for 13 years.

Edited August 14, 2006 by Ken Dryden

[Johnny E]

As a listener I have no interest in what critics have to say about music whatsoever. I have much more respect for what my fellow musicians have to say than some dumb assed critic trying to show off his crappy writing skills.

On the other hand, as an artist I'm learning that what critics say (although 99% of the time they got their head up their ass) has a direct effect on your career. You must be aware of this, grit your teeth and play the game if you want to move your career forward. One of the problems is many critics pick up where others leave off and often times misconceptions or just plain incorrect information gets passed along again and again, eventually etching distorted perceptions in the minds of the listener. I guess what irks me the most is when you read a review and you can tell that the critic has little or no grasp on the music they are critiquing and are just faking it. Almost like they have a jazz review program where they just type in the names and the computer spits out the review.

If I owned a jazz publication I would only let musicians do reviews. Everybody else seems to have some kind of agenda.

[B. Clugston]

The Hissing Of Summer Lawns was brutally, brutally savaged by the rock press on its release. Seems like the folkie Joni was their heroine, and the light L.A. Pop queen of Court & Spark was their darling, but once she got all moody and musically intricate, they felt betrayed in a way that must have gone beyond the music, which I think is very good. This backlash carried over into the subsequent albums, and by the end of the 70s, Joni's sales had dropped, & her critical reputation was that of somebody who had gone off into left field w/little or no hope of ever returning.

Myself, I feel that Hejira remains one of the great albums of the 70s, as well as Jaco's most musical playing. That's a damn fine piece of work right there. Don Juan & Mingus each tail off from the other (I found Don Juan erratic but involving, & Mingus to be pretty much unlistenable), but the reviews in the rock press showed no discernment between albums or musical awareness of just how new and interesting it all was whatsoever.

I suspect that some of this was due to Mitchell's seemingly sudden turn to more consicously "arty" ambitions which occurred concurrently with the whole "back to basics" movement of punk & new wave (which most of the rock press was all over like white on rice), & some of it due to one of the oldest pitfalls in the business, namely, an artist who has established an "identity" that the critics feel a "personal" relationship with suddenly disowning that image and going off into something completely different.

The best critics don't fall prey to this, but there's a lot of critics who are really just avid fans living vicariously, in some form or fashion, through the artists they champion (especially, it seems, female artists). I could never prove it, but I suspect that Joni had cultivated a certain "girlfriend" vibe with a lot of male critics (just as she certainly cultivated more than just an image as a, uh... "adventurous" sexual type among her male peers - the Neil Young story is one I haven't heard before, but it would not at all surprise me if it was true, although maybe it's a Canadian thing & I wouldn't understand ), and her sudden turn from "woman/child" into serious female musical innovator probably produced the same reaction from a lot of critics as occurs any time an insecure/inadequate male loses a girlfriend that they were unworthy of & lucky to have in the first place.

Excellent points. I remember the largely negative reaction to Joni Mitchell's creative turn (not so much Hejira, but definitely the rest). There was also the live set Shadows and Light. She took a lot of chances and it didn't always work out, but the best of it was far better than the uncomprehending critics would lead us to believe. I've always respected Mitchell. She's never rested on past laurels like too many rock acts do.

[Guy Berger]

I suspect that some of this was due to Mitchell's seemingly sudden turn to more consicously "arty" ambitions which occurred concurrently with the whole "back to basics" movement of punk & new wave (which most of the rock press was all over like white on rice), & some of it due to one of the oldest pitfalls in the business, namely, an artist who has established an "identity" that the critics feel a "personal" relationship with suddenly disowning that image and going off into something completely different.

The best critics don't fall prey to this, but there's a lot of critics who are really just avid fans living vicariously, in some form or fashion, through the artists they champion (especially, it seems, female artists). I could never prove it, but I suspect that Joni had cultivated a certain "girlfriend" vibe with a lot of male critics (just as she certainly cultivated more than just an image as a, uh... "adventurous" sexual type among her male peers - the Neil Young story is one I haven't heard before, but it would not at all surprise me if it was true, although maybe it's a Canadian thing & I wouldn't understand ), and her sudden turn from "woman/child" into serious female musical innovator probably produced the same reaction from a lot of critics as occurs any time an insecure/inadequate male loses a girlfriend that they were unworthy of & lucky to have in the first place.

I also feel that many rock critics (including some of the most acclaimed) approach criticism with an agenda. Music has to fit into their agenda, or it gets trashed.

Guy

[clifford_thornton]

This is generalization along the lines of "all jazz musicians are drug addicts." I am going to otherwise stay out of this discussion, as it gets under my skin... that said, I have read some serious misinformation and posturing, even today, on some of the latest AAJ reviews. But I also listened to a junkie's music last night, so there...

[kenny weir]

Don't take any critic seriously until you have evaluated his or her work over a range of reviews.

'nuf said...

Seems to be a merging of the terms critic and reviewer here. Are they same? Interchangeable? Mutually exclusive?

Whatever.

As someone who considers himself a reviewer but who is regularly tagged a critic, I would change this to read ...

Don't take any critic seriously under any circumstances whotsoever.

Edited August 17, 2006 by kenny weir

[kenny weir]

If I owned a jazz publication I would only let musicians do reviews. Everybody else seems to have some kind of agenda.

What bullshit. Writing and playing are two different thing, although it may be possible to do both, of course. I can think of a long list of non-playing writers who have enriched my life. The list of good player-writers is short.

You display the same sort of attitude that regularly gets tossed up in Australia. Bitching but all to eager to gets some ink or airplay from those you despise. If you feel those folks aren't up to writing about your music, don't provide it to them.

And speaking of airplay and/or ink, wanna get some in Melbourne? PM me.

[JSngry]

Take him up on the offer, Johnny. He's good for it.