L.A. Times drops Jazz Coverage

[Lazaro Vega]

(Forwarded message:)

Dear Los Angeles Jazz Community,

I just learned from a dear friend in our Los Angeles Jazz community that our local newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, quietly ended jazz coverage from the pages of its entertainment section, Calendar, as part of recent "budget cuts." That means no more reviews, previews, feature stories, or even listings of shows/events.

I grew up reading the Times at home and when I moved, faithfully resubscribed to it in my own abode. However, I'm not sure that I - in good conscience - could continue supporting a publication that turns its back on my first favorite music... Los Angeles is a city too rich in jazz history and people still contributing to the artform for this music to be cut off from coverage in our major city paper.

If you feel as strongly as I do that we - as afficionados, educators and/or creators of jazz music - should have representation in our city's major news publication, the Los Angeles Times, please make your voice heard by writing a polite but passionate piece to Editor Russ Stanton at the address below:

russ.stanton@latimes.com

Thank you for your urgent concern and consideration.

- A. Scott Galloway

Music Editor asgbeat@ca.rr.com

Urban Network

[Christiern]

Who was covering jazz—Don Heckman?

[RDK]

Who was covering jazz—Don Heckman?

Yes, mostly, though I haven't seen his by-line in a while.

I'll miss his reviews (of both shows and the occassional album) but I haven't used the LAT to check jazz listings for some time. The best (only?) place to hear about shows, in print at least, is the L.A. Weekly - and Brick's Picks has been a godsend. On-line resources are spotty at best.

[seeline]

Link to Don's new blog: http://irom.wordpress.com/

I'm very surprised by the opening post, but then, I was wondering why he was suddenly posting all his gig reviews on a blog...

Edited October 28, 2008 by seeline

[Teasing the Korean]

That's pretty sobering when a city like Los Angeles cuts back on its jazz coverage.

[ValerieB]

OMG!! i cannot believe this and don't want to!! i talked to Don last night at the Monk Institute event and heard that he would be reviewing it for tomorrow's L.A. Times. i sure hope i see it!!!

[Lazaro Vega]

(From the L.A. Times)

Here, There and Everywhere: The Times

October 27, 2008 - irom

By Don Heckman

When I attended the Thelonious Monk Jazz Competition events this past

weekend, I ran into many friends from the jazz community. Since the

Competition is an international event, there were folks from L.A., as well

as many other parts of the coutnry and the world.

Every one asked me about the diminishing presence of jazz coverage in the

Los Angeles Times. Knowing that I have been covering jazz, and other

musics, at the paper for more than twenty years - as the principal jazz

critic and jazz writer since Leonard Feather died in 1994 - they all

expressed concern about whether they would continue to read my commentaries

in the LAT.

Today I've received a flurry of emails, as well as copies of letters sent to

the Times expressing concern over the cutback in jazz coverage. Some have

distorted or misunderstood the situation, as I discussed it with my friends

and colleagues at the Monk gathering. So I thought it would be useful to

simply explain what I know about it.

The reduction in jazz coverage at the Times actually began 7 or 8 years ago

when jazz was moved into the Pop Music area. Prior to that I frequently did

three or four reviews a week, as well as a Sunday record review column and a

Friday Jazz column. Under Pop Music, the coverage was reduced to two

reviews a week, the Sundy jazz record review section to once a month, and

the Friday column was discontinued.

Several months ago, a new editor took over the reins of the pop music

department from the acting editor. I was told, almost immediately, by her

that jazz reviews would be reduced in number, and would essentially have to

be pitched to her for approval That represented an immediate and

significant change, since - as one who is deeply aware of developments in

jazz, here and elsewhere - I had generally done my own scheduling of

reviews, with oversight from the acting editor. In addition, the Sunday

jazz record review spotlight disappeared.

In scheduling my reviews - of both live concerts and recordings - I tried to

balance the major name programs with as much coverage as possible for the

Southland's huge array of world class jazz talent. That approach became

virtually impossible when the reviews were cut back to one a week. Within a

month or two, they were cut to one every ten days. After that it became a

matter of submitting events I thought were important, and hoping that

coverage would be permitted. It usually wasn't.

About two or more months ago, I was advised by that the free lance budget

for Pop had run out for the year, and that I should contact my editor in

late December to consider what could be covered when the new budget came

into effect in January. Basically that meant that I could do no reviews for

the last 3 1/2 months of the year.

Let me add a little background here. Despite my 22 years and over 5,000

bylined reviews, articles and stories in the LA Times, I am still nominally

a free-lancer, since I've always refused offers to go on staff. What this

means, of course, is that - if there is no free-lance budget - a staff

writer could be assigned to cover jazz reviews, despite the fact that there

is no one on the staff who is qualified to do so.

Starting about a month ago, I began emailing my editor, pointing out that -

if there if only one jazz event could be covered before the end of the

year, it should be the Monk Competition event at the Kodak this past

weekend. My request was refused several times. I informed the Monk folks

of the situation, and they began to contact my editor to urge coverage.

Eventually, she apparently agreed to do so, assigning a staff writer to do

the review. It will appear in the paper tomorrow.

It may well be that the letters that are being sent to the LAT, expressing

concern about the reduction of jazz coverage, will be responded to with some

minimal coverage of jazz by staff writers with little knowledge of the

music. And tomorrow's review of the Monk event will no doubt be cited as

evidence of the paper's continuing interest in jazz. This, despite the fact

that it will be the first jazz review in the paper since August 1.

But I can only wonder why the Music department seems to have a budget to

employ a free-lance reviewer one or two times a week to write about European

classical music, while similar funds cannot be allocated to the Pop

department to allow me to continue the coverage - however modest in numbers

it may have to be - that jazz needs and deserves.

I have no inside source of information at the paper, although it's apparent

to everyone that the problems seem to be multiplying rather than

diminishing. My real concern is for the knowledgable representation of the

music that is America's greatest cultural achievement.

--

[ValerieB]

(From the L.A. Times)

Here, There and Everywhere: The Times

October 27, 2008 - irom

By Don Heckman

When I attended the Thelonious Monk Jazz Competition events this past

weekend, I ran into many friends from the jazz community. Since the

Competition is an international event, there were folks from L.A., as well

as many other parts of the coutnry and the world.

Every one asked me about the diminishing presence of jazz coverage in the

Los Angeles Times. Knowing that I have been covering jazz, and other

musics, at the paper for more than twenty years - as the principal jazz

critic and jazz writer since Leonard Feather died in 1994 - they all

expressed concern about whether they would continue to read my commentaries

in the LAT.

Today I've received a flurry of emails, as well as copies of letters sent to

the Times expressing concern over the cutback in jazz coverage. Some have

distorted or misunderstood the situation, as I discussed it with my friends

and colleagues at the Monk gathering. So I thought it would be useful to

simply explain what I know about it.

The reduction in jazz coverage at the Times actually began 7 or 8 years ago

when jazz was moved into the Pop Music area. Prior to that I frequently did

three or four reviews a week, as well as a Sunday record review column and a

Friday Jazz column. Under Pop Music, the coverage was reduced to two

reviews a week, the Sundy jazz record review section to once a month, and

the Friday column was discontinued.

Several months ago, a new editor took over the reins of the pop music

department from the acting editor. I was told, almost immediately, by her

that jazz reviews would be reduced in number, and would essentially have to

be pitched to her for approval That represented an immediate and

significant change, since - as one who is deeply aware of developments in

jazz, here and elsewhere - I had generally done my own scheduling of

reviews, with oversight from the acting editor. In addition, the Sunday

jazz record review spotlight disappeared.

In scheduling my reviews - of both live concerts and recordings - I tried to

balance the major name programs with as much coverage as possible for the

Southland's huge array of world class jazz talent. That approach became

virtually impossible when the reviews were cut back to one a week. Within a

month or two, they were cut to one every ten days. After that it became a

matter of submitting events I thought were important, and hoping that

coverage would be permitted. It usually wasn't.

About two or more months ago, I was advised by that the free lance budget

for Pop had run out for the year, and that I should contact my editor in

late December to consider what could be covered when the new budget came

into effect in January. Basically that meant that I could do no reviews for

the last 3 1/2 months of the year.

Let me add a little background here. Despite my 22 years and over 5,000

bylined reviews, articles and stories in the LA Times, I am still nominally

a free-lancer, since I've always refused offers to go on staff. What this

means, of course, is that - if there is no free-lance budget - a staff

writer could be assigned to cover jazz reviews, despite the fact that there

is no one on the staff who is qualified to do so.

Starting about a month ago, I began emailing my editor, pointing out that -

if there if only one jazz event could be covered before the end of the

year, it should be the Monk Competition event at the Kodak this past

weekend. My request was refused several times. I informed the Monk folks

of the situation, and they began to contact my editor to urge coverage.

Eventually, she apparently agreed to do so, assigning a staff writer to do

the review. It will appear in the paper tomorrow.

It may well be that the letters that are being sent to the LAT, expressing

concern about the reduction of jazz coverage, will be responded to with some

minimal coverage of jazz by staff writers with little knowledge of the

music. And tomorrow's review of the Monk event will no doubt be cited as

evidence of the paper's continuing interest in jazz. This, despite the fact

that it will be the first jazz review in the paper since August 1.

But I can only wonder why the Music department seems to have a budget to

employ a free-lance reviewer one or two times a week to write about European

classical music, while similar funds cannot be allocated to the Pop

department to allow me to continue the coverage - however modest in numbers

it may have to be - that jazz needs and deserves.

I have no inside source of information at the paper, although it's apparent

to everyone that the problems seem to be multiplying rather than

diminishing. My real concern is for the knowledgable representation of the

music that is America's greatest cultural achievement.

--

this was in the L.A. Times yesterday?!? or was this on Don's blog?

the review of the Monk Institute event was in today's paper under "Pop Music"!!!

[7/4]

Time for an unpopular music section in every newspaper.

.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Time for an unpopular music section in every newspaper.

Quite. Why this should be a surprise beats me. Jazz is probably about as relevant to the daily concerns of most Americans as Mbalax or the latest theories of topology. One can try to understand how this state of affairs came about - and there's a good deal of discussion on this board on that topic. But if you think that anything can be done about it, hard kek.

But I think the question's got to be asked; aside from the obvious economic impact on musicians' (and others who make money out of jazz) pockets, what's wrong with being sidelined? with being underground?

MG

[Dan Gould]

Once upon a time, it would have been natural to see a jazz review in a "popular music" section of a paper (had they existed 50 years ago). Now we want to see it where? In the "serious music" section of the paper?

Its obviously a sad state of affairs when a paper like the L.A. Times essentially stops covering jazz, but does that reflect the state of jazz in the market or the state of newspapers in general?

[ValerieB]

Once upon a time, it would have been natural to see a jazz review in a "popular music" section of a paper (had they existed 50 years ago). Now we want to see it where? In the "serious music" section of the paper?

Its obviously a sad state of affairs when a paper like the L.A. Times essentially stops covering jazz, but does that reflect the state of jazz in the market or the state of newspapers in general?

there was an article in the Business Section of the L.A. Times today (i believe) which was about all the layoffs at the paper in various departments.

[seeline]

I'm not surprised - it sounds as if they brought in the new editor to more or less clean house.

As for axing jazz - and presumably other kinds - of reviews + the calendar, that's a very sad state of affairs. LA is major city, and there's so much happening in the arts in SoCal. all that to say that I disagree with you, MG. (BTW, it's nice to see you back here!)

[7/4]

Once upon a time, it would have been natural to see a jazz review in a "popular music" section of a paper (had they existed 50 years ago). Now we want to see it where? In the "serious music" section of the paper?

Its obviously a sad state of affairs when a paper like the L.A. Times essentially stops covering jazz, but does that reflect the state of jazz in the market or the state of newspapers in general?

there was an article in the Business Section of the L.A. Times today (i believe) which was about all the layoffs at the paper in various departments.

Maybe not an example, but a trend:

Christian Science Monitor Ends Daily Print Edition

"The cost-cutting measure makes The Monitor the first national newspaper to essentially give up on print."

Newspaper Circulation Continues to Decline Rapidly

"The long decline in newspaper circulation over the years continues to accelerate, with sales in the spring and summer falling almost 5 percent from the previous year, figures released on Monday show, deepening the financial strain on the industry."

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

all that to say that I disagree with you, MG.

I didn't think I said anything to disagree with, other than that I didn't think you could do anything about it - so if you don't agree with that, what DO you do about it? - and asking what was wrong with the situation in which jazz is sidelined (at least by what seems in subsequent posts to be a decaying daily press industry).

MG

[JSngry]

what's wrong with being sidelined? with being underground?

Dude, most of the music's fans today are people for whom "underground" is a fearful a concept as "socialist" or something like that.

It's all about being an "outsider", but not too outside. "Hip" is cool, but "weird" ain't.

[kh1958]

As least Los Angelesans have some jazz events to not be covered by the LA Times, which is better than having no jazz events to not be covered by the Dallas Morning News.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

what's wrong with being sidelined? with being underground?

Dude, most of the music's fans today are people for whom "underground" is a fearful a concept as "socialist" or something like that.

It's all about being an "outsider", but not too outside. "Hip" is cool, but "weird" ain't.

Really? I mean, really really? Like, us lot?

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

As least Los Angelesans have some jazz events to not be covered by the LA Times, which is better than having no jazz events to not be covered by the Dallas Morning News.

I love that sentence. Thank you kindly.

MG

[RDK]

"Hip" is cool, but "weird" ain't.

Crap! Once again, I've crossed the line...

[The Red Menace]

what's wrong with being sidelined? with being underground?

Dude, most of the music's fans today are people for whom "underground" is a fearful a concept as "socialist" or something like that.

Comrade, I believe the new meme has been upgraded (downgraded???) to "communist." Yes, "communist!!!" Hold on to your fur-lined hats, my fellow Bolsheviks, we are at last making our long-dreamed-about comeback!!! :excited:

But are they executing these jazz reporters, or merely sending them to Wasilla, Alaska??? :unsure:

Edited October 28, 2008 by The Red Menace

[seeline]

But I think the question's got to be asked; aside from the obvious economic impact on musicians' (and others who make money out of jazz) pockets, what's wrong with being sidelined? with being underground?

MG

hey, my apologies - I misread your comment.

[Tjazz]

I always see a FREE jazz monthly newspaper at Record Surplus that covers the Los Angeles area.

[papsrus]

The LAT, along with the industry at large, has been in steady and pronounced decline for some time. As was pointed out by RDK in Post No. 3, other outlets will pick up the slack, or have already, when it comes to coverage of the music.

[Chuck Nessa]

I blame McCain and his brother Bush.