Feedback on My NY Jazz Column...New To The Board!

[JSngry]

Oh c'mon Jim, I think you're messing with my posts for no good reason.

The point is: there's no reason to act hostile.

I'm not messing with your posts, I'm asking for directions!

And if you had any idea how hard it was for me, a penile-American, to ask for directions, you'd appreciate just how difficult this is for me!

Edited August 5, 2009 by JSngry

[Ken Dryden]

Posters, particularly those new to the board, should be treated in a civil manner.

Sometimes the excessive praise of smooth jazz artists comes off as a bit ridiculous and may inflame some of us who have collected, broadcast, written about (and in some cases, played) jazz for decades. I really lost my cool when an uncredited liner note writer in the poorly conceived Legends of Jazz DVD (which included Jane Monheit, among several other non-legends) boxed set called David Sanborn "one of the greatest saxophonists of all time" (I could produce a long list of saxophonists who are far more accomplished, as could most of this board's posters) while ignoring Phil Woods, who was in the very same DVD episode. That is simply gross ignorance on the part of the writer, as if putting Kenny G ahead of Johnny Hodges or Sidney Bechet. Sales alone does not make a musician great, nor should success be a determining factor as to whether one likes an artist or not.

[7/4]

Dan has been a problem for years.

Yes, and no.

Personally I think Dan has his better phases, and his worse -- his ups and downs. So too have a number of us here. (I started to name names, but that would have really gotten weird -- so I'll just say that hopefully you know who you are -- and even if you don't, the rest of us sure do ( ) -- and maybe I should count myself in both camps ).

I don't have an easy solution -- 'cept to say that if the most difficult behavior was curtailed, and/or at least softened a little more often than not -- then this place would probably NOT have as many periodic ups and downs (nor as many headaches for our good host Jim).

Think a little before you post, people. I'm no saint, but one of the best things I've done in recent years is stuff I *haven't* posted.

And for the record, yes, I'm defending Dan (who has a long history with us here, and even "before here") --- while at the same time, I am pissed at him taking the "welcome committee" to new heights depths.

I'm no saint either...I've certainly baited him many times to see him flip out. But at this late stage, it would be reasonable to expect him to act more like Stimpy and less like Ren. Particularly with someone new who joins and asks a question.

[JSngry]

Now on the serious side, let me say this - I've read the poster's other columns/articles, and find nothing in it for me, musically. Her tastes and mine do not appear to overlap to any significant degree. But hell, i wish her well any way, and stand by the feedback I offered earlier, if for no other reason than as somebody who is not at all moved (at least not positively) by Boney James or Dave Koz, I feel that I am being lumped into a "generic" category for reasons that are wholly inaccurate and every bit as plagued by stereotypes and misconceptions as the fans of their music no doubt feel are foisted upon them/

As music fans, there is neither need nor imperative for either of us to justify our tastes. But as two people who choose to post on a public forum, I see no reason not to step up and offer our own perspectives instead of having them assumed by somebody else. And i do that with no hostility towards anything except mistruth, nor for anybody save those who refuse to hear those who will not listen to a claim of same. So far, I see absolutely no reason to think that thejackchick3 is such a person.

So, can we just talk as people instead of as "types". That type of thinking is so 20th Century, for real.

No apologies given, but none expected either!

Edited August 5, 2009 by JSngry

[seeline]

Posters, particularly those new to the board, should be treated in a civil manner.

Sometimes the excessive praise of smooth jazz artists comes off as a bit ridiculous and may inflame some of us who have collected, broadcast, written about (and in some cases, played) jazz for decades. I really lost my cool when an uncredited liner note writer in the poorly conceived Legends of Jazz DVD (which included Jane Monheit, among several other non-legends) boxed set called David Sanborn "one of the greatest saxophonists of all time" (I could produce a long list of saxophonists who are far more accomplished, as could most of this board's posters) while ignoring Phil Woods, who was in the very same DVD episode. That is simply gross ignorance on the part of the writer, as if putting Kenny G ahead of Johnny Hodges or Sidney Bechet. Sales alone does not make a musician great, nor should success be a determining factor as to whether one likes an artist or not.

You can always choose *not* to read something, eh?

I think the whole issue of "smooth jazz" is beside the point, really. The issue is about treating other people with respect, even when - no, especially when - you disagree with them.

Edited August 5, 2009 by seeline

[JSngry]

Sometimes the excessive praise of smooth jazz artists comes off as a bit ridiculous...

Especially since this board has a looooooong history of being inundated by Street Team Spam for innumerable such acts.

[Big Wheel]

Sometimes the excessive praise of smooth jazz artists comes off as a bit ridiculous...

Especially since this board has a looooooong history of being inundated by Street Team Spam for innumerable such acts.

That's close to what I was trying to say in my post (now deleted I think). I thought that Dan's response was harsh and over the top. But given the board's history I kind of understand why a person might be thinking that way.

[JSngry]

I think the whole issue of "smooth jazz" is beside the point, really. The issue is about treating other people with respect, even when - no, especially when - you disagree with them.

Wellllll....yeah, but.....not necessarily.... when I was younger and actually felt that jazz was alive, I took that type shit very personally. Now that I feel that about 98% of it is repertoire theater of one kind or another (and that's just me, and that's not to say that repertoire theater is not something I can find very entertaining and positively provoking), I'm less inclined to feel the froth. But I can still remember how it felt to be surrounded by a Big Bad Corporate Music Machine that wanted to take the music I had given my life to, my soul to, my very essence to, and turn it into a preteen whore in smeared clown makeup and Dickensian corduroyed knickers - with conspicuous holes in the knees.

It didn't feel particularly good, I tell you.

Edited August 5, 2009 by JSngry

[Larry Kart]

Could we have some guidelines for expressing dislike then, please? I'm afraid I tend to go with the old "say what you mean, mean what you say" approach, and I'd hate to hurt anybody's feelings by doing so, especially a woman's.

Jim A. can disagree, but "say what you mean, mean what you say" should cover it, with this perhaps tricky footnote -- try to bear in mind who one is talking to. That is, the problem on this thread arose IMO because the odd specific circumstance of a newbie getting yelled at, with profanity right off the bat, could well leave the newbie with the impression that that is the tone of this whole place; and that we don't want to do, right? In effect, the first poster forgot that in this circumstance he might be regarded as speaking for all of us.

Likewise (or not likewise exactly, but close enough for jazz), one pretty much knows who here can be provoked and in what ways and on what grounds. That doesn't mean don't ever provoke, because sometimes what people say arguably earns/deserves that, but it does mean at the least that disingenuousness about having said something that provokes someone ought to be out. And Lord knows we've seen lots of that, none of it IMO doing anything for anyone but eat up time and space and make it clear that some very smart people can act un-smart. Of course, one can at times provoke someone without intending to do so, but once the horns clash and the saliva starts dribbling, who can then claim not to get what's happened/happening? And why then not back off, unless one feels genuinely that what you said/meant was misunderstood and needs to be clarified? How many arguments that reach the level of butting-heads-in-the-arena ever go anywhere else?

Or am I being a pompous twit about all this? Go ahead -- provoke me.

[JSngry]

Could we have some guidelines for expressing dislike then, please? I'm afraid I tend to go with the old "say what you mean, mean what you say" approach, and I'd hate to hurt anybody's feelings by doing so, especially a woman's.

Jim A. can disagree, but "say what you mean, mean what you say" should cover it, with this perhaps tricky footnote -- try to bear in mind who one is talking to. That is, the problem on this thread arose IMO because the odd specific circumstance of a newbie getting yelled at, with profanity right off the bat, could well leave the newbie with the impression that that is the tone of this whole place; and that we don't want to do, right? In effect, the first poster forgot that in this circumstance he might be regarded as speaking for all of us.

Likewise (or not likewise exactly, but close enough for jazz), one pretty much knows who here can be provoked and in what ways and on what grounds. That doesn't mean don't ever provoke, because sometimes what people say arguably earns/deserves that, but it does mean at the least that disingenuousness about having said something that provokes someone ought to be out. And Lord knows we've seen lots of that, none of it IMO doing anything for anyone but eat up time and space and make it clear that some very smart people can act un-smart. Of course, one can at times provoke someone without intending to do so, but once the horns clash and the saliva starts dribbling, who can then claim not to get what's happened/happening? And why then not back off, unless one feels genuinely that what you said/meant was misunderstood and needs to be clarified? How many arguments that reach the level of butting-heads-in-the-arena ever go anywhere else?

Or am I being a pompous twit about all this? Go ahead -- provoke me.

Fuck Forget it man, that's too many rules. :g

Edited August 5, 2009 by JSngry

[Jazzmoose]

I presume it's O.K to say that you're not fond of the music of Boney James & Dave Koz.

It's the way you say it that's the issue.

Is that correct???

Let's just say that if the obscenities had been directed at Boney James & Dave Koz, no one would have batted an eye...

Personally I think Dan has his better phases, and his worse -- his ups and downs. So too have a number of us here. (I started to name names, but that would have really gotten weird -- so I'll just say that hopefully you know who you are -- and even if you don't, the rest of us sure do ( ) -- and maybe I should count myself in both camps ).

Speaking as one of those (yeah, I know who I are ), I'd just have to say, yeah, but to this extreme? On an ongoing basis? I sure hope not, but if so, I sincerely apologize.

[Jazzmoose]

In effect, the first poster forgot that in this circumstance he might be regarded as speaking for all of us.

I don't think he forgot; I think he was "defending the faith" as only Dan can. My guess is that he found the responses to his 'defense' shocking and bewildering.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Jazzmoose

[Jim Alfredson]

Seems to me the guidelines are pretty simple and straight-forward. Treat each other with respect. Would you actually say what you're about to post to this person's face? If not, don't post it.

We don't get that much spam here and it's quickly taken care of. There's no need for anyone to be on the defensive.

I find it disheartening that Carole emailed me first because she was having troubles logging in and she was very excited about posting and the first response to her first post is rude and insulting.

[king ubu]

quite a sorry-ass thread here... not much to add to, but I still don't buy the freedom of speech is worth much more than any kind of civility policy... I'm too yurpeen for that, I'm afraid. Anyway, just two things:

Belated welcome to Carole, and good luck with your writing!

And a shout out to Allen Lowe - never would have thought to read the name of Bruno Schulz here!

[David Ayers]

This is a new board low, though sadly not out of character.

[greggery peccary]

Jessica Lurie has done two wonderful projects that I'm aware of in the last year. She is definitely deserving of some ink as well as some ear time.

I'd also add Jenny Scheinman too.......

[Big Beat Steve]

I might need help, you sir need manors.

Came to read this thread through that other "Apologies..." thread and most of what I'd have to say on this particular matter and column has been said, but when i read this then, welll - this MOST CERTAINLY made me snicker.

Dan needing MANORS? Must have a HUUUUGE record collection and then he might actually need them.

On a side note to TJC3:

Please do make use of a dictionary and check what you actually meant to say. And to carry the point a LITTLE bit further, I do hope there is some thorough proofreading of what you get into print because you as part of the writing guild who set their words in print (and therefore, eventually, in stone for posterity) have an obligation to get things right - after all you serve as a model to those who read and who rely on the written word for education. There are enough semi-illiterates around anyhow (NO - I am NOT referring to you or any other writer but to those who READ - whatever little reading they do) and who'd go down the drain yet further if the number of printed mistakes is allowed to inflate yet further.

No harm meant but being connected with the publishing field in my job myelf and seeing what catastrophic gobbledegook the media come up with each day this just HAD to be said. :D

[Big Beat Steve]

IMHO the entire debate of why the thread starter was given such a rude treatment boils down to what JSngry so eloquently summarized below (kudos to you!!).

Quite appropriate IMO to dig that summary up once more for reference - if only to get the message truly home.

My impression of this entire exchange of statements (that seems to have been running in circles for some time now) is this:

That statement that JSngry quoteed is indeed so totally absurd that it almost defies polite commenting.

If you write about a specific topic you are supposed to do this from a WELL-informed starting point, providing sound information for your readers. Throwing together statements that were either wrong (or biased) to start with or may even have been misunderstood by the writer (do we know the full and exact original quotes?) does not help matters one bit. You don't do your learning AFTER you put something in print but BEFORE all this. Otherwise (and especially so) you are calling for trouble if you are intent on foisting this mishmash onto a forum where those who've been into this (and to whom this has been their lifeblood for a long time) are actively present and involved.

Getting one's facts (and the assessments that come from it) straight ought to be the least thing one could expect of a newspaper writer/columnist. A case of journalistic standards. And this has got NOTHING to do with gender. Males would not have fared any better - maybe worse ...

Many in the jazz community have a visceral dislike for “smooth jazz.” They believe that the early 1970’s mixing of the genres of rhythm and blues and jazz with the introduction of electronic and commercial sounds such as the electric guitar and the soprano sax led to the watering down of “real” jazz.

Yeah, I haven't read this thread, so I don't know whose quote that is, but it is so terrbily wrong in so many ways that I hope if it's somebody here in this thread that they don't take it personal when I say that infact it's pretty much bullshit. I'll gladly and freindly go into detail later today when I'm not at work, but it's nothing personal to call bullshit where it exists, and that quote right there is bullshit.

For one thing, "electronic and commercial sounds such as the electric guitar and the soprano sax" is a big "WTF are you talking about?" point... but htere are others.

Not taken personally...just a composite of what a number of people I have been interviewing have said. But, that's why I reached out on the board....to get a broader perspective and not the myopic view...bullshit, perhaps....but that's what the discussion is about. That's really WTF I am trying to open up. Please go into detail later. I would love it!

Ok, I'm home, here's the deal, phrase by phrase. Keep in mind that this is just a reaction to those two sentences, not anything else you've written here or there (which I've yet to read).

Ok...

Many in the jazz community have a visceral dislike for “smooth jazz.” Yeah, pretty much true. Perhaps even understated.

They believe that the early 1970’s mixing of the genres of rhythm and blues and jazz with the introduction of electronic and commercial sounds such as the electric guitar and the soprano sax led to the watering down of “real” jazz. Here's where it goes off track.

First of all, who are "they" - the jazz community or those who have a visceral dislike for "smooth jazz"? It doesn't matter, really because it's just not a true, valid connection. Plenty, plenty of people who had no real problems with early "fusion" or the soul-jazz of the late 60s/early 70s can't stomach smooth jazz.

Second of all, the implication is that "smooth jazz" is an outgrowth of fusion or jazz-rock or whatever you want to call it - and it's not. Smooth jazz's immediate predecessor was the "quiet storm" music of the late-70s. It was "jazzy", but in no way was it jazz, nor did it claim to be until some radio executives figured out that an instrumental pop version of a, say, Anita Baker tune might sell so many copies marketed as pop, but 10x # of copies if you called it "smooth jazz", something that set it apart from regular instrumental pop/R&B/Quiet Storm, etc. The history of the coinage of the "smooth jazz" term is fairly well documented if you care to look for it.

Third, as one of the many people I know who dug both early "fusion" or the soul-jazz of the late 60s/early 70s, as well as a great deal of "Quiet Storm" music and who can't stomach the vast majority of smooth jazz, I can tell you that my revulsion towards the latter is entirely a matter of the spirit & the execution of the music, nothing more. As a musician who's been around the industry a little bit, I know that the whole smooth market has unwritten rules about tempo, grooves, harmony, instrumentation, stage presence, everything, and these rules are every bit as narrow as are those for commercial C&W, which is to say that if any content at all seeps out from the product (and occasionally it does), it's an act of subversion in the face of the marketplace!

So you see, talking about "the early 1970’s mixing of the genres of rhythm and blues and jazz with the introduction of electronic and commercial sounds..." as if that is where smpooth jazz comes from is not grounded in any reality whatsoever. Now, if you talk to some really old or some really young ideologues who think that Jazz is The Pure Voice Of The One True God or some such, then yeah, there ain't no room for even the slightest deviation. But those people are just as blind to historical reality as those who know absolutely nothing. Hell, we'd be on more solid ground talking about the separation of R&B and jazz than we would be the mixing of it, so firmly intertwined at the root have they been for so long, and not just because so many great R&B records were made/played by players with solid jazz backgrounds... And the whole "commercial" thing, geeezz, what a red herring that is...back in the day, Gene Ammons used to get dissed for being "commercial" or for being "too R&B" and he's far from the only one... there always been a portion of the jazz audience who wants their music to never really be shared outside of their own little special group of insiders...but that has nothing to do with smooth jazz unless you but he notion that smooth jazz is jazz, which it's not, not 99% of the time. It's instrumental pop. So for a jazz fan to bemoan the popularity of instrumental pop claiming to be jazz is like a meat lover bitching about veggie burgers being popular by them claiming to be burgers...there's a certain visceral satisfaction, but very little, uh, common sense.

What is true is that there were two types of "fusion" in the 70s - one which brought more rock into the mix, and one which brought more R&B into the mix. Occasionally, as with Miles, you had music that did both (and then some), but Return To Forever & Grover Washington both can be said to have mixed "the genres of rhythm and blues and jazz with the introduction of electronic and commercial sounds" but those two musics are so fundamentally different in so many fundamental ways as to even imply that they can be lumped together is just not right. But - The R&B-influenced jazz came from the soul-jazz of just a few years before, and it definitely had an impact on the Quiet Storm music shortly after. But it did not become Smooth Jazz. If you're looking for one missing link, try George Howard (all but forgotten today?) who at the time sounded as "jazz-like" as Helen Reddy, but who today sounds like a veritable refuge from Mintons relative to most of the smooth pack. So, sorry, Soul Jazz to R&B Jazz to Quiet Storm to Smooth Jazz best summarizes the movement of the audience than it does the actual music. so as long as the discussion is about the music, and not the audience...check out Kenny G(orelick) with Jeff Lorber, and then listen to him once he went to smooth - there is a discernible decrease in "jazz influence" (such as it is), which, is, I think, exactly the point...Funny how Dave Sanborn (who really is a great player) kinda slipped off the smooth radar once all his imitators came along - doing a greatly simplified and codified imitation of a truly original voice with no small "jazz influence"). The less "jazz influence" the imitators showed, the higher the profile they got!

Fourth, "the introduction of electronic and commercial sounds such as the electric guitar and the soprano sax led to the watering down of “real” jazz...please! Electric guitar, firmly entrenched in so called "pure jazz" for decades. Soprano sax, quite common in New Orleans music (see Sidney Bechet, a.o.), less so during Swing & Bebop (although see Johnny Hodges & Charlie Barnett), but Steve Lacy, John Coltrane, & Wayne Shorter brought it back big time in the 60s, and in nothing even remotely resembling a "commercial" style (although Trane's "My Favorite Things" was a true jazz hit, it is in no way even a preternatural predecessor to smooth jazz).

So, the notion that "jazz fans" don't dig smooth jazz because it contains elements of R&B and instruments like electric guitar & soprano sax is just not...grounded in reality. Yes, you can find plenty of jazz that does contain elements of R&B and instruments like electric guitar & soprano sax that "jazz fans" do like - and that "jazz purists" will detest (as they will damn near anything that steps outside thier highly codified notions of what is and isn't "real" jazz). But that is an entirely different issue than why "smooth jazz" is so nearly-universally detested by "real jazz" fans.

Now hell, maybe none of this matters. Maybe you're writing for an audience that doesn't know Hank Mobley from Hank Kimball. Maybe they's got their copies of The Ten Essential Jazz CDs Of All Time and that's it as far as their interest in the lineage and legacy of the music goes. Ok, fair enough. From what I've skimmed, your aim appears to be to get people interested in the now more than the then, and again, fair enough. But you can do that and still speak truths instead of half-formed generalizations that take one form Column A, one from Column B, mix in some water and BAM, out comes some Conventional Wisdom that is actually neither!

Like I said, nothing personal, I sincerely wish you well, and welcome, and all that, for real (not feeling particularly warm and fuzzy right now, but honestly, I do mean that). But still - bullshit is bullshit, and I call it because I care enough about all of it (including somebody who certainly appears to be trying to do something good) to not just let it slide. There's enough of that as it is, no mas, por favor!

[Niko]

(do we know the full and exact original quotes?)

don't know if this is what you're asking, the quote is from carole's next article...

http://www.examiner.com/x-15042-NY-Jazz-Mu...jazz-is-burning

[Big Beat Steve]

No, Niko. The thread starter said this particular statement (that JSngry had called B.S. - rightly so - and proved wrong so eloquently above) was the essence of what so and so many interviewees had told her. But do we know what EXACTLY (verbatim) those interviewees had told her and/or if what they said was badly biased (for whatever personal reasons?) to start with or if maybe it was a case of gross midunderstanding on the part of the columnist? This is what I meant.

I don't know if this is so but can it be ruled out?

And does it matter? Would this be an excuse for putting something into print that is so blatantly incorrect, especially if you make it appear as a statement of fact?

You know, the longer I think about this thread (of which I had not become aware of until today) the more I feel there is more to this than Dan Gould's admittedly way over-the-top reaction. To me it's a case of basic journalistic diligence (that IMHO applies to columnists too, unless you enjoy being in the line of fire every time ).

[Dan Gould]

I presume it's O.K to say that you're not fond of the music of Boney James & Dave Koz.

It's the way you say it that's the issue.

Is that correct???

Let's just say that if the obscenities had been directed at Boney James & Dave Koz, no one would have batted an eye...

That's exactly who the obscenity (singular) was aimed at.

I didn't say "you bleeping piece of bleep. You're the NY Jazz Examiner and you think X and Y are the great jazz saxophonists of the day?"

Yes, my initial post is harsher with the F word. But it was aimed at Boney James, not the newbie.

************************************

I am embarrassed and ashamed that in "going off" I represented the board poorly to a new member, and for that I apologize to everyone, especially Jim for making the board look bad and Carole for making her feel unwelcome.

I am most definitely NOT ashamed for the opinions I expressed. I don't see how a serious "jazz" writer can mention these musicians in any way shape or form. It IS "sad" that the person chosen to write about jazz in New York, the capitol of the jazz world, thinks those two are jazz musicians.

[JSngry]

And I just want to stress again that when I call something "bullshit", I use it entirely in the vernacular, not as a personal insult. I realize that not everybody speaks the same language the same way, but such is life (and yes, for those of you who wonder, I would say the same thing to her face, and if anything, it would be less abrasive, because she would be able to see the smile on my face, the laughter in my voice, and the twinkle in my eye when I said it). I

think that her response to me showed that Carole was hip enough to get that, and I do appreciate that.

[paul secor]

Seems to me the guidelines are pretty simple and straight-forward. Treat each other with respect. Would you actually say what you're about to post to this person's face? If not, don't post it.

That seems to me to be straightforward and simple. Can't imagine someone other than a sociopath or someone with severe anger control issues having any problem with it.

[7/4]

Seems to me the guidelines are pretty simple and straight-forward. Treat each other with respect. Would you actually say what you're about to post to this person's face? If not, don't post it.

That seems to me to be straightforward and simple. Can't imagine someone other than a sociopath or someone with severe anger control issues having any problem with it.

[Big Beat Steve]

This discussion seems to be moving ahead on TWO lanes now, it seems ...

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php...amp;qpid=941316