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

[Jazzmoose]

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.

Well put; I don't think you'll find too many of us rushing to defend support for the two mentioned...um...'artists'.

[blajay]

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.

Well put; I don't think you'll find too many of us rushing to defend support for the two mentioned...um...'artists'.

I guess it's a positive thing, then, that I honestly have no clue who either of them are.

[mjzee]

I've reread the first 2 posts (TJC3's post and Dan's reply). I dunno, maybe it's a generational thing. When I came of age in NYC in the '60's & '70's, what Dan posted would be considered a very direct, no-bull way of stating an opinion. It's a style, y'know? Anyone who grew up on Frank Zappa, to use one example, would know what I'm talking about (I was listening last night to some Zappa with Flo & Eddie; it's sad, but if Zappa posted here, he'd be tsk-tsk'd for not being polite). It's like Johnny Hodges vs. Charlie Parker vs. Archie Shepp: it's not just what you say, but the way you say it.

I urge everyone to read Dan's original post again. It's a very valid point about music, and an opinion that most of us who post here agree with, plain and simple. The style might be a little short-tempered, but is there anyone here who's watched Seinfeld who doesn't immediately recognize it? When I read his post the first time, I burst out laughing; it was written that good.

I also think the first 2 posts are about a clash of styles: TJC3 writes like a marketing major, and Dan writes like an absolute lover of real music who'd rather cut off his arm than voice an opinion he really doesn't believe.

Of course, what complicates it is that this is Jim A.'s board, and he'd like a certain tone to be set. I understand that.

But, really, when I first read TJC3's first post, it sounded to me like one of those Verve promo people posting again under a new name.

So, anyway, here's a vote for originality and lively writing style. I think it's time we stop pillorying Dan, stop gazing at our navels and wearing hair shirts, and just move on. There's too much good music waiting to be heard!

[Dan Gould]

Thank you.

My deepest regret is giving a hard time to someone who is in a position to promote the band. That's a terrible thing to do to Jim on this board.

My second regret is treating a new member curtly. But as I have re-read the entire exchange, I see one "significant" faux pax, and that's inserting the F-word in between "Boney" and "James". It wasn't directed at the writer, it was directed at Boney F-ing James! Otherwise the entire interaction boils down to:

How can you be a "Jazz Examiner" and talk up those two non-jazz musicians?

Here are a couple of guys you should consider instead (I gave her suggestions, just as requested)

Really, how can you be a "Jazz Examiner"?

And that whole thing about a male going after a female is and always will be a crock. You get anyone - male/female, black/white/polka dotted - who wants to talk jazz and then mentions Koz and James, I am going to express the exact same beliefs in the exact same way.

[seeline]

I'm amazed that this thread is still going.

What's so hard about "hey, I see that you've got Carlos Garnett and Ravi Coltrane on your list. I'm wondering why you were putting Dave Koz in with those two?" (etc. etc. etc.)

Of course, the opening graphs of the article plus the fact that it's pitched to general-interest readers make it pretty clear that it's *not* meant to be some sort of definitive list for people who love "real" jazz only.

Pop critics cover everything but classical by default. Record sales are divided up in the same way, for ease of categorization. Everything that's not classical is pop, and vice versa.

Anyone who covers music for a general interest publication (or web site) is going to likely end up reviewing at least *some* shows and CDs that aren't necessarily their personal cup of tea. It's just the way things are.

I think those here who've done some writing and publishing on music (or the rest of the arts) are very aware of that, but it bears repeating for those who might not the way non-specialist publications and sites tend to run their "arts" sections. (And likely a lot of other sections, too.)

In other words: please cut the OP some slack re. her work for that site. Writing for general-interest audiences is often a "Damnned if you do, damned if you don't" proposition for those doing the writing. Fans of particular genres (not just jazz fans) tend to get angry because said writers aren't giving what they believe to be proper attention to their music of choice. And *if* the writer adds a lot of detail/minutiae that hard-core fans like, then they risk losing general-interest readers after the 1st couple of sentences.

I'm all for people who are trying to write well about music, no matter what kind of music it is that they're covering. I've had my own go at it, and found out that it was a lot more complicated than I'd thought.

Edited August 6, 2009 by seeline

[Dan Gould]

You don't get the free pass that a general music critic might get when she is the Jazz Examiner. I'm pretty sure there is a Pop Examiner, too. She gets to write about what she wants to write about, nothing else and about what she thinks constitutes jazz.

But set aside the "smooth jazz" label. Does anyone here even think that Dave Koz or Boney James are great saxophonists?

[seeline]

Dan, you were extremely rude to the OP.

That's the bottom line.

You could have phrased what you had to say in a non-attacking way.

[i'm out; the mods have already had their say on this.]

[Jim Alfredson]

I think we're done here. Apology accepted. Doesn't look like Carole is coming back.