NY Times article on Keith Jarrett - mistaken photo of Chick Corea

[skeith]

Am I the only one who reads the NY Times? Yesterday's edition had a big article on Jarrett in anticipation of his trio's performance last night at Carnegie Hall. On the front page of the Arts section in the article about Jarrett they have a photo of Chick Corea which they identified as Keith Jarrett.

Must be some real youngsters working in the editor's room.

[colinmce]

Vijay Iyer posted a pic. Blame the general decrease in excellence among the US media over the last 25 years. Amazingly, it correlates with divestment!

[xybert]

Pretty funny that things like this still happen. Mistaking Jarrett for someone else is one thing, with it being Corea i'm surprised that the universe didn't implode.

[paul secor]

I saw the photo and recognized Corea. I have no interest in either musician, so it didn't mean anything to me except another screw up by The Times. What else is new?

[John Litweiler]

which is which?

[Leeway]

Am I the only one who reads the NY Times?

Since they put the paywall in, I've pretty much stopped reading it. I've toyed with getting the digital subscription, but haven't pulled the trigger. In terms of news coverage, I get all that from WaPo, but I do miss the "arts & leisure" items.

[7/4]

I spotted it and posted it to FB.

[jlhoots]

I don't hate either musician - I just hate the NYT.

[Chuck Nessa]

I don't hate either musician - I just hate the NYT.

I am irritated by all.

[Mark Stryker]

Actually, it's fairly easy to explain how this happened. The original photo, which came from Getty Images, came with the wrong caption attached. So the original mistake was not made at the Times. The picture editor or page designer who grabbed the image from the wire or archive had no reason assume if was wrong -- unless he/she actually knew what Chick or Keith looked like. It is certainly not surprising that this person and the perhaps two other editors involved in the production of that page, neither knew the difference. (Chinen never saw the page; as a contract writer, he may not even have a cubicle at the paper.)

It would be nice to think that every person working in the culture department at the Times would know what Chick Corea and Keith Jarrett (or other contemporary jazz musicians not named Marsalis) actually look like. But don't kid yourself. If the fact that nobody caught this mistake proves anything it's that jazz has become so removed from common culture that it's probably unreasonable to expect that somebody would know the difference. I mean, it would be nice, and one reason why you want smart, well-read people on your copy desk with varied experiences and expertise is so that somebody might catch something like this. If you want to skewer the Times over any number of sins, feel free, but I'd give them a pass on this one.

Larry Kart will back me up on this: It's amazing stuff like this doesn't happen more often.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Mark Stryker

[JSngry]

which is which?

Is this a trick question?

http://keithcorrea.com/

[David Ayers]

which is which?

Think Clark Kent and Superman. Think Jekyll and Hyde. Um. No that's not quite it. Just remember that on Bitches Brew Chick is on the, er, left and Keith, oh wait no, that's Joe Zawinul. Um... just give me a minute...

[alankin]

http://corajarrett.com/

[papsrus]

Actually, it's fairly easy to explain how this happened. The original photo, which came from Getty Images, came with the wrong caption attached. So the original mistake was not made at the Times. The picture editor or page designer who grabbed the image from the wire or archive had no reason assume if was wrong -- unless he/she actually knew what Chick or Keith looked like. It is certainly not surprising that this person and the perhaps two other editors involved in the production of that page, neither knew the difference. (Chinen never saw the page; as a contract writer, he may not even have a cubicle at the paper.)

It would be nice to think that every person working in the culture department at the Times would know what Chick Corea and Keith Jarrett (or other contemporary jazz musicians not named Marsalis) actually look like. But don't kid yourself. If the fact that nobody caught this mistake proves anything it's that jazz has become so removed from common culture that it's probably unreasonable to expect that somebody would know the difference. I mean, it would be nice, and one reason why you want smart, well-read people on your copy desk with varied experiences and expertise is so that somebody might catch something like this. If you want to skewer the Times over any number of sins, feel free, but I'd give them a pass on this one.

Larry Kart will back me up on this: It's amazing stuff like this doesn't happen more often.

I don't know. I work on a production desk and anyone over 50 should know that's a picture of Chick Corea. The man was pretty widely recognized in pop culture back in the day.

Maybe all the old codgers have been bought out and sent on their way. You get what you pay for in a work force.

[Mark Stryker]

Actually, it's fairly easy to explain how this happened. The original photo, which came from Getty Images, came with the wrong caption attached. So the original mistake was not made at the Times. The picture editor or page designer who grabbed the image from the wire or archive had no reason assume if was wrong -- unless he/she actually knew what Chick or Keith looked like. It is certainly not surprising that this person and the perhaps two other editors involved in the production of that page, neither knew the difference. (Chinen never saw the page; as a contract writer, he may not even have a cubicle at the paper.)

It would be nice to think that every person working in the culture department at the Times would know what Chick Corea and Keith Jarrett (or other contemporary jazz musicians not named Marsalis) actually look like. But don't kid yourself. If the fact that nobody caught this mistake proves anything it's that jazz has become so removed from common culture that it's probably unreasonable to expect that somebody would know the difference. I mean, it would be nice, and one reason why you want smart, well-read people on your copy desk with varied experiences and expertise is so that somebody might catch something like this. If you want to skewer the Times over any number of sins, feel free, but I'd give them a pass on this one.

Larry Kart will back me up on this: It's amazing stuff like this doesn't happen more often.

I don't know. I work on a production desk and anyone over 50 should know that's a picture of Chick Corea. The man was pretty widely recognized in pop culture back in the day.

Maybe all the old codgers have been bought out and sent on their way. You get what you pay for in a work force.

Ah, but you prove my point: If you believe that anyone over 50 should have known then the fact that younger workers did not recognize him would indeed be a sign that jazz has slipped every farther from common currency.

Your second point is perhaps more complicated than you suggest: While I agree to a point -- my own newsroom has lost countless veterans with institutional knowledge and broader general cultural knowledge than those who replaced them -- using 50 as the cut off point doesn't necessarily mean you're left with an inferior staff that as you imply is being paid significantly less. All of the folks who might have caught that error could be roughly 40 to 50 years old which means they could have anywhere from 18 to nearly 30 years under their belt. I would also note that general knowledge of popular culture cuts both ways. At 50, I am far less capable of understanding all kinds of pop cultural references (and thus picking up certain mistakes) than my younger colleagues. Of course, I bring other areas of expertise to the table that they don't, including the fact that I know what Corea and Jarrett look like. (As a side note, I was shocked recently, when the 40-year-old hipster who sits near me had no idea who Albert Brooks was. How could that be?)

All which is an argument for diversity across all demographics -- age, gender, race, background, experience -- the more the collective knows, the more likely it is that somebody might know what Chick and Keith look like.

[jazzbo]

I'm just chuckling at how much this probably cheesed Keith off. Ego has it's pitfalls.

[Larry Kart]

Actually, it's fairly easy to explain how this happened. The original photo, which came from Getty Images, came with the wrong caption attached. So the original mistake was not made at the Times. The picture editor or page designer who grabbed the image from the wire or archive had no reason assume if was wrong -- unless he/she actually knew what Chick or Keith looked like. It is certainly not surprising that this person and the perhaps two other editors involved in the production of that page, neither knew the difference. (Chinen never saw the page; as a contract writer, he may not even have a cubicle at the paper.)

It would be nice to think that every person working in the culture department at the Times would know what Chick Corea and Keith Jarrett (or other contemporary jazz musicians not named Marsalis) actually look like. But don't kid yourself. If the fact that nobody caught this mistake proves anything it's that jazz has become so removed from common culture that it's probably unreasonable to expect that somebody would know the difference. I mean, it would be nice, and one reason why you want smart, well-read people on your copy desk with varied experiences and expertise is so that somebody might catch something like this. If you want to skewer the Times over any number of sins, feel free, but I'd give them a pass on this one.

Larry Kart will back me up on this: It's amazing stuff like this doesn't happen more often.

I'm trying to remember a comparable goof of which I had personal knowledge. One doesn't come to mind right now, but I'm sure there were some. None that I was responsible for though, I don't think.

[skeith]

I'm just chuckling at how much this probably cheesed Keith off. Ego has it's pitfalls.

Lon

A friend of mine went to the concert that night and Jarrett mentioned that he had seen the article with Chick's photo identfied as Keith. Apparently, Jarrett talked about it with good-humored resignation.

[Head Man]

I'm just chuckling at how much this probably cheesed Keith off. Ego has it's pitfalls.

Lon

A friend of mine went to the concert that night and Jarrett mentioned that he had seen the article with Chick's photo identfied as Keith. Apparently, Jarrett talked about it with good-humored resignation.

Oh, that's a pity. I was hoping for a hissy-fit!

[jazzbo]

Good to hear!

[GA Russell]

The Times acknowledges its error on its website.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/11/arts/music/keith-jarrett-and-his-trio-will-play-at-carnegie-hall.html?_r=0

[CJ Shearn]

Pretty funny, honestly.

[sgcim]

They're too busy kissing Bloomberg's ass to bother with facts anymore...

Nate Chinen was the same genius who wrote that article that said Trane was one of the founders of bebop

[Dan Gould]

They're too busy kissing Bloomberg's ass to bother with facts anymore...

Nate Chinen was the same genius who wrote that article that said Trane was one of the founders of bebop

I can't be 100% because I can't find the original thread but I am almost sure it wasn't Chinen who wrote that. The writer was some young female. The real blame for that whopper was on the editorial side.