Penguin 7th ed.

[AllenLowe]

I'm in general agrrement about some of the other contributors, and have to admit I read only Max Harrison's reviews in the 2 volumes - but that is significant, as Harrison is one of the most astute jazz critics in existence, one of only maybe 8 or 10 on the planet whom I would recommend reading -

[DrJ]

  Leeway Posted on Dec 1 2004, 10:25 PM

With the thousands of CDs reviewed, some of no particular interest, it wouldn't be surprising if some of the reviews are boiler plate; in fact, I'm surprised not more of the reviews are. But in most cases, I do get the impression of real critical effort going on. I'd be interested in any example of plagiarism, or near-plagiarism. 

Well I'll try and post some examples when I get home this weekend, but basically there are quite a few segments that are taken pretty much verbatim from liner notes of CDs but there is no acknowledgement given that they're borrowing. To me, that's ethically questionable, tacitly taking credit for someone else's work. It's not rampant, not every entry or anything, but as I say, now that I have several thousand titles in my collection I am seeing more and more examples crop up. That troubles me.

I remain unconvinced about their giving in-depth critiques, too. For a good example of what I'm talking about, compare the few instances where they DO provide a real in-depth and somewhat original spin - e.g. look at some of the entries for "major" figures like Charlie Parker and Miles Davis - with the other 99% of the book. To me, when I do that, it's clear they're often on autopilot.

The other thing that is irking me more and more about Cook and Morton is that they honestly seem bent on docking every Blue Note session (and many other "glory days" American label sessions as well) at least 1/2 to 1 star simply because they have the agenda that many of their recordings were "overrated." And by the same token, they are about as Euro-Centric as one could hope to be, seemingly adding stars just on principle because the artist is NOT from the U.S. I find this ironic given that most people point accusing fingers in the opposite direction, claiming this type of chauvinism is a U.S. thing - not so.

While I'm not going to argue the point, to me it's simply assinine to do stuff like give a recording like LEAPIN' AND LOPIN' less than 4 stars (and make snide comments in passing about how the band don't seem to realize the "rhythmic subtlety of "Voodoo" - huh? - and about Clark's inability to maintain prolonged interest in solos - WTF??!?) when they give 4 stars to some of the mediocre recordings they do that feature UK or European artists (a good example is the ECM date with Surman and Abercrombie, I forget the name because I forget the music - bland as can be, I bought it on their rec). I like Surman in the right setting but that one is simply a snoozer.

Yeah, I know they're totally different gigs and such, and it boils down to personal taste, but come on, I've yet to meet a jazz fan who DOESN'T love the Sonny Clark date...it's pretty much a universally-recognized classic.

Based on a quick perusal of the new edition of the Penguin Guide, which I just got, I couldn't find a single "new" BN reissue that has been added since their last volume that was given more than 3 stars, which includes dates by Larry Young, Andrew Hill (PASSING SHIPS gets 3 stars...everything recent by Dave Holland gets 3.5-4...hmmmmmm) and Rivers' FUCHSIA SWING SONG for christssake! That's just petty and perverse.

I should add that I have been making a conscious effort over the last few years to explore jazz from other places in the world and so it's not a vendetta against "non-US" jazz that is motivating my comments. Rather, I think Cook and Morton exhibit a clear-cut bias in the other direction.

Another quibble - their policy about supposedly "excluding" OOP or limited edition recordings is getting more and more fuzzy with each edition. I noted for example that for an artist they really like - Wadada Leo Smith and Paul Motian are good examples - they have continued to include listings for ECM dates that have yet to be reissued on CD, are still LP (not reissue, long OOP) only! Yet they exclude a slew of Conns that are still readily available. Oh-kayyy.....

Finally - editing errors GALORE have always been a problem, but never more so than with the new version. I only spent 15 minutes reading last night and found at least 4 instances where a review for an album remained in the text (often incongruously beginning in the midst of discussing another album!) while the album and personnel listing itself has now been deleted...pretty much inexcusable. Proofread much?

Basically, I am finding Cook and Morton more and more insufferable and arbitrary and sloppy, less and less broadminded and insightful. I think this is going to be my last edition, which is saying something since I've bought all of 'em up to this point.

Edited December 3, 2004 by DrJ

[Leeway]

Yes, these guys definitely have their biases, which one gets to recognize after a while. Which sort of supports my comment that there if a lot of real critical activity in this huge book-- we just might always like the results of that critical activity

It's clear to me at least that they are tired of the hard bop school, and tend to view it as formulaic (some of it is, really). Thus, they tend to underrate someone like Clark on occasion.

OTOH, with all the Funny Rat posts lately, I thought I'd check what Cook & Moton had to say. They give a goodly amount of space to many Funny Rat dudes like Brotzmann, whom they like quite a bit. This is also a critical judgment call-- not everyone would agree. But that's what makes Penguin kind of fun.

I don't have the very latest issue. Editing problems are a book industry-wide problem, as publishing houses cut back on editorial staff and just throw the product out there with little oversight. Probably not the fault of Cook and Morton. Could also be that they just dont; want to be bothered. Hav eyou ever had to edit your own work. Painful

[sidewinder]

I'm in general agrrement about some of the other contributors, and have to admit I read only Max Harrison's reviews in the 2 volumes - but that is significant, as Harrison is one of the most astute jazz critics in existence, one of only maybe 8 or 10 on the planet whom I would recommend reading -

Very true. I recommend Harrison's 'A Jazz Retrospect', issued back in the mid 70s (long out of print but worth scanning the second-hand books stores). Some very perceptive essays in this one on the likes of David Mack and Serial Jazz, Hal McKusick, Tad Dameron's 'Fontainebleau', Gil Evans and Lennie Niehaus.

Much of Harrison's best work can be found in the pages of the old Jazz Monthly mag from the 1960s.

Also big thumbs up for the Vol 2 of that 'Essential Jazz Records' book. If anything I prefer the earlier 'Modern Jazz - the Essential Records 1945-70' which for me was a revelation when it came out and has Harrison, Alun Morgan and Michael James in the author lineup. The most frustrating thing about that one at the time it was issued was that so few of the LPs could be obtained in mid-70s UK (other than as difficult to obtain US imports). We live in more bountiful jazz times now and much of the content is now in print.

Edited December 4, 2004 by sidewinder

[J.A.W.]

Harrison-Fox-Thacker's The Essential Jazz Records, Vol.1: Ragtime to Swing and Harrison-Thacker-Nicholson's The Essential Jazz Records, Vol.2: Modernism to Postmodernism contain some of the best writing on jazz I've ever read. Highly recommended!

Harrison-Morgan-Atkins-James-Cooke's Modern Jazz: The Essential Records 1945-1970 is also one of my favorite guides.

Edited December 4, 2004 by J.A.W.

[A Lark Ascending]

Is it fair to compare Penguin with 'The Essential Jazz Records' (either volume)? The latter very deliberately selects a very limited group of records and subject them to sometimes intense, donnish analysis.

At the other extreme you have AMG which attempts to cover everything (well, everything American!) whether in print or out, yet often in a cursory way.

Penguin falls in between. It's not hardcore criticism but a very personal reaction from two enthusiasts, trying to give some sort of guide from a very subjective viewpoint.

I find all these guides useful, but I don't go to any of them to have my views verified [Cook and Morton's reaction to Bill Frisells record with Dave Holland and Elvin Jones bears no resemblence to mine...I just conclude they completely missed the point to the CD].

Their reaction to the Blue Note 'classics' merely reflects two enthusiasts with different interests/priorities. It might be a particularly Europen perspective - I have to say that I find a lot of that music to be rather meat and potatoes. But then that's probably me missing something.

If I find any serious fault with Penguin it lies in certain lack of humility in its introduction. They could do with making more of the subjective nature of the opinions; less of the 'there's only so much time to listen so we're going to sift and throw out what you don't need'. There's an arrogance there, something I don't associate with Morton as a broadcaster.

Where I always find the Penguin useful is when exploring a new musician - it can give you a place to start listening, which CD to try. If that connects I'll try something else (all the time checking other recommendations from other sources) and then gradually move away from the Penguin and end up with my own take on things.

I do like their humour. But I can see this might be infuriating to others.

Penguin has been under assault from some quarters since it first started over ten years ago. I'm still waiting for the critics to produce their volume(s) that correct its faults. I'd buy one!

Edited December 4, 2004 by Bev Stapleton

[DrJ]

Nice thoughts, Bev. I agree that it is Cook and Morton's lack of humilty that rankles me most - that's what I meant by saying they were getting more and more insufferable. Yet I do like the humor, and it's not so much that I want to agree with them all the time. I certainly understand the idea of trying to bring some of the sacred cows like Blue Note down a peg, and at times I've agreed with their comments about certain much-lauded sessions that I also find ludicrously overrated, but they try so hard to make a GLOBAL case for this agenda that they seem to have lost all objectivity.

Also, it is quite clearly true that many of the more modern, European-led sessions they rave about would likely have never even been conceived had not there been the foundation of those "meat and potatoes" sessions from Blue Note and other "foundation" labels. I think one needs to view those recordings, then, with at least an attempt at projecting into the past to see how innovative and fresh and influential they once were and in many cases still are.

Anyway, all that aside, it's mainly just that I find the internal inconsistencies in PENGUIN are becoming more and more frequent and the quality control for the book abysmal. For example, I found another error last night that had me seriously wondering whether they had even listened to the recording they were reviewing (they talked about someone not playing a particular instrument on the record when in fact they had, prominently, which would be pretty darn obvious if they HAD listened). Then there's the lack of an index, as discussed previously - totally ridiculous.

Clearly having purchased this many volumes, I've been a committed reader, despite the faults of their approach. But I think I'm now getting fed up. Inexcusable to get WORSE at what one does as the years go by IMHO.

[A Lark Ascending]

I agree that the quality control has become dodgy over the years; it's almost as if the Penguin has become a routine chore alongside their other jobs. I'd love to see them rope in three or four other writers to freshen it up a bit.

I don't think a 'book' will ever address the problem. They need this on a (subscription?) website or CD-ROM where things can be added too rather than replaced.

US reader probably have little awareness of Cook and Morton as individuals. Cook I've always found rather unappealing - his editorials in Jazz Review are a bit superior, rather conservative. I attended a talk by him a few years back at a festival. He didn't seem too enthused about anything very contemporary - Eric Alexander was the name he gave us for a modern musician who he enjoyed!

Morton, by contrast, is someone I've always enjoyed as a broadcaster. He fronted the best, to my mind, jazz programme on the BBC in the 90s. He had a terrible run in with the BBC a few years back. Apart from reviews in Jazz Review I've not heard much of him since. He has a book on jazz slated for the near future but it keeps getting pushed back.

Edited December 4, 2004 by Bev Stapleton

[DrJ]

Interesting info. So Morton must be the primary driver behind their (very welcome) inclusion and championing of less "mainstream" artists.

[A Lark Ascending]

I suspect so.

His 'Impressions' programme in the 1990s always had a heavy 'avant' slant, especially in the sessions; though he always played a wide range of jazz. I think the BBC thought it was too highbrow and replaced it with the current 'Jazz On 3'. I enjoy the latter and commend its commitment to live music and contemporary music; but I miss Morton's approach.

[Guest akanalog]

funny i was thinking about the plagarism aspect sort of the other day.

what i thought was when reading their review of geroge lewis' "homage to charlie parker" (and this is in like the 4th edition) they definitely use stuff from the liner notes as if they were saying it. i don't remember details, but i did find it strange they were describing the music using lewis' own words from the liners without attributing them.