Is Reviewer Ben Watson an Idiot?

[Dan Gould]

I'm afraid to ask how Marxism informs his music criticism.

But that's only because our friends Alex and the Red Menace have managed to keep their politics from their music commentary.

[JSngry]

I'm afraid to ask how Marxism informs his music criticism.

The stereotypical "Marxist Music Critic" tends to view music first and foremost in light of how the music in question does or does not confront "the system" with an eye towards overturning it.

A valid (and often interesting) perspective, I think, for some times and for some musics. But some is not all, is it...

[Alexander Hawkins]

I would associate marxist music criticism also (more?) with 'modes of production' ideas: who's paying who? Who's producing what? As a result of what power structures? How do the 'commissioners' affect the substance of the product? Etc. etc. etc. Marxism is obviously a limited idea in its less sophisticated forms, but I think provides some useful ways of thinking about the music 'industry'.

[Dan Gould]

I would associate marxist music criticism also (more?) with 'modes of production' ideas: who's paying who? Who's producing what? As a result of what power structures? How do the 'commissioners' affect the substance of the product? Etc. etc. etc. Marxism is obviously a limited idea in its less sophisticated forms, but I think provides some useful ways of thinking about the music 'industry'.

And how precisely does that relate to music criticism? You think its informative to use the music industry to criticize a particular work or particular album???

[Ken Dryden]

Trying to incorporate Marxist b.s. into a review of a jazz CD is a waste of the reader's time.

I remember buying Watson's book on Frank Zappa, Negative Didatics of Poodle Play, but it wasn't long before I put it down for good.

[AllenLowe]

well, all Marxist critics are not the same, nor are they equal in terms of quality of language, analyses, historical understanding. While I am generally wary of people who approach criticism from a particular political point of view, the counter argument is that we all bring our politics, social background, personal attitudes and prejudices into our judgements. And while this is true, ideology does tend to breed a certain schematic approach. However, it's a mistake, I think, to tar everyone with the same brush. At the very least, a good Marxist critic brings to the table that which a good deal of criticism lacks - historical knowledge, a systematic approach to understanding art and history, an ability to analyze things in a wider context. These are things we should value, and that are sorely lacking in most jazz (read: music, arts, theater, etc) criticism. The other side of the coin however, in my experience, is that most politically oriented critics that I have known or read tend to do things a bit differently from the way I would. Though I will get plenty of argument about this from many people, I believe that, ultimately, every art form CAN be viewed and understood outside of social context - which is not to say that such context does not enrich our understanding or even our ability to make aesthetic judgements. It's just that the music is the music, and should be viewed (and here I am citing my old prof Richard Gilman) not simply (or even) as a reflection of history but as an alternative to that histroy, as an alternative reality to the prevailing "reality."

Edited July 20, 2006 by AllenLowe

[Christiern]

The late and not lamented Frank Kofsky regularly stumbled over his Marxism.

[Alexander Hawkins]

I would associate marxist music criticism also (more?) with 'modes of production' ideas: who's paying who? Who's producing what? As a result of what power structures? How do the 'commissioners' affect the substance of the product? Etc. etc. etc. Marxism is obviously a limited idea in its less sophisticated forms, but I think provides some useful ways of thinking about the music 'industry'.

And how precisely does that relate to music criticism? You think its informative to use the music industry to criticize a particular work or particular album???

Dan - I was answering the question about how Marxism can inform music criticism, not saying whether or not I thought it was informative.

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "You think its informative to use the music industry to criticize a particular work or particular album???". Do you mean 'criticize' in a pejorative sense? Or do you mean 'criticize' in a 'make analytical judgements' about type sense? If the latter (which I would hope is the case), then I think the Marxist perspective can be very fruitful. For a few examples (these are plucked from the air, rather than especially carefully considered, I should say!):

1) Take 'Charlie Parker with Strings'. One perspective on the album is Parker's own aesthetic. Another (not necessarily alternative: one of the oldest fallacies about Marxist argument is to think that seeing its usefulness is to adopt Marxism wholesale) perspective is to ask whether the desire of the record company to achieve commercial success might have forced Parker's hand in some way into making the album. And of course, the *form* of the album does affect its *substance*.

2) I would have thought - though I know next to nothing about hip-hop culture - that Marxist analysis would be interesting in explaining the rise of this music from black ghetto music to massively commercially successful, mainstream cultural commodity which still plays on the 'black ghetto' image.

3) A Marxist perspective might help explain, in part, the relatively contemporaneous - but radically different - outputs of (for example) Chuck's label, and a label such as - I dunno - CTI.

I don't think these examples are particularly controversial (in which sense, to your - ) - it's just that Marxism is a rather tarnished idea. Too often 'adopted' by those who like the idea of beng Marxist more than Marxism; too often misunderstood as a crude economic determinism (which it is, in a lot of early and/or less sophisticated accounts); and too often dismissed by right wing/centrist dogmatists.

[Dan Gould]

The bottom line for me, Red, is that any "criticism" based on the record company vis a vis Parker's strings album is totally worthless as it will never tell me anything about the music contained therein. Call me crazy or old fashioned but I read music criticism to learn about the music, usually with an eye toward whether or not I am interested in the album.

Anything else is an intellectual circle jerk.

[Alexander Hawkins]

My point is that it might just tell you why it has violins in it.

[Dan Gould]

My point is that it might just tell you why it has violins in it.

My point is that is of no consequence to me.

[Alexander Hawkins]

Which is fair enough - but all you've done there (in terms of logic) is to say that music criticism is never of any consequence to you - whereas what I thought you were getting at was that marxist perspectives were useless to you. You've thrown out the baby out with the bathwater.

[Dan Gould]

That's true, for I am saying that music criticism which brings in these extra-musical elements is of no use to me, whether its a Marxist perspective or any other. Holds precisely zero interest. In fact, and I know there are certain people here who would slam me for it, I'd much rather read Scott Yanow.

[Alexander Hawkins]

Now, let's not start on Yanow

I do slightly disagree with you still - I think the musical/extra-musical distinction is problematic - but definitely know what you mean

I think this ties in a bit with Allen's point:

Though I will get plenty of argument about this from many people, I believe that, ultimately, every art form CAN be viewed and understood outside of social context - which is not to say that such context does not enrich our understanding or even our ability to make aesthetic judgements.

[ep1str0phy]

The late and not lamented Frank Kofsky regularly stumbled over his Marxism.

...and that's a man whose unbridled enthusiasm and championing (ala Watson) are legend. If nothing else (to follow Allen's point, as the conversation has debated), we're left with an instructive case regarding how not to conduct oneself in the realm of music criticism/history. And his perspective is (arguably) not without merit--the 'Black Nationalism...' book assembles some strong contentions regarding industry/trade prejudices. And he's sorta bottom barrel...

...now, do extra-musical factors even exist? The debate rages...

[AllenLowe]

the Bird with Strings example is a good one - an ideologue might interpet it in strictly economic terms - and yet Bird was very anxious to do the dates, he thought it was good for him professionally and musically. And Frank Brief, a violinist who was on one of the dates, has told me that Bird was happy to be there, completely professional and musically serious about the session. So things are never quite so simple as a politically-oriented critic might think. On the other hand, understanding the context within which these sessions were recorded is interesting and relevant, and helps us understand the music business as well as the times that these were recorded. Which has an impact on the musical results, no doubt. So Dan is missing something by not considering this, I think.

Edited July 21, 2006 by AllenLowe

[Dan Gould]

the Bird with Strings example is a good one - an ideologue might interpet it in strictly economic terms - and yet Bird was very anxious to do the dates, he thought it was good for him professionally and musically. And Frank Brief, a violinist who was on one of the dates, has told me that Bird was happy to be there, completely professional and musically serious about the session. So things are never quite so simple as a politically-oriented critic might think. On the other hand, understanding the context within which these sessions were recorded is interesting and relevant, and helps us understand the music business as well as the times that these were recorded. Which has an impact on the musical results, no doubt. So Dan is missing something by not considering this, I think.

Why is there an impact on the musical results if Bird was "completely professional and musically serious about the session"?

[7/4]

the Bird with Strings example is a good one - an ideologue might interpet it in strictly economic terms - and yet Bird was very anxious to do the dates, he thought it was good for him professionally and musically. And Frank Brief, a violinist who was on one of the dates, has told me that Bird was happy to be there, completely professional and musically serious about the session. So things are never quite so simple as a politically-oriented critic might think. On the other hand, understanding the context within which these sessions were recorded is interesting and relevant, and helps us understand the music business as well as the times that these were recorded. Which has an impact on the musical results, no doubt. So Dan is missing something by not considering this, I think.

Why is there an impact on the musical results if Bird was "completely professional and musically serious about the session"?

If he wasn't, the results might not be as good?

Duh...

Edited July 21, 2006 by 7/4

[Hot Ptah]

To add a distinctly minority opinion here--I read Watson's jazz reviews for entertainment, having accepted that he is not careful or balanced, and often find them quite humorous--perhaps not as he intended.

His Frank Zappa book is often far off the mark, yet it is also undeniably funny in many places, and he hits on some intriguing ideas in among the chaff. Like Bill Clinton's famous quote--"even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while."

His acorns have entertained me, if nothing else.

[Christiern]

If Watson isn't an idiot, he does a convincing, consistent job of playing one in print.

[Simon Weil]

the Bird with Strings example is a good one - an ideologue might interpet it in strictly economic terms - and yet Bird was very anxious to do the dates, he thought it was good for him professionally and musically. And Frank Brief, a violinist who was on one of the dates, has told me that Bird was happy to be there, completely professional and musically serious about the session. So things are never quite so simple as a politically-oriented critic might think. On the other hand, understanding the context within which these sessions were recorded is interesting and relevant, and helps us understand the music business as well as the times that these were recorded. Which has an impact on the musical results, no doubt. So Dan is missing something by not considering this, I think.

I'm more of a culture guy than a politics one, but maybe the right way to look at the Bird with Strings is to say he was looking to up his/Jazz's cultural credibility - move into a zone carrying greater cultural capital (rather than economic capital) with the Strings. Because strings were associated with Classical music which was an accepted "high" art form - as Jazz wasn't at the time. Things like wearing suits (the MJQ) and playing in concert halls, calling tunes "La Ronde" relate to that too. 50 years later the boot is on the other foot, with Jazz carring considerable cultural capital. So you get people like Kenny G who call their music "smooth jazz" rather than instrumental pop, because the term "jazz" carries with it some connotations of a cut above in popular culture - and sell records on the back of it.

Jazz today benefits from its cultural cred in the form of commercial sponsorships.

But there's also the question of it's cultural credibility per se drawing listeners:

"Look what a cultured guy I am, I listen to jazz" AKA "I'm special".

Simon Weil

Edited July 22, 2006 by Simon Weil