More blather from "Jazz on CD"

[Larry Kart]

I know, I'm supposed to stop this carping and instead write my own book, but the lingering problem with Cook and Morton is the mystery, when they do go off the rails, of what the heck they were thinking -- or perhaps that should be, How were they behaving.

A little (or not so little) example I came across while leafing through, under Andy LaVerne's "Tadd's Delight":

"A reader took us to task for saying in a previous edition that 'Tadd Dameron's legacy as composer is ultimately slight.' What we should have said was that only a handful of his works figure much in repertory exercises..."

Do I need to explain how goofy this is -- the "What we should have said' bit even more so than the original pompous, wrong-headed remark. I mean, how could Dameron's legacy as a composer depend on the supposed fact that "only a handful of his works figure much in repertory exercises...?" It's like a politician caught in a lie whose natural response is then to tell another more far-fetched fib in "explanation" rather than fessing-up to the fact that the original act was just b.s.

The true musical standing of what jazz composer depends on whether his music figures "much in repertory exercises"? BTW, that "much" is a nice ass-covering touch, the distancing "exercises" perhaps even more so. That is, the authors are faking up an explanation that they themselves virtually, albeit somewhat vaguely, disparage in the same damn sentence.

Again, as I may have said outright before, I suspect that under pressure Cook and Morton were improvising in the bad sense -- when they felt to the need to spruce up the proceedings with an "edgy" opinion, they just reached for something, made up something -- almost anything, so it seems at times -- to say. Then, having had abundant time to ponder their original misstep, they compound it. The problem then IMO is that the authors are at times far removed from simple honesty -- they are, again at times, fakers and even something close to outright liars.

I know that another poster on the previous thread said that they'd learned a lot from Cook and Morton. But if you don't know much about, say, Tadd Dameron and read the authors' old passage on him or their crablike withdrawal of it, what have you/what could you have learned about Dameron from them? The reason I have these books is to learn what records were out there at the time of that edition -- that's about it, plus their odd bits of genuine enthusiasm for discs they've actually listened to; not that I agree with them in every case there, but the genuineness of that enthusiasm is a big and IMO obvious relief.

[Big Beat Steve]

It may be a matter of course to most around here, but I guess the key to coping with books colored by (often skewed) personal opinion that are actually supposed to be REFERENCE books is to take everything with a fair grain of salt and use them as a rough guideline (with the accent on "rough"). But as you say, that requires having at least a fair degree of basic knowledge so you are not derailed too easily by someone else's possibly extremely one-sided judgment.

For example, I've read several 40s books written by Hugues Panassié with GREAT amusement and interest (and actually even learned a few tidbits from them too), although in his assessments of a lot of jazz artists he was about as WAY OFF BASE as you can possibly get.

BTW, your complaints about the Penguin jazz guide sometimes remind me of a few instances in the Penguin BLUES guide. There the authors clearly cannot warm up to a lot of (admittedly more craftsmanlike than artistic) 40s and early 50s R&B. But then a lot of late 20s early blues recordings (that most diehard blues fans drool about, no matter how formulaic they were) were just as repetitive when listened to in a string of recordings (i.e. in a way there were never supposed to be listened to back then when they appeared as single 78s). But overall it seems like the blues Penguin guide is a lot more objective.

And yes - Tadd Dameron WAS a major figure IMHO. Wonder how "extremely slight" Cook and Morton would have rated Tiny Kahn who (again IMHO) accomplished a LOT and left quite a mark in his very brief lifetime.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[marcello]

Don't get your shorts bunced up Larry, it's a Brit thing.

[Larry Kart]

It may be a matter of course to most around here, but I guess the key to coping with books colored by (often skewed) personal opinion that are actually supposed to be REFERENCE books is to take everything with a fair grain of salt and use them as a rough guideline (with the accent on "rough").

The presence of personal opinion in these books is not the problem; when it does crop up and is genuine, it's mostly a virtue. Rather, the problem is the presence of what is in fact (or IMO) the mere appearance of personal opinion in an attempt to establish the authors' credibility as edgy, call-them-as-they-see-them iconoclasts. That is, they often, again IMO, simply make up would-be edgy stuff to say; little thought, no genuine conviction behind it. The Dameron business is a perfect example; in effect caught out in their chicanery by a reader (though he doesn't accuse them of doing what they actually did, fake up an "edgy" oblique stance on Dameron), they offer up an explanation for what they wrote that a) makes no sense in itself b) does so in a manner that allows them to virtually dismiss the whole thing as a kind of incidental duck fart. But at the risk of being annoying: such things were not incidental to what the authors were up to overall; they were essential -- credibility mongering, they seemed to have believed, was the name of the game if one was going to market such a tome.

How is this a Brit thing, Marcello? Do you mean that it's a culture where tone of voice trumps substance so often that some people just go straight to tone of voice, regardless? That fits my understanding of what Morton and Cook were up to in their weak moments, but it's no excuse.

[John L]

Ironically, one of the problems with the book is that it is so good. Despite these examples of "blathering," there is no other jazz guide on the market as comprehensive and thoughtful. For that reason, quite a number of new jazz fans use it as a sort of bible for discovering the music. While there is a lot of excellent advice in the book, there are also very strong biases.

I don't know about more recent versions of the Guide, but the earlier versions basically tell you to steer clear of anything resembling American soul jazz or (their ultimate insult) "blowing sessions." As I recall, not a single artist loosely associated with soul jazz (Gene Ammons, Jimmy Smith, Stanley Turrentine, ect.) got a single **** rating for a single slbum in earlier editions of the guide. At the same time, even minor European artists would usually get at least a few of them.

[A Lark Ascending]

As with an 'guide', if you stay with the subject for any length of time you soon float free of it. I can't imagine there are many long term jazz listeners who use Penguin as their only reference. If your interest is (or becomes) Tadd Dameron (or any other individual musician), then there's not enough in there to nurture your curiosity. You're soon going to come across other viewpoints and re-evaluate.

I find plenty in Penguin that grates on me, some dismissive comments about ECM for example. Brian Morton got into some bother writing in Cook's 'Jazz Review' publication a few years back for less than complimentary comments on the Rendall-Carr Quintet (at the time of the reissues). And if Penguin annoys you, Cook's comments in Jazz Review would have made you livid.

I think there really is a cross-Atlantic difference of perception and priorities. I used to get wound up by what I saw as the insularity of most American books and magazines (and bulletin board posters) on contemporary jazz. What I've learnt is that this is largely to do with the opportunities to hear what happens elsewhere. On both sides of the Atlantic we have an inevitably skewed view of what is happening, based on what is in our face most of the time (leading to a general American indifference to non-American jazz; a tendency in Europe to overvalue jazz from Europe and paint US musicians as conservative'). Reading commentary that does not fit that view can be irritating, especially if it is critical.

I read Cook and Morton like I read any history book...with my antennae turned on for the authors' prejudices. It can be pompous and self-important, but any judgement presented as fact rather than opinion comes across that way. And that is the common currency of jazz writing. I still find it more enjoyable than, say, the equally useful but (to my taste) somewhat anodyne AMG.

[i very much enjoy Gary Giddins writing on jazz but have been frequently annoyed by his judgements. Anyone coming to jazz through Giddins as a recommended guide would quickly learn to avoid Keith Jarrett. Giddins' dislike of Jarrett's 'romanticism' is not presented as opinion but as 'how it is').

Edited September 9, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[BillF]

How is this a Brit thing, Marcello? Do you mean that it's a culture where tone of voice trumps substance so often that some people just go straight to tone of voice, regardless? That fits my understanding of what Morton and Cook were up to in their weak moments, but it's no excuse.

It's a Brit thing in another sense, Larry. Unlike you, Cook and Morton as commentators on the 20th century American music called jazz lack two factors: not American and too young to be around when much of it happened - hence the emphasis on records.

[Ken Dryden]

There are certain styles that some writers obviously don't care for. If that is the case, they ought to stay away from reviewing them.

[Larry Kart]

I guess either no one agrees with or gets my point: It's not the authors' opinions/prejudices that I have a problem with; it's what I believe to be their faked-up in order to appear to be edgy non-opinion "opinions."

That is, I believe that their distaste for soul jazz or blowing sessions is almost certainly a genuine opinion of theirs, and I can work with that and things from them like that if I need to. Their "opinion" about Dameron's music or their account of Woody Shaw's career is, however, just fake edginess IMO; when pressed, they themselves don't believe this stuff, and they never did. They just made it up in order to sound edgy.

It's not that their viewpoint of, say, Dameron is one that I disagree with; it's that this "viewpoint" (which I would disagree with if it were real) is almost certainly not one that Cook and Morton themselves ever really entertained. Cross-Atlantic differences of taste have nothing to do with this; it's just pretend grouchiness on the part of the authors, cynically adopted by them because genuine mavens can be grouchy, and genuine mavens is what they wanted to be taken for. There's nothing to be "learned" about X or Y from such fake-opinions, other than how to detect the presence of a certain kind of fakery.

Not to wander into politics, but it's like John McCain the maverick -- establishing such an image is useful, so one looks around for things to say that will make you sound maverick-like, regardless of your actual feelings on a particular matter, not to mention the tables and chairs of reality.

[Dan Gould]

Ken is correct, and Larry I do get your point and agree with it.

I will always prefer AMG over Penguin. AMG is actually useful, and far more so than Penguin, unless you are looking for ways to raise your blood pressure. I could care less what a couple of smarmy Brits believe about soul jazz, blowing sessions or Tadd Dameron. Apparently they think Bob Weinstock's life's work was worthless, since as he said to me, jazz IS a "blowing session" and on top of that, he recorded a boatload of "soul jazz". And beliefs like that deserve a hearty fuck you.

[A Lark Ascending]

How is this a Brit thing, Marcello? Do you mean that it's a culture where tone of voice trumps substance so often that some people just go straight to tone of voice, regardless? That fits my understanding of what Morton and Cook were up to in their weak moments, but it's no excuse.

It's a Brit thing in another sense, Larry. Unlike you, Cook and Morton as commentators on the 20th century American music called jazz lack two factors: not American and too young to be around when much of it happened - hence the emphasis on records.

There's a fallacy in that idea, Bill - the idea that someone present in an historic period will have a greater understanding than someone looking back to it from much later.

[A Lark Ascending]

There are certain styles that some writers obviously don't care for. If that is the case, they ought to stay away from reviewing them.

I very much agree with this. I'm interested in reading about what excites people; I've little interest in reading what they dislike or feel superior to.

There was an item on a radio programme a year or so back about phrases critics used in panning reviews. A number of critics gave examples. Then one very wise woman replied 'I don't write bad reviews, I send the book back.'

Edited September 9, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[A Lark Ascending]

I guess either no one agrees with or gets my point: It's not the authors' opinions/prejudices that I have a problem with; it's what I believe to be their faked-up in order to appear to be edgy non-opinion "opinions."

That is, I believe that their distaste for soul jazz or blowing sessions is almost certainly a genuine opinion of theirs, and I can work with that and things from them like that if I need to. Their "opinion" about Dameron's music or their account of Woody Shaw's career is, however, just fake edginess IMO; when pressed, they themselves don't believe this stuff, and they never did. They just made it up in order to sound edgy.

It's not that their viewpoint of, say, Dameron is one that I disagree with; it's that this "viewpoint" (which I would disagree with if it were real) is almost certainly not one that Cook and Morton themselves ever really entertained. Cross-Atlantic differences of taste have nothing to do with this; it's just pretend grouchiness on the part of the authors, cynically adopted by them because genuine mavens can be grouchy, and genuine mavens is what they wanted to be taken for. There's nothing to be "learned" about X or Y from such fake-opinions, other than how to detect the presence of a certain kind of fakery.

Not to wander into politics, but it's like John McCain the maverick -- establishing such an image is useful, so one looks around for things to say that will make you sound maverick-like, regardless of your actual feelings on a particular matter, not to mention the tables and chairs of reality.

Most of what you write there is supposition. You may take issue with their judgement, you may question their accuracy; but I'm not sure how you gain your insider knowledge that they are faking their views in order to sound edgy (there are far better examples of that on this site!).

I've never much cared for the late Richard Cook. I've heard him talk in person, actually gave up on Jazz Review because I was irritated by his (to my mind) rather purist jazz views.

I've a lot of time for Brian Morton, mainly as a result of a superb, wide ranging radio programme he did in the 90s (everything from the totally free to Ella Fitzgerald in one programme). I've never had any reason to doubt his honesty.

[sidewinder]

Apparently they think Bob Weinstock's life's work was worthless

Really? What makes you state that?

I agree that 'soul jazz' gets a hard rap in the Penguin Guide but there are plenty of Prestige sessions in there that get 4 stars.

This book is a useful tome to read in the john/stimulate discussion etc, just like the AMG Guide - but shouldn't be taken too seriously.

[Dan Gould]

Fwiw, AMG gives the following for the appearances on record of these compositions:

If You Could See Me Now - 285

Hot House - 240

Lady Bird - 184

Good Bait - 173

Our Delight - 134

Now, if you know nothing about Dameron, which statement tells you what you need to know:

Cook/Morton:

"A reader took us to task for saying in a previous edition that 'Tadd Dameron's legacy as composer is ultimately slight.' What we should have said was that only a handful of his works figure much in repertory exercises..."

Scott Yanow:

The definitive arranger/composer of the bop era ...

That particular "edgy opinion" is ludicrous on its face.

[Dan Gould]

Apparently they think Bob Weinstock's life's work was worthless

Really? What makes you state that?

The previous posts that list "soul jazz" and "blowing sessions" as things that Cook/Morton have no use for.

[blajay]

I generally have found the Penguin Guide helpful, once I got a feel for their biases. I do think it's annoying that they only review in print recordings, though. I, like many jazz fans, buy used cds and OOP vinyl too. I find myself using the guide less and less. In a perfect world, there would be a Jazz guide that were from a consistent, well-informed source with no bullshit, that included Mosaic sets, that included notes on each reissue's effects on the particular albums too. I don't care if it is all in one volume. I like a comprehensive source. Chris, Larry, Michael, Allen, and any other Big O writers--I propose you draft an Organissimo Board Member Guide to Jazz Recordings. Please? I know the Penguin guide is coming out with a 9th edition, but is there word on a new AMG edition?

[BillF]

How is this a Brit thing, Marcello? Do you mean that it's a culture where tone of voice trumps substance so often that some people just go straight to tone of voice, regardless? That fits my understanding of what Morton and Cook were up to in their weak moments, but it's no excuse.

It's a Brit thing in another sense, Larry. Unlike you, Cook and Morton as commentators on the 20th century American music called jazz lack two factors: not American and too young to be around when much of it happened - hence the emphasis on records.

There's a fallacy in that idea, Bill - the idea that someone present in an historic period will have a greater understanding than someone looking back to it from much later.

But someone present in that historical period will have a perspective that others will never have.

[sidewinder]

But someone present in that historical period will have a perspective that others will never have.

Very true.

[A Lark Ascending]

How is this a Brit thing, Marcello? Do you mean that it's a culture where tone of voice trumps substance so often that some people just go straight to tone of voice, regardless? That fits my understanding of what Morton and Cook were up to in their weak moments, but it's no excuse.

It's a Brit thing in another sense, Larry. Unlike you, Cook and Morton as commentators on the 20th century American music called jazz lack two factors: not American and too young to be around when much of it happened - hence the emphasis on records.

There's a fallacy in that idea, Bill - the idea that someone present in an historic period will have a greater understanding than someone looking back to it from much later.

But someone present in that historical period will have a perspective that others will never have.

Absolutely - a unique perspective and a vital eyewitness. But inevitably a very partial one.

A grenadier at Waterloo can tell us things no subsequent commentator can match; but will his view from the ranks, on a part of the battlefield, in the fog of war give him the wider perspective of what happened on that day, let alone where its significance lies?

As a historian I'd want to take in his account as evidence; as a general reader I'll enjoying reading about first hand experience. But if I was wanting to learn about Waterloo in the round I'd go to the writings of a well researched historian (who will rely on documents and artefacts in the way that Cook and Morton rely on records).

And just as all history books are constructions made of available evidence, shaped by the preconceptions of the writer, so jazz commentaries are much the same (though in the case of books like Penguin or AMG with far more speculation, far less thorough research). It's probably worth staying away from those that construct a version of the musical past that conflicts with our own tastes/preconceptions.

That only ceases to be the case if you believe that there is a 'true' history of the jazz past to be unveiled by musical criticism.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[marcello]

How is this a Brit thing, Marcello? Do you mean that it's a culture where tone of voice trumps substance so often that some people just go straight to tone of voice, regardless? That fits my understanding of what Morton and Cook were up to in their weak moments, but it's no excuse.

It's a Brit thing in another sense, Larry. Unlike you, Cook and Morton as commentators on the 20th century American music called jazz lack two factors: not American and too young to be around when much of it happened - hence the emphasis on records.

There ya go, (the both of you) that's part of it And there is also a peculare style of criticism that is a little to personal and self rightous.

Don't get me wrong, I have many friends that are British musicians and fans and I love them. It's just a style.

There has been times when John Fordham of the Guardian can write a very personal observation ( or rather, a interjection) that has nothing to do with the music. But I can dig Fordham too.

[Larry Kart]

Most of what you write there is supposition. You may take issue with their judgement, you may question their accuracy; but I'm not sure how you gain your insider knowledge that they are faking their views in order to sound edgy (there are far better examples of that on this site!).

About what stands behind my supposition, see the post at the top this thread: Because there is no logical connection (at least none that I can see) between their initial statement about Dameron and their "what we should have said" reasons for modifying it, I conclude (as I already suspected from their remarks about Woody Shaw and other stuff) that these moves were essentially arbitrary in content and done for show. The second lie confirms the existence of the first. One feels like a primary grade teacher looking out at the classroom and seeing right off which faces have that tell-tale smirk.

As for there being "far better examples of that on this site," on what "insider knowledge" do you base that conclusion? Probably the same sort I'm using -- the presence of "off," puffed-up tones of voice; lack of logical connections in the initial argument, followed by even more farfetched explanations; and, again and almost always, those tell-tale smirks or their equivalent. Maybe I was a primary grade teacher in another life; I certainly was an editor, and that's close.

[MartyJazz]

(snip)

How is this a Brit thing, Marcello? Do you mean that it's a culture where tone of voice trumps substance so often that some people just go straight to tone of voice, regardless? That fits my understanding of what Morton and Cook were up to in their weak moments, but it's no excuse.

If indeed, Marcello is saying that the Brits have, in your words "a culture where tone of voice trumps substance so often that some people just go straight to tone of voice, regardless", well we know that at least politically, that very well describes the U.S.A.

AFAIAC, any denigration, belittling, of Dameron in a book that purports to be a jazz reference of some kind, is ample cause for critical refutation. I've been to concerts where all Dameron music was performed, i.e., the group "Dameronia" back in the late '80s. Terrific music and sheer heaven! Indeed, the fact that a group such as Dameronia existed, negates the Jazz on CD authors' viewpoint completely.

Edited September 10, 2008 by MartyJazz

[A Lark Ascending]

As for there being "far better examples of that on this site," on what "insider knowledge" do you base that conclusion? Probably the same sort I'm using -- the presence of "off," puffed-up tones of voice; lack of logical connections in the initial argument, followed by even more farfetched explanations; and, again and almost always, those tell-tale smirks or their equivalent. Maybe I was a primary grade teacher in another life; I certainly was an editor, and that's close.

You have a point there.

Though I can't say I've really noticed the smirk in Penguin that bothers you. I have noticed an imperiousness of tone which I find irritating - but that seems to be the default position of many critics when writing about jazz.