Philip Larkin on blues. Ouch! (1968 review)

[Big Beat Steve]

_{I remember picking up Larkin's book of jazz criticism years ago and looking through the index to read bits on the people I liked and not liking what I found I put the book back on the bookshelf. My tastes have changed in the intervening 20 years, so maybe should I pick it up again? Isn't it a bit old fogey?}

I haven't read Larkin's book (though I might be tempted if it came my way cheaply) but have read other in similar situations:

It all depends on whether you are inclined to read books on your favorite hobby as a document of its times and are willing to make allowances for those "times", i.e. you are not dead set on wanting to read everything with the benefit of hindsight.

Honestly ... I have read several of Hugues Panassié's books (as well as two volumes of his HCF "Bulletin" of the early 60s)

and while I definitely disagree with a lot (the vast majority, in fact) of his evaluations and judgments of specific artists and styles of jazz I do find quite a bit of interesting reading matter and judgments there that can help your understanding of specifc artists after all - and in some aspects as late as the late 50s/early 60s he was fairly right on the ball where others flawed constantly and came up with evaluations that from today's point of view are just as dated.

Similar with other "period" jazz publications. You just need to take them for what they are - a mirror of their times - and apply a grain of salt and your own judgment. But I feel this often is more helpful in understanding the history of the music than if you were to read only publications that look at it from today's point of view and - above all - that permanently work in their own TODAY'S agendas.

And from what I have read in John Litweiler's 1985 review of Larkin's book above, the same will probably be applicable there too.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I've not read Larkin's poetry, but I have read 'All that jazz' - reprints of his jazz reviews for the Daily Telegraph (whose general style Larkin fitted perfectly).

His views are interesting, particularly because they're so wrong. His style is an often brilliant melange of instantly dismissive sarcasm. Try this, from a 1971 review of Ornette’s “Art of the improvisers”:

“I would agree that Coleman’s music sounds better to us now than it did then, but this is only because we have had much worse things to put up with in the interim – Coltrane’s hideousness, Shepp’s hostility, Davis’s Chinese-restaurant Muzak.”

MG

[BillF]

Larkin's views on jazz were the result of self-imposed narrow mindedness (whole areas of the music ignored and dismissed) and bravado (enjoyment of the hatchet job or eulogy and of verbal self expression). But in the times when he wrote, he wasn't so unusual. British critic Rex Harris denied that anything outside the New Orleans mode was jazz - even twenties Ellington was too modern to qualify! For eulogies, see Panassié, who also ignored vast areas of the music. Whitney Balliett sometimes seemed more interested in verbal gymnastics than jazz. All in all, there seemed to be less respect for musicians and their work and we were frequently treated to the unappealing spectacle of harsh criticism from writers who couldn't play a note themselves.

[Larry Kart]

The ability to "play a note themselves" didn't necessarily have much to do with it. Plenty of guys of that vintage who could play had similarly blinkered opinions, and plenty of writers who can't play have broad tastes and acute things to say about the music. One choice example of blinkered musicians on musicians are the blindfold test comments over the years on Pee Wee Russell. The undeniably talented reedman Dick Johnson, for one, chosen by Artie Shaw to lead his band of the mid-1980s, excoriated Russell as a ludicrous incompetent.

[A Lark Ascending]

Larkin's views on jazz were the result of self-imposed narrow mindedness (whole areas of the music ignored and dismissed) and bravado (enjoyment of the hatchet job or eulogy and of verbal self expression). But in the times when he wrote, he wasn't so unusual. British critic Rex Harris denied that anything outside the New Orleans mode was jazz - even twenties Ellington was too modern to qualify! For eulogies, see Panassié, who also ignored vast areas of the music. Whitney Balliett sometimes seemed more interested in verbal gymnastics than jazz. All in all, there seemed to be less respect for musicians and their work and we were frequently treated to the unappealing spectacle of harsh criticism from writers who couldn't play a note themselves.

Those sort of Olympian pronouncements are still around but, in general, I think much 'criticism' is far less dogmatic these days. The magazine I've read more or less constantly for the longest, Gramophone, has changed immeasurably. It used to read as if it was being written from a lofty, crenellated tower above Magdelan College. Much more polite and sensitive now.

I know some prefer the 'strong opinions' approach of the likes of Larkin. I prefer to see a bit more open mindedness to the possibility that what the reviewer doesn't care for might hold attractions to others.

I've never read Larkin but have often seen him bracketed with Kingsley Amis as an example of the post-WWII lower-middle class grammar school boy making his way noisily and disruptively into the 'arts' world dominated by the upper classes in Britain. Strange that the sort of dismissiveness that you see in MG's quote could have come straight off the pen of one of the elite he'd been annoying.

Edited September 14, 2013 by A Lark Ascending

[BillF]

Larkin's views on jazz were the result of self-imposed narrow mindedness (whole areas of the music ignored and dismissed) and bravado (enjoyment of the hatchet job or eulogy and of verbal self expression). But in the times when he wrote, he wasn't so unusual. British critic Rex Harris denied that anything outside the New Orleans mode was jazz - even twenties Ellington was too modern to qualify! For eulogies, see Panassié, who also ignored vast areas of the music. Whitney Balliett sometimes seemed more interested in verbal gymnastics than jazz. All in all, there seemed to be less respect for musicians and their work and we were frequently treated to the unappealing spectacle of harsh criticism from writers who couldn't play a note themselves.

Those sort of Olympian pronouncements are still around but, in general, I think much 'criticism' is far less dogmatic these days. The magazine I've read more or less constantly for the longest, Gramophone, has changed immeasurably. It used to read as if it was being written from a lofty, crenellated tower above Magdelan College. Much more polite and sensitive now.

I know some prefer the 'strong opinions' approach of the likes of Larkin. I prefer to see a bit more open mindedness to the possibility that what the reviewer doesn't care for might hold attractions to others.

I've never read Larkin but have often seen him bracketed with Kingsley Amis as an example of the post-WWII lower-middle class grammar school boy making his way noisily and disruptively into the 'arts' world dominated by the upper classes in Britain. Strange that the sort of dismissiveness that you see in MG's quote could have come straight off the pen of one of the elite he'd been annoying.

You've really got the Larkin mode there with your "lofty, crenellated tower", Bev! He writes how "a pile of scratched coverless 78s in the attic can awaken memories of vomiting blindly from small Tudor windows to Muggsy Spanier's 'Sister Kate'".

Agree with you absolutely on preferring to see open mindedness, etc.

I have read Larkin - just about all of it, actually - poetry, novels, essays, biography - though you have to be a bit apologetic about this nowadays. His and Amis's stars have fallen rapidly in this more sensitive age, and we now forget their honesty, rebelliousness and fantastic literary flair. However, don't read either of them if you want to know about Charlie Parker!

[A Lark Ascending]

I have read Larkin - just about all of it, actually - poetry, novels, essays, biography - though you have to be a bit apologetic about this nowadays. His and Amis's stars have fallen rapidly in this more sensitive age, and we now forget their honesty, rebelliousness and fantastic literary flair. However, don't read either of them if you want to know about Charlie Parker!

I read a bit of Amis many years back, which I greatly enjoyed. Believe he turned into a crusty old man but those early books are spirited.

You've really got the Larkin mode there with your "lofty, crenellated tower", Bev!

Ah! well I too am a working/lower middle class lad by origin - had my own experience on arrival at university of those with a conviction that they'd inherited the earth as a result of their breeding. Maybe I should read Larkin!