be.jazz comments
I have thought about this a lot for a couple of years now.
One of the reasons why I struggle to write reviews sometimes is because the musicians music speaks for itself. The problem though, is that often times print alone needs to provide context for the reader to formulate a sound in their mind...
I have been really enjoying your insightful blog after discovering it a few weeks ago. Thanks for the thoughtful work.
This is a really interesting question you raise. I think in jazz, and lots of other music...maybe even all music...its most important meanings are subjective and up to the listener. A critic has no real way but to tell you about him or herself in order to explain their personal interpretation of the meaning. Many writers avoid this in part because we tend to culturally favor objectivity as truth, so instead they will tell you about the performer's life history, or they will talk about the objective facts of the music such as technique. Of course both approaches tell us the critic thinks that either of these options is valid/important. Thus, it is basically impossible to not tell us something about yourself as a critic. Just because the meaning of music is subjective, doesn't mean that we can't agree on more correct (and incorrect) possible meanings. I think this is the difference between a review, which summarizes the experience and a critique which argues/guides listeners towards different possible meanings or ranges of meanings.
Along these lines, I have never quite got the point of a bad review...wouldn't it be more fitting to merely ignore it?
RE: Bad Reviews - That's what places like AAJ do (they hook up reviewers with music they probably would enjoy). However I have heard the stigma that then AAJ never does a bad review so if you ever need positive press, just send your album there.
Just came across this NY Times article btw (here) which posses similar questions...
This post is really what i feel about words around music 
PAG
But of course this all applies to everything. I mean, I don't know about Michael, or Charles, or Pierre-Alain, you'll have to ask them, but I for one am nothing more than a figment of your fevered imagination. And now I have a porn site to go look at.
That was supposed to be funny. Made me laugh, anyway.
I thought I was laughing...sort of...it's hard to put into words.
Ba-dump bump.
Where is mwanji?
"Where is mwanji?"
I'm on holiday from this blog.
Congratulations... great blog, visit my new blog: http://jazztiago.blogspot.com/
Saludos
Durkin just did a pretty good job of covering this topic.
http://uglyrug.blogspot.com/2008...ic-
plumber.html
Hi, just letting you know that www.soundlantern.com has been opened to the public! Come check it out! Please feel free to upload your music!
I too am really enjoying your blog. I do have to admit that one of the reasons I'm attracted is that the questions and issues you pose are ones that I find myself thinking about regularly.
I do have to disagree with some of the commenters on here. My opinion is that "ignoring" (as one comment puts it) something that might be given a negative review is doing as much a disservice to the music as a "fluff" piece that discusses the music in glowing, ambiguous terms. I agree entirely that the actual MUSIC is rarely, if ever, spoken about. It's hardly ever put into a context that beyond that of "fan-boy"-dom.
Which leads to another point you mentioned in another review on this page. The musician-heavy audiences. I propose that one of the reasons that our music is devoid of actual criticism is that, because most of its audience is musicians or want-to-be musicians, everyone is afraid of what others might say about THEIR work. So we end up in a culture where people go "yeah man" after every phrase in a solo without ever fully understanding what they are "yeahing" at. Sad really.
Referring back To Perez' comment about the "yeah man." It's a learned response, having little to do with whether or not there is quality in the music. I was at a jazz set several years ago and after a rather weak solo from one of the players, a gungo fan turned to us and admonished us to "clap. don't you know you're supposed to clap after the solo." I pointed out to him that would be the case, if there were something to clap about. Just like that young gent so many music listeners are aping the correct response with no clue.
Check out this great new artist, Esperanza Spalding. She is making an impact on the scene at an alarming rate. She is truly an artist that plays from her soul.
Listen to I
Adore You
If you like jazz music, then you should check this out! Laurence Elder, a jazz/pop musician from New York, will be playing a gig this Saturday, Sept. 6 at the Stephen Talkhouse in Long Island, NY. The show starts at 8 o'clock, and will feature performances of songs from Laurence's debut album "Surrounded" as well as songs from his upcoming album. Check out LaurenceElder.com for more details.
On one hand I would say that music is for "listening" not for "writing about". I think that music is suffering because we made it way too academic (hence all the text about music).
On the other hand, however, I'd say that if a writer states facts only without putting any of his thoughts and feelings into the review, wouldn't that make all writers the same? And isn't that just the opposite of what we musicians are working hard to achieve; our own voice?
Writing about music as music is hard but not impossible. Rob Kapilow does a creditable job of it. He talked about "Brother Can You Spare A Dime" on NPR's < a href="http://www.robkapilow.com/">Weekend Edition, yesterday (Nov 15, 200
in a most informative way.
There are objective aspects to all art forms. Good criticism keeps subjective thoughts aside and deals more with how well the artists intent is realized. "I love that painting," doesnt mean it's good, but rather that the spectator enjoys something about it. If you trust the "critic," then that's great for you. But for the rest of us, WHY is it good? And with music, if music really is becoming more academic as someone alluded to earlier, then that should be discussed as opposed to most reviews that mainly say "this sounds like that." A good critic should rely on analytical and objective aspects of the art form they are critiquing. It might not be the most entertaining writing, but it would certainly fall on happy eyes if it happened.
Good art can sound bad, and bad art can sound good.
Fascinating point. As they say, it's the singer not the song", so I guess there's a lot to be said for writing about the person.
However, perhaps my friend Tony Hogan's blog(s) are more to your liking
... http://acousticguitarist.wordpress.com/
There's a lot about MUSIC on Tony's blog, my own blog is not about anything really, it's just me and my love of music, especially jazz.
cha
terrence
PS that comment about good art sounding bad, is quite true, beauty is in the "ear" of the beholder, get it out with eardrops.
Commenting by HaloScan
