On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:24:19 -0800 skip Heller wrote:

Dear Efren --

Before you dismiss anything made by an artist as thorough and scrupulous as Dave, you'd better listen a bunch more. I didn't hear as much in the music as I needed until about the fourth listen, and now I'm hearing all these wonderful surprises everytime I put it on. It's a pretty compelling record if you know how to listen to it.

On the other hand, if you know how to make a better record than FREAK IN, I'm dying to hear it.

Are you implying that only musicians are qualified to criticize music? Not to start a polemic, but I have bought many records that you (Skip) recommended, and I almost never liked any. They had all in common of being done by artists in full control of their means (and, I guess, technically flawless) but were, IMHO, quite boring and low on imagination and surprises. On the other side, you have quite often criticized artists with so-so technical skills, but with, (again) IMHO, a lot to say and more exciting. Which means that I am facing this great dilemma: Skip is very equipped to judge music (I am not) but I seem to care little of what he enjoys? Should I see a doctor? Patrice.

on 3/16/03 11:43 AM, s~Z at keithsz@concentric.net wrote:

I especially liked the suggestion that a recording is good 'if you know how to listen to it.'

Different types of recordings have different listening objectives, don't they? personally, I don't know how to listen to certain music, so I'm not the guy to ask as to whether it's good or not. I know how to listen to Stravinsky. I don't know how to listen to Stockhausen. sh http://www.skipheller.com (the new and improved website)

Maybe it comes down to language. Efren's dismissal of Dave's new work as "clumsy", "unnatural" "so worn" and words like "he does" and "this is" undercut any implication that he's speaking about his own personal taste, and instead is making a pronouncement as if to Dave's current abilities as an artist. And his remarks make almost no reference to anything subjective, ie "this is not the DD record for me". We get something a lot less objective from someone who I believe dismissed KIND OF BLUE, if I remember correctly. Not liking things is one thing. Dismissing them -- especially in such terms -- is another. If you're gonna not like something, fine. If you're gonna dismiss, do it better. As for doing it better than Dave Douglas, good luck. I've heard very little on his general level of craft in the last decade, and the products of his commitment to creativity are wonderful to hear. His conceptual imagination is widely informed and deeply felt, and his execution is spotless. If you're smart, you don't speak dismissively of someone like that. You chalk it up to what he wants to play/write is different from what you're enjoying, and you move on (spoken as a true fan of earlier Frisell and someone who hasn't much enjoyed anything post Joey/Kermit he's done). As for Patrice not liking any of the records I recommend, I don't imagine he would. His ideas of "imagination" (his word, hence the quotes) and "a lot to say" (his phrase) do not exactly hold a world in common with mine. He doesn't strike me as someone who knows how to pony like Boney Maronie, so to speak. As to whether he should see a doctor, I think that anybody who doesn't like "Speedo" by the Cadillacs probably should. Then again, I never went to college, don't really have a lot of philosophy books, and I play music in bars, not performance spaces, so what is my opinion worth? -- skip h http://www.skipheller.com

...

We get something a lot less objective from someone who I believe dismissed KIND OF BLUE, if I remember correctly.

You don't remember correctly. What I said and keep on saying is that "Kind of Blue", like "Ascension", "Sgt. Peppers" or "Blonde on Blonde" will probably never have the same impact on a 20-something year-old guy than on older listeners. I think it's pretty obvious. That's the reason why I recommeded SY's "Dirty" instead of, say, "Evol" some days ago. Don't expect the new generations to go mad about "White Light/White Heat", because they're probably expecting a contemporary musical breakthrough.

I disagree with this to a large degree. In the case of WLWH, I think you're right. But in the case of something like REVOLVER where the sound of breaking through is as audible as the notes, I think the breakthrough speaks quite audibly to a younger listener. Maybe the impact is not identical, but it's still really strong. The really strong statements -- musical and otherwise -- still turn your head. "Contempranaiety" doesn't enter into the same realm as real live individual expression -- which probably does much to explain why certain people (Raymond Scott, Beefheart, Sun Ra) are perpetually being rediscovered. Just go to a school with a real live jazz ciriculum and see what happens to a bunch of young musicians discovering something like SPEAK LIKE A CHILD for the first time. Sure, they've heard stuff that imitates that for a long time, but somehow Herbie's flame burns brighter even still.

It's good to know where it all comes from, but looking back all the time is something I simply can't stand.

If you're going to make a life in any aspect of the arts -- as an artist, critic, producer, whatever -- you're going to need the lessons of history. And history is deep and all-affecting in art.

Also, considering your long explanation and your arguments, I might be entitled to tell you: Who are you to tell me "do it better"? It's not the case. However, you seem to be setting rules of behaviour, and that I like less.

Who am I? Who is Dave, for that matter? Or anybody who actually MAKES THESE THINGS? We're the community who actually takes the risk. You don't take as much of a risk writing criticism as you make actually putting a record out there, and no critic does. A review is a much quicker and easier thing to design and build than is a record. Responsible criticism is consumer service, not an opportunity for a critic to vent his spleen that somebody is doing their job wrong. You're gonna say stuff like that about a musician who has done enough exceptional work to rate the benefit of the doubt, you might maybe expect detractors of your own from the pool of people to whom that artist's work speaks directly and deeply. I know of few critics who have actually produced records. I asked one who did how he found the experience. He said that not only was it much different than he expected, but it was much more difficult. He said that he found it nervewracking to rely on sheer luck that so many things would go right at the same time and that it was a miracle that people can regularly make records and have something releasable every time out of the box. His subsequent reviews of other people's records were among the most empathic I've ever read. He never produced another record after that. He said it was too much of a high-stakes high-stress game. If music had something like the NEW YORK TIMES REVIEW OF BOOKS, where the reviews were written by people with actual hands-on experience in the field the book in question douments, it would likely balance things out a bit (example: Teller -- the guy from Penn and -- reviewing the latest Houdini bio). Of course, in the new issue of JAZZ TIMES, i saw a critic review another critic. It was screamingly funny for all the wrong reasons, culminating with a conclusion so absurb you have to read it to believe it. Unless there are two musicians named Don Byron and I only know about one.

...

As for doing it better than Dave Douglas, good luck.

I never said such a thing, so please try to stick to my actual words to avoid misunderstandings (like the aforementioned "Kind of Blue" thing).

I apologize heartily for that [KOB]. Truly. Who was it that said that about KOB?

Secondly, the phrase oozes some kind of fanatism which I usually never subscribe. Sooner or later, Douglas or some other hero of yours will release something that sounds like shit to you.

What do you mean "sooner or later"? The list of "guys who don't make stuff I love anymore" is long, eclectic, and odious. But I still always buy the new records by Frisell, Paul Westerberg, Zappa, Joni Mitchell, Stevie Wonder, and a bunch of others, even if I wind up trading them in within weeks of their purchase. Very few really great creative minds lose their fastball without getting it back (however differently) somewhere down the road. A lot of my heroes have made records that didn't resonate for me. I learned not to take it personally. It's not like a politician who I voted for because her purported to represent my views but who winds up voting to go to war with Iraq. It's someone expressing their curiosity, ideals et al. It shouldn't be their job to represent mine.

Everyone is subject to criticism when they make their work public and they should be ready to read good and bad things about what they do. The argument they normally use about journalists being just assholes is tiresome and, again, worn. I suspect there are some who know what they're talking about.

Stereotyping the critical community as assholes is about as well-founded as stereotyping musicians as self-sacrificing saints. Which is to say you've got about an equal ratio of good guys to bad in any field where human beings are doing the work. There's a gulf of difference between the job of a critic and the job of a journalist. A critic is supposed to form a consumer viewpoint about a piece of work and put that across. A journalist is ostensibly there to report fact. A critic should be resposible to the needs of his readership, not judgemental towards people who make art. Has jazz really produced a major critic as well-intenrioned and good a writer as Pauline Kael? (Of course, I'm have no right to speak about this, since the only review I've gotten in the last two years that made me wonder what the guy was listening to/for was written by a guy whose wife I used to date.)

...

I've heard very little on his general level of craft in the last decade, and the products of his commitment to creativity are wonderful to hear. His conceptual imagination is widely informed and deeply felt, and his execution is spotless. If you're smart, you don't speak dismissively of someone like that. You chalk it up to what he wants to play/write is different from what you're enjoying, and you move on

It's a possibility I won't argue but I insist I always try to get away from negative reviews.

I don't exactly understand what you mean. -- skip h http://www.skipheller.com