Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:38:52 -0800 From: skip Heller <velaires@earthlink.net>
I've noticed those are the guys who either tried doing music but found themselves unsuited to it for whatever reason, or they're guys who booked or promoted shows at some point, or maybe managed bands, or something like that. They cut slack to artists, because they know that just because the studio is booked doesn't mean the music that happens that day is going to represent the best of the people playing it, and, win or lose, they're stuck with that day's work.
Excellent point. This kind of thing does give you good perspective about the business and some respect for the people involved in it. I think this should be required for all scribes. Best, Jason -- Perfect Sound Forever online music magazine with warped perspectives perfect-sound@furious.com http://www.perfectsoundforever.com
on 3/18/03 6:26 AM, Perfect Sound Forever at perfect-sound@furious.com wrote:
Excellent point. This kind of thing does give you good perspective about the business and some respect for the people involved in it. I think this should be required for all scribes.
To turn this on its ass, tho, and be fair to the critical community, it's probably wise to point out that there has always been kind of a gap between jazz writers and jazz audiences. There was never anything like a fanzine revolution in the jazz world the way there was in the world of punk rock, where the journalism was written by the guys who booked/promoted the shows or, in some cases, played in bands themselves. As a result, the immediacy of that kind of journalism did/does not as often find its way into the pages of a jazz mag. In the old punk rock days, things did not have the luxury of factionalism, because there simply were never enough bands to represent any one faction to the point where that faction could become its own subculture, and, as a result, the sheer amount of education we all got was bountiful, because the people who wrote about the Blasters were the same guys writing about Siouxsie. Jazz reportage has always been factional (go back and look at old DOWNBEAT's), and it still is. You rarely see the guy who writes about Zorn writing about David Frishberg, and, when you do, it's pretty clear that he prefers one to the other. Whereas the old punk rock fanzine guys seemed enthused about having different kinds of musicians within the scene. (And by the way, I think Frishberg is really fantastic. He also used to be an excellent jazz journalist.) When stuff starts out as factional, you tend to see divides all over. Thje critics and the musicians are more often than not coming to things with different adgendas. The musician wants to explain himself. The critic is trying to fit this artist into his personal aesthetic so that the artist becomes part of the critic's overall musical viewpoint, so that his name actually represents something the same way that musician's name represents something. This is far from ignoble, if the critic is a really good one who really invests himself into the cause of the music he cares about and wants people to see that just maybe anything that's good -- whether it be Phil Woords or John Zorn -- deserves its glory. It's terrible if the critic is just flexing the power of his ability to get into print (those of you who read the LA Weekly have probably noticed Johnny Whiteside, who is a good hang but far from a good critic). You too often see guys who give it up to Dave, Ribot, Zorn et al dismissing people like Phil Woods or Tommy Flanagan. While purporting to know who's really doing what. If you talk to Zorn and you mention Phil Woods, you will likely get a lecture on why Phil Woods is a god and what a huge influence Zorn has felt from him. But a great many critics who celebrate Zorn are quick to dismiss musicians like Phil Woods as not "innovative". Which means they'll praise the new guy but dis the older guy whose music helped shape [the new guy]. That sort of thing is factionalism at it's most destructive. But when you find a critic who understands that Zorn or somebody like that is not operating in some bogus new music innovation vaccum, and that he's part of a tradition that includes a great many things that may not be quite so fashionable -- and can write a critical piece without making sure you know he's just as smart and informed as the artist -- you're likely reading one of the good guys. -- skip h http://www.skipheller.com
skip Heller wrote:
on 3/18/03 6:26 AM, Perfect Sound Forever at perfect-sound@furious.com wrote: To turn this on its ass, tho, and be fair to the critical community, it's probably wise to point out that there has always been kind of a gap between jazz writers and jazz audiences. There was never anything like a fanzine revolution in the jazz world the way there was in the world of punk rock, where the journalism was written by the guys who booked/promoted the shows or, in some cases, played in bands themselves. As a result, the immediacy of that kind of journalism did/does not as often find its way into the pages of a jazz mag.
Why do you think that is? Just curious.
In the old punk rock days, things did not have the luxury of factionalism, because there simply were never enough bands to represent any one faction to the point where that faction could become its own subculture, and, as a result, the sheer amount of education we all got was bountiful, because the people who wrote about the Blasters were the same guys writing about Siouxsie.
True but there's factionalism in rock writing too. People complain about revivals and feel compelled to defend their turf (purists) and such. I think the same thing happens with any style that's been around for more than a few years and has had time to develop different strains of music. Plus, more than any other type of music writing I've seen, rock writers revel in snipping at each other. On the other hand, with the publishing market going down the tubes like most other markets, I think a number of writers are finding that to make ends meet, they have to be flexible about what they cover as there are less and less opportunities out there.
Jazz reportage has always been factional (go back and look at old DOWNBEAT's), and it still is. You rarely see the guy who writes about Zorn writing about David Frishberg, and, when you do, it's pretty clear that he prefers one to the other. Whereas the old punk rock fanzine guys seemed enthused about having different kinds of musicians within the scene.
I think that's actually a healthy thing though. When they used to have two columnists review a new Coltrane release for example, you saw how divisive (and important) that album was and that there wasn't only one way to view it. Now because of shortened space, this is hardly ever done any more. It's a shame because it's a tremendous service/eduction for the readers.
It's terrible if the critic is just flexing the power of his ability to get into print (those of you who read the LA Weekly have probably noticed Johnny Whiteside, who is a good hang but far from a good critic).
Agreed. I get angry when I see this gone gratuitously. Some people do this just to make a name for themselves and some editors will print this kind of thing just to rile people up. Best, Jason -- Perfect Sound Forever online music magazine with warped perspectives perfect-sound@furious.com http://www.perfectsoundforever.com
on 3/18/03 11:56 AM, Perfect Sound Forever at perfect-sound@furious.com wrote:
skip Heller wrote:
on 3/18/03 6:26 AM, Perfect Sound Forever at perfect-sound@furious.com wrote: To turn this on its ass, tho, and be fair to the critical community, it's probably wise to point out that there has always been kind of a gap between jazz writers and jazz audiences. There was never anything like a fanzine revolution in the jazz world the way there was in the world of punk rock, where the journalism was written by the guys who booked/promoted the shows or, in some cases, played in bands themselves. As a result, the immediacy of that kind of journalism did/does not as often find its way into the pages of a jazz mag.
Why do you think that is? Just curious.
The only thing I can think of is that the first magazines to cover jazz were pretty traditional trade magazines with a little gossip/infotainment thrown in, so the ways you'd write about jazz were never "make it up as you go along". A great deal of early jazz criticism was by writers trying to defend jazz as being as techincally legit as European music, so they wrote about it on those terms. Also, jazz -- especially when played by black people -- was fighting for survival in the entertainment world, so subversive people intending to rewrite the rules of bandstand conduct tended to act more professional than someone like Jello Biafra might. Also, the technology of the time made it harder for fans to just start printing their own zines. The Xerox machine probably did more for indie music than we'll ever know.
In the old punk rock days, things did not have the luxury of factionalism, because there simply were never enough bands to represent any one faction to the point where that faction could become its own subculture, and, as a result, the sheer amount of education we all got was bountiful, because the people who wrote about the Blasters were the same guys writing about Siouxsie.
True but there's factionalism in rock writing too. People complain about revivals and feel compelled to defend their turf (purists) and such. I think the same thing happens with any style that's been around for more than a few years and has had time to develop different strains of music. Plus, more than any other type of music writing I've seen, rock writers revel in snipping at each other.
You're right on one hand. On the other hand, you hardly ever see a rock writer dismissing ALL of a rock movement, except maybe to say something like "grunge is dead" or something equally revolutionary. But you do see self-ordained pious be-bop guardian crits dismissing what they think is "downtown", and you see avant garde losers dismissing be bop.
On the other hand, with the publishing market going down the tubes like most other markets, I think a number of writers are finding that to make ends meet, they have to be flexible about what they cover as there are less and less opportunities out there.
what Oscar Levant called "the less gaudy basis of economics"
Jazz reportage has always been factional (go back and look at old DOWNBEAT's), and it still is. You rarely see the guy who writes about Zorn writing about David Frishberg, and, when you do, it's pretty clear that he prefers one to the other. Whereas the old punk rock fanzine guys seemed enthused about having different kinds of musicians within the scene.
I think that's actually a healthy thing though. When they used to have two columnists review a new Coltrane release for example, you saw how divisive (and important) that album was and that there wasn't only one way to view it. Now because of shortened space, this is hardly ever done any more. It's a shame because it's a tremendous service/eduction for the readers.
That was more the exception than the rule. Not that many albums got that kind of treatment. I have old DBs where the be bop guy is trashing Benny Goodman, and the trad jazz guy is bashing Diz. And everyone trashed Monk. Also, I should have said I'm referring as much to daily and weekly newspapers as much as magazines that specialize in music. But I agree that we lose something when there's no point/counterpoint about a work that is controversial in its community.
It's terrible if the critic is just flexing the power of his ability to get into print (those of you who read the LA Weekly have probably noticed Johnny Whiteside, who is a good hang but far from a good critic).
Some people do this just to make a name for themselves and some editors will print this kind of thing just to rile people up.
... and people wonder why musicians get frustrated. With radio closed to so much music, press is a big deal. And when those rules of engagement don't favor the fair shake... Oy vey es mir. (Radical Jewish slogan, kids) sh http://www.skipheller.com (the new and improved website)
skip Heller wrote:
on 3/18/03 11:56 AM, Perfect Sound Forever at perfect-sound@furious.com wrote: Also, the technology of the time made it harder for fans to just start printing their own zines. The Xerox machine probably did more for indie music than we'll ever know.
Very true but even after that happened, it was primarily rock zines and not jazz zines or even much of other styles that were being covered. Thinking about this myself, I just wonder if the whole DIY ethic of punk music carried over easily to writing/publishing angle of it. Even to this day, how many print jazz zines are there out there besides Signal To Noise? I'm sure I'm forgetting some but I don't think that there's many. Hope I'm wrong though.
On the other hand, you hardly ever see a rock writer dismissing ALL of a rock movement, except maybe to say something like "grunge is dead" or something equally revolutionary. But you do see self-ordained pious be-bop guardian crits dismissing what they think is "downtown", and you see avant garde losers dismissing be bop.
For rock, I get the feeling that there's a fear of appearing 'unhip.' As such, if you're a garage rock fan and you don't care for gangsta rap, you don't want to look like an old fogey by slamming the whole musical style in print. Pop is youth-orientated/driven so I think editors are conscious that their writers don't make the publication seem old-fashioned (unless of course you're publishing a garage zine for instance).
That was more the exception than the rule. Not that many albums got that kind of treatment. I have old DBs where the be bop guy is trashing Benny Goodman, and the trad jazz guy is bashing Diz. And everyone trashed Monk.
But at least it happened at all then! I rarely ever see that happen now and again, the sad fact is that this comes down to diminishing print space that magazines have (and the amount of space they have to cede to ads more and more). I wonder if this wasn't an issue if editors would think that it'd be more important to devote the space to more reviews rather than multiple perspectives on a few controversial releases. Best, Jason -- Perfect Sound Forever online music magazine with warped perspectives perfect-sound@furious.com http://www.perfectsoundforever.com
on 3/18/03 12:37 PM, Perfect Sound Forever at perfect-sound@furious.com wrote:
skip Heller wrote:
on 3/18/03 11:56 AM, Perfect Sound Forever at perfect-sound@furious.com wrote: Also, the technology of the time made it harder for fans to just start printing their own zines. The Xerox machine probably did more for indie music than we'll ever know.
Very true but even after that happened, it was primarily rock zines and not jazz zines or even much of other styles that were being covered. Thinking about this myself, I just wonder if the whole DIY ethic of punk music carried over easily to writing/publishing angle of it.
I don't think it did if you mean in terms of jazz writing -- skip h http://www.skipheller.com . Jazz reportage is measurably older than rock journalism, so the recipe was more firmly in place. The style was more firmly establish.
Even to this day, how many print jazz zines are there out there besides Signal To Noise? I'm sure I'm forgetting some but I don't think that there's many. Hope I'm wrong though.
There are a few, but just try finding 'em. WIRE & DOWNBEAT still rule, largely because they're not hard to find.
For rock, I get the feeling that there's a fear of appearing 'unhip.' As such, if you're a garage rock fan and you don't care for gangsta rap, you don't want to look like an old fogey by slamming the whole musical style in print. Pop is youth-orientated/driven so I think editors are conscious that their writers don't make the publication seem old-fashioned (unless of course you're publishing a garage zine for instance).
I think that's true with anything dominated by young people.
... if editors would think that it'd be more important to devote the space to more reviews rather than multiple perspectives on a few controversial releases.
They might do it for Krall or Norah. But for Matthew Shipp, I don't think so.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Perfect Sound Forever" <perfect-sound@furious.com> To: "skip Heller" <velaires@earthlink.net> Cc: <zorn-list@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:37 PM Subject: Re: Critics (was: Re: Freak In)
Even to this day, how many print jazz zines are there out there besides Signal To Noise? I'm sure I'm forgetting some but I don't think that there's many. Hope I'm wrong though.
I don't know what your criteria for "zines" would be, but there are certainly a lot of magazines: Downbeat, Jazziz, Jazz Times, Coda, Cadence, and a Japanese one whose title I forget comes to mind. There's also an excellent zine (by any definition) called "Shuffle Boil", edited by David Meltzer here in Berkeley. The latest issue had Clark Coolidge interviewing a drummer who had played with Dave Brubeck (not Joe Morello, but the name escapes me) and an article by Anne Waldman (I think). See http://www.bigbridge.org/musicshuffle.htm for info.
participants (3)
-
Joseph Zitt -
Perfect Sound Forever -
skip Heller