Well, on the one hand, you have thinkers (I'm not using the word sarcastically, folks) such as Terry Teachout, who has written -- in "Jazz and Its Explainers (COMMENTARY, 02 / 2001) -- that "most jazz criticism is second-rate or worse, while the average jazz biography is sketchy, inadequately sourced, and factually unreliable. As for jazz journalism, it is for the most part held in well-deserved contempt by working musicians, who rightly dismiss it as personality-oriented, agenda-driven, and often blatantly ignorant of basic musical facts." Teachout's solution for this deplorable state of affairs? "With very few exceptions, the great critics of classical music have either been composers who could write (Hector Berlioz, Virgil Thomson) or professional writers with some kind of hands-on musical experience (George Bernard Shaw). While there have been several first-class classical-music biographies written by amateurs of one kind or another, I know of none written by authors altogether lacking in such experience--enthusiasts who could not read music or play an instrument. What this suggests in the case of jazz is that, instead of trying to increase the musical understanding of amateurs, it might in the long run make more sense to teach musicians and scholars how to write better."

Hmmm... its an interesting proposal, and Teachout does bolster it with some evidence. But I also believe that implicit in this ideal is some sense that it is easier to "learn" literary skills than it is to "learn" musical ones. I think we would all do better to recognize that both sets of skills are difficult to acquire and master in their own unique ways. Jeez, if I want to see how easy it is to write poorly, and at length, I can read my own work. I'm not afraid to say that I'm one of those writers who writes in order to figure out what the hell it is I'm writing ABOUT (pardon the dangling preposition). And I believe that is a dangerous assumption. It also presumes that there are only a few discrete ways to understand music. For example, what good does knowing how to read standard notation do you when you're looking at one of Barry Guy's graphical scores? What does an intimate knowledge of the innermost workings of the clarinet do for you if you're trying to understand the musical principles behind Christian Marclay's turntable antics? In my mind, good criticism isn't a heavy gate which requires a good deal of force to open and whose posts run deep and sturdy into a bedrock of accumulated "facts" and knowledge. Criticism is much more dynamic that that, a place that could be an entry but may not be, and, at its best, criticism takes on some of the untrustworthy and "useless" qualities of artistic work.

To me an honest review (and I would not say I have written many) expresses the experience of interacting with a work -- listening, reading, viewing -- and any explication it offers grows from this remaining true to the individual's experience. You may disagree with me, which is totally cool by me, but, in half-hearted defense, I do have to say that if I did not think "critical writing" offered those freedoms -- one of which is the freedom to be who you are, whether that is an amateur, a simple fan, a practicing musician, a scholar, someone with an axe to grind, whatever -- I wouldn't even bother with it.

Enthusiastically yours, Mr. Teachout,

Joe Milazzo

OK, I'm feeling controversial and combative (nope, not too different from usual), so here are a couple of opinions of mine on this topic expressed as declarative statements:

the state of "jazz" writing should be viewed through the prism of the state of "jazz", meaning it's tough to say much that's insightful about projects in a "historical genre", as John Butcher calls it, unless you truly recognize that status, which most jazz critics are hesitant to do, rightly or wrongly. my reaction to almost every JVC jazz festival (I think it's still called that) review I read this year was "wow! that guy's still alive? I had no idea." about at least one musician involved.

some noteworthy experimental critics are frustrated musicians, which taints much of their writing in two ways: they are often condescending when they think they could have created something better than what they're reviewing, and they are often too kind to people who have supported them professionally.

Brian Olewnick's critical writing has gotten better in leaps and bounds the last few years, particularly recently, something I meant to tell him the other day, but here's a better place for it.

Jason Bivins has a lot to say, and a wide range of musics that he's interested in, but unfortunately not much time to write and not many forums to express himself in. he's maybe a little too consistently praiseworthy, at least the reviews I see, but he takes his time and really listens, then puts the music in the correct context, a rare combination these days.

Keith Rowe, who believes there are maybe five truly interesting musicians working in improvised music today, also believes there are zero critics whose opinions he truly respects and finds insightful. as with musicians, I think he overstates the case here, but I can see his perspective.

I agree that the criticism of jazz that I see in print or online isn't generally worth too much. I don't think that has anything to do with whether or not the artform is "dead" though. For one thing, the reviews of more contemporary styles of music-making aren't generally worth much either. Furthermore, IMHO, the reviews of new recordings of, say, Brahms symphonies, in "ARG" or "Grammophone" are generally better (in the sense of more useful, better written, and more thoughtful) than the standard reviews one sees in "Cadence," STN" "Downbeat" "Wire" "Coda"--and Brahms must be as dead as Ornette. (FWIW, I certainly don't exempt my own crap from this assessment.)

One reason for the discrepancy is that it's harder to write about new stuff, there being no accepted canons of performance, etc. It doesn't seem like that's the only reason, though. I'm not certain, but my sense is that classical reviewers generally seem to take more time and trouble over their stuff.

I do, however, particularly like Warburton (though we often disagree), and I agree with Jon that Brian's stuff gets better all the time (though I often disagree with him, too).

As to creds, I don't know what would count. Derek seems to think being a musician is a plus, Jon thinks being a musician is a strike against, Joe considers it mostly irrelevant. I suppose writing well (as if there were a consensus here!) is nice, but how important is it really? There are one or two reviewers at AMG I seem to agree with quite a bit. It seems to me that finding such people is much more important to the consumer than finding people who write well--whether they're musicians (or "know what they're talking about") or not.

I agree with you about Mr. Bivins- he's one who consistently has interesting things to say both as a reviewer & a musician.

I’m curious. Does Rowe count himself among the annointed ‘Five.’

to clarify, I don't think being a musician is necessarily a plus or a minus. it's a minus when it gets in the way. one needs to be able to switch hats, from that of a musician to that of a critic, if one wants to work in both fields, in my opinion.

"Does Rowe count himself among the anointed ‘Five.’"

since he knows my opinion of his work, it doesn't really come up in conversations between us.

"It seems to me that finding such people is much more important to the consumer than finding people who write well--whether they're musicians (or "know what they're talking about") or not."

this I totally agree with.

Walt -- I wouldn't say I feel "being a musician" is irrelevant. What I would say is that we can't place to much of a premium on it. When you get right down to it, does anyone REALLY have the keys to the so-called kingdom?

FWIW, I would never call myself a "critic". Walter Benjamin would roll over in his grave, and, frankly, he suffered enough during his lifetime without me going around shooting my mouth off...

Jon, well said on the musician/critic balance, that’s basically my perspective too. One of the more obvious examples where schooled musicians appear to have an edge is in describing what’s going on from a lexical vantage. But that kind of approach can be as dry as burnt toast.

In a general sense I agree with Walt’s comment about consumer preference for finding reviewers who align with one’s tastes. But there are significant numbers of jazz/improv listeners who seem to value ‘well-written’ & ‘insightful’ reviews (whatever those signifiers really mean) whether they agree with them or not. It’s why folks are always taking the current state of music criticism to task, just like we’re doing here.

for me, it boils down to being interested in critics/reviewers who take what they do seriously, credentials or background are pretty much irrelevant.

I'm pretty much totally obsessed with music, primarily the mini-genre I work in, especially since it became my fulltime job a few years ago. I take what I do extremely seriously, and I'm only really interested in writers who do the same, whether or not I agree with their opinions or taste.

the ones who come to mind are Nick Cain (www.info.net.nz/opprobrium, somewhat dormant at the moment) and Joe Panzner, www.stylusmagazine.com. both of these critics have fairly similar taste to mine; one who doesn't seem to overlap much at all, but who I do respect because he seemingly also takes what he does very seriously is Nate Dorward.

I have very little tolerance for what I consider to be half-assed criticism, especially if I know it's coming from someone who's capable of more. I understand that real world obligations get in the way for most people, but nevertheless, I don't think the world needs any more half-assed criticism, just like the world definitely doesn't need any more half-assed music.

This is an interesting distinction. Could you elaborate on what you mean by “taking what they do seriously.” I think most reviewers take their work seriously (whether they do it well or not is another, subjective matter)- why else would they devote the time to doing it? Is your definition along the lines of what Walt was talking about? Taking more time & trouble? Sitting down with the music in question in-depth & at length, placing it accurately in a larger context, etc.

Also, on the flip-side, what do you mean exactly by ‘half-assed’ criticism. Looking for specifics here if you’d be willing to share them. Thanks.

"why else would they devote the time to doing it?"

I don't know, free CDs and some sort of pseudostatus in the community? no idea really, it's a very foreign concept to my mindset.

"Is your definition along the lines of what Walt was talking about? Taking more time & trouble? Sitting down with the music in question in-depth & at length, placing it accurately in a larger context, etc."

yes to all of that, I am looking for a similar level of obsession to my own, along with an established, critical point of view that looks past press releases and doesn't accept conventional wisdom as fact. this is not as uncommon as you might think.

"what do you mean exactly by ‘half-assed’ criticism.?"

shit, man, just pick up any issue of Cadence (I believe you write for them, and I don't mean to attack you personally. I'm not too familiar with your work, as our tastes don't overlap much either). I stopped reading Cadence a few years ago, but I've read over 100 issues over the years, and Rusch's completely nonsensical policy of randomly sending discs to reviewers inevitably leads to loads of half-assed criticism.

do you really not know what I mean by this, Derek (now I am talking to you)? you're not qualified to review the new Julien Ottavi disc, just as I'm not qualified to review Ethan Iverson. persisting with this policy is one of numerous things I find inexplicable about the North Country "empire".

there's virtually no money involved at any level of what we're talking about, so instead what I'm looking for is a certain level of professionalism.

"There's virtually no money involved at any level of what we're talking about, so instead what I'm looking for is a certain level of professionalism."

And as you so correctly point out, Jon, that involves holding editors and not just individual writers accountable.

I don't know if Jon felt it was half-assed or he flat out thought it was a bad review, but he didn't care much for my review of Eh in the recent Coda. I don't care much for it either, FWIW.

Derek, you've struck a chord with this topic. If I can add anything, it's that I also feel that good music writing is difficult to come by, which is a shame considering this already struggling field of music. But it's all relative. There are folks who probably steer away from my reviews and other writing simply because it doesn't sit well with them. Perhaps the syntax I use or the phrases I turn are simply too distracting for the reader to pull anything useful from the review. One can only hope that for every reader that avoids you, there is a reader that seeks your opinion. Whether someone writes half-assed or to perfection is judged by the individual.

Honesty, however can at least be measured by consistency. I tend to avoid, or get distracted by, writers who churn out praise after praise. That brand of consistency might be considered dishonest.

As for what we do here at Bagatellen, we received some nice comments yesterday from an owner of a French record label, "consistent, open-minded, relevant comments..." In light of Walt's past couple of reviews, I couldn't agree more. Great crew and a critical, open-minded group of reader/commentors.

Jon, thanks for the elaborations. I had a good idea of what you meant, just wanted to be certain I was on your page by asking for specifics.

Qualifications can be a sketchy thing, especially when writing for publications that send material without taking into account a writer’s areas of ‘expertise.’ Bob (& Cadence by extension) is definitely guilty of this sort of blind-eye-approach to promo dissemination (see the Candy Wrappers thread). Sometimes that crap-shoot kind of philosophy can be part of the fun. I seem to remember Nate touching upon this once in regards to Afro-Cuban music. Trying to get your ears around something you’re not familiar with & saying something perceptive, coherent, and maybe even meaningful about it in the bargain. I’ll agree that a lot of times the writer ends up falling on his or her face (myself included).

You’re right though, not only am I not qualified to review Julien Ottavi; I’m not the least bit interested in doing so. That said, I do think it is possible to take what you do (& its relative importance/impact) TOO seriously.

Amen to the ‘no money’ reality.

"And as you so correctly point out, Jon, that involves holding editors and not just individual writers accountable."

definitely, Joe. I know this contributes to problems with some Wire reviews, for one.

"I don't know if Jon felt it was half-assed or he flat out thought it was a bad review, but he didn't care much for my review of Eh in the recent Coda."

that's not exactly true, Al. I just didn't have much to say about it back to you, having listened to the record maybe 50 times myself and forming pretty clear opinions of my own, but I knew that you were trying. I wouldn't group it into either of the above categories. there's a huge difference between that review and the vast majority of the short reviews in the front of Cadence each month.

I realize that I'm being tough here, and I appreciate you guys being tolerant of that. I was just thinking more about this as I ran my neighborhood errands, and I think it goes back to the comments by Rowe above (I'm starting to quote him as much as he quotes Cardew.) he holds other musicians to an incredibly high standard. so even if I don't always agree with him (and I don't, we've had some long arguments, and I think he has some real blind spots, for instance, pretty much all of rock music), I deeply respect his point of view, because he holds himself to that same high standard, constantly questioning virtually everything about his work and the world of improvised music. I try to do the same for my own work, although it's obviously a continuous struggle which isn't always easy to translate into reality.

yesterday, I posted Keith's notes to the Duos for Doris sessions on my web site: I'd be curious to see a thread here started about those, curious what you guys make of them:

http://www.erstwhilerecords.com/catalog/notes/030_notes_keith_rowe.asp

I just read the Rowe comments. He's very much the intellectual about these matters, isn't he?

Anyhow, the thing that most struck me is the degree to which, coincidentally, Mr. Rowe's thoughts seem so much like a companion piece to my review of "Place dans l'air" (or vice versa). Particularly the stuff about non-listening, forgetting past relationships, etc.

To call oneself a critic is to put oneself in the precarious position of upholding a very particular tradition, IMHO. But to call oneself a "reviewer"... that may be different. Maybe we can more meaningfully distinguish between the two?

I have no problem with this distinction, but keep in mind that even some of the bigshot critics (like Shaw, Huxley, Mencken, Downes, Carter, and others) have written some piss-poor reviews of individual performances or works. Also, like the dearly departed Pauline Kael, I'm kind of skeptical of "approaches," "theories," "schools," etc. Some stuff is just great other stuff just isn't. She could tell you why, wittily, beautifully, without any of that stuff. That made her a "beat" I guess.

Anyhow, if it's good to be one, yer a critic, Joe.

If not, not.

Oh, I forgot to mention, IIRC, in Brian's review of "Places" (for another site), he mentions something about a lack of listening/interaction as a flaw of the recording. I wonder if he'd care to comment on Rowe's perspective on this matter.

Why soitenly! I'm guessing here, of course (though I bet I'm on pretty solid ground), but I'd say there are scant few musicians around who approach things as Rowe does. I'm tempted (sorely) to say something like "are as advanced as", but that's a needless argument to get into now. It's possible, I suppose, that messrs Rainey, Doneda and Bossetti have come to similar conclusions, or experimented along similar lines as Rowe, but from having seen and heard all three in other contexts, my assumption is that they're working, in this sense, in the more traditional improv context (if at more delicate and nuanced level). So I "judge" them in this context. ie, if there's approach A and approach B, even if I think B is a more promising and rewarding pathway, I'll still try to consider someone using A within its own parameters. I was playing and highly enjoying the 4-girl instrumental rock band Electrelane the other day. AMM it's not and, personally, I wouldn't put it anywhere near that "league"; nonetheless, I can certainly love it on its own merits.

Now suppose I found out that wily Jacques actually had the three saxophonists recorded in different places at different times. Well, my review would have a serious, gaping hole in it, no doubt. (I forget what I actually wrote, but I'll take your word as to the gist).

Thanks. FWIW, I agree with your approach.

It's one of the things (as far as my review-writing) that I'm thankful for with regard to the way AMG asks that their write-ups be done: a release should be "judged" within that artist's oeuvre. For me, this causes a bit of a mental realignment and I listen to the recording less critically from my *own* point of view and more (to the extent that it's possible--maybe not much) from what the artist seems to have intended. So, for example, the Francois Raulin disc I wrote about here a couple of days ago--it's not something I'm going to be playing a lot of in the future, I dare say; simply not at all the sort of thing that really interests me. But, even though the musicians were largely unknown to me (except for Chevillon), I think I've heard enough over the years to create in my head a pretty reasonable context for the music and to judge it accordingly. Within that sphere, I think it worked rather well.

Now, if I were writing a piece with the central argument about the generally staid and unadventurous quality of much jazz today, I might reference the Raulin disc as an example of the *relative* shallowness or prettiness of the genre. But that's clearly putting it into a much wider context than, imho, is appropriate for a useful (to the reader) review.

Getting on board late--thanks for the kind word, Jon, by the way--& in too much of a hurry to sift through the post & responses carefully, so just a few quickies--

1) re musicianship & critics: I think it's probably possible to write valuably from anywhere from zero musical ability to full professional status; that said, I've found in writing my own stuff that my own background in playing is invaluable & I honestly don't know how I'd write without knowing the musical fundamentals. It really bothers me when a critic shows a stunning lack of musical knowledge in a review (e.g. Ken Waxman's claiming that a tune was "written over the melody" of a standard when he meant "over the chord changes"). & though one inevitably ends up dancing over the gaps in one's musical knowledge no matter _how_ experienced you are (you can't know about every genre, every instrument, every technique, &c &c: I can speak fairly precisely about piano but couldn't tell you a darn thing about vocals or guitar or a wind instrument) this isn't a problem necessarily. The point is that in reviewing you grab whatever you _do_ know, try to do what you can with it, & hope to learn something in the process.

[Detour: I'm not sure whether or not I'd count as a disappointed musician or not, though, sure, at one point I was on a track to playing professionally (long story here). But even so I was working at a slant to the music I was concerned with: though I was mostly listening to a steady diet of avantgarde jazz, improv & also composition, I was exclusively interested in playing bop/postbop piano. This was in part because I actually thought this a more worthwhile thing to do with myself: it seemed to me there were many free improvisors, for instance, doing exceptional work, & there was little need to add my fumbling imitations to this body of work; but I thought at the time that very little of the slick "mainstream" professional jazz piano around showed much serious absorption of the 1950s pianists who concerned me (Tristano, Nichols, Clark, Waldron, et al), & so the field wasn't as crowded or exhausted as it looked.]

3) Perhaps my response to _Cadence_ is coloured by the fact that I'd not been reading it until a couple years ago; it was unavailable in Halifax NS where I grew up & I was only vaguely aware of it & instead read _Coda_ mostly (I ordered discs through Verge not North Country). So I can't compare the current roster to any past glories. As it stands there are two reviewers in its pages whose every review I skip (Frank Rubolino, whose pieces are inevitably positive & the writing in them is a drab pile of cliches and shopworn phrases; & Alan Bargebuhr, who just seems to be a crank); but the rest of the lineup ranges from good to excellent (Jason Bivins for instance). It's not a toughly edited journal, admittedly--as with _Coda_, reviews I send them are usually reprinted verbatim--but I do genuinely look forward to the magazine & to the packets of stuff for review. Since I feel I can handle just about any field of jazz reasonably well (the main exception being Latin jazz, a genre I mostly hate; & while I like pre-bop jazz I'm no expert in it, though fortunately the very capable Jack Bowers handles virtually all of that for the mag) maybe the scattershot nature of the packets I receive doesn't bother me.

Re: familiarity with an artist's oeuvre: It does bother me when a critic makes an artist his "speciality", so they end up reviewing EVERY new release by the musician. Gets too predictable for the reader: e.g. you just _know_ that any Eugene Chadbourne disc will get covered by Ben Watson for _The Wire_.

Brian [more side notes]--but is the Raulin really that typical a disc of "jazz today"? I'd imagine it'd have to be read specifically within the context of the French jazz scene--take a look at Dan Warburton's acid comments a few issues back in Paris Transatlantic about these matters (& I'm also thinking of some remarks by a British pianist I know in France, Tony Baker). I haven't heard the disc you reviewed but to judge by the one Raulin disc I _did_ hear it was, er, verr-ay French, recalling to me players like Louis Sclavis. (I speak as someone who finds e.g. Martial Solal virtually unbearable...)

Nate, no I didn't mean to imply anything about Raulin's typicality. Just that, were I to reference it (for some reason or another) in a more generalized essay about "the state of jazz", I'd be looking at it more critically in that wider sense. It's certainly not the first disc I'd think of for any such argument, though.

I call bullshit on the basic concept of music criticism, but it's fine with me for people to continue doing it (since it occasionally leads people's ears to good listening experiences).

I notice that one day I love something one day I don't - in other words: it has more to do with me than it does the recording or the musician. Where my head and ears are is a factor of my mood, what I've been eating, how much sleep I've had...tons of "extramusical" concerns that.

When I write about recordings on my weblog I don't say much. Herb Levy called me on this and here's my stance, to reiterate:
I've had some fine moments listening to them [recordings]. That kind of "epiphany"-style experience is what I'm looking for [update: What WE'RE ALL looking for], and, sadly, it's much more a function of me [us] than it is of the music itself. It's almost the only way I know to judge music, but I'll admit that it's an abject failure as a judgement criterion.

As for Jon's desire for seriousness and dedication, well, that's fine. As a musician dedicating my life (and many of my waking hours) to making this music, I'm pretty comfortable saying that I take what I do seriously. At the same time I feel it's important for all of us (musicians, critics, organizers) to recognize just how unimportant this shit is to people's lives. Lighthearted and life-serious, is how I put it. Both. Our high horses, indignation, and righteousness don't become us.

I often laugh at the fierce debates and slanderous accusations I read on websites, email lists, and in magazines among musicians and writers. People can get myopic because this stuff is so dear to our hearts, but I find it helps to spend a lot of time with people who don't give two shits about Cecil Taylor, Jack Wright, Iannis Xenakis, or Keith Rowe, and who have nothing but bemusal about the funny noises they know I like to make for 3-4 hours a day. To my surprise, these people occasionally attend concerts and their opinions are usually more interesting than those of the regular beard-strokers. This is also the great thing about playing in the streets!

good thread,
joe

ps: As an example of "lighthearted," I submit the following, written by the aforementioned Keith Rowe and featured on the Erstwhile Website:
I also connected the thoughts regarding atmosphere with (the history of) Zero. What interested me about zero was, although zero counts for nothing in itself, by placing a zero next to the numeral 1, the 1 becomes 10. Two zeros then 100, etc. So, what would the music of zero be?
Now imagine Keanu Reeves saying it.

So, for example, any Zen koan, any passage from Dostoevski, any Wittgenstein thought that I can imagine being recited by Keanu Reeves (which is to say, anything at all) is automatically revealed as worthless tripe. Interesting....

Hey, we're trying to be light-hearted here!

I think a Rowe quote, Zen koan, any passage from Dostoevski, any Wittgenstein thought... or pretty much anything under the sun is made hilarious when Keanu Reeves says it. The guy has that gift.

Recommended reading based on the discussion so far:

David Sudnow, WAYS OF THE HAND: THE ORGANIZATION OF IMPROVISED CONDUCT (Harvard UP, 1978)

So, for example, any Zen koan, any passage from Dostoevski, any Wittgenstein thought that I can imagine being recited by Keanu Reeves (which is to say, anything at all) is automatically revealed as worthless tripe.

Whoa, nelly, worthless tripe I typeth not. It's just a quote that I laughed about because I once heard a stoned college student say the same thing while snarking quietly into his Honey Bear bong. The quote I excerpted really sounds to me like something from Spinal Tap. No knock on Rowe, explicit or implicit. Settle down. Even thoughtful guys like him say incredibly fucking stupid shit sometimes. Zeno he ain't.

The Rowe notes are fine and I never wrote otherwise, so find a Honey Bear and a Bic ballpoint and puff tuff cousin.

By the way, I second the Sudnow rec. That book is an unbelievable combination of boring/futile and fascinating/ingenious. A market I thought Merliauaueua-Ponty (sp?) had cornered. Very good for the brain. For another Keanu Reeves moment (or, perhaps, Nigel Tufnel), here's an excerpt from The Ways of the Hand, by Sudnow:

My handful knowledge of the terrain is not a knowledge of places that a photograph would depict, and an Ab scale is an Ab way, in this terminology, if it is present for 'the hand' for secure targeting: for the 'whole hand,' for 'some of its digits,' for a 'single finger,' and, even more than this, for I can use a pencil to play an Ab scale wayfully. 'Its distances' are known not just to 'fingers,' but to a 'system of spatializations' that may not be reduced to properties of a photographed or filmed characterization (and measurements thereby facilitated). Indeed, the very notion of a handful way, not having separable existential properties.

jJesualdo

ps: I finally heard Yoshimitsu Ichiraku perform in person last week - solo and in duo with Alfred 23 Harth. He is very very good at what he does. And very lighthearted.

pps: You can't tell me it wouldn't be damn hot to see Notes From the Underground starring Keanu Reeves?

Hey, I for one would like to hear others than Keanu say that stuff. I'm thinking Braxton (or Mozart or Villepin). Surely it must be clear by now to all that great music requires very deep and often unintelligible explanations.

Zeros are particularly useful in this regard.

Brian--thanks for the clarification: that makes sense.

Hm, in first reading this--

"Keith Rowe, who believes there are maybe five truly interesting musicians working in improvised music today, also believes there are zero critics whose opinions he truly respects and finds insightful."

--there was a nagging echo here that I couldn't place. Just realized now in rereading what it is: Rowe sounds exactly like Keith Jarrett at his most puffed-up. Not a very attractive echo!

whatever, it's just his opinion, and he didn't even share it publicly, I did. I will continue to speak for him a bit more, though:

Keith's looking for someone who's writing especially insightfully about musicians like Toshimaru Nakamura, Otomo Yoshihide, Sachiko M, Marcus Schmickler, Julien Ottavi, Oren Ambarchi, etc., he has zero interest in the vast majority of jazz/improvised music at this point, hence he's not talking about the critics writing about those musicians, they're not even on his radar.

he's probably correct that there isn't yet a strong voice really examining this scene critically and constructively simultaneously, helping to set an agenda and push it forward. some like Brian, Jason and Dan Warburton are certainly moving in the right direction, but are often distracted by real-world considerations. David Toop can write spectacularly at times, but his attention level is also less than constant. if someone can point me to an especially insightful piece about any of the six musicians listed above, I'd like to see it.

and anyone who knows Keith or I knows that we're plenty light-hearted at times, but there's a time and a place for everything. with those liner notes, he's trying to give listeners insight into his mindset when making a record during a very personal time. if you want jokes, go to a comedy club.

Carry on.

Whatever. I have nothing but respect for Rowe's music and attitude about it and I can get plenty of comedy from touchy people on the Internet.

To clarify: I am not looking for jokes. In my feeble exhortation for levity (or at least deflatability) I was referring to critic/artist critic/critic and artist/artist battles and prescriptive rhetoric. I didn't find Rowe's liner notes funny, excepting that one quote. That, like "musical quality," I think I can safely ascribe more to myself than the author.

I've been to a comedy club exactly once, on the invitation of a fellow musician and his wife. It was terrible: Any humor I could obtain was completely mean-spirited, at the expense of the performers. Which may have some relationship with why the rest of this world is often so goddamn funny.

Why, just the other day I dropped a noodle in my lap and spent at least a minute trying to pick it up again with chopsticks (absent-mindedly - I was also reading the newspaper). In a sudden fit of self-awareness I looked up and realized I was accidentally entertaining at least 8 other restaurant patrons who were clearly enjoying my futility. I then used my hands.

jpmf

Help setting an agenda and pushing it forward is often a valid reason for badgeing music critics, imho.

Whatever whatever whatever.

I suggest that any remaining disputes on this subject be resolved by some kind of test to determine exactly just who admires and respects Keith Rowe the very very most. I don't think that's apparent yet. So many posters seems to think it's clear that THEY do. Well, it's not clear to me.

I demand further paeans!

I’m not trying to be combative here, but what was I was saying above about the possibility of taking ourselves too seriously? Who isn’t distracted by ‘real world considerations’ from time-to-time? It’s called ‘having a life.’

I admittedly know next to nothing about the eai scene (save for a few names & a few releases on my shelves that are pretty much collecting dust), but several folks in this orbit have expressed strong respect for Joe Panzner’s takes on several Erstwhile releases. Maybe he’s Rowe’s man?

aw, look. my own little cyberstalker puppy has followed me here too. isn't that adorable?

it's quite possible to "have a life", Derek, and also take your professional work very seriously, even to the point of obsession. you started this thread to ask these kinds of questions, and I'm giving you my perspective, not attacking you or anyone else.

"several folks in this orbit have expressed strong respect for Joe Panzner’s takes on several Erstwhile releases. Maybe he’s Rowe’s man?"

yes, he's probably the closest we've got right now. his take on Weather Sky was the most insightful one that I saw. I think he's a little too young for Keith to take too seriously at this point, but he's certainly done some nice stuff so far.

Good morning Jon. No, I have not followed you here. This site was linked a long time ago in jazzcorner and I have lurked here ever since. Admittedly I don't partake here often. but that's just me, I am perfectly happy to read stuff without having to opine myself.

I thought this particular view of yours on what a critic's job is maybe part of our ongoing silly fights. So why don't you comment on the issue for once rather than resort to personal attacks.

Point taken Jon. My intention wasn’t to ‘attack’ you personally & your perspective is much appreciated. I just think it might be unrealistic/unreasonable to expect the same level obsession from others. Brian, Jason & Dan (& others) are doing eai music a substantial service; I think we can all agree on that.

FWIW, I do think Panzer's review of Weather Sky is well done. A little breathless, maybe, but thorough and quite thoughtful. You can see he spent considerable time and effort on it.

Just read Rowe's DUOS FOR DORIS notes. While I found them interesting, I would say that many of the "critical" issues he's raising therein do not necessarily have to be specific to the music to be heard on that recording. He's adressing much larger issues that, in fact, have been addressed in the past not just by Cage and Feldman -- as Rowe indicates -- but by Debussy, the Art Ensemble of Chicago, Samuel Beckett, Barnett Newman, Jean-Paul Sartre, Robert Wilson, Ingmar Bergman, Steve McCaffery, even Susan Sontag. Rowe's comments to be are both particular in their context and very general (universal?) in their conceptual consequences. He is even saying some of the same things I attempted to say in my own way, from my own perspective, in my "Why Do We Care About Improvisation" piece. But I was never speaking as Rowe is about an identifiable musical approach, much less a specfic instance of music-making. It is also interesting to me and, I feel, a little unusual, that an artist would so overtly ask of his audience that they be mindful of these concerns. Clearly, the experiences about which he's writing are of the utmost importance to him. Then again, I want to consider the other ramifications of what Rowe calls "not listening" and refers to as the prospect of failure, of elected / "intentional" silence... In fact, Sontag wrote in "The Aesthetics of Silence" (1969) something that takes me all the way back to our discussion re: John Tilbury's refusal to tour the United States from this spring:

Rimbaud has gone to Abyssinia to make his fortune in the slave trade. Wittgenstein, after a period as a village school-teacher, has chosen menial work as a hospital orderly. Duchamp has turned to chess. Accompanying these exemplary renunciations of a vocation, each man has declared that he regards his previous achievements in poetry, philosophy, or art as trifling, of no importance.

But the choice of permanent silence doesn't negate their work. On the contrary, it imparts retroactively an added power and authority to what was broken off -- disavowal of the work becoming a new source of its validity, a certificate of unchallengeable seriousness. That seriousness consists in not regarding art (or philosophy practiced as an art form: Wittgenstein) as something whose seriousness lasts forever, an "end," a permanent vehicle for spiritual ambition. The truly serious attitude is one that regards art as a "means" to something that can perhaps be achieved only by abandoning art; judged more impatiently, art is a false way or (the word of the Dada artist Jacques Vaché) a stupidity.

As I said at the beginning, there are freedoms (you could also call them parameters, or even points at which critical writing takes a hard left away from the evidentiary inner workings of whatever work of art is ostensibly under examination) in "critical writing" that need to be acknowledged. If we don't expect or condone prescriptive forms for the music that engages us, why accept such prescriptive forms when it comes to linguistic works that attempt to address another individual's experience of that same music?

FWIW, Wittgenstein did not practice "philosophy as an artform," and his "silence" was not "permanent." It was a break.

"If we don't expect or condone prescriptive forms for the music that engages us, why accept such prescriptive forms when it comes to linguistic works that attempt to address another individual's experience of that same music? "

if this is addressed to me rather than being rhetorical, I don't. two young kids, Matt Wellins and Joe Panzner, have been doing more freeform criticism of this genre recently, and I enjoy reading it. examples:

http://dustedmagazine.com/writers/wellins
http://www.erstwhilerecords.com/press/articles/amplify03_soni.asp

please keep in mind while reading these that these two are a combined age of around 42.

I do feel that this kind of approach often results in a less universal and more personal take than a more straightforward one, but I guess one could argue that any critical review is far more personal than universal.

Ah yes, the famous silences of Wittgenstein, Duchamp et al. Conveniently enough there's an essay on the silence of Tom Raworth by Peter Middleton in a book I just edited, which has a pertinent opening:

"The silence of Marcel Duchamp is overrated," declared a 1964 Fluxus performance. All that chess, conversations and advice on art collecting – overrated? Why? This Fluxus event was really Joseph Beuys' attempt to disempower an idea, Duchamp's concept of an anti-art that gives aesthetic amplification to any gesture an artist makes, even inaction or silence. Beuys thought he had found a counter-alchemy: rating or evaluating this particular silence would end its power over the acoustic, public space of its aesthetic. It would challenge this strange Midas-touch aesthetic that could make even the smallest gesture artistically golden; it might even remove such gestures from the protection they enjoy as long as the possibility that they might themselves be works of art is ignored. Rating's power lies in its capacity to insist that the ambiguities of value (financial, ethical, or perhaps spiritual) intrinsic to the work of art must also be active in the work of silence as art. Ratings would make demands on these ambitious silences by identifying their other in dialogue. Perhaps some are only making idle chit-chat. This must be the headline Beuys is hoping for in the case of Duchamp, because he surely knows that some silences, even those of Duchamp, are aesthetically or socially effective. The Tar Baby can create powerful hypertrophied responses that an artist can then work with. Maybe there is also a little reception envy in the Fluxus performance?