paging Nate...

Very funny. But what did you think of Billy pouring his heart & soul out?

I didn't read it. Don't know that I will, either.

Hmmmm.

Ok. I haven't read a Jung interview in some time. Conscious decision. Some of them are good, most not. Can't stand the formulaic patterns he uses for his Q&A, not to mention the false assertion that every interview is "unedited and in his/her own words." Fred's a funny guy with lots of insight, and is sometimes able to probe somewhat deeply into areas others won't touch. More often than not though, I find myself tuning out after the first few Q's.

That sounds a little like a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. I hear you on the rampant Jungisms and the Bang piece is no different with numerous stock phrases peppered throughout. It’s pretty obvious that Bang didn’t preface his statements with cheap filler like “Well you know Fred…”

But I’ve learned things in Jung’s interviews that I haven’t come across anywhere else. Plus there’s the sheer size & breadth of his archive. He’s ‘chatted’ with a ton of folks, some on multiple occasions & shows no sign of slowing down. That’s something I’ve got to admire; I mean where else are you going to find interviews with Kalaparush Maurice McIntyre, Arthur Doyle, Luc Houtkamp, Kenny Millions, etc. readily accessible at the click of a mouse? Actually this reminds me a little of the perennial CIMP sound debate. For me, just because the medium of communication might be shoddy doesn’t mean the message conveyed is too. But that’s just me.

well, there's also the problem that I'm not chomping at the bit to read any interview with Billy Bang.

Bathwater baloney. Granted, Fred has a stockpile of interviews with people I'm not likely to hear from anywhere else. I've read many of them for that reason alone. Otherwise I can't say I really bother.

Like I intimated above- things that make you go hmmmm.

I really appreciated that interview with Bang. Yeah, I would've liked it to be a bit deeper and it's a little superficial but I got a feeling of the man I never had before. Jung definitely seems like he has nothing to add to the comments being made but I felt a little of Bang's struggle in life from it--something I find valuable. What's funny is his interview with Lowe. Derek's interview shows the tortured artist-Lowe. With Jung, he seems so happy. Still, Jung seems to have nothing to add but he does seem to get them to talk a bit and for a quip-like interview, it ain't that bad. Goes well with a cup of tea or in the poddy.

well, I'm willing to bet that that was the first and last time in his life that Ken Waxman was described as a "phenom".

“…just because the medium of communication might be shoddy doesn’t mean the message conveyed is too.”

Just realized the inherent hypocrisy of me making a statement like this given the way I was spouting off about packaging in the CANDY WRAPPERS thread.

Jon, yer right, *phenom* is perhaps a wee bit presumptuous. I was writing a press release on the side & the PR rhetoric ran away with me.

Paging me? Another particular reason? No, I'm not a fan of the Jazz Weekly site at all. There are some basic reasons: the positively vile popup ads--the kind that do things like take over your entire screen or try to install things in your computer (that just happened when I went to access the site a few minutes ago). Proofreading & editing are nonexistent. The interviews do a grave disservice to the artists frequently--the Doyle interview is exhibit A, but the same could be said for many, like the pitiful Grachan Moncur piece or the windbag Joe Morris piece. Yes the repeated intrusion of the same catchphrases from interview to interview like "Well you know, Fred" (Fred must be enamoured of his name) makes the claims of their being faithful transcripts a laugh. Ken's reviews read like half-tidied dumps of the contents of his notebook--endless track-by-track "this clunk is followed by this toot" description that leads nowhere. For someone I once esteemed for his acid tongue, they're also strikingly easy-to-please: basically as long as it's not mainstream jazz (the dread "neo-cons") he's happy to give it his blessing. I could say more but I'll leave it there. What's to admire?

That should have been "any particular reason". Never mind.

Al the Prognosticator Extraordinaire strikes again. Nostradamus ain’t got nothin’ on him.

Nate, all solid criticisms if you want to hold JW to that high a standard. Ken’s neo-con tirades make me roll my eyes and the pop-up ads are a pain in the ass. I guess what I admire most about the site is its consistency (what you might call its consistency of inconsistency). They’ve maintained a more or less weekly schedule for years and even with all the flaws and failings I still enjoy reading a lot of what’s offered. For a shoe-string operation (what webzine covering improvised music isn’t) I don’t think they’re all that bad. And while we’re on the subject of doing a disservice to an artist, looking back I think my Frank Lowe interview fits that bill.

Derek--I haven't seen your Lowe piece. What I had in mind in connection with the Doyle was actually that Jung employed a certain amount of deviousness to elicit inflammatory statements from him (the line of questioning runs in that interview as follows: "When you get onto the bandstand, do you already have a preconceived notion of what you will be playing or do you just let loose?" followed by "Can a white man play free jazz?"--a nonsequitur that completely blindsides Doyle).

Well I'd already spoken about the Jazz Weekly site in a thread on the previous incarnation of the Jazz Corner site, so Al knew my take on it.

Nate, I agree with you on the “can a white man play free jazz?” query. Fred dropped a donut in his coffee with that one & got himself all wet.

The Lowe piece is still up over at One Final Note in the archives. I went into it expecting/wanting one thing & came away with something completely different. To put things candidly, Frank’s condition coupled with my naiveté/ineptitude in dealing with it made for a very rocky dialogue. The verbatim transcription really could’ve used some editing too. Overall the whole thing just didn’t do Frank justice. I still think it has some worthwhile information, but it’s one that I wince at these days.

first, derek seems to be getting his lunch handed to him trying in vain to defend me and my magazine, so i will thank him for the old college try and give one of my own:

in my pitiful defense, those above are citing 2 interviews i have done out of 1000 +. quite frankly, i get old for me too at times. but there is no one who has done as many or with as varied as i have. and if you have or know anyone who has, then step to me. otherwise, you are a pundit, doing nothing for the cause. it is easy to sit and read a bulletin board and sound off from the comfort of your own home. probably why online porn is so lucrative. but for the benefit of the monday morning pundits:

billy bang's interview is compelling. it is compelling because he said what he wanted to say. i don't edit my interviews. that may piss off some people's fragile journalist sensibilities, but if so, tough. i don't do it for high brow journalists. i do it for everyday fans of the music and selfishly, for myself, so i too can learn as a fan.

arthur doyle's interview is compelling as well. it is not out of left field i asked him about white people. and white people shouldn't be offended. he made a comment. i asked a question about his comment. i don't think there was any racism involved and if you think so, you are an idiot.

lastly, ken waxman, any comments made towards him are low. he writes and writes an incredible amount. he is one of the most prolific reviewers on the web. i certainly don't do him enough justice with the magazine.

now, what was right about the comments above:

yes, i don't edit much and what i do is very inconsistent. sorry, i publish 4 magazines, 3 of them in print, so i just don't have the time to pay attention. plus, i have a business to run, kids to raise, and football games to watch, so no time. if that dumbs down the site, so be it. it is one of the longest running sites on the web. so f-it.

yes, i have jungism, and yes, i too grow weary of them.

and yes, there are pop up ads and a lot of them that my ad people have placed. sorry. but it has to make money somehow. money ain't growing on trees. and it does cost money to do a website. derek running this one knows.

i hope i have not missed anything. indeed, i am very flattered to be a topic of any discussion, much less one on a site i respect like derek's. but quit beating up on derek and turn your anger on the real bad guy in all our hearts, michael moore. love and kisses.

ken may "write and write an incredible amount", but he has absolutely nothing of insight or interest to say, pretty much ever. he's not a critic, he's a fan, no matter how many content-free words he sends to you.

enjoy your football.

Thanks for swinging by, Fred. Whatever mudpies still might be lobbing to and fro around these parts, I’m still a staunch admirer of your work. As a wise man once quipped: “if you ain’t earning at least the occasional black eye in this business, you ain’t doing the job right.” May the tinder never get damp on the Fireside Chat.

Thought I should clarify too that I’ve got no ownership over Bags other than being an increasingly infrequent contributor. Al “Namor” Jones supplies the dimes that float the site financially & Joe Milazzo is its extant admiral. The rest of us scrubs are just swabbies.

Fred: so Ken scribbles away a lot & you do a lot of stuff. So what? Do you care if it's any good, or is volume an end in itself?

I simply don't believe your statement that the reviews are unedited: the formulaic mentions of you by name in every piece are grossly unidiomatic (I just finished transcribing a two-hour interview I did with a drummer & not once did he address me by name) & so the obvious conclusion is that they're inserted.

I note that the Arthur Doyle interview is no longer linked to on the Jazz Weekly page. I take it you're no longer proud of it. I can't dig up the exact passage now as a result, but the sequence of questioning ran "FJ: When you get onto the bandstand, do you already have a
preconceived notion of what you will be playing or do you just let loose?" followed immediately by (& without anything in Doyle's answer to the preceding question having any obvious link to it): "FJ: Can a white man play free jazz?" Yeah, I'd call that "out of left field", alright.

There are plenty of sites that make acceptable use of advertisements, rather than barrages of popups that take over your screen or your computer. It's a strategy more usually used by porn sites. As it stands, I use popup blocker software, so your advertisers may interested to know that I now see NONE of their ads, whereas the ads on competing sites like One Final Note come through just fine.

Interesting points, Nate. It’ll be interesting to see if Fred responds.

One bone of contention- I wouldn’t describe Jazz Weekly and OFN (and Bags for the that matter) as “competing sites.” I don’t think any of us are in direct competition to corner the market on an admittedly small readership, especially since the content is free & accessible to anyone who wants it.

Which drummer did you interview?

Well from the perspective of the advertiser they're competing (i.e. the advertiser has to decide which sites are the best places for his/her ads--he can't afford to place ads on ALL sites). I should point out that the other reason why the ads on OFN are nonoffensive is that unlike those on Jazz Weekly (which have the randomness of spam), they're pertinent: they're usually ads for record labels or individual CDs.

I interviewed Thom Gossage, a very fine Montreal drummer, for a feature in Coda. He's not terribly well known outside Canada but I was pleased to see a notice of his newest disc in a recent Downbeat. One of Canada's best jazz musicians, I think. (Some of his faves from the current scene are Tom Rainey, Tony Malaby, Kenny Wollesen, Dave Douglas, Paul Motian--that probably gives you a rough idea of the kind of stylistically catholic, wideranging jazz he does.)

Still don’t see where the competition comes in. As you mention OFN’s ads are handpicked & very specifically related to the music it covers. Jazz Weekly’s ads are pretty much unrelated to their content. Completely different sets of advertisers in each instance & therefore not competing for placement. Bags doesn’t do ad content so its place in the continuum is moot.

I’ve not heard of Gossage. Sounds like an interesting dude.

one year and a handful of months later, i return to respond. been busy. but here goes:

one final note and jazz weekly are in competition? really? i hate to be a hater nate, but you are ill informed. if we are in competition, who is winning? hopefully, one final note, which also features waxman's writings. i hope one final note is making some money because the web is costly these days. i know jazz weekly doesn't make a dime.

jon - i respect your label and the work you've put out so i am caught a bit off guard by your dislike of waxman's writing. readers seem to like his work, even if he hurt your feelings by getting one of your records right or wrong. and the football was great until vince young scored with seconds on sc.

as for not believing whether my interviews are edited or unedited. they are not edited. how do i know nate? i own the tapes. for a guy who has done an interview before, you seem a bit clueless as to how it works.

as for the link to doyle, should have been fixed and up long ago. i still receive email on it, so it's there.

as it stands, i hardly write much for jazz weekly these days. raising kids, publishing print magazines, and a bar take up my time. i am proud of the content on jazz weekly and will always stand by it.

again, i am honored that al jones' bags site has a thread on jazz weekly. and completely humbled by dt's words.