It's safe to bet that following a reading of Ken Vandermark's "Defining Terms, Pt. 1," in the All About Jazz forums, many writers are going to react with, "Wow, Ken sure hates journalists."
When I heard this morning about KV's "column," I was very interested to learn what he had to say. He's an enigma, really, only in the most non-mysterious way. I'm at odds with the majority of his music, but so am I with Black Sabbath. As a player, Vandermark has been called a number of things. Wayward. Inconsistent. Genius. Copycat. Pacemaker. The Glue. My personal opinion varies from one record to the next, and the same with each of his compositions, but not so much with his live performances, which can be very entertaining. Should that opinion be considered "serious" because I'm a writer with my own webspace and my own forum to spout about whatever, whenever I want? Not necessarily. My opinion is only as "serious" as Joe Reader takes it.
This week I have for the second time come to the associative defense of Bagatellen for what some may consider to be irresponsible writing. In that defense, I was prompted to point out that, in many instances, a review or editorial tends to say more about the person doing the writing than the subject being addressed. It is precisely this dynamic that feeds Milazzo's interest in Whitney Balliett. But not only does Balliett himself come off as interesting in his writing, he leaves little doubt that he knows his subject. He can be trusted, right?
While it may be a lot to ask when you consider the growing pool of amateur and professional writers at work on the various digital and paper music journals in the world, according to Vandermark, we should all strive to be someone like Balliett, or Ekkehard Jost. And I don't blame him in the least. KV accuses writers of using terms like "Free Jazz," "Experimental Music," "European Free Improv," and "Avant Garde" interchangeably, and he is correct. He challenges people interested in improvisational music to more clearly define the genres, techniques, and customs that serve as headers to many of the topics addressed in music writing. I agree. Since my initial interest, I've been at odds with not just the label for "electro-acoustic" music, but also with that music's implications, its hierarchy of talent, and even its general history, this last an area that isn't even close to agreed upon among the many enthusiasts who comment here at this site.
KV says more, and I fundamentally agree with his concerns, at least in "Part 1". A responsible reader, I'll get to "Part 2" when I have more time to digest it. In the interest of continuity, I have pasted Vandermark's first offering from the public AAJ site below. Or, go here to follow the whole discussion and other KV entries.
| DEFINING TERMS (part 1)
I've been asked by All About Jazz to participate in their music forum during August, 2004. For this month I would like to address what I feel are a number of problematic issues related to the contemporary improvised music scene. I hope that this will open a dialog about ideas and definitions concerning the music, and help move the current discussion towards a clearer distinction between what is, and isn't, being dealt with in today's music environment. DEFINITIONS If you are familiar with me and my music you already know that I am at odds with most of the criticism currently being written about improvised music. This is not because I have received some negative reviews, however. It is because I believe there are too many journalists whose writing is based on ignorance. A number of critics have stated that they feel my statements on this subject are biased, unfair and unconstructive, at best, and driven by self promotion, at worst. In an attempt to see things from the their point of view, to better understand how it might be possible to improve the jazz and improvised music media's coverage of the scene (and to hopefully better the insight and understanding of the music by audiences, writers, and programmers), it has become quite clear that many of the basic problems found in the contemporary criticism of improvised music are due to the lack of clearly defined terminology used to discuss what is being heard. Several years ago the writer, Kevin Whitehead, tried to address this issue in an article for the Village Voice. Unfortunately, it is clear that few took up his challenge for finding new and better ways to define contemporary jazz/improvised music. Maybe now's the time. Here are a few simple examples of terms I see used all the time that no longer have a clear definition. 1. Free Jazz. Does this refer to a specific approach to American jazz developed during the late 1950's and 1960's that broke away from standard chord changes? Or is it an international style of jazz being played today that has it's source and foundation based in that music? Or does it mean jazz played today by musicians that are free to take their inspiration from whatever sources they choose? Am I a Free Jazz musician? If the third statement is the way that term is defined, then yes. If it's one of the previous two, then no. 2. Free Improvised Music. Is this a category of music developed in England during the late 1960's? Or is it a style of improvisation that refuses to allow "American jazz conventions" within it's parameters? If that's the case, is it still actually free? Is this language a style defined completely by European innovations, or is it a method of improvisation that, simply put, doesn't use predetermined materials? 3. Experimental Music. A reference to the composed music written after War Two? Music that just sounds "strange and different?" Music where the outcome, whether using written materials or improvisation, cannot be predetermined? This list is just a starting point, but I think the gist is clear: many of the terms often being used in today's music criticism aren't truly defined. When employed they obfuscate the reader, they don't help the illuminate the music or the listener. Part of the problem, too, is that we cannot continue to use terminology developed decades ago to describe the music of today, the language of the past cannot continue to explain the present. It is time for new and clear terms to be developed to help communicate the art with words. CRISIS OF RECORDINGS Due to a complex series of changes that have negatively affected the possibilities to perform live improvised music, recordings have gained a dangerous level of importance in the supposed understanding of jazz and improvised music. I am frequently on the road, both in North America and in Europe, and it is fair to say that the bands I work with will pretty much play anywhere they can. Many of the journalists who write about my music have never seen me and the ensembles I belong to perform live. In some cases this is because they live in places where I can't get to a gig. In some cases they may have seen me play once or twice and don't come to a concert because they might be busy, or perhaps they think that they already understand what our different groups are doing. In most circumstances the criticism written about the music I, and most other improvisers, play is based on what journalists hear on recordings. Maybe they get paid more to do this than to preview or review concerts, I'm not sure, and writers have to pay the rent like the rest of us. The end result, however, is that recordings have begun to define the music, not concerts, and this situation is very problematic. Improvised music is a process art form, one recording or one concert does not define a musician or a band's work. It has become harder and harder for groups to play more than one night in a city, frequently the only people who hear the developments in the music on a daily basis are the members of the ensemble. The real musicians who play improvised music search for something new to say during every performance, whether on stage or in the studio, but it seems that only a small percentage of the audience is willing to regularly participate in that evolving creative process. Instead, many listeners and critics seek the "defining album" of an artist, or feel that they "know" an improviser's work after hearing a few recordings. This approach to understanding an artist's music is highly misleading, as an example take the work of Peter Brotzmann. How many people define his career with the album, Machine Gun? To do so, while ignoring the music of long term working bands (like his trio with Fred Van Hove and Han Bennink, the group Die Like A Dog, his solo music, the Chicago Tentet, never mind the countless other projects that he's performed and recorded with), would be to miss the real range of his art. Another example, which record should be chosen as the ultimate album of Miles Davis' career? Birth Of The Cool? Miles Ahead? Something by the quintet with John Coltrane? Or maybe when Cannonball Adderly made that group a sextet? Miles Smiles? Bitches Brew? Any real improvising musician cannot be defined by one day in the studio, or one night on stage. To truly understand the art form of jazz and improvised music, whether as a player or listener, you must participate in the process as often as possible because like life, it is always changing. LACK OF FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE One of the more highly respected journals covering improvised music in the English language is the magazine, Wire. In it's most recent issue one of their writers described the drummer, Hamid Drake, as a "young lion." I have always understood the term to mean a new, up and coming jazz musician. Hamid is in his late 40's, and has been playing this music at the highest level for more than two and a half decades, working with musicians like Don Cherry, Peter Brotzmann, Fred Anderson, and David Murray on a regular basis. Maybe the critic who wrote that statement was unaware of this? Perhaps his or her editor was unaware of this? Yet Wire has been writing reviews of Hamid's recordings for years... There have been a number of occasions where a writer has asked me to list the solo order on my releases. It didn't seem to be necessary to do so on many of the albums made in the 40's, 50's and 60's. Was it that writers during those years could tell the difference between the way one trumpet player and another sounded? It definitely seems that critics 40-50 years ago could tell the difference between a tenor and alto sax, and certainly between a Bb clarinet and a soprano. Today, even if the instrumental details are included on my recordings, certain writers will still get that information wrong. If the critic, Ekkehard Jost, could analyze the compositional and improvisational elements in the work of Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, late John Coltrane, Archie Shepp, Albert Ayler, Don Cherry, the AACM, and Sun Ra in his book, Free Jazz, in 1974, not long after these musicians were first breaking new ground, why isn't it possible for more critics to hear and define the difference between similar compositional and improvised elements 30 years later? I think it is fair to expect the critics of improvised music to do their jobs, to write informed and insightful texts, just as it is fair to expect the musicians to do their jobs, to work as improvisers and composers playing the best best music possible in the performance circumstances they are provided with. Countless writers have walked up to me after a performance to inform me that they've heard me sound better on another occasion, that they don't like my new material, or that the band sounded terrific, that the concert was brilliant. The same holds true for written reviews. They rate my work either to my face, or on paper. It's fair, it's part of their job. By the same token, I think it is fair for me to question why the standard of improvised music criticism is frequently so low, to ask why some of them don't cover journalistic basics (like checking facts), in other words, to indicate when they aren't doing their job. In my next installment of Defining Terms, I would like to point out what I believe has been the positive work done in the field of improvised music criticism, by giving a list of what I feel are some of the great books on the subject written since 1970- they do exist and they set a solid standard!
Chicago, August 5, 2004. |
Shit, I can't believe Drake isn't as old as I am.
Posted by: walto at August 13, 2004 5:12 PMDrake still attracts the chicks in droves. Can you claim the same, Uncle Walto? :)
Posted by: derek at August 13, 2004 7:22 PMAnd Namor don’t be coy, I hipped youse to that shit & youse knows it ;) And what’s with the diss of Sabbath? Are you serious?
Posted by: derek at August 13, 2004 7:31 PMHamid's a big, handsome, youthful looking guy. I'm a...well, lets just say I'm less so.
Posted by: walto at August 13, 2004 7:55 PMI actually agree with a lot that Ken has to say here. As a listener of many musics, and reader of its respective critiques (respectful and dis), I finally have a unique perspective to share with the multi-blog known as bagatellen.com.
I am not a critic, in that I don't attempt to "officially" record my thoughts on art. If an individual solicits my opinion on something, of course I'll come up with some bullshit to describe how [i]I[/i] like the recording and relate it to what I know [i]they[/i] like. Or an opposite. I like it, you probably won't. I don't like it, you probably will. I really haven't been able to enjoy this, for what its worth.
Reviews that are tiresome:
the play by play
the comparison & namedrop
the flower
the bias
I rarely finish reading a critique these days. They all seem to fit into one of these categories that tell me nothing of the music. Moreso, they tell the musicians nothing of the music. All I have is my opinion. I can't define someone else's music.
Maybe I just don't have a way with words, which would explain why I wouldn't appreciate "the flower," an overly eloquent description disguising the fact that words really can't identify with music. I do find it interesting that a musician, however accomplished, challenge the standards of the critic. Such a vicious circle. I will never finish this thought with words.
Back to the inside jokes.
.:.
Posted by: Cary Ralston at August 13, 2004 8:04 PMp.s. How 'bout that hurricane? TWC 24/7.
Posted by: Cary Ralston at August 13, 2004 8:06 PMCary, I’m a bit confused by your post. Do you feel that the ‘inside jokes’ as you call them some how intimate that those doing the joking aren’t taking what Ken has to say (as reproduced here) seriously? If so, I’d have to respectfully disagree. I think he raises some valid points too, but whether I have the proper credentials to be ‘reviewing’ music really doesn’t concern me that much. If I thought about it for awhile I’d probably come to the conclusion that I don’t. But I’ve been doing it for a number of years and enjoy it. Certain folks don’t seem to mind sending me material for review and I have access to forums through which I’m able express my opinions. For these reasons & a few others I continue in the enterprise.
I would love to receive more feedback from musicians on my work (good & bad). There are spells when I start to wonder who and how many are actually reading it. It’s a two-way street; this conduit between ‘critic’ and ‘artist’ (actually three-way when you incorporate the ‘reader’) and one of the best ways for the latter camp to improve IMO is through the input of the former. Ken makes an excellent point about the responsibility of reviewers to seek to understand what their subjects are intending to convey, but I think it’s also up to the musicians to actively try to communicate their goals, intentions, aspirations, etc. especially since these variables don’t always translate well through purely musical means. I think Ken’s decision to engage in the colloquy over at AAJ is a good step in this direction.
Although I agree with Vandermark that the various descriptive terms are both underdefined and misused, I've got issues with some of the rest of the piece (especially Part II).
His list of good writing is restricted to books, which anyone will agree aren't comparable with either live or CD reviews, even then, it's books written some time after events occurred, or which rely mainly on interviews with musicians. To me, it seems like he thinks the job of writers should be to interview people and write history about them a few years after the event. That's great, but some musicians are boring as crap when interviewed, and histories are as much defined by contemporary discourse about music as the music itself. If there's only the (recorded) music to refer to, or the musicians themselves, assuming they're alive, available, and willing, then you get a very limited idea of what happened.
The reviews I dislike most are the "sounds like what x would have sounded like had x not left the band in 197x, and if x had been the guitarists long lost x, mixed with x if they'd all been playing xs instead of xs", which seem to grace the pages of the Wire quite often. I've read some of these where the name-dropping has gone on so long that there's only been a couple of sentences left for the CD in question (was it Ben W... no I'd have to go back and check before I post any inaccuracies myself). That's wankerism, not a review. If someone gets the track order wrong, big deal if they've actually listened to the thing. The focus of reviewers should be on good writing, not aspiring to be musicians. A lot of the music I'm involved with evades traditional theoretical musical discussion, so requiring an understanding of this on people who review it seems ridiculous.
I agree that the collected print and on-line press could benefit from more live music reviews - I often skip CD reviews unless it's something I already own, by people I know (reviewer or reviewed), or I'm thinking of buying it anyway, but will rarely pass over a live review for any reason. With the ability to hear the music only once, all the factual mistakes that Vandermark's complaining about are much more likely to occur, but I do agree it's a shame that so much of this stuff is defined by recordings - for that reason most of my focus up to now has been on playing live and organising gigs.
I think the idea that listeners can reside anywhere by reviewers must live in London, New York, Paris and Tokyo (implied by KV and explicitly supported in the following discussion) is an unfortunate one. Most of the musicians listening outside the US relied almost exclusively on recordings for their musical education, and certainly weren't able to see American Jazz Musicians on a regular basis. If people who don't get to see specific players live aren't allowed to review them, should musicians who haven't seen them live be influenced by them? I'd assume KV has listened to quite a lot of '60s free jazz, but if he was born in 1964, how much does he actually understand of it?
I was born in 1980, should my playing only reflect the music it was possible to hear live in Clacton-On-Sea, Essex between 1990 and 1998. If that was the case, it would've been Beatles Tributes Bands (who'd never seen the Beatles live), Karaoke (by people who'd never seen the artists live, or indeed had any ability to sing at all), a few rock bar bands (rarely doing original material) and '90s club music (CDs and LPs anyway), plus the annual Clacton Jazz Festival - populated by musicians mainly born between 1935 and 1970, playing in styles dating between 1917 and 1949. That's a terrible prospect, and although the live music in Clacton wouldn't have been as bastardised as it was without 80 years of recorded music, ignoring the effect of recording on both listeners and reviewers ignores that 80/90 years of history.
Posted by: Nat at August 13, 2004 10:15 PMThere have been a number of occasions where a writer has asked me to list the solo order on my releases. It didn't seem to be necessary to do so on many of the albums made in the 40's, 50's and 60's. Was it that writers during those years could tell the difference between the way one trumpet player and another sounded? It definitely seems that critics 40-50 years ago could tell the difference between a tenor and alto sax, and certainly between a Bb clarinet and a soprano. Today, even if the instrumental details are included on my recordings, certain writers will still get that information wrong.
Hint to reviewers: the mediocre sax solo is usually Vandermark, the good one Dave Rempis.
I posted something to the thread on AAJ, for what it's worth. It makes some of the same points above (e.g. the blurring of distinctions between music journalism & more considered full-length books that tackle history or biography). -- The real question is why Vandermark seems to feel it necessary to complain at such length about reviewing. Surely there's bigger fish to fry? & the irony is the complaining about nonprofessional reviewing on AAJ of all places--this is a site where the reviews are unpaid reviews largely by fans, if I understand the way the site works? Derek can probably correct me...
I think the stuff about needing to attend the band's concerts every night to have the right to an opinion is jive. Unless he's planning to pay for journalists to follow him like American politicians pay for journalists to follow them in tour-busses...... I've shelled out to see him twice & hated both concerts. Apparently in order to have a right to have an opinion I have to shell out to see him even more.
Posted by: N.D. at August 13, 2004 10:39 PMNate, for someone known to complain about reviewers, it's surprising that you'd question Vandermark's beef.
Where did he say he expects journalists to attend all of his shows? I've still only read part one.
Posted by: al at August 13, 2004 10:50 PM"This week I have for the second time come to the associative defense of Bagatellen for what some may consider to be irresponsible writing."
for the second time???
Posted by: martin at August 13, 2004 11:11 PMAl, Here:
"Many of the journalists who write about my music have never seen me and the ensembles I belong to perform live. In some cases this is because they live in places where I can’t get to a gig. In some cases they may have seen me play once or twice and don’t come to a concert because they might be busy, or perhaps they think that they already understand what our different groups are doing. In most circumstances the criticism written about the music I, and most other improvisers, play is based on what journalists hear on recordings."
And here:
"Improvised music is a process art form, one recording or one concert does not define a musician or a band’s work. ... frequently the only people who hear the developments in the music on a daily basis are the members of the ensemble. .... it seems that only a small percentage of the audience is willing to regularly participate in that evolving creative process."
Not quite every gig, but it seems to boil down pretty much to the idea that you should only write a review of a band if you're friends with them and go to see their shows all the time.
Posted by: Nat at August 14, 2004 12:51 AMFWIW,
1. I think "the comparison" (and namedrop) is the single best way to indicate to readers what something sounds like. Play-by-plays are interesting sometimes and not others. Discs, genres, etc. are different, and so should be reviews.
2. I think Vandermark should spend more time worrying about his playing and less about his reviewers' skills. I think his piece is pointlessly didactic ("Here's what I think everybody should have read before attempting to judge my work.") Suppose we wanted him to sound like Coltrane before he put out a recording.
3. As Trollope said, reviewees should neither thank nor complain about reviewers. They should do their thing. I can tell you this, if KV had been getting nothing but positive notices of late, this wouldn't have been written. There wouldn't be a single complaint in his head about how stupid we all were. He'd figure we were all brilliant and that alto/tenor confusion was just an aberration.
Posted by: walto at August 14, 2004 6:30 AMNate, for someone known to complain about reviewers, it's surprising that you'd question Vandermark's beef.
My complaints are usually that reviews are too long, too full of hype, dull to read or ill-written, or that they haven't been properly edited by the author or by the journal's editor. None of these complaints figure in KVDM's instalments so far.
Walter: I think it's OK if subjects of a review respond to it. Graceful thankyous are welcome, & dignified critique or dissenting opinions are welcome too. On the other hand abject, overwhelming gratitude isn't so hot (let alone too-obvious cadging for more reviews of your other releases...), & emailed rants written in a tizzy five minutes after reading a pan are a bad idea.
I still don't quite get why KVDM's blathering at such length about the state of jazz criticism: is it just because it's a soft & immediately-at-hand target? -- I was unaware of his getting piles of bad reviews lately, but then again I don't read everything out there. My impression had been that KVDM had usually had a pretty easy ride from the press. (I guess I've contributed a couple pans to the pile, but I try not to!--at this point I've made it clear to editors of journals I write for that they shouldn't send me KVDM discs.)
Posted by: N.D. at August 14, 2004 7:16 AMPosted by ND.
"Hint to reviewers: the mediocre sax solo is usually Vandermark, the good one Dave Rempis."
This assumes that the reviewers would be able to expand on a statement like that at least to the extent that the reader would be convinced that the reviewer actually knows what he is talking about. An area where they often miserably fail, imho.
Posted by: uli at August 14, 2004 10:51 AMUli: it was a joke at the expense of KVDM's complaining about reviewers so incompetent they can't identify who's playing what. It's a serious joke in a way: a friend provided me with a compilation of what he thought the best of KVDM, & after being kind of ehhhhh for the first two tracks my ears perked up at a terrifically loud, tough & vivid tenor solo. "Aha!" Too bad: by the track was over I'd figured out it was Mats Gustaffson playing, not KVDM (who contributed a little anemic clarinet).
I've written about Vandermark at length in a couple reviews in Cadence, one a negative review (of the 1st FME disc), the other a merely unenthusiastic one (of Airports for Light). I don't like repeatedly dissing someone in print so I've made it clear to many editors I don't want to review KVDM releases in future.
Posted by: ND at August 14, 2004 5:01 PMJohn Litweiler's THE FREEDOM PRINCIPLE does not appear in K.V.'s jazz book canon. I guess I now know more about his tastes then I ever did.
Posted by: Joe Milazzo at August 16, 2004 6:42 AMHi all, I've just discovered this site last week and was catching up on all the many wonderful posts (although I recognize some of your names from many years on the net and in the music). I'll come out and say that I am a Vandermark fan and really appreciate the amount of work he puts into his music and while a lot of it may be a bit "easy listening" for the Weasel Walters of the world, he's done a hell of a lot of music in a lot of different contexts and even if his playing doesn't knock me out all the time, he's willing to put his butt on the line by playing in groups with Brotzmann, Gustafson, Mars Williams, and any other number of great players, which is more than I can say for a lot of other guys. I think his intention is sincere. May not be your cup of tea, which is fine, but most of the criticisms I've heard (not so much here, but elsewhere) seem to fall into these categories. 1. His music is too packaged. 2. He's a careerist. 3. He just hooks up with better musicians who make him look good. All 3 of these are weak complaints, really. 1. Who cares if his pieces are dedications and his discs are slick and every group is a "project" or based on some previously tried formula (such as "Free fall"). What difference does that make? Does anyone really think that something truly innovative and entirely different comes along in the jazz world more than once a generation? 2. He'd better be, as if there is something wrong with getting your ass out on the road and playing as much as possible. 3. Well, shit, who wouldn't? I want to play with the best guys I possibly can, too. I'd rather hear him lifted by his bandmates than dragging some inadequate backing group behind him.
I agree that the AAJ discussion so far is not the greatest and he did start out kind of weakly and I'm kind of surprised that the one thing that I found irritating wasn't mentioned here. He refers to people who don't (i'm paraphrasing) think about the music on some intellectual level every day hobbyists (not that there is anything wrong with that) but don't think he should be concerned with your views on his or your own art. So, if David Ware has to drive a cab to make ends meet - he's a hobbyist? Was Ken V a hobbyist himself when he had to work day gigs? Or if I can think about my music enough during the day while I diagnose computer database problems am I not a hobbyist? Not very clear and a bit offensive, even, I think. In general though, I'm willing to give him more time to get into more discussions and see where it goes, which is exactly what he asks of critics who write about improvised music. That doesn't seem out of line to me at all and I don't think he was suggesting (as nd said) that only friends who see a lot of his shows should review them, but rather that they should realize that shows, like the recordings are merely a snapshot of a moment, just the immediately audible (and visible) part of the searching.
Oh, and I know he's read "The Freedom Principle" and probably just forgot it on his list. He's already added a few more books to his list.
Anyway, I enjoy the site and am glad to have found it.
Rob Pleshar
Hey, Rob. Good to see you here. Welcome in.
Posted by: Brian at August 16, 2004 1:52 PMYeah, I noticed the hobbyist comment as well, and I'd like to see him define "can't play".
Posted by: Nat at August 16, 2004 9:23 PMI found very interresting points in the part 1 of KV's texts.
Also not surprising somehow that here on Bagatellen some of you get upset by this I guess....
But he's making good points especially about calling things whith the appropriate words, why not being clear and even inventive!
i wonder what Vandermark would think about the big new 'EAI'.
also about the "recordings vs concerts reviewing..."
i agree that improv or whatever experimental music is taking a new face because it is so much recorded and obviously became something different therefore... and we are not talking about quality neither...
otherwise i am nothing so fan of Vandermark but I am glad to see there are people/musicians out there who are questionning a bit the all system? and not just accept what is supposed to be proposed as 'Best'.
as usual, that could be a nice discussion start, but noone would really take any care about what i am writing in here because it's bullshit, because i wanna push, also out of subject or just "you dont care". or maybe cause i'm french!!! and young!!!
I agree with Vandermark about the sometimes low quality or reviews. as much as sometimes on forums i find it so weird no one is never really discussing further in terms of music making. like lets say opinions are always like 'i like', 'i dont like', 'its nice', 'its crap'. but never really, not often, there is explanation about how the pieces are really structured, critisicm is very baddly done i feel.... thats shit hard to explain just like this...
might check out this AAj something list.
alwaysmind
Posted by: Alexandre at August 17, 2004 2:22 AMI agree that plenty of reviews are bad, but Vandermark has yet to mention a single review of a CD or live gig that he thinks is well written - all he's listing are books. If he thinks people should be writing more books, that's completely fine, but it's a different issue to saying reviews are poorly written. If everyone was writing great CD and gig reviews, there'd still be a reason to complain that they weren't writing books. Different issues.
I also agree that terminology should used carefully, otherwise none of the terms ever have any real meaning. He seems to be moving towards trying to get some kind of historical terminology with pt. 3. Be interesting to see how it goes anyway.
Posted by: Nat at August 17, 2004 3:19 AM"as usual, that could be a nice discussion start, but noone would really take any care about what i am writing in here because it's bullshit, because i wanna push, also out of subject or just "you dont care". or maybe cause i'm french!!! and young!!!"
only problem is that you're not actually discussing anything. it's always the same thing with your posts, alexandre: whenever you get a chance (even if it may have nothing to do with the actual subject of the discussion) you start blaring about how bad EAI (whatever you consider this to be) is. already the fact that you're putting so many different musicians together under the term of eai (you know all those silent suckers), says a lot about your ability to differentiate. and of course *everyone* on bagatellen is just a slave to the massive eai trend (hahaha), except for lonesome fighters like you, who still care about real inventivness and creativity. the only reason that in most cases nobody responds to your post hasn't anything to do with you being french or young, but just with the fact that your posts make little sense (or better: that you're actually always making the *same* one post in little variations)
"i wonder what Vandermark would think about the big new 'EAI'"
1) it's not big, it's not new.
2) KV is probably happy that he sells 10x more records than most so called eai musicians
3) he has pretty good connections to these musicians, actually. dörner and drumm being on his territory band 2 record is good prove. and, as opposed to you, i don't think KV really gives a shit about expressions like eai. actually even most musicians you consider to be eai don't really care about eai, but that's a point you're obviously not getting.
"as much as sometimes on forums i find it so weird no one is never really discussing further in terms of music making. like lets say opinions are always like 'i like', 'i dont like', 'its nice', 'its crap'."
yeah, but what exactly are you doing? are you doing anything better? man you're just the king of negation. like 95% of you're posts are to say, what you DON'T like about something, because there's "creativity" missing, because it's all a big trend, because it's not kurt cobain and what have you. you could make more sense (and maybe start a real discussion) by telling us what it *is* you like, and why you like it etc. instead of always telling us how much you think eai sucks... cause we really got that by now.
Posted by: tomas at August 17, 2004 4:31 AM"I agree that plenty of reviews are bad, but Vandermark has yet to mention a single review of a CD or live gig that he thinks is well written - all he's listing are books."
I agree. I might send him some of my badly written and bad, and I'm hardly even an amateur at this after all, reviews of V5 releases or other releases of his so he can cite specific instances of what he considers to be "bad." Now if he can't find good reviews elsewhere to cite...
Also, when I'm reading a review of releases by musicians I'm unfamiliar with, I find comparisons to be very valuable.
Posted by: gnhrtg at August 17, 2004 5:04 AMHummmmm, actually I was rather being positive about the fact that someone like Vandermark is making this point, which interrest me in the sense that he's questionning the actual situation.
Maybe he's right or wrong, but i appreciate his initiative.
As i said i am not 'fan' of him even, so i am objective.
Tomas I really understand what you wrote about me and my posts. Already Jon Abbey said here once that my posts are this and that, mostly out of topic and also not interresting. Yeah, again I am served with the "start your own discussion" and Kurt Cobain...
But to come back to Vandermark because I do care and think about things.
Tomas, do you have any opinion on stuff he is approaching like "crisis of recording"?
Me i said that it triggers something in me to read that. Thats 'it.
Also I found it hard to express things clearly on forums, you know writing with keyboard, short things, bit complicated. so sometimes when i am at concerts or festivals, i talk to musicians. often recently after concerts which i felt were not really good or my taste, maybe i ask the musicians "how did you feel?", "how was it?", "did you enjoy?". hummmm, mostly so far answer is always: "No problem, all good"!!!!
Do they want to discuss? Do they want to go further? Do they want to have other's opinion? Do they care?
at the end of a concert I dont mind to question if it was good or bad? sometimes some musicians colleagues of friends come and tell me it was good and I have to tell them that I wasnt so satisfied, that there was mistakes I made, or that it was not tensed enough and so on. Also if there isnt good clapping after a concert that really makes me wonder what did not work.
Also I am not only being negative, not yet the "king of negation". I often try if possible to balance my opinions.
Recently someone posted again on the "Bar sachiko", Jon Abbey answered very quick and then i added something. If i was the "king of negation" who's pleasure is to be negative always and "destroying" things, i could have there. Instead i noted that sachiko is also now playing contact mike. I said i am personnaly a bit at my limit with listening to all the sines of sachiko. Also i said i like how sachiko is placing her sound...
I can go on for long about so much i learned from otomo's work and spending some short times with him, about zorn, about cobain, about athens olympics... I am fine. we can.
Often i am coming out with questions in fact. but never get answers at all. so in the end it is only by being 'sarcastic' that i gather attention, today it happened like this, no?
I dont know, its ridiculous now...
There is of course nothing forcing me to visit bagatellen or to write on there neither. So i can stop. but what's that that i really end up with such a feeling? Like my friend Quentin also wrote a bit on this site and was never given any consideration neither. I guess (I dont know) that maybe also Noel akchoté found something a bit weird on there...
and then this people came in writing under pseudonyms. I do wonder why this happened?
Yeah, i am left thinking we dont fit in there for some reasons like being french, young, is maybe stupid to think, but to nearly be said being stupid and not interresting is really hurting me.
I am not looking for any stress, or any war-like anything aggressive or what. but you know, i get confused sometimes.
If you visit the djforums, they are mad, they argue for ages about Vestax being better or worse than Technics, they would kill each other nearly.
Sincerly,
Alexandre
I don't mind comparisons too much, but I think there's a difference between that and rabid name-dropping, or having comparisons make up the majority of the review. It can also be a very lazy descriptor - I've seen plenty of comparisons (and been on the receiving end of a couple) where they say xmusican-like xinstrument playing, but don't say _how_ it's similar.
Posted by: Nat at August 17, 2004 6:08 AMI had similar cases as well about name comparison.
for nearly the same records I made, two different reviewers quoted different influences. one thought it was because i listened a lot of the recent japanese musicians (otomo, sugimoto) and second one quoted more names like drumm, mattin, niblock or even krebbs and rowe. it was dan in fact and first one was by michel henritzi. i founded this weird somehow, and as you say nat, maybe they didnt explain enough...
I continue to think that comparisons to other musicians are the single most useful things in reviews. E.g., I could say of some songwriter that her songs are tonal and she uses open, quartal harmonies a good deal, but most readers would probably have a much better sense of what she sounds like if I said "Her 'Americana' songs sound like a cross between Aaron Copland and Randy Newman."
Posted by: walto at August 17, 2004 6:48 AMalexandre,
i didn't mean to offend you - it's just that sometimes i really think one just *can't* do the right thing for your taste. i mean, we've talked about this when i played at instants (also with a friend of yours, maybe it was quentin?)...sometimes it's really just "tastes", you know.
maybe what i don't like about your posts, is that i have the impression you're very disrespectful towards some musicians. like in this sentence:
"often recently after concerts which i felt were not really good or my taste, maybe i ask the musicians "how did you feel?", "how was it?", "did you enjoy?". hummmm, mostly so far answer is always: "No problem, all good"!!!!"
so what? i mean: what exactly is the problem here? i think you're insinuating that these musicians (whoever they are) are not able to self-criticism. but that's pretty arrogant to say. like if you had "seen" something missing but the musicians themselves have not seen it, cause they are so stupid and naive and uncritic. if you go to a malfatti concert and don't like it, before thinking: "ah this guy is so boring, he just has no inspiration", you should maybe think about what this guy has gone through, how his style has developed over years. maybe he was at one point in his career where he was doing exactly what you like today. and he moved on. and today he looks back and says: "what i was doing at that time was soooo boring"... so it's always a question of perspectives. do you know what i mean? remember when i played at instants? you told me that you didn't like the show. hey, that was totally fine with me! no problem. but maybe the concert wasn't all that bad, maybe it was just our tastes differing. so it's also about tolerance maybe.
"Also if there isnt good clapping after a concert that really makes me wonder what did not work."
why?? man, people not clapping doesn't mean shit. maybe you care too much about the reactions of the audience.
Posted by: tomas at August 17, 2004 6:52 AM"Yeah, i am left thinking we dont fit in there for some reasons like being french, young"
dude, i'm 25 and swiss! what could fit in here LESS than that. so stop thinking it has to do with your frenchness or youth, ok?
;)
Posted by: tomas at August 17, 2004 6:55 AMFellas, fellas, please... if anyone does not fit in here, it is ME.
BTW, I do feel K.V. has a number of valid points, but I also agree with others here that the state of criticism must be balanced against the economic realities of "the scene". I think you could make a compelling case -- one I do not have the time to construct right now -- that said state / discourse / whatever is merely symptomatic of larger problems and inequities in the music industry.
Posted by: Joe Milazzo at August 17, 2004 7:14 AMYes tomas i said already that it was stupid to think it was because of "french and young". ok.
and yes, i know you didnt want to offend... its cool, i understand your energy :)
to answer yr post :
after the thread on the amplify box i really well understood the fact of TASTE. Still lets say if you like spaghetti bolognese, as a TASTE, maybe you dont like it always. maybe if you meet someone who makes you bolognese you could tell them 'put a bit of that would be better', also they can give you their tip. sorry its a cheap example but i want to just step out of this thing with me against EAI for a second.
so basically about your gig at Instants i could tell you, yeah, i like this music, but for me it misses this and that to make it better, for me maybe. I know you told me that's pretentious, but its nothing so arrogant to say such comment.
now i like discussing this point about audience :
in reaction to what i said you said (tomas) :
"why?? man, people not clapping doesn't mean shit. maybe you care too much about the reactions of the audience."
"do i care too much about audience?"
somehow i always think that if there is no audience, there will be no concert. so i think it is a duty of artists to maintain audience's interest, unless not interested into concert so much. but for me concert is somehow the best thing in music. i really like spending the all rest of my life composing, thinking about next piece, searching for new equipment, listen to stuff, read... but if there wasnt the gigs i dont think i would have ever started. then maybe i am looking for something personnal, certain regognition. a lot of artists probably share a it this feeling, thats what i thought. so therefore I DO care a lot about what is given to the audience. sometimes i am audience, sometime i am on the stage. and as i dont like to be dissapointed, or feeling bored during a movie or a concert i intend to make most effort when i am on stage. again that's something i didnt FEEL in that precise concert with you in Paris. It was quite long, a bit repetitive and at some point we were a few to expect something from one of the musician to "change" this, to realise this. for example, the fact that now a lot of EAI concert are one big piece (30 to 40 min lets say) for one set is something very disussable for me. i dont think it is really the best way to present our stuff.
interresting - not interresting?
Posted by: Alexandre at August 17, 2004 7:31 AMsorry
i meant "something discussable' in my last sentence.
pfffouuuuf, sometime i forget re-reading for typing corrections.
i dont know even if "discussable" is english at all.
yep
Posted by: Alexandre at August 17, 2004 7:36 AMfor example, about TASTE again, because my spaghetti story was weird maybe, also i guess not always simple to tell someone after dinner "oh btw, for your pasta..."
but i can say that some nites I have really prefered a good oldschool improv than a so-so EAI one.
ok, that's my taste, but behind i guess there are other issues to discuss. and also my taste is not especially directed to oldschool or EAI or free jazz or whatever. i dont totally get the idea of taste in that sense.
so then, as you said tomas, is it more a question of understanding certain expression, being sensitive to it, and not understanding others. when i sometimes see a concert i found bad, i can understand why, sometime i am wondering what could be done to make it happen more, wheter it is minimal, noise, jazzy or funk!
when i so malfatti duo with sugimoto it was okay. i know a bit about both musicians, so it helped maybe, but i think it made sense. even if it's not at the moment what questions me more that they put in question in their music.
"so basically about your gig at Instants i could tell you, yeah, i like this music, but for me it misses this and that to make it better, for me maybe. I know you told me that's pretentious, but its nothing so arrogant to say such comment."
did i say it was pretentious? well if i said, then i correct myself: it is not. of course you can think whatever you want about that concert. and if you remember, when you asked me whether i liked it myself, i think i said something like "i think it was "ok", nothing exceptional". at least that's how i rember that concert to be: quite enjoyable, but not "great".
about the audience: i don't mean to say i don't care. of course i do. of course i like to get recognition. but the audience's reaction can be tricky. i can compare our gig in paris, with two gigs i had in zurich in the last months, to cover the whole span: first paris, i would rate "OK", then one in zurich with the turntabelist trixa arnold (she's great, but that evening we both played shit) i would rate "pretty bad" and another in trio with christian weber and otomo, which i would rate "very good". my point with the audience: the reactions towards the 3 concerts where almost identical!! i mean i think these gigs covered the whole range of aweful to fantastic and the audience was each time more or less evenly divided between people who liked it and people who didn't... so why should i pay too much attention to the audience's reaction? sometimes, people who go see a concert just focus on totally different stuff than the players themselves and i think one shouldn't be to concerned about it. and i'd even say that sometimes (not always) the fact, that you really pissed the audience off can mean that you did something right. at least that's my experience. that said, i love it when people love what i do ;)
sorry for hijacking the KV thread, guys...
Posted by: tomas at August 17, 2004 7:54 AMoh and i like the spaghetti comparison, btw. i mean: (sp)A(gh)E(tt)I contains everything, right? we should start calling EAI "pasta-music".
Posted by: tomas at August 17, 2004 7:58 AMyes we forget about KV, that's true.
hummm, its good what you said tomas in yr last post.
we can go on later, maybe,
if i dont see you no more on this......
ah, its crazy tomas, i guess when you read i type and when you type i read and so on!!!
"pasta-music" just makes me burst in laugh... thats such a funny one! after kraut rock, does it really means "choucroute" actually? thats how we call it in french, choucroute is a dish with sower cabage and meat i think.
well its good to push discussing a bit, we get to just joke about things in the end. i think action and confrontation is a possible way to go further, whatever it is about.
Posted by: Alexandre at August 17, 2004 8:05 AMby confrontation, i dont mean fight.
i mean discussing, negociating, explaining.
just to be really clear.
alexandre, i'm glad you find this discussion interesting. so do i. yes we should talk more about pasta-music. even if some sauces suck, you can't blame the pasta per se, right?
ok, gotta leave now, i have an appointment. maybe i'll chime in later. take care, t.
Posted by: tomas at August 17, 2004 8:44 AMI'm enjoying the discussion. I hope y'all don't mind my butting in.
KV makes some good, if somewhat minor suggestions for improvement (hey, spell my bassist’s name correctly, jerk!). In regards to his suggestions that writers need to learn their history—well, that can always be improved on. But I wonder why critics should actually take to heart the thrust of KV’s suggestions, which I found to be very musician-centric. I don’t think it’s surprising that KV drops a list of thick list of musicological studies and scholarly biographies as writing to emulate. This writing is the work of music scholars and while there are some critics out there talented enough to do this, this really isn’t what critics do. Most jazz writing or criticism takes the form of a quick hit, an initial stab, an attempt to give a new recording, or performance a context and make a case for it’s relative merit. These arguments rarely hold up—that is, if anyone still cares about the recording years later—but it typically takes a long time for a community of listeners to put a work into context. Reviews are just the awkward first tries.
Maybe I’m just reading into this, but I do sense a bit of the musician’s disdain for the listener, which, as a critic, really bugs me. To his credit, KV doesn’t seem to want to strong-arm critics into giving him positive reviews, but I get the feeling that KV would rather that every critic pass on the 225-worders and spend several years trying to categorize and analyze the improvisational music of the 90s. I’m sure if someone did just that and turned out a good book, then KV would read and enjoy that book, but it’s not really meeting the needs of a listener out there, faced with hundreds and hundreds of new releases a year, who just wants to know if it’s worth it to drop $17 bucks on the latest V5 double-disc. I mean, crap, isn’t that the person critics write for? Not everyone is on the promo gravy train.
I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not at all concerned that jazz crit is not meeting KV’s needs. It’s not supposed to.
-Aaron Steinberg
In general, I wholeheartedly agree with Ken that there is an incredible glut of totally inept writing masquerading as "criticism". In this day and age, everybody is a critic. Take for example your typical amazon.com review. This one is the complete, unedited review for a compilation of 20th century pieces conducted by Bernstein:
>>
Did a mentally retarded person write this? Did he get his "critic's license" at K-Mart? How did he manage to mispell the word "to" and "weird" in the same sentence? I mean, this is out-fucking-rageous. A total ignoramus wrote this.
It's like some hillbilly walking up to a picasso and saying "I don't like this painting, it looks wierd (duh), but that other one reminds me of a horsey. I like it!" Good for him, but how is that helpful to ANYBODY. It's not criticism: it's some idiot just shooting his mouth off or trying to advance her "social agenda". A lot of contemporary criticism seems barely much more lucid to me than that.
I'm a guy who is used to getting mostly "good" reviews where it ultimately seems like the reviewer didn't even make it through the whole LP once before barely managing to re-write the press sheet that came with it. I'm glad to get any press at all, but I'm often starving for actual feedback. It's depressing. Why did they even bother? They could have been reading a book or something else.
Like, why is some idiot bothering to tell the world that he only likes Ligeti's "Atmospheres" because he saw 2001:A Space Odyssey? Give me a goddamn break. Please give me a gun.
===============================
For example, in regards to my most recent Flying Luttenbachers record, only about 1 out of 20 reviews seemed to even notice that the last track was a 20 minute long epic composition of considerable complexity and intensity which took me over two years to execute -- and believe me, it sounds like it . . . it's my absolute fucking masterpiece, a culmination of decades of work. It's hard to have something like that almost totally ignored, albeit by people who are pretending to be "supportive".
Oh well. Beggars can't be choosers, methinks.
ww
Posted by: Weasel Walter at August 17, 2004 11:37 AMSorry. The review from amazon I was citing is below. Somehow it got erased during the send. Apparently I'm mentally retarded too, which explains my bitterness.
---Most of this music is totally unpalatable. Most of it sounds like the orchestra tuning up before a performance.
I don't wish to slight Maestro Bernstein or the NYPO, which I'm sure perform the music quite well. The problem is the music itself - it's the type of 20TH century music that sounds like composers picked notes at random and made up a score.
The final piece by Messiaen was a bit two atonal and "wierd" for me, even though I generally like Messiaen. The only piece I enjoyed was Ligetti's "Atmospheres" and the only reason why I liked that is because of its association with "2001: A Space Odyssey". ----
Posted by: Weasel Walter at August 17, 2004 11:40 AMWeasel! Good to hear from you, sir. Hope S.F. is treating you well. The thing about Amazon is that anyone can write anything and it will be put up there as a review, I don't think Ken is even talking about these kind of reviews, but supposedly "professional" reviews. Amazon reviews are less than useless as buying guides or to help you figure out what something sounds like / reads like / smells like. I only use them for comedy. In fact, in this forum I will even admit to posting fake reviews on Amazon in the past to be as unhelpful and erroneous as possible just to throw a wrench in the works and get people angry. I haven't done that in a long time though, I guess I have better things to do now and better medication, maybe...
Rob
"How did he manage to mispell the word "to" and "weird" in the same sentence?"
Should have been "too" and "misspell," but who's counting.
BTW, I'm glad you mentioned what you consider to be some of your best work. I was thinking of asking you just that after you mentioned on another thread here that you considered your early work with KV (which I like) a kind of juvenilia. I'll check that recent one out!
Posted by: walto at August 17, 2004 1:09 PMBTW, one thing I've recently noticed about Amazon reviews is that even slightly negative ones--no matter how detailed or well written--tend to get lower "approval ratings" than stuff like this:
"*****
Man, did I love this book! It changed my life and it will yours too!"
One thing I've learned over the years is that anything but raves pisses pretty much everybody off. I repeat that KV would never have written that fairly pissy article if he'd gotten nothing but kudos over the years. Nobody (well, maybe Weasel W. is the exception here?) complains about raves.
Posted by: walto at August 17, 2004 1:15 PMi like vandermark complaining about a crisis of recording. he has shown a lot of restraint in not making a glut in the market thats for sure.
Posted by: def at August 17, 2004 2:58 PMi like vandermark complaining about a crisis of recording. he has shown a lot of restraint in not making a glut in the market thats for sure.
Posted by: def at August 17, 2004 2:59 PMI'm not sure what Ken really complaints about, since the situation for improvised music never has been better. This type of music got more and more attention, so it's a natural thing there are more reviews, comments...whatever. Statistically seen, more people write, criticize so the amount of bad writings also gets higher. Which is not really a problem is it? If you want to make the best music possible, you can't pay attention to this stuff that happens from the outside. You got to concentrate on your work. History has shown it.
Concerning reviews, most of what i read about is just plainly uninteresting, often self-indulgent and highly subjective. It just distracts you from the actual music. Personally, i prefer a descriptive approach, since it's all too much subjective. What is really important is that reviews exist for promotional reasons, so people know your music actually exists. What is written afterwards is not really relevant, if the music is good, it will outlive all the writings.
Hey, there are plenty of good nonprofessional reviewers on Amazon. Check out Richard Hutchinson (aka "autonomeous") for intelligent reviews of avant jazz & 20th-c. composition (curently ranked at 117), Guy Berger, Greg Taylor, or Christopher Forbes ("weirdears"). Their work is far better than many supposedly professional reviewers. There are countless others--I think the "friends" page I've got on Amazon is up to about 50 names in its list of links, most of whose work I'd recommend.
Agreed that comparisons in reviews to other artists should be done in such a way that it makes it clear what sonic link you're hearing. For instance, "On the quieter tracks Nathaniel Catchpole has Evan Parker's dour, murmuring tone and a similar habit of letting a line drift lazily over (or into) silence, but on harder-hitting improvs like 'Cuckoo Cloud' he plays with a harshness recalling Pharoah Sanders." ;)
Ha ha ha, touche, Walto D. I can always count on you to remind me that I'm slightly dumber than I look (and I look pretty dumb). It's a good thing that I'm more mature these days and I that can accept my perpetual mental decline with humility.
Well, you all know that according to Karl Rove, all of us eventually manage to create little bitty typos, mispronunciations and unfortunate usages of "incorrect sources" from time to time . . . even myself!
What can I say, but I'm to wierd to mispell right.
I should do reviews for amazon.
--------------------------------
My point, which I should have probably made more lucid the first time around, was that the review read like this: 1) I have an opinion, 2) and it's not really based on anything well thought-out or even any sort of educated perspective, 3) but regardless that I can't be bothered to even proofread my spelling (this, coming from a hypocrite like myself!) 4) and I have demonstrated no credentials to review this work which 5) I clearly don't like or understand on any level, ad nauseum., blah blah blah, here it goes anyways! A brilliant waste of everyone's time and yet another bit of pointless negativity in the world! (take it from one who used to spend way too much time doing it himself . . .)
I think it's all too obvious, so I'll just drop it. I should stick to writing music and keep my trap shut.
re: old Luttenbachers - I listened to "Destroy All Music" last night and it's not bad at all. The recording could have been somewhat better, but that alibi has been my personal curse for the last few decades in general. "Constructive Destruction" sounds too smooth and bland to me now - I'd like to remix it though, because I think there was more music happening at that session than the bad mixing (courtesy of the inexperienced 20 year old speaker himself) reveals.
I dunno. Perhaps what I'm really was trying to say by that comment about old FLs records is that people change and move apart ... when one is trying to move forward and not live in the past, it's difficult to look at early, unhoned works with anything but a hypercritical perspective.
I guess, part of it is I don't want to be "the guy that used to be in a band with Vandermark and Hal Russell" either! I don't feel like that's too much of an issue though, because I've been quite prolific beyond the work I've done with my (slightly more accepted) former bandmates. I'm definitely not hanging on to "past glories".
I'm sure that both Ken and I are mutually more interested in our current works than our decade old fumblings together. People are still entitled to get what they want out of it, and I'm glad for that.
I don't hate rave reviews at all (I knew that was going to come off like biting the hand that feeds, but I said it anyways.) I do roll my eyes at lukewarm, neutral space-holder 'reviews' which are more like what a lot of my reviews tend to be. It's sort of like they have some kind of strange duty to say it's good, but they don't really mean it! Come on . . . can't you see why that might be frustrating to a musician?
I feel like modern criticism is more about the writer than it is what is being reviewed. It's a game where the critic plays with the fabric of what she feels to be "correct aesthetics" and every review is merely a claim in their own personal glory sweepstakes, i.e. "I have correctly guessed who the legends of tomorrow are today!" Does this make sense? I need to do some other stuff, so I really can't sit here and clarify anymore right now. Sorry! I'll be back . . .
ww
Posted by: Weasel Walter at August 17, 2004 5:22 PMhehe, Nate.
Actually, on this subject, here's a Ken Waxman review of Conditions, in which he refers to Alex James throughout the CD as (John?) Law - CTRL-C, CTRL-V?. Otherwise it's a positive review, although all the biographical information (some inaccurate) is culled from google searches, as it was for his 9! review.
http://www.jazzweekly.com/reviews/conditions_bright.htm
And for comparisons, here's one from May's PT by RH:
http://www.paristransatlantic.com/magazine/monthly2004/05may_text.html#9
Miles 1
Miles' second quintet 1
AMM 2
Evan Parker 2
Trane 1
Rashied Ali 1
Plus AMM referred to as a genre (vs. free jazz), and a new term for me "Zen free jazz". Although I can see the Miles/AMM fusion statements possibly generating more sales with our favorite Straw Man Wire Subscriber, I prefer the bits where he discusses the music negatively - "loses steam" "apparent constipation" - since he tries to identify specific sections where it occurs, and it's usually qualified by saying stuff like "thankfully evolves" - implying having listened to it more than once. I've not yet exhausted my toes when it comes to the number of reviews I've received during my lifetime (although there might be some I don't know about), but I'd rather a well thought out pan than an ill thought-out rave.
Either way, although I apparently feel strongly enough about them to post them as examples on this board, even though I'm young and relatively unknown, I don't see critics calling my friends by different names and saying I sound like Evan Parker/Trane (and Pharoah, apparently) - all of which are comparisons that cause me to think I'm not working hard enough and aren't taken as compliments - are the main barriers to any "career" I might have as a musician.
As has been noted everywhere, the main barrier to making a living as a musician is the lack of infrastructure - mainly venues - not people writing stuff for free.
Posted by: Nat at August 17, 2004 9:00 PMI've never been reviewed, as far as I know, and I don't try to be or care much, but
>Nobody (well, maybe Weasel W. is the exception here?) complains about raves.
reminds me that Braxton once said something to the effect that he thinks all the critics are wrong, even the ones who praise his work, and I think that's a reasonable stance for a musician. As a musician myself (sorta), criticism doesn't matter to me and I really don't read it.
Posted by: jubel foster at August 17, 2004 9:56 PMAggggggggh! Ken Waxman! I've known Ken for years as he's based in Toronto..... I liked him a lot better when he didn't write reviews, esp. for Jazz Weekly, a site I dislike (the pop-up windows & Jung's icky interview style). Actually Ken used to be pretty contemptuous of people who'd review for little or no money...& usually had an acid tongue. Nowadays....well, as I once told a correspondent: the problem with his reviews that they always read, whether they're positive or negative (though they're usually positive), like he sold the disc the day after he handed in the review. I've always found it impossible to discuss his reviews with him because even a couple weeks after publication he claims not to remember the disc in questin or, indeed, care. Anyway, you can see the kind of care he usually takes if he didn't notice who the pianist is. Reminds me of that review of the 9! disc plus Hubbub in The Wire, was it by Clive Bell? Bell didn't even notice how many saxophonists were on the Hubbub disc. (Goes to show you that major reviewing goofs aren't always the responsibility of reviews who are ignorant or nonmusicians....)
Posted by: N.D. at August 17, 2004 11:00 PMI missed that one by Clive, although I remember reading the review. He goes to plenty of gigs (including at least one or two 9! gigs), so would apparently fit into Vandermark's "model reviewer" profile. The AMM-juniors comment in that review was pretty funny - if he was indeed making reference to this particular combo:
http://www.sclubjuniors.com/index.php
Posted by: Nat at August 17, 2004 11:08 PMJust wanted to point out to Weasel Walter that I'm not Walt D., but Walto H.
Posted by: walto at August 18, 2004 6:38 AMOh. Uh, sorry. You remind me a lot of a Walto D!
Posted by: Weasel Walter at August 18, 2004 11:26 AMwalto wrote:
"Nobody (well, maybe Weasel W. is the exception here?) complains about raves."
Come on... raves suck! Day-glo, E, techno... no thanks! Sabbath Rules!
Vandermark started the AAJ exchange with some solid ideas to consider in Part 1, but boy, did he fizzle. Dude's guilty of his own complaints on many levels. Lots of pigeonholing. I liked the part where he tried to teach writers what a cohesive review was.
Posted by: al at August 21, 2004 8:54 AMI wonder what this teaches us about Shaw's epigram "Those who can do; those who can't, teach."
Posted by: N.D. at August 21, 2004 9:45 AMyeah, that was too easy, I'm looking forward to seeing what he says in response to me.
Posted by: jon abbey at August 21, 2004 10:40 AMFor what it’s worth, I’m very fond of Ken’s work and I’m pleased that he accepted my invitation to participate in allaboutjazz’s forum. It took nearly nine months before Ken’s schedule allowed for such a thing and considering just how busy the man is, I’m surprised by the amount of effort he puts into his thread.
My only regret? The time commitment for any “Catching Up With” guest is one month of activity and August is nearly over.
There's a very comical aspect to the notion that porn stars now want to discuss improvised music on an online forum.
You leave Noel Akchoté out of this! haha
Posted by: dan warburton at September 10, 2004 10:10 AMWHAT S WRONG WITH PORN PEOPLE
NOW ?????????????????????????????????????????
Dan .... i promiss i dont mess with all that
i ve done it already for years ´
Poopoopidox PAM ..............
n
.................................................. © 2003 - 2006 bagatellen ..................................................