Heard word about the launch of the impressive new addition to the internet jazzosphere earlier today, Jazz.com. Looks to be quite a resource and a serious contender at giving the heavyweight champion (in terms of scope & size) AAJ a run for the title. The monthly review totals alone are staggering, though I have to admit to not having much time yet to conduct a litmus test in terms of depth and quality of the coverage. The strategy of reviewing tracks in lieu of albums also seems a little irksome, a necessary concession to the mp3 culture we’re living in, I suppose. Layout and navigation appear intuitive and aggravation-free, so there’s another plus.
Props to Ted Gioia for spearheading the project and the thirty-odd scribes he’s conscripted thus far to assist in the endeavor. Judging by the contributions under his own by-line, it looks like his listening diet stresses diversity far wider than his seminal West Coast Jazz survey would suggest: Shipp, Bley and Zappa all fall into his widely cast net. I just hope potential writers aren’t won over by the gloss and shine before giving Bags corroded bulwark consideration as a possible place to proffer their services. I can dream, can’t I?
My god, did you even read and of that site? I would like to be nice, y'know, give them a break, y'know, let each to his own opinion on matters of art and thought and all but really just dig this review and the scathing trashing of Sun Ra and that is just one example.
This site has nothing to do with Jazz, it is only about selling pop-tune records and smiling happy self-centered faces.
Sorry. A big "no thank you" from MrG on this one -- I tried to read more of it, I even left a few comments, but then I thought, no, life is too short to waste time on people like that, there's just no point, pearls before swine, silk purses and sow's ears and all that. I mean they can not like Sun Ra, that's cool, I have no problems with that lots of folks don't like lots of other folks, but read that junk they pass off as a review! It is just mean spirited and self-centered and that is, to my mind anyway, not what jazz is all about.
About the best that I can say about Jazz.com is that it is an exeplary waste of a good domain name, and I hope it cost them plenty to secure it.
Posted by: mrG at January 8, 2008 6:48 PMI am with you Mr G. looks very dark. Right on the front page is another boring essay fellatiating Meldau (Yawn), and a gallery of hideous "Jazz art".
Gross.
Cogent points, MrG. I’ve only scratched the surface, but the dozen or so track reviews I digested (all by Ted) didn’t strike me as bad. Brief and a tad bland, but not bad. Verdict’s still out on the site as a whole, hence ol’ Shelly and his drumstick chopsticks above. That Ra review you linked to is hogwash, no doubt. Never heard of that Alan Kurtz guy & won’t be looking him up. As with AAJ, I think their biggest challenge is going to be quality control, esp. if review totals in the monthly triple digits are the norm.
Posted by: derek at January 8, 2008 7:31 PM59/100 for the Sun Ra, which the site helpfully informs us means "Poor. Flawed or amateurish music with little or no merit."
The horror, the horror..
Mistah Kurtz, he dead.
An ex-girlfriend of mine used to refer to “Rocket #9” as “The Song with the Objectionable Bass Solo”. As much as I love Boykins Saturnian-tuned log sawing on that one, I could sorta sympathize with her ascription. And to be fair, she meant it to be funny.
Despite the pledge above, I did cruise by Kurtz’s bio blurb. Here’s what it sez:
“Neither a musician nor a trained writer, I’m strictly an enthusiast. Born in 1945 into a family of semipro drummers, I grew up immersed in jazz, but didn’t begin reviewing it until 2007. Besides assisting Ted Gioia in various ways on Jazz.com, I’m proprietor of HipJazz.com, which offers an alternate take on modern jazz during its heyday from 1945-1966.”
And it looks like his beef extends to “Medicine for a Nightmare”, of which he writes: “With a keyboard technique reminiscent of Imhotep wielding mummified fingers, Sun Ra doesn’t tickle the ivories so much as scuffle with them. His sidemen are fine, but Sun Ra is more nightmarish than medicinal.”
Maybe we should set him and Hugh Jarrid adrift in a dinghy w/ an Ipod, two pairs of ear goggles, and the complete pre-1960 works of Buddy Rich to keep them company.
Posted by: derek at January 9, 2008 6:01 AMFrom hipjazz.com:
"By surveying landmark recordings—many of such enduring quality they’ve entered the Recording Academy’s GRAMMY® Hall of Fame—A Very Hip Affair traces jazz: * from the 1940s sprouting of bebop, progressive and cool * to a glorious 1950s flowering * and inglorious 1960s withering."
Do us a favour and stop wasting your time and space talking about clowns like this, Derek.
That’s the beauty (& bane) of Bags (& the net in general), Dan: Space enough that there’s no need to worry about waste. ;)
Hadn’t even thought to check out hipjazz and now you’ve saved me the time & trouble, thanks. Though now I’m starting to wonder if “Alan Kurtz” might actually be a pseudonym for John McDonough.
Ted Gioia, on the other hand, is in a different league. His West Coast Jazz survey is a decent read and I'm at least a little curious about his upcoming effort Delta Blues. From his website it looks like he's pretty active in the realm of book reviews too.
Posted by: derek at January 9, 2008 8:50 AMIs he? That puff piece on Meldau could have fooled me.
Posted by: damon Smith at January 9, 2008 10:29 AMMe too. Cmon Derek, stop trying to be nice to these geezers, just ignore them for Chrissakes.
Posted by: Dan Warburton at January 9, 2008 11:24 AMIs he?
From Kurtz? I’d say definitely. Is he a Larry Kart, or a Ted Panken, or a Dan Warburton for that matter? Negative. But there’s more to the man than that Meldhau plug. As I mentioned, his West Coast Jazz book is a good read and the dozen or so reviews I’ve perused, while cursory, weren’t terrible. Give the guy a break.
The criticisms against the site so far are valid, IMO, but I’m not of the opinion that it’s a steaming pile of stagnant hackery either. It is kinda amusing that y’all seem to be getting worked up about it though.
Posted by: derek at January 9, 2008 12:53 PMObviously not for arch insiders, parched outsiders or scenery-chewing out-to-lunchers. The writing is glib and instantly forgettable, perfect for the young stockbroker on lunch hour who's looking for a guide to hippen up his Bimmer's MP3 player contents.
Posted by: Djlletante at January 9, 2008 1:09 PMMan, I'm starting to feel like Sisyphus. :)
Posted by: derek at January 9, 2008 1:23 PMSomeone pointed me in the direction of this URL, and I have read through these comments with interest. I am especially impressed by the people who have read the 1,400 reviews we have published on jazz.com by 26 different reviewers . . . and can dismiss them all with a sweeping generalization. If I practiced criticism like this, I would have been out of job a long time ago.
Posted by: Ted Gioia at January 9, 2008 3:15 PMWelcome Santa Claus!
I'm so glad you came early this year ;)
26 reviewers you say? Are they all as knowledgable as Kurtz?
I'm kind of curious about the precision re: the 59/100 rating. Not 60, not 58. I notice on his other reviews a tendency toward the 90s (Debby Harry! Certainly a far more talented musician than Mr. Blount!) but even there he slices with a fine enough scalpel to distinguish between a 91 and a 92. Very impressive.
(for all I know, not having heard it, the album in question does suck, maybe even at a "59" level. But there's little to base that judgment on with this "review".)
Posted by: Brian Olewnick at January 9, 2008 6:29 PMI'll stick with AAJ
Posted by: Forbes at January 9, 2008 6:57 PMTed, thanks for stopping in and answering the critics. I’m hoping your stated interest isn't feigned and that you’ll opt to respond in greater depth. As it stands, your single post reads much like a sample review over at Jazz.com in its cursory quippishness. But considering the pie tossing that's been going on, perhaps that's deserved.
I’m curious how you consider Kurtz’s Sun Ra comments constructive and cogent criticism? To me they read like the ramblings of a guy who doesn’t really have a grasp of what he’s listening to, not to mention what yardstick to apply. As I mentioned above, I’m not sure that 1400 reviews is something to be all that proud of if the depth of coverage is going to consist of ‘clever’ turns of phrase and half or more of a 150-word count spent on ephemera (as again seems to be the case with Kurtz). Also curious what the rationale is for reviewing individual tracks rather than entire albums/cds? Sincere appreciation in advance for clarifications.
Posted by: derek at January 9, 2008 8:25 PMMy Jazz.com reviews of three Sun Ra tracks have to date garnered 5 onsite responses, 4 of which are unsigned vitriol. The solitary signed response is from Bagatellen's own MrG, so let me begin there.
"I have trouble," MrG writes, "with 'journalism' that can't just relay the facts and insists on harping on missing the point." So do I. That's why I don't pretend to be a journalist. Here's how I identify myself on Jazz.com's Contributors page [http://www.jazz.com/page/2007/12/28/contributors]: "Neither a musician nor a trained writer, I'm strictly an enthusiast."
MrG's larger point, though, is that the Angelic Creature we know as Sun Ra "was uninterested in pleasing the reviewers." Instead, Sun Ra reasserted, among other things, "the fundamental dignity and equality of ALL sentient beings."
Alas, the 4 unsigned onsite responses to my Jazz.com reviews have sorely missed MrG's point. Here's how they assert the fundamental dignity and equality of the sentient being called Alan Kurtz:
"Reading your bloody review makes me vomit. Who the hell are you to be the judge of one genius work? You call this criticism or blatant horse-shit?"
"It's a nightmare reading this crap! Alan Kurtz is no fan of Sun Ra (which is fine, different strokes for different folks) but that certainly doesn't allow him free reign to shit all over music that is above and beyond his scope of understanding. I suggest he immediately return to kindergarten where the music teacher will gladly show him the basics."
"Is Alan Kurtz as unskilled and impoverished as the rest of the folks running this site? Who the hell is allowing this bloody insensitive and deaf idiot the courtesy of writing up Sun Ra's work?"
"Alan Kurtz is a moron. Who the fuck is Alan Kurtz and what in the world is he doing trying to critique serious music? Did he acquire his poetic license from a bloody gumball machine? Did someone force-feed this CD up his asshole? Cheesy electric organ??? More like cheesy, worthless, hate-mongering splatter and waste of anyone's time!"
Bagatellen.com likewise asserts my fundamental dignity and equality as a sentient being:
Posted by mrG on January 8, 2008 6:48 PM
That junk they pass off as a review! It is just mean spirited and self-centered.
Posted by derek on January 8, 2008 7:31 PM
Never heard of that Alan Kurtz guy & won't be looking him up.
Posted by Dan Warburton on January 8, 2008 10:18 PM
The horror, the horror...Mistah Kurtz, he dead.
Posted by derek on January 9, 2008 6:01 AM
Despite the pledge above, I did cruise by Kurtz's bio blurb. Here's what it sez: "Neither a musician nor a trained writer, I'm strictly an enthusiast."
Posted by Dan Warburton on January 9, 2008 8:28 AM
Do us a favour and stop wasting your time and space talking about clowns like this, Derek.
Posted by derek on January 9, 2008 8:50 AM
Ted Gioia, on the other hand, is in a different league.
Posted by Dan Warburton on January 9, 2008 11:24 AM
Cmon Derek, stop trying to be nice to these geezers, just ignore them for Chrissakes.
Posted by Brian Olewnick on January 9, 2008 6:29 PM
For all I know, not having heard it, the album in question does suck, maybe even at a "59" level. But there's little to base that judgment on with this "review."
Mr. Olewnick at least admits he hasn't heard the music under discussion ("Rocket Number Nine Take Off for the Planet Venus"), but he misconstrues the focus of Jazz.com reviews. We don't review albums. Rather, we write about individual tracks. Of my >500 Jazz.com reviews, exactly three have been of Sun Ra, encompassing a total of
Interestingly, MrG associates Sun Ra with Psalm 33:3--"Sing unto him a new song; play skillfully with a loud noise." It's the skillfully part I find lacking in Sun Ra.
Elsewhere on Jazz.com, I've criticized "Cocktails for Two" by Duke Ellington. Much as I admire the Duke, not everything he recorded was a masterpiece. Ditto for Sun Ra. The difference is that Duke's defenders will not vilify me personally the way Sun Ra's adherents have.
Talk about mean-spirited, self-centered hate-mongering! Some people should look in the mirror occasionally.
I agree with MrG that Sun Ra recognized the fundamental dignity and equality of all sentient beings. It's a shame Sun Ra's followers don't share his wisdom in this respect.
Alan Kurtz
One of the paragraphs in my preceding post was truncated in transmission. Here's the complete paragraph:
Mr. Olewnick at least admits he hasn't heard the music under discussion ("Rocket Number Nine Take Off for the Planet Venus"), but he misconstrues the focus of Jazz.com reviews. We don't review albums. Rather, we write about individual tracks. Of my >500 Jazz.com reviews, exactly three have been of Sun Ra, encompassing a total of less than 16 minutes--far from the contents of an album, and not even remotely approximating Sun Ra's voluminous body of recorded work.
Posted by: Alan Kurtz at January 9, 2008 9:16 PMDerek, I am more than happy to engage in detailed and specific critical discussions. But many of the comments here are little more than insults. Would you like me to compare Alan Kurtz's witty reviews with the third grade bathroom talk coming from mrG? Honestly, readers can figure that one out for themselves.
Posted by: Ted Gioia at January 9, 2008 9:55 PM"I am more than happy to engage in detailed and specific critical discussions."
Let's talk about Sun Ra then. Maybe you could tell us why you saw fit to publish Mr Kurtz's review? There's a difference between a magazine and a blog, you know.
well if "exactly three have been of Sun Ra, encompassing a total of less than 16 minutes--far from the contents of an album, and not even remotely approximating Sun Ra's voluminous body of recorded work."
then why choose to spend 1/3 of that short time dedicated to Mr. Ra on a track which you consider to be so bad? surely skewing your sample to the tracks you consider to be such dross skews the view of Sun Ra s work as a whole on the site?
Posted by: anonymous gutter-mouth evil twin at January 9, 2008 10:42 PMFurther research at the site shows that it's not 1/3 of the time spent on Sun Ra dedicated to tracks that you consider to be so terrible, but the whole 3/3! Talk about skewed. All the tracks of his you reviewed you say are terrible, this either means that you have picked out uniformly bad Ra as your sample (which forms an unforgivable bias) or you don't like any of Sun Ra s music, in which case say it, and then allow another reviewer who does understand his music to give an informed critical opinion. You don't like Ra? fine, let someone who is up on their Ra do his reviews.
"Alan Kurtz's witty reviews" hahahaha you have got to be pulling my leg - baselessly savaging someone's work to make yourself look erudite and discerning does not equal wit
It's pretty obvious why he ripped on Sun Ra, to rile people up and get attention for himself. Which worked. Good job. Now we should move on.
Posted by: Forbes at January 10, 2008 4:14 AMThis thread has to be the best thing since Stan and Ollie. Please go on!
Posted by: Massimo Ricci at January 10, 2008 4:46 AMDan, you've absolutely right. This precious website we're wasting our time on is obviously a thinly covered up blog. Nothing more to say on this issue other than to add how sadly unprofessional it is to publish such utter hatred instead of real criticism. The less I see any Kurtz references anywhere, the better. I hope nobody's paying him for this garbage!
Posted by: Tom Sekowski at January 10, 2008 5:43 AMHi Alan, welcome to Bags & apologies if you’re feeling picked on. Interesting response, though I’m not sure how it addresses the charges levied. I’d agree, some of the content in those comments you quoted is suspect, but still understandable given the needlessly provocative content of your Ra ‘reviews’. What’s that ancient adage: “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”? Seriously, man, did you expect to be taken seriously with those pieces?
I’d be curious to know how much Sun Ra you’ve listened to as I noticed all three of the tracks you reviewed are from the single-disc “Greatest Hits” package on Evidence. To summarily dismiss Ra as an “unskilled” “charlatan” after such a finite sample (the man recorded hundreds of compositions over a half century) is akin to dismissing a jazz review site after reading just a handful of reviews. There’s that pesky goose staring down the gander again. :)
Also, I think I spy a mob of Ducal delegates in the distance weilding torches & pitchforks so I wouldn’t assume them to be docile pacifists. The difference too, is that you admit to admiration for Ellington’s work, a caveat not accorded Ra.
Posted by: derek at January 10, 2008 6:07 AMHi Ted, true enough, Alan seems to have struck a nerve. But instead of comparing him to MrG, how about explaining how sentences like: “Unskilled, impoverished, equal parts showman, shaman and charlatan, Sun Ra was to jazz what low-budget filmmaker Ed Wood, Jr. was to cinema—an outsider by necessity” demonstrate an understanding of Sun Ra and his music. Or how about addressing the follow-up: “Writing about Wood, journalist Gary Morris equally describes Sun Ra: "In fact he had no taste or even 'talent' as that term is generally understood." Rather than “witty”, both read as pretty insulting to both Ra’s person and oeuvre to me. Neither shows any particular insight either. I will admit to finding vestiges of wit in Alan’s morphing of “Pharaonic Jesters” into “Moronic Gestures”, but the charge of mean-spiritedness seems to stick equally well there as it does to any of the commentary here.
I like the look and layout of your site and I wish you much success in the enterprise. I just find certain aspects problematic, some of which I detailed above.
Posted by: derek at January 10, 2008 6:11 AMWell I have little to no interest in any of the CDs discussed at Jazz.com, but the one thing that concerns me most about the site, and would put me off if my musical tastes were any more aligned, is the presence of links to Amazon on every review page. Makes me wonder about the funding behind the site, and who paid for that not inexpensive domain name etc...
Posted by: Richard Pinnell at January 10, 2008 7:44 AMWhat’s so bad about a blog? Is it that anyone can ‘publish’ something on one? Hell, that’s what’s happening here with this discussion. Anyone can comment. What makes a blog any less viable a resource than a vaunted magazine?
Is Bagatellen a blog?
Or is it a magazine?
Or is it neither?
How about Paris Transatlantic?
Or Point of Departure?
Posted by: narew ramsh at January 10, 2008 8:00 AMNothing wrong with a blog of course, as long as the discussion is at a decent level. Everyone is blogging nowadays, which is fine. Obviously, what Mr Kurtz has to offer amounts to nothing more than an uninformed rant on a subject he knows next to nothing about.
I love blogs, don't get me wrong. I wouldn't describe PT (RIP) as one though, as the contents of the monthly issues didn't always represent my own opinions. Especially all that purple prose by Ricci hahaha (just joking Max). Richard's point above though is telling.. I suspect there's some serious string pulling from "the majors" behind sites like the one we're discussing here, and you know what I think about advertising on the Internet.
Is Bags a blog? I said it was once and Jon Abbey corrected me. More a "loose confederation of warring tribes"..
Good questions, narew. I see Bags as a blog, in part. This section of the main page certainly is, though I wish it wasn’t so dominated by my own mullings & musings. The reviews & (moldering) interviews sections don’t really fit the blog bill though, IMO. PT and PoD fall under the ‘zine/journal column in my personal net publication ledger, though Dan’s perspective was always the dominant one at the former and Bill Shoemaker calls the larger shots at the latter. I wouldn't describe Jazz.com as a blog either, though it definitely has elements.
As to the “loose confederation of warring tribes” ascription. Any semblance to that state of affairs here stems primarily from the egos various folks bring to the party. Nearly every skirmish has been a direct result of someone feeling slighted or sullied by the opinion of another. And so it goes…
Posted by: derek at January 10, 2008 8:56 AMDerek, contact me off-line in an email, and we can arrange an interview. I can tell that there are some intelligent people on this site who really care about music. Let's try to raise the level of discussion for their sake.
Posted by: Ted Gioia at January 10, 2008 9:47 AMI haven't been to the site and am unlikely to do so, but I'm happy to opine nevertheless that anyone who has actually written that Sun Ra was "unskilled"(!) doesn't know much about any of these: Sun Ra's work, the history of jazz, the history of 20th century music, music composition, pianism, the use of electronic keyboards, music arrangement, or improvisation.
In my opinion, making such a remark is roughly tantamount to saying that Virginia Woolf or James Joyce was unskilled.
One can only hope either that some of the other reviewers there have some knowledge of the subject matter at hand or that nobody reads it.
Posted by: walto at January 10, 2008 10:30 AMTed, honestly I didn’t have anything that formal in mind. How about just responding to the questions/points I’ve already raised? Back-channel isn’t my preference, as I think others here would appreciate hearing your perspective too, but you can reach me at derekct AT hotmail DOT com if you prefer. Shouldering hits is often necessary collateral for sharing your opinions/work in public, particularly on the net. I’m sure you’re used to it as well.
Posted by: derek at January 10, 2008 10:31 AMWe could raise the level of discussion for their sake, but why bother when you are ready to defend this idiot Kurtz and your own essay on that dullard Meldau. He could not be less compelling, and adding more shitty pop tunes to the jazz cannon is hardly a great feat.
The crucial point is I'd rather hear hear Coltrane or even Dave Liebmann play "My Favorite Things" than Julie Andrews, I don't even like Radiohead but I prefer them playing their own music to Bradley-poo butchering it with his dull cocktail piano.
With all the wonderful - even mainstream pianists within your supposed vast range of knowledge and you pick this over-hyped douchebag?
I'd rather get cussed out by Jarrett than sit through one chorus of Brads. His contrived heroin addiction was nice publicity stunt but won't make up for his dull music.
If this is your version of editorial oversight, then no thanks.
Posted by: damon Smith at January 10, 2008 10:58 AMLooks like I might need some "editorial oversight" myself as well as a couple question marks and apostrophes.
Anyway, Kurtz is a clown:
http://jazz.com/music/2007/10/25/charles-mingus-goodbye-pork-pie-hat
Even when he likes it, the writing is every bit as bad. I love this song, it is the first melody I learned on the double bass, I play it all the time.
Still, his "review" is wide-eyed, sentimental bullshit that says absolutely nothing about the music.
Congratulations, you know Lester Young's nickname!
Damon, why bemoan it?
Jazz.com + Meldhau = the perfect wedding of medium and message. I wonder how may reviews of Chris Botti are on the site?
Posted by: djll at January 10, 2008 11:25 AMWhoa, Damon. Crack open a sarsaparilla and cool off a minute. I’m not a Meldahu fan, but how is calling him a “douchebag” and a “dullard” any different from Kurtz’s epithets aimed at Sun Ra? The name of the game is respect.
Posted by: derek at January 10, 2008 11:41 AMRespect for whom Derek? Not for Kurtz, I hope....
Posted by: Tom Sekowski at January 10, 2008 11:48 AMMeant to type "how MANY reviews of Chris Botti..."
So... I did find one review in a "muted trumpet" feature by the celebrated Kurtz which awarded Mr. Botti more points for his work with Sting than Miles Davis (Circle w/Shorter-Hancock quintet), Freddie Hubbard (I'll Never Smile Again w/Bill Evans), Miles Davis again (Stella by Starlight), Art Farmer, Chet Baker, Lee Morgan, and some really old-time guy named Dizzy Gillespie. Chris Botti outblows 'em all, sez Kurtz.
Bitch all you want, the dude's got chutzpah.
Posted by: djll at January 10, 2008 12:13 PMDifference is as wide as the difference between Ra and Meldau.
Posted by: damon Smith at January 10, 2008 12:38 PMNot for Kurtz, I hope…
Kurtz, or Mehldau, or whomever. I think it’s possible & preferable to communicate disagreement with or disapproval of someone without resorting to invective.
As to Botti, he’s purportedly got chops, just chooses to channel them into the commercialest of commercial fare where they become difficult to discern. I had to review one of his discs for Cadence and found it the bastard child of the worst of Chet Baker and the best of Boney James. Not my jar of moonshine, but there are masses who find him very appealing. Then again, that brings to mind what the Minutemen said about the masses.
Posted by: derek at January 10, 2008 12:44 PMDifference is as wide as the difference between Ra and Meldau.
How do you figure? It’s still playground level name-calling by my lights.
"As to Botti, he’s purportedly got chops..." Here we must resort to vernacular to make the point: "It ain't the meat, it's the motion." Ain't what you got, it's how you use it, or choose to use it.
And then there's the reviewing system, the points. I admit I haven't heard the Botti/Sting track in question, I just find it pretty hard to believe that any knowledgeable listener would give less points to the competition as named, according to the criteria laid out in Jazz.com's system. You dig?
Posted by: djll at January 10, 2008 12:54 PMI’m with you, Tom, and was trying to say the same thing re: Botti.
As to points: like stars, letter grades, and any other kind of subjective shorthand under the sun, they’re meaningless without sufficient knowledge of the tastes/biases/hang-ups of the reviewer doing the assigning.
Who's Meldau???
Posted by: Tom Sekowski at January 10, 2008 1:47 PMSpeaking of Mr. Gioia’s book reviews (which somebody was, a while back), methinks they can be summed up as follows:
Ted Gioia : Edmund Wilson :: Chris Botti : Dizzy Gillespie
Howdy all. Long time no gab.
yikes. Here's what I've learned from this entry and comments:
Gioia, whose West Coast Jazz I found to be an informative read, now runs a website. Promising.
Perusing the content of jazz.com, and bouncing it against my own tastes, not so promising.
A reviewer named Alan Kurtz is writing stuff there I won't bother to read, as the content of his "reviews" are neither informative nor insightful. Again, my taste interfering here.
Some folks are are showing colors I find surprising. Douchebag? Come on, Damon. That response might be more appropriate toward someone who kicked your dog or offended your mother. Kurtz wrote some words about a musician, which were neither inflamatory nor slanderous. Ignorant, I'd say so. But I'm not here to smack your hand.
BREAK
Some important questions (yet to be answered) to take away here are Brian's regarding the rating system at jazz.com and Richard's with respect to funding. I don't expect those questions to be answered, particularly in this forum, but they are fully appropriate and peek into perhaps a bigger issue. I hate to bring out the idea of "responsibility", but if I were ballsy enough to run a site called jazz.com, I'd be particularly careful about who was creating its core content, and exactly where entries such as Kurtz's fall into its framework. From this angle it's rather embossed. Why? Because a fairly popular site in a related niche is slamming it, and not for it's own gain. If Kurtz contributions and are the norm, I'd think heavily about broadening the site's mission statement. Bottom line: I'd think a site called jazz.com would inherently seek to have some structural and creative integrity, thus the questions about the rating system, the throw-away "reviews", and the funding.
Posted by: al jones at January 10, 2008 6:03 PMWord.
Posted by: Dan Warburton at January 10, 2008 10:27 PMOK, I got a little carried away, I don't know exactly why but that "new standard" thing is a real bummer to me, and I just can't take all these articles praising Brad Mehldau. Hard to say why it sets me off but it does and the articles irritate me even more than his music.
I think I just read one too many whinny interviews about him not wanting to be compared to Bill Evans and then glorifying his "struggle with heroin" in the next paragraph.
Between the trashing of Sun Ra and someone with the background of Gioia jumping on the Mehldau hype wagon it just set me off on a nearly uncontrollable Maddox-like rant. Sorry.
Posted by: damon Smith at January 10, 2008 10:41 PMand so we apologise and make the peace,
the sun will come up.
important questions remain, however, which need to be tackled in a level-headed, rational but critical way
but no-one needed me to say that
Posted by: anonymous evil twin at January 10, 2008 11:05 PMGood points, Namor, though I do think some of Kurtz’s comments toward Sun Ra could potentially be construed as inflamatory. They also carry the strong odor of bait despite his protestations to the contrary.
I guess I don’t have as big a problem with the whole Amazon angle & the possibility of such an entity as a funding source. The now defunct(?) ‘zine Squid’s Ear was an unabashed offshot of Squidco, a marriage of the commercial & the critical that seemed to work during the lifespan of the symbiosis. Jazzloft also had a shortlived ‘partnership’ with One Final Note, iirc. Whether these relationships connote conflicts of interest is certainly debatable, but again, I’m not all that bothered by it. Most sites make at least some sort of revenue through ads or are actively seeking the same. Though Bags has always been gloriously bassackwards in that regard.
And the rating system is hokum, IMO, particularly w/o greater insight into who’s doing the rating.
Posted by: derek at January 11, 2008 5:55 AMI do think some of Kurtz’s comments toward Sun Ra could potentially be construed as inflamatory
Oh, toughen up, Derek. What's the matter with inflammatory writing? It's makes reading fun. That's not the problem at all. The problem with Kurtz's reviews is that remarks contained within them about Ra and others are just stupid, or to put it more sweetly (as I already have above) they show much too slight a knowledge of the subject matter for the author's reviews to be taken seriously.
And the rating system is hokum, IMO, particularly w/o greater insight into who’s doing the rating.
I also don't have huge problems with the rating system, although I certainly agree with Brian that it's much too fine grained. Four or five stars are enough but not too much, which is precisely why those have long been the most commonly used measure both for films and recordings. As to not having sufficient knowledge about the reviewers to know what to make of the appraisals. That's inevitable with new reviewers in any case. That data will be available eventually.
And, certainly, we've got enough data in hand to know where to file Kurtz's opinions.
Posted by: walto at January 11, 2008 6:25 AMAnd, certainly, we've got enough data in hand to know where to file Kurtz's opinions.
the garbage can?
Posted by: Tom Sekowski at January 11, 2008 6:41 AMAny time you want to go a round in the ring I’m game, Walt :) I’m cool with inflamatory as long as it’s not coupled with willful ignorance. Again, there are plenty of ways to be critical w/o simultaneously being a dick. You used to be a master of the art.
As to the reviewers: from what I gleaned from the contributors page they’re not all greenhorns like Kurtz. Dave Franklin writes for Jazz Times, Steve Greenlee for The Boston Globe, Todd S. Jenkins for Downbeat, Arnold Jay Smith for Downbeat, Billboard and the NYT, etc. Can’t say I’m all that familiar with any of them, but at least there’s an existing body of work out there with which to draw a bead.
Posted by: derek at January 11, 2008 6:47 AMcould potentially be construed as inflamatory
Oh my, oh my oh my!
Steve Greenlee sounds like a level-headed reasonable guy with ears for good sounds
Posted by: opinionated evil twin at January 11, 2008 8:32 AMcould potentially be construed as inflamatory
Third times a charm, Walt.
Posted by: derek at January 11, 2008 8:46 AMYou used to be a master of the art.
I'm old now. I've lost it.
Re: commercial links on a reviews site: there are importance differences between how sites link the reviews & the commercial elements. OFN had advertising; Squid's Ear was a reviews journal run by a distribution company; but neither of them had the blunt "buy now!" buttons that adorn the Jazz.com site. There was a certain decorum that prevented the direct linking of reviews to selling something.
Posted by: nd at January 11, 2008 9:07 AMBags links to the label site. It is one way to go, I often buy cds or MP3s based on a Bags review, selling downloads or at least partnering with a download site is not a bad idea for the future of bags, I also tend to sell a few cds when I have had a review of my music.
If Derek's or who ever's review makes the sale why not get a cut?
You’re kind of splitting hairs. Squidco isn’t a distribution company, it’s a retail outlet. Forced Exposure would probably be a better example of the distribution company that also features a reviews arm model.
Again, I think a discerning reader can discriminate between a critical review and a piece of PR meant to push product. That “Buy Now” button might be blunt, but the review it’s attached to doesn’t in any way mandate someone clicking it. Take Dusty Groove, another retail outlet: the majority of their “reviews” are retooled PR blurbs and many consumers recognize them as such. To come at it from a different angle, Andrew Bartlett, the jazz editor at Amazon for a good spell, regularly spiced up his editorials & reviews of site offerings with critical comments. The “Buy Now” links were still present, but sometimes coupled with copy that didn’t support such a move. Bartlett is no longer a prominent presence @ Amazon and his absence shows.
Posted by: derek at January 11, 2008 10:20 AMI'm old now. I've lost it.
Well, at least you’ve still got the snarkiness of a man half your age.
I’m not interested in a cut. Al started this place out as “commercial-free” and for as long as it lasts it will hopefully stay that way. Fortunately, the upkeep is pretty cheap, esp. thanks to the successful fundraiser earlier this year (copious thanks again to all who donated!).
Label links (when possible) seem like the best way to hip folks to the specifics on a release while leaving the method of procurement wide open. That said, if we had Amazon links instead I don’t think it would make that much difference. People are still going to get the music in the manner they prefer to.
I just think it’s interesting when people get their panties in a twist & assume the worst when commerce and criticism are coupled.
Posted by: derek at January 11, 2008 10:40 AMI'm just reading this now (hell of a Friday night so far!!) and can agree with Damon and Mr. G on Kurtz's Ra diatribe. I was actually quite upset by it, and "upsetting" is not usually what I would associate with a "review."
Maybe I should send Jazz.com and its proprietors some of my Ra reviews? Wasted effort, probably, but there's a lot of "meat" for understanding.
(And, at first, I was not a Ra fan. It only came with exposure and understanding)
Posted by: clifford at January 11, 2008 4:47 PMThere's a huge difference between SquidCo or Forced Exposure and Amazon... the first two are (I believe) independent, the third is a multinational behemoth...
Apart from the fact that I prefer to support the indie distributors or the labels directly, what I find a little disconcerting about the jazz.com site (if indeed there is any link to Amazon, this is not confirmed at all, though the silence after I posed the question is telling...) is the fact that its underhand, the site isn't labelled the "Amazon Jazz Magazine" or anything similar, its made to look like Bags or JC or something similar, but with easy links to an Amazon shopping cart next to every review.
Also, does the presence of the Amazon links mean that anything not stocked by them can't be reviewed? The last ten new releases I bought are not stocked by Amazon. If the focus is only on major label Amazon-friendly releases then its going to be a pretty dull site anyway.
Posted by: Richard Pinnell at January 11, 2008 4:56 PMRichard, you hit the nail on the head.
Dull is the operative word!
Spineless too.
I doubt the site is owned or operated by amazon.com. I would guess that it takes advantage of Amazon's associates program, as described in the link below:
http://affiliate-program.amazon.com:80/gp/associates/join
Posted by: Sarah Lockhart at January 11, 2008 7:03 PMAs ever, bagatellenites are way too busy bitching about the failings of whatever it is they've just had brought to their attention to think about how they could maybe improve it with a little effort of their own. Think jazz.com is shit? Drop the editor a line and become a contributor. You know, lead by example. (I don't expect that to actually happen, of course; the pleasures of the circle jerk are much more immediate, as has been proven and re-proven here and on every other web forum since the dawn of the internets.)
Posted by: pdf at January 13, 2008 9:09 AMOK, I'll respond. I'll start by saying I hold even your (PDF) worst work in higher regard than most of what I have seen at jazz.com.
Next, for my part at least, musicians and writers both collect information to do their respective jobs.
As a musician, the internet allows myself and others to even the field a bit.
My role is as a musician and listener, as a listener the reviewers help me to make decisions about my how I spend my listening time and money and as a musician I have to hope many of the same reviewers will help those who would be interested in my work hear it and I suppose keep the ones who wouldn't be from bothering.
Things are a bit more fair, now that the writers don't necessarily have the last word.
If a musician plays like shit on a recording, they tend to get called on it but that has not been the case for writers - now it is. It still does not mean that to have right to point it out the writer should take up the same instrument and learn to play it better.
This new situation is particularly hard for those like yourself and jazz.com
In short we don't want your job, we just want you to do it well.
Wow, for a heavy metal guy, Phil is a bit of a pollyanna, isn't he? Fwiw, I actually don't see why someone can't both dislike some book, mag, etc. and not have either the slightest inclination or obligation to contribute to it him/herself.
Can I also not think some restaurant sucks without applying to cook there?
Posted by: walto at January 13, 2008 12:03 PM>Can I also not think some restaurant sucks without applying to cook there?
Sure. But what with bagatellen being a hangout for so many writers, or at least typists, my idea seems more than reasonable.
Posted by: pdf at January 13, 2008 5:16 PMWhy don't you apply, Phil? From what I understand they pay their contributors, so you wouldn't have to worry about giving it away gratis.
Seriously, the level of hubris amongst certain members of the "community" here sometimes leaves me staggered.
Posted by: derek at January 13, 2008 5:55 PMA razor blade buried in every other bon mot...
Posted by: derek at January 13, 2008 7:28 PMSeems to me the post of Jazz.com editor is what needs some freshening up. How could one expect to contribute one's unique voice, if the point of the website is to offer Hallmark-esque soundbites for neophytes? Not that neophytes don't need or deserve enlightenment, but personally I'm not interested in talking down to people in order to secure a "wider audience."
Derek -- how's that for slashing hubris?
Posted by: djll at January 14, 2008 10:51 AMNot bad, Tom. Everybody’s got a soapbox; some just exhibit greater scuffage from regular use.
I’ve usually got a pretty high tolerance for snark, but periodically I hit my limit (random as those moments might seem). Phil’s predictable missive (quit bitchin’ & start fixin’) coupled with the equally predictable “typist” brickbat was balls-drainingly, mind-flambéingly the straw that went up the camel’s snout.
In other news: the editor of Jazz.com and I have something in the works that may or may not bring some pine-scented glow to this tarnished topic.
Posted by: derek at January 14, 2008 12:01 PM"balls-drainingly, mind-flambéingly the straw"...
You came so close to "ass-rapingly" -- how could you resist? You must be a saint. :)
That's why I don't moderate and you do, Derek. No moderation for djll!
Posted by: djll at January 14, 2008 12:23 PMNot that neophytes don't need or deserve enlightenment, but personally I'm not interested in talking down to people in order to secure a "wider audience."
Uncle Tom, are you saying mean things about Phil Freeman again?
Posted by: Sarah Lockhart at January 14, 2008 1:05 PMThat's why I don't moderate and you do, Derek
There’s a fairly large contingent (myself among them most days) that would argue I don’t either. ;)
As to the avoidance of “ass-rapingly”: I’m pretty sure Phil has a copyright lock on that particularly purple & penile adverb & I didn’t want to incur the wrath of the Metal Edge legal team by using it out of turn.
Posted by: derek at January 14, 2008 1:16 PMGioia: "Check out Kurtz's take on Kenny G's "Songbird" which belongs in the Hall of Fame for musical invective."
Kurtz: "Seldom has a jazz track ignited such firestorms. Songbirding, as it's now known, gained notoriety during the 1989 overthrow of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, who, fleeing the U.S. invasion, took sanctuary in the Apostolic Nunciature. Since assaulting the Holy See's embassy would've violated international law, U.S. troops surrounded the compound with loudspeakers, volume cranked to 11, from which they directed an around-the-clock barrage of Kenny G's hit. After enduring 72 hours of this unspeakable torture, Gen. Noriega emerged, hands clasped to his ears, and meekly surrendered. Although songbirding remains a controversial tool in the war against terror, no one doubts its effectiveness."
Amusing, yes, but Hall Of Fame? Hardly.
What I really don't get is why Jazz.com merits a plug, an interview & umpteen comments on this site. "Slow news day", as they say?
Posted by: nd at January 15, 2008 5:44 AMWhat I really don't get is why Jazz.com merits a plug, an interview & umpteen comments on this site. "Slow news day", as they say?
Sure, that’s it. As always, Nate, thanks for the constructive criticism.
As to the Kenny G piece, I’d agree it’s pretty funny, however erroneous: it was good ol’ fashioned rock & roll that brought Noreiga to his knees. And the fictional military tactic of “songbirding” would seem to work with just about any piece of music. Seventy-two straight hours of something as innocuous as Satie’s “Gymnopedies” blasted at ear-imploding volumes would be enough to drive me batty.
Posted by: derek at January 15, 2008 6:37 AMWell, I'd been trying to do the most constructive thing I could think of, which was to largely ignore the thread & hope that some other topic for discussion would pop up. But then the lengthy interview popped up instead, so obviously that doesn't work.
Posted by: nd at January 15, 2008 12:45 PMJazz.com doesn’t float your dinghy? Good news, there are lots of places with lots of topics to choose from. As for here, give it a little more time & I’m pretty sure something else will pop up.
"Would you like me to compare Alan Kurtz's witty reviews with the third grade bathroom talk coming from mrG?"Man, Ted must go to different bathrooms than I do, or certainly a higher grade of Grade 3. Either that, or perhaps he's equating my person with the raw emotional responses displayed by those who followed my comments. I don't know. Don't really care, really.
All I did was to delete jazz.com from my list of credible websites, and reading the responses here, and there, have done nothing to change my above opinion which has started this discussion: Exemplary waste of a good domain name.
Posted by: mrG at January 18, 2008 10:51 AMWow, somehow I stumbled onto this site (one of my tracks was reviewed - favorably and with seemingly open ears - by Mr. Kurtz), and I just can't believe all these people care this much about jazz. Very heartening, if not always consistently constructive. If you guys went to local gigs, there could actually be a jazz audience.
Posted by: Bill Anschell at January 27, 2008 9:59 AMNot so sure who you mean by "all these people", Bill. You mean all the people who write at jazz.com or all the people who've chipped in to this thread? If the latter, yes, we do care (so do the writers at jazz.com, I don't doubt), and you would too if your music had received the kind of mauling Sun Ra's did.
And how do you come to the conclusion we (who we?) don't go to local gigs? Things not so lively up there in Seattle?
With Earshot, Bumbershoot, a handful of viable venues, & Vancouver just a couple hours away, Seattle’s got a fairly lively jazz scene.
I wonder if this thread is going to replace the Bill Evans one in terms of random resuscitations?
Posted by: derek at January 28, 2008 6:27 AMThere's gold in them thar hills.
OMG PONIES!!1!!
Posted by: clifford at January 28, 2008 9:41 AMCliff, I've got my Little Orphan Annie secret decoder ring at the ready, but I just can't seem to decipher that declaration. Help a brother out!
Posted by: derek at January 28, 2008 10:20 AM"random resuscitation" with emphasis on the "random."
Posted by: clifford at January 28, 2008 4:19 PMSorry to disrupt the flow here; this will be my last interjection (it's not my intention to engage in or promote "random resuscitations") . But since Dan asked me to clarify my 1/27 post: It's all the passion among the people posting here that impresses me; jazz naysayers would have us believe that few people care this much anymore.
As for the Seattle scene: While Bumbershoot and Earshot are both admirable organizations, they hardly make this a thriving scene for local players (Bumbershoot has one jazz stage one day per year, and Earshot focuses by far the bulk of its resources on visiting artists). The proximity to Vancouver has virtually no effect on Seattle jazz players, and border hassles are minimizing what little interchange there once was. There's actually more intermingling with Portland players, but even that is less than you'd expect. On balance, what you'll find in Seattle is similar to other cities of its size today: Lots of very good locally-based players, and a dearth of good venues.
Posted by: Bill Anschell at February 28, 2008 5:14 PMOhhh-keee....
HERBIE NICHOLS: APPLEJACKIN'
TRACK
Applejackin’
ARTIST
Herbie Nichols (piano)
CD
The Complete Blue Note Recordings (Blue Note CDP 7243 8 59352 2 0)
Buy Track
Musicians: Herbie Nichols (piano), Al McKibbon (bass), Max Roach (drums).
Recorded: New York, August 7, 1955
RATING: 98/100 (learn more)
Herbie Nichols remains one of the most under-recognized figures in jazz history, but luckily his entire output for Blue Note is available as a three-CD set. “Applejackin’” is a lively little piece of music with an almost childlike theme. Much has been made of the unusual structures Nichols’s compositions utilized, but it is worth considering his music apart from its usefulness in music theory courses. Here is a bright little sketch one could imagine coming from Thelonious Monk’s songbook, but Nichols’s style of performing is much different – on beat, in key, totally unselfconscious. He returns again and again to the theme – a skipping, happy phrase played twice before spiraling upward – while fleshing it out with his impromptu thoughts.
Reviewer: Steve Greenlee
Tags: 1950s jazz · blue note · piano trio
Posted by: clifford at February 28, 2008 8:20 PM"In key"--classic.
Posted by: Susan Emery at February 29, 2008 1:40 AMIs this thread going to go on ad infinitum? We've all had a good smirk now, thanks very much.. if you want another one go to jazz.com and you've got plenty to keep you busy. Yawn.
Posted by: Dan Warburton at February 29, 2008 5:38 AM"On beat"--classic.
Posted by: Susan Emery at February 29, 2008 6:54 AMAppreciate the update on the Seattle scene, Bill. I grew up in Bellingham and recall its ups/downs from the mid-Eighties on. Sad to hear that it seems from your vantage to be in trough rather than a peak right now, at least in terms of a player-to-viable-venue ratio.
Go back to sleep, Dan & don't let this little uptick disturb your slumber. :)
Despite Ted’s contention that soundbite track reviews are the wave of the future, I’m just not ready to break out my surfboard. Nothing against Greenlee, but that piece Cliff quoted leaves me with next to nothing. It makes “Applejackin’” sound like a close cousin to “Won’t You Be My Neighbor”:
“It's a beautiful day in this neighborhood
A beautiful day for a neighbor
Would you be mine
Could you be mine
It's a neighborly day in this beauty wood
A neighborly day for a beauty
Would you be mine
Could you be mine
I've always wanted to have a neighbor just like you
I've always wanted to live in a neighborhood with you
So, let's make the most of this beautiful day
Since we're together we might as well say
Would you be mine, could you be mine
Won't you be my neighbor
Won't you please, won't you please
Please won't you be my neighbor”
Buddy Miles is dead.
Posted by: djll at February 29, 2008 9:21 AMYes, passed away on Tuesday, sad news. Thinking a ROW shout out might be in order and a preemption of my slated Pee Wee Russell pick.
Posted by: derek at February 29, 2008 10:38 AMI grew up just across the border from Bellingham. Didn't you guys have WBGH or something like that over there? Channel 13?
Visited once, though I don't remember if there was anything happening at the time...
I grew up just across the border from Bellingham. Didn't you guys have WBGH or something like that over there? Channel 13?
Visited once, though I don't remember if there was anything happening at the time...
White Rock, B.C.? Just kidding. KCPQ 13? That was a sweet Seattle/Tacoma TV station, kind of like an early WTBS. I fondly remember watching Ralph Bakshi and Rocket Robin Hood cartoons along w/ vintage Siskel & Ebert over those airwaves.
Bellingham’s biggest musical claim to fame is probably Estrus Records (Mono Men, Man or Astro-man?, The Makers, Southern Culture on the Skids, etc.) and the associative annual Garage Shock festival @ 3B Tavern. On the jazz front, bassist Chuck Israels was (maybe still is?) a faculty member at Western Washington U where my dad taught psych & my mom was a VP. I vaguely recall going over to his house for dinner a couple times.
Posted by: derek at February 29, 2008 4:37 PM.................................................. © 2003 - 2006 bagatellen ..................................................