Wow, I didn't even know that Dave Gross had a solo album out! I'm bursting with anticipation, because I've seen him do solo sets that I found extremely unique and on the quiet end of things, so probably similar to what you heard. I think he does have a new conceptual framework for extended techniques, which has little to do with the techniques themselves and he has a refreshing lack of preoccupation with virtuosity, but it's not a conceptual framework that would cause one to sit up and take notice. As far as a foil to his work in that style, there is the truly MIND-BLOWING duo album (also on Sedimental) he released last year with Liz Tonne (sadly only on vinyl, but that's better than nothing). I don't think anyone could play that platter and not hear it as radically original and fresh music.

I'm with you on Brendan's work. He's has an amazing command of compositional detail. One of the few drone-related composers I can really get into and I saw him do a killer solo set last fall. I was amazed by how seamless the layering and transitions were.

things I found to be true

That's an absolutely beautiful, poetic title!

thanks, Brian. I'll be picking up the Brendan Murray record based on your enthusiasm.

The Murray is absolutely superb. I like the other two too, but knowing your feelings on EAIASSFUCKNOFACESHITHEAD music or whatever we're calling it these days Adam I don't think you will. The Gross is a fascinating listen (I'll resist the temptation to pun), but I'm looking forward to some combattive reaction from Walto (not that he's likely to buy a copy haha). Needless to say my own take on this batch of releases will be coming your way soon (the Murray not for another few weeks though) - but meanwhile another EIGHT Creative Sources discs have just arrived! Aaagh!

Adam, curious to hear what you think if you do pick up the Murray. I'm unsure whether or not it'll be your cuppa.

Michael, not that this isn't the case with much, if not all music, but I think one's reaction to the Gross disc will largely depend on how "convinced" one is by his sound-world. I like to kind of lose the sense of the individual with music in this general area and I never quite got there with this one. YMMV, of course.

I'm so conflicted!
is it, as Dan suggests, more along the line of eai stuff?
or is it beautiful drones?

"...but meanwhile another EIGHT Creative Sources discs have just arrived! Aaagh!"

I've only managed to listen to Nate Wooley's cd.
Great music indeed

"...but meanwhile another EIGHT Creative Sources discs have just arrived! Aaagh!"

I've only managed to listen to Nate Wooley's cd.
Great music indeed

Adam, it's drone-y (though there's more to it than that) and, often, pretty loud. That part, I think you'll enjoy!

Nice writeup, Brian. I'm also going to be checking out the Murray.

Adam, given your love for the drone, do you dig Eliane Radigue? You probably already know her stuff but if you don't, you are in for a major treat.

Jason,
I only have one Radigue recording, and I like it.
What's the best, in your opinion?

"I only have one Radigue recording, and I like it.
What's the best, in your opinion?"

I'm not Jason, as you're well aware, but my fave is the Adnos I-III box, beautiful, beautiful stuff. the vocals get in the way of too much of her work for me, but that one has no vocal component.

That's the Table of Elements box, yes?
Thanks, I've been meaning to get that one.

Yeah, 'Adnos I-III' (Tableof the Elements) gets my vote too. As do 'Elemental II' (R.O.S.A.) and
'Geelriandre/Arthesis' (Fringes Archive). Music of great sonic richness, very immersive.

I actually might cast my vote for "Trilogie des Morts" (on XI, I think) but all those recs are beauties. I don't have the Fringes yet, though, but that'll be in my next Erst Dist order.

agreed about the Fringes one, the best single disc intro to her work.

"Trilogie de la Mort" (to be precise) is really on XI.
My favourite is "Adnos I-III", but "Geelriandre/Arthesis" is also a work of beauty.

What do you think bout "Songs of Milarepa" -
I also prefer Radigue "voiceless", but that album I can forgive voices.

I only discovered Radigue just before Christmas and have been lapping up her stuff ever since. I agree with the consensus that the vocal stuff doesn't work as well as the instrumental. Adnos and Geerliandre (took me ages with dictionaries in assorted languages before I spotted thats an anagram!) are both excellent, but as an entry point I recommend the recent Elemental II disc on ROSA. Never before have I heard a bass guitar sound anything like that!

Happy to announce that one of my many summer projects is a huge interview with Eliane for Paris Transatlantic - I'll keep you all posted. I can recommend just about anything, but remember the Trilogy and Adnos are 3CD boxes and take a bite out of the budget! (Yes the Fringes disc is a great one CD intro to Radigue's work, but is it easy to get hold of over there? Hard to find it here, come to think of it). There's also BIOGENESIS on Metamkine's 3"CD Cinema For The Ear series. That should be a bit cheaper.

we try to keep all of the interesting titles on Fringes and Fringes Archive in stock at ErstDist, pretty sure we have the Radigue (all the inventory is at Chris' place, so I can never say for sure).

there's supposed to be a full disc of unreleased Radigue from 1973 released along with the long, long, long, long delayed next issue of Halana.

http://www.halana.com/issue5.html

"... with the long, long, long, long delayed next issue of Halana."

Oh at last !
I had totally forgotten that one !

[Jaques]- "... with the long, long, long, long delayed next issue of Halana."

Oh at last !
I had totally forgotten that one !

I wouldn't hold your breath!
I think it was over a year ago now I had an email from these guys apologising for the delay and stating that things were back on track and issue five was imminent....

Halana was a great publication though and I will carry on waiting for it as its always been worth the wait

I finally got around to giving some good listens to Resting Places by Brendan Murray.

While Dan might have been right in his warning to me, in so far as I find it esoteric when my taste tends to run toward more 'conventional' development in music (ie: harmony and melody), I did find listening to it pleasant.

Some very nice layering of sound, sometimes braiding into accumulated intensity, sometimes simply spreading out the shimmer. I liked the fourth track best as I found it the most dramatic. So that probably says something about my attention span!

I still tend to prefer the drone music one finds on the Kranky label, especially Stars of the Lid, Pan American, and the first record by Growing. And also Keith Fullerton Whitman, who btw, recorded some of the Murray record. Maybe because that stuff is more melodically oriented?

Glad you at least partially dug it, Adam.

Brian, I certainly could hear why you (and others) like the record so much. Thanks.

Because this is a forum open for comment I'd like to say a few things about Mr. Olewnick's review of my disk. His view, while coming from an educated place, is far too simplistic to the degree that in reality it reveals a very cursory, distorted estimation. While it is indeed, correct and astute to mention Martin Kitchen, who I first heard a year ago (after my disk was completed) and with whom with I believe I share a similar aesthetic (I have yet to hear his solo disk, though it's on the way) and Mats Gustfasson (specifically the album 'impropositions' which certainly left quite an impression on me) it goes way too far to say " I didn’t hear any particular reason for this disc to be out there" and "Too much a catalog of sounds a la early work by Mats Gustafsson or the recent release on Confront by Martin Kuchen." I have to wonder how closely Mr. Olewnick actually listened to the disk, if he simply put it on for a little while and lumped it into a certain type, correctly analyzing some similar references and leaving it just to that. While theses similarities do exist, my disk has some very different techniques and it's conception and compositional concept is remarkably different form that of Gustafsson. If Mr. Olewnick wants to hear more in the way of ideas" from me, then I want him to do more in the process of listening and assessing. Even he says "and maybe I’m just missing it." Hmm...very interesting.

Thanks for your comments, David.

First, let me assure you (to the extent I can) that I do indeed listen to anything I write about, including your disc, multiple times and very, very closely. As I'm sure you realize, just because one is generally inclined toward enjoying a particular genre or sub-genre of music, one doesn't at all necessarily enjoy everything one hears arising from it. There have been many solo releases, wind instrument and otherwise, which when all is said and done, I tend to hear as a kind of catalog of techniques. Now, this isn't always a bad thing--Braxton made half a career out of doing (explicitly, sometimes) just that and, at least for a long while, the results were superb.

But often, as with the Kuchen and Gustafsson recordings I referenced, I get something of a sense of remove from the project, something that fails to draw me in as a listener. Just as others may find Kuchen's disc fascinating, so might they find "things I found to be true". I can only offer my opinion. fwiw, generally speaking, my opinions are roughly shared by a good portion of other listeners who get around to a given disc so I don't think I'm (usually) entirely out of left field.

And sure, I always acknowledge, especially with work that's overtly experimental in character, that perhaps I'm simply not "getting it". It's happened before, it'll happen again. If it does, I'll have no problem coming back and saying so. I do keep these discs around after all, and always go back and re-listen at some point. But for the time being, these are my responses to the work.

Interesting to mention Impropositions. I'm way overdue to revisit that. I was blown away by some years back, but I recall a chat with Mats where I broached the topic and he summarily dismissed the work as crap he's moved past and no longer endorses. Go figure!

Haven't heard Dave's solo disc yet, but having seen a few solo performances in the past, I'd have to agree there's hardly any similarity in compositional aesthetic to anything by Gustafsson I've heard. What I felt set Dave's work apart was a sense of large-scale form that's rare in free improv. While many of the new EAI (a new term I just devised, a handy acronym for "extended acoustic improv" as in "extended techniques"*) artists emphasize the individual gestures, I found the opposite tendency in Dave's work. From that perspective, I've long held him in a different category than the familiar coterie of reed scientists.

*[insert preferred emoticon here]

[BrianO] Too much a catalog of sounds...but (and maybe I’m just missing it) I wanted to hear more in the way of ideas.

[Dave] If Mr. Olewnick wants to hear more in the way of ideas" from me, then I want him to do more in the process of listening and assessing.

[MikeP] On the matter of Dave's critique of Brian's review, I do think it's entirely fair and reasonable for a reviewer to just admit they may have missed the main content. It seems like an honest report of their experience, which is the best we can hope for in reviews.

But it's fascinating to ponder this matter of the burden the listener always has to complete the compositional process. I suspect that Brian and everyone else has no choice but to apply a certain aesthetic paradigm in their listening and no matter how many times a person listens to the same recording and works to appreciate it, ultimately the paradigm may not match and it's simply futile and reflects nothing about the validity of the listener's viewpoint. The exaggerated subjectivity of this area of music we're dealing with begets some fascinating dilemmas!

It's great to see this dialogue. Both Brian's and Dave's thoughts seem eminently reasonable to me.

Oops, I forgot to include the other point I had in reference to Brian's thougths on sounds vs. ideas. I tend to think that the sounds themselves are ideas. Because pitches are simply one of many parts of sounds, we could call Bach's music a "catalog of sounds" as well.

[BrianO] ...a kind of catalog of techniques. Now, this isn't always a bad thing--Braxton made half a career out of doing (explicitly, sometimes) just that and, at least for a long while, the results were superb.

[MikeP] I saw Braxton's solo gig in Manhattan a few years ago (three?) and boy oh boy oh boy oh boy was that ever way more than a "catalog of techniques"!!! I felt like I was watching an alchemist turn air into gold. (That gig got released by Paratactile.)

Yeah, I was thinking about David's contention that he used "very different techniques and it's conception and compositional concept is remarkably different form that of Gustafsson"

I have no doubt about the variance in techniques (though, not being a saxophonist, I couldn't pinpoint them, I guess) although, to the average listener, and more than a few educated ones, I'm not sure how apparent these differences are (much less where to match up Mats' 3,000 approaches with David's 3000). In any case, I didn't mean to place them side by side on a technical front, just to say that I found the discs conceptually similar in that I, by and large, heard them as "just" a catalog of techniques (I used other reed players for simplicity's sake--the same phenomenon, of course, is heard across the instrumental board). David objects to this, as is his right. I'd object if someone referred to one of my watercolors as "just" a painting of a stone.

If there are conceptual and/or compositional attacks that I'm missing, well, then I'm simply missing them. It's interesting that David implies (correct me if I'm wrong) that I *should* be able to get it. I'm not sure how true this is, even if in some absolute sense, he's right about his work. The fact that it's not clear to me may simply mean that my sphere of enjoyment in this arcane area falls outside of the parameters that David finds worthwhile. I find baseball infinitely fascinating; David might think that's ludicrous but feel the same about hockey, a notion I find laughable. That's OK, even if he's totally wrong. ;-)

Brian,

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

The world of "free improv" is an odd place because there seems to be so much emphasis on "newness" and "uniqueness" (things which I do feel are very important but) which can overcome the music itself. This can lead to a very competitive standard which has very little to do with "music" (whatever that is) often only compaing what what someone does and not how it is done aka how sounds are arranged into a composition (certainly something very important). Again, while Mr.Olewnick is making very erudite comparisons, I must say that I believe my album has a level of complexity and specificity that is absent from Gustafsson's and which make it a very different experience.

[MikeP] I saw Braxton's solo gig in Manhattan a few years ago (three?) and boy oh boy oh boy oh boy was that ever way more than a "catalog of techniques"!!! I felt like I was watching an alchemist turn air into gold. (That gig got released by Paratactile.)

Mike, was this the show at the Ethical Culture Center? If so, I was there too and found it almost entirely disappointing (except for a couple of the standards!) and very much in the rote-catalog recitation mode. So, there ya go! People hear different things.

oops!

it didn't seem to be working...

any way to erase those?

sorry!

David, I do consciously try not to get hung up on the "newness" aspect as I don't think that's an especially interesting criterion (although, granted, sometimes a work will contain a certain kind of "spark" that has newness as one of its elements). There have been plenty of solo reed discs/performances that have grabbed me in recent years and I think the attractiveness (to me) has been more in the character of the music itself and, in a word, the "musicality" that I hear. I'm thinking of things like Stephane Rives disc on potlatch or the many times I've caught John Butcher, whose (abstract) sense of song always strikes me strongly.

[Brian] Mike, was this the show at the Ethical Culture Center? If so, I was there too and found it almost entirely disappointing (except for a couple of the standards!) and very much in the rote-catalog recitation mode. So, there ya go! People hear different things.

[MikeP] Whoa! I can think of a slew of people I know who were there and were totally blown away! For me, I felt it was the biggest day of my life to finally see Braxton solo. We are both probably jaded because I've played his solo albums countless times, but I felt his playing was so deep in both sets! Well, there is the public recording to refer to for a second opinion thankfully!

Brax might be a good case in point for two listeners (I'm guessing) coming at things from two different directions. I'd heard him since '72 or so, been an enormous fan for that long, seen him perform 12-15 times, incuding solo on a few occasions. For me, "For Alto" remains a great, defining document with several of his other solo recordings of nearly as high a caliber. The one on Impetus, "Solo (London) 1985" iirc, is very much a "catalog" of attacks, quite explicitly so but, to my way of hearing, each "technical exercise" is much more, opening doors into sizeable sound-worlds. Gradually, however, I found his solo work (at least as represented on disc) becoming somewhat routine; not bad but lacking that "spark" I heard earlier. So I was coming into that show a few years ago curious but, admittedly, with something of lowered expectations. I recall thinking that, individually, the improvisations struck me as OK but that there wasn't a lot of differentiation between the pieces, regardless of specific technique employed, and that, on some level, Brax was just repeating himself, not really delving into the music like he used to.

You, on the other hand, not having heard him solo before, may have been hearing an entirely different show having (I presume) come in with different preconceptions and, maybe (at least because of what I'm assuming is the difference in our ages) a less history-laden point of view.

Time can be a bitch. I think it often makes up a sizeable part of the difference in opinions between people who, otherwise, love the same tiny sliver of a genre. I just accept it as a given that it'll be present and try not to make a big deal about it. I also, fwiw, consider it when reading other's reviews of music I may or may not be interested in, both from the point of view of a youngster raving over something I might find tiresomely routine and an old fart cynically dismissing something I might yet find lovely.

Heck, while I'm here with such a harcore Brax vet, I'd love to hear your pick for his best solo work, on disc or live. For me it's the 1979 set.

That time/age/experience sure is a biggie when it comes to the ever-looming and ever-glorious yet ever-sidelined subjectivity of all this!

Nothing really touches "For Alto" in my book. In fact, the piece that was originally Side Two on the vinyl holds up amazingly well with much current, quiet-side reed work. After that, the "Saxophone Improvisations, Series F" (recently reissued on disc, I think), "Live at Moers" on Japanese Ring (not sure how available it currently is) and that Impetus album are probably my favorites. The 2LP on Arista is OK, imho, with some real nice lyrical works (the one dedicated to his son especially, iirc) but I think lacks the fire of those earlier sides.

In any case, definitely pick up "For Alto" and, while listening, understand that it's a 23-year old attempting something absolutely unprecedented at the time, two records worth of solo improvisations on sax.

Live--probably a concert at Environ in late 1976, highlighted when someone's dog wandered across the stage and sat at AB's feet, looking up. Brax looked down, nodded and continued.

Yeah, for me it's kind of a toss-up between For Alto and 1979, but I think I've found the latter in higher rotation because it has more of that fluid, lyrical jazz sound he was ripping with in the mid-70s. I'm pretty sure I've never heard that Live at Moers, but I think I need to! Thanks! The eternal dilemmas of a Braxton discophile...

So nice to read a discussion of Braxton! I agree that 'For Alto' is an absolute monster of an album. It is a giant landmark in the world of improvised music that still sounds fresh today, nearly 40 years after it was recorded.

As for the rest of the discussion, obviously I respect Brian's p.o.v. that "something... fails to draw me in as a listener" and it is very interesting when we think about how someone's appreciation of music is shaped by their experience in history (aka their generation/age). I think we would all like to believe we can change and grow to the degree that we can see beyond (not be 'trapped' by) our own specific historical context and meaningful 'aha' moments but I'm wondering how much that's really possible. I mean, I gotta say that John Butcher drives me crazy. I've listened to his music over the past 6-7 years, and listened to 'fixations' within the last month. What I hear is a guy with great technique simply going from idea to idea (steam-of-

consciousness) in a rather casual way that it seems the form/composition is not so important. Still, when I read Brian's writing of John Butcher as having a "sense of song" I have to wonder 'am I simply listening to this wrong?' I've definitely had experiences where I've realized later that my expectation distorted my experience. I remember going to a reading by the poet Rodney Jones, expecting something abstract and being a bit put off when it wasn't that. When I read the poems later having reframed where he was coming from, I enjoyed the poems much more. But, maybe he's not very good when reading his poems or maybe I'm not good at listening to poetry! Still, I think it really boils down to what my expectation was.
For me composition is paramount. I believe a musician can play anything (any sounds) and can be interesting as long as the music is arranged in a way that is compelling. Conversely, a musican might play great things but if the sounds are not arranged in a way that is compelling then the music probably will come off as not very successful. Certainly what we find compelling is very subjective and our personal histories have a very large roll in framing our understandings and interpretations of what we encounter. Still, however, it is not everything. Do we hear the same music when we go to the same concert? Yes. But the difference is that we interpret the sounds based on our experiences which are bound to be quite different. I don't think this means there isn't a certain level of quality that is real, it's just quite complex.
I also want to say that Brian was wondering if I had a "a less history-laden point of view." I come from a jazz background and have studied the history of jazz quite extensively (and am all too aware that I could do much more) and am aware of many other musics as well. Another recording that fascinated me for a long time is Bernhard Gunter's 'un peu de neige salle'. That could account for the 'sense of remove' that you are commenting on, Brian. I'm definitely very interested in the "objective" (whatever that means) idea of making music that is not so "emotional" ala musique concrete and I'm not concerned at all with making "songs" in any traditional sense. Ideally, I want to make music that is, for the listeners, of simply hearing the sounds and feeling the sounds in their ears for that specific sensual experience. I'm aware that it this is not truly possible but as much as I can, I do not want the music to be an analogy for something else (aka "about" something) but to be a phenomenological experience. Ideally, I want the sounds to simply be sounds, not having other "meanings".

Thanks again for you comments, David.

Just for clarification's sake my "a less history-laden point of view" comment was aimed at Michael, and not with any kind of pejorative sense, simply as a descriptor of our age difference (what I'm guessing it is, anyway--I'm 50) and what that implies as to how much "baggage" we carry around--I carry far more, I imagine!

My Butcherian song sense came largely from a live performance at Tonic 3-4 years ago where several of the pieces, abstract though they were, seemed almost perfectly formulated from an art-song point of view and perceiveable as such in the moment. A remarkable show. I've heard him touch on this from time to time since then (including in Brooklyn this past spring) though not as purely, to my ears, as that Tonic concert.

The "sense of remove" is, for me, a very complicated subject. Sometimes I hear it and think it absolutely appropriate; other times it crosses that vague line from "remove" to "disinterest". As always, next to impossible to explain.

Baggage, oh no!

Thanks, Brian.

David Gross: “What I hear is a guy with great technique simply going from idea to idea (steam [sic]-of-consciousness) in a rather casual way that it seems the form/composition is not so important”

A question: when improvising, how far ahead is a musician planning? When a musician begins, is she already imagining how the piece will progress to its conclusion as she plays? Or is she looking only seconds ahead, making decisions on a moment-to-moment basis? (Not that it matters, but) is the former type of improvisation truly “free”? Perhaps the difference between AMM “landscapes” and SME “tiny events”?

I have seen John Butcher play solo twice, and my impression has always been that he is very concerned with form. However, this impression may have been the result of my own pre-conceptions based on reading several interviews with Butcher wherein he describes his solo performance technique as being very compositional.

Flashing red lights and buzzers! William, when you say "very concerned with form" I suspect you're perpuating an objectionable semantic narrowing of "form" to some specific kinds of form. As it were, a lack of form is impossible for all practical purposes, so it's really only meaningful to talk about which form is present. Everybody is concerned with form, just different types. (In my recent blog entry I suggested a taxonomic quartet of moment form, narrative form, drone form, and ritual form, though I'm not ready to claim it's an exhaustive categorization.)

Very probing thought about AMM vs SME... Hope to hear more of your thoughts as they form... I'd count both as moment form and put the difference down to individual languages of the specific musicians, particular preferences certain meters, rhythms, tempos, etc. That said, SME does alternate into narrative form as well as a secondary disposition.

By the way—nothing personal here, just a convenient opportunity to make a point I often want to make—it's rather stilted to impose gendered lexical items like "she" or "he" or "she or he" or "he or she" when for at least a few decades the third person singular unbound pronoun for gender-unspecified reference in English has been "they". If you replaced those "she"s with "they"s, it would sound like real English to me, not Prescriptive Fantasy World Written Language Variations on English. Again, not directed at you William, just a point I feel should be made forcefully and this is a handy example. I noticed it in BrianO's review the other day and meant to send a private note to banter on it, but heck, not having done so, it's such a common and mass-culturally licensed mannerism that a public note isn't really in poor taste that I can tell. Whenever I see that it just cracks me up because it's so transparently... [snip, because I'm trying to avoid couching this a personal insult or something... To me it's a black-and-white matter of scientific fact, so nothing personal intended! I beg everyone to spare the "you arrogant jerk" tangents.] Of course, ultimately, people are free to adopt whatever literary mannerisms they like under the "written language" banner, but I'll keep cringing as a fan of real language...

Also, speaking of Butcher interviews, there's a really incredible one on Paris Transatlantic by Dan if memory serves me correctly, probably among those you had in mind. I think I linked from his EFI page. It reveals Butcher as one of the most articulate and insightful conceptualizers for improv, really outstanding reading. That said, his specific ideas about composition vs improv don't make sense to me, but I'm not up to the task of tackling that one right now. It would take too many hours and pages... Fortunately his musical results make thrilling sense to me at least 90% of the time!

That's "perpetuate" in the above post, sorry! It's generally a waste of effort to mention typos, but I just don't want anyone to think I meant "perpetrate", although, rudeness aside, it would be passable!

http://www.paristransatlantic.com/magazine/interviews/butcher.html
Sorry, Adam.

To come back to Braxton for a moment . . . his 'Composition 113' (Sound Aspects) is rather splendid. Certainly, it's the best example of his work on sopranino sax that I know of. Whether it's still available, however . . .

"form" (in a compositional sense) kind of "happens" if it's a good gig, doesn't it? Players play, and decide when to stop - it's opportune and unguaranteed, and listeners' ears impose form both moment-to-moment and retrospectively.

But I'm not sure how useful it is to imply that everything has a form simply because sounds start and sooner or later stop. That kind of blanket smothers some of the finer distinctions between, say, hearing solo improvisation and hearing group improvisation. In solo improv - if not inherently than at least in practice - there's a greater degree of control over the proceedings. There's a clarity of both sound and idea with solo improv that insinuates composition/form.
(Am thinking of a recent solo set by the trumpeter Matt Davis and also a John Butcher solo set last year at St Cyprian's church)

I meant to mention "Composition 113" earlier--a great piece and, I agree, a wonderful sopranino showcase. Somehow, though, I always think of it more in a compositional than improvisational sense, though that's patently ridiculous. Was it his earliest recorded piece that used recognizable images in the titles? Maybe that throws me off for some reason.

[Matt] But I'm not sure how useful it is to imply that everything has a form simply because sounds start and sooner or later stop.

[MikeP] I definitely didn't imply all music has a form; I made the claim directly. And the reason has nothing to do with the fact sounds start and eventually stop. Theoretically, using a computer, you could generate formless passages of sound (avoiding the word "music" for that case) and the sounds would necessarily start and stop just as much as in any music we could cite, because if they were all continuous it would be a trivial type of form related to drone form.

[Matt] That kind of blanket smothers some of the finer distinctions between, say, hearing solo improvisation and hearing group improvisation.

[MikeP] While there certainly fine distinctions between solo and group improv, the burden of accounting for these distinctions simply doesn't fall to [+/- form].

[Matt] There's a clarity of both sound and idea with solo improv that insinuates composition/form.

[MikeP] Why "insinuates"? I'd imagine the connection is a bit more direct. Why not "is"? I think the distinction you're reporting is the simplicity of form, the ease with which it can be perceived. It's counterproductive to express this in terms of binary oppositions like [+/- form] or [+/- composition]; it amounts to analytical forfeit.

Also, you or anyone else probably would agree with this, but it's worth emphasizing that form and composition are very distinct phenomena. While "composition/form" is not inherently conflationary, neither is it lucid.

William asks "when improvising, how far ahead is a musician planning? When a musician begins, is she already imagining how the piece will progress to its conclusion as she plays? Or is she looking only seconds ahead, making decisions on a moment-to-moment basis?"

Any musician will probably answer this question differently but probably it's some combination of all of the above. In my own playing there was a period when I was very concerned with shaping how the piece was going to end and eventually I felt this was limiting me by being so "goal" oriented. Later I had an MO of thwarting my own expectations which also eventually felt like it had also become a limitation. Now, I feel if I'm playing well I don't have to think about any of these processes I just let the music "reveal itself." Not that it happens all that often but when it does that seems to be when I'm playing my best. Still, the experiences of playing, using those ideas, are part of what I do now, I just don't consciously think about them. Also, I don't think I change how I think about what I'm doing all that much when I'm playing with other people, perhaps in a louder/electronic setting I would but if I'm playing with 3 or 4 other people playing acoustic instruments, I don't think my strategy would be all that different than when I play solo (except to be more aware of using space).
As for Butcher, all I'm saying is that it sounds to me that the composition is made in a 'stream-of-consciousness'' way which is not usually compelling to me.

"If you replaced those "she"s with "they"s, it would sound like real English to me"

You cannot say "a musician" and then refer back to that in the same sentence with the pronoun "they." It requires a "he" or a "she" or an even more awkward "he/she." The use of "she" rather than the more standard "he" is a cute thing a lot of people do to suggest that the default gendering of a hypothetical person as masculine is just as arbitrary as using the feminine. It's not a heavy political point, and is really inconsequential to the rest of my post. I am sorry if this bothers you, Michael. I will avoid it when posting here in the future.

Also: In David Gross' post where he described John Butcher's style as being "stream-of-consciousness," I thought it was clear that he believed Butcher to be unconcerned with form-- not that he didn't have it. (Every performance has a "form" of some kind or another). Plus: I used the word "form" because that is the word the David used in the post above mine.

And finally: thank you David for actually responding to my post in the way I had hoped everyone would. Very insightful.

[William] You cannot say "a musician" and then refer back to that in the same sentence with the pronoun "they."

[MikeP] That's basic standard English and people do it all the time. The third person singular unbound (and bound too of course) pronoun for gender-unspecified reference in English is "they". Ask any linguist and they'll verify this, but you don't need to go to that trouble. As a native speaker, you can extract data from yourself to prove it.

[William] It requires a "he" or a "she" or an even more awkward "he/she."

[MikeP] "he/she" and "she/she" are simply not Engish words. Not only is "he" or "she" not required, but these words are at the very border of grammaticality in this usage. It requires an extremely awkward shift in pragmatics; to be grammatical, we have to actually assume all the musicians the statement applies to are in fact of that gender. Because people don't really assume that, the usage is in fact ungrammatical in most cases. The only reason it's used is because people are conditioned to adopt artificial habits in some written language contexts and lack conscious knowledge of the linguistic fact of the singular version of "they".

[William] The use of "she" rather than the more standard "he" is a cute thing a lot of people do to suggest that the default gendering of a hypothetical person as masculine is just as arbitrary as using the feminine. It's not a heavy political point, and is really inconsequential to the rest of my post.

[MikeP] You'll note I wasn't addressing "she" vs "he" at all. My point applies equally to both and if someone if going to use "he" or "she" that way, I think they are doing a sensible thing by choosing "she". However, this political issue is not at all what I'm interested in or referring to.

[William] I am sorry if this bothers you, Michael. I will avoid it when posting here in the future.

[MikeP] That is a very kind gesture, but actually I would be bothered if anyone changed their habits just to suit another person like that. If you switch to normal English and use "they" in the future, I would hope it's because you personally believe it's correct, not because you wish to accomodate someone. If you feel it's justified as a literary quirk, I'd hope you'd continue to use it unhesitatingly.

William, you are a gracious intellectual and a blessing to Bagatellen; I can only hope my remarks in this exchange are taken in the impersonal way they're intended.

No worries. Perhaps I'm too fresh out of college-- as you said, I've adopted the use of "he/she" after having had my hand slapped too many times by various rhetoric professors.

The advice of rhetoric professors is best applied only to text graded by rhetoric professors. For facts about language instead of fancies, a linguistics professor or your own native speaker judgements are a better bet.

Adam Hill said: "I still tend to prefer the drone music one finds on the Kranky label, especially Stars of the Lid, Pan American, and the first record by Growing. And also Keith Fullerton Whitman, who btw, recorded some of the Murray record. Maybe because that stuff is more melodically oriented?"

Hey I know this is way off thread, but thanks for checking out the record, Adam. Kranky's releases have always been a huge benchmark for me, but yes there is a conscious rejection of "melodies" at work on "Resting Places". The stuff I am working on now is a bit more dreamy...though it likely won't see the light of day for some time. Next up is the "Wonders Never Cease" cd for Intransitive, which has moments of being an all-out noise record with long stretches of huge stacked drones in between...er, I think.

re: Keith's recording....Keith was the in-house archivist for the Intransitive festival last summer, spending the better part of three days recording all the acts. He handed off a cdr of my set a couple of weeks later and excerpts appear on "Tomb" and the aformentioned Intransitive release.

Alright, y'all play nice.

Brendan Murray

Good of you to weigh in, Brendan.
Thanks for the further info.
You've made a record that's deservedly gotten a lot of good attention here and other places.

Incidentally, re: "they" & "he/she" & so forth: these pages are useful:

http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html
http://www.mals.duke.edu/Gender.pdf

My opinion is that (1) the singular use of "they" is just fine, especially since to avoid it often requires considerable contortion; (2) however, it is problematic because acceptance of it then gets you into a jam with "-self" forms: are we willing to accept the word "themself"? To my ear it sounds awful. So you're still stuck with recasting the entire sentence into the plural in such cases. (3) I think the awkwardness of "he/she" is overrated & in cases where I want to be perfectly clear will sometimes use it, though it's generally to be avoided--I hate peppering texts with indecisive slashes.

Anyway, none of this is terribly relevant to the musical discussion here but never mind. I'm inclined to feel that this is a matter of personal style rather than grammar, & if the author holds to one style with enough conviction I'm happy to go along with it for the duration. John Cage's Silence mixes up the use of the pronouns "one" & "him/his" consistently, for instance, & you just get used to it. E. Nesbit uses "it" to mean "he or she" & though it's jarring at first you just get used to it too.

Nate, thanks for the links. I learned a lot from the first one, though it had some inaccuracies and misconceptualizations, also failing to grasp the crucial bound/free distinction. Obviously Bags is not the proper forum to elaborate on the topic, so I'll limit myself to that one sentence. The second link was nominally useful, but quite sad in its failure to simply accept linguistic reality instead of fighting it.

I find "themself" to be totally acceptable, no awkwardness. However, I think "themselves" is equally acceptable in the singular case, reflecting the true nature of language as a set of parallel and possibly conflicting processes. The reflexive form is just so darn rare that people probably don't have enough experience to really implement one or the other with a sense of habitual comfort. Avoiding "themself"/"themselves" by using plurals seems like an artifical and unnecessary constraint.

As far as the awkwardness of "he/she", well, I wouldn't agree it's overrated. It's simply not an English word at all! Can't get much more awkward than using non-words.

One man's perspective: start a grammar thread already, MAP. I came here curious about the subject at the head of this tedious digression, the music under review. (A fleshing out of Brian's enthusiasm on another site for Murray's recording-one I want to hear).

It's always a pleasure, sometimes a bracing one, when the musician under discussion swoops in to participate. Measure your words on Bags. You may be asked to account for them!

MR. MAP,
Why should grammar matter
When clarity and concision are
All a-tatter
In your blather?

Ok, folks. So I am now listening to Martin Kutchen's solo disk to which Brian makes refference in his review of my disk. I've got to say that Brian is crazy! (Sorry, dude. No offence intended) Martin's disk is absolutely great (seriously) and while there seem to be some shared intentions between he and I about playing the saxophone in a certain way, his recording doesn't actually sound anything like my disk! Plus my disk was recorded before Martin's (so I'm sure he was just stealing my ideas via morphic resonance). HA! You know that's what it has to be, right?!

Actually, I take it back now that I've gotten to the end of Martin's CD. I must admit a strong similarity between track 15 of his disk and elements of my playing. I'm ruined...

Similarities yes but not the end of the world, David! If we're going to talk similarities I owe Polly Bradfield a few pints..!

Hey, David, no offense taken. I've never quite understood how the fact that different people like (or hear) different things becomes such a big deal. For me (just to choose two solo soprano discs), I derive far more pleasure from Stephane Rives' "Fibres" than the Kuchen disc. You may feel the opposite. Either way, the world doesn't end.

While we're (still) on the subject of solo sax, what did you all make of Brian Morton's Primer on the subject in last month's Wire? The absence of Lol Coxhill has already been commented on, of course. I was bemused by his choice of Butcher's "London & Cologne" (as opposed to "Fixations" or "Invisible Ear"), Gianni Gebbia's "Body Limits" (nice, sure, but hardly indispensable) and especially Bill Dixon's "Solo Works" (the only solo trumpet disc mentioned at all, which is, to my mind, inexcusable - where's Axel Dörner's "Trumpet"? Greg Kelley's "Trumpet"? Maybe it's too early to nominate Nate Wooley's new Creative Sources "Wrong Shape To Be A Storyteller" but I'll do so anyway, cos it's WILD).
It all goes to show, I suppose, that Brian Morton (whose writing I admire enormously, certainly far more than he enjoys my fiddling :-)) is still coming at this from a Jazz direction. Doneda deserved his place, sure, but I would have liked to see Jack Wright's "Places To Go", Scott Rosenberg's "V", Stephane Rives' "Fibres" in there too. Returning to Bill Dixon, I'm still waiting for someone to explain the fanatical devotion the man seems to inspire among his students. No doubt a fine teacher, but I remain singularly unimpressed by his trumpet playing. Where am I going wrong? Show us the way, Clifford :)

Hey, Dan--

Agreed that Morton is bouncing off the jazz rails both right and left in his WIRE round-up. Ditto his omission of Butcher's Invisible Ear -- one of the most listenable of all the recent 'ground-breaking' solo excursions of recent years. Plus his selection of Roscoe Mitchell material I find faulty; where's Nonaah or S2 Examples?

Bill Dixon is a hard case to crack, I admit. I am impressed by his playing, but find that after one CD of it, much less six, I feel as if his music hasn't taken me anywhere. Technically he's amazing, in a way that isn't obvious (contrastingly, Dörner's technique seems always front and center). I detect an analogue of the 'sheets of sound' approach of Coltrane in his technique -- he's playing runs and scales so fast, they blur together. It ends up not sounding like Coltrane at all, of course. And he has a way of stringing together a huge range of sounds into intricately detailed 'sound phrases' that I find positively death-defying in their daring -- like a crazed Harry James on speed-laced acid (if you dare imagine such a thing). But, emotionally, I just don't connect. And as for longer-form structure, I admit to being mystified by what he's up to. But I have to confess, Leo Smith does the same thing to me. Whatever they're doing, it's cool, but frankly, it's way out there. More power to them!

Then there's the whole 'reverb' problem that Dixon poses. Why does he indulge in this tacky adornment so often, so indiscriminately? Is it some kind of addiction to the helping hand reverb lends to one's intonation? Or perhaps a lingering strain of romanticism (or drug esthetics)?

I had a conversation with one of his students recently, Andrew Raffo Dewar, whose master's thesis is on Bill Dixon and may possibly be accessed through the Wesleyan library system... maybe Mike Parker can contact him and induce him to comment here?

I just stumbled on this thread, and wanted to add a few (long-winded, unfortunately) things:

1> A perhaps obvious note, unrelated to this thread, but something I've wanted to say for a while : this is a wonderful (and to my mind, close to ideal) format for music criticism -- it allows a multi-voiced, fluid dialogue, not just "fixed pronouncements" from the pen -- thank you, whoever put this together.

2> Before I get into this, just want to say I think the above review is fair, and the writer seems to balance their personal experience while also giving a reader some options quite reasonably -- though the follow-up stuff is the real meat, which reinforces my 1> point.

I understand the reasons (and temptations) for reviewers to compare one thing to another thing -- it gives the "in-the-know" reader a frame of reference, etc. but it can also create a damaging, potentially false relationship. A simple example: As David Gross mentioned, his disc was recorded before Martin Küchen's, so although it may share some things, "archeaologically" it's in a different layer, if you know what I mean...The way the comparison is phrased in the review, it makes Gross sound like a "copycat" (not so harsh as that, mind you, but...) of Küchen, even though that is "impossible". The broader question is how we as music-makers and music-listeners write "history" -- too often it is based on recorded evidence, when that doesn't tell the whole story, it's just what is preserved as a fossil -- clearly there were many other animals from the past that didn't make it to that stage. (please excuse the extended analogy) For a personal example (I am mostly a soprano saxophonist), I was using small sounds and blowing wind through my horn (a sonic region I don't relegate myself to, but which I love exploring) "lowercase-style" in the mid 90s in new orleans and then later working on that stuff in a solo context and with Indonesian experimentalists for two years in SE Asia ('98-'00), long before I heard of Bhob's work and the whole scene that is now the zeitgeist -- but when I moved to the Bay Area, people said, "oh, you must love Bhob Rainey's music, and polwechsel, and..." and I was like, "Bhob who?" I love that music now, but was ignorant of it, and ended up "re-inventing the wheel" in a way -- though Michel Doneda's '90s work was my main reference point, and that is definitely a recent watershed for this approach, imo. What I'm trying to say through this (fuckin long-winded) illustration is that if/when I release a recorded document, I will no doubt be seen as a "newcomer" and will be compared to people like Rivés and Gross, Rainey and so on...etc. Which is totally fine -- yes, there are shared qualities/interests, but the way history is written through music criticism is mostly from physical evidence -- it's a problem, I think. (btw, I'm not claiming to be some kind of genius inventor -- all these things are as old as time itself) The challenge being, of course, how to talk about music without saying "it sounds like..."

(hmm, maybe I should call my 1st solo record that, to head this off at the pass...)

3> re: Bill Dixon. I've spent a good amount of time with Mr. Dixon in the last few years, and though I can't "convert" someone to liking his work, I can say that one of his goals with his playing is to use the horn like an orchestra -- so one thing worth trying while listening to his music is imagining the horn as an orchestra -- see where that gets you. (come on, "Papyrus Vol.2"?!!? that's got to give you something, no?!)

Whoa, trippy. Tom D., we are somehow psychically connected -- you must have posted your thing just before I did...that's bizarre.

Hi Andrew, thanks for you comments. Just wanted to say, fwiw, that I had no notion of which of the discs, Kuchen's or Gross', was recorded first and their chronology never entered my mind. That aspect of "newness" means nothing to me; I really don't care who did what first, just whether of not I find the results enjoyable. As you implied, though, it's often helpful to give the reader reference points even if the fit is, inevitably, inexact. I wrote up the Kuchen disc here several months back and, iirc, there was some discussion of its merits so I figured it was a logical one to bring up.

Keep posting!

Yeah, I don't mean to put myself in the "evolutionary" camp (contrary to my extended archeology analogy) but just that it is one lens with which to see things -- there are many others (like McNeill, who wrote world history from the point of view of viruses and plagues...) that don't imply a "rivers and streams" sense of time. (i.e. time as a pond, etc) It's the whole battle among historians who believe in the "Great Story" (as a fixed, ultimate truth of what happened) or those who have a more splintered view of things. Somewhere among all those views is an approximation of what happened.

I do think it's important to consider how writers are representing "history" though, because it will become history -- just ask any jazz researcher -- they pore over reviews...

"Tom D., we are somehow psychically connected -- you must have posted your thing just before I did...that's bizarre."

It's that duo we didn't get around to in Philly... td

Just to be clear, my above comments weren't meant to be sarcastic in any way. More just silly and trying approach the issue of a reviews in general in absurd way. Brian has certainly revealed a great humility throughout this discussion and I just wanted to mention that I find it a bit sad that more than a few music fans and critics get so much out of being harsh and judgmental (so that they can be superior). Anyway,what I'm saying is that recordings will always be 'postcards' but when we (each in our own personal history at a particular time) hear them it does orient each of us as listener in a particular way, making the issue of historical placement/objectivity still more complex. I'm not saying that reviews have no place it music. It is interesting, however, what it would 'mean' if Brian's review was in a different place where no other comments could be made. I do like Brian's comment about "finding the results enjoyable." Yes! Thanks, Brian (even if you don't find my disk all that stimulating!). Similar to the above, too often it seems to me that reviews are all about the reviewer and how clever he/she (ha!) is. On the other side of that too is that as for musicians, there certainly is something to how we "sell ourselves" (which is unavoidable and only exists by degrees) which does create a certain 'historical placement' and this 'non objective history selling' is just another part of the picture.

David, I have to say that rather than "harsh and judgmental" I find that most reviewers bend over backwards to find something positive to say about the CDs they've been asked to review. In fact, I would say there's rather too much 'soft' reviewing going on, something that helps neither the musicians nor the listening/purchasing public. Maybe you've had a few bad experiences with egocentric or even egomaniacal reviewers, but I know a number of people who review regularly, all of whom take a strictly ethical approach to the work of others.

Oh, and can I say that some of the earlier comments on Bill Dixon by Tom Djll and Andrew Raffo Dewar are illuminating – many thanks, guys. For years I've enjoyed Dixon's music without understanding a damn thing about how he approaches and makes his music, and now I'm just that little bit clearer.

Brian, yes, actually I agree with you. What you say I believe to be true. (Hmm..) I think there can be such adesire for people to say 'hey check this out' because they want to open listeners up to this kind of music and there are people "reviewing" disks by their firends...

Every now and again, in a munchkin scene such as this, critics are bound to be asked to review CDs their friends have made. But surely the rule is: be scrupulous – don’t exaggerate the qualities or the importance of the music/musicians, don’t make false claims, don’t praise unless praise is warranted. Needless to say, knowing the players personally can better help a critic to understand how and why the music has been made, and if something of that insight is communicated in the review, that’s all to the good.

I think if a critic reviews the work of a friend they(!) should include a caveat. While critics aren't journalists proper, they are often considered such by most people, and should hold themselves to ethical standards. I was pissed the hell off when I found out about some journalists' relationships with the players they review, in large part because it was such a surprise.

In which case, some reviewers (no names mentioned) would be caveating like mad.

Well, Red, I'd better slap a bloody great caveat all over my website! We do, though, move in a relatively small world, and most people who know my writing (criticism or journalism? I'd be curious to know how you define the difference.. I rather prefer the term "popular musicology" with all its attendant contradictory implications) are probably familiar with the fact that I play and compose myself. Your comments also raise the intriguing question as to what constitutes a "friend".. is that someone I've actually met, or just an email contact, albeit often a very friendly one? Many of the folks out there who I'd probably consider friends (including many fellow writers at PT, Bags and The Wire, plus a whole shitload of musicians) have never laid eyes on me (no great loss..). But email can create strong bonds: when I finally met Radu Malfatti after about six months of intensive email exchanges, it was as if we'd known each other for years.
I won't deny that I often try to review the work of these friends (more so than that of my regular playing partners - Edward Perraud, Jean Luc Guionnet, Bruno Meillier, et al, who I feel I can't be sufficiently objective about), because for some strange reason people still believe that a review in one of the recognised publications makes some quantifiable difference in terms of getting work and/or selling albums. Whereas it's been my own experience that reviews, though very nice to read (if they're complimentary that is - ha!) in the press book or in someone's copy of The Wire or Signal To Noise, haven't exactly had people banging down my door to offer me a gig. Hardly surprising though considering some of the weird shit I turn out. Anyway, what's a critic and what's a journalist?

I think that a good rule of thumb is: if a review appears it is extremely likely that there is some kind of personal contact between the reviewer & musician or label, sometimes quite extensive. If that bugs you, don't read reviews.

(hit "post" too soon: had meant to say "personal contact, often an established working relationship")

No humor or irony intended, I'm sure, Dan, when one asks on Bagatellen, "What is a friend?" It is indeed a complex problem for writers who also participate in the onstage merriment.

When I started reviewing a few years ago, I wanted to make my "beat" the Bay Area. (As readers on Bagz may have noticed, I tend to carp about how little attention the Bay Area gets in the improv-music press, such as it is.) But I didn't think the strategy through. I would locally friends and non-friends and visiting stars for our local publication (The Transbay Calendar, now pretty much defunct except online), but was not able to find a comfort zone when doing so for the Wires and Signals, etc. After a few mistakes, I soon was not writing about anybody in the Bay Area except Rova, a Braxton visit, etc.

The problem as I see it is that there are very few people who understand the music who are willing and able to write about it in such a way that any 'lay person' will actually read it and get something out of it (while not condescending to the musicians). And even fewer who do write who are willing to quit playing, because it's heckalot more fun than writing.

But we're not talking payola schemes here, people. There's no money for anybody in this music or the pubs that cover it, so who the hell cares if writers and musicians are friends? Wouldn't *you* consider someone who collected your work with enthusiasm, sought out your opinions, plied you with beers, gave you a ride from the airport, put you up for the night, a friend?

What Red seems to be assuming - forgive me if I'm mistaken about this - is that because the musician whose CD is being reviewed knows the person who's reviewing it, the review is bound to be contaminated. But as I indicated earlier, that needn't, in fact shouldn't, be so. The reviewer has merely to be circumspect.

And as for Tom's comment --

"Wouldn't *you* consider someone who collected your work with enthusiasm, sought out your opinions, plied you with beers, gave you a ride from the airport, put you up for the night, a friend?"

-- that's not a friend, that's someone who ought to be offered a proposal of marriage!

FWIW, I completely agree with Red, and I don't think "attempts to be circumspect" are any more successful in overcoming the results of conflicts of interest here than they are in any other area. I see no problem with disclosure, even if one has to do it a lot. I admit that there are grey areas, and it may not always be clear when disclosure is necessary, but it's often obvious, and IMHO, consumers aren't provided with this info nearly enough. This view that one can rise above sounds to me like something to which an insider trading defendant might have recourse on cross.

because for some strange reason people still believe that a review in one of the recognised publications makes some quantifiable difference in terms of getting work and/or selling albums.

Dan, you may be interested in hearing that friend and occasional bag poster Gokhan is just completing a Ph.D. dissertation in which he finds considerable empirical support for this very phenomenon. It's not only qualtifiable, he's quantified it!

I'd love to know what methodology Gokhan employed.

For what it's worth, Clive Graham (of group Morphogenesis and label Paradigm) told me that only a stinker of a review stirs up interest and results in above-expectation sales of the dunned CD.

What Nate says above (I've conflated his comment with his immediate correction) --

"if a review appears it is extremely likely that there is some kind of personal contact, often an established working relationship, between the reviewer & musician or label"

-- is, I think, largely correct. But even if there is a link of some kind between the reviewer and the artist or label, and even if only bad reviews lead to a greater number of CDs being sold, that doesn't by any means absolve the reviewer of responsibility; circumspection is still a must.

thanks walto.

It's like labeling food; why show us the ingredients? Hard to trust someone to be "circumspect" who can't even understand the concept of a simple caveat to readers when proferring opinions colored by friendship (and since objectivity can't possibly exist in music criticism, there's no way they could remain uncolored).

Man, by that logic is it ethical to review your own fucking records under assumed names? "But I was being suitably circumspect!"

uh huh.

"if a review appears it is extremely likely that there is some kind of personal contact, often an established working relationship, between the reviewer & musician or label"

Maybe that's true for some reviewers, it was certainly not my experience. As/if I became friendly with anybody I was reviewing, I tried to mention that fact in the review.

I'm curious what the basis for the "extremely likely" assertion here. In my own case, I probably reviewed for Cadence for 3 or 4 years before I'd ever had personal contact with anybody on whom I'd written reviews (excepting, of course, those reviewees who felt the necessity to either kvell or kvetch about the review in question).

When were you doing it exactly, Walter? I think the relationship has changed since the internet & websites really took off, where it's extremely easy to contact someone & start up a correspondence.

"Man, by that logic is it ethical to review your own fucking records under assumed names?"

The simple answer: it isn't! And nobody is suggesting that it is.

So who are these shady characters who review their own music under an assumed name? Name some names, Red.

my experience:

1) as Dan said, I don't think reviews have much if any impact on sales, at least not in the world I'm working in. the exception is the occasional Pitchfork review (Basinski, the IMJ box), but when Ersts have been reviewed there (or in the NY Times, as another example), I've seen almost no discernible impact. the problem is if you use distributors and don't sell 100 percent of your stuff direct, it's hard to know exactly what is and what isn't affecting sales, and even then it's not so clearcut.

2) conflict of interest. I used to be a journalist, a reporter for Time Magazine, so I'm very familiar with traditional standards of conflict of interest. I think, for me, they're pretty meaningless in this world. as Brian alluded to, the closer you are to someone, the more likely you are to have an interesting perspective on what they're trying to do. Brian works with Mark Wastell at sound 323, but I'd far rather read his reviews of Mark's work than almost anyone else's, because he knows what Mark is trying to do, in general and on a specific project.

I'm a big fan of the IMJ magazine approach to this, in which Suzuki intentionally asks people really close to a project to write about it. thus Otomo writes about the LMC festival that he himself co-curated in London, Yuko Zama (then my fiancee, now my wife) writes about the 2004 German AMPLIFY festival I put on, etc. this doesn't mean they're not critical, sometimes they're even more so. I'd personally rather read this kind of thing from a consumer standpoint, than 95 percent of feedback from people who are trying to process things on their own, most of whom end up largely missing the point.

on the flip side, that's exactly what Ed Pinsent does with his Sound Projector magazine, and I quite enjoy his approach also, I'd recommend that highly if you're looking for reviews from someone "uncontaminated" by ever actually talking to a musician in person (seemingly).

Red: "Hard to trust someone to be "circumspect" who can't even understand the concept of a simple caveat to readers when proferring opinions colored by friendship (and since objectivity can't possibly exist in music criticism, there's no way they could remain uncolored)."

Well, I guess I'll never gain your trust, Red, since you seem to think that a truthful review is impossible to achieve.

What do you suggest? Caveat: I once had a cup of coffee with Toshi Nakumara and it has coloured my feelings about his music ever since.

"So who are these shady characters who review their own music under an assumed name? Name some names, Red."

Don't be ridiculous, I was using marginal logic to emphasize my point by exaggeration, duh.

"I'm a big fan of the IMJ magazine approach to this, in which Suzuki intentionally asks people really close to a project to write about it. thus Otomo writes about the LMC festival that he himself co-curated in London, Yuko Zama (then my fiancee, now my wife) writes about the 2004 German AMPLIFY festival I put on, etc. this doesn't mean they're not critical, sometimes they're even more so."

I haven't seen IMJ magazine much, but I seem to recall that the bylines would usually say that stuff, like, "the curator of the festival shares his thoughts on it" or whatever. Either way, I'm not saying reviews of friends' work are bullshit, I'm just expressing my alarm that it isn't common practice to add a brief note when the relationship is close. And I'm sure your wife can be plenty critical.

"I'd personally rather read this kind of thing from a consumer standpoint, than 95 percent of feedback from people who are trying to process things on their own, most of whom end up largely missing the point."

Then it seems like you'd also rather see the caveat, since it would point you in the direction of stuff you prefer to read. Presto. We agree.

Not hard to add a note, why not do it? What's the danger in a caveat? Why are people so bent about a little disclosure?

"So who are these shady characters who review their own music under an assumed name? Name some names, Red."

Don't be ridiculous, I was using marginal logic to emphasize my point by exaggeration, duh.

"I'm a big fan of the IMJ magazine approach to this, in which Suzuki intentionally asks people really close to a project to write about it. thus Otomo writes about the LMC festival that he himself co-curated in London, Yuko Zama (then my fiancee, now my wife) writes about the 2004 German AMPLIFY festival I put on, etc. this doesn't mean they're not critical, sometimes they're even more so."

I haven't seen IMJ magazine much, but I seem to recall that the bylines would usually say that stuff, like, "the curator of the festival shares his thoughts on it" or whatever. Either way, I'm not saying reviews of friends' work are bullshit, I'm just expressing my alarm that it isn't common practice to add a brief note when the relationship is close. And I'm sure your wife can be plenty critical.

"I'd personally rather read this kind of thing from a consumer standpoint, than 95 percent of feedback from people who are trying to process things on their own, most of whom end up largely missing the point."

Then it seems like you'd also rather see the caveat, since it would point you in the direction of stuff you prefer to read. Presto. We agree.

Not hard to add a note, why not do it? What's the danger in a caveat? Why are people so bent about a little disclosure?

sorry about that, I got a "operation timed out" notice, so I reposted. My bad.

I don't think anyone's "so bent" about it, we're just saying that it's not so simple.

for instance, Dan Warburton and I have only met once in person, but we know each other pretty well, through years of close examinations of the other's work, numerous e-mails, some friendly, some angry, and our interactions on this site. what. if any, disclaimer do you feel should be placed on Dan's reviews of Erst releases?

Yep, it really was marginal logic you were using, wasn't it, Red? So marginal it didn't factor. Why not stick to the point?

Maybe someone should design a CAVEAT logo that can be placed at the foot of every review alongside the reviewer's name. That'll save all the difficulties of explaining what the caveat consists of.

Then maybe, at the end of every year, the number of CAVEATS each reviewer had received could be totted up and percentaged against those of his fellow reviewers in the same magazine/webzine. The one with the most caveats would then be drummed out of the business, his house forfeited, his bank accounts frozen, etc. Man, this is starting to sound like fun!

"what. if any, disclaimer do you feel should be placed on Dan's reviews of Erst releases?"

good question jon. Dan: is Jon your friend?
I am more than willing to believe that there are some greay areas, but there are also some not-so-grey areas. Just because some relationships seem hard to peg (although yours seems to hinge on Dan's answer to the above) doesn't mean that all are.

Brian: don't get all huffy. YOU stick to the point instead of harping on and demanding names about what was (take a poll, it's obvious) a rhetorical extension of your own point. Allow me to hold your hand and walk you through my byzantine thought process, since it seems to have given you the slip:

You: "What Red seems to be assuming - forgive me if I'm mistaken about this - is that because the musician whose CD is being reviewed knows the person who's reviewing it, the review is bound to be contaminated. But as I indicated earlier, that needn't, in fact shouldn't, be so. The reviewer has merely to be circumspect."

me: Hmm, if the onus to maintain some form of "objectivity" is on the writer to be "circumspect" and no disclaimer as to the relationship between the musician and the writer is ever called for...hmm, what if the musician is the writer's brother? lover? roommate? boss? what if the musician *is* the writer?

There it is. Not my "point," however, just a tangent. I didn't know this was such a strict forum :)

My (original) point was really a statement of my own personal shock upon learning about this (obviously well-known and commonly accepted) practice, followed by some questions and some curiosity. The several voices in the thread have led me to other tangents, and have possibly changed my "point," but not my (meta?)-intention: to possibly learn/teach something in this conversation. Is that crazy or what?

Jon, as Red said, the point is not that buddies shouldn't write about each other's work--or even that people shouldn't write about their own work. Clearly, all the various perspectives may be valuable. The point is that readers ought to be provided with some idea about these relationships.

Frankly, this seems obvious to me and I can't see from whence the resistance to disclosure stems--unless there's some sort of embarrassment afoot.

Brian, Red's "marginal logic" was simply a reductio ad absurdam. And, again, I think he's correct--if one can rely on "circumspection" in one case, why not the other. & I don't understand the nastiness of your response to his point.

Nate, I started with Cadence in the late 90s.

BTW, based on Jon's description of his relationship with Dan, my initial sense is that no disclaimer is required. But consider a situation in which, say, the curator of a festival pays the travel and board of someone who subsequently writes about it.* Shouldn't the writer indicate that he/she was "kept"? I for one, would be hard pressed to say nasty things about a festival at some exotic site, to which the director or one of the main performers paid my way. Again, this seems obvious to me. That's why we have conflict-of-interest rules in the first place.

Whether or not what people say actually does or doesn't affect sales is an empirical matter that, AFAIK, only Gokhan has actually researched in depth, but I think such ethical rules make sense even if there's no appreciable effect at all on anybody's sales. Again, I can't really understand why anybody would resist making disclosures like that--other than a feeling of embarrassment which I think should be telling this reviewer something.

*NB: I'm not saying this has ever occurred: I really have no idea.

Walto, Red, no nastiness was intended. Sorry if it came over that way. But Jon's point is correct: it's not always easy to know when a caveat is required. Would a caveat grading system be more appropriate? The CAVEAT logo could be followed by a number from 1 (my Toshi Nakamura example listed above) to 10 (I've slept with and love to a degree of unhingement the person whose CD I'm reviewing).

Coupla points: Given that we're dealing with a pretty small community of musicians and listeners, the caveat issue seems to me to be in somewhat inverse proportion to the public face one has assumed on this and other fora. If one somehow "keeps secret" the fact that one is friends with this or that musician/record producer, there could be a trust issue. If one doesn't and if one can safely assume that virtually any reader with passing knowledge of the scene is aware of one's associations from general discussion here or in other widely visited groups (like JC or IHM), it seems to me to be a bit of overkill. Besides, given that one almost necessarily has some amount of contact with either the musician or producer, where would you draw the line? I've never met Philip Samartzis, but we've had a decent amount of e-correspondence and, in a sense, I think of him as a "friend". Would this be necessary to disclose every time I write up a disc he's associated with (or, even better, a disc of a person he's pointed me toward)? Will Guthrie, with whom I've also had correspondence, sent me the Charlie Charlie disc; I've never met him but probably will when he comes stateside next year. Is there a point at which I should make that known when dealing with his music? With anything issued on Antboy?

I've known Jon for about seven years and tend to greatly enjoy Erst-product. Most people who know me know both of these things and sometimes I get nailed for not panning any Ersts. If anyone thinks it's because of my personal relationship with Jon, fine, that's their issue and they can consider that in judging my review. I have no problem with that (Hey, I'm still not sold on "Points & Slashes"). In fact, the one time I wrote an extensive caveat was when I reviewed "Duos for Doris" because I felt there were three things that readers should know, two of which weren't particularly public knowledge at the time.

It's almost as though some would be happy if, appended to the writer's byline, there was a list of any musicians mentioned in the review who are personally know to the writer and the extent, in each case, of the relationship.

Funnily enough, in the case of the above three reviews, I've never met or corresponded with Brendan Murray, Kyle Bruckmann or Ernst Karel. I have, I think on one or two occasions, met David Gross. And see what happened!

Woah...

This seems to have hit a nerve!

While these questions/possibilities are certainly worthy of discussion (and I have to say that this has been one of the best 'discussions' I've ever seen on the web since so often stupid, unproductive 'flame wars' seem to rule the day) ultimately this is a very complex, non-objective situation. We're talking about what people are sayijng and feeling about music. It's a very abstract endevor and we're dealing with a 'world' of music that certainly has some large allegigance towards being abstract already. So, this has become a 'political' discussion, no? Any music review can be analyzed in tems of it's "politicalness" because any personal assessment of art cannot be completely objective. It's not the same thing as counting how many ants are coming out of the ant hill (aka 'doing science'). There is a degree of trust (uh oh) required in someone reading a review and taking it at face value. If not there is somekind of psychoanalysys happening, wondering what the reviewer's 'motivation' is, which really has nothing to do with the music itself...(this is, of course, very complicated).

Personally, as I said above, I disagree with Brian's review of my disk. He is indeed, entitled to say/feel/believe whatever he wants to about it. Sure, it would be nice to get a good review (and saying there isn a particular "reason" for a disk to come out is about as harsh as it gets IMHO) but what can I really do about it? Am I going to take Brian out to dinner and we'll talk and then he'll love my music? So what that happened? All of a sudden I'd be on the grammys! I appologize if this seems at all self-indulgent but as musicans, it is our job (not really anyone elses) to "promote" ourselves in the best way we know how in order to achieve whatever aims we may have in 'the world of music'. This is actually a very complex issue involving an unknowable nuber of factors.

Not that I'm trying to end this part of the discussion but one thing I was thinking about is clearly there are reasons for why Brian and I disagree about my disk. To me it seems he is saying that it is (my words) 'too much like other things out there. not all that distinguished' and I'm saying 'no you're wrong, I think you're listening to it in the wrong way.' The question of 'how we listen' and what we are 'getting out' of music is indeed very mysterious and I suppose that why people have such strong feeling about music.
Regardless, I'm trying to get to the issue of distinguishing. When I 'you're listening to it the wrong way' I am saying that there is something that you are missing. The point is that if we look at the world of pop music, for example, then let's compair early Rolling Stones with early Who albums. I don't think anyone is going to think thely sound the same, ect., but really the sound and the form is very, very similar and it seems to me that it's simply that we are so inundated with pop music that we cannot help but be expert listeners, in a way only to hear what is different, much less what is similar. Still, I am very certain that Brian knows very well of what he is saying so that's about it. I have no reason to think he's being 'political'. I mean, really, the 'stakes' are SO low. People seem so worried about being 'offended'... I realize I'm rambling here but anyone who leaves their house is open to being evaluated. This one thing human beings cannot help but do...

Yay! we're back with the Sedimentals, a very good place to be.

You know, the above post comes dangerously close to making it more likely I'll like David's next album....If so, consider this appreciative note my caveat.

in a sense, I think of him as a "friend". Would this be necessary to disclose every time I write up a disc he's associated with

If you now think of him as a friend, I think you should disclose it, yes. It only takes a second.

(or, even better, a disc of a person he's pointed me toward)?

No, I don't see why that would need to be disclosed. It seems irrelevant to me, at any rate.

I've known Jon for about seven years and tend to greatly enjoy Erst-product. Most people who know me know both of these things

I don't think you should assume that everyone who reads your reviews is somebody who knows you.

Brian, what kind of grading should your caveat receive? Or does that have to be decided by someone other than you? Perhaps a caveat committee? How would the members of such a committee be chosen? Perhaps it could be organised like jury service? Would anyone who has ever made a CD, reviewed one, or perhaps only heard one, be vetoed?

goddamnit Brian I am now going to make it my job to be absolutely sure that you truly (authentically and objectively) believe my next album has 'even less reason' to be put out.

Brian, excellent ideas! A caveat committee!

Walt, would it really add to anyone's evaluation of a review if, every time I were to write about one of Philip's releases (and he puts out a fair amount!), I added, "Mr. Samartzis is an e-acquaintance of mine about whom I have friendly feelings"? Is there a point in time when even you would think that it has become silly? And what if he pisses me off next year and I don't like him anymore? Should I note that also? ;-)

Brian, what kind of grading should your caveat receive? Or does that have to be decided by someone other than you? Perhaps a caveat committee? How would the members of such a committee be chosen? Perhaps it could be organised like jury service? Would anyone who has ever made a CD, reviewed one, or perhaps only heard one, be vetoed?

To me this testimony is very reminiscent of the defense's scorn of the prosecution's case when Michael Milken was on trial.

Conflict-of-interest judgments have to be made all the time in journalism, government, and financial markets. It's not really so hard. If someone (preferably a person who doubts the perfectibility of "circumspection") might reasonably think it could affect your judgment, disclose it. If it seems like a grey area, my own sense would be to err on the side of disclosure, but I suppose you could skip it in those cases, since the notion of a conflict of interest that even right-thinking gentleman might not be able to "rise above" seems like such a silly concept to you.

As Walter says, I will soon have the data to see whether reviews have an affect on sales, even though it is not one of the main propositions I've set out to explore (the dissertation focuses more on affiliations and status).

I have coded reviews from multiple sources (the Wire, Signal to Noise, AMG online, Penguin, Coda, and Cadence) for about 3500 discs released between 1989 and 2004 (the collective output of the 150 most active musicians in this period). I'll see whether the apperance and the valence of reviews has effect on (1) subsequent appearance on disc as a leader, co-leader, or sideman - and the label on which these discs are released, (2) sales, and also possibly, though with a much smaller sample, festival bookings.

My main arguments do not hinge on the existence of these relationships but my feeling is that they will indeed all turn out to be significant and positive.

One thing is certain, not that this needed my reading and coding thousands of reviews, reviews within this period are overwhelmingly positive (not all that surprising even if you assume everyone's giving their honest assessment as - this was also mentioned by Walter's recent interviewee Brian Whitman, I think - there's a self-selection issue: Given a choice, reviewers generally prefer to sample the latest work of their preferred musicians rather than those musicians they do not like or know little about.

I am aware that most of what I say has little bearing to the subject but perhaps more reviewers here will be interested in my project and will return my calls for help when I make them.

Walt, would it really add to anyone's evaluation of a review if, every time I were to write about one of Philip's releases (and he puts out a fair amount!), I added, "Mr. Samartzis is an e-acquaintance of mine about whom I have friendly feelings"? Is there a point in time when even you would think that it has become silly? And what if he pisses me off next year and I don't like him anymore? Should I note that also? ;-)

I guess I'd add something like "(whom, FWIW, I think of as a friend)" until such time as I no longer thought of him as a friend. Or, of course, you could choose not review his stuff until you felt more neutral about him personally. (Starting to hate him isn't so good either, obviously.)

I believe you once told me that you refrained from writing a review of one of my discs for that reason of our friendship. (I assumed at the time that that meant you didn't like it and you didn't want to hurt my feelings--since you review Jon's stuff all the time and seem to have a much closer relationship with him. So, thanks....I guess.)

;>}

Whew! Michael Milken - I didn't think this caveat thing was so serious, but obviously I was wrong.

The trouble is, Walto, that, as has been pointed out, all reviewing is subjective no matter how much objectivity the reviewer tries to bring to the situation. But reviewers should try to be as objective as they can, nonetheless, and they should behave responsibly. It's not a perfect solution, but this is a far from perfect world.

Moreover, I have to ask you: What good would a caveat be to the reader? If a reader sees that the reviewer has issued a caveat, is the review then not to be thought truthful or accurate? If that were the case, what would be the point of publishing the review in the first place, and why would readers bother to read it? Readers are more often than not extremely perceptive and know when something is being boosted artificially. What you're suggesting is something that would patronise them. Give them credit - they're wiser than you think.

I'd love to read your thesis, Gokhan.

as long as we're talking about unrealistic guidelines for music critics that will never actually happen, I'd like to see writers include the number of times they've listened to a disc they're writing about, the conditions they've done so under (discman, computer, audiophile system, whatever), and their prior familiarity with the artists' work.

that to me would be much more relevant info than whatever relationship may or may not exist between a writer and a musician, which I usually either know or can figure out fairly easily.

Brian M.: The trouble is, Walto, that, as has been pointed out, all reviewing is subjective no matter how much objectivity the reviewer tries to bring to the situation. But reviewers should try to be as objective as they can, nonetheless, and they should behave responsibly. It's not a perfect solution, but this is a far from perfect world.

Of course it's subjective: that doesn't affect the main point. If the composer is your wife, you aren't likely to be "unbiased" in your assessment--no matter how hard you try. We naturally don't want to hurt our friends' feelings, and we don't want to give comfort to our enemies. So, either we shouldn't review their stuff or we should advise readers of the relationship.

Brian M.: Moreover, I have to ask you: What good would a caveat be to the reader? If a reader sees that the reviewer has issued a caveat, is the review then not to be thought truthful or accurate? If that were the case, what would be the point of publishing the review in the first place, and why would readers bother to read it? Readers are more often than not extremely perceptive and know when something is being boosted artificially. What you're suggesting is something that would patronise them. Give them credit - they're wiser than you think.

What good it would do or what readers would do with the information is their business, not mine. Maybe it will make no difference to them, maybe they'll care a lot. The may discount or, as Jon said about your relationship with Wastell, they may take the reviews more seriously. It's up to them. Your responsibility is simply to disclose these relationships and not try to determine what you think readers will/should do with this info. If they're wise, let them be wise. Don't think for them or patronize them. Trust them to do whatever the hell they want to do with information they're obviously entitled to.

Jon A.: as long as we're talking about unrealistic guidelines for music critics that will never actually happen, I'd like to see writers include the number of times they've listened to a disc they're writing about, the conditions they've done so under (discman, computer, audiophile system, whatever), and their prior familiarity with the artists' work.

that to me would be much more relevant info than whatever relationship may or may not exist between a writer and a musician, which I usually either know or can figure out fairly easily.

I don't have a problem with those suggestions: they seem sensible to me. They seem less like ethical responsibilities at first blush, but I could be wrong. Anyhow, whether they're obligatory or not, as you say, they seem to provide useful info.

I tried to stay out of this interminable thread, but they pulled me back in...

As improbable as it is that a critic would actually comply with this (speaking, as Walto has, of such transparency being embarrassing), for my money the disclosure of 'number of listens' would factor in to the usefulness of a review for me. Too many admit(away from their post as 'critic') to cursory, half assed listens. Jon may have even more of a valid point in desiring that for this area of music. There is, arguably, an element of more-shall-be-revealed in much of the 'eai'.

Jesse '10 Listens Before I Weigh In' Goin

Walto: "whatever relationship may or may not exist between a writer and a musician, which I usually either know or can figure out fairly easily"

You and pretty much all the other readers, Walto. In which case the need for a caveat is, surely you'd agree, redundant.

The above quote, Brian, was from Jon. Walto merely forgot to italicize it, as is clear if you read the previous posts.

I know (as is obvious from the response of critics on this thread) that this sort of disclosure will never happen, and I don't really want anyone to regiment it (also won't happen anyway), but I think it's becoming eminently clear that it's a good idea, flippant dismissals or not.

"that to me would be much more relevant info than whatever relationship may or may not exist between a writer and a musician, which I usually either know or can figure out fairly easily."

Of course you do, Jon. Aren't you glad you do? The rest of us want to also. Believe it or not, most of the people who listen to music don't read interminable websites and threads like this (nor do most of the people who make music, for even more obvious reasons).

Thanks for the clarification, red. I must have screwed up the end-italics signal. Sorry for any confusion.

By the way, I believe a similar issue came up at least once before over at jazzcorner, and was opined on much less extensively, and there I agreed with Walter, and I do so now. I haven't had the time to go through most of the posts here in detail, admittedly, but I would agree that if there is a relationship, it either should come across clearly throughout the text or the reviewer should add the caveat.

Again, I do not see the harm and if reviews end up being at all consequential a review should contain either of the above, it really is not a stretch to imagine - and indeed we do not need to as people also research closely related subjects - that you might systematically, however slightly, over evaluate discs from artists or labels whose heads you are friends with.

So to be clear: because the world of improvised music is so small, and the knowledge about it so specialized, no standards that might apply to reviewing other art forms should apply. I'm not being glib about this. I review books for 2 major US newspapers, and we are not allowed to review books by friends, and the audience for literary fiction ain't all that big, though certainly bigger than that of improvised music.

how many negative reviews have there been of records by friends? not a 3 stars instead of 4, not a sentence of restrained enthusiasm rather than the heartier fare, but an honestly negative assessment that explains the reviewers' disappointment? or is there no usefulness to a negative review in improvised music?

Red: "is Jon your friend?"
I would describe him as such, yes. That surprise you? Wanted me to weigh in with some nasty invective again? Go back and read the Bags spats between Jon and myself and you'll see they never descended into insults and expletives. I like to think that I can speak frankly and openly with friends, don't you?
Jon: "I'd like to see writers include the number of times they've listened to a disc they're writing about, the conditions they've done so under (discman, computer, audiophile system, whatever), and their prior familiarity with the artists' work."
That would be interesting indeed. But do you really think you'd get an honest answer, Jon?
Adam: "I review books for 2 major US newspapers, and we are not allowed to review books by friends, and the audience for literary fiction ain't all that big, though certainly bigger than that of improvised music."
I don't see any possible comparison between a structure as huge as a national newspaper and a fanzine / webzine such as this.
Adam: "How many negative reviews have there been of records by friends? not a 3 stars instead of 4, not a sentence of restrained enthusiasm rather than the heartier fare, but an honestly negative assessment that explains the reviewers' disappointment? or is there no usefulness to a negative review in improvised music?"
You can always have a jolly good laugh by comparing someone's work to vomit running down a concrete path (or whatever Joe Panzer wrote about Diaz Infante a while back) if good laughs are what you want you want, but I really wonder what possible value there is in a hatchet job, other than ego massaging the journalist / critic. By the way Mr Red you never explained the difference.

Dan: "I don't see any possible comparison between a structure as huge as a national newspaper and a fanzine / webzine such as this."

Well, it's not only this site where reviews written by friends appear. They appear in print, and on webzines that consider themselves more than fanzines.

Dan: "You can always have a jolly good laugh by comparing someone's work to vomit running down a concrete path (or whatever Joe Panzer wrote about Diaz Infante a while back) if good laughs are what you want you want, but I really wonder what possible value there is in a hatchet job, other than ego massaging the journalist / critic. "

This remark is also a dodge. I didn't say 'hatchet job" but an honestly negative assessment, not an occasion to ridicule. Is there nothing between a rave and a put-down?

My own experience: I would not be able to write a negative review of a book by a friend. It would be very difficult to be even modestly critical of friend's book.

"I didn't say 'hatchet job" but an honestly negative assessment, not an occasion to ridicule. Is there nothing between a rave and a put-down?"
There should be, but often isn't. I see what you mean by "occasion to ridicule", Adam, but am not sure how your "honestly negative assessment" differs from my "hatchet job".. By "hatchet job" I mean a review written by someone who has decided for whatever reason (often perfectly honest and sincere) that s/he doesn't like the work in question and goes for an all-out attack. I'd describe your EAI piece a while back as a hatchet job, but I'm sure you'd call it an honestly negative assessment. So where does this all get us?
"I would not be able to write a negative review of a book by a friend."
I would - but I'd probably lose the friend as a result.

but I'd probably lose the friend as a result.

That's exactly the point. Your interests are conflicted in such an instance: honestly serving your readers vs. keeping a friend. (That's why I think Brian O. didn't want to review one of my discs.)

Sickening.

An explanatory note to the above shudder: the general tenor of the critics in this thread is so defensive and self-preservationist that I can no longer dignify it with an attempt to edify. God speed Walto (something I never thought I'd type).

There's no conflict of interests if I don't write the review, is there? And what the fuck's sickening about it, Mr Red?

"I would not be able to write a negative review of a book by a friend. (Adam)"
Dan: "I would - but I'd probably lose the friend as a result."

Well, I'd choose the friendship, and let someone else do the review.

It seems the answer appears above, dan. I'm sorry you took such offence, since I always liked your general style, but you just got pwnd.

the problem of bias and conflicts isn't always just in the writers, of course. it's also in the specific editors and the tone/slant of the overall publication. for instance, when Walter Isaacson's Henry Kissinger bio came out a while back, it got the longest review by far I'd ever seen in the NY Times Book Review, which I'm sure was totally unrelated to the fact that he was the editor of Time, and solely based on the importance of his book. welcome to the real world, people.

anyway, I'd be amused to hear how people would potentially address those larger issues, and I wonder if there'd be much space left in a magazine for any actual content.

"you just got pwnd."
?? No compute. Could you translate into English, Mr Whatever Yer Name Is

Dan: "I see what you mean by "occasion to ridicule", Adam, but am not sure how your "honestly negative assessment" differs from my "hatchet job".. By "hatchet job" I mean a review written by someone who has decided for whatever reason (often perfectly honest and sincere) that s/he doesn't like the work in question and goes for an all-out attack. I'd describe your EAI piece a while back as a hatchet job, but I'm sure you'd call it an honestly negative assessment. So where does this all get us?"

By your broad definition here, I assume you'd agree that say, your STN review of Ben Watson's book was a 'hatchet job" and I don't doubt the sincerity of your opinions.

But you bring up my eai piece, and while it would do no good to revisit the substance of the piece, in your lengthy rebuke of it, one of your overriding criticisms was to its appropriateness and responsibilty. (other sjoined you in this) Here's some of your remarks:

"there's a time & place for shari