fantastic review. nilssen-love is the snazz! i can't wait to hear this record.

on another note, does anyone know if nilssen-love's solo record on sofa is worth checking out? http://sofa.norcd.no/releases/sofa505.html

Nilssen-Love's solo on Sofa is quite good, but not
great. If you're his big fan, you could buy that cd, if not: I recommand Ingar Zach's solo on Sofa instead. It is superb.

Nilssen-Love has some fantastic ltd CDRs on Utech Records. So far my favorite has been "Pipes and Bones" with organist Nils Henrik Asheim. If you can find a copy, I highly recomend it. He sounds great up against bellowing organ tones. Seems as if they are blowing the roof off a cathedral.

Sheesh, I'm really bad about checking in at Bags. Kinda have that habit of posting and leaving (there's probably a name for that, right?).

Well, I can honestly say I haven't heard his solo percussion disc, but I tend to like them for the most part (Schlingerland is one of my favorites), so this looks like the logical next step. Admittedly slower on the new releases sometimes, so it'll be long-gone, most likely, before I remind myself of it.

Hm. This one didn't do it for me. I prefer Parker with Tracey (or Crispell), someone who can bring out the blacknuss in the sound. Sandell doesn't do that for me on this one, though I have enjoyed his other releases quite a bit. PNL and IHF are more fun tearing shit up in The Thing, too. Just my opinion, of course.

Now you tell me, Dan. I just picked this up (well over a week ago) after an amazing set by the Sten Sandell Trio (easily better than the performance on Flat Iron).

I haven't heard Parker and Crispell together - not much of a Crispell nut (gasp!) - but I've always enjoyed how Parker can slide between bluesy gutbucket and crystalline sonic fracture with just a quick turn of phrase. I think he exemplifies this just as well with Sandell as anywhere else, but hey, that's just me. And in many ways Townorchestrahouse is the usual juggernaut record, something which the duo with Tracey is not (and a welcome change, perhaps). One could easily take that angle, and not bother to pick it up by the register with the new Dandy Warhols.

taking bout Parker and pianos: what do you think about A.Fernadez playing in Parker's EAE ? (BTW: Recently a new, the second one with piano, album "The 11th Hour" has been released

"Now you tell me, Dan. I just picked this up (well over a week ago)" - Oh my God that means you wouldn't buy something if I said in a review somewhere I didn't like it? Yikes! Actually this one is perfectly OK, it just doesn't surprise me at all.
And with ref to the above post, I think Fernandez is awesome. Still digesting his work on the Barry Guy Oort Entropy set. Haven't heard 11th Hour yet. Just enjoying the reissue of Irene Schweitzer's 1984 Taktlos set on Intakt.

"Oh my God that means you wouldn't buy something if I said in a review somewhere I didn't like it?" Of course not, Dan. But yes, I do pay attention to reviews by you, Nate, Walter, SG, Derek, and others (depending on the music) - otherwise what am I going to do, try to start reviewing myself or buy everything by musicians of interest?

I found Oort-Entropy a disappointment after Inscape-Tableaux (and I think I have spent enough time with it). The performance I saw at Jazz a Mulhouse fell short of the performance on disc and if I hadn't bought the disc as it came out, I would not be the least bit compelled to do so after the concert.

Yes, I heard grumbles about the Mulhouse concert.

..but I just listened to Oort Entropy again yesterday (for the 7th or 8th time, which is rather rare for me these days) and find it a very fine piece of work.
But your post above raises the eternal question of how many times we should listen to albums before reviewing them - a subject I addressed (sort of) in an Editorial a while back www.paristransatlantic.com/magazine/monthly2004/07jul_text.html
These days it's getting to be a luxury to be able to listen properly to something more than three times before writing about it, and I'm more and more unhappy with that. So here's the question kids - and be honest now - how many listens do YOU give the stuff before picking up the pen, as it were? Derek? Phil? Nate? Brian M? Brian O? Mike? We wanna know!!

Sandell's playing matches quite good to Gustafsson's reeds, and "Nörrkoping" by Gush is a fine example of that.

Nobody asked me, but I have to admit that I happen to write a review after only one listen
(I'm trying to avoid it, but there's so little time).

Well, you didn't ask me, you asked the habitues, but I'll throw this in: before I post on a bbs with any specificity as to the music under discussion, or my estimation of a release, I go for 6-10 listens. That has as much to do with an improbable number of experiences of overstatement of a release's merits [by myself, and by others]; &, conversely, the happier gaffe of a work initially heard as so-so unpacking itself to reveal greater pleasures upon repeated listens.

Granted, that might be luxurious for you, Dan, or the others who post copious reviews here & elsewhere.

This is hardly a pedagogy I adhere to without exception. There are happy epiphanies sometimes within a listen or two [recent examples of this include RE's And Now..., Korber's Mersault trio, Guthrie's Spear, ErstLive 005], love at first listen that endures for many mornings after. But that's unusual for me.

The concomitant fact: as a result, I listen to far fewer new releases than the aforementioned roster. That's o.k., though I occasionally jones for shit I read about by some of the aforementioned roster [and yourself] occasionally.

When all is said & done, I don't get how anyone has proper time for so many new listens, nor why a review is posted with much fewer than 6-8 listens.
Someone is getting cheated by so little effort, if the work under review is substantive.

The discussion was open to everyone, Jesse.

One listen tells me whether the review will be a favorable one or not. A second provides sonic details I will fixate on in the text. At that point, I consider myself informed enough about what's generally going on to provide a consumer report. The person who takes my advice and spends his/her money can then listen to the damn record every day for 10 years if he/she feels like it, but my work's done. I find (and I've said as much before) that if a record doesn't grab you right away, chances are it, um, sucks.

Note that this applies only to reviews. If I'm writing a major feature on someone (as I've done with Tom Waits and Mike Patton, and am preparing to do with Noah Howard, for The Wire), I'll spend several weeks listening to almost nothing but that person's music, absorbing it in every detail the better to bug them senseless with niggling trivia questions.

"I find (and I've said as much before) that if a record doesn't grab you right away, chances are it, um, sucks."

the ADD approach to music criticism, totally worthless from my perspective as a consumer.

from my perspective as a record producer, I'm much more interested in releasing records that sound great on the 20th or 30th listen than on the first one. and I'd personally much rather someone not write a review at all, then write one after having listened once or twice through.

I pretty much agree with Jesse's perspective on this, although I don't keep initial opinions to myself all the time, I note them as such when I voice them, and if I was writing formal reviews, I'd only do the number of records that I felt I could really process and actually had something insightful to say about. churning out half-assed reviews isn't any better than churning out half-assed music, the world doesn't need either.

>I'm much more interested in releasing records that sound great on the 20th or 30th listen than on the first one.

A false dichotomy. A record that sounds good on first listen will stand a good chance of still sounding good on the 20th or 30th listen, but a record that doesn't sound good on the first listen limits its chances to even get a second, let alone a 20th. I mean, seriously - examine the logic of your proposition for a second. What kind of nutbar plays a record, doesn't like what he hears, and thinks, "Gee, I must not be getting it...I'll listen to it 19 or 20 more times. By then, I'm sure it will have revealed itself to me, and I will be a better person for the time invested"? Nobody I know; nobody I'd want to know - it demonstrates a rather pathetic lack of self-confidence to assume that if one doesn't like a record it's because one hasn't put enough time in, and that a few weeks of zazen with the disc on repeat will bring about the necessary psychospiritual breakthroughs. Sorry, Jon, this ideal listener you've got in your head is part producer's wank-fantasy, part excuse for not making or releasing music that's immediately rewarding to the person who's just given you his/her money.

I didn't say I don't care how they sound on the first listen, Phil, it's simply less important to me than how they hold up after 20-30 listens. I didn't expect you to understand, as it's a way of listening that runs contradictory to everything I've ever read from you regarding music. maybe you should read Jesse's post again?

Jesse's post omits a crucial bit of information: how many times he listens to a record before he decides to stop listening. Yes, long-term pleasure is great. I love going back to favorite albums again and again. I suspect I'll still be discovering hidden depths in Miles' On The Corner twenty years from now. But Jesse has nothing to say upthread about the experience of throwing something on and after a single joyless listen saying, "Fuck this," and moving on. How many times does he do that?

Also, I submit that there is a major difference between being a professional music critic (and therefore a professional music listener) and being a fan posting to a bbs. The fan goes in looking to have his/her prejudices reinforced and his/her pleasure centers massaged in a familiar way; the pro goes in listening for what the record has to offer, full stop. He/she must then write for an audience of fans, who are looking to have their prejudics reinforced and their pleasure centers massaged. It's more difficult than fans (particularly fans who fancy themselves writers) think it is. In many ways, critics are being paid not to be fans of the music they're reviewing. This is where far too many (from metal-zine hacks to Ben Watson to me, sometimes) go wrong, allowing fanboy drooling to get in the way of actually listening to the record(s) in question.

Once one begins listening dispassionately, it becomes very clear very fast that most records don't deserve a second run-through, and many don't even deserve to be heard start to finish. Unfortunately (and, again, I've said this before in more than one spot), it's tough to make a living offering faint praise of the mediocre.

Sensitive topic. Basically, the answer is "whatever it takes". Though with discs I really dislike then I try to be as efficient as possible (= one attentive listen all the way through, then spotchecks during & after writing). But usually somewhere between 3-8 listens, minimum, though some of them may be just casual put-something-on-the-stereo listens.

I dunno about 1st impressions, there are plenty of discs I've not liked much on the 1st spin that I later warmed to, & the reverse happens too.

The main problem with reviewing is that your real impression of a disc tends to come out over time but sometimes you only have a short space in which to write before a deadline.

I was sort of waiting for the aways available demarcation to be drawn between the fan & the 'serious music critic!'

True enough, I didn't address the business of loathing at first listen. Actually it's generally indifference & tepidity at first listen, anything stronger not merited by the vast slag heap of mediocrity out there, Happens frequently, Phil. I know I don't need to hear the latest Fat Boy Slim joint 6-10 listens to be annoyed.

Are you a serious critic because of your byline in The Wire? I think not. I think you're a fan who writes for the Wire. It's presumptuous to impute more refined or higher listening saavy to yourself anyway. Let your readers decide that, you're a little, um, close to the subject.

Lastly, I wonder by what gift you know what motivates your fellow poster's posts? Prescience like this is very rare.

Btw, as you referred to the declasse 'fan posting to a bbs' several times-I used that example as that is my experience to date, posting amid the unwashed in public fora. By your standard, I may be a serious listener soon, as my shit will be appearing on OFN, Bags & PTR. But I'll allow the reader to determine whether I made that transition.

You're a fan with a byline, Phil. You're bearing a little of the stink of sanctimony that riles you in young MAP!

I like & echo Nate's answer, though my averages would be more in the 3-5 range. The first spin is frequently the most critical for me as I take pains to ensure that there are as few distractions as possible. Subsequent tours are usually design to suss out or refute initial impressions. But it's far from an consistent science.

Nate's typed a pretty interesting primer on reviewing over at his Blog.

Jesse, this site & these pages sometimes reek of sanctimony, whence the surprise? I think Phil might be equating “professional music critic” with someone who earns a significant portion of his or her paycheck from the pursuit. Anyway, that’s not my situation so I’m probably out of the loop, but I think Phil certainly warrants the tag. Now, as to whether the title empowers the bearer to greater insight and expertise, I guess I’m closer to your way of thinking in that I don’t believe it necessarily does.

And when did you decide to dip your quill into the music reviewer ink pool? I wasn’t even aware that you had anything planned for Bags (other than Emory, I always seem to be the last one to know), inquiring minds & all that.

When's the Noah piece for Phil? Was he in the States or did you catch him in Brussels? What's he up to - is there a new project due out? Send news!
I'll post a considered reply to the other above points a little later.

Dan -

The Noah piece, if all goes well, will be in the December Wire. I'm interviewing him in NYC on 10/3; he's coming back here for two weeks. As far as new projex, I don't know - the Wire has never profiled him before, so I'm going to dwell heavily on the past and briefly consider the present/future.

On the whole I agree with Jesse's comments. Personally if I decide to write a 'proper' review of something I do so because I have been moved by said piece of music enough to put pen to paper, that rarely happens with less than ten or so listens.
That said, I wouldn't rule out writing after less listens if I felt I knew the music well enough, that just hasnt happened yet.

I do wonder though what Jesse's thoughts are on writing about live music? Assuming a recording of the concert is not available would he bar himself from sharing any thoughts on the music's merits as it could only be witnessed the once?

Maybe we shouldn't bother other Baganauts with Noah Howard ephemera Phil (but do drop me a mail if you like at DWarbur928@aol.com - I don't have yr mail) - but just make sure that he gets Black Ark and Live At Village Vanguard reissued prontissimo! I started an interview with Noah about four years ago but never got round to transcribing the tapes (three hours of chat recorded in a very noisy café in Paris). I wonder where they are..
**
On the subject of the above, a little discussion I gleefully admit to having set in motion, I can't say I'm very surprised with the answers so far (but I would like to hear on the subject from Brian O and Brian M). Having been hauled across the coals by Jon before myself for not apparently having listened enough (his words not mine:), I know his thoughts on the subject, and wouldn't have expected him to agree with Phil on the subject. The question I'm asking myself now is whether writing short reviews is really worth it. Many of the records I have to write racy little 300 word paragraphs on deserve 3000 word essays, but - perhaps unlike Messrs Parker and Milazzo - a 3000 word essay takes a hell of a long time for me to do properly. A Wire piece takes even longer (but there we're talking a feature on an artist, not an album review, so there's necessarily more background research to do first).
Anyway, more thoughts later. I've got another axe to grind with Cap'n Olewnick on a parallel thread :)

Phil, must disagree voiciferously with Dan, re: Noah Howard details. By all means post particulars in this space or elsewhere when you have them.

Memories of Noah's performance at the '01 Vision Fest still bring a big shit-eating grin to my face. Not an especially cohesive set & sort of a Dean Benedetti-like experience, but it was a definite thrill to watch him strafe the stage, Kamikaze-print doo rag wrapped around his dome, blowing the bejezzus out of his alto for a Blitzkrieg 30-minutes. To coin a variant on a pithy Witney Houstonism, hell to the yes!

>The question I'm asking myself now is whether writing short reviews is really worth it. Many of the records I have to write racy little 300 word paragraphs on deserve 3000 word essays...

I don't know exactly what records you're listening to, but on general principle I disagree. Most records that I encounter, in any and every genre, really don't deserve lengthy discussion. Most of 'em deserve a half-paragraph backhand. And anyway, getting to the crux of the matter in 2-300 words, with style and entertainment-value intact, is a skill not to be underestimated. More ain't better.

Anybody looking to hear Noah's Village Vanguard album can maybe find a CD-R copy here. That's where I got mine, and I'm very happy with it. Black Ark was reissued in a super-limited Japanese edition about five years ago, and those tracks are floating around on file-sharing networks; somebody sent me a CD-R awhile back.

"I don't know exactly what records you're listening to"
I could cite the Takahashi for starters.. or just about any compilation you care to mention (how to do justice to upwards of a dozen artists in 300 wds?). So I could cite the Untitled Songs set on Sirr, which I recently did on my site but really deserved more.
"Most records that I encounter, in any and every genre, really don't deserve lengthy discussion. Most of 'em deserve a half-paragraph backhand."
I'm half tempted to make some snooty comment about Metal, but as I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about on that one, I'll refrain :) But even a set like the David Ware you reviewed, Phil? Surelu you'll agree with me that an earlier DSW album, Corridors & Parallels, deserved some serious and lengthy discussion, if only for its instrumentation?
"Getting to the crux of the matter in 2-300 words, with style and entertainment-value intact, is a skill not to be underestimated. More ain't better."
Amen on that one.

Thanks for the VV link Phil. But if punters out there are looking to get hold of one of those two albums, I'd recommend Black Ark without hesitation (oh yeah the Judson Hall one on ESP too). My great pal Didier Kowalski gave me a mint vinyl copy for my birthday in June - maybe the nicest birthday present I've received since my wife bought me the Zorn Parachute Box a few years ago - and it's been getting some heavy playing.

Oh, OK. It varies, of course but 4-5 listens for an "average" disc, even if I don't like it. More listens pre-review are generally because I either love it and/or am fairly sure that there's much more information to glean than I'm hearing thus far. I do find that, even if my initial bad impression carries the day, I often hear aspects of a recording that are worthwhile/interesting on repeated listens, maybe even if it's only things that spur thoughts on issues outside the actual session in question. Some discs, to be sure, I listen to way more, even then being more or less at a loss of what to say--especially if they hit me as incredible (ErstLive 005, for instance).

I just this morning wrote up John Fahey's "Of Rivers and Religion" for AMG, though, and did it after 5 listens (I only recently purchased it, even though it's a 1972 original release and, actually, I've played the opening track--which I think is amazing--probably five more times on its own for personal enjoyment). I love it but I'm pretty sure, in this case, that continued listens aren't going to reveal all that much more, at least insofar as what a brief AMG review requires.

The fine folks at ESP burned me CD-Rs of Noah's two releases, and yeah, Judson Hall is a thing of pure fucking beauty.

Did they say they'd be reissuing them, Phil? The reissues of Simmons and Wright sound awesome (plus there are some nice words on the former by Bags' own Clifford Allen)

Incidentally re: metal, any comments from Phil &or JBiv on the frontpage arts feature on art-metal in the NY Times today?

Thanks for the kind words for the set of reviewing tips on the blogsite Derek. It's basically a collation & expansion of separate comments I wrote 3 different people who asked me about reviewing (my sister & a couple other people). Any comments/additions/corrections are as always welcome, as are suggestions for cool images. (I'm fond of the closeup of a scalpel I nicked from a medical-supplies website for the start of the section on editing.)

The Times piece is well-sourced and well-written (good thing, too, as Caramanica's contributing to the anthology I'm editing). It's kinda funny to see the paper covering "my beat," as I've been talking up metal's artiness for a couple of years now (even did a piece on Pelican for the Wire back in '04)...

Re. the listening, I try to give everything multiple close listens, usually ending up in the same range as Brian noted. Some stuff (especially some of the dreck I occasionally get for Cadence) I just can't take, but that's rare (and usually smooooth). Some stuff (EL005, for example) I need far more than 5 listens to digest.

Re. the metal article, eh, it's okay. Pretty derivative actually, for those who actually pay attention to that music, though the writer names some good bands. Steve Smith shoulda written it.

"Steve Smith shoulda written it."

he's doing an ErstQuake preview for them instead, interviewed me and Tim last night. hopefully it'll run before the fest, and not after...

AT JUDSON HALL is amazing, agreed. I love when Dave Burrell's soul explodes on the second half of side one.

That record also might be ESP's best photo-themed cover art.

I didn't say I don't care how they sound on the first listen, Phil, it's simply less important to me than how they hold up after 20-30 listens.?
Posted by: jon abbey at September 17, 2005 01:33 PM

There's actually a great danger as well in listening to cds that often. It has to do with people valueing thing more positivly visualy/following expectations......

Most of us probably recognize the situation when we where 15 years old or so, recording something 2 track and not being able to listen to the first track. so it was all just chance. Then alfter listening 20 times or so (which you would do when you're that age...) it all started making sense. Then of course after some 10-15 years rediscovering these tapes (listening for the first time "again"), it appeared to be a lot of rubish.........

It's the same like a friend of mine did: record anything (a street recording it was) and put it on paper, show it to people and they all think it's a great master plan and incredibly thought-through. Just because you know what's coming up and our cultures visual dominance......

Anyway, some of these questions about how often do you listen to things before you make a review, is simular to how often do you listen to things before you decide you make a cd....

A couple of "rules" a made through experience is: play the recording at least trough 3-4 different speaker systems (including very bad ones) on different volumes in different situations. That is more important than how often....

And, no cd will follow the same listening path.....

Anyway, just something tho think about

Cor

"There's actually a great danger as well in listening to cds that often. It has to do with people valueing thing more positivly visualy/following expectations......"

obviously I'm aware of that and factor that in. but I stick to my original statement.

"play the recording at least through 3-4 different speaker systems (including very bad ones) on different volumes in different situations. "

yes, in my new place (which you haven't seen yet), instead of having one system which I play everything through under similar conditions, I have three different systems that I use depending on the kind of listening I want to do.

Sometimes, frustrated by the fact that I have only four sound reproduction systems in my house (hi-fi, boombox, walkman, Mac) and a tight deadline for the review I need to write, I resort to breaking into my neighbour's house in the wee small hours and checking out the reviewable item on his hi-fi (though, obviously, I'm obliged to carry a set of headphones - can't use loudspeakers, wouldn't want to wake said neighbour, he might not understand). This strategy works pretty well, but it only gives me access to a fifth reproduction system, and for some musics I can tell I'm going to have to travel farther afield. There is, for example, a fellow in the next street of our quiet little suburb who works for a top-end hi-fi emporium - surely he'll have some terrific equipment in his house. If not, maybe I'll be obliged to break into the hi-fi emporium itself and sample the equipment in the demo rooms. All being well, I should be able to get in three, maybe four more quality listens, taking notes all the while. . . . Yet people say we reviewers don't listen often enough or carefully enough to the music under scrutiny. To quote Bill Burroughs via the wayward Dr Benway: "Ingrates! Every one of them ingrates!"