Just got this in the mail, too. I remember liking Sleep Won't Come a fair bit, and this sounds promising. Funny how Bags is often far better PR than the accompanying press release, which wasn't very enticing...

This Way Out is a nice record too.

I sincerely hope that is a real cigarette, but I suspect not...

I sincerely hope that is a real cigarette, but I suspect not...

I'll be dropping the DUCATS for this one, D-Tay!

Listening to this one I kept thinking of Dave Douglas. A little websearching reveals that McNeil was Douglas's teacher at the NEC.

So far I like it but, I don't know, it's not really connecting with me in a big way. Nice disc, though. Not really much trace of the West Coast sound, more Ornetteified than that (though I suppose since Ornette got his start on the West Coast....) The slightly jiggled "Bernie's Tune" is nice.

ND:
If you had done a bit deeper web surfing or maybe just knew more, you'd know that John McNeil was THE straight ahead trumpeter in the 70's. WAY BEFORE Wynton hit the scene in the 1980's and with real integrity. John was THE guy playing inside for the new times before Wynton came in and turned that idea into pretentious shit.

Also Ornette keeps the pulse on 2&4, not even 1/4 notes like Mulligan and the other West Coasters, and Ornette's music is constantly modulating.
But fuck, you're the expert. Maybe McNeil actually talked to you once.

you come off like a real asshole, Joe, grow up

Thanks. Don't forget that I'm also "verbose" and "self-important".

If the name-calling and pissing matches could be avoided, it would be interesting to find out what musicians like Joe Morris find so lacking in music criticism. I know some, Ken Vandermark comes to mind, have weighed in on it. I'd love to hear more.

Is it a lack of musical training & knowledge?
Lack of historical perspective?
Lack of reasonable aesthetic standards?

Adam:

Jazz and improvised music is expression rendered in musical technique. There is an evolution in the work that is either original or interpretive. Writers who publish anywhere should know enough about music technique and that evolution to be able to be specific in their comments relating to these things accurately. They should also have a accurate understanding of the intentions of the musicians and evaluate the work based how well it lives up to the artists intentions. They should know the artist's history and be respectful of their efforts. I'm not talking about fans who log on to blogs and state their opinions. I'm talking about people who publish reviews and articles.

My point here with ND (Nate Dorward) is simple. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
He knows better than McNeil what is Ornettish(?) and Mulligan, but he doesn't know McNeil's history. How is his opinion valuable?

Otherwise, he insulted me elsewhere, I called him on it, then he insulted me again and bragged about it on this web site.
ND also bragged about writing a pan of a Ken Vandermark cd in response to Ken's "gassy ruminations" (ND"s word) on AAJ.com.
This asshole's opinion is that stuff like that all really low and unethical. So I wanted to have some fun and bust him again.

I'm waiting for the day when an artist/label/fan/etc. complains bitterly and publicly about a stupid rave, written and published with little or no knowledge of the artist's/label's intent, history, etc. by an unqualified "critic" who has little or no musical training or ability.

As I've said quite often, it's pretty clear that there are many, many more raves in the world: there's just oodles of them, while only the occasional mild criticism can be found anywhere of anything whatever. Back when I wrote reviews, I heard bitter complaints only when I wrote (the very infrequent) pan. No one cared that I was a conservatory-trained musician if they or their heroes or their clients had been criticized. And when I wrote a stupid, silly, rave, perhaps discussing food and insects in more detail and with more insight than any musical offering, no one ever complained that I didn't know what they were up to or that I hadn't heard enough of their stuff to be praising them to high heaven. Odd.

“I'm waiting for the day when an artist/label/fan/etc. complains bitterly and publicly about a stupid rave, written and published with little or no knowledge of the artist's/label's intent, history, etc. by an unqualified "critic" who has little or no musical training or ability.”

Walt, look no further than the receptions frequently accorded guys like Thom Jurek and Frank Rubolino. Both of them regularly get their chops busted for singing seemingly indiscriminate hosannas & getting their “musical facts” wrong. Often unfairly, to my mind.

I’ve no desire whatsoever to get in the middle of any beef between Nate and Joe. But I do have to say that Joe’s decision to voice his animus here publicly, so to speak, surprises me. I’ve got a lot of respect for him as a musician & figured he would opt for a higher road.

Along those lines, Joe’s point above about respect makes a lot of sense. I think this is a very important component of a “critic’s” work. It’s easy to get burned out & jaded by the volume of stuff that crosses the desk, particularly the unsolicited portions. But it’s also key to keep in mind that each disc is something that an artist(s) likely put a lot of effort & thought into. To approach each review project from a position of respect or, if that’s not possible, not approach it at all, is a credo I admire in a “critic” and one I aspire to myself. Otherwise you run the risk of erecting agendas & perpetuating ego-driven interpersonal shit that really have no place in a review IMHO.

As to the “bludgeoned horse” question of raves and their ceaseless proliferation across the globe. The answer in my own experience is pretty simple. The discs I choose to review here at Bags are those that interest me on some level. I don’t like them all equally (hopefully that’s apparent, case to case), but each has struck my fancy in some way or, in rarer instances, I’ve found something not to like & want to comment on it. There’s a much higher ratio of ‘negative’ reviews (my own & others) in a mag like Cadence where the writers don’t have much, if any, control over what they review. As to why nobody on the musician/label side of the fence is up in arms over an ill-informed rave... no great mystery: everyone wants to be appreciated and respected for the work they do.

I agree with you. McNeil is a great example of that. He is a great trumpeter and has been for decades. Lesser players got much more attention for all the wrong reasons and some of them are much more well known. Bad writing is bad either way.

My point is about spreading information. A real accurate description of the music means that a pan or a rave isn't necessary. Tell us what the music really is. Where it fits into the musical lineage. What is the musician really doing. If you can't do that then maybe you should write about pop music.

I've gotten pans and raves. If the pans really hurt I wouldn't be working. If the raves really helped I'd be working more. Either way I have to get my version of what I do and what I know to be correct history out there or it will be misrepresented and sometimes worse. For that I'm a verbostic, self-important, asshole.

So I guess that's a pan, right?

Derek:

I have a lot of respect for you as well.
As to the higher road, as I alluded to in another post, I wrote a letter to Paris Trans. ND reacted. End of story? You'd think right? Nope. He announced it on this site and blasted me here for writing it. He made it public beyond Paris Trans.
I really don't see why as a player I'm supposed to not respond where I've been insulted. Or for that matter not engage to correct wrong information about things I have been involved with.

>A real accurate description of the music means that a pan or a rave isn't necessary. Tell us what the music really is. Where it fits into the musical lineage. What is the musician really doing. If you can't do that then maybe you should write about pop music.

Agree w/most of this, except for the last sentence. Since studying audio engineering I have a lot more respect for the work that goes into making pop/mainstream records. Plus, I still review as much metal as jazz/improv/whatever, if not more.

“For that I’m a verbostic, self-important, asshole.”

C’mon, Joe. Do you really think you need to defend yourself against such a pejorative ascription?

I do think it’s important for musicians to get their verbal/written versions of what they do out to the public. There’s not enough of that going around and it does lead to misinterpretation & misunderstandings, but it doesn’t need to be a combative dialectic with critics or whomever. This is a big reason why I’m in favor of musician-penned liners like those undertaken by Ellery Eskelin. His Hatology albums offer up both the sounds & the written musings/ideas behind them so that lazy critics & listeners have no excuse not to get where he’s coming from. You may not dig the music, but at least you get a bead on its origins & intentions in no uncertain terms.

The problem with straight musical description in reviews is that it can get eye-rollingly tedious very fast. That old line about "writing about music is like..." ain't no lie.

I see no problem with artists responding to criticism that they find lazy, inaccurate, or
even unfair. I think it's often interesting and sometimes even edifying. Does it make them look
thin-skinned? Who the hell cares!

And more of it could even make reviewers and critics a bit more fastidious and thoughtful.

I have not written anything here that I regret. I think I have every right to comment.
BTW MAP even stood up for me here, which was nice of him.

Pop music has as many of its own lineages and as much technical depth as jazz, not to mention a MUCH higher level of creativity overall. It deserves to be written about with as much acuity and seriousness as jazz.

Sorry, just can't abide that hackneyed line using pop as a conceptual whipping boy. And there's probably just as much worthwhile writing about pop as there is about jazz.

I agree with what everyone says above writing, except Walt. That line about the abundance of raves seriously needs to be retired. We all know the score. Kudos to Derek for a gracious rebuttal.

There's only one defensible criterion for good writing about virtually anything: accurate reportage of personal experience. Everything else is the politics of textual bandwidth.

I have way more respect for people who come out and try to communicate, even if it means they sometimes say dumb things, than people who fall back on that whole dignity-of-silence copout, or its relative, the limitations-of-language copout.

Derek, I agree about the musician-penned liner notes, and I think Eskelin's are some of the best! Some of the very best musician-penned liner notes I've ever read have been by... Joe Morris! Liner notes and elsewhere, what music discourse really needs is more musicians speaking about their own work, because they almost always have more insight than anyone else, or at least valuable insight that noone else could have. It's really sad that the whole bogus "journalistic integrity" convention people subscribe to discourages musicians from reviewing their own work.

[Derek] That old line about "writing about music is like..." ain't no lie.

[Mike] Not a lie, just an honest mistake.

hey Map:

Thanks. I did not intent to dis pop.

There is only one thing that is really precious and worthy of preserving in jazz and that is an accurate account of it's factual musical history. It rarely ever occurs but it's the only part that matters.
Anyone who gets in it for any reason other that just for that is wasting time. It's the process that counts. Without a real account of the process it's meaningless. That is my opinion.
I have battled to maintain that in my work and I will continue to do so. I don't care who likes my music or me.

JM: “I think I have every right to comment.”

Amen to that. I was just trying to suggest that those insults you’ve endured don’t amount to a hill of beans in the larger scheme & that I had trouble seeing the need to engage them on a comparable level. As you noted, there’s obviously a lot of backstory here and ax-grinding either way can be unflattering.

JM: “I don't care who likes my music or me.”

Seriously? It’s hard not to read this as a rhetorical statement of defiance. It implies that your audience isn’t something you factor into your music-making, which, based on the times I’ve had the pleasure of seeing/hearing you doesn’t ring true to my experience at all.

Hey Derek:

I should have put it this way. I want EVERYONE to like my music and my explanation about it. I can't help it if they don't.

In the past I ignored some put downs and lies about me and my music. Now I react right away. This way the BS isn't the only information out there.

Oh, for christ's sake. I think I'll take a pass on all this crud. I said absolutely nothing about McNeil's career above, simply that I had been unaware that he was Dave Douglas's teacher. I don't know McNeil's music, no, beyond this disc, but I wasn't reviewing the album either.

There is this peculiar idea among many people on the web that they can spew out a lengthy bunch of criticisms, personal attacks, & whatnot & be entitled to a point-by-point rebuttal. & it's indeed pretty tempting to reply at length--it's so easy to sit here typing away, & I can see plenty of nonsense & mischaracterizations in what Joe's posted above. But, you know, life's short, Joe's a jerk whose opinion I really don't care about, & I don't think that anything I say is likely to be more effective than if people actually read what I wrote, here & on Paris Transatlantic & in Cadence, & take a look at his various splenetic responses, & make up their mind. Or ignore this particular tempest in a teapot.

FWIW I have never posted on Morris on my site beyond reprinting that old review. I take it by "my site" he means (Dan Warburton's) Paris Transatlantic.

*

Derek: there ISN't any "beef between me & Joe Morris." It's entirely in his head.

Well that's twice you admitted that you don't know what you're talking about and that's enough for me. At least you admitted it. It speaks to the value of your opinion.

Your site was in reference to your Vandermark "pan" which is further evidence that you're a caustic, uninformed and unethical writer.

I agree though. Read what I wrote verses what you wrote.

"Read what I wrote verses what you wrote."

If I was slinging shit like this I'd at least make sure I was using the right word, lest I be regarded as an illiterate asshole. Just how big is that chip on your shoulder?

"Walt, look no further than the receptions frequently accorded guys like Thom Jurek and Frank Rubolino. Both of them regularly get their chops busted for singing seemingly indiscriminate hosannas & getting their “musical facts” wrong. Often unfairly, to my mind."

Derek, I didn't say that critics who like everything never get criticized. I said that they are never bitterly and publicly complained of by someone about whom they've raved. Not the same thing. Who does criticize Jurek and Rubolino? Generally other critics who think their own stuff is superior. But also fans who don't like that they thinks X is just as great their own hero, Y.

"I agree with what everyone says above writing, except Walt. That line about the abundance of raves seriously needs to be retired. We all know the score."

Mike, that you are able to agree with a number of differing, even contradictory, viewpoints is sort of impressive; I'll give you that. My line about the abundance of raves, however, happens to be true, whether you think it should be retired or not. Just count 'em sometime. Since Derek thinks "Cadence" is an example of a mag where one doesn't find so many raves (and as you agree with him as well as Joe, Nate and MRS), I suggest you take any Cadence issue of your choice and just count up the raves and the pans and report back. I'll buy you a hamburger if the ratio is any smaller than 20 to 1.

What is the score, incidentally?

Captain Hate!? Wow. I've never been told off by a Super Hero before. Do you have a sidekick named Boy Anger?. What's your super power, correct spelling? Or is it irony? "How big is that chip on your shoulder"? asked Captain Hate. Do you live in a basement jazz club like Shelly's Manne Hole"? Do you wear a cape and a mask? Or just a white hood? Do you wish Coltrane recorded "A Hate Supreme"? Do you have a hotline to Stanley Crouch?

I've met some weird people in this music but never anyone with a secret identity. Please don't ever listen to any music I make. Never come to a gig I do and really, get some help.

Good to end with some laughs

Walt, for the record that’s not what you originally wrote, to quoth: “artist/label/fan/etc.” Also, I think the criticisms of Jurek and Frank often slip beyond the boundaries you mentioned. It goes back to your oft-posited assertion: “if everything’s ambrosia then what the fuck’s the point?” & the deep-seated (& justifiable) problem with the “critic” who claims to like everything. My point is that neither Jurek nor Frank necessarily fit that “endlessly effusive” label. And again, why would someone (other than Scott Fields, maybe, & him just to be whimsical) complain bitterly about receiving a “rave” justified or not, by someone qualified or not- that seems like a silly hypothetical to me.

Turning to Cadence, I was speaking mostly for myself. On average I don’t write nearly as a many “raves” for that publication as I do for, say, Bags or Dusted or wherever. Do a census on any Hodgepodge & Shorties column I’ve written in the last eight years & I’ll double your hamburger bet (& add bacon & sauteed mushrooms to each bun) that you’ll find at least one or two lemons (usually more) called out in every one with as much respect as I can muster. The batch I just received from Bob (after a several month hiatus) looks to have at least a couple too, FWIW.

"Jazz and improvised music is expression rendered in musical technique."
That depends on what you mean by technique, doesn't it? Measured against some conventional yardstick? Sure, Benny Golson is technically far more advanced than Arthur Doyle - but is that the point? You don't diss "Alabama Feeling" because it doesn't sound like "Groovin with Golson". Is Derek Bailey "better" than Keith Rowe, then?
"Writers who publish anywhere should know enough about music technique and that evolution to be able to be specific in their comments relating to these things accurately."
Are you suggesting we really get technical and start talking about time signatures, modes, pitch classes, retrogrades or what? I've often been criticized for writing reviews that are too "technical", but it seems to me the only way to review a Cecil Taylor album in terms of technique is to discuss ideas of pitch and interval class that belong more in the domain of set theory.
"They should also have a accurate understanding of the intentions of the musicians"
I don't give a flying fuck about your intentions, Joe - your music should speak for itself and shouldn't need your manifesto to prop it up.
"evaluate the work based how well it lives up to the artists intentions."
That again would seem to imply I have to be aware of your "intentions" before committing pen to paper. You might as well write your own reviews, then - at least that way your "intentions" will not be misunderstood or misrepresented. Do you really have to intend something when you pick up the guitar? Don't you ever just PLAY it?
"I'm not talking about fans who log on to blogs and state their opinions. I'm talking about people who publish reviews and article."
Would you describe Bagatellen as a magazine or as a blog, then? Seems to me it's both (whereas PT is not - any official feedback on the Letters Page goes through me). From what you seem to be saying it's OK to vent your spleen on a blog but not in a magazine / publication. For the record, though I haven't had time to visit his site lately, I don't think Nate Dorward has mentioned this spat on his own website. The "bragging" you refer to was his reply to the letter you sent to me, which I forwarded to you and which you aware of prior to publication. That's a legitimate right of reply, not a brag. And if you want to reply in turn (I seem to recall you didn't at the time) feel free, you know the email.
"Tell us what the music really is. Where it fits into the musical lineage. What is the musician really doing."
If you go back and read the 78 reviews Nate Dorward has written for PT over the past three or so years I think you'll find plenty of that. You accuse him of not knowing what he's talking about whereas remarks like "if you can't do that then maybe you should write about pop music" would seem to indicate you're a bit lacking in knowledge on the subject of pop music. Or maybe you're just criticising rock journalists. Either way it's all a storm in a teacup par excellence.

So Dan are you a musician or a critic?

That fact that you can't decipher how to discuss technique (how someone is playing) is your problem. You haven't figured out how to describe the difference between what Derek played and what I play. Just whether or not you like one or the other. I can do that why can't you. That is the problem. On in ND's case the difference between Mulligan and Ornette. You guys can't do that.
Derek Taylor seems to be able to do that.

Not giving a fuck about my intentions or any intentions is also the problem. So how do you understand Braxton and Zorn, John Butcher? What? You just like one more that the other and that's it? Can't you describe what they do? Or do you just go on how it makes you feel? Which one you like more.

You can only play what you know how to play. You can learn something on the spot though. I pick up the guitar and play what I intend to play. So did Derek. So does Blood Ulmer. You don't understand that?

The bragging was on this web site. You know, you sent me a message telling me about it. After you published his response. I did reply. You didn't print it. Check your e-mail. I covered it here AFTER ND mentioned it. I'm done. He admitted that he doesn't know what he's talking about twice.

Many or the writers who publish pieces on Bagatellen also publish elsewhere. This is a magazine and a blog. Bagatellen advertised on One Final Note. That's how I found it. It has reviews and features. Magazine.

He made a blanket generalization about all of my guitar playing. He's hasn't heard ALL of it. If he had said "I've heard a bit of his guitar playing and I hate it". I wouldn't have written in. You're the editor. You printed that line.

Pop music is more about style. I love pop music. Your impression of pop music matters in you writing. Your impression without knowledge about jazz doesn't unless you understand what it is and why. That is my opinion. Argue with a pop musician about your pop music writing.

Disagree with me all you want. Call me names and do a lame job writing and editing your magazine. But don't be big babies about me calling you on any of it.

"And again, why would someone (other than Scott Fields, maybe, & him just to be whimsical) complain bitterly about receiving a “rave” justified or not, by someone qualified or not- that seems like a silly hypothetical to me."

Exactly, Derek. That was my point! This spat isn't really about whether or how much anybody knows about anything. It's just a complaint about something perceived to be a criticism, pure and simple. We agree that it wouldn't have occurred if Nate had written something perceived by Joe as a rave. So, why bother trying to disguise the harangue as some sort of theoretical or technical dispute? It's all just thin skin, requiring something more along the lines of smelling salts than musical ed.

walto I'll walk you through it.

No it's about a blanket dis, written my someone who wasn't quailfied. But that was covered on Paris Trans. He got the last word. End of story. Or so I thought.

This part is a conversation that was started by Adam Hill (thanks Man!). After some guy called me a name for busting on ND. (Who said more dubious stuff about my friend John McNeil). AFTER DORWARD RAISED THE ISSUE AGAIN ON BAGATELLEN. I started this to break balls on Nate Dorward. He can't take it. Evidently, Warburton can't take it and Walto (is that Walter Horn?) can't take it either. Wow. Maybe Captain Hate can take it. (All props to MAP though, he's tough)

As far as the discussion about how some people write, that will go on forever. It is possible though that maybe some people will consider another perspective. Frankly I doubt it. You guys write all the time. A bit of input from me and you all freak out. Who do I think I am?!. You guys are the experts! You all know more about all of this than I do! I'm just the thin-skinned musician. You guys kill me.

Do any of you really think I need or would ever expect a rave from any of you? Ever? Do you really think that after sticking my neck out here that I expect you to like me? Do you really think I care what you think? You don't know anything about what I do. I'm writing to make MY point. I expect you to know what you are writing about and to do so in a way that is ethical. Don't agree? Don't like it? Tough. Someone has to shed some light on just how lame a lot of this web writing really is. There are good writers, Like Derek Taylor, who seem to respect the music they cover. But most of it is weak nonsense. Do you guys think I'm the only musician who feels this way? I'm not. I'm just willing to take the heat. And it's fun to watch the weak ones crumble.

Is that too much for you to follow Walto? Just read through the text. It all makes sense.

I disagree with you Walt, though I am usually a fan of your glibness. If one makes his way through the vitriol here, there are actually some very interesting points made by Joe Morris, along with some interesting observations made by Derek and Dan.

Do any of you really think I need or would ever expect a rave from any of you? Ever? Do you really think that after sticking my neck out here that I expect you to like me? Do you really think I care what you think?

Yes, actually I think you seem to care a lot. I've noticed this through the years, and certainly your whining and bragging about your toughness, truthfulness, insight, etc., etc. here suggests nothing different. (BTW, I am Walter Horn and have seen you play (and caught your shtick) countless times--as has pretty much everybody around Boston. But thanks for your guidance through these muddy waters. Anyhow, what matters to most of us is that you make very nice music. That's what we appreciate most. Noticing the thin skin and need for self-aggrandizement is just marginal gravy.

(All props to MAP though, he's tough)

Well, he agrees with your pout, which is even better!

I'm just willing to take the heat.

Hahahahaha

Wow, Joe Morris, you are the biggest horse's ass I've run into online in some time, and that's really saying something. Bravo!

Also, I find it interesting that Joe's entrance into this thread was based on his poor reading of Nate's post. This guy is taking jackassery to an entirely new level. Impressive. But not exactly verbose...

Walter:
However you witnessed my "schtick" you never bothered to introduce yourself. In person or here. But just like ND claimed in his response on Paris Trans. You had me all figured out already.

Don't flatter yourself. You know, when people call you verbose, asshole, self-important, a jerk, asshole again, thin-skinned, in need of self-aggrandizement, repeatedly question your right to comment, and the worth of your ideas, or your sincerity even about your own work, and laugh at you. I promise you, you do not care what they think.

But this is your little club. The place where you have the last word.

"But this is your little club. The place where you have the last word."

Not if you can help it.

Joe,
You kinda say, you can express like no one else here the music you play in words. Well then, if music = words and words = music: I will never have the desire to listen to your music for sure.......

Cor Fuhler

I've tried to be as neutral as possible, lurking on this conversation, and sadistically watching its development. But,

Joe, with all due respect, this opinionated mess is a result of a) your misinterpretation of Nate's original comments above, and b) your inability to be clear with your thoughts. Seriously, man, you're all over the place. If you have a beef with Nate (which you do), I thought you would've had the last word on that months ago. And in rehashing any ethical issues among the writers here, by all means write up your thoughts coherently and I'll be happy to publish them here, on their own page, as an editorial.

I'll add that for your "friend John McNeil", I wonder if he appreciates all this personal drama attached to his review. Still, I'm itching to hear this record.

Actually, Joe, you're wrong again. We've met several times, each time through Mat Maneri. I'm just not terribly memorable.

But keep posting: you're bound to get something right eventually!

Joe Morris wrote: "Jazz and improvised music is expression rendered in musical technique. There is an evolution in the work that is either original or interpretive. Writers who publish anywhere should know enough about music technique and that evolution to be able to be specific in their comments relating to these things accurately. They should also have a accurate understanding of the intentions of the musicians and evaluate the work based how well it lives up to the artists intentions. They should know the artist's history and be respectful of their efforts."

Insults and piling on aside,
I still think the above makes sense to me. I've heard others here and elsewhere demand/desire much the same when they didn't like someone's comments in a write-up.

I think the music writers I enjoy most do a very good job of discussing technique and intentions. Even when offering negative judgments.

I don't have a huge problem with the passage you quote, Adam, but, as they say, there's a time and place for everything. Most reviewers are slopping something together for little or no recompense, not getting a doctoral thesis or a NYer-size piece together. If the purpose, as I think, is simply to give readers an idea whether they might like it, I don't see that all that stuff is generally necessary, though I admit it's always nice, if one has the time, energy, ability, etc.

If, on the other hand, the purpose is to produce some sort of passionate self-expression that one hopes will be enjoyable to the consumer, ala MAP, again, I'm not sure it's always necessary there, either. Might just get in the way of a pretty phrase or something. I suppose this will depend on the reader.

My point is that, while the technical and historical stuff is nice, their absence is lamented by musicians/labels/etc. (and I don't mean the "etc." to include competing 'critics,' Derek) only when there's a perceived criticism. As Derek says, this is only what we would expect--so let's not make a manifesto out of a bee sting.

Another way of putting this is, kvetching is not a sign of toughness.

"so let's not make a manifesto out of a bee sting."

Great line, Walt.

I guess what I'm saying is that the music writing I enjoy most and have found most edifying does what Joe Morris suggests it should do. But you're right, it's not like everything should do that (or can do that), but even in relatively short columns, like the best of Giddins when he wrote for the Voice, a good, smart writer can include quite a lot. And what Jon calls the 'historical pieces' in the Wire exhibit a lot of what Joe asks for (such as Dan's fine piece some months back about Radigue.)

Asking for higher standards is, imo, a good thing.

East Coast Cool is a fantastic cd. Best cd I've heard in years. Really.
Allan Chase is an amazing saxophone player. One of the very best. John will laugh if he see this. He's the coolest guy on the planet.

Write an article on Bagetellan? What's it pay?

"Write an article on Bagetellan? What's it pay?"

I can compensate you with a Walter Horn disc. Or maybe Warburton's new one.

How about a Captain Hate action figure instead?"

The previously mentioned discs would be infinitely preferable.

A long time ago, Steve Albini wrote a piece for Forced Exposure called "Eyewitness Record Reviews," in which he commented on albums he'd engineered. That's a perspective that doesn't make it into the discourse often enough.

I'm starting to feel a little chafed by writerly earnestness, though. MAP's logorrheic floods of pseudospiritual hagiography are bad enough, but there are also too many writers who take Joe's (admittedly admirable, in small doses and in an ideal world) ideas about knowing technique etc. way, way too much to heart. This is even more true in the world music arena than in jazz - I'm currently in the arduous - but, I believe, ultimately rewarding for the writers, the readers, and myself - process of hammering the didactic impulses out of my stable of Global Rhythm CD reviewers. Don't lecture the reader, I have told them, and don't assume that because the type of lute someone plays has been played exactly that way in his village for 500 years, he's somehow entitled to respect for excreting 75 tedious minutes of plunk 'n' plink. Talk about what's exciting, interesting, entertaining about the music in question, and most of all, tell the reader whether it's worth their $15-20. Critics get free copies; readers don't. Music should be art/entertainment first, and homework only if the listener chooses to make it so.

Oh, and I haven't picked up the disc reviewed at the top of the page, but I was listening to a compilation of the Mulligan/Baker quartet an hour or so ago (listening to Julian Priester's Love, Love as I type), and that was pretty damn great. I'm probably gonna need to sell it and pick up the double-disc version sooner rather than later.

Joe Morris wrote:"Captain Hate!? Wow. I've never been told off by a Super Hero before. Do you have a sidekick named Boy Anger?. What's your super power, correct spelling? Or is it irony? Do you wish Coltrane recorded "A Hate Supreme"? Do you have a hotline to Stanley Crouch?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Joe this is priceless, I was laughing so hard I nearly choked.

Keep up the good work in all the ways you express yourself.......

"A Hate Supreme".......heh heh.......

Funny, back in '97 I was taking a night course learning to read music at the New School in NY and Stanley was a fellow student in the class.

"Noticing the thin skin and need for self-aggrandizement is just marginal gravy."

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Joe, you might be tempted to think from all the posts above that you're the only one around here with "thin skin." Let me reassure you that this is far from the case.

[Mike] I agree with what everyone says above writing, except Walt. That line about the abundance of raves seriously needs to be retired. We all know the score.

[Walt] Mike, that you are able to agree with a number of differing, even contradictory, viewpoints is sort of impressive; I'll give you that.

[Mike] Walt, thanks for noticing that! That's exactly what I intended by that statement! Yes, I specifically mean that I agree with the contradictory viewpoints!

Anytime someone like Joe Morris, PDF, ND, Walt, Adam, etc says something of the form "reviews should fulfill criterion X", I always think "well, there are at least a dozen other valid discourse functions besides X and the applicability of a given criterion isn't intrinsic to a text, but rather determined by its discourse context".

As long as I can derive other people's viewpoints from my own, it doesn't bother me in the least that they're contradictory. In fact, it's logically necessary that many of them will be contradictory.

So anyway, if you go back to my claim "There's only one defensible criterion for good writing about virtually anything: accurate reportage of personal experience. Everything else is the politics of textual bandwidth." you can derive all these contradictory opinions and figure out which contexts they're valid in. It would take a lot of work and it's not a task I'm willing to perform anytime soon because I'd rather work on listening and writing about that.

Well it was fun to see a bunch of you guys freak out and call me names. The real subject here is Nate Dorward writing on Bagatellen about the letter I wrote to Paris Trans-Atlantic! He knocked me on this blog. So I knocked him back. His comments were days before mine. So why don't you all discuss that?

I guess AL deleted the comments he made here. Dan Warburton let me know about those in an e-mail. MAP defended me in that exchange. Remember?

Simple question.

Why is it ok for him to knock me here but not ok for me to give him some payback?

I have deleted nothing, Joe. You and Dan are welcome to be more specific.

At this point I'm surprised to see that you or anyone else gives a fuck. Aren't we done with this drama dose?

It's good that Joe clarified that, because someone just reading this thread wouldn't realize that there was a slightly older thread on this site in which Nate made an out-of-the-blue plug for the exchange between him and Joe in the PT letters section (go the most recent issue of PT for that and judge for yourself if you want to waste time on trivial things like I did--it's not interesting ), which I then responded to by harshly lambasting Nate and defending Joe. A few more posts were made, and the conclusion as far as I was concerned was that both Nate and Joe were guilty of rhetorical excess, but that Joe was right about the basic issue. It's safe to assume Nate, Dan, and plenty of other people disagree with me. For better or worse, those comments have been removed from that thread, as Joe points out and I wasn't aware of, but it was a boring exchange so anyone who missed it didn't miss much and I think this quick summary is more than adequate to explain the back-context for Joe's aggression here and at least reduce the "asshole" impression some people have had.

I certainly don't give a fuck about it! Let it drop Joe & I'll see you for a pint here in Paris in a fortnight.

MAP:

For the record I mentioned this 4 OTHER TIMES in this thread. Including my third posting.

AL.

I think it was on a thing about Creative Sources which seems to be gone.

Joe: "Why is it ok for him to knock me here but not ok for me to give him some payback?"

For the most part, people aren't saying that it isn't okay. What many of us are saying is that we think you're being an asshole. You are free to post whatever you want, and those of us who think you are an asshole are free to call you one.

C'mon, David, it's not like Joe Morris has come on here and posted a bunch of photos of children dressed as hobos.

But seriously, Joe's a terrific musician who clearly knows a hell of a lot. If there wasn't such a clanish response to his attitude, it might be interesting to hear more from him. There's a lot of attitude here at times, it happens, no big deal. But if possible, why not try to steer things to a productive discussion rather than just popping in to spit on the windshield?

I'm guessing I'm not the only one who'd care to hear more from some worldly and knowledgeable musicians. Even ones who come here guns ablazing.

Adam,

If Joe wants to contribute to a productive musical discussion, more power to him, but he came into this thread specifically to attack another poster, even though this thread was not at all about him or anything else related to him until he did that. I don't think the fact that he is a musician should give him a pass from being called out for his behavior, just as any other poster would if he were to do the same.

But, enough digital space has already been wasted on this nonsense, so I'll leave it at that and let someone else have the last word, if they so choose.

Is it possible that David Jones is the disguise that Captain Hate uses to hide his secret identity? Like Clark Kent. It's the same kind of name. Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, David Jones. And like Clark Kent he has to appear to be kind of lame. After all, Captain Hate has the power to correct my spelling, and to be ironic, but as David Jones he can't even figure out if I'm a Jackass or an asshole. Curious.

Or maybe he is the same David Jones that was in the Monkees and then, through a nuclear accident caused by Peter Tork, his genius nemesis, he morphed into Captain Hate? A twisted psycopath who can't control the switches between his real identity and his secret one. Who knows?

Perhaps too, Michael Schaumann is really Boy Anger. Captain Hate's sidekick. Whose maturity was stunted by the often cruel and unfair lottery of genetics, and whose mission in life is to tell strangers to "grow up", all the while secretly wishing that he would.

Then again maybe they're all the same person. One thing is certain, they're all connected by the term asshole.

Actually I started by finding fault with ND's suggestion that the music was more "Ornettish" than Mulligan. And I suggested that McNeil might actually know better than ND. Because if ND knew anything about McNeil (he later admitted he didn't)(or if he read Derek's review) he would know that McNeil actually worked with Mulligan. So instead of being a know-it-all with an uninformed opinion that was presented as more knowledgable than McNeil's, he could have had some respect for McNeil and learned some more about him and the music before he spouted off about it. In other words what he wrote was arrogant and stupid.

As for "productive musical discussion", there is actually a short description of the rhythmic accent differences between Ornette and West Coast styles in my post.

If you geniuses actually read that instead of calling me names we would have had a discussion about the music. Asshole!

Hell, Joe you sure keep shoving me out in traffic every time I pipe up for you! (But then I've been known for overkill too when insulted.)

Maybe you can be persuaded to drop this beef already and write something up about music--Al's already offered some space here, so why not take him up on it? (Man, I feel like I'm channeling the always friendly spirit of Derek Taylor or something...)

And, just for the record, in my personal experience neither David Jones nor Captain Hate are assholes.

fwiw, that's David's name.

The New York Times ran a review by Ben Ratliff of the album in question this morning. So for those sill interested in the music:

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

John McNeil
"East Coast Cool"
(OmniTone)

Some jazz groups can't escape their instrumentation. A quartet with piano, vibraphone, bass and drums must deal with the fact that it uses the same instruments as the Modern Jazz Quartet; it will have to define itself in relation to the band that got there first. The same goes for a band with trumpet, baritone saxophone, bass and drums: it has to orient itself either toward or away from Gerry Mulligan's original pianoless quartet, which he formed with Chet Baker in Los Angeles in 1952.

The trumpeter John McNeil has kept a fairly low profile as a bandleader over the last 30 years, but recently he has been making a highly likable series of let's-try-anything records with OmniTone. He uses his new album to imagine a possibility: What if a band with the same instruments as the Mulligan-Baker group played themes with boiled down, contrapuntal lines, in honor of the ones Mulligan wrote, but engaged the bass and drums much more? (Mulligan's quartet records were beautiful but rhythmically dry.) To put it another way, what if that general sound, with the same blend of timbres and the same respect for concise melody, was generally brought up to date, made more flexible, with a more interactive group? What would it sound like?

Any attempt to answer that depends on who the musicians are. Because the musicians with Mr. McNeil on "East Coast Cool" are Allan Chase on baritone saxophone, John Hebert on bass and Matt Wilson on drums, the music can remind you as much of Ornette Coleman's early-60's quartet - another important pianoless band - as Gerry Mulligan's early-50's one.

Mr. McNeil wants to unlock the neat, airy, compressed feeling of the Mulligan quartet; he wants to open it up to modern possibilities. And he wants the music at least half planted on the ground. (A full-on free-jazz homage to Gerry Mulligan, who really liked his structure and swing, would make no sense.) So the pieces on the album, all originals but two - one of which is "Bernie's Tune," which the Mulligan band made famous - tend to have either a proscribed tonal center or a strong, swinging rhythm. Where there is actual free jazz, it's just an interlude, put in for variety: "Wanwood," a good, original ballad, has a few of these circumscribed sections.

All the composing and arranging devices Mr. McNeil uses to discipline these pieces - the sudden dropping out of one or more musicians, the changes in rhythm, the use of a 12-tone row - give the music its character, but the wonder of the record is its breezy transparency. Mr. Wilson has a light, bouncing touch, which sounds like a result of a lot of listening to Billy Higgins; Mr. McNeil sprawls through long, Don Cherry-style improvisations - weaving in and out of tonal harmony - using a clear, dry, clarion upper register. And Mr. Chase, filling Mulligan's role, does the most to seal the record's connection to what inspired it: he plays with balance and authority, and keeps the temperature of his improvisations low. Mulligan fans shouldn't come to this wanting to hear what he would have done; it's a record that borrows its starting point, but comes to its own conclusions. BEN RATLIFF

"the music can remind you as much of Ornette Coleman's early-60's quartet - another important pianoless band"
Well, whaddya know.. seems our man Dorward wasn't so far off the mark after all.. Now I suppose the whole bunfight will start up again

Oh fuck, I hope not!

Just wanted to say I think Ratliff's review is excellent. Exactly why I'm no longer going to attempt to 'formally' review jazz records anymore. I don't know how to describe technique the way he does and I think that's very interesting and very useful.

Great for McNeil and Allan to get some paper press. It's a riot how you guys think Ratliff vindicates Dorward. Especially on his tiny Ornette reference. You'll have to do better than that.

You guys should stop just speaking to each other and ask some real players what they think of even this level of jazz journalism.

Adam, maybe you should go back to writing reviews. Considering your competition.

Ah, finally everyone decided to roll over and have a cigarette!