Bob Brookmeyer
Bob Florence
Brookmeyer online?
Thanks:
Bob Florence
Tom Walls
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Howard Peirce
> Bob Florence wrote:
>
> > Does anyone on this list know where I can purchase "New Works" by Bob
> > Brookmeyer online?
>
> You can always email him directly. He's a regular poster and maintains a
> strong web presence over at Jazz Corner. Just don't piss him off...:-).
Oops. That's http://www.jazzcorner.com.
HP
Howard Peirce
> Does anyone on this list know where I can purchase "New Works" by Bob
> Brookmeyer online?
You can always email him directly. He's a regular poster and maintains a
strong web presence over at Jazz Corner. Just don't piss him off...:-).
HP
PRProf
That's so funny you wrote that. Recently, I caught up on some back issues of
JazzTimes and caught the "blindfold" test he did with Doug Ramsey (a good
friend of mine) and almost peed in my pants! Brookmeyer's hysterical when it
comes to critiquing other musicians. It was one of the funniest things I'd
ever read. He has absolutely no tolerance for what he determines as mediocre
work. The great line, after hearing something, was "perhaps I've done
something to displease you...," referring to a particular recording.
Bill
JohnH...@aol.com
among other places.
I have this recording - it very nice - interesting composition and
scoring for big band!
I was lucky enough to speak with Brookmeyer and hear him several weeks
ago. He is an amazing musician - always striving to be on the cutting
edge!
Take care,
John
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Howard Peirce
> >Just don't piss him off...
>
> That's so funny you wrote that. Recently, I caught up on some back issues of
> JazzTimes and caught the "blindfold" test he did with Doug Ramsey (a good
> friend of mine) and almost peed in my pants!
There's info on his web site about his reaction to the aftermath of the
blindfold test. Please note that I used the requisite smiley after "don't piss
him off" (I wouldn't want to piss him off)--it's true that he's a riot when on a
rampage, but he also knows exactly what he's talking about, and has the
expertise to back it up.
If you've got a web browser, I highly recommend going over to Jazz Corner,
checking out his website, and then searching for his posts on the BBS
("Speakeasy") over there. Entertaining and informative posts from a man with
nothing to hide.
HP
JazzFan333
I find this a somewhat rare and admirable quality in today's politically
correct times.
For a splendid, entertaining, and enlightening example of Bob Brookmeyer
speaking his mind and the aftermath of the same; go to the Jazz Institute of
Chicago website and scroll down to the article by Mr. Brookmeyer and all of the
letters in response (www.jazzinsituteofchicago.org).
ADR
The Devoted Jazz Fan(atic)
Gerry
<jazzf...@aol.com> wrote:
> letters in response (www.jazzinsituteofchicago.org).
I find this a non-existant site. Is it me or the URL?
--
\\\--- Gerry
---------------------------------------------------
Music is an abstract that we love in the concrete.
Women are a concrete that we love in the abstract.
-- Walker Percy
Rmidn...@webtv.net
still have trouble getting there so I went to www.hotbot.com and if
you type in jazz institute of chicago it's the first one listed
Kevin Bresnahan
news:3843EF40...@sdrc.com...
>
> There's info on his web site about his reaction to the aftermath
> of the blindfold test. Please note that I used the requisite smiley
> after "don't piss him off" (I wouldn't want to piss him off)--it's
> true that he's a riot when on a rampage, but he also knows
> exactly what he's talking about, and has the expertise to back it up.
>
> If you've got a web browser, I highly recommend going over to
> Jazz Corner, checking out his website, and then searching for his
> posts on the BBS ("Speakeasy") over there. Entertaining and
> informative posts from a man with nothing to hide.
>
While it's true that Brookmeyer is very candid and is able to
talk about the music from a musician's perspective, his attitude
that only musicians can even *talk* about Jazz is absolutely
ridiculous. During one of his rampages on Jazz Corner's
Speakeasy, Brook essentially said that he doesn't care
what anyone thinks about any piece of music unless they
are a musician. He went on to state that Jazz Corner's
Speakeasy would be a better place if all of the non-
musicians (a very high majority of the posters) would
go away.
It's this kind of attitude that drives potential Jazz fans
away and it's not an attitude I admire at all. Candor is
great. Highly technical discussions of the music are fine
too. But to dismiss someone's opinion of music simply
because they aren't a musician is asinine.
Later,
Kevin
Blue Lake
Kevin Bresnahan <bre...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
news:94419045...@news1.bigplanet.com...
>
Paul Moylan
writes
>Right, because isn't jazz 'the people's music'?
Any music that is heard becomes something different because each person
is communicated to in different ways. No two people ever hear or feel
exactly the same thing even from the most simple music.
That is why as a musician I so welcome the input of non musicians. I
often find that the "non musician" is more able to be adventurous
because they don't have preset concepts when they approach a new piece
of music.
Musicians often become dismissive of something they don't understand
because they believe they understand it because they are musicians.
Talking about music to only musicians is as pointless as talking
religion only to people who believe in a particular religion or talking
to only Republicans or only Democrats.
--
Paul Moylan
PaulB
critics at:
http://www.jazzinstituteofchicago.org.
-Paul Baker
----------------------------
DSTOL
knowledge that any visceral response they may have to a given work can not be
backed up by them with any technical discussion of why they have this reaction.
However, this does not mean that their reaction is invalid---merely
unsubstantiated...as a musician, I tend to prioritize such opinions
accordingly...
Steve Bosarge
missed the Brookmeyer post, but regardless, this post in its own right
reminds me of Doug's well intended but high-flown view that only artists (or
musicians) can have useful or legitimate opinions of art (or music).
If only card-carrying artists influence the worlds of art, no one, not even
Mr. DSTOL, has much art to learn from, appreciate, enjoy -- and support.
I'm sure musicians and non-musicians alike are grateful that Mr. DSTOL
concedes non-technical listeners may at least have valid "reactions" to art.
In what elitist sanctuary, away from the unwashed masses, do you "perform"
your pristine music, Mr. DSTOL?
Steve Bosarge
DSTOL wrote
Glenn Wilson
from non-musicians. (if you want to sell cds). However, there's no
substitute for talking music, specifically jazz, musician to musician. I
guess the key word in your last paragraph is 'only'. When you communicate
with someone who has a similar perspective and education of the art form,
you can skip the translating and preliminary explanations.
I've read a lot of Brookmeyer's stuff and I think he's reacting to the
age-old argument of uneducated opinions vs. musical 'taste'. I don't think
that everyone's opinion is of equal validity when it comes to talking about
'art'. I might walk through an art museum and tell you which paintings I
'like' but that wouldn't make me an art critic, because I don't know enough
about the history, philosophy, technique, etc. of the art form to have much
to present as I would in a discussion of jazz and improvisation. When
you've had the experience that Brookmeyer has had, you might have a little
bit less patience with uninformed opinion than most of us would have.
I think it's great that someone is willing to say the things he says and not
worry about it.
Thanks Paul
Glenn
Paul Moylan <bas...@mij-the-cat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BNN3aDAk...@mij-the-cat.demon.co.uk...
> In article <827fje$osl$0...@205.138.138.3>, Blue Lake <ra...@bluelake.org>
> writes
>
Lcfpsf
different skill than being able to evaluate work by others.
Musicians have their own stylistic biases and are often so involved in their
own thing that they are not really tuned in to what others are doing.
Of course there is great variation among Musicians as to their abilities in
this area.
If you read old Blindfold Tests and other writings /or interviews of musicians
you find that some of them are capable of in depth comments and analysis and
have a solid knowledge of the history and styles of jazz. Others do not
demonstrate those capabilities.
The same is true of non-musicians.
I believe it is basically invalid to assume that only musicians are capable of
jazz criticism.
Many of the best writings about jazz have been by non-musicians, just as is
true of the other Arts.
Peter F
Marc Sabatella
> Peter - I think we have a disagreement on this basic concept. One may
be
> able to evaluate and appreciate a great meal without being a chef, but
not
> to the same level that the Chef can. Same goes for Painting,
Architecture,
> Playwriting or any other 'art' form you would bring up.
Well, I would agree that a chef would be more likely to be able to give
insight into the creation of the meal - to list which spices were used
and in what proportion, to discuss the cooking techniques that went into
it, etc. But better "appreciate" the meal? I'm not even sure what this
means. That he would be able to enjoy it more? Or that his own
personal enjoyment is somehow more important than someone else's? I
think this is the real source of disagreement.
I think most people would agree that practitioners of an art have some
insight into that art form that laymen might not have, but there is
question as to the *relevance* of that insight. I would say the types
of insight unique to the artist are mostly confined to discussing craft,
not aesthetics. This has a role in evaluating art, to be, but it is by
no means the most important element.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Second Course"
Available on Cadence Jazz Records
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sound clips, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Glenn Wilson
approach it from another standpoint, but I would respectfully disagree that
many of the best writings about jazz have been written by non-musicians. I
think that's a big part of the problem with art criticism in general. I
guess it depends on how deep one wants to go. A lot of jazz critics know
jazz history, styles, etc. but they don't really understand what it's like
to make the music. IMHO, they cover about 85% of what's in the music.
That's usually fine, because most of the people reading their writings only
know 50-60% of that. But if you can go into that last 10% and really gain
an appreciation for what's being done, that's where the magic is! And
that's hallowed ground. I'm sure that's true for other art forms as well.
I agree that most musicians find it hard expressing this, as they are not
accomplished writers and that's why a lot of this stuff goes unpublished.
And, anyway, this is where it all get VERY personal (preferences, etc.) so
it's probably not valid for publishing anyway. This is why 'writers' of the
arts are in print and 'creators' of the art are usually not.
I could go on, but I think I've painted myself into a small enough corner,
now.
Thanks and Happy Holidays
Glenn
Lcfpsf <lcf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991216202741...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
Lcfpsf
Let me try to approach this from another angle. The technical aspects of music
that are used by the musician in "making music" are the tools. The final
product is the music that we hear being played.
One does not have to be a Chef to be able to evaluate and appreciate a great
meal. One does not have to be able to Paint to have a solid understanding of
and appreciation of the works of Rembrandt , Van Gogh and Picasso.
One does not have to be a carpenter, plumber and electrician to appreciate and
make judgements on the buildings of Frank Lloyd Wright and others.
You do not have to be a playwrite to learn to appreciate the greatness in
Shakespeare's
plays.
One can learn, through years of listening, to understand and appreciate music
at a very deep level - without being a musician.
I have spoken with a number of musicians about jazz, and am always surprised
that so many of them do not have much knowledge about the larger world of jazz
and have never even heard the music of many of the excellent players of the
past and present.
Peter F
Tom Walls
says...
I don't really disagree with you, Peter, but I do find that sometimes critics
don't possess a knowledge of the fundamentals of music, and thus lack the
vocabulary(and, probably, judgement) to make statements regarding music that I
find usefull. Often they'll provide a description of their appreciation of a
performance that doesn't communicate anything about the performance itself. A
musician typically will at least speak the language.
Hal Vickery
> In article <19991220195241...@ng-fv1.aol.com>, lcf...@aol.com
> says...
>
> I don't really disagree with you, Peter, but I do find that sometimes critics
> don't possess a knowledge of the fundamentals of music, and thus lack the
> vocabulary(and, probably, judgement) to make statements regarding music
that I
> find usefull. Often they'll provide a description of their appreciation of a
> performance that doesn't communicate anything about the performance
itself. A
> musician typically will at least speak the language.
OTOH, the critic is often writing for a lay audience. If it gets too
technical, s/he might lose his/her readership, no?
nsmf
Howard Peirce
> In article <19991220195241...@ng-fv1.aol.com>, lcf...@aol.com
> says...
>
> I don't really disagree with you, Peter, but I do find that sometimes critics
> don't possess a knowledge of the fundamentals of music, and thus lack the
> vocabulary(and, probably, judgement) to make statements regarding music that I
> find usefull. Often they'll provide a description of their appreciation of a
> performance that doesn't communicate anything about the performance itself. A
> musician typically will at least speak the language.
The problem (for me) occurs when writers attempt to write outside their area of
expertise. Many of the most insightful critics of jazz are not musicians--I
certainly don't dispute that, and my personal library reflects it. But then a
non-musician writer will try to explain, say, the limitations of a particular
instrument, or why a particular passage is (or isn't) tricky to perform, or
trivial, or whatever, and get the details completely wrong.
I was in the bookstore yesterday, and there's this huge picture book called
something like "Jazz, The Instruments and Techniques" or something like that. I
can't recall the author, and maybe he knows all about saxophones or guitars, but
the section on the brass instruments was just laughable nonsense. It was worse
than no information at all.
My personal weakness as a human being is that when a writer attempts a technical
discussion of things he or she doesn't understand, then they tend to lose
credibility with me, and I'll disregard the real insights they have to offer.
HP
Tom Walls
hvic...@svs.com says...
>
>> In article <19991220195241...@ng-fv1.aol.com>, lcf...@aol.com
>> says...
>>
>> I don't really disagree with you, Peter, but I do find that sometimes
critics
>> don't possess a knowledge of the fundamentals of music, and thus lack the
>> vocabulary(and, probably, judgement) to make statements regarding music
>that I
>> find usefull. Often they'll provide a description of their appreciation of
a
>> performance that doesn't communicate anything about the performance
>itself. A
>> musician typically will at least speak the language.
>
>technical, s/he might lose his/her readership, no?
>
>nsmf
So true. I cite this circumstance in order to suggest why someone like Bob
Brookmeyer might find the views of non-musicians irrelevant.
Glenn Wilson
able to evaluate and appreciate a great meal without being a chef, but not
to the same level that the Chef can. Same goes for Painting, Architecture,
music, especially jazz, is a bit different than 'static' art forms such as
painting, architecture, etc. When an art is created 'on the spot' as jazz
is, it would comparable to watching an artist paint a picture, as opposed to
looking at the finished painting. If I were a professional artist and I
watched Picasso paint, you can't convince me that I wouldn't get more from
this than someone who understands and appreciates art but has never painted.
This goes back to your first sentence about 'tools' Your examples about
many jazz musicians not having an understanding and appreciation of the art
form is true. As another example, I'm amazed at professional athletes who
don't know the players and history of the sport they play. However, I don't
think, logically, the reverse is necessarily true. Because there are jazz
musicians who can't appreciate the art form, does not mean that there are
non-musicians who can understand the art form as well as some musicians can.
Maybe I'm jaded by all the jazz writing I've read over the years that shows
me there are many 'experts' who don't know what they're writing about. I
much prefer an historian like Bob Rusch who wrote a book called 'Jazz Talk'
which is basically questions posed to jazz musicians and their answers. If
one understands the music and knows how to followup an answer, like Bob
does, they can show us much more about the creative process than any
'writer' can.
I guess if we don't agree about his basic point, neither one of us is going
to convince the other. It's interesting though. I don't mean to shut down
the communication and I hate this term but we may have to 'agree to
disagree'. That's cool!
Happy Holidays
Glenn
Lcfpsf <lcf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991220195241...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
Simon Weil
>Peter - I think we have a disagreement on this basic concept. One may be
>able to evaluate and appreciate a great meal without being a chef, but not
>to the same level that the Chef can.
One problem with your view is that it is extremely difficult (I'd say
impossible) to evaluate what one does oneself with an unbiased eye. That is for
me the the fundamental reason for having critics. In an ideal world, they are
supposed to have an unbiased view to counter the artist's (naturally, they
think their own version of Art is the better - or best - or only - way of doing
it) self-centrered one AND to know what they're talking about. It's true that
Jazz criticism hasn't been very good, but I don't see how one can get around
this basic problem *except* by having criticism done by someone other than a
musician.
Simon Weil
tst...@businessobjects.com
ds...@aol.com (DSTOL) wrote:
> In my opinion, a non-artist's reaction to any art form can be taken
> with the knowledge that any visceral response they may have to a
> given work can not be backed up by them with any technical discussion
> of why they have this reaction.
Technical discussions are not the only discussions worthy of
consideration, nor can all reactions to music be reduced to matters of
technique.
> However, this does not mean that their reaction is invalid---merely
> unsubstantiated
A reaction that is not perceived or explained in technical terms is not
necessarily "unsubstantiated". Technique, after all, is not everything.
- Tom Storer
"When you're swinging, back that up." - Thelonious Monk
tst...@businessobjects.com
[...]
> So true. I cite this circumstance in order to suggest why someone
> like Bob Brookmeyer might find the views of non-musicians
> irrelevant.
The views of non-musicians clearly *are* irrelevant - to Bob
Brookmeyer. But the views of Bob Brookmeyer (which I don't know), if
inappropriately expressed, may well be irrelevant to non-musicians.
Because the *readers* of jazz criticism are not monolithic, there is no
way to have one perfect jazz critic.
Lay readers with no knowledge of the technical vocabulary of music will
be left behind by technical analysis. It will be literally meaningless
to them. Should they stop reading jazz reviews?
Professional musicians will have no time for impressionistic
descriptions that provide none of the meaning they are looking for,
i.e. technical. Should those descriptions, which suit the layman, never
be published?
Then there is the broad gray area of relatively sophisticated
laypersons who have learned enough *about* music-making to glean
insight from reviewing which combines a mild level of technical
information with aesthetic impressions, historical talk, etc. They are
likely to be unsatisfied with unrelievedly technical discussion *and*
with reviews that are only poetic impressions.
As far as I'm concerned, a good reviewer is a good reviewer, whether a
musician or not, and a bad one is a bad one. Non-musician reviewers who
pretentiously use musical vocabulary incorrectly are bad reviewers not
because they aren't musicians, but because they are pretending they
are. I have read reviews by musicians which have been badly written, or
overly polemical, or too narrowly focused, or whatever. It isn't
because they *are* musicians that they are bad reviewers; they're just
bad reviewers. Let us not generalize.
- Tom Storer
"When you're swinging, swing some more." - Thelonious Monk
tst...@businessobjects.com
Howard Peirce <howard...@sdrc.com> wrote:
> [...]
> The problem (for me) occurs when writers attempt to write outside
> their area of expertise. Many of the most insightful critics of jazz
> are not musicians--I certainly don't dispute that, and my personal
> library reflects it. But then a non-musician writer will try to
> explain, say, the limitations of a particular instrument, or why a
> particular passage is (or isn't) tricky to perform, or trivial, or
> whatever, and get the details completely wrong.
Yes, this is exactly the problem. The musically illiterate writer, whom
I prefer to call a fan with a keyboard rather than a "critic," has
constantly to test him- or herself in this regard. When I write a CD
review, for example, I read it over afterwards and ask myself if I can
define each even vaguely "technical" word I've written and identify it
in the recording. This gets rid of all but the most elementary. The
challenge then is to make a non-technical review seem insightful and
clear. (This is generally when you realize you have no clear and
insightful thought at all, and give up altogether.)
tst...@businessobjects.com
simo...@aol.com (Simon Weil) wrote:
> [...]
> One problem with your view is that it is extremely difficult (I'd say
> impossible) to evaluate what one does oneself with an unbiased eye.
> That is for me the the fundamental reason for having critics. In an
> ideal world, they are supposed to have an unbiased view to counter
> the artist's (naturally, they think their own version of Art is the
> better - or best - or only - way of doing it) self-centrered one AND
> to know what they're talking about. It's true that Jazz criticism
> hasn't been very good, but I don't see how one can get around this
> basic problem *except* by having criticism done by someone other than
> a musician.
I don't think the question is whether a critic should be a working
musician, but whether a critic can be taken seriously if he or she has
no musical training.
Personally I have no problem with amateur, non-musician reviewers, and
indeed I am one myself on occasion. Would I hire myself as a
professional jazz journalist? No way. On the other hand, there are
professional jazz journalists who I don't think are any better at it
than I am, which is a comment not on me but on the sorry state of jazz
journalism. (Apologies to all the *good* jazz journalists out there.)
However:
- Are non-musicians unworthy of hire as professional jazz journalists
*by definition*? No - they just ought to be good journalists.
- Are all musicians worthy of hire as a professional jazz journalists
*by definition*? No - they ought to be good journalists.
Simon Weil
>professional jazz journalist? No way. On the other hand, there are
>professional jazz journalists who I don't think are any better at it
>than I am, which is a comment not on me but on the sorry state of jazz
>journalism. (Apologies to all the *good* jazz journalists out there.)
I would have said that you're perfectly hireable as a Jazz journalist. But
(FWIW) I think that your real strength might be as the editor of a Jazz
publication. You obviously have a wide enough knowledge. Your people skills are
good to excellent. I get the impression that you can be hard-nosed when you
need to be - And you're real good at writing those Jazz think-pieces that fit
just fine as editorials. Last and definitely not least you know what good
writing is.You evidently have a wide experience of it outside of Jazz (or I'm
no judge).
Simon Weil
Tom Walls
>
>In article <83obvs$gij$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
> [...]
>> So true. I cite this circumstance in order to suggest why someone
>> like Bob Brookmeyer might find the views of non-musicians
>> irrelevant.
>
>The views of non-musicians clearly *are* irrelevant - to Bob
>Brookmeyer. But the views of Bob Brookmeyer (which I don't know), if
>inappropriately expressed, may well be irrelevant to non-musicians.
Well Tom, I feel confident that his views are relevant to a thread whose
subject is Bob Brookmeyer. Whether I have inappropriately expressed them
seems doubtfull, since I merely stated problems that I sometimes have with
critics who seemingly are ignorant of the fundamentals of music. I happen to
be interested in people's opinions of music regardless of their musical
background. However, I have sympathy for those people who are serious about
music and find that the layman doesn't have the acumen to express critical
judgements that they find meaningfull. Though I often have this experience
myself, I have also been enlightened by the thoughts of non-musicians.
Richard Thurston
"Glenn Wilson" <glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
> Peter - I think we have a disagreement on this basic concept. One may
be
> able to evaluate and appreciate a great meal without being a chef, but
not
> to the same level that the Chef can.
One could indeed appreciate a fine meal at the very same level as a chef
can. I've done it myself. Knowing how a meal is prepared is but a part
of the actual enjoyment of the event. A meal in particular does not
exist in a vacuum. Service, decor, wine, silver crystal, table
conversation, the clothes guests may be wearing, the flowers on the
table, etc. etc., all influence a meal and its enjoyment.
Same goes for Painting, Architecture,
> Playwriting or any other 'art' form you would bring up. Also, I think
> music, especially jazz, is a bit different than 'static' art forms
such as
> painting, architecture, etc.
That's because with music the audience is involved in the process.
Theatre would be similar.
When an art is created 'on the spot' as jazz
> is, it would comparable to watching an artist paint a picture, as
opposed to
> looking at the finished painting.
It doesn't work that way with painting and that is because of the
performance aspect to music which painting does not have. Music is
essentially a collaborative medium, painting is much less so.
If I were a professional artist and I
> watched Picasso paint, you can't convince me that I wouldn't get more
from
> this than someone who understands and appreciates art but has never
painted.
If you mean by 'more' that a professional artist watching a great artist
paint (an extremely unlikely event in the real world by the way) could
see how the specific painting was actually painted, that is certainly
true. But, there are no real mysteries to how a work is created. No
formulas, few secrets. There are ways of handling materials its true
which require skill and there are compositional strategies. It isn't how
it was done that really matters, its how it ended. How it resolved
itself. And that is a relatively subjective call, deciding the success
or failure of a given work of art.
> This goes back to your first sentence about 'tools' Your examples
about
> many jazz musicians not having an understanding and appreciation of
the art
> form is true. As another example, I'm amazed at professional athletes
who
> don't know the players and history of the sport they play. However, I
don't
> think, logically, the reverse is necessarily true. Because there are
jazz
> musicians who can't appreciate the art form, does not mean that there
are
> non-musicians who can understand the art form as well as some
musicians can.
That would be true if the only way to measure an ability to 'understand
the art form' was by being able to repeat the chords and such like. But
I'm not certain it is. Also, appreciate isn't necessarily the same as
understand.
>
> Maybe I'm jaded by all the jazz writing I've read over the years that
shows
> me there are many 'experts' who don't know what they're writing about.
I
> much prefer an historian like Bob Rusch who wrote a book called 'Jazz
Talk'
> which is basically questions posed to jazz musicians and their
answers. If
> one understands the music and knows how to followup an answer, like
Bob
> does, they can show us much more about the creative process than any
> 'writer' can.
I too am jaded by most jazz writing not because it is inexpert, but
because it is lousy. And the most important thing a writer must do
(and it would hold true no matter what the subject) is to write well.
The response to a work of art is terribly subjective and while certainly
some technical knowledge probably can't hurt, I don't think it is the
most important thing. An ability to describe a work of art (or musical
perfomance) accurately and an ability to put into words the effect the
work of art had on the viewer is what I am after.
>
> I guess if we don't agree about his basic point, neither one of us is
going
> to convince the other. It's interesting though. I don't mean to shut
down
> the communication and I hate this term but we may have to 'agree to
> disagree'. That's cool!
This is one layperson's perspective.
>
Richard Thurston
Glenn Wilson
<tst...@businessobjects.com> wrote in message
news:83qlnt$jt4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
.
>
> I don't think the question is whether a critic should be a working
> musician, but whether a critic can be taken seriously if he or she has
> no musical training.
I think this is Brookmeyer's point. Obvioulsy, (if he has been quoted
correctly in this thread), he doesn't feel that non-musicians are qualified
to discuss his music. This may be a reaction to uninformed critics or just
his personal preference. If one has heard a lot of his writing, one would
have to agree that he is not writing for the average public. Maybe that's
why he's had so little economic success with this music. That doesn't take
away from the respect he deserves and gets from musicians.
>
> Personally I have no problem with amateur, non-musician reviewers, and
> indeed I am one myself on occasion. Would I hire myself as a
> professional jazz journalist? No way. On the other hand, there are
> professional jazz journalists who I don't think are any better at it
> than I am, which is a comment not on me but on the sorry state of jazz
> journalism. (Apologies to all the *good* jazz journalists out there.)
>
I agree. But, just speaking from a musician's standpoint, it's very
difficult to read reviews of jazz by 'amateur' journalists or even
professionals who obviously have a bias, or worse, yet, very little
knowledge of the art form. It's also a very difficult balance for a jazz
reviewer to bring his/her knowledge of the art to the review without
imposing personal preferences. This is where a detailed knowledge of the
'music' comes in handy. If the reviewer can listen and understand what the
musician is doing, he can leave his bias behind and talk intelligently about
what is going on.
Of course the other factor here is economic. Most writers and reveiwers
can't make a living from that any more than most jazz musicians can. If a
magazine is paying $50 to reveiw a CD, how are they going to attract serious
writers and jazz scholars to spend the time. I'm amazed (and grateful) that
serious jazz writers like Scott Yanow still review CDs.
> However:
>
> - Are non-musicians unworthy of hire as professional jazz journalists
> *by definition*? No - they just ought to be good journalists.
They are certainly not unworthy of hire, but should have a serious
understanding of the art form, not just be a good journalist. (Maybe
'journalist' by definition would include a serious understaning of whatever
they're writing about). I always thought or a journalist as someone who,
whether they know the subject or not, can investigate and find out what they
think they need to know and express it to the audience in a professional
manner. This, IMHO, doesn't cut it when you're writing about art.
> - Are all musicians worthy of hire as a professional jazz journalists
> *by definition*? No - they ought to be good journalists.
>
I agree. But I guess Brookmeyer has spent 50 years putting up with people
he thinks are non-qualified talking about his music, so I can undertand his
point.
P.S. - Tom, I guess from your address that you work for Business Objects.
The company I consult to uses your product. Small world, huh. Also, your
Monk quote reminds me of my days with Buddy Rich. He'd call a tune and
preface it by saying 'And it better swing, God Damn it!' Nice way to relax
the guys.
> - Tom Storer
>
> "When you're swinging, swing some more." - Thelonious Monk
>
>
Glenn Wilson
Peter's reference. It's not a good example. As I said later in the post in
referring to painting, if you really want to compare it to jazz, you'd have
to watch the chef cook the meal, not just taste the final results.
Read my later post for yet another elaboration.
BTW - my first record was on Cadence in 1984. It's finally coming out on
CD.
Best of luck
Glenn
Marc Sabatella <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:jB984.927$sb5....@news.uswest.net...
> Glenn Wilson <glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Peter - I think we have a disagreement on this basic concept. One may
> be
> > able to evaluate and appreciate a great meal without being a chef, but
> not
> > to the same level that the Chef can. Same goes for Painting,
> Architecture,
> > Playwriting or any other 'art' form you would bring up.
>
PaulB
http://www.jazzinstituteofchicago.org
Paul Baker
tst...@businessobjects.com
"Glenn Wilson" <glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
> [...] But, just speaking from a musician's standpoint, it's very
> difficult to read reviews of jazz by 'amateur' journalists or even
> professionals who obviously have a bias, or worse, yet, very little
> knowledge of the art form.
My point, or at least part of it, is that most jazz reviewers do not
write solely for musicians.
> It's also a very difficult balance for a jazz
> reviewer to bring his/her knowledge of the art to the review without
> imposing personal preferences.
I see a difference between value-free technical analysis, which is
useless to any but a technician, and criticism. Criticism, even if it
does include technical description, is all about personal preferences,
really. If a CD gets a thumbs-down from one reviewer and a thumbs-up
from another, does that mean one of the reviewers must have been wrong?
I don't see it that way. But this isn't "imposing" preferences, it's
*discussing* preferences. It's up to each reviewer to share his or her
viewpoint in a way that makes readers think or excites their curiosity
about the music; neither is wrong - unless they make *factual* errors,
which is another matter.
> This is where a detailed knowledge of the
> 'music' comes in handy. If the reviewer can listen and understand
> what the musician is doing, he can leave his bias behind and talk
> intelligently about what is going on.
Yes, but if he leaves his "bias" behind, what differentiates his review
from that of another knowledgeable, unbiased reviewer? I *want* to read
about people's "biases," another word for "bias" being "taste."
> I always thought or a journalist as someone who,
> whether they know the subject or not, can investigate and find out
> what they think they need to know and express it to the audience in a
> professional manner.
That's a pretty good definition, I'd say.
> This, IMHO, doesn't cut it when you're writing about art.
I would agree that in an ideal world, the New York Times or Downbeat
would have reviewers with a background in music, just as I would expect
writers in Architecture Monthly to know about architectural theories
and techniques. But as you point out, there don't seem to be enough
journalists with that background to go around. "Jazz reviewing? It's a
lonely, thankless job, but *someone* has to do it."
However, the arts are something people are passionate about, and they
want to express that. It's part of the human desire to communicate
what's important to us to other people. A lot of bullshit gets said,
and in among it, nuggets of good stuff. Caveat lector! (I'm guessing at
that expression, not being a qualified student of Latin.)
> [...] I guess Brookmeyer has spent 50 years putting up with people
> he thinks are non-qualified talking about his music, so I can
> undertand his point.
Yeah, so can I. Unfortunately for him, people will just keep on talking.
Glenn Wilson
Just a couple of follow-ups.
<tst...@businessobjects.com> wrote in message
news:83srf2$6dh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> My point, or at least part of it, is that most jazz reviewers do not
> write solely for musicians.
>
I guess this is some marketing manager's attempt to sell magazines, but if
downBeat, JazzTimes, Saxophone Journal, etc. are not writing for solely for
musicians, who are they writing for? I would venture a guess that 80% of
the people reading these mags are musicians. I would rather read a
hard-nosed serious jazz journal (Cadence Magazine?) that assumes it's
readers are musicians or are seriously into the music. I understand they
want to reach as wide an audience as possible, but this seems to dilute
these magazines to little more than PR shills for the record labels,
equipment companies, etc.
>
> I see a difference between value-free technical analysis, which is
> useless to any but a technician, and criticism. Criticism, even if it
> does include technical description, is all about personal >preferences,
really. If a CD gets a thumbs-down from one reviewer >and a thumbs-up from
another, does that mean one of the >reviewers must have been wrong?
Of course, you're right here. Unfortunately, because these magazines, etc.
are not writing for musicians, most jazz reviews consist of explaining who
the people are with some quotes from press packets, other reviews, etc.
followed by a list of the tunes on the record. Most reviews don't even
include more than a sentence about the reviewers evaluation of the product.
OTOH, you also see reviews that say 'I liked this tune but not that one" and
"This guy sounds like xxx, but I didn't like the piano player" or whatever.
Pretty useless stuff to musicians and non-musicians.
>
> Yes, but if he leaves his "bias" behind, what differentiates his review
> from that of another knowledgeable, unbiased reviewer? I *want* to read
> about people's "biases," another word for "bias" being "taste."
>
I guess when I used the word 'bias' I was more referring to certain writer's
predilection for a certain era or type of jazz. If a reviewer is in love
with AACM type jazz and reviews a Ken Peplowski CD on Concord, then proceeds
to tell me that there's no energy or it's too structured or something like
that, I take that as an example of bias coming into the intelligent
discussion of the music.
I think we all agree we wish more serious journalists could find work in the
arts, so we aren't always left with whomever will be insulted by low pay to
write about something dear to his/her heart. (Kinda sounds like the Jazz
musicians making the CDs!!!)
Have a cool yule
Glenn
tst...@businessobjects.com
"Glenn Wilson" <glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> [...]if downBeat, JazzTimes, Saxophone Journal, etc. are not writing
> solely for musicians, who are they writing for?
Downbeat and JazzTimes are writing for a mixed audience of jazz
musicians and jazz fans. I would assume Saxophone Journal is pitched
solely to musicians.
> I would venture a guess that 80% of
> the people reading these mags are musicians.
No idea how many downbeat or JazzTimes readers are musicians. Even if
80% is a good guess, that is hardly "solely".
> I would rather read a
> hard-nosed serious jazz journal (Cadence Magazine?) that assumes it's
> readers are musicians or are seriously into the music.
Hang on a minute. There's a huge difference between "musicians" and
people "seriously into the music." For example, a great many regulars
of this newsgroup are non-musicians; I would consider them "seriously
into the music" and I'm sure they read the jazz press. As for what you
would "rather read," that's another matter. Different readers have
different preferences, which justifies a variety of approaches from
reviewers.
> I understand they
> want to reach as wide an audience as possible, but this seems to
> dilute these magazines to little more than PR shills for the record
> labels, equipment companies, etc.
But that's not because of non-musicians writing for them, it's because
of editorial policy.
> because these magazines, etc.
> are not writing for musicians, most jazz reviews consist of
> explaining who the people are with some quotes from press packets,
> other reviews, etc. followed by a list of the tunes on the record.
> Most reviews don't even include more than a sentence about the
> reviewers evaluation of the product. OTOH, you also see reviews that
> say 'I liked this tune but not that one" and "This guy sounds like
> xxx, but I didn't like the piano player" or whatever. Pretty useless
> stuff to musicians and non-musicians.
Precisely - if it's useless to musicians *and* non-musicians, it's just
a bad review. It's not *because* it has a non-technical slant. It's
important to give background on musicians, for example - in French jazz
magazines, there is often an assumption that all readers are experts,
so there are reviews which refer to the musicians only by their last
names and don't mention what instrument they play. For a jazz musician
in Paris, no problem, they know precisely who and what; for a broader
audience, it's very irritating.
> Have a cool yule
Likewise!
Glenn Wilson
<tst...@businessobjects.com> wrote in message
news:83vek1$uh9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <83tnb2$tq8$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Glenn Wilson" <glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
> > I would rather read a
> > hard-nosed serious jazz journal (Cadence Magazine?) that assumes it's
> > readers are musicians or are seriously into the music.
>
> Hang on a minute. There's a huge difference between "musicians" and
> people "seriously into the music." For example, a great many regulars
> of this newsgroup are non-musicians; I would consider them "seriously
> into the music" and I'm sure they read the jazz press. As for what you
> would "rather read," that's another matter. Different readers have
> different preferences, which justifies a variety of approaches from
> reviewers.
Tom - The purpose of my sentence was to INCLUDE people who are seriously
into the music with musicians. I thought that was your point. My point is,
if the writing is directed at those who 'know' the music, whether they are
musicians or not, we would all be better off. My objection is that, by
trying to appeal to 'different readers' with 'a variety of approaches',
these publications are subjecting us to reviews that have to explain who the
musicians are, what they've done, why they are important, followed by a list
of tunes, which leaves us with little critical opinion (founded or
unfounded). Again, pretty useless stuff for musicians and non-musicians.
I was thinking about this thread (and Brookmeyer's points) over the weekend
as I was listening to some live Miles from 1967. What struck me like a
thunderbolt was that, when I listen to jazz, I put myself in the band. I've
played thousands of gigs with many top name jazz musicians and there are
many moments in any given tune, that make the hair on the back of my neck
stand up, make my heart beat faster, my fingers start moving, and my mind
(and ears) start to formulate what I'm going to play or what I would play if
I was there in that exact moment. I can actually 'feel' the music. I've
read research that explains why certain smells lead us to certain feelings,
why, when we hear a certain song, we think of an historical situation, etc.
I wonder how this would apply to other art forms or even non art forms. If
I'm a championship skier and I'm watching a video of someone skiing down a
slalom course, I would probably get the same body sensations as I get from
listening to jazz (especially live jazz). But if I understand and have
studied skiing, but never skiied, would I get the same reaction?
It's amazing to me when I listen to jazz, how I am 'in' the band and what
that does to me, physically and emotionally. I guess that's why I can't
listen to drivel like Kenny G. I put myself in that band, and I can't wait
for the tune to end.
I'd be curious how this applies to other art forms that might not be as 'in
the moment' as jazz is.
Glenn
tst...@businessobjects.com
"Glenn Wilson" <glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Tom - The purpose of my sentence was to INCLUDE people who are
> seriously into the music with musicians. I thought that was your
> point. My point is, if the writing is directed at those who 'know'
> the music, whether they are musicians or not, we would all be better
> off.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes - sorry if I was approaching
your posts with different assumptions. The debate, as I saw it, was
whether or not jazz writing should be by, and directed to, musicians -
basically, whether it should make technical analysis the most important
part of a review or article. That would make it difficult to follow for
non-musicians, including those who are seriously into the music.
> I was thinking about this thread (and Brookmeyer's points) over the
> weekend as I was listening to some live Miles from 1967. What struck
> me like a thunderbolt was that, when I listen to jazz, I put myself
> in the band.
Hell, I think most "serious listeners" - of *anything* - do that! Think
of teenage MTV viewers playing air guitar. I remember a bunch of guys
in my dorm in college who would gather in somebody's room, put on
Grateful Dead jams, turn the lights down low, and have mock "concerts,"
in which they would take brooms, hockey sticks or whatever to emulate
guitars, and play along with the records. Of course they were all
stoned and guffawing and ironic, but they were really enjoying
themselves, and put a lot of acting ability into grimacing at just the
right points in a guitar solo.
I thought it was pretty sad, of course, as I sat in my room, imagining
myself playing those Trane or Mingus solos...