WHICH IS BETTER JAZZIZ OR JAZZTIMES MAGAZINE?
RKoba
JGoodpast
Downbeat
Jazz Dr
Cadence!
Ulf Åbjörnsson
JGoodpast <jgoo...@aol.com> skrev i inlägg
<19990521071605...@ng-cr1.aol.com>...
Douglas Norwood
BOBVL
bobvl
==================================>Subject: Re: WHICH IS BETTER JAZZIZ OR
JAZZTIMES MAGAZINE?
>From: LNB...@prodigy.com (Douglas Norwood)
>Date: 5/21/99 4:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7i4eku$3dna$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>
Mike Zimbouski
(RKoba) wrote:
> Vote for which magazine you depend on more for news about jazz?
_Bananafish_.
Mike Z
David J. Toman
Downbeat. I do when I get a chance, if just for the Blindfold Test /
Before & After. I used to prefer Jazz Times for the lack of a star
system in the reviews and more in-depth description of the music, but
the editing quality has gotten so poor it looks like it's proofread by a
bunch of third-graders. But I guess that's what we can expect from a
bunch of Americans these days...
Cadence is great for the monthly interview. I don't care for their
emphasis on avant garde/free jazz, but somebody's got to cover it...
--David in Taipei
Craig Premo
emailaddress/web site?
Peter Roberts
TC (Tom) Richards
changed distribution, messed up my subscription and then stopped returning
my calls to try and get them to follow through on the four remaining issues
that I had paid for but hadn't yet received. But that's just my experience.
Other than that, I thought Jazziz was a fine piece of musical journalism
(insert quote attributed to Lori Anderson/John Cage/Frank Zappa here),
albeit a little slick-seeming. I must say I found it odd the way they
occasionally "continued" an article from page 43, say, on page 12, for
example....
But this thread is about what I _do_ read now, so I vote for DB.
--
T.C. (Tom) Richards
Anti-spam tactics in effect. Do not use REPLY.
Email me at "nbnet.nb.ca" under the name "tcrjazz"
Tom's Proverbs #1: You can't leap too high over the arse of a dead skunk.
Robert Warren
I get Cadence and find it hard to read. The interviews are sometimes
interesting to me, but the tendency towards free and totally improvised music
wears on me as a jazz appreciator.
JJI trends toward the "mouldy figs", but there are some great reissues coming
out of the UK now.
JT at least manages to get in at least twice as many reivews as Downbeat and I
find it is good at other things too. In one of the more recent issues there
were several pages devoted to jazz art. I find that particularly appropriate
to today's many jazz scenes and many jazz artists who are all struggling to be
heard and/or seen.
Jud Warren
San Antonio, Texas
robe...@delphi.com
In article <3746521B...@ficnet.net>, "David J. Toman"
<mile...@ficnet.net> writes: > I see nobody wants to admit they read the main
rags, JazzTimes and > Downbeat. I do when I get a chance, if just for the
Blindfold Test / > Before & After. I used to prefer Jazz Times for the lack of
a star > system in the reviews and more in-depth description of the music, but
> the editing quality has gotten so poor it looks like it's proofread by a
> bunch of third-graders. But I guess that's what we can expect from a
> bunch of Americans these days...
>
> Cadence is great for the monthly interview. I don't care for their
> emphasis on avant garde/free jazz, but somebody's got to cover it...
>
> --David in Taipei
>
Walter Davis
robe...@delphi.com (Robert Warren) wrote:
>David has several good points here. I read JT and JJI on a monthly
basis.
>
>I get Cadence and find it hard to read. The interviews are sometimes
>interesting to me, but the tendency towards free and totally improvised
music
>wears on me as a jazz appreciator.
Not sure what you mean here. Cadence reviews everything they receive,
which includes tons of straight, trad, vocals, and all other styles of
jazz. They don't "tend towards free..." they simply give it the space
it deserves alongside the others. Other periodicals _ignore_ "free,"
but Cadence does not ignore other styles of jazz.
Now, if you mean the subjects they interview, yes there's probably a
tendency towards free musicians there.
-walt
Walter Davis walter...@unc.edu
Health Data Analyst at the ph: (919) 962-1019
Institute for Research in Social Science fax: (919) 962-8980
UNC - Chapel Hill
guy f klose
for over 10 years (I started when it was a newsprint format) and I started
because I found it was the only publication which advertised jazz festivals
before they happened (Northsea, Montreux, for example) instead of running
reviews months later (like Downbeat). Now, JazzTimes publishes a fairly
comprehensive festival listing every spring.
I gave up on Jazziz a long time ago when they started going a little
too pop for my taste.
I also agree that all the others listed (Cadence, etc) are fine publications.
However, what I don't like about Cadence: once you subtract the catalog, the
interview and the reviews (which are also all over the map...some reviewers
only like certain things, and give poor marks to what might be a fine album...
but, there is never a shortage of strong opinion), there isn't anything
left over. Just a handful of ads.
--
Guy Klose
g...@world.std.com
bria...@my-dejanews.com
Jazz Times is superior to Jazziz, I think, but that's only because
Jazziz is so awful. I don't read either regularly, I get most of my
news off the net (like this NG), local jazz radio shows, from the local
newspapers (Boston has decent jazz coverage in the papers) and from
Cadence (for CD reviews).
Brian
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Calliotte/Horn
>However, what I don't like about Cadence: once you subtract the catalog,
the
>interview and the reviews (which are also all over the map...some reviewers
>only like certain things, and give poor marks to what might be a fine
album...
>but, there is never a shortage of strong opinion), there isn't anything
>left over. Just a handful of ads.
Cadence also covers the local scenes in a handful of American cities and
provides substantive reviews of all the major festivals. But even if all
they had were one or two interviews, a huge record catalog, and a zillion cd
reviews each month, that ain't chopped liver if the reviews and interviews
are interesting and informative and the catalog is big and reasonably
priced. The glossy mags don't have those things: they have puff pieces
promoting upcoming or recently released albums, generally on labels that
advertise copiously.
Walter Horn
--
Please check out "Screwdriver!" at http://music.acmecity.com/acidrock/93/
>
>--
>Guy Klose
>g...@world.std.com
Marc Sabatella
>guy f klose wrote in message ...
>>However, what I don't like about Cadence: once you subtract the catalog,
>the
>>interview and the reviews (which are also all over the map...some reviewers
>>only like certain things, and give poor marks to what might be a fine
>album...
>>but, there is never a shortage of strong opinion), there isn't anything
>>left over. Just a handful of ads.
>
>Cadence also covers the local scenes in a handful of American cities and
>provides substantive reviews of all the major festivals. But even if all
>they had were one or two interviews, a huge record catalog, and a zillion cd
>reviews each month, that ain't chopped liver if the reviews and interviews
>are interesting and informative and the catalog is big and reasonably
>priced.
That's my take as well. The original comment struck me as a bit odd,
kind of like saying if you take away the bebop stuff, and the birth
of the cool stuff, and the classic hard bop stuff, and the work with Gil
Evans, and the groundbreaking modal stuff, and the whole second quintet
thing, and the early fusion, and the later fusion, Miles Davis didn't
have much of a career :-)
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Second Course"
Available on Cadence Jazz Records
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
david dorkin
do this often enough too), but they regularly give them horrible reviews
while on the other hand just about any Joe Morris, Matt Schipp etc
record is lauded interminably. They are uncritical in their adulation of
free and uncritical in their destuction of post-bop or modern fusion
which they would be better off not reviewing. JazzTimes at least makes
an effort to find reviewers who are sympathetic and knowledgable about
the styles they are reviewing as opposed to asking a fan of one type of
music only what he/she thinks of an artist in another which gives the
amply documented results of Cadence panning or just ignoring just about
everthing by Brecker, Metheny, Corea, Scofield, Tribal Tech, Holdsworth,
Zawinul, Shorter, Vince Mendoza, Jaco, Patitucci, Holland, Hancock and
indifferent responses to artists like Liebman and Beirach as well
Dennis J. Kosterman
wrote:
>...They (Cadence reviewers) are uncritical in their adulation of
>free and uncritical in their destuction of post-bop or modern fusion
>which they would be better off not reviewing. JazzTimes at least makes
>an effort to find reviewers who are sympathetic and knowledgable about
>the styles they are reviewing...
There is some truth to this, but I suspect Cadence can't afford to
have reviewers sympathetic to each and every style of music. They
have the reviewers they have, and they do their best to review what
they're given to review. Yes, they seem to like free jazz more than
other styles, and it shows in their reviews, but as long as you're
aware of that, it shouldn't be a problem.
Jazz Times seems to me to go too far in the other direction. They
hardly ever give anything a really bad review, and most of their short
reviews read like press releases -- they don't give a strong opinion
one way or the other about the music. And that's the primary thing I
want from a review -- did the reviewer like the music or not, and why?
If you want a balanced perspective, you should read more than one
magazine, anyway. I read Cadence and Jazz Times and Down Beat (and
this newsgroup), and I don't expect any one of those to be the last
word on anything. Taken together, though, I feel that they give me a
pretty good overview.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
(np: Bob Dylan, "Live 1966")
Greensill
coming
out of the UK now.>>>
If ones taste in jazz runs to "real jazz" i.e. anything played between 1920 and
somewhere around 1970, plus all the current folks who play stylistically within
those very arbitrary boundaries, then International Jazz Journal is the only
magazine.
And is the only one that respects and reports on the history of the music. And
of course being English (said with a sardonic smile) all the reviewers can
compose lucid sentences.
Mike Greensill
D Royko
Kosterman) writes:
>On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 13:18:23 -0400, david dorkin <ddo...@aye.net>
>wrote:
>>...They (Cadence reviewers) are uncritical in their adulation of
>>free and uncritical in their destuction of post-bop or modern fusion
>>which they would be better off not reviewing. JazzTimes at least makes
>>an effort to find reviewers who are sympathetic and knowledgable about
>>the styles they are reviewing...
>There is some truth to this, but I suspect Cadence can't afford to
>have reviewers sympathetic to each and every style of music.
I like Cadence, have subscribed to it for 15 years, but I'm not sure I agree on
this point. Last I heard, Cadence reviewers don't get paid for their reviews,
but do it as a labor of love. Thus, it wouldn't cost Cadence any more to
'employ' reviewers sympathetic to whatever styles they want covered.
Dave Royko
Marc Sabatella
>They may not always ignore other styles of jazz at Cadence (though they
>do this often enough too), but they regularly give them horrible reviews
>while on the other hand just about any Joe Morris, Matt Schipp etc
>free and uncritical in their destuction of post-bop or modern fusion
>which they would be better off not reviewing.
Apparently as least as uncritical as you are in your evaulation of their
reviews. I've noted many negative reviews of avant-garde music, and
many positive reviews of mainstream music. In fact, I'm not sure I see
any correlation here at all. Looking at the current issue reviews in
order, I see a lukewarm avant-garde, positive mainstream, positive
mainstream, positive avant-garde, positive avant-garde, positive
avant-garde, lukewarm mainstream, mostly negative mainstream, lukewarm
mainstream, positive mainstream, lukewarm maintream, lukewarm
avant-garde, lukewarm mainstream, etc - the first really negative
review went to a collection of largely avant-garde players playing
mostly mainstream music (the RCA Victor "Live At Birdland" compilation),
so it's hard to know what to make of that.
>JazzTimes at least makes
>an effort to find reviewers who are sympathetic and knowledgable about
>the styles they are reviewing
True, but then, the fluff factor is usually pretty high here, I'd say.
>as opposed to asking a fan of one type of
>music only what he/she thinks of an artist in another
Something Cadence does only rarely, with the most memorable examples
being Jack Bowers ranting and raving about how horrible some avant-garde
recordings were.
>which gives the
>amply documented results of Cadence panning or just ignoring just about
>everthing by Brecker, Metheny, Corea, Scofield, Tribal Tech, Holdsworth,
>Zawinul, Shorter, Vince Mendoza, Jaco, Patitucci, Holland, Hancock and
>indifferent responses to artists like Liebman and Beirach as well
Selective memory, I'd say. As I recall, one of Beirach's album got one
of the most glowing reviews I've ever seen last year, and that was by
one of the "avant-garde" reviewers.
Walter Davis
ma...@outsideshore.com (Marc Sabatella) wrote:
>>which gives the
>>amply documented results of Cadence panning or just ignoring just
about
>>everthing by Brecker, Metheny, Corea, Scofield, Tribal Tech,
Holdsworth,
>>Zawinul, Shorter, Vince Mendoza, Jaco, Patitucci, Holland, Hancock and
>>indifferent responses to artists like Liebman and Beirach as well
>
>Selective memory, I'd say. As I recall, one of Beirach's album got one
>of the most glowing reviews I've ever seen last year, and that was by
>one of the "avant-garde" reviewers.
>
last couple years, they review _everything_ that is sent to them to
review, something which I don't think any other jazz magazine can say.
Furthermore, Cadence is about the only place where one can count on
finding reviews of smaller market, straight-ahead players. A good
number of the reviews are dedicated to "trad" or pre-bop jazz
music (reissues or new recordings). To suggest it's an "avant-garde"
magazine is silly.
Now I can't speak to the Breckers, Methenys, etc. I suspect their
labels know that Cadence readers aren't particularly interested in those
musicians and don't send review copies to Cadence. It's not as if those
guys aren't getting tons of reviews elsewhere, so it's not particularly
troubling that Cadence doesn't have reviews of them. As to Beirach....I
learned about Beirach from a Cadence review. And Dave Holland not
reviewed in Cadence -- give me a break.
FWIW, I don't know if I can name a magazine giving positive reviews to
"fusion" these days, at least not new "fusion". It's on the outs now,
give it a couple years and it'll be OK again.
Marc Sabatella
>FWIW, I don't know if I can name a magazine giving positive reviews to
>"fusion" these days, at least not new "fusion". It's on the outs now,
>give it a couple years and it'll be OK again.
Jazz Times has a couple of departments dedicated to fusion styles, and
the reviewers for those departments tend to be pretty accepting of most
of the most they review.