on 3/18/03 6:26 AM, Perfect Sound Forever at perfect-sound@furious.com wrote:
Excellent point. This kind of thing does give you good perspective about the business and some respect for the people involved in it. I think this should be required for all scribes.
To turn this on its ass, tho, and be fair to the critical community, it's probably wise to point out that there has always been kind of a gap between jazz writers and jazz audiences. There was never anything like a fanzine revolution in the jazz world the way there was in the world of punk rock, where the journalism was written by the guys who booked/promoted the shows or, in some cases, played in bands themselves. As a result, the immediacy of that kind of journalism did/does not as often find its way into the pages of a jazz mag. In the old punk rock days, things did not have the luxury of factionalism, because there simply were never enough bands to represent any one faction to the point where that faction could become its own subculture, and, as a result, the sheer amount of education we all got was bountiful, because the people who wrote about the Blasters were the same guys writing about Siouxsie. Jazz reportage has always been factional (go back and look at old DOWNBEAT's), and it still is. You rarely see the guy who writes about Zorn writing about David Frishberg, and, when you do, it's pretty clear that he prefers one to the other. Whereas the old punk rock fanzine guys seemed enthused about having different kinds of musicians within the scene. (And by the way, I think Frishberg is really fantastic. He also used to be an excellent jazz journalist.) When stuff starts out as factional, you tend to see divides all over. Thje critics and the musicians are more often than not coming to things with different adgendas. The musician wants to explain himself. The critic is trying to fit this artist into his personal aesthetic so that the artist becomes part of the critic's overall musical viewpoint, so that his name actually represents something the same way that musician's name represents something. This is far from ignoble, if the critic is a really good one who really invests himself into the cause of the music he cares about and wants people to see that just maybe anything that's good -- whether it be Phil Woords or John Zorn -- deserves its glory. It's terrible if the critic is just flexing the power of his ability to get into print (those of you who read the LA Weekly have probably noticed Johnny Whiteside, who is a good hang but far from a good critic). You too often see guys who give it up to Dave, Ribot, Zorn et al dismissing people like Phil Woods or Tommy Flanagan. While purporting to know who's really doing what. If you talk to Zorn and you mention Phil Woods, you will likely get a lecture on why Phil Woods is a god and what a huge influence Zorn has felt from him. But a great many critics who celebrate Zorn are quick to dismiss musicians like Phil Woods as not "innovative". Which means they'll praise the new guy but dis the older guy whose music helped shape [the new guy]. That sort of thing is factionalism at it's most destructive. But when you find a critic who understands that Zorn or somebody like that is not operating in some bogus new music innovation vaccum, and that he's part of a tradition that includes a great many things that may not be quite so fashionable -- and can write a critical piece without making sure you know he's just as smart and informed as the artist -- you're likely reading one of the good guys. -- skip h http://www.skipheller.com