on 3/18/03 11:56 AM, Perfect Sound Forever at perfect-sound@furious.com wrote:
skip Heller wrote:
on 3/18/03 6:26 AM, Perfect Sound Forever at perfect-sound@furious.com wrote: 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.
Why do you think that is? Just curious.
The only thing I can think of is that the first magazines to cover jazz were pretty traditional trade magazines with a little gossip/infotainment thrown in, so the ways you'd write about jazz were never "make it up as you go along". A great deal of early jazz criticism was by writers trying to defend jazz as being as techincally legit as European music, so they wrote about it on those terms. Also, jazz -- especially when played by black people -- was fighting for survival in the entertainment world, so subversive people intending to rewrite the rules of bandstand conduct tended to act more professional than someone like Jello Biafra might. Also, the technology of the time made it harder for fans to just start printing their own zines. The Xerox machine probably did more for indie music than we'll ever know.
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.
True but there's factionalism in rock writing too. People complain about revivals and feel compelled to defend their turf (purists) and such. I think the same thing happens with any style that's been around for more than a few years and has had time to develop different strains of music. Plus, more than any other type of music writing I've seen, rock writers revel in snipping at each other.
You're right on one hand. On the other hand, you hardly ever see a rock writer dismissing ALL of a rock movement, except maybe to say something like "grunge is dead" or something equally revolutionary. But you do see self-ordained pious be-bop guardian crits dismissing what they think is "downtown", and you see avant garde losers dismissing be bop.
On the other hand, with the publishing market going down the tubes like most other markets, I think a number of writers are finding that to make ends meet, they have to be flexible about what they cover as there are less and less opportunities out there.
what Oscar Levant called "the less gaudy basis of economics"
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.
I think that's actually a healthy thing though. When they used to have two columnists review a new Coltrane release for example, you saw how divisive (and important) that album was and that there wasn't only one way to view it. Now because of shortened space, this is hardly ever done any more. It's a shame because it's a tremendous service/eduction for the readers.
That was more the exception than the rule. Not that many albums got that kind of treatment. I have old DBs where the be bop guy is trashing Benny Goodman, and the trad jazz guy is bashing Diz. And everyone trashed Monk. Also, I should have said I'm referring as much to daily and weekly newspapers as much as magazines that specialize in music. But I agree that we lose something when there's no point/counterpoint about a work that is controversial in its community.
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).
Some people do this just to make a name for themselves and some editors will print this kind of thing just to rile people up.
... and people wonder why musicians get frustrated. With radio closed to so much music, press is a big deal. And when those rules of engagement don't favor the fair shake... Oy vey es mir. (Radical Jewish slogan, kids) sh http://www.skipheller.com (the new and improved website)