Jazz Reviews

[Reid]

I wanted to continue the thread about jazz reviews/journalism. What do you look for in jazz review? I'd like to this thread to be a place where we can hear from people who write jazz reviews and articles as well.

[walto]

Once again,

1. Food analogies
2. Animal comparisons

:>}

[Reid]

Walt,

I remember you using animal metaphors, but I can't remember any food metaphors. Do you recall any?

Btw, in my experience, you're one of the few reviewers who go the extra mile in trying to give the reader an idea of what the music sounds like. Do you think that's true? If so, why is that so few reviewers really strive to get a vivid picture of what the music sounds like (not enough time? writers don't think readers want that?).

[Sergio Zamora]

At least one reference to Vermuellen or Elliot Carter is a must.

[Nate Dorward]

Originally posted by Reid
Btw, in my experience, you're one of the few reviewers who go the extra mile in trying to give the reader an idea of what the music sounds like. Do you think that's true? If so, why is that so few reviewers really strive to get a vivid picture of what the music sounds like (not enough time? writers don't think readers want that?).

Yes, this is a very important thing for a music review to do; but it's not as easy as it looks. Take a look for instance at Ken Waxman's very verbose reviews on the Jazz Weekly website; they're not terrible reviews by any means, but I find his determination to catalogue every plink & plonk at length actually obscures rather than elucidates what the music sounds like. Precision, pithiness & a telling example or image or choice of word are going to give far more sense of what the music's like than any ransacking of the thesaurus for adjectives or mindless cataloguing. Most reviews ought to be shorter than they are, not longer.

[Reid]

Nate,

In my experience I can't agree that most reviews should be shorter than longer. Of course, if the review says nothing than naturally less of "nothing" is better than more. With some exceptions, most of the reviews in the various magazines are too short. Sometimes, the introduction can take up to a third of the review, too. Also, not all writers seem to want to give you an in-depth, "objective" description of the music. Perhaps most readers don't want that anyway. Maybe they're more interested in hearing if the reviewer liked it or not.

[Nate Dorward]

Well, most prose of any kind is improved by brevity: it's impossible to achieve any vivid effect without selectiveness & precision. & the best service you can do any record (good bad or indifferent) & for the reader is to write well & vividly.

The main thing about abstract judgments of quality is that while they need to be conveyed, they should not form the substance of the review--ideally they emerge implicitly from your description of the music anyway.

[mke]

Originally posted by Nate Dorward
The main thing about abstract judgments of quality is that while they need to be conveyed, they should not form the substance of the review--ideally they emerge implicitly from your description of the music anyway.

Very good point. I often feel like I have to do a "summing up" to make the review feel complete, but it always ends up sounding awkward and redundant.

Writing vividly: I'll try to keep that in mind.

n

[Uli]

Originally posted by Nate Dorward


The main thing about abstract judgments of quality is that while they need to be conveyed, they should not form the substance of the review--ideally they emerge implicitly from your description of the music anyway.

I can't stand abstract judgements of quality.

I can dig opinions on quality if they are concrete.

[gnhrtg]

One thing that is always helpful for the uninitiated is to note how a certain player, the band, and the grooves sound like. I would not want to address reviews as though the audience would, necessarily, know how the artists or bands in question sound like. One way that I like to convey these is through comparisons with others. So X here sounds like Y, or, the grooves remind one of Z. This might be more difficult to do apropos the more radical artists but I do not believe that any artists is so individual as to defy comparison in this sense.

Gokhan

[Nate Dorward]

Originally posted by Uli
I can't stand abstract judgements of quality.

I can dig opinions on quality if they are concrete.

What's a concrete judgment of quality? If you mean simply to say that reviews need to be adequately grounded in description, then yes, that's what I was saying. But aesthetic judgments ultimately cannot be "proven", though they can be (ought to be) justified, & so they are not concrete (=inherent in the artwork).

[Reid]

Two things about referring to other musicians/albums to describe the musician(s)/album in question:

1. Obviously, you don't know who the referrences are, then it's not very helpful. I find this happens a lot for me when I read Wire reviews. Having said that I think that, referring to other musicians/albums can be very helpful.

2. I don't mind the kind of descriptions that that say, This is a cross between King Crimson and Miles Davis or whatever, if the writer goes into more detail. If the writer goes on to explain why they feel this is a valid description than I don't mind so much. I don't care for comparisons like this that are thrown out with no further comments about the statement.

[Uli]

Concrete opinions on quality (note, I have not used the term judgement) would have to be based on some kind of music theoretical stuff, imho. Stuff like "rhythmic feel", "melodic inventiveness", "off pitch" "off beat","wrong notes", "does not resolve" etc etc.

Aesthetics otoh are better explored, explained and described than judged, imho. Maybe you tell me how you justify abstract judgements and we may have more of a discussion.

[Nate Dorward]

But technical musical description is entirely dependent on abstract but implicit aesthetic judgments about genre, about musical function, &c. How can you judge for instance that something is "off pitch" unless you're already working within a pretty extensive set of aesthetic presuppositions about harmony, temperament, the role of pitch in music, &c. Take a look at all the early responses to Ornette Coleman complaining that he had a poor sense of pitch.

[Uli]

I don't think I disagree with your last post, Nat. Maybe we have more a semantic disagreement on concrete & abstract. I had never heard complaints about Ornette's poor pitch. Of course that does not mean that it did not exist. Most complaints as I remember were that he was harmonically and rhythmically screwing things up. Anyway, I am more hung up on your term of quality judgement. Personally, I don't care much about reviews that are trying to tell me how good or bad a record is.

[gnhrtg]

This might seem trivial and also might have to do with what people understand from a "review," but, in addition to comparisons or references, I would also appreciate knowing the overall mood. If the album in questions is an avant-garde title, then is the overall mood/impression soft, light, tender, calm; or is it more energetic, furious, full of "honks and squeks," or is it groovy but without a given harmonic structure, or maybe it has a certain harmonic structure but no stable rhythmic background. If it were a more bop, postbop, contemporary (in Branford's sense), then I would want to know whether it's a mainly ballads album or if the sidemen do actually solo (Satlah's Children of Israel vs. Patricia Barber's Verse.

These things all do matter to me and knowing them ahead of time might change my preferences. So, in addition to all the subjective notions about the rhythm section "clicking" or not, I would also like to have some information about these.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

I read a review of Dave Liebman's record "Drum Ode" years ago, and the reviewer did not understand the complexities of a song called Oasis and blamed the strangeness of the song on the vocalist, Eleana Steinberg. Actually, she was right on pitch and in rhythm, but Liebman's writing was odd, and the reviewer had no clue.

I guess what I'm saying is that the reviewer should know what he/she's trying to tackle in a review.

Another writer wrote once that one of my early LP's sounded like a Hare Krishna saxophonist running through the airport blasting and asking for donations.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that my hair has not been that short for years and years, and I worship Ganesha, not Krishna. And I don't think I played sax on that particular record. Oh, and I don't like airports.

[Nate Dorward]

Originally posted by Dennis Gonzalez
I guess what I'm saying is that the reviewer should know what he/she's trying to tackle in a review.

True, & I get driven up the wall by reviews that expose the reviewer's lack of musical knowledge. (& cringe at a few goofs I've perpetrated in the past--e.g. casually mentioning in a review that Rhodri Davies plays Celtic harp. Celtic harp is a small handheld instrument; R.D. plays full-size orchestral harp, & I shouldn't have made the mistake given that I've seen him perform live.) But, that said, often as a reviewer you're stuck having to write on music with insufficient background or information, & you just have to fake it somehow. (For instance, I can handle just about anything from bop to free-improv; but I've sometimes had to deal with recordings ranging from Cuban fusion to Japanese noise-core to UK trad. You just do your best.....)

One of the dirty little secrets in music reviewing is that the point of liner notes is in large part to contextualize the recordings for reviewers (i.e. feed lines to them). (They no longer serve the purpose they used to on LPs where the consumer could read them before purchasing an album.) Musicians releasing CDs take note!

[Reid]

Is there a lot of integrity in the review writing process? Are there a lot of forces that make writing an honest review difficult? Is it fair to say that many reviewers are merely extensions of record label marketing divisions?

[alankin]

Originally posted by Reid
Walt,

I remember you using animal metaphors, but I can't remember any food metaphors. Do you recall any?

How about: "this music stinks!"?

[mke]

Originally posted by Reid
Is it fair to say that many reviewers are merely extensions of record label marketing divisions?

One the one hand, I don't particularly want to *lower* the sales of any musician, as life is tough enough already, but on the other hand, I do aspire to be more than another link in the marketing chain.

As I don't get paid by anyone for my reviews, all I get is the CD itself. I don't see that as enough to worth "comprising my integrity" or whatever.

[walto]

I think the problem actually IS a function of the reviewers getting paid little or nothing. It's not much more than an extended family. Many reviewers are basically fans with pens. As Al wrote somewhere, his main remuneration has been drinks and confab with some of his heroes. (My buddy Brian writes reviews of guys he takes trans-Atlantic trips with.)

Only the true shitbum (like moi perhaps?) is gonna trash his friend or his idol for the price of CD.

There's also the danger, especially if you're a bit chicken and have no slingshot (again like moi?), that you'll try to avoid getting the shit kicked out of you at a gig either by a musician or a fan by choosing to "damn" a really bad release with "feint praise."

And, of course, as MKE said, these musicians/label guys/etc. are all just poor shmucks trying (futilely) to make a few bucks in the arts. Why hurt their chances?

So, there are many more pressures to praise than to inform prospective buyers. And, as a result, almost every review is predominantly favorable.

[mke]

Originally posted by walto
And, of course, as MKE said, these musicians/label guys/etc. are all just poor shmucks trying (futilely) to make a few bucks in the arts. Why hurt their chances?

Is that an example of faint praise?

Were I a professional music journalist, I'd probably review a lot more stuff, stuff I don't choose myself, so there would be more negative reviews. As it is, I only bother asking labels for albums I think I'll like anyway.

[Reid]

Walt,

So what's going one when a writer writes a bad review? Does the writer just not give a damn about the musician? Maybe the music is so bad there's no way to say anything positive?

[walto]

Yeah, I guess the reviewer must really hate it or just be tired of being sweet or something. I don't deny, too, that there is always a countervailing pressure provided by the zing of pounding somebody--particularly somebody one believes has gotten more raves than he/she deserves.

But, as I see it, the other forces generally prevail.

[Nate Dorward]

Well, space is limited in journals. My experience with Coda has been that Stuart will usually hand the reviewer a stack of things & say "If you really hate one of these, don't bother reviewing it, just throw it in the trash & reuse the case--I have so little space as it is I can't afford to waste it on something that doesn't deserve the attention." That said, I've occasionally written up a pan for Coda when it seemed to have a point. There's no point in panning some musician or disc no-one would ever have heard of if you didn't review it. But there's more point to a negative review of a more widely publicized disc or artist, one that readers will be naturally curious about. (E.g. I tossed a bit of cold water on discs like Sigame by DD Jackson & The Grass Is Greener by Bennink/Parker, which I thought disconcertingly lacklustre stuff for artists capable of much better.)

Cadence specifically tells you not to send back discs unreviewed, so you have to come up with an opinion--so it's pretty unlikely you'll be turning in only positive reviews! Occasionally you get something totally out-there, like the 7-minute CD I reviewed by an insane Japanese pianist (7 minutes which he claimed was the result of 30 years of preparation and study--pity it sounded like a fumbling parody of Tristano's "Line Up").

Walt's diagnosis of the causes of "soft" reviewing is dead-on. I think I'd add as an addendum that actually most musicians I respect are quite realistic & don't expect you to love every disc they put out. I once gave a negative review of a disc by a UK free-improv saxophonist & when I met him he was quite unsurprised at my reaction to it: he said that it wasn't a disc that he was very happy with, as it paired him with an American drummer & he felt that the results were "awkward". -- I don't feel guilty one whit about penning negative reviews because I've discovered that absolutely any disc, no matter how bad, will garner its share of inanely enthusiastic reviews, so it's not as if the artist is going to be lacking for praise from some quarter.

[Bill Barton]

Originally posted by Reid
Is there a lot of integrity in the review writing process? Are there a lot of forces that make writing an honest review difficult? Is it fair to say that many reviewers are merely extensions of record label marketing divisions?

Yeah, I'm laughing all the way back from the bank after making a big-ass withdrawal (rather than a deposit)...

[walto]

Originally posted by Nate Dorward
I don't feel guilty one whit about penning negative reviews because I've discovered that absolutely any disc, no matter how bad, will garner its share of inanely enthusiastic reviews, so it's not as if the artist is going to be lacking for praise from some quarter.

You're absolutely right, but I've still gotten nasty letters and remarks from a bunch of guys. There are people out there--both musicians and their fans--who are absolutely indignant if EVERYONE doesn't adore EVERY SINGLE release.

[Reid]

Walt,

I don't know if paying reviewers would solve this problem. And it's a big problem to me because where can fans get honest reviews of recordings? With the amount of recorded music these days, and a limited budget, there needs to be an effective way to determine what cd's you're going to purchase. If you don't have reviewers that can be totally honest, that puts the consumer in a tough position.

Luckily we have bbs where posters can generally be honest. But again, if we know the musician in question, it'll be real tough to give a negative review, particularly if he/she posts at this site. In general though, unless there is super positive consensus, it's not always easy to know which poster to listen to.

I think I mentioned this before, but there's this video store in Seattle where you rate various movies from 1 to 10. The computer looks through a database of other people who have rated films, and finds other people who have rated films in similar ways that you have. Then, the computer recommends films to you based on what these people liked that you haven't seen. (At least I'm pretty sure this is how it works.) It would be so great if there were something like that for music. Then, I wouldn't really need to depend on reviews as a guide to purchasing.

[walto]

Originally posted by Reid
Walt,

I don't know if paying reviewers would solve this problem. And it's a big problem to me because where can fans get honest reviews of recordings? With the amount of recorded music these days, and a limited budget, there needs to be an effective way to determine what cd's you're going to purchase. If you don't have reviewers that can be totally honest, that puts the consumer in a tough position.

Luckily we have bbs where posters can generally be honest. But again, if we know the musician in question, it'll be real tough to give a negative review, particularly if he/she posts at this site. In general though, unless there is super positive consensus, it's not always easy to know which poster to listen to.

I think I mentioned this before, but there's this video store in Seattle where you rate various movies from 1 to 10. The computer looks through a database of other people who have rated films, and finds other people who have rated films in similar ways that you have. Then, the computer recommends films to you based on what these people liked that you haven't seen. (At least I'm pretty sure this is how it works.) It would be so great if there were something like that for music. Then, I wouldn't really need to depend on reviews as a guide to purchasing.

I'm not sure paying reviewers is the answer either, but it seems funny to have the only "payment" often coming from the label or the musicians.

BTW, I LOVE the idea of recommendations via computer-assistance. With such a system we might also be able to find out who, if anyone, is really a soul-mate (music-wise). I think it's a great idea.