John Zorn + Critical Response

[ericdevin]

So, just some musings here. I am relatively new to the works of John Zorn (only the past three years - I saw the Masada String Trio in DC in 2004 and went from there) but what I want to know is how a critic goes about evaluating a record such as one of those from Zorn's new Book Of Angels series. I have the Uri Caine, The Masada String Trio, Erik Friedlander Solo and the most recent, the Bar Kokhba Sextet. I like them all quite a bit, the players are superb (Feldman and Friedlander are always strong) and the compositions are great.

But, how does one critique them? The players are top-notch and always deliver in the general sense of things, so is it relative to their other performances? One could do that, but is it really fair to judge, say, Marc Ribot's playing with Bar Kokhba versus his work with Spiritual Unity?

Can one critique the compositions? Well, one could, but what does one have by means of comparison? The original Masada heads? Non-Masada work by Zorn? There is the idea that the compositions are idiomatically similar to each other, but that's the point as far as I understand; they are meant to be like Monk tunes in that they have a skeletal head from which the players can move into improvisation.

The reason I ask all of this is that while the records are great, no record is unassailable, so how does one critique one of these successfully? Reviews I've seen of these are all fawning, with hardly a word of critique. Are they really perfect records to the ears of the reviewer?

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

Well they're all superbly done -- the compositions, arrangements, playing. But I would say that some are decidedly more ambitious than others. I think Dreamers is wonderful ear candy, but Lucifer aspires to be much more, and has to be judged as such. (After one listen, I wouldn't presume to say.) And the Steven Bernstein album has three earlier albums in the series, so comparisons with those would seem apt. (Hard to top that first one with Sam Rivers, but this might be best since, certainly better than the last.)

All these albums (and the other recent ones -- and I, too, think Tzadik's on a great roll recently!) are immediately pleasing, but I think it's how well they stand up to repeated listenings that will reveal which are the more substantial, and why.

[Nim Chimpsky]

Originally Posted by ericdevin

But, how does one critique them?

To what end? Why do anything other than listen to them and enjoy them ... or not?

[ericdevin]

Nim-

I do listen to them and enjoy them, but in order to appreciate a record's worth as a matter of artistic achievement within the pantheon of music, there must be some measure of it, both good and bad. With Zorn, what is that measure? That is all I am asking. Enjoying music for what it is is far from an issue for me, I've just been listening to a lot of Zorn lately and this came into my mind.

[Gerardo A]

Originally Posted by ericdevin

Reviews I've seen of these are all fawning, with hardly a word of critique. Are they really perfect records to the ears of the reviewer?

http://ihatemusic.noquam.com/viewtopic.php?t=8115

[tiny orchestra]

Yes, I've seen that thread myself. It's not exactly criticism as much as a witch hunt. Maybe it was the Macarthur that riled them so much. Genius is such a loaded word.

[Jesse]

Why would you characterize the range of opinions on the IHM thread a witchhunt? Did you read through the thread?
It is certainly more nuanced than either "genius" or "witchhunt."

[Jon Abbey]

yep, my opinions on Zorn were set long before the MacArthur. no witch hunt, just my perspective after spending hundreds of hours with his work.

[Jesse]

I had similarly set my opinion on Vandermark's work prior to his becoming a genius.

[ericdevin]

Jon-

I know you don't care for Zorn, but there was not one word on that ihm thread about the Book of Angels nor any substantial, nuanced criticism of Zorn. So you find him boring and/or superficial and you don't like him, but if you were to write a review of a record, how would you criticize it to convince other people of your opinion? Anybody can say a record is boring, but to say why might be more helpful, not to mention that it would be the meat of what I am trying to understand and could potentially convince people of your opinion or at least make them reconsider their affinity for Zorn.

Jesse-

Vandermark is another polarizing figure for sure. I am not the biggest fan of the 5 but some of his other stuff is pretty interesting, esp. the Territory Band and Free Fall.

[Jon Abbey]

Originally Posted by ericdevin

Jon-

I know you don't care for Zorn, but there was not one word on that ihm thread about the Book of Angels nor any substantial, nuanced criticism of Zorn. So you find him boring and/or superficial and you don't like him, but if you were to write a review of a record, how would you criticize it to convince other people of your opinion? Anybody can say a record is boring, but to say why might be more helpful, not to mention that it would be the meat of what I am trying to understand and could potentially convince people of your opinion or at least make them reconsider their affinity for Zorn.

well, if you want to pay me enough (and it would take a substantial amount), I'll sit down with Zorn's work and give you a "substantial, nuanced criticism". the guy's done a billion different records, so any kind of overall analysis is a serious endeavor. otherwise, I'll spend my time listening to music that interests me and stick with my rudimentary criticism. it simply comes down to I don't think he has much to say in the end in almost any context, I think the game pieces are derived from Kagel, Masada from Ornette, etc, etc. he's built up something of a mystique around himself via some very clever media interaction (no promos for Tzadik, among other things) and what must be some deep-pocketed backers (pre-MacArthur) and if you combine that with his vast discography, he doesn't get too much written criticism.

also, FWIW, I don't have much interest in convincing people of my opinion or making them reconsider their affinity for Zorn or anyone else. I'm just sharing my perspective, make of it what you will or ignore it, either way.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Jon Abbey

...I think the game pieces are derived from Kagel, Masada from Ornette, etc, etc. he's built up something of a mystique around himself via some very clever media interaction (no promos for Tzadik, among other things) and what must be some deep-pocketed backers (pre-MacArthur) and if you combine that with his vast discography, he doesn't get too much written criticism.

I agree with much of your take on Zorn. Despite the huge reputation, there's very little that I care to listen to anymore. I think he deserves more acclaim for recording other artists than for his own stuff, really.

Can you expand an bit on the Kagel connection? Which pieces of Kagel use an approach that allows for the player to make choices or improvise? Or are you referring to the piece in which he mixes up fragments of Beethoven to form something new? It's been awhile since I've spun my Kagel records, so I'm just curious.

I agree that Masada owes much to Ornette, though that takes nothing away from Zorn's achievement. To me it's his best effort.

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by ericdevin

in order to appreciate a record's worth as a matter of artistic achievement within the pantheon of music, there must be some measure of it, both good and bad. With Zorn, what is that measure?

I think this over- and misstates your case a bit. First, observers (including you) are the ascribers of worth to any art - no reason to posit inherent worth (which your prhasing connotes to me). I don't understand why there "must" be a measure, and if you want one, it must come finally come from you. I guess you're asking for suggestions for constructive measure, based on sharing aesthetics with other observers, and what they might be using?

[Nim Chimpsky]

Originally Posted by ericdevin

in order to appreciate a record's worth as a matter of artistic achievement within the pantheon of music, there must be some measure of it, both good and bad.

Why must there? There may be a consensus of opinion amongst critics and fans about a particular artist's work but there is no way of measuring the 'quality' of that work. And even if there were I fail to see how that helps you to get any enjoyment out of if.

Originally Posted by ericdevin

I know you don't care for Zorn, but there was not one word on that ihm thread about the Book of Angels nor any substantial, nuanced criticism of Zorn.

I'd say that the consensus on IHM amongst the people with an affinity for Zorn was that they lost interest during the first phase of Masada, which is in itself an indirect comment on the second phase.

Originally Posted by ericdevin

Anybody can say a record is boring, but to say why might be more helpful, not to mention that it would be the meat of what I am trying to understand and could potentially convince people of your opinion or at least make them reconsider their affinity for Zorn.

This presupposes that people are able to articulate their views about music using some objective cirteria so that it is meaningful to others. As Vince said the value music has is personal and subjective. If someone were able to change your mind about a piece of music through language, wouldn't you seriously question the conviction with which you held your view in the first place?

[ribot_for_president]

good thing i majored in philosophy or i'd be lost every time vince posts

[Vince Kargatis]

ribot_..., but you did and you aren't, I gather?

Nim, a clarification: I don't insist that value be purely "subjective" - I think ascribed value stems both from subjective ("unaccountable") taste and "objective" consequences from brain structure/operation (how could it be otherwise?). But no reason to think value is ever anything but personal, even if it is shared. And more to the point, I think it's wise to keep that in mind when considering the role and function of criticism.

[tiny orchestra]

Mr. Abbey,

I totally respect what you have done with your label. Your artists sound very modern. I like to hear new sounds myself. I understand how you can love someone's work and then tire of it when your tastes move on. You loved Zorn in the 80s, enough to invest hundreds of hours in listening. Now you don't. Why the long face?

Jesse,

Are you suggesting my comment was an over-reaction? That's irony for you. On balance, the thread was sidelined by the dismissive tone of the critics who went big with their negative commentary. It's only a witch hunt when more than one hunter agrees.

I wasn't a fan of Zorn's work in the 80s or 90s, so when I saw Electric Masada live in 2003, I wasn't prepared for the positive experience I had. I guess I've cut him some slack for that. I guess I must have been duped. Funny. I don't feel that way about it. Sorry you disapprove.

[Jesse]

TinyO, your faux apology is silly. I didn't comment, much less challenge, your opinion of Zorn.
What I said was your use of witchhunt, to characterize Zorn's detractors on the IHM thread, is goofy.
Zorn casts a large shadow in experimental music; that's what follows a career managed as he has managed his own. The cultivation of grants labeled "genius" is going to draw some critical fire. Deal with it, genius'!

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

Having just listened to both the old and new Bar Kokbha groups, I find no reason to change my very high opinion of Zorn's work, then or now. Anyone who disagrees with me will, as always, rot in hell.

The album "Yankees" Jon mentions on this or the ihm thread is a great one, but you'll find it under Derek Bailey's name as leader.

And even had Zorn done far less as a composer and musician, I would still give him the highest props for producing the long out-of-print works of the GREAT Teiji Ito, the profoundly moving archival clarinet recordings of Andy Statman, the brilliant vocalist Makigami Koichi, etc.

[Jesse]

I give Zorn props for producing these:

[tiny orchestra]

Hi Jesse,

I was apologizing? I had no idea. You and several others were dismissing Zorn's contributions as being insignificant in the grand scheme of things. You didn't back up those opinions. Many musical tastes don't correspond with mine . I never felt compelled to dismiss these artists as insignificant. If the guy was some kind of philistine, I could understand the vitriol. These attacks just sounded like brutish slams. Hence my selection of the term witch hunt. Most of the nuance that you describe on the thread came from the pro camp. I have no problem with any of that.

[Jesse]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by tiny orchestra

,
You... were dismissing Zorn's contributions as being insignificant in the grand scheme of things. You didn't back up those opinions.

This is one of those patented bbs exchanges that seems to hinge on poor reading comprehension and the conflation of multiple posts, but I'll ask once-where do I dismiss Zorn as "insignificant in the grand scheme of things?"

[Jesse]

And there's your faux apology.
Please read what you send. It will aid clarity.

[tiny orchestra]

"Since I first heard him in the mid-80's, Zorn is easily the most prolific (profligate), foundation-supported, mini-scene about whom I could care less."

This tone was certainly dismissive. If you cared so little, why did you feel compelled to post? I think it's because you were trying to actively diminish his reputation.

I understand that tastes change with time. That seen in current circumstances, some oeuvres don't age well. Honestly appraising some of our youthful favourites can cause some pain. Nontheless, it gets my hackles up when musicians, who have clearly worked very hard to contribute so much, are so easily trashed. Anthony Braxton, Zorn and even to some extent Vandermark have certainly been castigated on IHM just for still being around. As I mentioned, I prefer new ideas in music myself. Why does that mean we have to kill the fathers (or even uncles and cousins) of many of those ideas?

As for the faux apology, my mistake. That was meant for Jon.

[walto]

FWIW, back when I wrote reviews for Cadence, I criticized Zorn. Got a lot of hate mail at the time from people who now apparently agree with me now. I should say, though, that I think some of his stuff is quite good. It's just that there's a lot of crap as well.

[Jon Abbey]

Originally Posted by tiny orchestra

Anthony Braxton, Zorn and even to some extent Vandermark have certainly been castigated on IHM just for still being around.

that's not why.

As I mentioned, I prefer new ideas in music myself. Why does that mean we have to kill the fathers (or even uncles and cousins) of many of those ideas?

that would be a good point if it were true, but I don't think it is. if people were dismissing Evan Parker's career as a whole, this point would be decidedly more accurate

[Jesse]

This should be my last entry on a topic I will forget by dinner.

TinyO, try to strike a distinction between my post you referenced, and your lame paraphrase of that post. I stated a contrast between Zorn's status in the art world (foundation-granted/mini-scene, inarguable descriptors), and my 3 decade reaction to his work (couldn't care less). That was the point, the juxtaposition of tastes. So, essentially the opposite of your paraphrase, I was high-lighting Zorn's status in "the grand scheme of things."

As for your last comment, I assure you I lack the power to diminish Zorn's status in the new music world!

[tiny orchestra]

And oh yes. If there had been " critical fire" in that thread, I would have been all for it. The extent of the analysis I read was " I got tired of it".

Is that the artist's responsibility? It seems to me that any musician's creative life is governed by two lines. One is passion. The other is technical mastery. We love someone's music when the two ingredients combine in a way we find subjectively appealing. During a career, the weight of those lines is constantly shifting. The analysis of it will always be subjectively based, but in the end I prefer an artist who goes his own way. Zorn has done that.

[Jon Abbey]

it seems to me that any artist's creative life is governed by whether or not they have something to say. I don't think Zorn really does, or almost ever has. I'm not sure why you care what I think, as it's certainly not going to impact him or his work.

[Jon Abbey]

Originally Posted by tiny orchestra

in the end I prefer an artist who goes his own way. Zorn has done that.

there are literally thousands of musicians who fit this description, hardly anything to be especially proud of.