A New York based jazz musician, whose name is a household word in many circles, sent us this remarkably insightful Diatribe on Jazz critics. He asked that it be posted anonymously, so that he would not incur the wrath of the very critics he has described.

Within the scope of a few outlets, the hot story of several years ago was the Jazz At Lincoln Center "controversy," which received a fair share of coverage. It seems that everywhere you looked, some tome of passion involving JLC is to be found. How did this horrible patina on the world of jazz appear? It's quite simple.

Critic A disagrees with Administrator Z over Issue K. Critic B defends A and starts in with Advisor P. Administrator Z, now fearing for his or her job, attacks Critics A, B and now involves Magazine S, T, and U. P.R. becomes the most important initials. The next thing you know we have another JKF conspiracy going. Letters to the editor follow and this too creates more tension. Then there is the usual phone frenzy, taking sides, support groups and even a few near-violent confrontations (in full view of the public). We had race riots start like this in high school. This is lesson numero uno for those of us who actually attempt to create the music that eventually will become the fodder for a critical cannon aimed at you or your loved ones:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BAD' PUBLICITY

The subject of any controversy will get more air and print time than any noble effort on your part. It is an unwritten law. People don't really want to know how successful you are. Tell 'em you got problems and wham!....Front Page. But analysis of any controversy will lead to one conclusion, and that is our second law:

NEVER TALK ABOUT ACTUAL MUSIC

What a musician hears for the most part is considered too complicated to translate to the written page. Where the real analysis and detail would actually clarify something, anecdotal evidence of myth will suffice.

In our modern age, journalism has evolved into a close relationship between what is advertised and what is reviewed. With limited word space available and a broader spectrum of arts and entertainment options, the assignment editor has a very difficult job. They choose what is and isn't covered. If Organization A spends $XXXXX on advertising and Organization B spends $XXXX, then who do you think will get preference? If A and B are indistinguishable from each other artistically, then the judgment is based on revenue. That's why you'll see more reviews from the Club A than from Club Z if A advertises in the arts pages, regardless of the music. So now add a third law to our list:

REVIEWS ARE ADVERTISEMENTS

And now, without further adieu, I offer my CRITIC STYLE GUIDE.

1. CRITIC AS PRODUCER

This one really riles the record company, artist and producer. You've read things like this:

"....and the inclusion of "I Hear A Rhapsody" made for a poor choice as it failed to cap the album......."

"Why they (the dreaded record company) let an artist like Z record a record like this blah...blah...blah..."

2. CRITIC AS HISTORIAN/PROFESSOR

If you read a review or an article and have this fear that you will be given a test soon, well, that sums up this category. Did you think that while in the studio recording you were "tying together the threads of contemporary classical and jazz improvisation from Satie to Coleman", or were you just trying to get in one decent take before the drummer had to leave for a gig in Iceland?

3. CRITIC AS PSYCHOLOGIST

This style of criticism either blames you for the L.A. Riots or claims that your music "evolves from the seed of neglect that caused the riots in L.A."

4. CRITIC AS MUSICIAN

Sometimes, a critic will attempt to do the extraordinary; music is actually discussed. Not facts about music. Chords. Notes. Sometimes actual scales. These moment can provide the most humor unintentionally and therefore are usually avoided. My favorite: When harmonies are referred to as harmonics.

Easiest subject to discuss: Harmolodics Hardest subject to discuss: Harmony

5. CRITIC AS ALCHEMIST

Usually partnered with a psychologist, this critic can take what would otherwise be someone's garbage and make it gourmet. You thought "this guy sucked" and now his one record that you tossed years ago is now worth $1200. Why? The alchemist critic made vinyl into gold. The more obscure the artist and label, the higher the price for the record. (Then there is the retrospective concert and tribute album, either inspired by the article or produced by the same critic.)

6. CRITIC AS ARCHEOLOGIST

A little different than the historian/psychologist/professor type. Here the slant is on finding an obscure artist who made a few recordings and then disappeared. Artist is discovered living in City W. Then an article that goes into deep analysis of the historical relativity (after all, a place in history is the key to critical thought--No one wants to discover fool's gold) coupled with a discography, an update on the current situation, complete with a subtle call to document the discovery. This will lead to the perfunctory "comeback" album, a reunion tour and some magazine's Hall Of Fame award. (Think of the King Tut exhibit and apply it to an obscure jazz musician and it will make sense.)

7. CRITIC AS LINGUIST

Sometimes critics will attempt to create themselves. This creativity often comes in the form of language. Success in this style relies on the fact that most jazz musicians do not carry dictionaries with them, so they tend to believe these words actually mean something in the context of music. What does "trapezoid-like organizational parameters" mean? How can a solo on a blues be described accurately as "a poly-rhythmic statement that saturates the primordial air with a psycho-blues inflection"? Obviously too many crossword puzzles as a kid. But at least this style has a kinship with jazz; it's O.K. to make things up.

8. CRITIC AS STARMAKER

This category differs from that of the archeologist. The starmaker takes someone completely unknown (therefore obscure) and puffs them. If the fortunate musician can really play and many critics agree, then the starmaker has a hit on his or her hands. It is like a record producer. You develop a track record, you become the barometer for all the new and hip things in jazz. You may actually become a record producer. But if you pick a musician who is a charlatan or has personal problems, then your reputation will need the services of Category #6. One of the down sides of being a starmaker is that more people suck up to you or develop a personal hatred for you because of what you did or did not do. Recommended for only the hearty few.

9. CRITIC AS EVERY MAN

This particular critic has found a way to infer that they represent a universal critical approach. Your music reflects things that you didn't even know about. When there is talk of "references to house, bantu, zouk, French cabaret, grunge and early Wayne Newton" concerning your music, you have entered the world of the everyman. Now, maybe you were doing a samba version "Happy Trails", but this cat saw way beyond your vision. These cats are mind readers. It's amazing. Most musicians in the studio worry more about blowing a good take than how it will relate to a zouk fan. Sometimes the everyman appears as an uncritical gee-whiz' kinda' person. They gush over the obvious, and use terms like "slammin'" and "cool" to describe loud and soft. Not to say anything bad and appear to be one with the artist the everyman eventually evolves into the job of a publicist or meat inspector.

10. CRITIC AS RECORD COLLECTOR

Have you ever been called for not knowing that the original version of some tune that you recorded was first done by Lefty Morone on the Bleck label back in 1995.....? These critics think every jazz musician has 5,000 records, and knows them backwards and forwards. Well, we have to pay for most of our product. Then there are the nit-picks who point out that you didn't follow the spirit of the original recording, or that you left out this or that, or your sax player didn't sound a thing like the original guy. (They don't tell you that the original recording went out of print in 1935.) By using comparisons to obscurum, your efforts are made to seem irrelevant or inconsequential, or worse, an inferior second effort. If it introduces or proves a personal point, well, who cares about your record? You have to live up to this record or that record, never your record. After a while you tire of competing with history.

11. CRITIC AS AGIT-PROP

This is the trickiest of the stylists, sort of the brain surgeon of jazz criticism. This critic's job is to not only define the status quo, but to trivialize and therefore minimize any other attempt to challenge the status quo. Usually found in one-horse towns, these critics go beyond the role of criticism. They will attempt to shape public and patron opinion in such a way as to benefit those in the orbit of their views. These critics are very dangerous, as they are not concerned with music or making music; only a narrow band of what is acceptable and what should be excluded. The agit-prop critic has gone through many of the above styles and has arrived at this style because of the power it presents. Here is the ultimate forum for the non-musician or failed-musician to change the course of jazz history. What a challenge! It doesn't matter that you are dealing with human beings when the whole scope of jazz history is yours for the changing. Rewards: Free CDs, a book deal, great concert tickets, and the evolving fear for your backside.

So much for music.