Mr. Hahn is the Music Director of KUAZ-FM, in Tucson, and host of "The Ragged Edge" KXCI-FM, "serving southern Arizona with the best of the jazz avant-garde and creative improvised music since 1983."

Critic bashing is a virtual institution in our American egalitarian culture.  Judgment of any kind is deemed undemocratic by the average Joe who is outraged that anyone else should explicitly tell him what to think, even as he eagerly laps up the invisible lessons of advertising.  Of course, the musician has a different ax to grind.  Misunderstood, unappreciated, under- rewarded -  if only the critic would recognize his genius, heaven would be his.  The danger of this fantasy is that the only way to ensure the absence of dissenting opinions is to eliminate all opinions. 

The more radical critics of criticism would argue that distinctions of value are unjustified, that the job of the journalist is to report the facts only.  One popular view among musicians, publicly expressed by Dave Liebman (our anonymous critic's critic?) among others, allows that judgments about the quality of a performance must be restricted to the musically trained only (i.e. musicians). 

This line of reasoning quickly leads to an elitism that eliminates anyone but musicians from participating in an art to which so many of us have devoted ourselves. 

I am one of these mid-wives to the music.  For most of my professional career I have been a radio host, writer, concert presenter and, most recently, programmer for a major jazz radio station.  I have chosen these activities in order to be an advocate for an art that I would give my right arm to practice, if I only had the talent. 

I am not a musician, yet I express my judgments about the music on a regular basis -  in the music I choose for my station to broadcast, in the artists I present and in the written opinions I render.  In these roles I am a conduit between the musician and their prospective audience, just as is the professional critic, who I guarantee you is not gleefully rubbing his hands together over the careers he has "ruined."

If anything, most writing for the major publications is too mealy-mouthed.  I, for one, found the Jazz Times Over/Under imbroglio a breath of fresh air.  How were musicians who are "overrated" injured? By definition, they've already gotten more than their fair share of attention (Keith Jarrett!).  The upshot of the whole affair was a lively debate on the state of the art and a passionate outpouring of advocacy for favored artists.  I say, Bravo!

Ultimately, I would argue that the critic is essential to any creative enterprise.  Opinions will inevitably diverge on any particular creation but without the documentary record that criticism provides, that art ceases to exist as an historical entity.  It is the public forum of critical evaluation that transfers that art from the private to the public realm.  The critic's verdict is an opinion, but it is not "only" an opinion.  It is a judgment informed by that person's experience, acuity, expressive ability and the context of evaluation. 

For instance, I find Gary Giddins' opinions valuable.  For me, he is unsurpassed in his ability to evoke the sense of the music in words.  Yet, we differ on the merits of David Murray. So be it.  I'm not personally offended because we disagree and it is similarly pointless for a musician to be hurt because a critic has not connected with his art. 

Find the voices you value and ignore the rest.  And lighten up.