Letter to All About Jazz re: review of Roswell Rudd's Broad Strokes and reply
To Nils/AAJ: Next time, why don't you leave your preconceived notions at the door and listen to the music for the inherent beauty and passion that Roswell exudes. That's the problem with some reviewers. You think you know everything and you probably don't even play. Duck Baker is on of the finest guitarists out there and in one short listen you deemed yourself worthy of your overrated judgment. To compare anything on that record to Lawrence Welk is just downright ignorance. And in my opinion Chris Rudd brought what was needed to the Sassy and Dolphy tune. It's nothing personal but to put ones heart and soul into a project and then have it ripped apart by someone who has no idea what went into it leaves me feeling a little annoyed to say the least. --Matthew Finck	To Matthew: Please excuse me for my opinions. I hold Roswell Rudd in high esteem. He's done some amazing things. I have heard plenty of his earlier work. If I don't express my opinions in a review, the review is worthless. And if you happen to disagree, that doesn't mean I have no idea what went into it. It just means we disagree. That's cool man, I don't think I'm the voice of god or anything, just another guy who's heard a lot of records and has passion for the music. Take a look at the other 100 reviews I've written for All About Jazz and perhaps you will change your mind about my so-called ignorance. As for whether I play, that's a faulty assumption on your part. It's also irrelevant to writing a review. The important thing is whether I can hear what's going on and put it into words. If I missed something that spoke to you, then I guess we have two different sets of ears. I spent a lot of time listening to that record. --Nils Jacobson

Date:	06-Aug-1999 18:24:21
From:	Zippo
	The proof is in the pudding as they say. If the critic can write a good piece/review who cares if he can play or not. I have no idea if Martin Williams can play a note - but he's excellent. I have learned much from his writings - it makes no difference to me if he plays an instrument or not. But I do suspect that most of the better critics (and they do exist) have some significant background in music.

 

Date:	09-Aug-1999 11:43:01
From:	A N Other
	Where is PAT ABELLA ??????????

 

Date:	12-Aug-1999 23:12:14
From:	Ted
	That's PAUL Abella, bunky! I heard he's beatin' the skins in Chi-town and has cut himself off to the cyberworld. Let's hope Paul and his Mr. Know-It-All opinions comes back soon. These threads are chaotic without his speed-bump commentary.

 

Date:	13-Aug-1999 00:46:10
From:	Paul Abella (Pabella3@aol.com)
	Ha!! speed bump commentary! I love it.

 

Date:	13-Aug-1999 06:06:35
From:	a.n.other
	Welcome back Paul

 

Date:	13-Aug-1999 23:59:52
From:	Trevor Hanson
	"Required"? Like we get to vote on whether they get to disseminate their opinions? Oh, I know, let's call the Jazz Police, who step in when really bad music is foisted on the public... :) But as far as whether you can trust the musical opinion of somebody who is not a player, I'd have to admit that I've known some extremely sophisticated non-players who have exquisite taste, great knowledge, and a musical feel like that of good players. It's as if they chose to make their ears their instruments. Sometimes they have the right kind of mind to be players, but not the manual dexterity to master an instrument. Other times they just never seem to have found their creative outlet in playing, but in writing. So while I agree that there are plenty of musical idiots out there holding themselves up as critics, who are essentially just name-droppers, socialites, gossip columnists, or wannabe producers, I can't agree that the only factor of importance is whether they can play. I mean, there are some good players who would make lousy critics, because they are so single-minded. So I guess the right view is, as was stated earlier, 'the proof is in the pudding.' You have to decide if they know what they're talking about. Or to put it another way, it's probably not fair to dismiss somebody you don't like JUST by pointing out that they don't play an instrument. You need to explain what's wrong in their analysis of the music. All of this being said, I'd agree that non-players have a higher standard to meet. They must establish their 'credentials' through a history of thoughtful writing that makes sense to the community at large. A recognized player/educator starts with a measure of credibility that someone who is not 'on the scene' must earn.

 

Date:	15-Aug-1999 18:22:39
From:	Cee Cee
	How come it's called "Jazz Criticism" instead of Jazz Appreciation?? or something akin to that? Why the negativity right off the bat?? Is that part of the problem?

 

Date:	17-Aug-1999 18:38:43
From:	Bruce Woods (bruce.woods@wcom.com)
	CeeCee, Jazz appreciation? That is for the listener to deal with. Someone reviewing a piece with a feeling of total appreciation, lowers the credibility of the critic. Jazz music is an art form, and art the the person responsible for discussing the quality of a given piece is called the critic. Not if you are like certain critics - the word critical would apply...But I always thought the word critique is what would apply in this case...thus the negativity is diminished. Well - based on my personal aversion to reading someones opinion, I generally avoid critical opinion. This music is so diverse (I tend to enjoy the more improv-based form) it is almost impossible to gather a fair and open critique IMO.

 

Date:	19-Aug-1999 16:47:08
From:	Steve (mckenna@accuwx.com)
	We are music lovers with an opinion till we get paid for that opinion...then we are critics. Actually, I think it takes alot of balls to be a critic (or music reviewer). Your opinion is out there for all to see. Your reviews get criticized.

 

Date:	19-Aug-1999 16:48:25
From:	Steve (mckenna@accuwx.com)
	We are music lovers with an opinion till we get paid for that opinion...then we are critics. Actually, I think it takes alot of balls to be a critic (or music reviewer). Your opinion is out there for all to see. Your reviews get criticized.

 

Date:	22-Aug-1999 12:01:53
From:	kevin allen (kallen1954@aol.com)
	Cee Cee I like you idea/concept...I appreciate the music and as a discriminating consumer vote my opinion mostly with the few[too few] dollars i spend on buying music or listening to live music. As for those who write reviews for papers/magazines etc,I take their views on face value. I trust,but verify!! Shoot,,,on-line we can all be critics now!

 

Date:	25-Aug-1999 12:46:44
From:	a n other
	What is bunky? a jazz term? or is it some sort of compliment? However, Mr 'skins' Aabella needs to give his views on this subject as it is the sort of thing that is right up his street, if you dig?. After all, his opinions are worthwhile and informative, although I'd draw the line at speed bump. So c'mon Pat, let's hear from you, I'm a big fan of your writing and am waiting on reading some pearls of wisdom from you on said subject dear fellow. Bunky? bunky? bunky!

 

Date:	09-Sep-1999 17:54:16
From:	Paul (not Pat) Abella (Pabella3@aol.com)
	Well, I gotta say, I think jazz criticism comes best from the non-players. As a player, I think sometimes we get caught up in the wrong things and would rather hear something technically challenging as opposed to something which is just plain good to the ear. And we'll prasie things in the same manner. Currently, my trio has a large number of Metheny tunes in our book. Very rarely do any of us say "wow, that sounds really (insert pleasant adjective here)." Instead, it's usually something along the lines of "Check out that chord inversion!" Although those things are important, they are not the things to judge the quality of a song or its improvisations by. On the other hand, the listener who simply listens may actually fare better. They're just there to hear the music, and appreciate it. They may hear the shear beauty of Keith Jarrett's interpretation of Moon & Sand or the angst that one hears listening to Kenny Garrett's Sing a Song of Song. So it could go either way. I as a player, like to put in my two cents worth. But it's also clouded by what I look to get out of the music when I listen to it. And what I listen for and what a casual listener listens for can be two completely different things.

 

Date:	16-Sep-1999 19:35:53
From:	ED.B (SDYCSBRGH@AOL.COM)
	JAZZ IS A INSIGHT. IT IS A THING LIVED. WHO CAN SAY THAT MILES IN "BITCHES BREW', WAS GREAT OR NOT. THE ESSENCE OF JAZZ IS TO LISTEN, TOUCH, NOD AND AGREE.

 

Date:	18-Sep-1999 14:52:52
From:	Zoe (Zoe@internet.com)
	I can say if it was great or not. Last night at dinner I said it was great and my boyfriend said it was not. Like what's the mystery here? Lightining did not descend from the sky to strike us dead or anything.

 

Date:	11-Oct-1999 14:53:12
From:	VManning (VManning@foreigntv.com)
	If you are a fan of Andy Summers, check out the interview with him on www.foreigntv.com!

 

Date:	15-Oct-1999 11:39:40
From:	sonya del rio (afrocubana_musicana@yahoo.com)
	what a lot of people call latin jazz is just american jazz with a very small latin percussion section. cuba is the home of latin jazz. salsa, merenge, bachata, cha cha cha,rhumba, bolero, these are true SPANISH JAZZ TERMS.

 

Date:	20-Oct-1999 22:48:24
From:	Sal Tomato
	I think all jazz critics should have to demonstrate that they can play either the tuba or the banjo. Only then could they write jazz reviews. No other instruments are acceptable/applicable. Jazz critics who can play the tuba and the banjo at the same time,improvising on a standard jazz tune in front of a live audience will be allowed to review serious jazz music. Single instrument (tuba or banjo) critics will be allowed to review "smooth" jazz, fusion, or jazz rock and other commercial jazz variants. When I am appointed Emperor of the Jazz World this will be the rule of law.

 

Date:	13-Sep-2000 13:02:08
From:	Mr Tunky
	Playing jazz guitar , bass or keyboards is so damn easy! All you have to do is use the scales and chords you would normally use when coming up with a tune ,but play them slightly wrong.In other words , flatten a note here , sharpen one there and add a dash of oddball constantly changing keys and time signatures ; hey presto! You are now a jazzer. The only credentials you need to be a jazz critic are to be into the usual 'Jazz Greats' , and apart from that, criticize any artist that is liked by more than a dozen or so people (or by anyone outside of your sad little clique)or any artists who manage to actually make some decent money while they are alive, fairly young,attractive or female.

 

Date:	01-Oct-2000 15:29:40
From:	Martini
	I think the most important thing that a critic should remember when reviewing music is to approach other people's creativity with respect. Any attempt at criticism should be an effort to understand better not only the music but also the forms and motivations that lie behind the music. If a critic does not make the attempt to do this, he should not be commenting on the work of the artist. Period. That being said, I think that it is entirely conceivable that a non-musician can adhere to these principles.

 

Date:	02-Oct-2000 13:33:57
From:	Ken
	The late critic Martin Williams couldn't play an instrument but he was very perceptive and liked a wide range of jazz. Read his hilarious essay "This Fellow, George Winston," which dismisses the lame pianist with one of the funniest comparisons I've ever read. Although many jazz reviewers (I reserve the term critics for those who make a coniderable portion of their income from jazz writing) probably don't play an instrument, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them have also heard a lot more jazz recordings than most jazz musicians. Listening to jazz might be compared to wine tasting; the more you do the better your ear (or palate) should be. The late Gene Harris told me during an interview that he pruposely avoided listening to jazz to avoid copying anybody; he'd listen to anything else. Many others are too busy composing, arranging and rehearsing to spend much time listening to other artists (living or dead). Nobody is going to agree with a reviewer 100% of the time; but if the reviewer obviously lacks knowledge of jazz it should be addressed. My personal pet peeves include: unknown artists obsessed with covering only their own music, out of tune pianos, incorrect identification of songs and/or composers (Does anybody proofread before going to press), and musicians who continue to solo after running out of ideas.

 

Date:	04-Oct-2000 03:10:11
From:	Ken
	Let me ask you all this: Can a non-musician appreciate jazz music as fully as a musician? Certainly musicians in the room are aware that when you study music, any given song totally opens up and you begin to hear all sorts of things that you never did before. On the other hand, it is indeed true that there are non-musicians who have a tremendous musical sense... Ken

 

Date:	12-Oct-2000 19:18:08
From:	Michael Gardner (mgardner666@hotmail.com)
	The best comment so far is the one about "wine tasting". I make wine, lots of wine, drink lots of wine (quality not quantity!), have won major amateur winemaking awards, etc. However, as I make the point often to other "amateur" winemakers, I started really making "wine by design" rather than by "recipe", when I finally got some real wine CHEMISTRY classes under my belt. The key was I now had much greater detailed knowledge of mistakes and how to correct...in other words: education. The same applies to any "artistic" field...even those that have achieved a modern, impressionistic-expressionistic state these days. But in spite of all of my "sophisticated" wine making/drinking activities, I hate to admit it, I love the sugary, strawberry-flavored "white zinfandel"s that are out there. It's the equivalent of pop music (Kenney G) to jazz (Pat Metheny)....so are their standards and principles by which to judge and judge well? Yes. Does it help to be educated? You bet...does it mean that your Robert Mondavi? not necessarily. Being able to hear as opposed to simply listening...meaning that you are able to discern and identify the artist's musical intent in the song construction or the improvisation and then be able to make comparisons to others...to me that would be the key to being a good critic. And one may have an intrinsic ability to do so...but education will simply make one better.

 

Date:	13-Oct-2000 17:07:15
From:	Michael Gardner (mgardner666@hotmail.com)
	P.S. ...if only musicians "listened" to music, where would we be? There certainly wouldn't be very many jazz festivals for musicians to play at, now would there!...mg

 

Date:	19-Oct-2000 17:20:09
From:	Ras Field (field@oceana.net)
	Should jazz artists require all listeners to be jazz players? Hell, no. As along as the critic leaves preconceptions at the door, truly gives the music a good listen, and then bases his/her (are there any women jazz critics? listeners?) criticism on valid comparisons to the artist's or peers other works.

 

Date:	19-Oct-2000 17:30:24
From:	johnny jazz (johnnyjazz@webtv.net)
	a critic should be or have been a musician..no question about that..it is impossible to know the intricacies of music if you don't play an instrument http://community.webtv.net/johnnyjazz/johnnyjazzsjazzpage

 

Date:	19-Oct-2000 18:19:11
From:	JJbarton (janejb@nova1@net)
	Where are the really good writers, and WHO are some of the musicians listed? Gene Lees, Jeff Sultanof, Terry Teachout and Bill Kirchner are never mentioned. Some play, some may not - who cares? They know Jazz.

 

Date:	20-Oct-2000 06:44:42
From:	alto
	those who can do. Those who can't criticise.

 

Date:	20-Oct-2000 09:39:24
From:	Ferklarp Monk (ferklarpmonk@yahoo.com)
	I don't think playing an instrument is strictly necessary to be a jazz critic. As a form of art, I think jazz appretiation can be separated in two fields (with blurred boundaries), one objective/absolute, the other subjective/relative. The first one would include the mechanical (meaning it needs physical effort) side of music, execution and rhythm. The other could be the emotional response of the listener and matters of taste. Harmony and melody (what is dissonant or what is not, what is "correct") would fall probably in the boundary, part objective, part subjective. For all that, I don't think you need to be an expert in music theory to be a critic, but I think it would help a critic if he or she would at least know how instruments work, what is physically or technically difficult to play, and he or she should definitely have some rudiments of harmony. All this doesnīt mean that a review has to be a show-off, but a deeper understanding of music makes a better critic. I once heard Ira Gitler -who I think played alto and I believe he is a great critic AND writer- when asked for some tips to be a good critic, that the main thing is to listen to as much music as you can. I think that Ken referred to the better knowledge of jazz as a whole by critics rather than by musicians. I think this is exactly the point, including all the sociological and historical background that surrounds jazz. Let me finish (about time, I know) with an example for all I said: Lee Ritenour is technically a great guitar player. His knowledge of music theory is huge. He doesnīt move ME, but he does some other people. And in a blindfold test, he couldnīt tell the difference between Eddie Lang and Charlie Christian. Actually, I think blindfold tests should be the ultimate exams for critics. Sorry about the long posting. PS One of my favourites is Max Harrison, who was a classical critic before he started reviewing jazz, and who has done a very analytical case against Indian influence on John Coltrane's music (if I remember well).

 

Date:	23-Oct-2000 22:36:28
From:	Pete
	Jass critics shouldn't have to play!!! The majority of those who listen don't play. They should be able to listen and hear what sounds good. Technically difficult peices don't always sound good to people that don't play and sometimes those who play get caught up in the technical aspects and forget to see the art in another's work. How many of the people who review movies make movies? Not many. And no one turns their nose up at their reviews because the don't make movies. Maybe because they don't agree with the reviews or the writers perspective but not because the don't make movies. The critcs creative out let is in his reviews, the musician in his music. Both are an art form. Let's try to see the music from the musician's point of view and what he was trying to communicate through his peice and likewise the jazz critic.

 

Date:	04-Nov-2000 06:14:16
From:	Zoe
	I was thinking about this topic when I bumped into an essay that quoted extensively from blindfold tests (Nat Hentoff's article on New Orleans Jazz). To be blunt there were some great musicians saying some real stupid stuff. The same with reading interviews with famous musicians, they may be able to play but it's OFTEN amazing what opinions come out of their mouths. The same is true of my musician friends, for all their training and talent it doesn't seem to make them any more open minded or knowledgable when listening to something new.

 

Date:	22-Nov-2000 05:00:16
From:	Dave
	You don't have to be a chicken to know whether an egg tastes good.

 

Date:	06-Dec-2000 12:49:38
From:	Dave B (DaveBraga@hotmail.com)
	Course not. A good musician doesn't just make music for other musicians, he/she makes music for all. If no-one except a musician can appreciate their music, then the music isn't worth much in the first place.

 

Date:	19-Mar-2001 12:42:42
From:	Andreas
	No, of course not! I think we can get all bent out of shape if we don't keep in mind that we're dealing with OPINIONS! I have found the AMG Guide to Jazz very useful in exploring new artists and styles. The lion's share of reviews within are by Scott Yanow (sic?. I've not gone wrone with any of his recommendations so far, I have to say. The trick is to figure out a critic's personal tastes and idiosyncrasies. If I'm looking for info on Avant-Guarde or Fusion music, I'm not going to look to a critic who always dumps on those particular styles, obviously. Of course some critics get caught up in the rat race of trying to be more "advanced" than the others. As with any other profession, there are some critics who are better than others, and some whose opinions I value more than other's.

 

Date:	31-Mar-2001 01:00:30
From:	Matthew Finck (fatmink@usa.net)
	My concern overall was not whether the reviewer played an instrument or not but with the comparisons that were made to Roswell's music. The argument (should a reviewer be able to play an instrument?), although valid, was not the main focus of my comment.

 

Date:	15-Apr-2001 21:07:56
From:	Egyptian (commanderdesslock@earthlink.net)
	I don't think being a musician directly impacts your ability to criticise/review/appreciate jazz. When I was but a small Egyptian I played alto sax in the school band. We played mostly classical music with the occasional jazz standard or dixieland tune so long as it wasn't too complicated for a bunch of seventh graders to play. I would say I can appreciate the technical prowess of a saxophonist but my music knowledge is probably no better than anyone else who has been listening to jazz for a short while. But I would also say that I'm just as qualified in my own way to criticise a jazz album as someone who has been listening to jazz for 40 years. I have ears, I have a mind and I have an opinion. If something moves me I can express these feelings. If I don't care for it, I can express this as well. That's the heart of criticism. A professional musician who has been playing for years has an added insight. He/she could point out subtle nuances in a particular piece that a layperson not well aquainted with a particular instrument might not notice for example. As an example, when listening to a classic piece from the soundtrack to 'Last of the Mohicans' a friend pointed out that the violinists were playing in rounds, a technique that allowed them to make a sound a single violinist would find impossible. (Feel free to correct me if I used the wrong term, it's been a while :D) Or a reviewer who was not a musician, but did have several years experience with the jazz field might pick out an omage to a previous artist's work in a new piece that I would most likely miss. This doesn't negate my opinion's worth, it only means that their particular experience provides an insight that I cannot provide. I think if anything interferes with a person's ability to review objectively is becoming too jaded. As I said earlier, I'm new to the whole jazz thing. I only own a few CD's but I'd like more. Part of my problem in selecting what to buy is that many of the reviews are written by people who have heard it all twice. It's easy to forget how inaccesible something like Free Jazz can be to someone who has never encountered it before. Hell, some of the songs on the Charlie Parker CD I bought took a few listenings before I got into them, and he's hardly considered to be on the bleeding edge of innovation from what I've read elsewhere on this site. All too often we write for ourselves when we meant to write for others. So if I had to state what makes someone qualified to critique the work of others I would say that it is the ability to communicate your feelings and ideas to another whoever that person might be. Which is also a good quality in a musician. Maybe the person who started the thread was onto something after all..

 

Date:	15-May-2001 08:15:24
From:	Mark Hughes
	I think this is a seriously interesting point which in fact cuts pretty much to the middle of many of Jazz's problems. Seeing what Paul Abella had to say on the subject i sometimes do agree and think, hell, who cares if someone can play a note, surely they can tell what a great song is. And yes, if you take standards, melodic certs then anyone can tune straight into it. But, as we all know, a huge portion of Jazz is not so obvious to the untrained ear. I cant help but feel that the untrained ear wouldn't really enjoy EVANS, MINGUS or even DAVIS first time round, because it's difficult stuff. In this case surely it helps to have some background in music, not necessarily performance, but just a vague idea of progression, harmony all that good stuff that gets us nerds so excited. I played my mum an album i picked up of PREVIN playing ELLINGTON and it's great stuff. What was really interesting is that my mum would be the first to tap her feet to the duke but when Previn improvised she turned off and said ' this is too difficult'. Now, to me it was the complete opposite, Previn was grinding the piano for all it's worth, turning Ellington into the sharpest blues. But. it's made me think. Classical music must demand a complete awareness on the part of the critic about the music, the ideas the imagination of the composer. I do believe jazz needs the same. Not as some sort of academic stance, but because there's more going on in Jazz than most styles of music, which is why its so great!!!