Reviewing the reviews

[isaacs]

Anyone care to join me in this pusuit with examples of their own? I'll start the ball rolling below.

[isaacs]

An open letter to John McBeath

Dear John,

I read your review of Resurgence in The Weekend Australian. Though naturally I'm disappointed that you gave it only three-and-a-half stars out of five - I suppose that's only a "quite good" - that is however your subjective evaluation, not at all subject to question and I make no issue of it.

However I do wish to make some more objective comment regarding what you wrote.

At the start of the review you make the bald statement "Seven out of the eight tracks are stylistically reminiscent of a 1977 album, My Song, by pianist Keith Jarrett and saxophonist Jan Garbarek", a theme that dominates the review, including you obliquely asserting that the disk's title is "apt" because the CD is in your view a "resurgence" of a pre-existing CD as well as your comment that the work is a "Jarrett-Garbarek nostalgia trip".

Let's go through the tunes.

Waltz for Melanie is a bright polytonal jazz waltz. There's nothing even remotely like it on the Jarrett album you mention. Three Days of Rain is a bossa nova, complete with acoustic guitar. How you can specifically claim it "opens with a melodic line and mood that immediately resemble Jarrett's Country" is beyond me. It's nothing like that track, except that both are in the very broadest sense lyrical and wistful. However, they have completely different rhythmic feels and melodic/harmonic content. There is nothing on My Song like that bossa nova, it doesn't even sound remotely like a Jarrett tune. Affectionately Yours is basically a kind of bop tune, in medium swing feel and using the traditional 32-bar song form (plus tag). On My Song nothing swings, is obviously bop-orientated, or in a 32-bar song form. Chaconne is blues/funk with a polytonal harmonic structure. There's nothing remotely like that feel on My Song, indeed none of the tunes are really polytonal in that way at all. Pentimento is a slow post-bop jazz ballad. Again, there's nothing at all like it on My Song. Heal Thyself is an electric guitar driven shuffle, a fusion of R&B and jazz. It's like nothing on My Song even if the guitar was taken out.

I would concede that only one song - not seven - out of eight is stylistically reminiscent of My Song and that is the opening track Walk a Golden Mile. I would also concede that broadly speaking that particular Jarrett/Garbarek quartet - across it's whole repertoire, not the single album you cite - is a seminal influence as a starting point for an acoustic piano-centred jazz small ensemble that plays original, often lyrical, music with a jazz sensibility but generally using non-swing feels. But there are massive points of departure in my work. It's not just the inclusion of electric guitar but the often contrapuntal arranging between the guitar and saxophone. Indeed there is virtually no arranging in the much more organic Jarrett quartet whereas my recording features a custom-built arranging concept overlaying each song. Indeed mine is much more "produced" overall. My tunes overwhelmingly come from very different harmonic/melodic worlds and rhythmic feels than those on the Jarrett. The choice of the types of players is also radically different, affecting the tenor of the whole project. Where's the comparison between Vinnie Colaiuta and Jon Christensen? Except for perhaps the briefest of moments on the one strongly Jarrett-influenced tune, neither Bob Sheppard nor Steve Tavaglione sounds anything like Jan Garbarek. I'd concede a Jarrett influence on my pianism generally (not so astounding, find a tenor player without a Coltrane influence), but to go as far as to suggest that Resurgence is a virtual clone of My Song with your astounding "seven out of eight tunes" claim is a radically incorrect assertion that cannot go unchallenged.

I agree with you that the players joining me on the CD are "talented" (to say the very least!), I also agree with your statement that Jarrett's My Song "contained some of Jarrett's most beautiful and romantic compositions". One wonders though which CD you are reviewing here, since while citing these qualities in Jarrett's tunes you inexplicably offer no comment at all about the emotional effect of my own compositions. You merely say [wrongly] that they are all - except one - stylistically the same as the tunes on My Song. But even they were all modelled in style on Jarrett's My Song, that's only style. Are they affecting, well-crafted or telling compositions in their own right? You don't deign to tell your readers at all.

I am concerned with all the above because the clear subtext of your review is that my CD - apart from the inclusion of electric guitar - is a slavish imitation of a single Keith Jarrett disk. That's really all you say about it in the entire review, beyond briefly acknowledging some instrumental prowess and strong soloing. For all your readers would know, the compositions are devoid of any originality, vision and message of their own. If that's what you really think about my compositions, you should say so directly not just duck the issue.

Your colleague John Shand recently spoke publicly about "thin-skinned" artists. Maybe I am one of those, but I don't see why the work of critics should not be subject to close scrutiny as the work of artists is. Such scrutiny will never be published in such august journals as The Australian or the Sydney Morning Herald but I will publish this letter in available forums. There is a tendency to make ill-informed and demonstrably false comment amongst some jazz critics that would not I think be tolerated from similarly high-profile classical music, literature, theatre or visual arts critics. When I read some of this stuff - not just from you - I question the qualities of musicianship that underpin the writing.

Kind regards
Mark

[gator]

I'm not at all surprised at your response, Mark , after reading the review myself yesterday.It wasnt at all a bad review, but it also told me nothing about what the reviewer felt about the music...
This has been discussed before,but I'm not sure that a reviewer's actual musicianship is worth questioning....anyone should be able to write a review that displays at least some notion of the music having been listened to carefully ...because from the musicians point of view, it's also interesting to read what a non-musician actually feels about the music thats being reviewed- be it positive or negative,(as opposed to devoting such space as there is to music that it reminds the reviewer of );

It's middle of the road, so painfully so, that it practically negates itself as a review. Poor, when reviewing music made by people who are seriously dedicating enormous chunks of their soul, energy and time to their art - with the hope perhaps of that ephemeral phenomenon,a little recognition and little else;- or notoriety as may be the case.
Mind you -it is the Australian - a middle of the right - leaning- road rag if ever there was one..and there are better writers out there , thank goodness..

[isaacs]

Thanks gator, I tend to agree that a critic doesn't have to be musically informed (though it sure helps) and a subjective, emotionally-based review that communicates what the music is on about is of obvious value.

But if a critic going to jump in and make bald musicological assertions as McBeath did, and they're just plain wrong or at best grossly misguided, than they need to be called on it.

As far as dissing The Oz, its journalism on the arts is generally excellent. Not so its jazz reviews, and I'm not just talking about the notice I got.

Apparently McBeath's name is pronounced "Macbeth". As in the theatre, I think it is bad luck to refer to him by name, and prefer to call him "the Scottish critic" as actors refer to "the Scottish play" when citing that particular Shakespearian tragedy. I mean that humorously for the sake of a bit of fun, I'm sure he's a very nice man, but a poor critic IMHO.

[gator]

Sure - a review is journalism and as such is open to criticism by anyone who reads it...no problem there . If he is the Scottish critic - he doesnt seem to have much of a 'tilt in his kilt' when it comes to much of the music he reviews...
I have to say that I seldom read the Australian - for a broadsheet it is barely readable...but the political angles of the editorials in all of the mainstream newspapers are all bit uninspired in that regard.....

[isaacs]

I have offered an abridged version of the letter above to the website Jazz Australia. And I added this concluding remark:

"When I read some of this stuff - not just from you - I question the qualities of musicianship that underpin the writing. But more so in the case of your review I question the lack of any critique at all of my compositions. These pieces are created and recorded with love, care and whatever vision I can bring to them. This doesn't mean you have to like them, not at all. But they should be assessed on their merits. Offering only a clumsy and grossly exaggerated account of stylistic antecedents completely abdicates any appraisal of the worth of the compositions themselves".

[Miriam Zolin]

I read somewhere (I think it was Gary Giddins said it) that a good review includes "the 3 C's" - Context, which puts the music and the player(s) in context within their own work and in the wider artform, Content, which basically describes what's being played and Comment, which provides an opinion. Not a formula so much as a checklist.

I'd be interested to hear what you all think about those as 'essential elements' of a good review. It also seems valid to me as a writer who's had their own work reviewed.

Miriam

[isaacs]

John McBeath's review, my [abridged] response, and a further response to that from McBeath are up at the Jazz Australia website. www.jazz.org.au/reviews/

The editor Peter Jordan has previously invited two jazz critics - John Mcbeath and John Shand - to write about the state of jazz reviewing in Australia. Following my comments on the weekend's review he has invited me to write an article on reviewing from the artist point of view.

If any other artists are willing to go on the record with their own comments or experiences, please email your commments to [e-mail] and I will include them in the article. If you would prefer to be anonymous I am happy to say "a prominent Australian artist etc".

[captain]

Very few critics world wide are able to comment on musical content without instantly resorting to whatever work from the canon it reminds them of the most.

Basically if it reminds them of something they already like you'll get a good review, and if it reminds them of something they don't like you'll get a poor review. Bottom line is they will rarely evaluate the musical content.

[aj]

Good post captain, it reminds me of something I read by.............wait, I'd better leave it there.

[gator]

Without reference to McBeath or any particular reviewer or review, there is an ongoing issue ,I feel, in regard to critics who are not performers, when the reviewer does not like the music in question or worse, has no real opinion of it through a lack of resonance or connection.
That in itself is only human.... But what does a reviewer do when faced with having to describe their own indifference?
Without the support of musicological syntax,performance experience, knowledge of theory and form and aural recognition skills , or the poetic licence editorially, there is really no offering to be made - unless someone has the nerve to simply write......I have no opinion of this music...

Otherwise most resort to generic and politely bland comments that dont make a ripple - or as captain points out, instantly refer to some other music that either affirms it or negates it. Comparisons are fine - as long as they are supported.

I mentioned before that I don't think it's necessary for a reviewer to be a trained musician or performer and I still maintain that -but the role of professional reviewer excludes the possibility of the critic displaying honesty at their own inability to deal with music that does not touch them -unless they have the language and background to do so.

[isaacs]

Self-explanatory email below sent to John McBeath and Peter Jordan (editor of Jazz Australia). For my own sanity and efficacy of my work, I'm done with the whole topic of reviews in any forums, but others may continue this thread of course. My "last word".

Dear John and Peter,

I would like to do an about face in that I am finding this topic is taking my mind over.

John, I was very hurt by your review, and for the reasons I stated. Not because it was a "bad review". Clearly it wasn't that. I do believe that my compositions deserved to critiqued on their merits within the scope of the brief space you are allotted. Citing stylistic antecedents can be part of that, but surely it doesn't begin and end there? Then there was the exaggeration, implying a virtual cloning, hinting at something akin to plagiarism. I still am bewildered as to how you think Waltz for Melanie and Affectionately Yours (to name just two) are anything like anything on My Song, but your response indicates you are dogged in your stance.

I think the work of critics, like that of artists, is inconsistent - some good, some not so good, some bad. But I do think on average jazz artists set far higher standards for themselves than jazz critics, certainly in this country, probably everywhere. In publishing my private correspondence you made much of the fact that I complimented you on your work at first. I have since written to you about two reviews of my work that I felt were flawed. Surely I can like some of your works, and not others? One day you may write a review of something of mine that "gets it". I don't think you "get" my work so far.

Critics that have been around longer than you I also have very mixed feelings about, and not just in relation to my own work. I think John Clare, John Shand and Adrian Jackson for example have produced wonderful work. Other times they also "don't get it" and some like you also make howlers of mistakes on musical matters. There are also peripheral matters of concern in relation to journalistic policies.

It's a can of worms I can go no further. About to embark tomorrow on an international tour as a virtual jazz ambassador for my country, I find my mind full of this stuff. In some instances, in relation to some critics, I think there is a case to answer. But I have to cleanse it all out of me and not prosecute it, or I'll forget the Music. It's my fault for responding to your review. It was hurtful and I needed to make my point. I didn't ever mean to attack you personally and I hope that's not what came across. I simply meant to review your review publicly as you did my CD. Of course I gave your review a worse review than you gave my CD. You'll forgive me if I say I do believe I put a lot more thought into the CD than you put into your review.

But, regarding my about face. For my own sanity, I am from now on - to the best of my ability, I hope I don't weaken! - going to follow the advice that was sent to me this morning in a circulated email of quotes from the Dalai Lama. "Sometimes the best response in silence". That's one of my biggest life lessons to learn for this garrulous soul. I should have tried silence on the weekend but I couldn't. But from now on I will not comment on reviews, whether privately or in the public domain. I say without bitterness that I don't think very many Australian critics are really interested in criticism of their work, constructive or otherwise, they all just dig their heels in. Fair enough. I don't want to make enemies and see things get personal. I've never met you John but I'm sure you're a very nice man, and you obviously like the music and have been given a platform. That is perhaps enough in a world where the music we love is struggling to stay alive. I think I need to lower my expectations that Australian jazz criticism will be on the same level as the music produced by its practitioners, and that the critics are open to anything that might have the possibility of helping them develop their art.

More in sorrow than in anger, in defeat if you like, I must now just focus all my energies optimistically back to the positive in continuing to strive for the heights in my own work, and not concern myself with evaluating the work of others, even if their topic is my work. It shouldn't matter to me if people don't get it, even if they have a prominent public platform. I'm tired and I need to keep going, jettisoning the idea that I can make any difference beyond playing and writing my music.

Obviously, as you were given the last word at Jazz Australia, these will have to be my own last words on the subject of jazz criticism in Australia. You can publish this if you wish Peter.

Best wishes
Mark