Music Forum review

[Reader]

Belinda, it's good to hear your views and I'm glad your happy for me to disagree. I believe what you are describing is exactly the nub of the problem we have: reviewers only reviewing what they like.
It comes back to whether you believe music's function is just to entertain or whether music is an art form that functions to ask questions and challenge the listener. If you agree with the proposition that it is an artform, then reviewing is a vital part of the dialogue that the artfrom promotes. If reviewers aren't confident enough to print a critical review then they shouldn't be reviewing. Works by important local artists like Keevers and Oehlers NEED to be reviewed and if the reviewer believes that the artists are not up on their game then that NEEDS to be said. However, it is important too that criticism is couched in such a way that the artist can take something from it to help them develop their art. The review that lambasts the artist is as useless as florid, gushing praise. Tim's review of Grace is well considered and thoughtful and does make a valuable contribution (I still winced). Having said that, I wish musicians did not have to review their peers. Peers reviewing one another raises another whole raft of issues; but maybe others will disagree with me on that.

Also, note to Dick Letts: what about putting your reviews online Dick? This would encourage people to access your site and probably lead to more subscriptions. Also, maybe you could run a few more reviews.

[Kenny]

I am someone very much in the category Belinda talks of - deluged with far more local releases than I can ever review, so my reviews tend to be overwhelmingly positive

I am also someone very much in the category Iron Guts talks of - the Sunday Herald Sun reviews are very short.

Further, as a hack sub-editor for a Murdoch tabloid, I consider myself very fortunate to be able to enthuse so freely and regularly - but always from the point of view that I am a passionate fan.

I am extremely uncomfortable being labelled a jazz critic. Jazz writer, fine.

In fact, I think it is quite possible to be a good jazz writer without ever writing reviews. (As a side issue, I find it disappointing that the new and otherwise laudable jazz-writing competition restricts itself solely to reviews, finding no room for profiles, features or essays.)

After all that ...

I find Reader's last post preposterous, but not surprising, as I have come across this sort of mentality plenty of times. It seems to be rife in the Australian jazz scene in particular and Australian arts in general.

To Oz arty types, it always comes as a shock that many arts writers first priorities are to their readers and their proprietors.

Not that support and dialogue do not happen - as I hope the many guests on my radio show for more than a decade and the subjects of many reviews in the SHS and at AAJ would agree.

But to suggest that commercial entities have some sort of duty, or that "reviewing is a vital part of the dialogue that the artfrom promotes" is, from my perspective, a thoroughly warped point of view. Arrogant even.

The biggest thrills I get are phone calls from readers and listeners. If the players like what I write or appreciate it, fine. But it's far from being paramount.

Reader: I write this with humour and no malice and in the interests of vigourous debate.

But I find the sort of approach that assumes the jazz scene is the centre of the universe and that media outlets are merely there to support it pretty funny.

In my world, reviews are written for those who read them - not, primarily, for those who are being reviewed.

[Kenny]

As for Tim's reviews ... I have reviewed Tim's records before, have interviewed him, and enjoy and respect him as both a players and thinker.

But my views are very coloured very much by the above diatribe.

*I found them interesting enough.

*Thought them to long to the point of making the message murky.

*Found them far too serious - although I know there are people who will think that reviewing jazz records is a VERY serious business!

*They made me wonder if reviewing is ONLY about what's good, bad, brilliant or indifferent. I'm also very much - maybe mostly - interested what the music made you feel, Tim!

[someone else]

I really appreciate what Belinda and Kenny have said here. Thanks for inserting some positivity where it's needed.

As for me not being so positive, I think Tim's review (although perhaps written well) sounds extremely anal. He reminds me of some old bitter classical fuddy-duddy, especially when he speaks of the Sam Keevers composition "Grace" saying things like "...problems of voice leading and some conspicuously weak parallelism". Ah man, give me a break! It's a jazz composition! Lighten up! Who cares? The last thing I want a person to think when he/she hears my music is "What old-fashioned traditional classically-based rules have been broken here?". Instead, I hope the listener would be pondering (as Kenny brought up so nicely) how he/she FEELS when he/she hears it. In the end, isn't that what matters?

[Guest]

I'm all for honest reviews, but is there a little resentment in there? Sam is a working musician (and we all know how hard that is), yet I can't remember the last time I saw Tim out there in the scene. Many of the points seem valid in his review of Grace, but I totally disagree with his comments about Sam's compositions. I know nothing about voice leading and parallelism, and I'm obviously better off for it, as I find Sams tunes to be heartfelt and beautifully melodic - especially the title tune "Grace". Did anyone see the nonet live recording at Bennett's a few months ago, featuring Sam's original compostitions (and a killer line up)? Can't wait for that album to come out...

[arty]

I agree with someone else and kenny on the point .. what does the music make the critic feel?

I think it is a positive thing that Tim's reviews have generated much public debate. I am sure this is a consideration Tim felt before committing his reviews to print, and would welcome the feedback.

While I do not condone lacklustre reviews of jazz, I do feel that Tim has been a little too pointed in his bagging of Keevers playing and compositional output. Owing to the ascerbic tone used to critique Keevers' playing, does Tim honestly believe that "another day's recording" would fix this??

I personally feel that Tim has avoided commenting on how the music spoke/didn't speak to him, preferring to hide behind his AMEBesque attempt to outline what is a gross misrepresentation of Keevers' obvious musicianship - which by the way extends way beyond the dots on the page.

Keevers and Oehlers are both beautiful players, who through their combined efforts have produced a CD which is a abberation from their combined output thus far.

I only hope that through Tim's review he hasn't pushed away a potential audience, not only for this album, but from jazz as an art form. While I commend Tim's bravado in committing the words to paper, perhaps a less technique-based attack on a fellow pianist would have provided a fairer and less scathing critique.
When all is said and done, surely it's not about over-pedalling, it's about considering what the artist is trying to say and respecting each person's musical trajectory...

[Reader]

Arty, can you explain what you mean when you say, "their combined efforts have produced a CD which is a abberation from their combined output thus far." I really have no idea what you mean.
But this is an interesting discussion. Thanks for responding Kenny, your observations are food for thought. And you're right there is a place for 'music writing'. With your writing you contribute a lot to the scene and your writing is not trite... pity you're not given a bit more space. I'm sorry if I sounded arrogant... maybe what I'm trying to say is that the balance is tipped too far away from 'serious' reviewing. Australian culture at large is 'anti-intellectual' and that bias is reflected in this discussion.
In reply to 'someone else': how the listener 'feels' is important but it's not all there is. Music is also about ideas; there is an intellectual component and it matters.
I too find the tone of Tim's review a little weird but I respect him for writing it.

[Kenny]

Reader said:

I'm sorry if I sounded arrogant... maybe what I'm trying to say is that the balance is tipped too far away from 'serious' reviewing. Australian culture at large is 'anti-intellectual' and that bias is reflected in this discussion.

By using the word arrogant I wasn't thinking of you; more the smug assumption that the primary role of reviews or arts writing is to serve the arts themselves. I find it quite staggering, actually!

As for Australian culture being anti-intellectual, and this conversation being a reflection of that ... hmmmm, maybe you're right.

As far as my own fan-based philosphy goes, yep it is non-intellectual.

But I also know that generally speaking I much prefer music writing by fans rather than musicians or even big-name jazz writers. Fans who are musicians are fine, too. It's not always the case, y'know.

I haven't bought a jazz magazine for years, and while I read reviews at AAJ, I pay much more heed to the rantings of my buddies at the AAJ, Jazz Corner and Organissimo bulletin boards. I can and do regularly spend money on their recommendations.

[Im Shocked]

The album is book-ended by two performances of the same tune: Grace, by Keevers. This composition demonstrates, at the risk of sounding a bit AMEB about it, .......

Don't you mean ANAL about it

[arty]

hey reader ..

This album was a derivation or aberration from the CD output of the two mentioned artists to date ... basically .. through Grace, Oehlers and Keevers were exploring new territory in their recording output, something which they had not done before as a duo.

And did a bloody good job of it too!

[isaacs]

Here's my view.

I think a debate about a review is entirely valid. The artist themself (as well as fans) may wish to dispute a review - I have written a Letter to the Editor about a review of one of my classical compositions which appeared in the same issue of Music Forum. However, I would like to think that I attempt to refute what the critic actually says on its own terms, not simply his right to say it or the tone he uses or otherwise speculate as to what sort of person he must be to say such things (an "ad hominem attack").

Quite simply, we need to know if a musical criticism is valid in musical terms. Or otherwise, if the argument is to be that the whole critical construct itself is flawed, in this case if it is to be proposed (as it was) that questions of voice leading and the effectiveness of the kind of harmonic parallelism used are simply irrelevant when talking about a jazz composition, then this rather fantastic proposition needs to be thoroughly ventilated not just blindly asserted.

To me ad hominem comments about Tim being "anal", saying "Lighten up! Who cares!" because it's "only" a jazz composition, or that we should only ever say "nice" things or be "shocked" that one peer should criticise the work of another, or that the music makes me "feel good" so that's all that matters are pretty piss weak. If you're going to take Tim down, do it with a bit of smarts rather than facile swipes as per some trite TV panel show.

And one should take heed of the journal itself: Music Forum is a specialist music journal, certainly the only journal in Australia where these kinds of lengthy in-depth reviews of jazz CDs are published. Yes, it's not a style appropriate to the Sunday Herald Sun or even the Fairfax press, but let's celebrate diversity! Otherwise we are indeed anti-intellectual, actually I'd go further and say the culture is fast becoming anti-Thought.

So, having not heard the composition in question, is anyone out there equipped to offer a cogent argument about whether Tim's criticisms are valid on their own terms?

[Kenny]

Celebrate diversity? Absolutely.

The only problem I have with Tim's review of Grace is that I gain little about whether I would like the record or what the music actually sounds like. I like Grace very much, yet my experience of the album leaves me feeling a little like he's talking about a different record altogether.

Another thought: I'd be a little wary of immediately stamping anything remotely anti-intellectual or even anti-thought as BAD.

A little more gut reaction, passion from the heart and so on can be a good thing in the sometimes turgid world of jazz writing.

But thanks to Tim and Mark for inspiring the most lively rave around here for yonks!

[isaacs]

Thanks Kenny.

Re "anti-intellectual", as it appears in this (and many other) cultures I stamp it as "bad" simply because it manifests as a kind of "reverse snobbery", a knee-jerk demeaning of anything intellectual simply because it is intellectual. But by the same token, "intellectual snobbery" is just as bad, being the knee-jerk demeaning of something because it is not intellectual. They're both fucked up, and in exactly the same way, just reverse sides of the coin.

Anti-Thought? No hesitation on that on. THAT'S BAD. B-A-D. It be good to think.

[someone else]

Maybe Tim should analyze your compositions in such a way, Mr. Isaacs. I wonder how you would feel about it then? Would you pass the test? Do you honestly think about parallelism and voice leading in every tune you write??? Boring.......

Just because I mention words such as "feel" and "isn't that what matters" in my earlier post does not invalidate it. I'm sure the majority of the people who come to your gigs and buy your CDs don't think in such AMEBish ways either. Surely you wouldn't invalidate their opinions of how your music makes them "feel", now, would you?

[Jamie Oehlers]

After seeing all the debate over this, I thought it might be worthwhile putting in my 2 cents worth on this review and other things....

On most occasions when I meet somebody new and they find out I'm a jazz musician I am met with the reply of "I don't get jazz..." My usual (and honest) response to this is "You don't have to get it. Just listen and either like it or don't". I find most people react to the energy of music rather than the specific notes or techniques involved anyhow, and for me it presents a much more enjoyable listening experience. Back when I was studying music intently (not that I don't now - I do, but in a different way), I couldn't listen to any sort of music without intellectualising it and reacting to it in a purely cerebral way. This really started frustrating me as it was impossible to go to sleep listening to music, or do anything else while there was music playing. After much practice I taught myself to once again listen as if I knew nothing about music, and the beauty and spirit of all genres of music were once again revealed.

My point here is that I feel reviews of a relatively technical nature, such as this one, won't help to relieve the general fear that one must "get jazz" to appreciate it. As Coltrane said "Damn the notes, it's the feeling that counts". I am more interested in hearing about the feeling or spirit of an album as opposed to whether there were voice leading problems, to much parallelism, or too much pedal used. Some of my favourite players are so wrong!?! I am all for reviewers giving their opinions on the music, but getting too "AMEB" about it restricts the ability of people to understand the review, while scaring them off jazz at the same time...

The funny thing about reviews is that it is just one person's opinion, yet it can determine in someone's mind whether they will purchase a CD or not. As one of the performers on this CD, I find it particularly amusing that my 2 favourite tracks are "Grace" and "Still", the two that Tim seems to dislike the most. Tim also knows about the restrictions we have as jazz musicians when it comes to recording. Often there is a serious lack of funds for extra days in the studio, not to mention publicity and promotion. I actually don't mind the honesty that these restrictions present, rather than the over rehearsed and over processed music that gets churned out on a daily basis. Now I am by no means trying to disrespect Tim's musicality or ability, as he is a fine musician himself, but it just shows that we all hear music differently, and in the end the listeners must judge for themselves. Sam and I have been playing together for a long time now, and I honestly believe that he is one of the most musical and sympathetic musician/composers around and I respect him immensely.

And finally, I just hope people buy the CD and make up their own minds....then I could have steak for dinner every now and then!!!