Music Forum review

[alison]

Wow, Jamie- that was beautifully expressed- you rock!!!!

[mim]

Hear, hear! You know, Jamie, I think I just might contribute to your steak dinner...

[pg]

Valid criticism in my view needs to establish its dialectical framework before it can be taken seriously. Only then can a reader understand the context of a critique. Great jazz is full of unfinished ideas. The pull of the moment often leaves the improviser with his last phrase half eaten and still warm on the plate. Jazz as a form demolishes the paradigms of the AMEB apologists. Paralellisms are the mainstay of any music based on the harmonic series, the natural root of music. Ergo, the blues. Jazz is about expression. Talking about parallel fifths reminds me of the smell of lavender water in Surrey Hills while we waded through George Loughlin learning something called music theory which subsequent life experiences have suggested was about as useful as phrenology. Sheer aussie enthusiasm on the other hand, with its nasty whiff of nationalism, is about as useless as evoking the bewigged formalisms of Old Europe. What is needed is a language devoid of hobbyist glee which imbues the music with the respect it deserves.

[isaacs]

someone said:

Maybe Tim should analyze your compositions in such a way, Mr. Isaacs. I wonder how you would feel about it then?

I would be happy for Tim to analyse my compositional craft. That in itself would not piss me off. If he made a criticism that I felt was unsupportable I would be pissed off. I might write a letter to the editor! If he made a criticism that was supportable I would swallow my pride and learn from it. I have actually learnt many things from reviewers. Again, to me the point is: are Tim's criticisms supportable on Tim's own terms? .

Jamie's response is really thoughtful and makes a lot of sense. However I don't agree that we have to (in effect) be careful what we say, as the state of the music is very fragile etc so only say good things, and easily digestable things, not too technical etc (this is a very crude paraphrase of what Jamie and others have said, in part). Even if that were to apply, surely it applies in the more mainstream media. Music Forum is a specialist subscription journal, where one should not have to "pull punches" in this way. This not to defend Tim's criticisms as I don't know the music, just to defend his right to make criticisms which seems to be under attack by some here.

"Someone else" I'm also not suggesting that the immediate way people respond and "feel" the music is not worth anything. I just question that apparently no-one must on any accounts let it go any further than that. That to analyse - and heaven forbid analyse critically! - is in and of itself a lousy thing to do. That seems to be the view of some here. I just say, is the critical analysis in question valid?

Funny, nobody, even Jamie, has gone as far as to say "Hey, I disagree with Tim, Sam's voice leading is really GOOD and he uses parallelism in a really interesting way, for example check out etc etc". Jamie at least has made a pretty convincing case that says it can be really be self-defeating to get hung up on analytical things, but that is not the same as saying one should never apply this yardstick in any situation at all.

[isaacs]

pg,

due to my respect for Tim as a contemporary composer and performer I doubt very much that he was criticising the mere appearance of any parallel intervals, as an AMEB examiner might in a theoretical exercise.

Anyone criticising a composition in 2005 solely on the basis that the voice-leading contains proscribed parallel intervals should be laughed out of school.

But surely it is possible that a jazz composition uses parallel intervals in a way that becomes ineffective, perhaps (I'm just conjecturing) the critic believes the bass follows the melody in parallel for too long and believes that the composition would be enhanced if it was leavened with some contrary intervals (unless of course the parallelism was so very convincing that it became the whole point of the composition, in which case to dilute it would not be to improve the piece).

So that is how I read Tim. Not that he was criticising Sam for the mere appearance of a parallel interval, but that he felt the parallelism became "crude". One such way that could take place (even in 2005) is through overuse, or the wrong kind of overuse. Note that Tim didn't say "parallelism" he said "crude parallelism". He doesn't object to parallelism I'm sure, but any device can be crudely used. That's not the same as making the device forbidden in itself.

However, I don't know if I agree with Tim in terms of Sam's composition...because, as I said, I haven't heard it! But I definitely don't agree with your blanket demolishing of the relevance to jazz composition of such questions as whether parallel intervals are used crudely or effectively.

[Jamie Oehlers]

Hey Mark

I was by no means saying that all reviews should be positive, just that they needn't be overly technical (I guess I'm talking in more general terms here - rather than music forum specific). I would rather hear about the lack of direction throughout the album, or lack of conviction. This is just my preference - writing that over intellectualises music bores me shitless....As far as the tune "Grace" goes, I love the melody and chord structure, and I found it a beautiful tune to play on. If anyone wants to analyse it any further, then go for it...it's just not my thing.

[isaacs]

Jamie,

Yeah I realised that I confused what you said a bit, and stealth edited my post a bit to correct this, as my point still applied in any case. Yes, you were talking about the ill effects of "technical" reviews, not bad ones. I just think it's horses for courses, since none of the reviews in the SHS, Age, SMH, Limelight etc are technical (and neither should they be given the general readership) I'm really glad that there's ONE specialist journal where technical reviews are appropriate. So to me, criticising a review in Music Forum for being technical is like criticising a review in Sunday Herald Sun for being accessible. And the point about alienating the punters doesn't really apply, because they're not going to subscribe to a specialist journal anyway unless they are interested in technical things.

Actually I really hate it when people get down on musicians for discussing the craft of what we do (not talking about you here Jamie!). Oh so sorry it spoiled your "noble savage" illusions about music-making.

[Reader]

I just want to respond to Kenny when he refers to "the smug assumption that the primary role of reviews or arts writing is to serve the arts themselves." It seems to me that you view what I'm saying as implying that there is a separation between "the arts" and the audience for the arts. That seems odd to me... I mean if good reviewing serves the arts, which I believe it does, then doesn't that serve the audience?
The thing here is that we are having this discussion (which is a bloody beauty) precisely because Tim was willing to state a strong point of view.

[robburke]

Reviewing music crosses 2 formats - objective and subjective opinion. In Tim's case a lot of his opinions are subjective (especially some of the analytical opinions) and so the reader doesn't get an idea of how the CD actually sounds. Specifically in the Grace reveiw there is not enough detail of how the CD is formatted and a musical prognosis of how the CD, as a whole, sounds. Tim has also ignored the aesthetic attributes of both the CDs reviewed, which I think is imperative in a good review and to be honest I believe the review reads more like a musical analysis written for a research paper.
I take on board his criticism of my playing and the pictures (the printing made the pics very dark which ruined the effect) but I think by being so critical of certain aspects of the cover, he missed the whole idea of the design, the mapping of the Melbourne sound, (train map) which was created by one of the leading graphic designers (award winning) in the country.

I also believe that Tim should not have reviewed Sam's piano playing because of the facts that they were contemporaries at the VCA, they play the same instrument and by using this sort of analysis and language, could be perceived as having ulterior motives.

... and finally, Sam is my friend and I know this sort of review would have hurt him.

[belindablahblah]

a distant memory...i cant remember the name of the tune .. but it was a keevers original that we played at manchester lane one night about 5 - 6 years ago.. absolutely chokas full of parallel harmonies. a simple repetitive rhythm of block chords that made up the melody. utterly beautiful.

[Jamie Oehlers]

Mark

I don't have "noble savage" illusions about music making....obviously when learning the craft of improvising there are many intellectual processes that need to be undertaken. I am certainly not one for the"just feel it" kind of improvisation without any kind of knowledge of the history of improvised music or knowledge of harmony, rhythm or melody. I am purely talking about listening to music. I see these as two totally seperate entities. Some of the smartest shit sounds plain boring..... ;D

[Sam Keevers]

I have watched this little cyberspace debate for a couple of days now and considering it's my apparently inadequate piano playing and composing abilities that started this whole thing, I guess it's time for me to respond.
Firstly, I welcome Tim's criticism of my playing on this record. There are few pianists in this country I respect as much as Tim. He has ears like a bat, a beautiful touch and I've always enjoyed his tunes.
I am the first to admit my playing on "Grace" is a little rough. I found the experience of recording a duo CD with Jamie (one of the greatest musicians this country has ever produced) very daunting and the recording process (one day) was not ideal. However, when I returned home after the session and listened to the takes, I actually really enjoyed the music. The album had a lovely feel and it really showed Jamie in a new light. So I will say, despite Tim's comments, I am still very proud of this record. This recording documents the beginning of another chapter of myself and Jamie's musical relationship. (This recording was the first time we played as a duo). We plan to do another one next year and I'm looking forward to it.
The aspect of Tim's review I found disturbing was the implication my compositional skills are flawed, not just on this recording, but in my body of work thus far. This was particularly hurtful as I have known Tim for a long time and although we haven't been in contact for a good many years, I have always considered him a friend and colleague.
Unfortunately for me, this review has planted a seed of doubt about my playing and writing (I noticed it last night in my head while playing with Jamie's quintet) which might linger longer than I would like. Again, I must say I accept Tim's criticism of my playing on "Grace" but I don't accept his points about my compositions. My Dad always told me "rules are made to be broken" and I make no apologies for my apparent lack of adherance to formal rules of composition(I am aware of them by the way, considering I have been playing and composing for 26 years). I write music that sounds good to me and is a true expression of my soul. Take it or leave it.
Thanks to everyone has has bought "Grace". I hope you enjoy it. Thanks to Jamie too for giving me the opportunity to make music with him.

[isaacs]

Jamie - I wasn't referring to you in my sarcastic "noble savage" comment. That's why I immediately preceded it by "not talking about you here Jamie!", as it's obvious from your playing that you've done heaps of study. But perhaps you just wanted to make the point. Actually that point I made really wasn't in reference to anybody in the forum, more experiences outside it were being referred to.

Sam - thanks for posting here under your own name. I hope you are heartened that so many people believe in you. I myself have always been a fan of your playing, I don't know your writing very well, though I do respect what I have heard. Your last night with Vince Jones in particular I will always remember, at the Basement it was. You were on quiet fire then and I thought it was truly beautiful, exactly the way I want to play and only occasionally touch. I have spent some time here defending Tim's right to field his opinion, and suggesting that people should dispute the opinion directly rather than play the man (I have no opinion as I have not heard that piece, I can't remember the titles of the excellent pieces on your Freedman submission but I'm sure it wasn't there). I also wanted to argue against the idea that anything related to music theory was inherently irrelevant to jazz, despite pg's olfactory phobias. But in the end Tim's is only an opinion, I don't know Tim that well but I think he would be prepared to admit that. And moreover, the opinion that aroused so much controversy only formed a part of the review. I know all about "seeds of doubt". For me they are there, sometimes partially even fully germinated, irrespective of negative comments in reviews. If you really believe "Grace" is perfect the way it is and there is nothing to learn from Tim's opinion about your composing, then you must hold your ground. Many clearly agree with you. I think more important than all this discussion is the problem of musicians losing heart. I have battled with it myself. While I don't think it is possible to cushion ourselves from it by controlling what others say or do (Tim has to write what he believes as much as anyone else needs to respect their own integrity) I personally hope that your own undoubted talent and passion, and the support of your friends and close colleagues, will not allow this doubt to spread. I have drawn inspiration from the following words of yours and I hope you do too: "I write music that sounds good to me and is a true expression of my soul. Take it or leave it". In the end, what else is it about?

[egads]

wow, what a great discussion. I love this place

[Tinkler]

c'mon, bring it on. Critique is the basis of how we improve our game. How many of us sit around talking about and disecting others playing, both on the possitive and negative. I know that I've allways been a harsh critic not only of others but also myself, this is what makes me want to improve myself continually. This is not to say that I dont enjoy where I am at the present, but I wont be satisfied if I'm still there tomorrow. I've had all sorts of things said about my playing and music and have allways tried to assess those comments intellectually rather that emotionaly. All this talk about 'feel' and 'like' gets us nowhere in discussions like this. I believe we need to know WHY we dont like the 'feel' of things so that we can address that in our art.