Music Forum review

[Dick Letts]

This is about the entire philosophy of reviewing, about which volumes have been written over centuries. It is and has been an important part of the arts world for a very long time. Does it serve a constructive purpose?

If a publication's reviews are only ever positive, the currency is debased. They become unbelievable. Credibility is an issue on many levels.

I think to be a reviewer is a considerable responsibility and the role is best exercised in a caring way but fearlessly and with integrity. I think it is a role of the editor to try to ensure that a reviewer has skills and experience that are at a level that would be respected by the person(s) reviewed. In Tim Stevens's case, I have absolutely no doubt whatever that he meets that criterion. That doesn't mean that one has to agree with his opinions, but one can be confident that while they may be to some extent an expression of personal taste and observation, they are very well based.

I think, to answer the previous writer's question, that musicians certainly can decide whether the review has anything useful to say to them. I think the two monkeys image has absolutely nothing to do with the instance under discussion and would not get past a decent editor. On the other hand, the second para points to a virtue common in a constructive review, and that is that it brings to light particular problems in the circumstances faced by musicians making recordings; in this case: is it better to issue a recording made under these limitations or to wait until the time and money are adequate?

Finally, there would no doubt be complaints on this discussion group if reviews were published anonymously. But apparently it's OK to criticise the critic anonymously. If people are not sufficiently confident of the integrity of their opinions to sign their names to them, maybe they should not publish them.

[Kenny]

mim said:

I am an atheist, I'll post that under my own name. Kenny, I resent your implication that for an atheist to feel music as deeply as a believer (or agnostic) it must be coming from a "spiritual" place. I put that in adverted commas because I'm speaking a definition of the word spiritual not in my own terms, but in a religious sense.

Mim: I think you may find that what myself and that other agnostic fellow believe can God and/or spirituality can be defined as can be extremely vague, loose, sloppy and wide-ranging.

Take offence as you may, but you are reading too much into my blatherings to state I think my kind can "feel" music more than your kind. I believe no such thing.

And then, in the rest of your post, you do a pretty fair job of impersonating someone who is in fine touch with God (as I would define her, but for today only. Geez, where does everyone's sense of humour go with topics such as this?

Atheist? Prove it! ha ha - only joking. And that's a cheap shot. Agnostics can't prove anything either, but they kinda dig unprovability.

And for those who in their curt ways have been irritated by this thread's metaphysical tangent, stand back and have another look. It's not so far from the original debate as you may think.

[mim]

kennyweir said:

Take offence as you may, but you are reading too much into my blatherings to state I think my kind can "feel" music more than your kind. I believe no such thing.

I'm not offended, I'm indignant. And argumentative by nature.

kennyweir said:

And then, in the rest of your post, you do a pretty fair job of impersonating someone who is in fine touch with God (as I would define her, but for today only. Geez, where does everyone's sense of humour go with topics such as this?

And, like I said, semantics. You call it God (today only), I call it life. Potato, potato. Hmmm.... that doesn't work in text, maybe if I spelt it phonetically? Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
Truthfully, I quite enjoy discussions such as this, and am constantly amused by all sides of them, including my own. But I guess we have strayed a teeensy weeensy bit away from the original topic....

[HENDRIX]

Dear Guest,

if you love Yo Yo MA (yomama) so much then you have no place here. I mean yeah he can get to something technically and even emotionally, but hes not playing in the moment , he is playing someone elses moment. Think about that within the context of THIS debate and stop trying on your half cut intellectual stance because the fact of the matter is that Keevers is a superior musician to Yomama and Tim Stevens AND Scott Tinkler because his got maggots comin outa his ass when he plays with J.O. and his Cabrones and his compositional stuff! No im kidding about Scott because I think hes quite a good trumpet player and in fact would carve any trupmet player around, and he had eyes like pissholes in the snow at the VCA.

but............
Yo Yo cant even keep track of his fricken Cello, he lost it!
Now..Muddy Waters...thats real music, thats a fountain of music, heart music and original music, like Keevers, he created it and iterprets it (and dont start making comments about typos either coz thats some backhanded tall poppy crap as well, Scott tinkler is a better speller than Kenny Wier at times, and Kennys the professional! but just ask Kenny, Words are meant to be fucked with anyway...man it feels like people have lost touch with the one most important thing there is:




Scott tinkler.
Yep..Scott is stealing Steve Magnussens IdeAs..as well, but thats a side issue.
but serioulsy, Check this out!
Imagine Scotty T playing piano?
Now Imagine Keevers playing Trumpet. The latter could work , the former, no way...so this is where you have to decide ... Tim Stevens on trumpet or Sammy K on Trumpet...Sam just looks natural playing any instrument.


all jokes aside....more love is required amidst this hard life as a musician/ composer.

[shaggazzz]

Youse guys are hilarious. I love you all, let's get it on pseudo-intellectuals!

I would like to share two quotes with you people.

1. Music is my religion - Jimi Hendrix

2. Love is my religion, I could die for it - Keats

Thank you and have a nice day. Hooray for jazz.

[isaacs]

Dick-

Thanks for posting about the philosophy of reviewing.

Re people posting under pseudonyms here.

I think it's a long standing tradition in the online community for people to be free to use pseudonyms. That tradition goes back 20+ years to the old days of bulletin boards and newsgroups. I think print media traditions are different, but nonetheless pseudonyms are not unheard of in the print media and in quite illustrious places too!

For example, jazz critic John Clare wrote for many years in the Sydney Morning Herald under the pseudonym Gail Brennan. None of us knew who Gail was but we assumed she was female (bit like some of the gender bending that goes on online).

And Peter Rechniewski reviewed for many years in the Sydney music paper On the Street under the pseudonym Alan Brooking.

[jaw]

"Got maggotts comin outa his ass when he plays. " Thats so poetic. Sure you weren't talking about Scotty there too?!
I'm not so sure Sam would look good playing the flute though. No-one looks good holding a poof-horn! I can imagine Scotty or Sam or J.O. setting fire to a flute, but not looking less than punchable attempting to suck out the crap sound it makes and spit it towards an audience.
In all fairness to any serious Flautists out there, its not your fault, you just picked a stupid instrument. Hmmm, serious flautists: is there actually any other kind? Maybe they just lost their sense of humour when they realised that the guy playing what they thought was the "stupid trombone" was making far more friends, having much more fun, getting booked for heaps more gigs and the only thing serious about him was the income he was pulling in.
BTW: Whats the difference between the flute and the piccolo?
Absoulutely nothing!! SamK and Scotty T would both look ridiculous playing either of them!!!
So, in closing, I'd just like to pass on Gods regards to you all, (we bumped into each other at a Fetish Party last night). He wanted you all to know that he's been keeping an eye on this thread and he does believe Tim Stevens Exist's.
mim....he wants to see you after class.
kenny...this is your third warning son! Take heed
He's still a vengeful GOD

[Reader]

Dick said:

Finally, there would no doubt be complaints on this discussion group if reviews were published anonymously. But apparently it's OK to criticise the critic anonymously. If people are not sufficiently confident of the integrity of their opinions to sign their names to them, maybe they should not publish them.

Dick,
Don't you think this has been a valuable discussion? Much of it wouldn't have taken place if people had to put their names to their views, this is a small scene. One of the great things about this board is that if people choose they can throw a thought into the ether and see what comes back. By the same token it's not cool to just slag someone anonymously, that's why I haven't really said what I think about the review itself and the subtexts that inform its content. I have preferred instead to try to instigate a more general discussion about reviewing - I think it's been very successful on the whole. Most people have offered quite thoughtful responses.

[Joe Chindamo]

A message from Joe Chindamo


I don't usually get involved in this sort of this discussion, but I must make an exception here. I haven't heard ‘Grace’ yet, although I have the world of respect for the musicians involved, as I do for Tim (as musician and writer).
I would like to make a few points. Firstly, I think it's cowardly to make untoward remarks about another's playing in print, without signing one's real name. It's alright to make positive remarks anonymously, but I don't approve of negative comments being posted in such a way. Call me old fashioned.


Secondly, I'm disturbed by some contributors' need to dumb our art down. If Tim makes a comment about Sam's piano playing, or mine, for that matter, his views should not be dismissed lightly, because this guy's dedicated a huge portion of his life to thinking about his subject ( and then some). A bit of respect please.

Personally, I welcome intelligent observations about a subject so dear to my heart, whether I agree with those views or not, because there is so little of it around these days. Remember that a hundred years ago Debussy used to write reviews. Do you think he was concerned about being nice? He wasn’t a prick either. He was very supportive of Ravel, for instance. Similarly, in Russia 50 years ago (I’m not sure whether this still happens), if a violinist came to town, two other leading violinists in that city wrote separate reviews. The writing duties were rotated. Maybe this was elitist, but it sounds pretty democratic to me.

Any of us who have the audacity to release recordings, has to put up with a bad (or worse) lukewarm review from time to time. . It's a fact of life. It intrigues me, though, that had a reviewer who’s never played the piano produced this review, there would have been less of an outcry. Why? What are we afraid of? Is it the fact that Tim knows too much about this? Do we take umbrage at the fact that he speaks at all. I often find that as musicians, we are often disqualified by the general public about contributing comments about music.

It’s so nice to read a thoughtful critique by someone who has the ability to delve deep into it his subject, and whose comments are more informative than those you’re likely to hear from the check-out girl or boy at Safeway's. Of course, the check out person's (let’s be politically correct) comments are valid, but perhaps not here, in the same way that my views on astronomy would probably not be welcome in the latest edition of Scientific American. If you're so afraid of true expertise, because it's elitist –a concept which is perfectly acceptable in sport, flying a plane or performing an operation), just watch Australian Idol instead. If you can’t be a little elitist here within this forum (and I personally don’t think it is being elitist, by the way), where can one express such views. The answer is probably Nowhere. Now, not being able to express a view is tantamount to censorship. Which is worse, elitism or censorship. I’ll let you sleep on that one.
Love to all,
J

[Spurted]

Im said:

e.

In conclusion, this review demonstrates, at the risk of sounding a bit NRMA about it, problems with a blown head gasket and some conspicuously weak motor tuning, issues which are not unknown elsewhere in Stevens’ reviews.

Now that's a good comeback -nothing like a bit of Australian humour - there's our culture right there!

[Spurted]

Joe said:

A message from Joe Chindamo


I don't usually get involved in this sort of this discussion, but I must make an exception here. I haven't heard ‘Grace’ yet, although I have the world of respect for the musicians involved, as I do for Tim (as musician and writer).
I would like to make a few points. Firstly, I think it's cowardly to make untoward remarks about another's playing in print, without signing one's real name. It's alright to make positive remarks anonymously, but I don't approve of negative comments being posted in such a way. Call me old fashioned.


Secondly, I'm disturbed by some contributors' need to dumb our art down. If Tim makes a comment about Sam's piano playing, or mine, for that matter, his views should not be dismissed lightly, because this guy's dedicated a huge portion of his life to thinking about his subject ( and then some). A bit of respect please.

Mate - he wouldn't dare!

Personally, I welcome intelligent observations about a subject so dear to my heart, whether I agree with those views or not, because there is so little of it around these days. Remember that a hundred years ago Debussy used to write reviews. Do you think he was concerned about being nice? He wasn’t a prick either. He was very supportive of Ravel, for instance. Similarly, in Russia 50 years ago (I’m not sure whether this still happens), if a violinist came to town, two other leading violinists in that city wrote separate reviews. The writing duties were rotated. Maybe this was elitist, but it sounds pretty democratic to me.

Who Cares!

Any of us who have the audacity to release recordings, has to put up with a bad (or worse) lukewarm review from time to time. . It's a fact of life. It intrigues me, though, that had a reviewer who’s never played the piano produced this review, there would have been less of an outcry. Why? What are we afraid of? Is it the fact that Tim knows too much about this? Do we take umbrage at the fact that he speaks at all. I often find that as musicians, we are often disqualified by the general public about contributing comments about music.

Yeah - but what what about the callous and anal observations.
It’s so nice to read a thoughtful critique by someone who has the ability to delve deep into it his subject, and whose comments are more informative than those you’re likely to hear from the check-out girl or boy at Safeway's. Of course, the check out person's (let’s be politically correct) comments are valid, but perhaps not here, in the same way that my views on astronomy would probably not be welcome in the latest edition of Scientific American. If you're so afraid of true expertise, because it's elitist –a concept which is perfectly acceptable in sport, flying a plane or performing an operation), just watch Australian Idol instead. If you can’t be a little elitist here within this forum (and I personally don’t think it is being elitist, by the way), where can one express such views. The answer is probably Nowhere. Now, not being able to express a view is tantamount to censorship. Which is worse, elitism or censorship. I’ll let you sleep on that one.

What do you think about this Adrian Jackson and Kenny Weir?




J

[casper]

Sure Joe - no one wants formal censorship - but maybe we need to think about how we choose to make our views known to our colleagues in this community.
I dont advocate the dumbing down of our art - Im suggesting that it is a far more profound gesture to reconcile knowledge and expertise with humility and empathy - the kind of empathy that one artist can have with another.That's what separates a review made by a fellow musician from that of most critics.
.

[Offended]

"What do you think about this Adrian Jackson and Kenny Weir?"

Well Adrian is very tall and has good taste in jazz and does loads of work for the jazz community. Kenny has a radio show which I don't get much time to listen to, he also writes for the Sunday Herald Sun, which I believe, is the largest selling newspaper in the country. He openly claims to not being a musical highbrown academic but has a deep love for jazz. He's not as tall as Adrian and he comes from New Zealand. He waeras hats. Adrian doesn't wear hats. Kenny sounds like a reasonably good cook judging from his posts on the subject. I don't know what Adrian's cooking is like.

That's what I think about those two.

Seriously, sarcastic response only written because we-who-are-not-named are deeply offended that you are not interested in our thoughts.

[belindablah]

Casper, if I could have put it as eloquently as you just did, that's about what I would have liked to have said.

Ill add that I have my doubts as to whether reviews of Cd's are the necessary ingredient that develops our art form.

This whole discussion has got me thinking about 'intent'. What Sam was trying to achieve when he (probably) sat down at his piano and composed for Grace. What Jamie and Sam ultimately hoped for when they recorded at ABC for a day. And what Tim hoped for as he scribed his thoughts listening to it. Just interesting to me how they seem to have come from different places of intent.

another postscript, something I composed last night, I notice, is full of parallel harmony. such a master of obvious rebellion... I'm sure it's all on purpose.

[Tinky]

nice take belindablah, "intent".
I certaintly cant speak for those involved as to what their intent was, but its a very good way to look at this situation.
As to whether reviews "are the necessary ingredient that develops our art form", I'd have to agree that that would be going too far. I still do think that critique of some form or another needs to be entered into in order to develop. This is what happens when you go to a teacher though they may ( hopefully) give you their ideas in a possitive light, I guess that comes back to intent. The other thing is in this instance you have asked for an oppinion.
I have gained a lot over the years from the input of my peers, some things I didn't really want to hear but with careful assesment of those comments I've gained heaps. Again its intent though. Most of those comments were made with the idea of 'helping' me on my journey. The ones that weren't were full of issues I guess, so I'll repeat Caspers comment,"it is a far more profound gesture to reconcile knowledge and expertise with humility and empathy - the kind of empathy that one artist can have with another.That's what separates a review made by a fellow musician from that of most critics."