Music Forum review

[Joe Chindamo]

Casper,
Now, look what you've done. I wasn't going to get involved, as I have pedalling to practise.

Reviewing is a very tricky area, I know. Groucho Marks once bemoaned the fact that no other profession is subjected to such public scrutiny. "I don't read reviews about my lawyer's competence or incompetence" he quipped. Well, we sort of do - when the ocassion arises that one is sent to prison.. Getting back to my favourite analogy - sport- no amount of opinion can combat an unambigious result. The problems facing an area whose parameters of subjectivety can be infinitely elastic are unique. The hardest thing in the world , when talking about any art, is to separate opinion, fact, personal agenda, taste, prejudice, the reviewer's own insecurities, the performer's insecurities, the reader's insecurities, the reviewer's knowledge, the reader's knowledge, the reviewer's state of mind and body ( I heard recently that one reviewer admitted writing to a bad review, because he wasn't feeling well that day) .............and the list goes on.
Do we need reviews? If you want free publicity, we do. That's the short answer. When we get great reviews, we feel proud and are full of admiration for the reviewer's insights. When the opposite happens, we shrug off our indignation with a superior "what what he know anyway". I would interested in finding out whether all this discussion as affected sales of "grace'. It's had a lot of publicty.
Casper, I agree wholeheartly with you about the need to be respectful, but I didn't find Tim's manner offensive. He was just 'matter of fact'. Now, of course, this becomes a matter of opionion, and it's unprovable. I must admit though, that I did wince when he stated something ( now I'm not going to look up the exact quote, so forgive me if I don't get it exactly right) about there being nothing to gain by a further listen of a song which of which a second take was included . My understanding of it was that this track wasn't so special as to warrent two takes on the same CD. Tim could have been more tactful, but then again, it's his review, not mine or anyone else's.
I must go.
J

[adrian jackson]

ok, I'll add my thoughts, as someone who has reviewed jazz for many years now, but has never been a professional musician.

* There have been some really interesting contributions here, a lot of food for thought. If nothing else, Tim's review has achieved that much.

* A review should be as objective and honest as possible. That isn't always easy in a scene as small as this one -- look at some of the (anonymous) vitriol Tim has copped here. Knowing Tim, I don't believe his review was intended maliciously ; he was simply giving his honest opinion in analysing the music as he heard it.

* Can a critic contribute to the artform ? Definitely. If readers know a critic's work enough to get a picture of their preferences/biases, compared to the reader's own, they can read a review & decide if they should have attended a gig (or should attend an artist's next gig) or should have bought a cd. If they did go to the gig or have got the cd, they might compare their listening experience with the reviewer's. If the reviewer has enough credibility in the artist's mind, they might even find the reviewer's comments helpful feedback.

* I think the worst, most useless kind of review is the negative one, where the reviewer boosts their ego by making 'witty' putdowns. (eg, dissing a singer as sounding like a 'jazz Barbie' may well be taken as personally offensive by the singer, but tells the reader nothing about why the reviewer disliked them...tone ? phrasing ? what ?........sorry Vicki, I know it wasn't a review per se, but it was a handy example). Also reviews where the reviewer simply doesn't 'get' the music in question, and has made no attempt to understand it.

* the next most useless kind of review is the one that assigns automatic, fulsome praise to anything and everything. It tells the reader and the artist nothing meaningful. (eg, anything Stanley Crouch has written about Wynton Marsalis !)

* I acknowledge Kenny's distinction between this approach, and the editorial decision to concentrate on the music you like. But sometimes, you are assigned to review a cd/gig, or one is receiving so much attention you can't ignore it. If you decide that an artist is seriously failing to achieve their goals, or is playing down to the audience, or in some other way deserving of criticism, you are obliged to say so.

* I think it's undeniable that a peer will have a better understanding of the creative process than a non-musician. Whether they can express their opinion in a manner that makes sense to the reader is another issue........I would suggest that the need for clear and concise written expression (together with reluctance most musicians would feel to critics their peers -- in print at least !) would explain why so few reviews are written by musicians.

* I think that a non-musician can still have a fair idea of what the musicians are trying to achieve. One requirement is some knowledge of the tradition that musicians are working within / developing from (as the case may be). eg if a reviewer had never heard Charlie Parker, they may have a different view of a player who was recycling Bird licks than the rest of us would. A reviewer should at least be informed, but I don't think they need a detailed technical knowledge, to form an opinion that most non-musicians in the (actual or potential) audience can relate to. I mean, if only musicians were allowed to form an opinion on what is being played, we'd all be in trouble, right ?

* I think that overly technical reviews are of limited use ; they are less likely to convey the central qualities of the music in question. Having said that, I acknowledge that the more technical emphasis of Tim's review was appropriate to the forum where it was published.

* Having read Tim's review, I had another listen to Grace. Tim's comments notwithstanding, I still feel that Grace is a really enjoyable album ; the compositions work in allowing Jamie and Sam to express their ideas, singly and in tandem. Sure, maybe the budget to record over 2 or 3 days might have produced a more polished work ; then again, I think there's a lot to be said for spontaneity. (Reportedly, Coltrane would typically record take after take in the studio ; until he recorded with Ellington, who convinced him that, unless there was an error that couldn't be tolerated, the first take was usually the best). As for a 'hesitant' piano solo : Tim clearly sees this as a failing (and I don't deny him the right to do so), but there are times (and this is one) where I find hesitation on the soloist's part a fascinating part of the process ; a pregnant pause can be really interesting, whether intended or not.

* I applaud Dick Letts efforts (and Miriam Zolin's efforts with the National Jazz Writing Award), to encourage more & better jazz criticism in this country. I think it would be a good thing.

Finally, my wife & kids reckon my cooking's pretty good.

[jw]

Dear spurted,
Firstly I agree with you that HENDRIX often waxes lyrical in the best possible way. He's given me some good laughs and injected some of the only efforts at intelligent (yet accurate) humour in to this discussion so far....yoyoma...and the car.
Yeahyeah, hes funny, and intelligent, and Im neither!
As for your post in response to JoeyC's message:

Joe wrote an honest, intelligent, informed, frank response to the topic in question that addressed the issues this thread is supposedly discussing. He mentions his thoughts on respect for other musicians and cowardly attacks from anonymous posters. Your attack of his letter in RED, adds nothing, comments on nothing, totally misses the point (unless you are purposely trying to make cowardly, non-sensical comments just to piss him off) and is just blatantly rude and stupid!!!!
Thats the kind of thing no-one could really put their name to. Cause its just so dumb.
One last think Spurted, before I move on. Your final comment on Joe's Message, "Whady'think abou' this Adrian Jackson N' Kenny Weir?" sounds like something some derro on a street corner with his cock in his hand pissing on his own shoes would shout at passers by at 4am just before being arrested & locked up (if he's lucky) or beaten to a pulp.

Dear everyone else,
I'm not against posting under psuedonyms. I think it can make the debate a bit more lively and fun. I mean, its hardly Scientific American or The Financial Review.....Its a bloody Aussie Jazz Internet Forum. Hey I love it, don't get me wrong. I agree we shouldn't dumb down the scene (any more than it is already) but it makes me uncomfortable when it gets too highbrow and self-righteous too. Isn't that part of the problem that has inspired this debate? I mean, going to a quiet, refined concert at the Opera House or Concert Hall is great, once in a while, but its hardly your average every day ozjazz experience.

Thats what people like Sam & Jamie give us, regular doses of the music we love, when we want it, for a reasonable price, in friendly, real environments with a minimum amount of prententious puffery. I don't really care what this Dr or that Mathemeticain thinks of my friends recorded output, I love seeing them performing live on a regular basis. It must be said that Grace is an iota of the music released last year that they were involved in. Its a meeting of friends on one afternoon to make the most of a rare opportunity to record, free of charge, some tunes they like playing together. Its not backed up by a $20,000 fellowship that has enabled them to take time off other work and spend a year planning and producing it. Its a couple of friends having an intimate conversation, who have the bravery and humility to invite you to eavesdrop on them by releasing it. I bet they never would have dreamed that it would get this much attention. It could almost be up for another ARIA now for "most discussed Australian jazz duo album ever"! ;D

I don't think its so much what the review says about the album that offends, as the tone in which its said. I hate the term "un-Australian" and the little Sod that keeps using the expression on my TV, but I think the term has rarely seemed so appropriate as to describe the review in question.
In more colloquial terms: The little bastards got his head jammed so far up his own arse that he's drowning in his own verbal diarrhoea.

Its musicians like Sam & Jamie that keep it real week in week out, out there in the real world, carting heavy equipment in and out of underpaid gigs, trying to maintain old non-company cars, spending 6-8 months organising one month tours, sleeping in crappy motel rooms, to do whats important to them as humans to survive, and sharing it all with any one who cares to listen.
I commend them for their music, and their poise, dignity and grace.

[Kenny]

I, too, am revisiting both albums with pleasure - and even played a track off each, back to back, yesterday on PBS. Before indulging in another hour of Jelly Roll Morton's Library of Congress recordings. Ha - a triumvirate of half-assed pianna players!

[Joe Chindamo]

Let me make one thing clear. I don't think one needs to be a musician in order to 'get' music. In fact, most music lovers never take up an instrument and the best listeners are probably not musicians. Adrian, I didn't elaborate on my views about critics, since they were an aside to my main points. I agree with all the points you've made about what constitutes a good review or a bad one. I didn't want to give the impression that I don't value the opinion of non musicians ( which they exercise whenever they buy one of our records). I simply feel that great resentment seems to be generated whenever a highly accomplished musician offers a technical point of view about a performance. I"m not saying this discussion needs to be exclusively high brow, (I'm sorry I gave that impression by using the check -out person at Safeway analogy). By the same token,it's unfair that any so called high brow comment should be excluded - which appears to be the case, when I read comments such as - keep it real, no pomposity allowed . Re keeping it real, if you play jazz, the chances are that you've done it hard too ( with the exception of that guy years ago, who never did a gig, won some competition and ended up in Herbie's band). We've all done it the hard way too. I got my first gig at Wangaratta in my own right when I was 35 years old. Sure, I received a fellowship two years ago, but I didn't just roll out of bed and find it on the floor one day. I worked fucking hard and kept it real in my own way ( my first job was on accordion at the Railway Hotel in Fitzroy when I was 11, and was devastated when I got the sack after a couple of months. PUt the violins away, that's as far as I'm going).Jamie and I suspect Sam, have also received funding for projects ( as they should!!). I should know, since I've written at least one reference for Jamie, and still do for many a player whom I think is deserving of it. And another thing ( and I'm NOT !!! referring to Jamie and Sam here), technical accuracy, or 'correct pedalling ' doestn't make the music any less real. Technical proficiency is no substitute for soul, but a lousy technique is not a prerequisite for great music making. This is not, I repeat, directed at the two musicians in question, but I make the point because I sense this prejudice underlying many of the comments posted here ( including one made about Yo Yo Ma).
Tim, is it possible that you might give my next record a really bad review. The publicity would be wonderful.

[isaacs]

Joe said:

I got my first gig at Wangaratta in my own right when I was 35 years old

Funny, I was also 35 when I got my first gig at Wang. However since Wangaratta was established when we were around 30 it was hard for us to get gigs there in our 20s as some do now!

Nice to see you here Joe. Get back to your pedalling, I better get back to my composing as I headed down what seems to be a blind alley before lunch and need to turn back with the aid of my trusty big eraser! The last few phrases definitely had some crude parallelism. Seriously. And flamenco cliches. My inner Tim Stevens is keeping it real. Really.

PS I have to say that I think it's regrettable to describe Tim's tone as "unAustralian" as someone did a few posts back. That's just reverse snobbery again. I think attacking people for the way they say things, for their tone independent of content and context, is usually a cheap shot, a form of snobbery whatever direction it travels in. And I think Tim's tone was perfectly fine. Respectful and often complimentary in a passionate way ("Sam Keevers is sometimes stunningly engaged with Oehlers in terms of ensemble and groove"). I guess not that many people subscribe to specialist journals like Music Forum. Tim's tone entirely fits what one would expect for these publications as opposed to mainstream newspapers whether broadsheet or tabloid where there is more pressure on the critic to use a broadly marketable style.

[Not AJ]

" I think the worst, most useless kind of review is the negative one, where the reviewer boosts their ego by making 'witty' putdowns. (eg, dissing a singer as sounding like a 'jazz Barbie' may well be taken as personally offensive by the singer, but tells the reader nothing about why the reviewer disliked them...tone ? phrasing ? what ?........sorry Vicki, I know it wasn't a review per se, but it was a handy example)"

you don't like Vicky much AJ do you? Oddly she always says positive things about you.

[isaacs]

Not said:

" you don't like Vicky much AJ do you? Oddly she always says positive things about you.

Either that's an attempt at humour or another example of the "It's unAustralian to ever criticise your mates" shtick.

[Hezza]

Someone who says what they think in an articulate and well informed manner should not be ostracised from a community that prides itself on being subversive and original.
Thanks Tim for your refreshing and informative reviews.

[Vicki HB i not y]

" you don't like Vicky much AJ do you? Oddly she always says positive things about you. "

Dear Not AJ

Very kind of you to be a White Knight, but Adrian is always perfectly charming to me. My name is spelt Vicki, i.e. no 'y'. Thanks anyway.

[happy]

at the risk of flogging the proverbial horse, perhaps we could invite all the posters to this topic to now contribute a review of their own, attempting to make intelligent, pithy, concise and relevent criticism in a productive way. This sounds like a joke, but I'm serious. All those who have a copy of the record in question, 400 words, please. People like me who don't have a copy, perhaps something else would suffice, preferably something that you enjoy but have some reservations about!!! First thing that springs to mind for me is one of those reissues where they put the alternate takes right next to each other, I hate that, I'd rather have them after the record is finished, as an afterthought(!) But seriously, let's heear it folks!ps kenny loving that jelly roll on the radio - I've read transcripts but never heard the tracks before. A goldmine!

[Not Jelly]

I beg you all just stop it.

This thread is bordering on the obsessive compulsive.


Hundreds of thousands of words writing about one person's views of another's CD.

Is it that important?

[Pommy Aussie]

Yes it IS that important to us. MOW mate.

"It's unAustralian to ever criticise your mates" shtick.

I thought Australians knocked everything or is that the English? Did I miss something?

[isaacs]

OK, since 'happy' invited reviews, below is a review I wrote for Music Forum some years ago about Fiona Burnett's CD "Soaring at Dawn" (it was reposted on Ozjazzforum way back when there was an "Articles" page).

It seems to me that I could belatedly be in for the same sort of flack that Tim got. I dare to give Ben Robertson a pointer (a former member of my trio) and also characterise a somewhat negative aspect I perceive in David Jones' musical approach (also a former member of my trio). I criticise Fiona's composing and then in my most AMEB moment I suggest that Fiona Burnett (who was then on a Music Board committee reviewing applications in which I had an interest) study string quartet scores, citing not parallelism but lack of counterpoint in her string quartet writing (funnily enough, she called her next album "Counterpoint" and I also heard on the grapevine that she didn't mind the review).

OK here it is and I'll duck for cover:

Fiona Burnett
Soaring at Dawn
Suite for jazz trio and string quartet
ABC Jazz 067 199-2

Reviewed by Mark Isaacs

This is a CD that really does ravish you straight away.

That Fiona Burnett is in all respects a virtuoso soprano saxophonist is evident from her extended unaccompanied playing that comprises Solitude, the first movement of this six-part suite. Burnett manages to evoke a transcendental mood of awe and reverence, leavened by some simply stunning filigree work that is in no way gratuitous. All is knitted together by a magnificent sound and impeccable intonation on an instrument which poses a major challenge in these vexed areas to even the finest players.

Burnett possesses an unfailing sense of line, her improvisations following an inner logic in which there is almost no rhetoric but pure invention and despite the deep emotionality of what she plays there is always present an unswerving sense of real control in her playing.

In the third movement Flight and the final movement Daylight Burnett shows that hard-edged, boisterous angularity also comes easily to her as the music takes off like a startled flock of birds. She also shows that she can use the tortured extremities of the instrument’s range to powerful and controlled effect.

Joining Burnett in the jazz trio part of the configuration is bassist Ben Robertson and drummer David Jones.
Robertson is a deft and lyrical soloist and a reliable ensemble stalwart who adds a very telling and human dimension to any group of which he is a part, although there are times where a more robust, earthy approach to his instrument would seem to be desirable.

Jones is an unsurpassed virtuoso and an original thinker on his instrument, whose ability to make his extraordinarily fleet figurations appear and disappear in an instant sometimes punctures the more reverent moods with just a hint of the flippancy of a stage magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

The string quartet is the Silo String Quartet, and it is apparent from the liner notes that at least the cellist Caerwen Martin is a capable improviser, providing an accomplished quasi-Indian solo in the fifth movement Raga. It appears that the rest of the music for the quartet is notated.

The quartet plays very well though they are mixed rather far back in the otherwise excellent sound production by Mal Stanley, making it difficult to fully assess their tone and ensemble. However it is clear that they are not fazed by the rhythmic problems of hooking up with a rhythm section in full flight (presumably without a conductor since none is credited).

About Fiona Burnett the composer I have a few reservations. Certainly the suite is a pleasing concept and architecture presenting a nicely balanced variety of very telling moods. But on the whole, I would say the playing far surpasses the writing. The actual writing is more of a vehicle that catalyses some powerful material from the players without being particularly memorable in and of itself. What Burnett has written certainly doesn’t leave a comparable impression to that which her playing does, though what Burnett and her colleagues play in response to her writing makes for a very strong musical statement indeed.

Unfortunately this deficiency is amplified by the fact that Burnett’s string quartet scoring is rather unimaginative, consisting of far too many long notes in rhythmic unison (with the exception of Raga, where this effect is clearly used as a deliberate and admirable device to evoke an Indian droned instrument). The string quartet tradition is distinguished by its propensity for real counterpoint and true independence of line. It seems a shame when this is watered-down to “pads” in rhythmic unison. I am sure that if Burnett stretched herself she would be capable of far more than this and if she hasn’t already done so should study the Debussy or Ravel string quartets to see what is possible from a string quartet in a deeply impressionistic context such as hers.

However, despite this the overall impact of the work (and particularly Burnett’s actual playing) is quite profound and is likely to deeply touch many listeners across both the jazz and classical genres to whom the critical points I have raised may not be much of an issue.

[Casper]

I would suggest that the need for clear and concise written expression (together with reluctance most musicians would feel to critics their peers -- in print at least !) would explain why so few reviews are written by musicians.

Totally agree with you about the need for reviews on the publicity front Joe - slightly astonished at Adrian for suggesting that we musicians tend towards the illiterate! Surely Ive had a few sober conversations with you AJ!