|
|
Post by trumpetguy on Feb 8, 2007 15:27:11 GMT 10
I'm listening to a lot of jazz at the moment. But it's just like the blues and country I'm also digging. Overwhelmingly recorded pre-WWII.quote] That reminds me...why are there so many reviews of recordings done 50 or so years ago??? Do we really need another review of Miles from 1958 for example? What is the point of a review of a record that has already been reviewed 500 times, by an ensemble where the members are all no longer with us? Does anybody have stats on the numbers of new release reviews versus rehash recording reviews? |
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Feb 8, 2007 15:32:57 GMT 10
That reminds me...why are there so many reviews of recordings done 50 or so years ago? The stuff that interests me at the moment is WAY before Miles, mainly from the '20s, '30s and even the 1900s and 1890s. I hear you about rehash reviews. But for music fans/record collectors (as contrasted to musicians ... it depends on what you mean by "we"), there is SOOOO much continually being unearthed and repackaged - often for the first time or at least substantially upgraded - that I for one rely muchly on various (mostly online) outlets as buying guides. |
|
|
|
Post by glean on Feb 8, 2007 21:04:56 GMT 10
I'm listening to a lot of jazz at the moment. But it's just like the blues and country I'm also digging. Overwhelmingly recorded pre-WWII.quote] That reminds me...why are there so many reviews of recordings done 50 or so years ago??? Do we really need another review of Miles from 1958 for example? What is the point of a review of a record that has already been reviewed 500 times, by an ensemble where the members are all no longer with us? Does anybody have stats on the numbers of new release reviews versus rehash recording reviews? how can anybody count new recordings when so many artists release their own stuff or just put it online? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewh on Feb 8, 2007 23:28:46 GMT 10
Is that really the point of this thread? Then I definitely missed it. It might help you to understand if you read the complete thread Andrew. Oh, gee, why didn't I think of that? I'm so dumb sometimes. Thank goodness you're here to patronise me Vicki, otherwise I'd have no chance whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by vickibonet on Feb 9, 2007 7:32:12 GMT 10
It might help you to understand if you read the complete thread Andrew. Oh, gee, why didn't I think of that? I'm so dumb sometimes. Thank goodness you're here to patronise me Vicki, otherwise I'd have no chance whatsoever. Whoah that was uncalled for. Meow! |
|
|
|
Post by trumpetguy on Feb 9, 2007 10:11:38 GMT 10
I'm listening to a lot of jazz at the moment. But it's just like the blues and country I'm also digging. Overwhelmingly recorded pre-WWII.quote] That reminds me...why are there so many reviews of recordings done 50 or so years ago??? Do we really need another review of Miles from 1958 for example? What is the point of a review of a record that has already been reviewed 500 times, by an ensemble where the members are all no longer with us? Does anybody have stats on the numbers of new release reviews versus rehash recording reviews? how can anybody count new recordings when so many artists release their own stuff or just put it online? no,no,no.... I don't want to know how many new recordings there are, I want to know how many new recordings get reviewed in comparison to how many old recordings get reviewed for the 500th time!! |
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Feb 9, 2007 12:28:14 GMT 10
We've been this way before ... the sort of argument that implies that new or contemporary music should be supported/reviewed/written about at the expense of reissues.
I reckon that argument has some merit.
But it flies in the face of incovenient truths: Specialist outlets are one thing, but the job of mainstream newspapers is to sell as many copies as possible. One of the ways they do this is by giving their readers what they want. Any benefit that accrues through newspaper coverage to any or all of the arts is almost entirely incidental.
You reckon The Age, for instance, invests money and resources in the film and comedy festivals beceause they believe in film and comedy? Ha ha. Yeah right.
On another, related level, I know for myself that my reviews are directed only at other music fans. If they prove useful to individual musicians, well that's swell ... but not the intention.
With PBS the dynamic is different again. Sure, I've got to keep the listeners happy and stimulated, but a very big part of Peebs' reason for being is supporting "under-represented music".
|
|
|
|
Post by trumpetguy on Feb 9, 2007 15:00:58 GMT 10
We've been this way before ... the sort of argument that implies that new or contemporary music should be supported/reviewed/written about at the expense of reissues. I reckon that argument has some merit. But it flies in the face of incovenient truths: Specialist outlets are one thing, but the job of mainstream newspapers is to sell as many copies as possible. One of the ways they do this is by giving their readers what they want. paper....I thought news implied some degree of currency. Perhaps the Age could also run the 9/11 planes in the building or JFK assasination stories from time to time, they sold a few copies. I get what you're saying Kenny, it just irks me to see long dead guys cds being promoted (no matter how great they are) when contemporary, quality music can't get covered |
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Feb 9, 2007 15:04:42 GMT 10
I hear you - and yep it often sucks.
But what continues to bemuse is that people - not necessarily yourself - continue to impicity believe that newspapers/media have some sort of ethical responsibility to support jazz, find a cure for cancer and/or be kind to cripples.
They don't.
And you're confsuing news (what people want to read) with new (nice and shiny).
|
|
|
|
Post by trumpetguy on Feb 9, 2007 17:13:33 GMT 10
I hear you - and yep it often sucks. . And you're confsuing news (what people want to read) with new (nice and shiny). Oxford English Dictionary(2005 edition): News - new information about recent events |
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Feb 10, 2007 15:58:29 GMT 10
Oxford English Dictionary(2005 edition): News - new information about recent events Fair enuff, but a dictionary definition like that isn't necessarily the way the world works. Recent events? Blimey. In my own world (personal hell), news judgments across the board - sport, fashion (of course), music, film, business, news, politics and more - are made almost entirely on the basis of what people are already familiar with and like. Box office receipts and record sales mean a lot; merit nothing. The idea of enlightening readers - of giving them something they need, rather than want - is entirely foreign to the process. Sooooo ... anything by Miles, in any format, is likely to take precedence over anything Melbourne, new and brilliant. Unless it looks (and smells) like Norah or Diana or Rod. The idea is to make cash. And right now that is done by catering to the demographic. And I don't believe the situation is much different elsewhere - Age, Oz, TV, radio, etc etc., even in those with ostensibly snootier ideals. (Just thinking in print): My own evolving solution to this is a steady withdrawal from the mainstream and growing reliance on the internet to keep me in touch with kindred souls/ideas/sounds/reading. They can have my labor - at a price - but they can't have my heart or soul. |
|
|
|
Post by timothystevens on Feb 10, 2007 16:43:16 GMT 10
Did someone say "jazz writing gets worse"?
Sic transit gloria mundi. If you care.
Fortunately the best musicians (for example, let's look at Mr Davis) won't accept things merely as they are, but commit themselves to imagining something better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Feb 10, 2007 16:50:23 GMT 10
Fortunately the best musicians (for example, let's look at Mr Davis) won't accept things merely as they are, but commit themselves to imagining something better. And cheers to that. But I can only imagine that happening away from the "usual" outlets/suspects. Seems obvious to me, yet here and elsewhere folks continue to profess dismay about the sort of writing - and its publishers - that started this thread. Bring on the blogs! |
|
|
|
Post by mim on Feb 11, 2007 17:57:05 GMT 10
So Tim, are you saying the glory of this world needn't pass if we imagine something better, thus creating something better? Or that it's happening regardless, so imagine it's better, i.e. pretend and live in denial?  The latter is obviously so much easier... Makes me think of this: Your assumption 'that most people on this forum are musicians or others closely linked with the 'scene'' is, unfortunately, correct. However, there are still some talented muso's, who either don't or no longer, contribute to the forum. They would prefer to chat about music and go elsewhere. The intolerant, small minded musicians who still contribute here, once showed some talent. Some have toured the U.S. and/or Europe (often funded by arts grants, rather than by ticket or record sales) and have been remarkably unsuccessful. Why would a jazz musician tour overseas and decide to settle back in Melbourne or Sydney? Because they failed musically. These intolerant individuals, and their supporters, are the ones who tell us that the Melbourne and Sydney scene's are brilliant and there have been several brilliant gigs and outstanding recordings released this year. Well, it's all crap. It's only a few unsuccessful muso's who rave on about the local scene on this forum. And if it's not a muso raving on, it'll be one of their close friends or a hanger on who attempts to derive a profit from the scene. I reckon these said "intolerant small minded individuals", whoever they may be, are doing exactly that, imagining something better, therefore making it so. How this could be seen any other way baffles me. I know I'm not so much talking about writing anymore, but the same applies I think. Kenny, I think you've got the right idea about the other outlets etc. From what I can see, there are lots of people doing this with the music in this city, but with writing? I don't know. Maybe not yet. (This particular post might be evidence enough of the standard of writing among musicians. I hope not!) |
|
gator
Full Member
Posts: 203
|
Post by gator on Feb 12, 2007 10:29:20 GMT 10
Yeah its a pity because whoever that maybe,is obviously someone who can express themselves with alacrity and conviction.Its a pity its so toxic and depressing in its content.
|
|
The latter is obviously so much easier...