Tim...

[captain]

Hey Tim, just read your latest reviews in the MCA magazine, you have such a thorough way of pulling apart an album! How does that magazine choose submissions? I would love to read a blow by blow analysis like that of my music...

[aj]

which albums did Tim review recently ?

[timothystevens]

aj: Band of Five Names Empty Gardens and Peter Knight All the gravitation of silence

Captain: The editor wrote to me and asked if I'd like to contribute. I said, 'yes.' The rest is history.

[captain]

Sorry, excuse my terrible internet grammar - what I meant to ask was, hypothetically, If I had a shiny new album and wanted your good self to review it, how does the MCA pick albums?

[captain]

Maybe I could just pay you your usual fee to do a private review for me... wait a sec, is that conflict of interest? Boy, journalism is tough...

[aj]

No conflict of interest if the usual fee is in fact zero !

[Gb]

tim, how do you feel about reviewing people you consider to know reasonably well? friends, colleagues or students for example? is this a conflict of interest? g

[vickibonet]

gb said:

tim, how do you feel about reviewing people you consider to know reasonably well? friends, colleagues or students for example? is this a conflict of interest? g

This is such a biggie GB, I'm glad you brought it up.

If the writer perceives a conflict of interest he/she can always state the fact. Other people's perceptions of what is a conflict of interest are another thing too. I knew two presenters on a book show who had a massive conflict about covering their own books on the air. One was for, one against. I didn't see anything wrong with them speaking about the other's work on air because they were such great writers and I felt excluding their own material from the show was in a way prejudicial to them as writers.

There is no simple answer to this. Personally speaking, sometimes I write about the work of people who have employed me to promote them, sometimes before the period of contractual work, certainly during the promotional period and after too if I am so moved. Is that a conflict of interest? Yes and no. I think we should be free to publish what we are thinking as long as we're transparent and don't tell fibs. But just try measuring and evaluating transparency and accountability, oh my goodness!

I'm very keen to read what Tim thinks about this too.

[Kenny]

Yes, interesting.

I suspect writing/broadcasting about a jazz scene the size of Australia's automatically means somehow being part of it. Pretty hard to keep a stern arm's length perspective in those circumstances.

[timothystevens]

Captain: you send your shiny CD to Music Forum. They send a list of what they've got to reviewers, who choose what they'd like to hear.

The conflict of interest question is a very interesting one and one that worries me to a considerable degree. In all the reviews I have written I have tried to maintain as much objectivity as is humanly possible, to keep the discussion focused on the music, and to admit to any circumstances that might be thought to have impacted upon my decision making. As aj points out, there's no money involved. Payment for the MF reviews is in the form of the CD that has been reviewed, so I can't see how that would change my mind about how it sounded.

I know that there are people who are likely to look at a bad review and think the writer has some kind of agenda, and this was proved in the infamous case of my Grace review. Sam has lots of gigs, Tim has none, Tim must obviously hate and resent Sam, and because he is consumed with jealousy he thinks he can cut Sam down with a devastating review. Now I can't honestly say that I think my opinion is that important, or that consequential, although it flatters me to think that anyone might. I don't want anyone to take my reviews badlly, but I do feel a responsibility to be as honest as I can about what I think I'm hearing, and to try to identify what is successful or not in a recording that has been issued to the public.

There are recordings (some are on the list at the moment) that I don't feel I can review comfortably, because of issues to do with friendship and prior or current collaboration. If I already know I don't like a record I don't select it for review. If I know I have issues with the previous work of a particular musician then I'll probably leave his/her record alone too. But in the end what I feel is that the greatest respect one can pay to the creative efforts of another artist is to listen as closely and as critically as possible to what they've done and assess it on its own terms. Respect for other artists includes assuming that they won't need always to be coddled with unthinking praise, but will in fact find the greater reward in an informed and thoughtful discussion of the music with the bigger picture in mind.

The biggest potential conflict is probably that as a composer and performer myself, I have a certain aesthetic position and some creative objectives, so I might be more inclined to sympathise with other musicians who shared them, or to dismiss those who didn't. I hope this is not the case. I didn't review Paper Hat's Nine Conversations — free improvisations for trio, on Rufus — or Colin Hopkins's Still — volume three in the series to which I contributed volume two. This does not mean I hate those records. Having heard them, I could say quite a bit about both of them. But I do think they are simply too close to what I've done myself for my opinion to be appropriate for the review column.

I should always be happy to hear from musicians whose records I'd reviewed, if they wanted to take up things I'd said with me. If I make negative comments they are not personal attacks. One musician whose album I reviewed got in touch with me personally, without animus, to discuss what I'd written and we had a friendly exchange about it. No-one else has done so. I don't write to reviewers either, as it happens, if my records are reviewed.

I think this scene will only ever gain maturity when the creative efforts of individuals can be discussed openly and honestly, without rancour but without disingenuous sweetness either, and we can get to the bottom of what's good and what's bad about the things that go on here. Scholarship functions best on a collegial understanding that personal perspectives can be contested in a spirit of intellectual freedom and tolerance, and so should criticism.

[Kenny]

I think any conflict of interest - or appearance thereof - could be easily eliminated by adaptation of NY Times-style use of honorifics.

[captain]

There are recordings (some are on the list at the moment) that I don't feel I can review comfortably, because of issues to do with friendship and prior or current collaboration

Hah ha! no problem there... Well, I hope one day I do send something to music forum, look out for "Kaptain Kulture and the Jazzaholics - the Kaptain's Passage" I eagerly await your review.

Seriously though, your reviews are great - and I do hope for more objectivity between musicians.
After my graduating recital, a certain musician (known for inflamatory opinions) commented that it was one of the better recitals he'd seen that year, knowing this gentlemans musical tastes moderatly well I commented that surely he had hated every second of it! He said, "That's not the point" - a wise attitude I think for someone of his standing in the community.

[gator]

timothystevens said:

I think this scene will only ever gain maturity when the creative efforts of individuals can be discussed openly and honestly, without rancour but without disingenuous sweetness either, and we can get to the bottom of what's good and what's bad about the things that go on here. Scholarship functions best on a collegial understanding that personal perspectives can be contested in a spirit of intellectual freedom and tolerance, and so should criticism.

The perception of a conflict of interest in this microcosmic scene we have is more or less unavoidable,especially if the reviewer is him/herself a colleague. But the key word is perception. We choose to perceive these reviews as expressions of another musicians agenda, and we choose to perceive them as offerings of opinion...and I guess in most cases and keeping in mind, the idea (that Tim mentions)of a personal aestheticism, it would be reasonable to expect something in between. Can we really expect more than that? The dialogue will open up if more musicians review(formally and informally) each others work, with their ears well and truly present, and their agendas open(rather than hiding behind a disingenuous smile)...
Keep up the good work Doctor.

[mim]

I never really thought about it before, that if a reviewer is to be knowledgable about jazz they are more than likely going to be involved in the scene in some way, creating many an opportunity for conflict of interest.

[timothystevens]

But what interest? All I'm likely to gain from bagging an album is the bad opinion of those who think I thrive on bringing others down. Who is the international promoter who reads my review and thinks, 'look, he was so strong in caning [name], I'll book him for 36 months' international touring and 8 albums on Sony'? Which club owner reads a review and thinks, 'intelligent work, very perceptive, got to the heart of the matter and moved things forward, and thank goodness that album got the praise it deserved, I'll book his trio immediately - and for some proper money'? Whch Music Forum reader is likely to buy my album on the strength of what I've said - good or bad - about someone else's? And how could I possibly predict this, with the intention of shaping my opinion accordingly?

If a review encourages someone to buy the album under discussion and listen thoughtfully, assessing it from an individual perspective, it has done something good. And a bad review can do this just as much as a good one, as we'd probably all admit if pushed, although by this I do not mean that I'd write a bad review with potential sales in mind. The reviewer does not (in normal circumstances) benefit from the sale of an album s/he has reviewed.

If however my opinion is influenced by anything, be it friendship with another rmusician or aesthetic orientation - and I hope it is not - it's still only an opinion. I can't really gain anything by putting it out there, unless it actually did encourage others to speak up and in the process generated a useful and productive discussion.