What do Jazz critics do?

[alimcg]

what article?

[ironguts]

www.jazz.org.au/features/189?regions

get with the program!

[alimcg]

Is that the Ben Cousins style programme?

[ironguts]

No way, I strongly suggest staying addicted to drugs and alcohol.

[freddy]

ironguts said:

So has anyone read the second installment of the article?

Yes, and it was a refreshing change to read the responses of an out and out enthusiast compared to Shand in Part 1 who came across as a tired and bored individual who really should quit writing about jazz.

[ironguts]

yep I agree, was a much more positive article.

[Kenny]

Come on you guys! Do you actually read his reviews every Saturday in The Oz? It's like reading a bloody balance sheet!

Which makes this the most interesting and perplexing part of the interview: "At the same time, you have to try to be entertaining otherwise people aren’t going to read the piece at all or just drop off after the first sentence."

I grant John Mcbeath the advantage of a musical background over the likes of my own "just a simple fan" approach. And I can even agree with his criticism, further down, of such an approach ("Some of the reviewers in Australia are writing from a purely emotional point of view. That’s justifiable, I suppose, but when it becomes nothing more than the way somebody reacted to the music emotionally I think there is too much left out. It becomes a very subjective exercise and you end up searching endlessly for more superlatives to describe your emotional reaction to the music. If the review doesn’t go beyond that, I think it has failed.")

And I share his high praise and awe of Australian music.

But IMHO his reviews are so unremittingly dull they actually do the music he believes he is championing a grave disservice. His reviews convey to me no excitement or pleasure, and seem to have all the allure of a shopping list. It's a turn-off, plain and simple, especially as some of his fellow reviewers on the same page every week manage to get their enthusiasm across pretty well.

To paraphrase his own words: If the review doesn’t go beyond the most pallid and tedious musical descriptions, I think it has failed.

There's a place for madness and blood and guts and passion, too, ya know.

[ironguts]

to be honest Kenny, I've never read a review by him nor had I heard of him prior to the article, I just thought the article displays more interest in the music by him.

[mim]

Most of the feedback has been good. I write for the Adelaide Advertiser and most jazz musicians here have seen some of my writing and have been quite congratulatory about it.

This may be true, but only in his presence, from what I can gather. Most musicians from Adelaide I've spoken to about John McBeath are none too fond of his reviews, myself included. And not because of the criticism, usually quite the opposite.

[trumpetguy]

alimcg said:

Is that the Ben Cousins style programme?

Ben Cousins is excited - only 2 more sleeps till grand final day!!

[alimcg]

$3000-a-day habit apparently. That's a lot of coke, or he's really getting screwed by his dealer.

[aka]

I think his reviews,given the small amount of space he has to work with, generally excellent is getting to the heart of the music he is reviewing...he doesn't bag a cd unnecessarily ..but if he is enthusiastic-more power to him.

[freddy]

kennyweir said:

Come on you guys! Do you actually read his reviews every Saturday in The Oz? It's like reading a bloody balance sheet!

Which makes this the most interesting and perplexing part of the interview: "At the same time, you have to try to be entertaining otherwise people aren’t going to read the piece at all or just drop off after the first sentence."

I grant John Mcbeath the advantage of a musical background over the likes of my own "just a simple fan" approach. And I can even agree with his criticism, further down, of such an approach ("Some of the reviewers in Australia are writing from a purely emotional point of view. That’s justifiable, I suppose, but when it becomes nothing more than the way somebody reacted to the music emotionally I think there is too much left out. It becomes a very subjective exercise and you end up searching endlessly for more superlatives to describe your emotional reaction to the music. If the review doesn’t go beyond that, I think it has failed.")

And I share his high praise and awe of Australian music.

But IMHO his reviews are so unremittingly dull they actually do the music he believes he is championing a grave disservice. His reviews convey to me no excitement or pleasure, and seem to have all the allure of a shopping list. It's a turn-off, plain and simple, especially as some of his fellow reviewers on the same page every week manage to get their enthusiasm across pretty well.

To paraphrase his own words: If the review doesn’t go beyond the most pallid and tedious musical descriptions, I think it has failed.

There's a place for madness and blood and guts and passion, too, ya know.

C'mon sport did you read the posts carefully? I didn't say I liked MacBeath's writing. All I said was that compared to the way Shand came out of his interview with Peter Jordan MacBeath's responses showed enthusiasm and respect for the music. Surely even a cursory read of both interviews reveals that much?

Based on his responses, writing on jazz is just such a big chore for Shand that he, himself doesn't quite understand why he still does it. I don't either. He also spouts a lot of rubbish about where the music is, the size of the scene compared to other genres etc . . .but I don't want to get into that here.

Bottom line is (as they might say in the Murdoch papers) MacBeath is still entranced by the music while Shand is doing us all a favour by hanging in there.

[Kenny]

freddy said:

Bottom line is (as they might say in the Murdoch papers) McBeath is still entranced by the music while Shand is doing us all a favour by hanging in there.

I hear you - even if I'm not convinced there is that much difference between the two.

My issue with the Australian's reviews comes with McBeath's statement: "Most of all, I try to educate people about what the musicians are doing."

But for me, what he mostly does is talk - with insight , I admit, beyond mine - about the tools, mechanisms and tricks musicians use. That is NOT what they do.

A well known Melbourne player once told me that music is "all maths in the end". True, I guess, as far as it goes.

But surely music is about much, much more than that. Pretty much the whole point is that sum is greater than the parts.

If I was one of the very fine musicians in Australia releasing tremendous albums, I suspect I would be thoroughly pissed off having my labour of love reduced to the jazz review version of accountancy.

It's almost as if, in his disdain for what he refers to as "purely emotional" reviewing, Mr McBeath has gone the other way with abandon, taking dryness and detatchment to absurd heights.

The line I'm putting here is not unusual. No lesser personage than pianist Bill Evans thinks along the same lines - in his biography he makes it clear he would sooner trust the opinion of a layman over a musician.

Which also reminds me of a time when a well known musician - in the process of expressing their disgust with the popularity of a new, younger face on the scene - proudly proclaimed that they were probably the only person in the audience of a big-name concert who knew exactly, in technical terms, what was happening on stage.

In some ways I envy them. In many ways I don't.

I'm truly interested in the views of the players here, especially if they have read the Oz's reviews. It's your work that's being reviewed there. What do you think?

[captain]

"A well known Melbourne player once told me that music is "all maths in the end". True, I guess, as far as it goes."

Unfortunately thats just a symptom of modern Jazz, probably the same reason you prefer to listen to classic blues, country and swing.