Honestly, something I wish I'd done MORE of was be transparent about my critical blind spots to illustrate how they didn't really impact how I experienced what I was hearing. Moreover, it allows another critic more well-versed to have a space to demonstrate their knowledge. It is impossible to listen to enough music to meet the criteria that critic outlined!
There are so many things I could respond to in this I don't know where to start.
I've been on both sides of the issue at different times. Generally I would side with the writer and agree with the anyone can decide what they like or don't like premise. I also despise the idea that only trained musicians can comment on the validity of music making. That said, untrained ears will jump into the fray and comment on good vs. bad music making with no good foundation and then act as if they understand the theory and technical processes of music making/improvisation, when in reality, all they are saying is..."I don't like this based on what I'm hearing, or some other hierarchical "rating" system they have developed for their own egos.
For years, we've heard that jazz and "classical" audiences are more sophisticated and have a better understanding of what makes music making better or worse. I've always said that this is generally B.S.
I don't believe that the majority of listeners at a orchestra or jazz concert technically/theoretically knows any more about the music making process than a listener does at a Taylor Swift or Alter Bridge concert.
I've also heard the old argument of "I have a doctorate in music, so I'm more "legit" when it comes to deciding what makes music good or bad, fall flat on it's face when the same person picks up their instrument and very little of anything inspiring to me, or many others in the room/hall, comes to fruition. Armstrong, Parker, Coltrane, Coleman, and on and on never got a degree in music, but it didn't stop those who had em' from taking apart their great contributions.
Generally, I do believe it boils down to I like or don't like this based on a myriad of circumstances, but for a "critic" that's not enough, because they or others believe they must have that "something" more intellectually , that allows them to pass judgement.
All of this to say...I might roll out of bed tomorrow and feel slightly different about some of what I've said!
Great read, great response. Isn't *everything* subjective? All art is subjective? I have no beef with academic writing, there is absolutely a place for it. But I'm here for the soul in the sound. Everything else is tertiary. If we were to follow the critic's argument, Lester Bangs and Nick Tosches should have been tossed into the street like the bums they were. I'm glad they were not.
BOOM! Awesome and hilarious response! Talk about confessions Anyone that believes Music abides solely in the realm of Academia is clearly clueless. I personally would much rather not be a jazz critic than be a flaming asshole
Fascinating post, Phil. I can really relate. I've been writing about music, mostly jazz, since 1979, usually for small magazines, including Cadence. I've written 1000's of short reviews in that time. For the past few years, I'm solely on my own blog, Mr. Stu's Record Room. I don't really know very much about music in any detail. All I know is that I like what I'm hearing or love it or dislike it. Over the decades, I've heard from many musicians. Almost always, they thank me for the review, and tell me in one way or another that I got what they were after, and I was able to articulate that. I started writing to hear a wide range of music that I couldn't otherwise afford. But it turns out that the best thing about it is having a musician write to me that "It is ALWAYS a celebration day when you review any cd of mine!" Nothing beats that for validation!
Honestly, something I wish I'd done MORE of was be transparent about my critical blind spots to illustrate how they didn't really impact how I experienced what I was hearing. Moreover, it allows another critic more well-versed to have a space to demonstrate their knowledge. It is impossible to listen to enough music to meet the criteria that critic outlined!
BRAVO! ...
+ honored by the name-check.
There are so many things I could respond to in this I don't know where to start.
I've been on both sides of the issue at different times. Generally I would side with the writer and agree with the anyone can decide what they like or don't like premise. I also despise the idea that only trained musicians can comment on the validity of music making. That said, untrained ears will jump into the fray and comment on good vs. bad music making with no good foundation and then act as if they understand the theory and technical processes of music making/improvisation, when in reality, all they are saying is..."I don't like this based on what I'm hearing, or some other hierarchical "rating" system they have developed for their own egos.
For years, we've heard that jazz and "classical" audiences are more sophisticated and have a better understanding of what makes music making better or worse. I've always said that this is generally B.S.
I don't believe that the majority of listeners at a orchestra or jazz concert technically/theoretically knows any more about the music making process than a listener does at a Taylor Swift or Alter Bridge concert.
I've also heard the old argument of "I have a doctorate in music, so I'm more "legit" when it comes to deciding what makes music good or bad, fall flat on it's face when the same person picks up their instrument and very little of anything inspiring to me, or many others in the room/hall, comes to fruition. Armstrong, Parker, Coltrane, Coleman, and on and on never got a degree in music, but it didn't stop those who had em' from taking apart their great contributions.
Generally, I do believe it boils down to I like or don't like this based on a myriad of circumstances, but for a "critic" that's not enough, because they or others believe they must have that "something" more intellectually , that allows them to pass judgement.
All of this to say...I might roll out of bed tomorrow and feel slightly different about some of what I've said!
Great read, great response. Isn't *everything* subjective? All art is subjective? I have no beef with academic writing, there is absolutely a place for it. But I'm here for the soul in the sound. Everything else is tertiary. If we were to follow the critic's argument, Lester Bangs and Nick Tosches should have been tossed into the street like the bums they were. I'm glad they were not.
I saw the milestone jazzstars on that tour and it was excellent; I had no idea it was unavailable!
And right on to your general comments about the role of a critic.
BOOM! Awesome and hilarious response! Talk about confessions Anyone that believes Music abides solely in the realm of Academia is clearly clueless. I personally would much rather not be a jazz critic than be a flaming asshole
Imagine the letters this dude writes to the critics who pan his records. What a way to go through life.
Fascinating post, Phil. I can really relate. I've been writing about music, mostly jazz, since 1979, usually for small magazines, including Cadence. I've written 1000's of short reviews in that time. For the past few years, I'm solely on my own blog, Mr. Stu's Record Room. I don't really know very much about music in any detail. All I know is that I like what I'm hearing or love it or dislike it. Over the decades, I've heard from many musicians. Almost always, they thank me for the review, and tell me in one way or another that I got what they were after, and I was able to articulate that. I started writing to hear a wide range of music that I couldn't otherwise afford. But it turns out that the best thing about it is having a musician write to me that "It is ALWAYS a celebration day when you review any cd of mine!" Nothing beats that for validation!
“In place of a hermeneutics, we need an erotics of Art.” --- Susan Sontag (1966)