Art & the Critic
The Hajdu article (see previous post) has provoked certain comments that I feel should also be addressed.
The critical establishment in regards to the arts has always baffled me . Call me naive, but I don’t feel that it is necessary to place judgment on a medium that relies on a subjective response. Generally, in order to critique a work of art, judgment is placed only as a comparison. In fact criticism is primarily comparative in that in order to critique something; there is generally some precedent for it that the judged art is working against (albeit when this is done it is mostly done poorly). Its like those jazz reviews that generalize what something sounds like in order to place a box around for classification and make it supposedly easy to understand…something like Brad Mehldau sounds like Bill Evans. The error in concept here is that generalizing sound is impossible and influence is relative. There are many musicians that influence me very strongly NOT to play like them, but that is never a focus of an article, and nor should it be really, but that also goes for the influence one may hear in the music if they don’t have the same identical reference point as the artist, because otherwise they just don’t know, and they shouldn’t be blamed, but the generalizations also shouldn’t be made.
In general, writing about music is mostly unnecessary. Granted, I think its important for the artist’s themselves to write about their work, because it does help clarify intentions, ideologies and approaches. Concert reviews are great, but if the “quality” of the performance is being judged, then a fine line must not be crossed if the opinion comes from an uninformed point of view that judges the work’s aesthetic purpose. In addition, historical books, that explain an artist’s life & climate that their art was created in, can be indispensable. But judging a performance can only be measured on the performer’s barometer accurately. This, of course can also be relative. Aesthetic judgments can not really be made unless a criterion is preset prior to the performance. How often do you experience that?
Obviously, I’m trying to point out the flaws in most writing about music, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t some excellent writing by non-musicians. Gary Giddens consistently puts out books of well written essays that also come with a great understanding of the music and the tradition he is writing about. I’m not sure if Mwanji from the be.jazz blog is a musician or not, but he consistently writes thoughtful blogs and concert reviews. There is tons of good writing out there, I have pointed out some great books and websites in previous posts, so I’ll refrain from yet another list.
One point that could be made is that the writing of the music is for the novice listener. While that may be true (and feels like that sometimes when reading reviews in some magazines), inaccuracy in writing about art can only hurt the art. Terms that are defined by the writer using their own guidelines are often imposed on the writing, never defined, and are expected to be taken for granted. It’s the details that hurt the music. Calling something “mainstream jazz” or even “jazz” alone, can be misleading, and frankly the term “jazz” is no longer an accurate term in defining creative improvised music. The term, as it has been exhausted, means something different to everyone that attempts to define it. For example, sometimes Cecil Taylor falls into that category, and sometimes he doesn’t. Ultimately it doesn’t matter what the fuck something is called it just matter what it is: in music, either it is sound or is the absence of sound. One could even argue that the absence of sound, is still sound. But we’ll cross that bridge at another time.
What has consistently happened in regards to the writing about modern creative improvised music is that the music as a whole has been alienated and presented with a degrading intention. Even for those “jazz” magazines that try to encompass” everything” spend more time focusing on what is referred to as “smooth jazz” than what is referred to as “free jazz.” I know, they’re just trying to sell magazines. When the music isn’t understandable to the critic and it can’t be easily compared, then other factors are concentrated on for instance the personal style of the performer (see Hajdu article on Zorn), or the artwork on the CD, or something else that has NOTHING to do with the music (reminds of an article on Dave Douglas that was written about 6 months ago). When this occurs, this writing becomes nothing more than tabloid journalism.
This is nothing new. When you read reviews of past greats it seems unimaginable some of the things that were written. John Coltrane was referred to as “an out-of-tune saxophonist,” Red Garland was referred to as a “cocktail pianist.” Regarding Zorn, a common approach to defining his group Masada is referring to it as “Ornette Coleman meets Klezmer”. When I listen to it, I don’t hear the Coleman harmolodic approach. Frankly, it would surprise me if Zorn would say that Masada is based on harmolodics. Regardless, a critic with basic knowledge would see the instrumentation, hear the Klezmer colors and define it thusly. Almost every article on Masada I have read has referred to the ensemble in the same way.
Obviously, this is not a problem just in music journalism, but in journalism, and is perhaps a cultural problem. I am not sure about the international outlook, but my guess is that it is perhaps less driven to compartmentalize the music. When language is used to describe what language can’t, often the approach is to appeal to the “lowest common denominator,” to use of comparison in defining the music, and using judgment instead of explanation. I suppose I shouldn’t expect anything more, and assume that there will always be a scene that is accepted and a strong and positive journalistic bent that supports it, and then a cusp of existence that operates outside that scene that is alienated. It’s too bad that so much incredible art will go unnoticed by so many people.
“When people create boundaries, they become a part of them.”-Don Cherry
Listening:Brotzmann, Mephista, & Bill Charlap
The critical establishment in regards to the arts has always baffled me . Call me naive, but I don’t feel that it is necessary to place judgment on a medium that relies on a subjective response. Generally, in order to critique a work of art, judgment is placed only as a comparison. In fact criticism is primarily comparative in that in order to critique something; there is generally some precedent for it that the judged art is working against (albeit when this is done it is mostly done poorly). Its like those jazz reviews that generalize what something sounds like in order to place a box around for classification and make it supposedly easy to understand…something like Brad Mehldau sounds like Bill Evans. The error in concept here is that generalizing sound is impossible and influence is relative. There are many musicians that influence me very strongly NOT to play like them, but that is never a focus of an article, and nor should it be really, but that also goes for the influence one may hear in the music if they don’t have the same identical reference point as the artist, because otherwise they just don’t know, and they shouldn’t be blamed, but the generalizations also shouldn’t be made.
In general, writing about music is mostly unnecessary. Granted, I think its important for the artist’s themselves to write about their work, because it does help clarify intentions, ideologies and approaches. Concert reviews are great, but if the “quality” of the performance is being judged, then a fine line must not be crossed if the opinion comes from an uninformed point of view that judges the work’s aesthetic purpose. In addition, historical books, that explain an artist’s life & climate that their art was created in, can be indispensable. But judging a performance can only be measured on the performer’s barometer accurately. This, of course can also be relative. Aesthetic judgments can not really be made unless a criterion is preset prior to the performance. How often do you experience that?
Obviously, I’m trying to point out the flaws in most writing about music, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t some excellent writing by non-musicians. Gary Giddens consistently puts out books of well written essays that also come with a great understanding of the music and the tradition he is writing about. I’m not sure if Mwanji from the be.jazz blog is a musician or not, but he consistently writes thoughtful blogs and concert reviews. There is tons of good writing out there, I have pointed out some great books and websites in previous posts, so I’ll refrain from yet another list.
One point that could be made is that the writing of the music is for the novice listener. While that may be true (and feels like that sometimes when reading reviews in some magazines), inaccuracy in writing about art can only hurt the art. Terms that are defined by the writer using their own guidelines are often imposed on the writing, never defined, and are expected to be taken for granted. It’s the details that hurt the music. Calling something “mainstream jazz” or even “jazz” alone, can be misleading, and frankly the term “jazz” is no longer an accurate term in defining creative improvised music. The term, as it has been exhausted, means something different to everyone that attempts to define it. For example, sometimes Cecil Taylor falls into that category, and sometimes he doesn’t. Ultimately it doesn’t matter what the fuck something is called it just matter what it is: in music, either it is sound or is the absence of sound. One could even argue that the absence of sound, is still sound. But we’ll cross that bridge at another time.
What has consistently happened in regards to the writing about modern creative improvised music is that the music as a whole has been alienated and presented with a degrading intention. Even for those “jazz” magazines that try to encompass” everything” spend more time focusing on what is referred to as “smooth jazz” than what is referred to as “free jazz.” I know, they’re just trying to sell magazines. When the music isn’t understandable to the critic and it can’t be easily compared, then other factors are concentrated on for instance the personal style of the performer (see Hajdu article on Zorn), or the artwork on the CD, or something else that has NOTHING to do with the music (reminds of an article on Dave Douglas that was written about 6 months ago). When this occurs, this writing becomes nothing more than tabloid journalism.
This is nothing new. When you read reviews of past greats it seems unimaginable some of the things that were written. John Coltrane was referred to as “an out-of-tune saxophonist,” Red Garland was referred to as a “cocktail pianist.” Regarding Zorn, a common approach to defining his group Masada is referring to it as “Ornette Coleman meets Klezmer”. When I listen to it, I don’t hear the Coleman harmolodic approach. Frankly, it would surprise me if Zorn would say that Masada is based on harmolodics. Regardless, a critic with basic knowledge would see the instrumentation, hear the Klezmer colors and define it thusly. Almost every article on Masada I have read has referred to the ensemble in the same way.
Obviously, this is not a problem just in music journalism, but in journalism, and is perhaps a cultural problem. I am not sure about the international outlook, but my guess is that it is perhaps less driven to compartmentalize the music. When language is used to describe what language can’t, often the approach is to appeal to the “lowest common denominator,” to use of comparison in defining the music, and using judgment instead of explanation. I suppose I shouldn’t expect anything more, and assume that there will always be a scene that is accepted and a strong and positive journalistic bent that supports it, and then a cusp of existence that operates outside that scene that is alienated. It’s too bad that so much incredible art will go unnoticed by so many people.
“When people create boundaries, they become a part of them.”-Don Cherry
Listening:Brotzmann, Mephista, & Bill Charlap
Labels: Artist's Thoughts
