The Jazz.com Blog
June 15, 2009 · 5 comments
Musicians and Bad Reviews
Chris Kelsey is an editor and frequent reviewer at jazz.com. His articles in this column include in-depth commentaries on John Coltrane's work for the Atlantic label and Ornette Coleman's stint with Blue Note. Below he turns to the tricky issue of how critics and musicians should deal with negative reviews. T.G.
I learned a while ago to take something of a Taoist approach to my writing. I write a piece and let it go. After I click on the "Publish" key, an article or review is its own thing, independent of me. I seldom think about it again that is, unless my attention is redirected back to it, which sometimes happensusually when a musician expresses either appreciation or (more often) disappointment over what I've written about his or her music. I'm occasionally compelled to respond, which I don't enjoy, for obvious reasons. It occurs to me that I might take an opportunity to write something like a blanket riposte, ready to issue when needed.
While I like hearing kind words as much as the next guy, I don't expect musicians to thank me for positive reviews. I appreciate the gesture, but it's not necessary, because believe me, if I had problems with the music, I wouldn't hesitate to say and then the same person who is now so grateful would instead be pissed off. Not to be brusque, but my reviews are not addressed to the musician responsible for the music being reviewed. They are addressed to his potential audience. A positive review is no more a gift to the artist than a negative review is a chastisement.
Contrary to what many musicians apparently feel, reviews are written for the overwhelming majority of readers who do not create the music under consideration. As a critic, my task is to help that potential audience make an informed decision about whether they might want to consume a particular work. Ideally, I don't think the artist in question should even read what I've written; he certainly shouldn't attribute to it any disproportional significanceor any significance at all, if what I write doesn't reflect his reality.
Of course, musicians are justifiably concerned about their careers and the effect reviews have on performance and recording opportunities. I'm not suggesting that any given review will have no impactthey can, although in my experience the effect is generally much, much slighter than artists seem to believe (in many if not most cases, so slight as to be immeasurable). In jazz, a negative review might cost some hurt feelings, but not a career. In fact, if bad reviews necessarily equaled failure, no one would succeed. No one has ever received unanimous raves (see Parker, Charlie or Coltrane, John). No matter how happening your stuff is, someone somewhere is going to dislike it. The secret is to ignore them, and play for those who dig. Theyre out there, I assure you.
So my message to musicians of both the gruntled and disgruntled varieties is this: When reading a negative review of your work, remember that the ache in the pit of your stomach is being triggered by the writings of someone who has nothing against you, who doesn't know you as a human being other than as a vessel for making music. Someone you've probably never met, but with whom you'd likely be friends if you both lived in the same small town, given your shared passion for a marginalized art form. This person doesn't want you to fail. On the contrary, he understands that what he writes about your music is of less import than the music itself. His is just a voice in the (hopefully) continuing conversation about a general area of music that you both love. If he didn't have esteem for your intentif he didnt believe that what you do as a jazz musician is more important than 99% of all other music being madehe wouldn't write about your work at all, pro or con. He's just one person, with no power to make or break anyone. Dont fret over his opinion, but take its very existence as a gesture of respect.
This blog article posted by Chris Kelsey.
Tags:
I recently posted a commentary related to this issue on my blog, and I disagree with the premise that the "negative review" is something valuable to jazz discourse. I find it problematic that critics feel the need to attribute "absolute value" to any musician's work -- good, mediocre, or bad -- when you say yourself that the critic's negative review isn't anything bigger than their opinion. How, then, can a critic "help make a listener make an informed decision on what to consume" with nothing more than offering an opinion about its value? Why do we presume that the critic ought to be an arbiter of taste, that their opinion matters more than anyone else's? My problem with music criticism (exemplified by the negative review) is that it artifically elevates the critic's perspective as more valuable than that of the musician. When you give a negative review, you're essentially saying "take my word for it, what this musician has to say isn't worth hearing." That statement takes away an opportunity for someone to hear the musician's work and judge for themselves. In that sense, I have to side with the disgruntled musicians on this one, because it's a way that writers -- oftentimes non-musicians -- impinge on a musician's voice. It is my belief that those who write about jazz have the responsibility to write in such a way that their words coexist with the musicians' music by describing, connecting, celebrating, riffing on, or deepening it in some way. I don't see how this can be achieved in a negative review in which the writing is elevated as objective (it is inherently subjective.) If a critic wants to talk about what they don't like about a piece, the best way to discuss that would be in conversation with the musician, perhaps in an interview or even off the record.
I'm a firm believer that "any press is good press". The major jazz publication in Seattle gave my debut release a less-than-stellar review and all that did was raise my profile in the jazz community. Many people told me they saw the review and searched out my music because of it. I think readers are smart enough to know that music criticism is, as Chris suggests, one person's opinion, and should therefore be taken as such. A negative review has just as much possibility of spurring interests as does a positive review. But that's just my opinion... ;)
Merriam-Webster defines critic as "one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value." Cheerleader is defined as "one who directs organized cheering." The reason we have two distinct words is because those are two different functions. Alex fails to grasp this simple fact. He wants critics to be cheerleaders. In Alex's ideal world, there would be no negative reviews. He stops short of saying there have never been bad performances; but he obviously believes such exceedingly rare cases are anomalies that nobody should write about. "My problem with music criticism (exemplified by the negative review)," Alex asserts, "is that it artificially elevates the critic's perspective as more valuable than that of the musician."
Over the last 50 years, I've read tens of thousands of jazz reviews, and never once have I seen a critic make such an outlandish claim. Rather, critics provide an alternative perspective, one that the musicians themselves cannot see because they're too close to the product. When you want an objective opinion about the food at a restaurant, you don't ask the chef; he or she has a vested interest. You read a food critic, who brings years of experience and, hopefully, discernment, to the table (pun intended).
Alex should stop agonizing over his favorite bogeyman of Negative Reviews, and get on with his announced goal: "To highlight and celebrate what is great about the music today rather than act as a self-proclaimed arbiter of taste." I'm still waiting for Alex to add his comment at the bottom of my review of Tommy Dorsey's "Song of India," to highlight and celebrate what's great about that track.
/music/2007/11/12/tommy-dorsey-song-of-india
In 2007, before posting my negative review on jazz.com, I attempted to discuss it with Mr. Dorsey but was disappointed to learn that The Sentimental Gentleman of Swing had died in 1956. Sadly, I didn't have enough money for a proper sance, and so had to publish without consulting T.D.
I think Mr. Kurtz hits the nail on the head with regard to reviews when he says this - When you want an objective opinion about the food at a restaurant, you don't ask the chef; he or she has a vested interest. You read a food critic, who brings years of experience and, hopefully, discernment, to the table This is very true, but most food critics can actually cook at least a little and usually more than a little and this is the problem with a lot of jazz criticism as far as musicians are concerned too often jazz critics have no knowledge of the nuts and bolts of how music is put together. So many times Ive read the most awful stuff from critics who demonstrate again and again that rather than being people of experience and discernment they are often really just fans with a typewriter. If there is one thing a musician really hates its to be publicly judged by someone who clearly has no idea how music is made. So many jazz critics have got the gig simply on the strength of being interested in the music and having a jazz record collection of sorts. This is not enough equipment to give one the authority to express ones opinions in print and make judgement on people who are professionals. The standard of jazz criticism is in my experience is generally very low, full of narcissistic writing and low on technical knowledge. Mr. Gioias writing is an exception his post on this site on the disappearance of the language of Charlie Parker from contemporary jazz is a model of what jazz criticism should be, and so often isnt. A little learning is, as the saying goes, a dangerous thing absolutely no learning is even worse.
I agree with you, Mr. Guilfoyle, that too much writing about jazz is "full of narcissistic writing and low on technical knowledge." Mr. Kurtz, you have a sharp wit and a sarcastic sense of humor, but you mis-characterize my argument. In my "ideal world", critics would have the humility to try and work through their disconnection with the music through discourse with musicians. I posted a response to your Tommy Dorsey track review along those lines: what is great about "Song Of India" is the absolute mastery of the instrument that Dorsey illustrates (see my upcoming Encyclopedia entry on Dorsey that expands on that point). In my ideal world, a reviewer would try to come up with something positive to say -- perhaps not through talking with the dead, but maybe by talking to another trombone player -- to weigh against the original critical reaction and provide the reader with a deeper perspective on the music in question. It is exactly the presumption that the musician is "too close" to offer a reasonable perspective that baffles me. This is the implicit elevation of the critic's opinion over the musicians that I believe to be wrongheaded. I'd rather talk to the chef about something he made rather than some grouch who doesn't know how to cook. Even better, though, would be to talk to the critic AND the musician to see what they have to say for one another in a conversation. In other words, my "ideal world" is not one of mindless cheerleading, but one of reasoned discussion that is free of browbeating, sarcasm or name-calling. Obviously we're not there yet.