[JPL] NYTimes.com: Rhythm, Among Other Things, Is Their Business
jumpmonk at hotmail.com
Mon Nov 28 00:38:21 EST 2005
>Mmm-hmmm - oh-kay, but did he LIKE Mr.Meldau's trio? ..... it's hard to
>tell in this kind of veiled review. Does this kind of article leave you
>wondering what really happened, and/or is the writer not really sure?
>Which brings us to the musical question, should reviewers be reviewed,
>I'm just positing the question for the purpose of discussion, here. What
>do you think?
Interesting questions. What exactly is the role or responsibility of the
critic or the reviewer? Is it to report on what happened at a performance?
Make value judgements? Provide context for analysis? Articulate an opinion?
Promote an agenda? Simply saying whether you like something or not, and why,
can be very useful in a crude thumbs up, thumbs down kind of way. It
certainly helps some people make decisions about whether to buy a recording
or attend a show and that alone is enough for most publications. I happen to
like Ben Ratliff's writing, not just because he expresses himself well, but
because he likes a lot of different kinds of music and he isn't just
reinforcing the gospel of the jazz nerd (and I say that speaking as
something of a nerd myself). The best writing about music or art (or
architecture for that matter) enables us to see, hear or experience
something in a new way.
As for your other question about whether reviewers should be reviewed, you
might want to take a look at Bill Shoemaker's website
http://pointofdeparture.org. He's one of the only people trying to do that.
Of course, this sort of thing can easily become an exercise in ax-grinding
or settling old scores, but it can also help shed some light. Better
newspapers have an omsbudsman. Maybe the jazz press needs something similar?
More information about the jazzproglist