[JPL] NYTimes.com: Rhythm, Among Other Things, Is Their Business

Larry Appelbaum 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?

Larry Appelbaum

More information about the jazzproglist mailing list