So it's like this:
A month or so ago, a PR firm (which shall remain nameless) sent me a package of jazz CDs (which shall also remain nameless for now) based on my writings on Blogcritics and my own blog. These were unsolicited - albeit welcome - arrivals, which means I wasn't and still am not under any obligation to write reviews for them, but of course that was the idea.
One of them I immediately rather liked, although my appreciation slipped a slight bit upon subsequent listens. The other was a far more difficult listen, which means that initial examination is unreliable, but I must admit that I wasn't particularly impressed on Listen #1. That doesn't make much difference in the long run — I would never review an album, particularly a jazz album, on the strength of only one listen — but my underwhelmed response made me stop and think. Jazz being as marginalized as it is in the here-and-now, should I really bother writing reviews of jazz CDs I don't like?
The reason this is even an issue is because of Gary Giddins. Giddins is the former jazz critic for the Village Voice; author of biographies of Bing Crosby, Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker; and the author of Visions of Jazz, one of the great histories of the music. His writings are essentially my Bible for jazz, and so even his general statements are things that I pay attention to.
One of those general statements was in his explanation of why he constantly writes such glowing reviews: because the jazz audience is so small, he says, "I decided long ago not to squander column inches writing about why readers shouldn't buy records that most of them had never heard of."
Makes sense, doesn't it? After all, it's not as though jazz audiences are going to be misled by massive hype over a jazz record. (When was the last jazz record that got massive hype in our media-saturation age? Bitches Brew?) With such a small jazz press and so many great artists and records coming out every year, why waste time and space on the bad albums?
On the other hand, part of me thinks that jazz as an overall institution deserves better. Doesn't this classical form, this American cultural beacon, this underappreciated titan of art, deserve an all-inclusive, contentious, multi-perspective criticism? Don't we say that "there's no such thing as bad publicity?" After all, even a bad review of a jazz album gives the entire jazz music industry a bit of write-up.
Article comments
1 - Mark Saleski
i wrote about this issue a few years ago.
i have different reasons for not writing super-negative reviews.
mostly, if i get something i don't like...i just ignore it.
2 - JR
I'm thinking you should write up your negative reviews with reviews of good releases.
That way you can carry on the discussion of what good jazz is by providing examples on both sides. Knowledgeable readers will know you've got standards and aren't just a pitchman, and maybe they'll get a sense of how your tastes relate to theirs. Novices can be steered away from something that might give them a bad experience of jazz and toward something they stand a better chance of liking (or at least believing has worth even if they don't get it at first), so you're still promoting jazz.
I find compare and contrast reviews to be some of the most interesting and informative. But it's more work, I suppose.
3 - Big Geez
Enjoyed this article a lot, Michael. It's an age-old dilemma among critics of course, and I suspect that there may be no right answer.
I'm still kind of new to the game myself, but this type of situation occurs in "real life" too. I remember more than once having to write letters of recommendation for ex-employees who were tough to praise.
As a critic, I often hide behind the fact that most of my articles deal with how the music relates to me and my memories as a geezer, but when I do an true review, I'm sort of like Thumper in Bambi, who said "If you can't say something nice... don't say nothing at all."
4 - Michael J. West
Thanks all for their thoughts, and sorry for my lack of response: I went out of state about an hour before this was actually posted to the site.
JR's got an interesting idea...but it makes me wonder. Am I also obligated to balance any good reviews with a corresponding bad one? I'm all about fairness, y'see.
Another point I'd like to make thoguh: Giddins, when he explained his approach, mentioned column inches. Well, Blogcritics is not the Village Voice. I don't have to worry about squandering my word c however much I want, however often I want. Seems to make a difference, don't it?
5 - Thom
I don't see a problem with giving a bad review. Not every album is good, or bad. And some are even in between.
I recently reviewed a jazz album I received from the performer. Out of 12 songs, one really caught my attention. It's fantastic. It's one of the better jazz performances I've heard. But it was mixed in with 11 songs I wouldn't give the time of day. So, I focused on the one song. Mentioned the others, and hope the performer will see where their strengths are and move down that road.
Jazz music in general is difficult to review. For some, jazz just sounds weird. Jazz is about the moment. How the performers feel. Recording jazz music must be extremely difficult. Sure, musicians write notes, and can read music, but jazz is a lot about improve.
6 - Baronius
Yes, you should review them:
1) because there are so few people reviewing jazz, that you're providing a service.
2) to aid the reader, and yourself, in thinking about the art form.
3) because some of the most memorable things I've ever read were bad reviews.