That's good for jazz music; it gives artists an idea of what their audience wants, and gives them a sounding board for their ideas from people who know the music. It's good for jazz criticism; it enriches the genre, gives writers something to discuss and debate and engage, and helps contribute to the equal treatment of jazz with pop and other forms of music (we've got a loooooong way to go, of course, but every little bit helps). Hell, it's even good for the artist! This record might not be so hot, but now his/her/their name is showing up in print and people will see it. If they see his/her/their name somewhere else later — like in the CD rack, or flyers for a performance in their town, or even another review — they might recognize it and be curious.
I think about that, and yet Giddins' philosophy keeps coming back to haunt me with its reason. Jazz constitutes something like four percent of all record sales in the US. With so few listeners, do bad reviews simply discourage those who DO listen and shoo those who might? Does talking about poor examples of an art simply give a bad name to the whole art? Can we afford to turn away from praising the good stuff and take time to pooh-pooh the bad?
I don't know, I don't know! Help!!! And so, those of you who care about these things, or even those with a passing opinion, I seek your thoughts. Is all publicity good publicity? Or should jazz, or any other art form on the margins, focus only on the high-quality output and ignore the bad? Which is better for the music, better for the audience, better for the press, etc.? Any thoughts you may have are welcome.
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.