Regardless of whether one agrees with Stanley Crouch or not, he can't simply be dismissed. He's a critic of extraordinary knowledge and depth on his subject, and a man who knows what he doesn't like - he's listened to it and evaluated it with as much care as he has the music he does like.
I myself, though I've called him a "jazz nativist" and I stand by that characterization, have learned quite a bit from Crouch: for example, that if you're not listening to every member of the band, you're not getting it. And if he's heavily biased in his opinions (and he is), it's not because he's uninformed.
In short, love or hate Crouch, he’s smart enough and informed enough about jazz that when he makes a serious statement, outlandish or not, it deserves some attention. Four years on, it’s no less deserving of that attention; for me, just breaking into this profession, it’s crucial.
Any good jazz fan, let alone critic, comes into this music with one absolute truth seeded into his/her skull: jazz is an African American music. It’s designed around African American folk and pop traditions; built on African American experience; created, revolutionized, and (for the most part) maintained by African American musicians. All of which feeds into part of Crouch’s point: the critics pretty much tend to be white. And if jazz is built on the black experience, the white critic necessarily hears it filtered through the white experience.
Isn’t it possible that white critics hearing jazz as filtered through their white experiences are thereby able to relate more to white players, and thereby elevate them in their assessment and coverage? To say “No, it’s not possible,” is obviously dishonest. And to say “Well, it’s possible, but I’m white and 100% sure that I’m not doing that,” is probably equally so. I’m certainly unwilling to do it. On the other hand, I AM willing to go on the record and say that I’m white and 100% sure I’m not doing it…consciously.
Ahh, a different beast all together. If I’m doing it, I must be doing it subconsciously, and how can I stop that? I don’t even know I’m doing it, obviously.
The simple answer is, I can’t. Not only can’t, but probably shouldn’t try. A critic, any critic, has to be honest about his/her assessment of what he/she hears. Educated, immersed in the music, you do have to be. A careful, repeated, precise, and discerning listener, you MUST be. But forcing yourself to find something in it, whether merit or some kind of identification, is a no-no. Even if you disagree with every other critic out there, you have to be willing to say so without worrying about critical consensus.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glen Boyd
This is outstanding Micheal. One of the most well written and perfectly stated articles on music criticism, and all that colors it, that I've read in a long, long time. You nailed it, brother...and somewhere I suspect that Mr. Crouch is smiling.
-Glen
2 - Donald Gibson
I think, as music critics, it's often difficult to discern the context from the content of what we're listening to. And in many cases, it's the context that enriches and informs people's appreciation for music.
For instance, I enjoy the music of Miles Davis on a visceral level. Yet I certainly wouldn't claim to understand why he played what he did, when he did, or how he did. So that's a limit I have to acknowledge in my appreciation of his art. I can listen to, enjoy, and even write about the aesthetics of Kind of Blue. However, I couldn't write, with genuine knowledge or authority, about the factors that inspired him to create the album.
I enjoyed your article very much.
-Donald
3 - Nat le Gros Monstre
Amazing article. Music, like everything else, and how we experience it is inevitable affected by race, gender, financial situation, education, geography etc... But then I've always also believed that truly great music, literature, art etc. should mean something different to everyone. But perhaps that is a naive opinion.
4 - Mark Saleski
i dunno, i have a hard time with Crouch, mostly because of his dismissal of most/all "out" jazz.
that, and his liner notes (mostly for Wynton) contain some of the most turgid prose ever written.
the race thing: for many years, i thought that Keith Jarrett was black. i have no idea what that means.
5 - Michael J. West
Glen, Donald: Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.
Nat: Thank you very much as well. And no, you're not naive - the very thing that makes music, literature, and art great is that it's got enough in it that everyone who appreciates it can make it their own. I think so, anyway.
6 - Michael J. West
Mark:
I confess. When I mentioned Crouch's "sometimes rather silly-sounding opinions," I was specifically referring to most of his liner notes for Wynton's albums.
Believe you me, Mr. Crouch and I are at loggerheads over "out" jazz. (Though I'm not sure I'd be at loggerheads to his face, since he has a tendency to punch people he disagrees with.) I think he's an extremist in that regard, hence my calling him a "nativist." I'm going to have to deal with that in one of these columns, huh?
It did seem fair, though, to point out he's a tremendously learned critic. So even if I disagree with him vehemently (and I often do), his authority is enough to make me think seriously about what I'm disagreeing with.
Well, except for his public insult of Matthew Shipp. That was just uncalled for.
7 - Pico
Nice article, paleface ;&)
8 - Mark Saleski
crouch manages to be both knowledgeable and ignorant.
i also hold him directly responsible for making sure that they mentioned Louis Armstrong in every freaking episode of that ken burns series.
9 - Michael J. West
Yeah, I never knew it was possible to talk too much about Louis Armstrong. Although, most of those mentions really WERE relevant...
10 - Jon Sobel
Excellent article, really thought-provoking.
I'm not sure it's accurate to say that jazz is "(for the most part) maintained" by African American artists. I'm no jazz expert, nor am I a musician with serious jazz chops, but I see live jazz often enough, and I play with jazz musicians frequently in many different settings, and there seem to be a lot more white jazz musicians around than black, especially in the younger set.
11 - Michael J. West
Jon,
In NYC?????????????
Trust me - it's still a largely African American form, and certainly the most important players are African American, and always have been.
12 - Mark Saleski
c'mon, define 'important'.
let's have some fun!
13 - Michael J. West
All right then! :)
"Important" meaning the musicians who are most responsible for the direction of jazz in the present and future. The groundbreakers, the flamekeepers, and the mentors.
Wynton, for example. His influence as a musician has been in decline for a while now, but as a mentor, he's the Art Blakey of our day. Not to mention the face of jazz to the non-jazz world.
On the other hand, Blanchard's influence as a musician is on the rise this decade, probably because of the soundtrack work. And Robin Eubanks is THE big groundbreaker of the moment.
Of the old guard, Ornette, Sonny, and David Murray are still leading lights.
Of the up-and-comers: Robert Glasper is God, first of all. Then there's Lionel Loueke, Kendrick Scott, and Marcus & E.J. Strickland.
There are white players in there too, assuredly; Dave Douglas, Mehldau, Frisell, Anat Cohen.
14 - Jon Sobel
#11 - Yes, in NYC. I'm not talking about the big expensive clubs where the big national acts play to sardine-packed tourists - I'm talking about the day-to-day non-famous working musicians who I see and work with all the time. Plenty of whites and blacks, but more of the former.
15 - Michael J. West
There's an awful lot of determining factors there, though, Jon. Where you're seeing the musicians, in what capacity you're working with them, etc.
16 - Mark Saleski
Tim Berne, John Zorn, Chris Speed, Jim Black, Mike Stern, John Lurie, Erik Friedlander....
uh...
17 - Jon Sobel
Mike, it's true my "sampling" is purely anecdotal, and I'm downtown much more than uptown. What I was really fixing on was your term "maintain." It's pretty safe to say that the blues tradition is maintained, these days, by white musicians at least as much as black ones, and based on my anecdotal experience, the same is true of jazz. However, if you are really talking about the most innovative musicians in jazz still being primarily African American, I wouldn't argue that because I don't know enough to say one way or the other.
18 - Michael J. West
Wallace Roney, Geri Allen, Jacky Terrasson, Cyrus Chestnut, James Carter, Charles Tolliver, Steve Coleman, Greg Osby, Roy Hargrove, Josh Redman, Nnenna Freelon, Sean Jones, Kenny Garrett, Don Byron, Billy Kilson, Cassandra Wilson, Andy Bey, William Parker, Sunny Murray, Hamid Drake, Nicholas Payton, Matthew Shipp, David S. Ware, Roy Haynes, Wayne Shorter, Christian McBride, Antonio Hart, Ronald Shannon Jackson, Javon Jackson...
19 - Michael J. West
Fair enough, Jon. I guess what I really should have said was that we can't possibly say that it's no longer an African American idiom.
20 - Jon Sobel
Eric Alexander!
21 - Leslie Bohn
Brian Blade, Vincent Herring, Seamus Blake, Avishai Cohen...
22 - Mark Saleski
Candy Dulpher
23 - Mark Saleski
..hah! made you look!!
;-)
24 - Tom Johnson
Forgive my ignorance, but what is is that Stanley Crouch actually said about Matthew Shipp and Dave Douglas? I looked it up but could only find references to it, but no mention of what actually occured other than he said something derogatory about them when announcing them among the other nominees, and then a fight ensued afterward. Inquiring minds want to know.
Also, while a fascinating read, I can't say I agree - I listen to listen. White guys, black guys, or women*, whatever. It really doesn't matter. I think there are some points at which guys like Crouch are thinking way too deeply about how the race issue works in something that is as essentially faceless as jazz is to most people. There's no way to prove any of this, obviously, but this all seems to function on the level of "butterfly effect" thinking to me.
*Interesting, isn't it, that the issue of women doesn't come up like it does about race? Where's Crouch's stance on that? There should be an equally large problem between sexes as races, and, really, it kind of should be larger because we certainly see on an every day basis just how big the gap is between men and women. Musically, however, can anyone seriously listen to Susie Ibarra's playing and discount her simply because she's a woman? I highly doubt it, just like I seriously doubt anyone (who is not racist) discounts the playing of a musician just because of his or her race.
25 - Mark Saleski
it cracks me up that Crouch appeared (as drummer) on a David Murray record.
still, this cracks me up even more (from allmusic.com):
"On drums, it is Stanley Crouch, who is simply crummy. His decision to quit playing drums is offered up as proof that he has done at least one good thing for the jazz community."