[Dixielandjazz] some thoughts on criticism

[C.D. Six]

I’ve been a lurker on this list for some time, but
I’ve reached a point where I could no longer hold my
tongue on this Woody Allen business. Acknowledging
that I am a hypocrite (which will become obvious in
the last paragraph) I’ve decided to break silence on a
couple of points. Please humor me.

We have to understand that whether or not Mr. Allen
plays “well,” someone who has paid a large amount of
money to go see him and does not like what they hear
will be upset by that. That is the ticket buyers’
right, and we should respect that, even if we are
someone who cannot personally justify it with our own
feelings about the artist. The prices charged to see
good music are far too high, and I’m not talking the
cost to get a good band in the house, I’m talking all
the charges the room adds on to pad their pockets, for
as we well know, all the front money has an
interesting way of not finding itself in the
musician’s pocket at the end of the night. There are
places in Washington DC, where I live, where I will
not go to see friends play, where I will not see
people who influence my style play, people I respect
play, and when I play those places I will encourage my
friends not to come hear me. These prices pale in
comparison to those in New York, but that does not
mean they aren’t outrageous. It is one of the things
that keep people from coming to hear our music. So
yes, someone who pays a price to hear something they
wind up not liking might be a little upset. They have
that right.

Does Mr. Allen have the “right” to do what he is
doing, however? Yes. If enough people come that he can
pay the sidemen, the room can make money, and he gets
whatever he gets out of it, then there is a demand. I
refuse to believe that he “dupes” everyone coming to
his shows because of his name. Obviously, name
recognition is a factor, but it is not the only
factor. I think that we have seen here, in this forum,
that there are people who respect what he’s doing.
Even a small number of this list’s members are
indicative of a larger section of the actual
population. Is he talented? Having only heard one
recording, and not a live performance (without the
benefit of all that electronic wizardry that can
change notes, keys, and eliminate imperfections) I
cannot say. What I can say is that I’ve heard enough
“professionals” who have less talent than a bunch of
second graders with recorders, and I’ve played in
bands where I felt we had no right to charge the
audience. I’ve had nights where I thought I was on it
and people didn’t respond, and I’ve had nights where I
thought I was miserable and folks couldn’t stop saying
how great it was. Talent is in the ear of the
listener. Talent is influenced by an infinite number
of factors. How is that musician feeling? How are his
chops tonight? How do I, the listener, feel? 

Do we, as aficionados and musicians have the right to
tell people if they have the right to play and charge
money? “You aren’t good enough so go back to your
attic and don’t come out?” No. But we do have a right
to say “I’m not going to buy your CD or go to your
show.” If enough people agree with us, lo and behold,
said musician would find he had no audience, but if
enough people don’t agree with us, we must accept that
that musician has a right to do what he does, and
charge whatever that audience will accept.

So, in a sense, we are all critics when it comes to
our wallets. If a band is less than acceptable,
patrons stop coming. If a CD is terrible, it doesn’t
get purchased. We rely on the opinions of our friends,
family, and list mates to give us their opinions on
what they hear. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we
don’t. Sometimes we are influenced by it, and
sometimes not. But I think the key point is that we
want our criticism to be constructive. 

We listen to supposed “experts” in publications tell
us if what is good or bad, despite the fact that they
may never played a horn or sang a note, or are critics
only because their editor assigned then to go to “some
stupid jazz concert,” or worse, because they are
trying to advance an agenda about what the people who
play the music should look like, and what that music
should sound like. We don’t want to see someone we
respect or perhaps know to be run down. We know the
strengths and weaknesses of the individual musician
(used here as a generic), and we know that some day
that could be us being ripped. Perhaps some bristle at
the words they read because they’d like to think that
fellow musicians and people who understand that there
is something special about this music will be kind
(many are, and many aren’t). Because the artist
creates from the heart, and is easily wounded by words
that criticize his creations (even if those creations
are deficient). Do we ever outgrow being that hopeful
child showing off their art, hoping for others to
praise what we do? I haven't. What would be the point?

So we all have to understand that Judie is perfectly
right to feel upset, and that Steve has every right to
feel they way that he does, too. We need to remember
that e-mail, as a method of communication, is woefully
lacking. Every word, sentence and nuance in an e-mail
can be interpreted in ways the writer never intended,
especially when re-read in snippets over the course of
several days. Face to face, this would have been
resolved days ago, and we have been told that off
list, it has. While there are some legitimate debates
going on out there, to continually beat this drum on
the list after the two protagonists have said it is
over only stirs up further controversy as others find
the need to vent their frustrations (thus, my
hypocracy), and both parties feel they must continue
to defend themselves at risk of reigniting the debate.

Thank you for indulging me,
Chris


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com