JAM: October/November 2002 Issue: President's Corner

For the Record

by John Leisenring

Musicians historically have a love/hate relationship with music critics. So do audiences. Read a positive review of music you have made or particularly like, and the critic is a good guy. A negative reviewer is a jerk.

Critics often hold great power over the success or failure of artistic endeavors. A Broadway show can close overnight as a result of critical rejection. A new film or book can be assured major acclaim and therefore major dollars with a couple of positive reviews on "Oprah" or in the New York Review of Books.

Criticism itself varies widely, all the way from pure cheerleading to lengthy and thoughtful prose written by writers of renown. Cheerleading, especially over a period of time, loses its creditability, as readers find that nothing of substance can be expected and begin to look elsewhere. Consistently negative criticism also pales, as readers know that artistic goings-on are rarely if ever without any merit, and begin to look for less black and white reviews.

JAM finds itself, from time to time, on the prongs of the criticism dilemma. Each issue features reviews of CDs, usually new releases, and almost always by artists with strong Kansas City connections. Our dilemma is, in part, the charge from the Jazz Ambassadors by-laws: "...to educate, and create greater awareness (and) support for our Kansas City jazz artists and jazz heritage..."

Because of this charge, and because we are comfortable in our role as one of Kansas City's leading jazz cheerleaders, we have a history of avoiding negative criticism of local artists. In other words, if we can't say something nice, we prefer to say nothing at all.

This doesn't mean, and shouldn't mean, that the music can't be intelligently discussed, and that our reviews should simply be a listing of works performed and glowing praise for the music therein. But if a CD is simply without merit, or performers not up to usual standards, we feel it best to abstain.

The predicament, however, is not an easy one with which to grapple. Would we be better serving a given artist by publishing what we feel to be the truth about a given work? Could our alleged truthfulness cause an artist to perhaps re-think his/her work, and through continued practice and growth achieve higher success than otherwise might have happened? No way to know.

JAM's greatest quandary exists with those local artists who have become stars of national scope, and there are plenty of those. When someone moves away, signs a national recording contract and/or takes on a big-time agent, shouldn't our role as cheerleader for local talent change also? I think so. But to the local reader who makes up our largest audience, this would likely seem an odd shift of opinion -- supporting with enthusiasm the artists early (and local) work, but shining a different light on more recent, and perhaps far more mature work. And perhaps seeming to not like it as much.

But true criticism isn't about the artist anyway, or shouldn't be -- it's about the music. And all artists, of whatever reputation, have produced and displayed in public some truly bad music. Beethoven did indeed write "Wellington's Victory March." Shouldn't good criticism be more about the music, good and bad, and less about the artist? And shouldn't the artists not only expect truthful criticism, but demand it?

So, read the reviews of CDs in this and all issues of JAM, and know that generally we strive to provide support and encouragement to Kansas City's stable of wonderful musicians. But at the same time, understand the various dilemmas that we face in doing so, and try to put yourself in our position as we try to sort out the problems therein.

KCJA president Dr. John Leisenring is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Missouri at Kansas City.






	Search our site:		For the Record by John Leisenring Musicians historically have a love/hate relationship with music critics. So do audiences. Read a positive review of music you have made or particularly like, and the critic is a good guy. A negative reviewer is a jerk. Critics often hold great power over the success or failure of artistic endeavors. A Broadway show can close overnight as a result of critical rejection. A new film or book can be assured major acclaim and therefore major dollars with a couple of positive reviews on "Oprah" or in the New York Review of Books. Criticism itself varies widely, all the way from pure cheerleading to lengthy and thoughtful prose written by writers of renown. Cheerleading, especially over a period of time, loses its creditability, as readers find that nothing of substance can be expected and begin to look elsewhere. Consistently negative criticism also pales, as readers know that artistic goings-on are rarely if ever without any merit, and begin to look for less black and white reviews. JAM finds itself, from time to time, on the prongs of the criticism dilemma. Each issue features reviews of CDs, usually new releases, and almost always by artists with strong Kansas City connections. Our dilemma is, in part, the charge from the Jazz Ambassadors by-laws: "...to educate, and create greater awareness (and) support for our Kansas City jazz artists and jazz heritage..." Because of this charge, and because we are comfortable in our role as one of Kansas City's leading jazz cheerleaders, we have a history of avoiding negative criticism of local artists. In other words, if we can't say something nice, we prefer to say nothing at all. This doesn't mean, and shouldn't mean, that the music can't be intelligently discussed, and that our reviews should simply be a listing of works performed and glowing praise for the music therein. But if a CD is simply without merit, or performers not up to usual standards, we feel it best to abstain. The predicament, however, is not an easy one with which to grapple. Would we be better serving a given artist by publishing what we feel to be the truth about a given work? Could our alleged truthfulness cause an artist to perhaps re-think his/her work, and through continued practice and growth achieve higher success than otherwise might have happened? No way to know. JAM's greatest quandary exists with those local artists who have become stars of national scope, and there are plenty of those. When someone moves away, signs a national recording contract and/or takes on a big-time agent, shouldn't our role as cheerleader for local talent change also? I think so. But to the local reader who makes up our largest audience, this would likely seem an odd shift of opinion -- supporting with enthusiasm the artists early (and local) work, but shining a different light on more recent, and perhaps far more mature work. And perhaps seeming to not like it as much. But true criticism isn't about the artist anyway, or shouldn't be -- it's about the music. And all artists, of whatever reputation, have produced and displayed in public some truly bad music. Beethoven did indeed write "Wellington's Victory March." Shouldn't good criticism be more about the music, good and bad, and less about the artist? And shouldn't the artists not only expect truthful criticism, but demand it? So, read the reviews of CDs in this and all issues of JAM, and know that generally we strive to provide support and encouragement to Kansas City's stable of wonderful musicians. But at the same time, understand the various dilemmas that we face in doing so, and try to put yourself in our position as we try to sort out the problems therein. KCJA president Dr. John Leisenring is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. RETURN TO OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2002 MAIN INDEX © Kansas City Jazz Ambassadors 1996-2002. All rights reserved.