The Diamond and the Pen

Posted almost 4 years ago

[John Coltrane - Olé / 18:14]


If per chance you were to meet a stranger on a moonless night would you think much of his telling you: The moon does not shine, it merely reflects? Now picture yourself reading the following review by the same stranger: "Foals’ sonics dominate the senses. But they alone don’t make an open-and-shut case for Antidotes." While you would have looked askance at the former, you are most likely to want to ponder on the short sentences of the latter.

The difference between spoken and written words does not totally account for your attitude. You have consciously waived your suspicions at the word "review." And indeed for a critique to work, you need to suspend your mistrust as you would your disbelief when reading a novel. No other form of criticism requires such "pre-faith" than the popular review, especially that of popular music. Doesn't Lester Bangs say that the reader must be willing to trust him?
Of course citing Bangs is already admitting that (rock and its declinations) reviews have their own legitimacy. Professional critics are endorsed not only by their readers but also by those who employ them and publish their words. An artist's view (or commentary) on another artist's work is easily accepted as it is tradesmen speaking of their common trade, as it were. The only credit a popular reviewer has is what his reader is willing to offer: trust.

For his troth what does the reader gain? In most cases, he will get a fairly descriptive account as well as an evaluation of an album. After all, that is what we expect more or less from perusing such critiques.—Admittedly, the synonymy between the two terms may be well overstretched.—The word itself comes from the French "revue" i.e. re-examination. The prefix assumes that the reader is already aware of the work being discussed. Which is seldom the case.
So what is the use of an album review when the reader has yet to listen to the music? Well, the obvious never fails to comfort: to present an artist's work to its potential public. Therein lies the crux of the matter, for how do you transcribe a sound. Other popular art forms (cinema, theatre etc.) have a plot, a script, actions all of which can be overlapped by using words. But music is already a language of its own. If "music is thinking noise," how would you make noise into words?

Of course, songs offer an anchor for commentaries as they deal with the same medium. But what about instrumental music? Take this piece by John Coltrane for instance. It starts monaurally with Reggie Workman's bass opening the "tercio de varas." Then McCoy Tyner joins in with his piano as the drums of Elvin Jones kick in. Coltrane's soprano sax calls up Freddie Hubbard's trumpet for entering the "arena." George Lane awaits behind the doors which open on his flute at around 1'51". Lane and Hubbard are Coltrane's "bandelliros."Thus begins the first stage of Olé. (Art Davis will join in later into the theme). This lazy metaphor no matter how evocative cannot describe the intricate interplays within the opening sequence of "Olé."
Another way to describe "Olé" is to stress its musical kinship to bop jazz, its rhythmic pattern (3/4) and the burgeoning modal scheme in which Coltrane's band improvises. But that would be jargon from which I'm not sure even professional can hear anything but a cacophonous and verbose assemblage.

Sound doesn't abide words. The popular reviews are thus condemned to impressionistic metaphors. If lyrics provide a glimpse of the substance, the style and manner will always slip the reviewer by.—That is if they don't want to sound pretentious or worse jabberwocky.

So what is the use of popular reviews? What is the use of the pen if it cannot tell anything the diamond plays? To me they make up the agora of music, a Speaker’s Corner where opinions rather than evaluation are exchanged.—Notes and stars kill all possible discussions.
Spontaneous music commentaries are a sort of ghettoblaster of the aficionados: to take away with you and shout out your likes and dislikes in the most civilised manner for the world to hear. So thank you for putting up with this boombox of a review of reviews.

Comments (36)

  1. deadmandeadman says I'm impressed, amused, bemused, befoggled(?), mystified, amplified, and grateful to you for layin' this on us (me).
    Permalink posted 05/07/2008
  2. Augusts1 says As I've just been getting into writing album reviews in the new year I have to say your analyses is quite fascinating Michael. I will also say that transcribing sound to written word is quite a difficult task to accomplish but once done is very satisfying, especially if your readers voice their delight in the descriptors you use, as you have done after reading my reviews. Excellent Coltrane cut too. Although I'm not a big jazz afficianado I do enjoy listening to it on occasion.
    Permalink posted 05/07/2008
  3. I am says And you said *I* was articulate. Michael you got me beat by a mile and then some. It is about "trust" after all. I was speaking to a friend of mine some time ago about a similar idea. We were discussing why people watch certain political shows knowing that they are akin to nothing but hype for a particular mindset. My friends comment hit the nail right on it's head. "They watch because the show just reinforces their beliefs." We could say the same thing about reviewers we trust. We read because the writer is going to reinforce our preconceived notion about what is good or bad music. And some critics are engaging to the point that the review becomes an entertainment medium all of its own. Deep thoughts my brother, deep thoughts.
    Permalink posted 05/07/2008
  4. I am says I forgot to say; Thanks for the track. I haven't heard this in quite some time. The incestuous group of musicians surrounding Davis in the late 50's into the 60's never ceases to amaze me with their innovation and professionalism.
    Permalink posted 05/07/2008
  5. levek says Great post, Michael. Great comments too, August and I am. I will read reviews of albums I have not heard because I simply don't have the time to sample the thousands of new works coming out every year and there's all the worthwhile music from the past that I have missed. So, I kind of put my trust in the reviewers. Then, with these critiques I try to find websites that offer streams or downloads of these albums that passed the grade and make up my own mind about their worth to me. Of course, I value Moggers' input...
    Permalink posted 05/07/2008
  6. Marigold says holy mole batman. you almost melted my brain but i got the best of you and in the end, i figured out what the crap you were talking about. fascinating writing michael. i enjoyed your review of reviews and will forever be skeptical of all reviewers from now on. this tune is about right for this grouping of words. i do not listen to a lot of this type of music but do actually like it a lot. it usually just gets crowded out with all the other stuff i listen to. ..i wonder when i will hit a big jazz kick. it is due to happen.
    Permalink posted 05/07/2008
  7. mollifire says i love the Coltrane cut and find your post interesting as well. i too began writing album reviews recently and found it to be much more challenging than i had imagined. it has led me to read others' reviews with new interest. i find it very difficult to talk about music, especially because each person who reads it will have such different experiences and perspective. it is a bit mind boggling.
    Permalink posted 05/07/2008
  8. FluxCapacitor says 709 words? Bah! I eat words for breakfast! Excellent music and discourse. My penny's worth? As well as being pretentious good review should entertain wildly.
    Permalink posted 05/08/2008
  9. Blue Meenie says Great post. You mention other popular art forms, except art itself. Art like music needs to be experienced. "Eye of the beholder" (or ear, as the case may be), is to me, what matters most. Some reviewers I don't read, not necessarily because they suck, but they colour their perceptions due to their personal likes and dislikes. Reviews are handy to funnel certain music I may wish to hear down to a listen able number. A comparison (although artists loathe this most times) can be handy in making a decision. I would love to read your thoughts on critics, as they are another ball of wax entirely.
    Permalink posted 05/08/2008
  10. darmuzz says I am not articulate when describing music, but then a lot of reviewers aren't either: it's not too often I can read a review and be able to mentally construct what the band must sound like. I am definitely prone to searching out comparisons, such as "if you like The Libertines then you will probably like The Cribs." At the same time, I know that all comparisons are over-simplifications, and usually don't do the artists justice. I believe that reviewers write to provoke their intended audience, and for entertainment value, and to develop a critical consensus around certain darling albums of the year. I like stumbling across a review long after I've heard the album - so I can compare my aural impressions to the reviewer's notes and go, "Ah, so that's what he meant." The things that really make me decide to get an album? The artist's body of work, the buzz around them, interviews in which the band talks about the recording process and how this album is different than previous ones, watching their music videos, and listening to advance tracks wherever possible. And, whether my Trusteds have found it worth sharing!
    Permalink posted 05/08/2008
  11. Bartleby says Thank you everyone for your kind interest in this long piece. I've always thought people don't read you when you post anything more than 300 or 400 words. You've proved me wrong. (It was originally 1800) *DMDM*: So am I and perhaps even more. I had this mad rambling which I had to put down somewhere. Sorry you had to endure my crazy gibberish. *Aug*: Your reviews are among those which I consider inspiring. They give a proper description of the album discussed as well as due references and shun notations. Sometimes, there are too many "I" in a commentary and one loses sight of the music altogether. *I am*: Thank you for your kind comments and perspicacious remarks. It's true that one pitfall of reviews is what my English literature teacher would call "mutualistic complacency" -- which is both reviewers and readers choose to comment and read what they've already decided to approve or disapprove in the first place. -- Really glad you like "Olé". The album was released in 1961 right between the Africa/Brass sessions, so it kind of subsided within Coltrane's discography but it's brilliant music in my opinion. *Levek*: Your compliments will make me blush. Thanks ever so much for raising another point I chose to omit: the review as an excuse for not listening to the music at hand. More often than not, the credit we give to a review is such that it deems sufficient in itself. -- My favourite reviews are the ones that piqued my curiosity and makes me want to listen to the real thing. Those are very seldom. *MariG*: Your brain almost melted? Mine just blew up as I tried to make any sense at all. You hit the nail on the head, my friend. -- I've said there's an inherent trust relation between a popular (or amateur) reviewer and his reader but left aside what makes this relation possible. What are indeed the reviewer's credentials? What expertise do they have? -- You know the saying: "those who can't criticise." So how do they prove themselves? *Molli*: Thanks for your kind words. The difference in experiences should not prevent any commentaries. On the contrary, a critique (rather than a review) must be able to overcome the peculiarities of individuals and strive for a certain universality. This can only be done if there's enough reference to the style, the art itself as Meenie said. *FluxC*: And what do you for lunch? Dictionaries? -- I wholeheartedly agree with you Colin. A good review as it can't justifiably claim any "truthfulness" ought to be entertaining. "Gay Science" is my motto. You can see how I've failed here. *Meenie*: Thank you for popping in. I agree with you "art needs to be experienced" but one can also gain higher enjoyment by having some keys to "unlock" as it were the artist's intentions which are not evident. It is my humble opinion that beyond the experience it is the grasp, the "acquisition" (when you make art yours) allows you to really relish in it. -- I very superficially brushed on the subject of critics, the professional. Initially, commentaries by critics were meant to be topical. They write in reaction to new releases. This, I find, is very quickly overlooked by the critics who often write with a view for something else: either the sensational quote for marketing or posterity. *Darm*: "I am not articulate when describing music, but then a lot of reviewers aren't either". Very true, they mask this under fancy metaphors which dilute the music. -- I must say the "if you like this, you will like that" approach has one merit for me: it implicitly concedes that an artist possesses their own aesthetic which can please you or not.
    Permalink posted 05/08/2008
  12. Cody B says Great post. Looks like you have a handle on why reviews are part of the music agora, and of course, the music always speaks for itself. I guess I get a little thrill from some writers (like yourself) who try to explain the unexplainable. I also get history and back story, two items, though not essential, that often add to the enjoyment of the music. Music, on the one hand, is simple, visceral, and personal, but on the other hand, the context and background of its creation is something that I want to know as well, partly because it leads me to more music.
    Permalink posted 05/08/2008
  13. toronno says Thank you. I've got a couple of Coltrane CDs but haven't heard this one. I really love this sound. It's such a throwback to the 50s and 60s, I can't imagine what it would have been like to have lived through this era, but I would have loved to have been there.
    Permalink posted 05/08/2008
  14. zarpex says "Verbosity: I would prefer not to" --Bartleby I would indeed look askance at that stranger, and explain that the moon does, in fact, shine - reflected light is still shining, technically speaking. I would have, by definition, no way of knowing that the same stranger had written those puzzling words about Foals, whoever he is, and could only guess that "Antidotes" was the name of a band, and probably not the title of an album, since it wasn't italicized (or a song, since it wasn't in quotes). I pay very little attention to music reviews (unless they're of my own music, in which case I can immerse myself in them for weeks at a time); there is wonderful writing ??about?? music, which is not quite the same thing, but being told what is good or bad, how good or bad, etc., is very rarely of any use to me. I love opinions; I hate reviews. What you've written here is called metacriticism. Good criticism seldom makes these sorts of positive/negative evaluations; it illuminates its subject. It sets it in a historical context (which, of course, is far wider than merely the time of its release), it uncovers (or even creates) subtle meanings and connections, it tells you about the music (ideally) without describing it. The pen IS the diamond, and the critic (not reviewer; yuck) is the stereo; what he creates tells you what the music IS - a poem, a drug, an ordeal, a tool, an idea - maybe even just a bit of music. I never thought I'd see the word "troth" hereabouts. And from the title, I thought this was going to be about baseball...
    Permalink posted 05/08/2008
  15. Augusts1 says Michael, I'm glad to hear that my reviews are inspiring to you, which in essence is what a review should do. That is also quite a compliment coming from you, so thank you for your kind words. I do try to represent the music as faithfuly as I can out of respect & not add alot of superfluous commentary. I often find that established reviewers who've been writing for years often get sidetracked with trying to show off how much they know. And most people could care less how much you know. If you're writing a review, it's obvious you've had some sort of education, be it self taught or formal, so showing off is rather a moot point.
    Permalink posted 05/08/2008
  16. Dzendvokh says Great post Michael.... great discussion too. It seems there are many different ways one can read such writing ... you can look at the return to a familiar critic over and over again as "mutual complacency" or you can see that same scenario as one of expediency... because lets face it... time is limited...especially in the face of such an ever increasing amount of both quality and crap.
    Permalink posted 05/08/2008
  17. Cody B says True indeed Nick, it is a real problem for me, 'cause I like crap too. Quality crap, like say Ella Fitzgerald covering the Doors or Polish psych-funk. Reviews on things like that can be very tricky. Most straight jazz reviewers/critics pan Ella's late period Rock material, but I find it excellent and more than worthy.
    Permalink posted 05/09/2008
  18. Cody B says True indeed Nick, it is a real problem for me, 'cause I like crap too. Quality crap, like say Ella Fitzgerald covering the Doors or Polish psych-funk. Reviews on things like that can be very tricky. Most straight jazz reviewers/critics pan Ella's late period Rock material, but I find it excellent and more than worthy.
    Permalink posted 05/09/2008
  19. Lizziegreeneyes says *Bartleby* Michael... what you wrote is as jazzy in verbiage as I've seen in a long time. Flowed beautifully with the music... whether that was your intention or not - one thing is for certain - you moved me !!! :)
    Permalink posted 05/09/2008
  20. Lizziegreeneyes says *Bartleby* Michael... what you wrote is as jazzy in verbiage as I've seen in a long time. Flowed beautifully with the music... whether that was your intention or not - one thing is for certain - you moved me !!! :)
    Permalink posted 05/09/2008
  21. Bartleby says *Cody*: Merci for your kind comments. I'm with you on the context of a song. I enjoy knowing a bit more than just the artist's name, the personnel being on the top of my information of choice. -- I must also confess that being of a literary bend, I sometimes find the whole contextualisation a bit fastidious. -- Regarding your second comment: One man's idea of fish eggs is another one's caviar. *toronno*: If you can get hold of "Olé" you'll see that it's an album which is interesting in more than one way. Recorded in 1961, this LP finds Coltrane on the verge of his modal adventures of Africa/Brass. You start to feel how far he can go. Also, he uses a septet which is quite rare for him. *Zarpex*: Baseball, huh? I don't understand a single thing about that sport. -- You've caught me red-handed, I'm afraid. Guilty as charged. -- I see you hold as much trust for moon-gazers as you do for reviewers. I didn't want to go all Aristotelian but simply admit to myself that there's some use in having reviews written by amateurs. Despite what I'd love to believe, an artist does need a public and the buzz from all these popular reviews can bring attention to his or her work. || I must also thank you for your brilliant reverse metaphor ("The pen IS the diamond, and the critic (not reviewer; yuck) is the stereo") || "Good criticism should illuminate its subject" very true, that is why I was reluctant to use that terminology preferring "review" or "commentary" to it. || The quotes comes from a review of "Anitdotes" Foals' début album by Barry Lenser (link here) *Dzend*: Hey, thanks for popping in. As I've said, this was just some really random ramblings on the role of popular reviews. The buzz and discussion they generate give a sort of road map for the music gluttons so to speak. *Lizzie*: Sister, you can't possibly know how glad you've said that. Yes, I was written with Coltrane's theme in mind. -- Me, move you? That was "Olé" not my words ;)
    Permalink posted 05/09/2008
  22. Bartleby says *Cody*: Merci for your kind comments. I'm with you on the context of a song. I enjoy knowing a bit more than just the artist's name, the personnel being on the top of my information of choice. -- I must also confess that being of a literary bend, I sometimes find the whole contextualisation a bit fastidious. -- Regarding your second comment: One man's idea of fish eggs is another one's caviar. *toronno*: If you can get hold of "Olé" you'll see that it's an album which is interesting in more than one way. Recorded in 1961, this LP finds Coltrane on the verge of his modal adventures of Africa/Brass. You start to feel how far he can go. Also, he uses a septet which is quite rare for him. *Zarpex*: Baseball, huh? I don't understand a single thing about that sport. -- You've caught me red-handed, I'm afraid. Guilty as charged. -- I see you hold as much trust for moon-gazers as you do for reviewers. I didn't want to go all Aristotelian but simply admit to myself that there's some use in having reviews written by amateurs. Despite what I'd love to believe, an artist does need a public and the buzz from all these popular reviews can bring attention to his or her work. || I must also thank you for your brilliant reverse metaphor ("The pen IS the diamond, and the critic (not reviewer; yuck) is the stereo") || "Good criticism should illuminate its subject" very true, that is why I was reluctant to use that terminology preferring "review" or "commentary" to it. || The quotes comes from a review of "Anitdotes" Foals' début album by Barry Lenser (link here) *Dzend*: Hey, thanks for popping in. As I've said, this was just some really random ramblings on the role of popular reviews. The buzz and discussion they generate give a sort of road map for the music gluttons so to speak. *Lizzie*: Sister, you can't possibly know how glad you've said that. Yes, I was written with Coltrane's theme in mind. -- Me, move you? That was "Olé" not my words ;)
    Permalink posted 05/09/2008
  23. Lizziegreeneyes says It's an old - and I do mean OLD post of mine - one of my first... about Clifford Brown... but the song is one the brings me to sobs almost every listen - the last live recording before he died... A Night in Tunisia... gorgeous... I'll get it up on the M for you sweets !!! "*CLICK CLIFFORD*":http://mog.com/Lizziegreeneyes/blog/53401
    Permalink posted 05/09/2008
  24. Lizziegreeneyes says It's an old - and I do mean OLD post of mine - one of my first... about Clifford Brown... but the song is one the brings me to sobs almost every listen - the last live recording before he died... A Night in Tunisia... gorgeous... I'll get it up on the M for you sweets !!! "*CLICK CLIFFORD*":http://mog.com/Lizziegreeneyes/blog/53401
    Permalink posted 05/09/2008
  25. Lizziegreeneyes says ??*"The music isn't created in a vacuum,is it?"*?? - can't be - no sound in a vacuum... nothing for it to bounce off of & into your ears... learned that yesterday in "science day" on the local radio station - yeah... I am that cool ;)
    Permalink posted 05/10/2008
  26. Bartleby says Sorry, Cody. I didn't make much sense, I realise now. What I meant by that is contextualisation may provide a hint of what the artist was aiming for but never can it explain the whole corpus. -- Having had to undergo so much context (historic, social, economic and so on) when I was studying French literature, I found it a bit too much. Not to mention "ex-post" theorisation. After a while, people were debating over the relevancy of the context itself and completely forgetting about the opus at hand. That's what I meant by my remark. As Zarp said, context should compliment and illuminate but not substitute for the subject. @Lizzie: Sound is a change in air oscillations and density innit?
    Permalink posted 05/10/2008
  27. Lizziegreeneyes says zactly... no air, no sound...
    Permalink posted 05/10/2008
  28. Cody B says No need to apologize, I agree about trying to divine the artists intent...Sometimes the artist doesn't even know the answer to that riddle, and when they do pull back the curtain,it is rarely what anybody thinks. I guess I need to be clearer too. yeah, I like the history, and knowing where (from my perspective,at least) the music fits into the whole spectrum, but I also like to hear about the art of making records (the producer in me), as a craft that differs from making music. In some cases, take for instance the Numero Records series, Eccentric Soul, the music actually takes a back seat to the story about the obsessive folks who wanted to make records, which in turn bolsters the appreciation of the music. But yeah, there's no need to turn this stuff over to the academics and analyze it to death (even though I might), it's music, just listen.. Whenever I think of writing about jazz I always remember what Crash said one time, when I was admitting I had a fear of doing it because I felt unqualified. Here's what he said: ”That’s one of the first lessons you learn: when you’re listening closely to a really tight outfit “breathing” together, all that pretension is eviscerated, the nut gets cracked open and something else reveals itself. ” When I read somethng like that, it humbles me and it inspires me to look for the perfect words to describe the perfect beats. From what I've read, you do a great job B. may you MOg on.
    Permalink posted 05/10/2008
  29. Lizziegreeneyes says my goodness - you smart men turn me on so !!! May you keep it up ;) Thanks to you all... I will go to bed happy tonight... did I have a bottle of red wine - yes, does that mean I don't love the smartness apparent on this MOGpage & due to the fact I know many of you in person... NO... I know & LURVE you all ;) Happy nights to errrrvybody... better days !!!
    Permalink posted 05/10/2008
  30. Bartleby says *Cody*: As usual, you've brought yet another valid point to our discussion. The technique can indeed shed a revelatory light on music. But where craft is concerned I'm afraid I'm even less qualified to discuss than when it comes to reviews. -- Perhaps you would be kind enough to write up something about the subtle complementation between technique and art (record making with music making). *Lizzie*: Oh, sister! You do us too much honour. (I'm speaking for Cody but I think he'll agree with me) -- As far as I'm concerned, I'm just a geezer talking rubbish when he should be listening to the music.
    Permalink posted 05/11/2008
  31. I am says *Baseball, huh? I don't understand a single thing about that sport.* Well alrighty then. Looks like I found a topic for a future post. What do you know of cricket? We can swap technical verbiage.
    Permalink posted 05/13/2008
  32. Bartleby says Unfortunately if baseball is Ancient Greek to me, cricket is Sanskrit. -- All I know that is that it can last for days without a clear-cut victory even though I enjoy watching people playing in the park on Sundays. It's very quaint. But I'm looking forward to learning more about baseball.
    Permalink posted 05/13/2008
  33. Cody B says Fuckin' A..I lost a gigantic comment here too. GRRRRRRRR.
    Permalink posted 05/13/2008
  34. Bartleby says Shite indeed :::sees red:::: So sorry Cody about the erasure of your comments as well of others'. Apologies to all. Please accept also my gratitude for your contributions which are still in my memory.
    Permalink posted 05/13/2008
  35. Cody B says No worries,B. I guess I need to take it easy. It's only MOG,right?
    Permalink posted 05/13/2008
  36. Lizziegreeneyes says ??*It's only MOG ,right?*?? ~Cody B That's classic ;)
    Permalink posted 05/13/2008

Comment on this Post

Login using email and password below.

Forgot Password?

OR login using Facebook Connect

Connect

Don't have an account?
Join MOG. It's Free!

© 2006-2012 Mog Inc. All Rights Reserved