I have become an AAJ contributor

[CJ Shearn]

Very excited about it. Currently waiting for my reviews of PMG's new DVD and "Saudades" to be published. When either goes through, I will put through my Metheny/Mehldau draft, and write on the new Mulgrew Miller. Through some contacts I met at Binghamton University's "I got my start at WHRW FM panel" I have connections at Blue Note, an alum who is the director of marketing. I also contacted MC at Mosaic and will get a promo of the Tony Select to review. I'm very happy as this is one step towards my goal of working in the jazz industry. Also having rejoined WHRW that adds to the possibilities. :

[Jim Alfredson]

Great news, CJ! Congrats! Keep pushing and writing and doing what you want to do!

[Guy Berger]

Congrats, CJ.

Guy

[ep1str0phy]

Extremely congenial staff out there--it's a pleasure doing the contribution work. Good luck!

[Jim R]

Great news, CJ! Congrats! Keep pushing and writing and doing what you want to do!

Ditto. Word. Exactly. Yeah!

[CJ Shearn]

thanks!

[jazzbo]

Congrats! I hope you have a much more fulfilling experience than I did!

[John Tapscott]

Congrats! I hope you have a much more fulfilling experience than I did!

Lon, that calls for a bit of an explanation, if you feel like it , of course.

[GA Russell]

Sounds great, CJ! Hope you enjoy it all!

One thing that I learned from my time writing reviews for AAJ was the huge amount of mediocre music being made. I came to respect Blue Note in particular (and the other majors to the extent that they are still active in new recordings) for separating the wheat from the chaff.

[JohnS]

My congratulations too, good luck.

[jazzbo]

Congrats! I hope you have a much more fulfilling experience than I did!

Lon, that calls for a bit of an explanation, if you feel like it , of course.

I really dislike their guidelines for writing reviews, how impersonal they demand the writing to be, and I quit after two reviews.

[Robert J]

Congrats! I hope you have a much more fulfilling experience than I did!

Lon, that calls for a bit of an explanation, if you feel like it , of course.

I really dislike their guidelines for writing reviews, how impersonal they demand the writing to be, and I quit after two reviews.

I did my last one in 2002, after 1/2 dozen and an article.

Has the policy changed? I recall they wanted a touch of personality then (c.2000-2002) and more subjectivity, rather than listing personel, regurgitating artist/band history, etc. I see many of the current reviews do this way too often as filler. Or they rewrite press releases.

[CJ Shearn]

I notice they say not to mention yourself too much, though I think that would be alright for extended analysis because it is your view on a boxset or album. I am going to submit the Metheny/Mehldau piece soon, it appears my "Saudades" review is scheduled to be published on the 22nd. I don't know about "The Way Up Live" but I think another CD review will be more likely to make it than a DVD review since I am new over there.

[Ken Dryden]

I've been an AAJ contributor since 2000, though I only sporadically write CD reviews. I devote more time to my column (which has been neglected somewhat) and occasional performance reviews (tricky, since I have to go out of town usually to hear quality jazz).

Edited October 19, 2006 by Ken Dryden

[Rooster_Ties]

I really dislike their guidelines for writing reviews, how impersonal they demand the writing to be, and I quit after two reviews.

Can you (or somebody, anybody??) post those "AAJ review "guidelines here?? I'd be really curious to see them. Thanks!!

[jazzbo]

I no longer have a copy of the guidelines they sent me. I don't have any problem with not talking about "me" but it seemed that everytime I proposed talking about an emotional response to the music it was "nono'd" . . . I knew I was breaking the rules but it just did not make sense to ME to write the way they wanted me to about the cds. The reviews they recommended I "emulate" I found. . . oh so boring. So I stopped. I really didn't have my heart in it anyway.

The interesting thing is that the one reviewer I've really been impressed with in online reviews emailed me out of the blue telling me how much he really enjoyed one of my reviews. That was nice!

PS: this just says of me that I don't like guidelines and editing much, and I also didn't really feel all warm and fuzzy about the powers that be at aaj at that time; my attempting this came after a long email exchange about why I preferred org to aaj and how aaj could do "better" . . . I just don't feel about aaj as I do about org.

Edited October 19, 2006 by jazzbo

[Robert J]

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/guidelines/index.html

[Nate Dorward]

Jeez, I'd been unaware until now that AAJ actually edited the reviews or had any formal policy--usually just seemed to post up whatever came in.

Looking at the "Style" guidelines, I'd suggest ignoring the silly advice in #2 (omit the verbs "to be", "say", "do" and "have"--is this some sort of dumb Oulipian game?) and #3 (omit the passive voice--typical dumb style-guide advice). Though I'm not sure that anyone takes any of that advice seriously (after all that same page includes tons of instances of "to be" &c).

[John Tapscott]

I can see why Lon had trouble writing within these guidelines (not the length, but the stylistic guidelines.) I would, too. My feeling is that writing is much like playing jazz. If you have to be "taught" how to do it, at least to the extent that is evident in these guidelines, let me tell you, you ain't got it, baby!

[Ken Dryden]

Other than rules regarding formatting and word count, I've paid little attention to AAJ's writing guidelines. Other publications, especially the glossy but empty Jazziz and the sometimes sloppy JazzTimes could stand some serious editing, though I've never subscribed to the former and dumped the latter several years ago.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Ken Dryden

[Chuck Nessa]

Never had shit to do with Ricci's site other than posting a few messages and receiving nasty notes from Ricci.

No reflections on you CJ, but I do have issues.

[ep1str0phy]

The vendetta against "to be" verbs and passive voice is fairly common practice in educational institutions these days. They're high school rules, but... I mean, it's shocking how many people don't do it.

That said, I've had only minimal editing on my AAJ pieces--no all-out hatchet job, and the staff is pretty understanding. It's one thing to bash the institution, but my experiences with the editing crew has been congenial. On a completely different level, my writing is generally pretty overblown...

Edited October 19, 2006 by ep1str0phy

[Nate Dorward]

The vendetta against "to be" verbs and passive voice is fairly common practice in educational institutions these days. They're high school rules, but... I mean, it's shocking how many people don't do it.

Well, I certainly hope they don't "do it", if you mean "follow those rules"! Can anyone give a rational explanation for why one should avoid passive voice or a verb like "is"? It's like telling people to tie their hands behind their back then play tennis.

Plenty of useful ammo against boneheaded stylistic prescription at the Language Log site, if you're curious: e.g. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog...ves/003380.html

[clifford_thornton]

yah, CJ use those dudes relentlessly but Nate is right on here-- if you wanna write ignore that shit, &/or ply that end of it elsewhere. the paper version of AAJ-- which I see in Manhattan & Brooklyn-- is good for short subway ride but by far mostly for the cover features. what's baffling is that, since I assume they do NOT pay, shit or otherwise, why not nurture some decent writers too? They'd have to cull, kill &/or edit but noone said it should be easy. if they're busting yr balls like that for web only, two words--

& they ain't good luck, tho' i said that to you.

signed,

clementine redacteur

The paper does pay its contributors, actually, though one couldn't "live" on it.

The site doesn't pay.

I tend to go long in my reviews, but if hackles are raised, I edit them down and they tend to turn out a lot better. Haven't had any problems otherwise, so I guess I must be doing something right.

Good luck, CJ, and let us know when your first slew goes live.

[ep1str0phy]

The vendetta against "to be" verbs and passive voice is fairly common practice in educational institutions these days. They're high school rules, but... I mean, it's shocking how many people don't do it.

Well, I certainly hope they don't "do it", if you mean "follow those rules"! Can anyone give a rational explanation for why one should avoid passive voice or a verb like "is"? It's like telling people to tie their hands behind their back then play tennis.

Plenty of useful ammo against boneheaded stylistic prescription at the Language Log site, if you're curious: e.g. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog...ves/003380.html

Yeah, poor word choice on my part. I'm just surprised, sometimes, at the grammar (or lack thereof) that I run across... and I'm not talking fast-talk, hypercondensed like clem or hyphen-happy or conversational--all stylistic choices, to be sure (like the whole be verb thing which, outside of educational habit, really doesn't make a difference in the long run)... I mean that folks can't write. I'm all for streamlining the writing process--and rules can sometimes help with that--but there's a threshold beyond which you fall into complication. In other words: I've seen the "to be" rule do some good things and some bad things. At this level, though, I'd think we'd be past the point where telling really makes a damn (though I've often ignored the telling and worked out swell).