Choice J.R. Taylor piece from 1983 about

[Larry Kart]

by way of Bill Kirchner and Mike Fitzgerald's estimable website:

http://www.jazzdiscography.com/Essays/jrtaylor.htm

Sadly, J.R. doesn't write about jazz anymore.

[AllenLowe]

such a complicated subject - I always thought critics would be more honest if they had to pay for CDs; also, there really is payola, but it's called advertising.

it's also very hard to be truly critical any more. Pisses people off; not to mention that everybody knows each other, so it's hard to be honest.

on the other hand, except from Gary Giddins, I haven't had a bad review in 20 years.

[johnlitweiler]

Oh, boo hoo hoo.

[AllenLowe]

it's ok, I've gotten over it.

[Chuck Nessa]

Taylor's the guy who danced with Martin Williams?

If I remember correctly, he was a writer only other writers knew.

How does one become so limited? It must take some work.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Chuck Nessa

[johnlitweiler]

it's ok, I've gotten over it.

Actually, I wasn't aiming at you.

I'm only in it for the free LPs.

[Larry Kart]

Taylor's the guy who danced with Martin Williams?

If I remember correctly, he was a writer only other writers knew.

How does one become so limited? It must take some work.

Taylor's liner notes for the Smithsonian John Kirby set are particularly fine. There were others I'm sure that were, like the Kirby notes, known to more than "other writers," but I'm too tired from today's 12-inning Sox loss to think of them. Apparently, Taylor's journalistic writing on jazz was confined to the Washington Post by and large and thus wouldn't have been known to many people outside that area. Had the same problem myself writing a whole lot about jazz for the Chicago Tribune for more than decade; virtually no one knew unless they lived in the Chicago area, not until I put some of it in a book in 2004. Then jazz people worldwide could know, and they were correspondingly enraged and disgusted.

[AllenLowe]

Taylor was good, I remember his Smithsonian stuff -

John - I knew you were talking about something else. Just having fun (though Giddins was really nasty; I came THIS close to filing a law suit against him, and I now think I should have).

[Quasimado]

Taylor's the guy who danced with Martin Williams?

If I remember correctly, he was a writer only other writers knew.

How does one become so limited? It must take some work.

Taylor's liner notes for the Smithsonian John Kirby set are particularly fine. There were others I'm sure that were, like the Kirby notes, known to more than "other writers," but I'm too tired from today's 12-inning Sox loss to think of them. Apparently, Taylor's journalistic writing on jazz was confined to the Washington Post by and large and thus wouldn't have been known to many people outside that area. Had the same problem myself writing a whole lot about jazz for the Chicago Tribune for more than decade; virtually no one knew unless they lived in the Chicago area, not until I put some of it in a book in 2004. Then jazz people worldwide could know, and they were correspondingly enraged and disgusted.

[David Ayers]

I always thought critics would be more honest if they had to pay for CDs

And buy their own parchment and quills.

[David Ayers]

BTW I don't even get the Polish joke in that piece. Who knew racism could be so arcane?

[AllenLowe]

well, they do buy their own computers and paper -

Edited June 4, 2012 by AllenLowe

[Dan Gould]

Taylor was good, I remember his Smithsonian stuff -

John - I knew you were talking about something else. Just having fun (though Giddins was really nasty; I came THIS close to filing a law suit against him, and I now think I should have).

On what basis could any lawsuit be filed? Can a bad review constitute libel? Not likely especially since you'd probably meet the requirements of "public figure" if you're a musican getting reviewed by a critic. Or did he encourage readers to not attend performances, let alone buy the CD and thereby restrain trade?

[Larry Kart]

Allen can explain (and no doubt he will), but IIRC what Giddins did in the course of his review of one of Allen's books or its related series of CDs was was make an utterly false and dismissive factual statement (and doing so in a quite authoritative tone) about the relationship between the text of Allen's book and the set's extensive liner notes. This statement Allen felt was not only false but also directly damaging to the marketibility of his set and book. It might be, keeping it within the legal framework, as though someone were writing in a newspaper about the quality of local law firms in a particular field and stated that Gould, Lowe, Kart, and Associates had gone bankrupr a few years ago or been cited for gross violations of ethics, when neither thing was the case.

Further, I believe that when Allen got in touch with Giddins and asked him to correct his mistake (I'm sure Allen did this quite calmly ), Giddins told him to go f--- himself.

[Dan Gould]

Yeah that might be actionable. (I do appreciate your listing my name first in our hypothetical firm. )

[AllenLowe]

it was slighlty different - basically, Giddins reviewed "the book" (American Pop) and complained because he said I did not credit a source, as well as a few other omissions - what I realized from his review was that what he had actually done was read the liner notes, which were approximately 60 percent of the book without footnotes and a lot of other things. So I wrote a letter to the Voice correcting him, and making the point that he had apparently only read the excerpt, and pointing out that I had credited the source in the footnotes, which he had not seen because he had not actually read the book. Gary's response (I'm guessing because he was embarassed) in the Voice was that "this is typical of Lowe, to take the work of others and claim it as his own."

I felt like he was calling me a plagiarist, which is a pretty serious thing to say in a public forum. What I should have done was get some lawyer to send a threatening letter.,

There was some other nastiness, per Larry, above, but that was the essence of what I thought might have been actionable.

Edited June 4, 2012 by AllenLowe

[Mark Stryker]

Yeah that might be actionable. (I do appreciate your listing my name first in our hypothetical firm. )

The standard for libel is quite high under First Amendmant law: I think I am correct that for an average person to prevail, he/she has to prove the statement in question is not only false but that it caused harm and was the result of negligence. Anyone who meets the definition of a public figure has to also prove "actual malice," typically defined as publishing something that was knowingly false or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

Lawyers could go into more detail ...

Edited June 4, 2012 by Mark Stryker

[AllenLowe]

well, I could probably prove malice, since his original review said nothing about my "copying"- and he was pissed at being corrected. Don't know. But I would think that, as someone who does a lot of writing, to have a nationally visible critic called me a plagiarist would be damaging (so THAT"s why I've never written a best seller).

Edited June 4, 2012 by AllenLowe

[David Ayers]

well, they do buy their own computers and paper -

Now if you'd said printers and paper that would have continued the obsolescent technology theme...

Any clues on the racist joke?

[JSngry]

Any clues on the racist joke?

The line in question:

Let’s descend for a moment to the level of the ethnic joke: did you hear about the Polish jazz musician? He’s in it for the money.

What is there about this that is in the least bit esoteric and/or arcane?

[David Ayers]

Well.... the article is from the 1980s when there already are some name Polish jazz musicians, that's one thing. But the main thing I don't get - were Polish people supposed to be stupid? poor? no history in music? greedy? not authentically American? not African-American? Were Polish people just the butt of all jokes at that time? Who for?

Help me out I honestly don't know.

[paul secor]

Well.... the article is from the 1980s when there already are some name Polish jazz musicians, that's one thing. But the main thing I don't get - were Polish people supposed to be stupid? poor? no history in music? greedy? not authentically American? not African-American? Were Polish people just the butt of all jokes at that time? Who for?

Help me out I honestly don't know.

If you're not being facetious - in the U.S. in the 1970s-80s, there were a lot of "Polish jokes" that commented on the supposed lack of intelligence of Polish people.

[David Ayers]

Well.... the article is from the 1980s when there already are some name Polish jazz musicians, that's one thing. But the main thing I don't get - were Polish people supposed to be stupid? poor? no history in music? greedy? not authentically American? not African-American? Were Polish people just the butt of all jokes at that time? Who for?

Help me out I honestly don't know.

If you're not being facetious - in the U.S. in the 1970s-80s, there were a lot of "Polish jokes" that commented on the supposed lack of intelligence of Polish people.

Yeah I actually didn't know that. That piece is from 1983 - that's quite late not to have purged his discourse of racism, I'd say - already out of step with the times.

[JSngry]

It went back before the 1970s, I assure you.

And almost the same jokes can be transferred over into whatever group is desired to be the butt - blondes, Aggies, hillbillies, you name it. The framework of all the jokes is there for the taking, all you need to do is insert the target of your choice.

Of course, I'm sure no such thing exists in the UK, no Irish or Scottish or whatever jokes.

Yeah I actually didn't know that. That piece is from 1983 - that's quite late not to have purged his discourse of racism, I'd say - already out of step with the times.

Racism?

Is Polish a race?

[Mark Stryker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_joke

Wiki not reliable of course on all things all the time but some boiler plate here ...