Review of Keith Jarrett: "A Multitude of Angels"

[CJ Shearn]

For those interested, YMMV of course: http://bit.ly/2gnamvp

[jazzbo]

Mighty nice.

[B. Clugston]

Thanks for posting. Nice review and it sounds like a fascinating set.

[CJ Shearn]

Thanks Lon!  It is, B.............. It adds a lot to his solo legacy, IMO, and I need to hear all of it

[JSngry]

I'm not really interested in the record, but that's still good writing. Gives objective context for a subjective opinion, does not engage in rapturous GREATEST MUSIC EVER effusiveness, simply lays it out nice and logically, this is what has already happened, I liked it, this is what is happening  now, I liked that, so in that context, I like this, and does note variances between performances, real variances, just a really nicely written review. Solid thinking about emotional music, emotional thinking about solid music...gotta have both, imo. And this does.

I need to read stuff like this, positive and objective opinions about things that I might overlook, dismiss, or otherwise just not really get/get to for whatever reason.

Keep it up, dude, keep it up.

[Steve Reynolds]

Agreed with all of the above. Concise excellent writing. You even have me wanting to hear it/buy it even though neither Jarrett and/or solo piano are huge areas of interest for me.

[Scott Dolan]

It is indeed a well-written piece, CJ. 

I really love Jarrett solo concerts. I think his Vienna Concert is the apotheosis of his solo work. Though I appreciated your mention of La Scala. That's the only solo Jarrett that my wife really likes. And The Koln Concert still shows up on most "best Jazz albums, ever" lists, as it should. 

I haven't bought any Jarrett in years, but I have a feeling this one is a must have. 

[CJ Shearn]

18 hours ago, JSngry said:

I'm not really interested in the record, but that's still good writing. Gives objective context for a subjective opinion, does not engage in rapturous GREATEST MUSIC EVER effusiveness, simply lays it out nice and logically, this is what has already happened, I liked it, this is what is happening  now, I liked that, so in that context, I like this, and does note variances between performances, real variances, just a really nicely written review. Solid thinking about emotional music, emotional thinking about solid music...gotta have both, imo. And this does.

I need to read stuff like this, positive and objective opinions about things that I might overlook, dismiss, or otherwise just not really get/get to for whatever reason.

Keep it up, dude, keep it up.

Thanks Jim, yeah, the effusiveness is something I try to avoid.  John Kelman at AAJ who has been a mentor to me in writing for about a decade, has stressed to me the importance of leaving yourself out of the review, its about the music, not the reviewer.  That's been my thing.  For me its important the reviewer has really listened to the music, not given it a cursory listen (a la AMG) I want to know what's going on in the music, so I express that the best way I am able through my limited theory knowledge/asking musician friends questions.  Thanks for the kind words.  And Scott, I think you'll enjoy this, the music simply resonated with me.

[JSngry]

I don't think you can - or should - leave yourself out of the review entirely, if you do, you just provide data, not information.

But I do think a good reviewer, (as opposed to just a fan with an outlet) needs to bring an informed self to not just the review, but to the music. Especially to the music, because without that informed view of the music, you can put in a lot of work and craft and write a perfectly good review that is absolutely ignorant about what it is that is being reviewed. A+ on style, F- on substance.

You're not doing that, so yeah, keep on not doing that, and keep on doing what you are doing!

[Scott Dolan]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

I don't think you can - or should - leave yourself out of the review entirely, if you do, you just provide data, not information.

 

This x1000. 

You can inject yourself into as much as you want while still remaining objective. You're not a robot, nor would anyone expect you to be. 

[CJ Shearn]

I've noticed that a lot where people are reviewing like Robert Glasper for example, they lack the historical perspective that essentially the Experiment's music is coming out of the Headhuunters just filtered through a different lens.  Now that could be just a lack of the person's knowledge/lack of wanting to know/research, but it generally shows a smaller scope, and that's fine, just not interesting for what I'm doing

[A Lark Ascending]

Very nice review. Balanced, reasonable and about the music. 

Made me dig out 'London/Paris'. And want to hear this new release. 

[Guy Berger]

On 11/18/2016 at 8:29 AM, Scott Dolan said:

This x1000. 

You can inject yourself into as much as you want while still remaining objective. You're not a robot, nor would anyone expect you to be. 

Injecting yourself is fine.  I don't even care that much about objectivity as long as there is awareness/honesty/transparency of biases and blind spots.  However, my eyes do glaze over when a review is more about the writer than about the music.

[CJ Shearn]

On 11/21/2016 at 9:48 AM, Guy Berger said:

Injecting yourself is fine.  I don't even care that much about objectivity as long as there is awareness/honesty/transparency of biases and blind spots.  However, my eyes do glaze over when a review is more about the writer than about the music.

Exactly! I.e. Thom Jurek always tries to impress the listener with how much he knows, his reviews I never take seriously.  Thank you for the kind words everyone!