Why Down Beat magazine is a bad joke

[Christiern]

Readers should not be bothered by the inclusion of advertisement, and I don't think they are. It is when advertisers influence editorial policy that the ads get in the way. Unfortunately, that is often the case.

Here, of course, we have a different cause for alarm: an editorial decision that excludes the mention of a man whose name they deem not to have sufficient recognition factor. Even if the writer had not been as accomplished as Phil Woods, familiarity should not be criterial.

[Simon Weil]

Readers should not be bothered by the inclusion of advertisement, and I don't think they are. It is when advertisers influence editorial policy that the ads get in the way. Unfortunately, that is often the case.

Here, of course, we have a different cause for alarm: an editorial decision that excludes the mention of a man whose name they deem not to have sufficient recognition factor. Even if the writer had not been as accomplished as Phil Woods, familiarity should not be criterial.

I think this name recognition thing is a big factor in magazines (as in culture in general). In the 90s, I got an article accepted for a Jewish magazine, only for the editor to change. The article, of course, did not appear. The new editor changed the "vibe" of the mag towards a slicker approach and the next editor went all the way. Now all the contributors are "names" of one sort or another - and to prove it, little bulletin resumes of who they are is given at the top of each article.

It seems like, in a certain way, they're selling on name-dropping: "Look I read an article by Lewis P. Levi...." Doesn't matter about the content, look at the list of names.... There still is worthwhile stuff in it, but blaaagh...

Another variant on the culture of celebrity.

Simon Weil

[Christiern]

If it's about that, don't you think Phil Woods' name should suffice--in a jazz publication? After all the teacher's name is in the body of the text. Still, the whole thing is outrageous and unwarranted.

[Simon Weil]

Well, it may be that for this anniversary issue, they wanted big names as far as the eye can see, in every direction and all the nooks and crannies as well.

MAJOR ISSUE, SELF-IMPORTANT, BIG NAMES ONLY

As it were...

Simon Weil

Edited April 1, 2004 by Simon Weil

[garthsj]

Linda Shank (Bud Shank's wife) just posted this letter on the West Coast Jazz list:

I just received an email from their editor Jason something (wasn't there a

movie about this guy?). For their 70th anniversary issue they are featuring

"major" jazz players including alto saxophonists. The article will not

include Phil Woods (first in their own poll this year), Lee Konitz, Bud

Shank (third in their own poll this year), Ornette Coleman. I mean, who ARE

they talking to? Do they know that the saxophone is that instrument that

uses a reed? Degeulasse!! Linda Shank

I wonder who will be given a nod in this issue?

Garth.

[Patrick]

Hey couw,

[a digressionof sorts] sudden-thoughts looks promising, and (unlike some other jazz boards) they've even linked back to organissimo for Chuck's remembrances of Malachi Favors. Nice writeup on a new Malachi Thompson disc (Delmark). Anyone here heard that one yet?

[couw]

Hey couw,

[a digressionof sorts] sudden-thoughts looks promising, and (unlike some other jazz boards) they've even linked back to organissimo for Chuck's remembrances of Malachi Favors. Nice writeup on a new Malachi Thompson disc (Delmark). Anyone here heard that one yet?

Patrick: sudden thoughts that's also chuckyd4 who posts here.

[JackTracy]

I was the editor of Down Beat in the 1950s, and after I left it to become a record producer I continued to read it for several years. But somewhere along the line they lost me. I don't believe I've seen more than two or three issues in as many recent years.

It's a lot prettier now, and they have four-color pictures and a far sleeker look than we did, but I miss the humor and raffishness and delight we all took in talking about jazz, in reporting its participants' whereabouts in regular reports from cities across the country, in the personal opinions of regular staffers and contributors such as Ralph Gleason, Nat Hentoff, Leonard Feather, Mike Levin, and John S. Wilson, and in the record reviews that covered the entire jazz spectrum from Bunk Johnson to Charlie Parker.

It was during my stretch there that we started such annual features as the Jazz Critics Poll and the Jazz Hall of Fame and tried to stimulate reader response by encouraging a lively letters to the editor section (Chords and Discords, it was called). We were the first to realize and encourage and report on the great impact such educational bases such as North Texas State, Eastman College and Berklee were beginning to have on our music.

And I think we had a tone and attitude that reflected jazz itself pretty well--we improvised a lot, even if sometimes it didn't come out too well; we tried in various ways to increase the size of our audience, so sometimes the purists moaned that we were selling out; we often tried so hard to be heard that we lost some of the crowd; but we always did our best to let you know that we absolutely loved what we were doing, that our best interests were on the side of jazz and its makers and that we wanted our audience to know it.

And above all, I think we exemplified the belief that although the music we so loved and espoused was serious and of infinite merit, we could write about it with a grin and pop a few balloons along the way.

You must remember, however, that I am now an official old fart who is talking about the good old days and you should take everything I say with a grain of salt.

Or with a shot of scotch.

Jack Tracy

[sheldonm]

Or with a shot of scotch.

Will do !

Mark