Why Our Jazz Magazines Are Bad…And May Not Get Better

by Anthony Medici in Editorials, Industry News, Opinion Posts

Well, it seems as if I have created a bit of a kerfuffle as a result of my post, “Why Our Jazz Magazines are Bad… and Bad for Jazz.” Who knew? It’s nice to know our little blogspot is getting some attention. In fact, Lee Mergner, editor of Jazz Times, on another website that I happened to come across by chance, huffed and puffed and, showing way more energy than in anything I have read by him or his staff of high-powered writers lately, tried to blow our post down. He didn’t even come close. The fact is, such an apoplectic response tells me that I have struck a nerve, and that the nerve was worth striking. One line from Lee’s blog post really caught my attention:

“For the record, I believe firmly that JazzTimes and Downbeat are much better magazines than most people in the jazz community realize.”

Lee, if “most people in the jazz community” don’t see the value in what Jazz Times and your colleagues at Downbeat put out each month, don’t you think it’s time for you to start trying to understand why they feel this way, start trying to listen to their concerns and criticisms, and start trying to make the sort of changes your magazine needs to make to again become a relevant and worthwhile voice in the jazz community?

For those who have come late to the fray, let me recapitulate my argument, and perhaps clarify it a bit, as well as respond to some of Lee’s remarks. In a nutshell, these are my objections to the current state of jazz journalism, as practiced by JT and DB:

1) they play Frick and Frack with their cover stories, e.g., if DB touts the dreadful David Sanborn with a cover story, then JT must do so as well. This game has been going on for a while, but has become really noticeable lately. Anyone for originality?

2) Many of the cover stories, meretricious in their content, seem to me clearly driven by the hype-of the-month PR machine. Lee says he turns down a lot of these PR items; he needs turn down more.

3) The writing is bathed in the sort of teflon coating that gives many of the articles in both magazines a synthetic quality. In musical terms, it’s the difference between drums and a drum machine. Instead of writers presenting an independent and individual style, the writing is often as homogenized as a McDonald’s shake. The articles tend to follow the style laid down by such magazine’s as Vanity Fair, which honed the “celebrity profile” to a vacuous new height.

4) A writer on another blog, in commenting on the remarks in my post, described the magazines’ writing as “rah-rah” writing, which I think is quite accurate. It’s often more boosterism and even sheer puffery than thoughtful assessment and independent thinking.

5) Lee tries to call me out by reciting a roster of big names that he features in his magazine, including Gary Giddins and Nate Chinen. I respect these guys, and Nate’s columns strike me as trying sincerely to get inside the current jazz scene and offer unique perspectives; I just woudn’t call him scintillating. Giddins has a long track record and has done some great stuff: I just don’t think he is doing that great stuff for JT. Too often Gary seems to be phoning it in; he clearly can do better, but is he being asked to?

6) Which leads me to the subject of editing. I’m not referring only to copy editing, although Lee, not surprisingly, seems to make the same mistake in this regard as some other readers. I’m referring to the editor’s larger role: finding the great writers; giving them the environment, freedom and encouragement, in which they can do their best writing; yes, demanding their best writing; constantly reevaluating the magazine lest it become stale and formulaic; and, doing what they can to make each magazine issue important and interesting, so that readers do realize the magazine’s value to the jazz community. This is not happening.

7) “Raiding the Morgue”– that’s what I call the frequent cover stories and feature articles on long gone jazz greats. Lee argues that the magazine puts out some great articles and cites those on Rahssan Roland Kirk and Tony Williams. These are examples of “raiding the morgue” i.e., putting Miles, or Coltrane, or Kirk, or some other great on the cover to drive sales. I love these guys, but the problem with these and other such articles is that they rarely bring anything new to the discussion. They feed readers’ nostalgia rather than offering new and challenging material, and they take away from engagement with what’s happening now, and where the scene is going.

 Is it all bad? No. There is, against increasing odds, some good stuff in each magazine, but it’s showing up amidst the sterility of much else in the magazines. I feel like one of those Arctic creatures that must get under the ice, then under the permafrost, then root down, to find something nutritional. Or to put it another way, one is forced to digest a pound of rubbish to get an ounce of nutrient.

9) “Bad for jazz”– JT and DB are in an important position relative to the current and future existence of jazz, more so than many other magazines. For the reasons listed above, right now they are offering a product that, as Lee admits, most people in the jazz world don’t value. In my view, the magazines are acting as a drag on the future of the music. Unless DB and JT turn it around, rethink what they are doing, and revamp their content, the situation will get worse and the magazines themselves risk the fate of so many bygone journals that failed to adapt.

A few last remarks:
I don’t work with or for or have any relationship with Princeton Record Exchange. My blog posts are not anonymous, as one individual asserted rather fancifully under a pseudonym on another blog; my name is on every post. One online jazz site got a little bent that I didn’t discuss them. I thought that it was clear that I was focusing on print media only. However, it does give me an idea for a future post!