WaPo Jazz Piece: Is it Satire? It’s Terrible Either Way

Returning to that opinion piece on jazz I discussed earlier, there’s now someone in the comments claiming to be the author saying that the piece was actually meant to be satirical. There’s no flair confirming the commenter as the author, as is typical, so it’s pretty likely that it’s just someone else trying to cause more controversy.

Regardless, even if we take this at face value and the piece really is satire, the piece still fails at its purpose – perhaps more egregiously than if it were serious.

Taken as satire, it’s not really clear which parts are even satirical. There’s not really any humor to tip off the reader, nor is there anything that is so patently absurd it must be satire. In fact, the points made by the author are all things that one could easily imagine could be included in a serious (though misguided) opinion piece. The commenter claims that the piece can be identified as satire because of its poor arguments. Of course, this is something that a parody commenter account would say too. Anyway, parroting the poorly reasoned arguments of others is not satire. In common online parlance, it is trolling. If it is satire, this would be an example of a musical form of Poe’s Law: at some point a parody that is too serious becomes indistinguishable from real arguments.

Again assuming it is satire, I think the worst part may be the wildly inappropriate choice of venue. The author primarily writes morning news pieces for the Post with a mix of serious and pop culture news. He doesn’t seem to have much of a track record for opinion pieces, let alone a satirical piece about music on the actual opinion page. The Washington Post is probably the second most important newspaper in the country after the New York Times, so people tend to look to its opinion page for serious commentary on current events. There’s no reason to expect to see a satire by this author in this publication. I could understand seeing a snarking parody by Maureen Dowd in the Times opinion page but not this.

I also can’t remember ever seeing a piece about music on the opinion page. Because the Post opinion page focuses on politics and current events rather than media and entertainment, it is not an appropriate venue for parody or satire on a relatively obscure topic like jazz. One of the most important things about writing is knowing one’s audience, and the Post’s readership is not the right audience for satire. The average reader is simply not going to be knowledgable enough to recognize anything but the most obvious parody. A writer shouldn’t expect otherwise for a publication with such a broad audience. Satire would have more of a place in a publication specializing in music, as a more savvy audience would benefit more than the very general audience of a national newspaper.

Satire is meant to lead the audience to see the absurdity or the injustice being discussed. In a famous example, Swift’s Modest Proposal starts out giving serious arguments (Ireland has major problems with poverty) and gradually devolves into absurdity (fix overpopulation and poverty by eating Irish babies). If the audience can’t be expected to recognize absurd statements from reasonable ones, the satire fails. In the case of the Post opinion piece, the satire would have the opposite effect of what was intended. Uninformed readers would not be taught anything. They would go from uninformed to misinformed, having learned falsehoods from a supposed expert. Perhaps this was the point. Perhaps the author wanted to use the prominent position of his piece in the national media to laugh at the members of his audience who agree with his statements. That would mean that the Post’s editors also failed at their mission because it is left to people like me (and various bloggers far more knowledgable about the subject than me) to try to dispel these falsehoods.

Washington Post Opinion: Jazz is Terrible

On Friday, the Washington Post published an opinion criticizing jazz as being boring and pointless. Here’s a long post addressing his points.

The author, Justin Moyer, states that he studied jazz at Wesleyan but never had any real appreciation for the style and never got into the music made by the people he was learning from. It seems like studying jazz was probably a poor choice by the author if he never had any passion for it. Regardless, this is something that has some personal interest for me. I played jazz trumpet throughout middle and high school, and while I was never good enough to try to go into music as a profession, it is something that I continue to do as a hobby. Wesleyan holds an important place in my development as a listener and player of jazz as well. I really got started as a serious listener of jazz by checking out albums in Olin Library. I also spent a lot of time practicing in Wesleyan’s CFA (the arts complex), by the offices and practice rooms of the very men mentioned in the opinion piece as the author’s teachers.

Getting on to the author’s points:

1) Jazz often removes the lyrics from standards.

Moyer uses the example of “Take the ‘A’ Train.” In some movie Duke Ellington’s band includes a lyric mentioning taking the A train to Sugar Hill, which to the author “establishes” the song as an “African American anthem.” This is an odd point. These lyrics would have been added well after Ellington started playing the song, and possibly only appeared in the movie. The other thing is that if one wants the song to be an “African American anthem,” the reference to Sugar Hill is unnecessary. Many people would already be aware that the A train in Manhattan is the express train from Downtown and Midtown to Harlem, Washington Heights and Inwood. The title alone is sufficient. In fact, I think it’s even better to let listeners come to their own conclusions from the title and the music than to explicitly explain the meaning. As in film and literature, show, don’t tell.

This is also a pretty off-base point to make considering the development of music throughout history. Jazz in particular is fond of taking old pop, theater, or even earlier jazz standards and transforming them into something new. This is one of the things showing the originality of the genre. Any two artists can take the same song structure and come out with something that sounds completely different. In some cases, musicians only take the chord structure, so the name doesn’t necessarily refer to the melody or lyrics of the original song. The famous “Rhythm changes” (the chords from Gershwin’s “I Got Rhythm”) are maybe the best example of this.

Adapting older tunes in their entirety or even just adding short quotations is a centuries old tradition as well. Just look at all the examples of quotations of Dies Irae, a plainchant hymn that’s over 700 years old. It’s included as part of the Requiem mass with famous examples by Mozart, Brahms, Verdi, etc. It’s quoted in secular music such as in the last movement of Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique (though apparently some found its inclusion offensively blasphemous), Liszt’s Totentanz, and in more modern pieces like Crumb’s Black Angels (though it’s much harder to find than in the examples from the Romantic period). A sample was included in a hip hop song from the 2000s (I don’t know the name). In other media, it shows up in Bergman’s Seventh Seal, while one of the common endings (Pie Iesu domine/Dona eis requiem) famously pops up in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The fact that these are wildly different adaptations of the same original tune does not detract from their quality. Nor does the lack of lyrics in some of them diminish the meaning of the quotation. A discerning, educated audience will understand the reference.

2) Improvisation is overrated.

The author’s point seems to be that some people think all improvisation is great, while he still thinks that great music is made all the more impressive if it is great improvisation. This is a reasonable point, but is an illogical one to criticize jazz as a genre. It maybe is more of a criticism of jazz listeners. He uses Phish and the Grateful Dead as examples of often bad improvisation (typically called “noodling” if the band is just playing endlessly without doing anything interesting). He also criticizes jazz guitarist Wes Montgomery for not being interesting enough. Again, this is a criticism that can be leveled at lesser artists but not many of the jazz greats. You can’t judge a style based only on the artists you don’t like. Furthermore, just because a song has the kind of style that makes it good to play as background music doesn’t make it bad. There’s no reason why a mid-tempo tune with a pleasant tone and laid-back style can’t be great.

3) The style hasn’t really gone anywhere in a while.

The idea that jazz has been stuck in a rut is the one position here that I think can be reasonably argued. I actually don’t know a lot about what’s been going on in terms of artists pushing the limits of jazz in recent years. The author mentions some jazz/hip hop hybrids, which he dismisses as tired and tame, but it at least shows that jazz isn’t completely stuck in some glorious past.

I think it is true that the jazz fanbase is largely people nostalgic for music from decades ago, but this is true of many genres. Many people listen to classical music but tend to prefer the Classical, Baroque, and Romantic periods and modern facsimiles. This doesn’t mean that groundbreaking avant-garde composers don’t exist. They just aren’t what the broader community of listeners prefer. The same will be true of jazz as well.

It’s not a fair point to say that audiences like jazz because it’s black music made safe for nostalgic white audiences (this is implied but not directly stated) rather than something like Big Freedia. This clearly shows that the author has a strong preference for upbeat dance music over other styles. This really helps build a case that the author at the very least never cared for jazz as it evolved after the Big Band era. I think this fact alone negates the author’s position as a jazz insider who has grown to dislike the genre.

4) The word “jazz” is applied to too many things.

For example, the writing of the Beat Generation has often been compared to bebop, as have many things in many other artistic media. This is probably true but irrelevant to the thesis of the piece. Calling things that aren’t jazz jazz doesn’t have any bearing on actual jazz. Moyer simply brings up the non-sequitor of “jazz” the aesthetic (really the bebop fan/beatnik stereotype) to criticize “jazz” the style of music. I suppose it perhaps is difficult to come up with a definition of jazz based solely on the music and not on the historical progression of the style, but this is just a sign that the style has evolved from its origins.

5) Jazz is no longer underground dance music.

This is inevitable if a style becomes popular. The general population becomes comfortable with some sub-styles of the music, some musicians become famous, people start studying it in an academic fashion, etc. Calling this co-option (commodification maybe better describes some of the things brought up here) trivializes many of the things that made jazz great. Jazz developed over a very difficult period in American history but played an important role in helping make the country better. Duke Ellington and Ella Fitzgerald are cultural icons and towering figures in the development of jazz. Google Doodles and postage stamps are honoring their place in history and also in some cases explicitly honoring their role as famous black Americans in a time when just being black in America was dangerous. Moyer basically even  says earlier in the piece that Ellington’s activism should be acknowledged more than it is.

Furthermore, jazz is one of the few examples of a truly American art form. It developed out of a number of different musical traditions into something new and unique. It is a form of black American music that captured the imagination of the whole country even during the Jim Crow era. Even white musicians such as Benny Goodman used jazz’s popularity to start pushing for change. New styles that emerged from the Big Band era such as bebop – styles that the author dislikes – were developed so that jazz could be something more than just inconsequential dance music. Jazz musicians wanted jazz to be an art form, not a commercialized product. Honestly, I think the author gets this point reversed. The popular dance music forms of jazz represent society trying to co-opt jazz (although I do like many swing artists), not the less-commercial modern jazz developed as a response. I don’t think I’ll ever understand why it’s a bad thing for people to have intellectual discussions about jazz and why it’s bad to acknowledge jazz’s and jazz musicians’ places in American society and American history.

Court: NCAA Must Allow Some Types of Compensation

In related news to the recent approval of more autonomy for the major conferences, a federal judge also announced this past week that the NCAA cannot restrict colleges from offering certain types of compensation, such as a trust holding some percentage of licensing revenue (though it can cap the amount).

This will further erode the competitiveness of Division I since there are vast disparities in resources and popularity between different schools. It is good that the NCAA can impose a cap, since allowing compensation for things like licensing would heavily favor schools in larger states/markets or states with fewer schools. Unlike professional sports, there rules governing which schools get in which division are not that strict. Some major markets (i.e. New York/Boston) have only one or two teams while some small markets (e.g. Raleigh-Durham) can have a number of teams which might dilute the financial resources of any individual school.

This seems like a natural consequence of running athletics like a for-profit business. As I stated before, I would like to see the money taken out of college athletics and for athletics to take a less prominent place in college life. So, I fall into the “reform” camp rather than the “market” camp of Andy Schwarz’s terminology. However, I do think that it’s wrong for colleges to be licensing actual players names and likenesses. This is especially problematic when athletes are specifically outlawed from making any money from their own name. There have been a few cases where athletes with other interests, such as music, could risk their eligibility by performing. Under the current rules, everyone except the players can make money off the players’ names.

Obviously, I’m not a lawyer so I can’t comment on the actual legal effects of the ruling. However, it seems to me like this decision could be either good or bad for the NCAA depending on how the schools respond. It might finally force schools to make a choice between profit and the student-athlete ideal. While I think many schools (the SEC) will choose profit, others (perennial losers as well as top schools like Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Rice, Notre Dame, etc) may start to de-emphasize athletics since switching to an outwardly for-profit athletics model may be highly unpopular with students and alumni. It will be difficult for many schools to justify paying more money to athletes when athletics are heavily funded by tuition and fees even at many fairly successful schools. Students won’t want to see tuition rise year after year so that some football players can be coddled even more than they already are.