Please notice that we’re beginning another week of Rifftides with a fresh batch of Doug’s Picks. As always, we would appreciate knowing how you like hearing, watching and reading them. You’ll find them in the right column.

Rifftides reader Janet Shapiro, a veteran of the classical recording industry who produces television broadcasts of classcial music, saw our most recent installment of the applause debate. It concerned Bill Kirchner’s hold-your-applause experiment the other night. She wrote:

Classical music is struggling to move in the opposite direction – the aficionados still shush the newbies at concerts when they make the “mistake” of applauding between movements, making the same argument that Bill Kirchner did. This has become a hot topic in classical music circles, but I must admit, as a knee-jerk applauder of jazz solos myself, I never thought of it as an issue in the jazz world.

Janet suggested that it would be a good idea to draw my artsjournal.com colleagues Drew McManus and Greg Sandow into this diablog.
In an e-mail message, Greg, the proprietor of Sandow, responded with these comments:

First, different strokes. It’s good for everyone to try something different, and shake the dust off. Jazz maybe benefits from stopping the ritual applause; classical music could gain by canning the ritual silence.

Second, a little more dubiously, this sounds like a step in the classicization of jazz, which isn’t always a good thing.

Third, if the audience applauds, jazz musicians have a resource classical musicians don’t. They can vamp till the applause dies down, or at least play music that’s not going to lose anything if it’s partly covered by applause. Last night, prowling around Amazon’s new free downloads, I came across an Italian opera performance in which the audience started cheering in the middle of an aria. But they picked the right place to do it. The music they covered didn’t lose a thing. (This was Carlo Bergonzi, singing “Di quella pira” from Trovatore sometime in the ’60s. The audience cheered and clapped at the end of the aria proper, as the coda was beginning. The music worked fine with that, just a lot of noisy riffs from the orchestra.)

Finally, is there a danger in getting what you wish for? Or file this under the department of unforseen consequences. I know classical musciians, including many of my Juilliard students, who’d love some reaction from the audience. “Are they out there? Do they care? What are they thinking?” Of course, it’s different in a club, when you can see the whites of your audience’s eyes. A concert hall is more anonymous. So, as a counterpart to what you’re saying, Doug, I had a student a few years ago who passed out a flyer at her graduate recital. “Please make noise. Interrupt the music any time you want. Cheer, shout, boo, yell, laugh, anything!” Or words to that effect. Comes back to different strokes…..

Drew McManus is a specialist in orchestra management. His thoughts came in a posting on his blog, Adaptistration.

It’s all quite fascinating when you compare it to orchestra concerts; consequently, the topic would have made good fodder for an episode of “The Twilight Zone”…

Nevertheless, some of the discussion will ultimately come down to how artists relate with their audience. It’s akin to having a new dance partner but not being able to figure out who gets to lead. Should the audience behave how they wish or should the artists create an environment, complete with rules and regulations, which instructs patrons on how to experience the event?

For orchestra managers, the latter is a web which becomes tangled all too often, with results leading to an antiseptic, artificial concert environment. Just visit the website for your local orchestra and see if they have a first-timers guide, “how to prepare” or a FAQ section which “suggests” how you should experience the concert.

There’s much more on this from Drew. His conclusion is hilarious. To read the whole thing, click here.
Now, how about a big hand for Bill, Janet, Greg and Drew.
Er……
And you? If you’re not too busy applauding, let us know your position on this matter, which is not crucial, merely fascinating.

Carl Doering has given me permission to show Rifftides readers the message he posted yesterday on the Jazz West Coast listserve.

Folks,

I am so excited. The day before yesterday, Miles Davis was elected to the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame. What a great day for the jazz world. Finally one of its own has gained enough stature to be included with such luminaries as Elvis Presley, The Animals, Michael Jackson and the never-to-be-forgotten AC/DC. Miles
can now rest in peace. His legacy will live on.

I wonder if anyone can nominate someone to the hall of fame.
Think what it would do for the reputation of Stan Kenton.
I know Duke would have been proud.

Let’s start a campaign to get some more jazz folks in.

I’m proud to be a jazz fan.

Carl Doering

Sweet Home, Chicago

To find out how to join the Jazz West Coast listserve, send a message to this address.

In my Jazz Times review of a Bill Charlap concert, I included this observation:

The complexity and clarity of Charlap’s work and the trio’s unity were compelling, nearly mesmerizing. Their listeners were frequently so engrossed that they abandoned the self-conscious rote clapping after each solo that jazz audiences have come to believe is an obligation. The audience’s concentration on the music was a far greater expression of appreciation than little explosions of applause.

That provoked Bill Kirchner to try an experiment for his own concert at the New School in New York Monday night. He called the concert “Everything I Love.” This was the band:

Bill Kirchner, soprano saxophone
Eddie Monteiro, MIDI-accordion, vocals
Ron Vincent, drums
Jackie Cain, vocals
Nicki Rivers, vocals

This is the paragraph Kirchner added to his program notes:

Most of us as jazz listeners learned early on that it is considered “good manners” to applaud at the end of every solo–good, bad, or indifferent. There are even “jazz for kids” books that tell youngsters that if they don’t clap for every solo, the performers will be offended.

This mindless custom serves no purpose other than to interfere with truly hearing the music, especially the beginnings of each solo. If you want a key to a jazz performer’s intent, listen to how he or she starts a melody or an improvisation.

So for tonight, we’d like to relieve you, the audience, of the burden of rote clapping for solos. At the end of each selection, if we’ve done something that moves you, we of course hope that you’ll respond enthusiastically.

If this new concept of “jazz etiquette” appeals to you and enables you to hear the music better, please tell your friends. Maybe together we can start a movement!

This is Bill’s report on the experiment:

Well, the concert went very well–full and enthusiastic house, and
all the cats played and sang great. Despite my program notes, people
still clapped for every solo, which perhaps indicates that 1) some
folks don’t read programs too carefully and/or 2) the
clapping-for-every-solo habit is so ingrained in so many jazz
listeners that’s it’s automatic.

But if an audience digs the music and responds, I can hardly complain.

If you missed the concert, you’ll find the same group, minus Nicki Rivers, in top form on the new Kirchner CD, also titled Everything I Love. (Patience; it’s a slow downloader.) For my mini review of the album, click here.

The deadline and I are neck and neck heading down the stretch. I have every intention of winning, so bear with me. I may be able to post some little Rifftides bauble tomorrow. The article, for Jazz Times, is only a couple of thousand words, but it requires an extensive amount of listening, so much that by the time it’s done, there will be a violation of the writers minimum wage law. Where’s my agent?
What do you mean, I don’t have an agent?
Oh, that’s right. I fired him.
What do you mean, there’s no writers minimum wage law?
Now you tell me.

Bill Crow, the stalwart bassist and indispensable jazz anecdotist, comments on the Rifftides posting about the separation of reporting from advertising.

I’m glad you brought up the news/advertising issue in newspapers. And it isn’t just the advertisers…it’s the editors. I rely on The New York Times for a lot of the information I want, but I’m afraid it isn’t the paper it once was. There seems to be a new editorial policy to make the front page more entertaining. There are hardly any straight news stories any more. Everything is written with a byline, and with a personal slant. It bugs me to have to wade through three paragraphs of cute writing in a news story before I can find out what happened.

Every day or so, the Times notes in its Corrections department a mistake that was made “due to an editing error.” They’ve got to find this editor and stop him before he edits again!

The piece about Randolph Scott brought a comment from Frank McGrath in New York.

About two years ago, I gave up on trying to find classic movies at my local Blockbuster video store, and I started a subscription to Netflix. After reading your Rifftides piece on Randolph Scott, I went to Netflix.com and found that about two dozen of his movies are available, including Seven Men from Now. I’m pretty happy with Netflix, especially never having to pay a late fee.

Hmmm. I may try it. Thanks for the tip

Joshua Breakstone, the melodically inspired guitarist, writes, also from New York:

Thanks for the link to Terry Teachout’s article on Randolph Scott. As great as the lines you quoted in your piece are, it’s genius- no doubt- to come up with an observation on the order of “The dashing young leading man of the Thirties now looked as though he’d been carved from a stump, and every word he spoke reeked of disillusion.” It’s brilliant, it’s illuminating and heart wrenching at the same time, it’s got time, cadence, rhythm, what a line!

I feel the hot breath of a deadline on my neck. For a day or two, posting may have to take a back seat to necessity. But check in tomorrow. You never know, I may have a burst of speed and be able to feed Rifftides a little something. In the meantime, be sure to visit the fine artsjournal.com blogger colleagues (blogeauges?) in the right-hand column.

“…on Jazz And Other Matters,” it says up there on the masthead, or whatever a masthead is called in blogese. You may have noticed that the other matters occasionally include journalism. News is where I came from, and my conviction is as strong as ever that a free flow of information through the news is essential to the survival of the democracy. The flow can be impeded as easily—perhaps more easily—from inside news organizations than from outside.
Increasing fiscal pressures on newspapers and traditional broadcast journalism companies are forcing them to look for ways to increase revenue in order to survive. Deep staff cuts are a cost-cutting method at nearly all major newspapers, including the Boston Globe, the Knight-Ridder papers, the papers of the Tribune Company and at The New York Times, which is about to make a big reduction in manpower.
Another way to increase revenue and profitability to stockholders is to make the newspaper more attractive to advertisers. It must be tempting, if you own a newspaper, to break down the traditional separation between the news side of the paper and the advertising department. There are plenty of advertisers eager for credibility they think will come from a more direct connection with news content, and there are plenty of good reasons why a breakdown of separation is a bad idea for a news organization.
In a recent column, Byron Calame of The New York Times wrote about why it’s a bad idea. Calame retired after years as the number-two man on the news side at The Wall Street Journal and contracted with The Times to be its ombudsman—the paper’s independent in-house monitor and critic of news practice. Here is some of what he wrote:

Why is the line between news and advertising so important? I hold to the traditional view, that readers trust a paper more when there’s a clear separation. Advertisers are attracted to readers who trust what’s in the news columns. And the resulting revenue enables the newspaper to keep providing high-quality journalism.

Advertising, of course, is the major source of revenue for newspapers. Although The Times doesn’t break out the numbers, advertising appears to account for about twice as much revenue as circulation does.

The sky isn’t falling at The Times. But I see a few worrisome indications that advertisers are being allowed to tap into the credibility of the news columns in ways that slip over the line.

To read Barney Calame’s entire column, click here. His warning is important for The New York Times and for the print and broadcast news business at large. It is important for all citizens, regardless of whether they are disenchanted with the performance of news organizations. If you have thoughts about it one way or the other, please share them with your fellow Rifftides readers. You will find the e-mail address in the right-hand column.
If you wonder why a jazz guy is addressing an issue like this one, see “About Rifftides” at the top of the right column.