4 ms·
I’ve always much preferred Dana of the two Gioia brothers, and mostly for this reason. Ted is a great jazz critic and historian, but his constant sense of being
by cbfrench 3y ago
I’ve always much preferred Dana of the two Gioia brothers, and mostly for this reason. Ted is a great jazz critic and historian, but his constant sense of being impressed with himself is just too much. I had a friend in grad school—an exceptionally good amateur historian of music himself—who got into a fight with Ted about music on Ted’s Facebook page. My friend offered a pretty cogent and insightful defense of popular music, to which Ted responded with disdainful bloviating. Ted is the kind of elitist who is is adamant that he isn’t one—as though his background somehow precludes it. (Nevermind that background, while beginning in a working-class milieu, also includes two degrees from Stanford, a degree from Oxford, and a stint at McKinsey.)
- cushychicken 3y agoTo own my own biases: nothing interesting has happened in jazz for at least a half century. I have as much use for a jazz critic as I do for a telegraph operator. (All of the really good shit in jazz is live, not on record, anyway.) Not to mention the fact that I have about zero fucks to spare for a critic who isn't a musician.
- cbfrench 3y agoI also don’t get the sense that if anything interesting had happened, Ted would think it was worthwhile in any way, lol.
- whycome 3y ago…would not?
- cushychicken 3y agoRephrase: "Ted would not recognize an important moment in jazz if it happened in his presence."
- cbfrench 3y agoThat’s correct. I was insufficiently caffeinated when writing that comment, and clarity suffered accordingly!
- cbfrench 3y agoWould is correct there (i.e., “I don’t think Ted would think”), but my syntax is very convoluted. Thanks for the catch.
- whycome 3y agoNo your writing is technically correct. My reading comprehension was just off there