From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2002 #522 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/joni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Monday, November 25 2002 Volume 2002 : Number 522 Sign up now for JoniFest 2003! http://www.jonifest.com ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- njc why criticism - 2nd attempt at sendinf [vince ] Today in History: November 25 [ljirvin@jmdl.com] Today's Library Links: November 25 [ljirvin@jmdl.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:38:15 -0500 From: vince Subject: njc why criticism - 2nd attempt at sendinf Criticism in the arts is as old as the arts. The teaching of critical analysis of various fields of art - and other things - is taught, and has been since recorded history, and was certainly all the craze as far back as Aristotle and "Poetics." A critical review is an important review, in one sense of the word, as in "this is of critical importance." And critical views (as opposed to fawning reviews, ignorant reviews, puffery reviews) is of vital importance - shall I say, critical importance - to the study of the arts. I rely on critics to evaluate what I want to buy, see, or experience. I have certain reviewers that I go to for certain things -Blair Kanin on architecture, for example, the New Yorker and Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune for movies, Greg Kot of the Trib for concerts... Read a critic enough and you know the standards and biases of the critic. I could tell in two sentences from a Gene Siskel review if I wanted to see the movie or not, regardless of his opinion, because I knew what he looked for and what I look for and my experience of Siskel allowed me to make an informed decision. Critics know a lot more than I do about the subject at hand, where I am really subjective, I trust their professional expertise. I may search out a number of reviews, or sometimes, am content with one, depending on my needs, but if I really want to know about something, I check many reviews. I learn a great deal that way. (And what have all of the posts on T'log been but critical reviews of the album?) Of course there are crappy reviewers out there, and each reviewer has their places where I know my perspective differs. There a few bad drivers out there too but I am not going to suggest that we ban all driving. Reading Pauline Kael, Stanley Kaufman, and Gene Siskel taught me so much about cinema... Blair Kanin on architecture is an education in each review... As far as criticism, are we confusing this with nasty words said by someone who doesn't like us with a critical evaluation? Never then go see a movie with me, for I do a critical commentary on every movie I see as I leave the theater. (Me: I thought that plot was weak. Gage: Yes, it made no sense.) (An outstanding moment in my life was with Gage's father, Jeremy went to see Beverly Hills Cop II when he was maybe 9 or 10 and came home and said, "dad, you were right, the movie sucked. It was a series of disconnected scenes." Bingo, kid, you got it!) If someone attends a worship service that I take part in, I want critical commentary on me. Did I make sense? Did I present well? Did I perform well? Were my words and gestures and style real and sincere or wooden and forced? Did I speak too fast? Did I start talkin like a Chicagoan an drop the ends off of de wurds in a flat Chicago accent? The best sermon criticism I ever had, someone said, "good sermon but your views on [that subject] are myopic." Well, upon further examination, my views were indeed myopic! Thank God for the critical commentary! We had a sermon criticism class in seminary - we'd videotape ourselves and with the class review our performance, and if anyone saw me at the beginning (not that anyone has seen me now) you'd be as glad as I am that I had that class. Any service now to this day that is videotaped, I want to see to critically evaluate my performance. That is how I improve! And I bet every performing artist in the JMDL does the same thing with tapes and reviews from friends. We ask for, we desire, we lust for, we need criticism, reaction, our own critical analysis, so that we can improve. When I served as a chaplain at the U of Michigan Medical Center, we had small groups called IPR groups in which we would critique each other's interactions with patients. Damn did I learn a lot! It was essential to my growth in being a very good pastoral visitor now, and having learned the verbatim/critical response process, I can "IPR" myself on every visit and see where I missed something, where my approach was wrong, where I wasn't listening, where I said something that mattered to the patient. Last Stones tour they were roundly criticized for formula performing. They took it to heart. The current tour is amazing, and I doubt it would have been had it not been for the reviews that suggested that Rolling Stones, Inc. was selling a tired corporate product. The current tour is far improved. I learned so much in life reading book reviews, I can't imagine where I'd be today without those little seminars each week. In last Sunday's Chicago Tribune, an excellent review on Charles Bowden's Down By the River, a book on the drug cartels and their interdependency with the political aristocracy of Mexico, followed by a review on a subject of which i knew less than I do now,. the pioneering role of women in social activism in Chicago in the post Chicago Fire period which set the stage for Jane Adams and Hull House and a total re-definition of what it meant to assist those in need. As far as studying criticism, any good school with a cinema department will have classes in criticism. Hell, in seminary, I studied Biblical textual criticism, historical criticism, redaction criticism, among others, all vital to understanding the Scriptures and unlocking passages and solving those passages which seemingly make no sense and finding depths of meaning. Art criticism - a subject unto itself and I learned art appreciation by reading the critics and reviewers. Criticism is not trash talking. Criticism is a good thing. Of course it can be done meanly, in spite, and that perhaps happens far more in our personal lives than in our public lives. We have all been trash talked to the point of pain and tears and we can all cite reviews that just plain are no good. But that does not negate the essential and positive role that critical study, critical reviews, play in our own growth and understanding of ourselves and the arts. The simple sentence: Joni Mitchell is ______________ artist. Whatever you put there, is a critical comment. Which recorded version of Woodstock do we like best? The answer is a critical study of her various versions - not that critical means negative, it simply means a thoughtful examination based on one's knowledge, insights, and feelings. And because each critical review is not only objective ("her jazziest version") it is also subjective, and thus, I need either one very skilled critic whom I can rely upon (I know the biases and the amount of knowledge and can make my own judgment accordingly) or we need 800 critics to give us a body of critical studies from which to draw. And has not each of us had our understandings of T'log enhanced by the number of critical (not negative, but evaluative) comments posted on these boards? When I write something important I circulate the text amongst people I trust and beg for, pled for critical comments, not just proof reading, but critical comments. And, for example, on my last paper, Laurent found a serious flaw in my application of a descriptive word on a series of events that indeed not all of them fit that description. Since on that description my paper rises or falls, Laurent's critical comment (not negative, but critical, evaluative) was essential to fixing a fatal flaw in the paper, as well as challenge me on some too easy assumption I made and forced me to think and rethink in that area - so it was all good. The critical process is essential to the production of good work. (Another friend made some critical comments that were less than insightful and I noted them but the impacted nothing. Not all criticism is equally valid. And the friend who contributed nothing to me this time has made wonderful contributions through criticism in the past, and will again, i hope.) Last word; I did a public prayer at a community Thanksgiving service which brought together two communities that never do anything together. I worked very hard to work in some humor - ever try to write a prayer with humor in it and not make the prayer a joke? - with some simple jump points that would cause a sudden inversion of the symbol so that a new meaning would be lifted up: i.e., we give thanks not for what we have or want, but rather, we give thanks for what God has: us. So here is me, flaming leftist, with my prayer with humor that inverts the old understandings for new meanings and I got knowing laughs (no one laughs during prayer, it was a milestone new achievement and I loved it as the humor was not in the joke which didn't exist but in the irony of human life that is funny), a few humorous quips from the congregation (at least they were involved in the prayer!) and accomplished my goal of waking every one up to hang onto my next word rather than snooze through another typical, boring thanksgiving prayer. Then I did several symbol inversions, ending with the major symbol inversion re-emphasized as *the* point. Results: the very conservative preacher made a point of my "great prayer" and two rather conservative pastors commented that they loved my familiar, easy way of talking to God in public prayer as if it were a real conversation and not church talk (aha! I did it!) as well as grab common symbols from the gathered community that made the prayer about their reality, not about "spiritual" things (aha! I did it!) and the other conservative pastor said it was "really God-centered" which indeed was the attempt with the inversion of symbols. So I got reinforcing critical comments. Which was cool. And had someone pointed out something that could have ben better, where my attempt did not work as well as I had hoped, that would have been valuable as well so that I can improve my ability to do this. Long and boring, but I feel compelled to support the good and utterly essential role that critical evaluation, critical comments, critical reviews play in improving and understanding the arts and public performance. the ever boring (self criticism at its finest) Vince PS I would affirm that Britney Spears is a major talent, and a better talent, in the world of dance tunes usable in aerobics classes - a sub category of music in which she excels and Joni sucks, unless Joni is big time re-mixed and not always then. Will Britney last? I think not. But she has her niche, and she does her niche art well. The fact that other than its application in aerobics I have little use for it is just a factor of my life. The critical study of office furniture is a major concern of Herman Miller, located about 30 miles from me, where criticism of function, structure, lay out, and ergonomics of office furniture allows them to improve their products. Many people are in that field, critically analyzing office furniture, and every time I set in my new office chair, I am thankful. And I look to those people with a key to getting the feng shi of my office right. too. more boring - that's me! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 02:03:03 -0500 From: ljirvin@jmdl.com Subject: Today in History: November 25 1976: Joni joined The Band's "Last Waltz" at the Winterland Ballroom in San Francisco. She sang backup to Neil Young on "Helpless" and with The Band on "Acadian Driftwood", performs "Coyote", "Shadows And Light", and "Furry Sings The Blues", and joins Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, Neil Diamond, Dr John, and others for the grand finale "I Shall Be Released." More info: http://www.jonimitchell.com/LastWaltz.html - ---- For a comprehensive reference to Joni's appearances, consult Joni Mitchell ~ A Chronology of Appearances: http://www.jonimitchell.com/appearances.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 02:03:03 -0500 From: ljirvin@jmdl.com Subject: Today's Library Links: November 25 On November 25 the following items were published: 1970: "Alberta-born Singer Gets Raves in London" - Alberta Herald (Review - Concert) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=431 1982: "More Songs About Love From Joni Mitchell" - Rolling Stone (Review - Album) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=303 1982: "Wild Things Run Fast" - Rolling Stone (Interview, with photographs) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=302 1994: "Thirty Years With a Portable Lover" - Los Angeles Weekly (Biography, with photographs) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=165 - -------- Can you type? http://www.jmdl.com/typing/ ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2002 #522 ***************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe ------- Siquomb, isn't she? (http://www.siquomb.com/siquomb.cfm)