Recently there have been several letters to the editor expressing concerns about Chicago Tribune critic Howard Reich’s remarks vis-a-vis the Chicago Jazz Festival, as well as the criteria and style he uses to review jazz performances. There seemed to be a defensiveness and provincialism common to all these critical letters that reflects the essence of the debate about the role of an arts critic and the state of jazz in Chicago.
The notion that Mr. Reich should be more “positive” is naive. Non-conditional positivism promotes stasis and creates a false sense of profound accomplishment. Further, it reflects a lack of intense discrimination necessary for artistic growth, healthy competition and a rigorous evaluation of performance.
Why would we want a jazz critic to engage in such superficial, non-contingent criticism? Why would we want a jazz critic to give in to public and media pressure and water down the art form that he has been hired to critique? Why would we want a jazz critic to blur the important distinctions between “smooth jazz,” pop music and great jazz?
To the extent that there is a truly viable, nationally competitive jazz scene in Chicago, having a critic who holds performers, administrators and educators to the absolute standard of excellence established by the likes of Wes Montgomery, Miles Davis, Randy Weston, Victor Lewis, Lester Young, Art Tatum, et al., should be a source of pride and inspiration.
