[NewMusic] John Zorn gives out the comps but bans reviews

[Sarah - 21 Grand]

On the other hand, what if the writer published a nice article about said
musician in advance of the concert that led to increased attendance? Now,
I'm just a mere concert promoter, but I believe Mr. Slusser was also pleased
with Derk Richardson's article that ran prior to the Rubber City CD release
concert, and we didn't charge him admission.

The thing is, press tends to generate more press. A review might not
directly result in profit for the musician for the show reviewed, however, a
good review will often lead to future coverage that will likely increase
attendance at performances and record sales, as well as, if one is playing
the grant game or the residency game, the review in a significant
publication is a valuable piece of the application, and thus can actually
lead to the musician being given money to do the work said musician wants to
do with less concern for market realities.

Yes, the internet sure allows more people to publish garbage about art and
music. Yes, a significant number of people paid to write about music are
lazy, ignorant, and bad writers, but not all of them. But maybe John Zorn
does think that all music writers suck ... he's the genius, after all. And
geniuses are never wrong, right?

sl

Mr. Slusser wrote:
ingus said it succinctly,
"Charge those sons of bitches".  The
writer and the publication are making
money off the performance (not a lot,
but they ultimately profit from it).