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

[Robair, Gino]

Although I agree with much of LX says, the opening premise was:
<<John Zorn asked writers not to review his performance opening the season
at St. Ann's Warehouse in Brooklyn, though he was pleased we wanted to
attend. How can/should an arts journalist comply?>>

If a guy, whose job it is to write, is asked to attend a show as a reviewer
but NOT write about it, that brings up one set of issues. A) He/She can say
fuck you to Zorn and go cover another show, hopefully by some unknown artist
who could use the ink, B) take the free tix and say fuck you and write about
it anyway, or C) buy a ticket and write about it.

If the writer is invited as a friend, but asked not write about it, that's
another set of issues. If he/she agrees to attend but not cover it in print,
one could consider it an NDA of sorts (a non-disclosure agreement).

But then again, Zorn's concert is happening IN A PUBLIC SPACE, and it is a
public concert. If this were some sacred ritual space, that's one thing. But
just because he doesn't feel like being covered because a writer might not
understand his work is not, how shall I say this, "good enough."

If he's being an artist in public, there's nothing to stop someone from
writing about it (just short of a bullet) if they so desire. At least this
was the case before our rights were shredded by the current
administration...

The question as to whether music criticism is valid is another topic.

Although we've all had our share of writers miss the point about our work, I
do think that there are writers that fully understand the dynamics of
creative music, and have something worthwhile to offer non-specialists and
general fans of music. We cannot dismiss all criticism just because a few
critics are lazy or crappy writers. Okay, perhaps a majority of them are
lazy and crappy, but still, there are some astute writers out there, who
aren't just using it to propel their own name.

Then there's Kyle Gann....