Okay, against my better instincts and risking limb and flame, I'll bite. Fortunately, I don't think anyone actually knows where I live so I can't have my house bombed.
First, I agree that it's appropriate for less accomplished musicians to assess more accomplished musician's skills because that's how we learn. We need to form opinions, uneducated or not to improve our musicianship and artistry. As long as we're open to changing our minds later with better skill and/or info.
As a less developed player than John Clayton or Lynn Seaton, my opinion is an entire lifetime's less informed than theirs. Still, the audience doesn't only consist of such masterful musicians. So, I agree that it's reasonable for less accomplished players to assess more developed players performances and not all of those performances will be up to their best work.
For example, Ella Fitzgerald recorded a bossa nova album. In my opinion, it's pretty awful because she never acquired the bossa sway rhythm correctly. Do I think any less of her? A bit, I suppose because I wish she had learned more about the style before doing the recording. Does it matter? Not really. She was still a genius, IMO. And, one could argue that she did the album her way and that's enough. I don't agree, but I do think it's a matter of opinion.
As to this specific article about Keith Jarrett: I believe that Jarrett intentionally tries to create an *artistic* effect about his performances which disrespects his audience. Call it *marketing*. His recent incident in Italy demonstrates my point: he stopped playing when someone in the audience took a photo with a flash. The audience member should not have done that, certainly, but Jarrett also should not have interrupted the performance to scold the audience, IMO. It would have been more appropriate to continue the set and remind the audience between sets. The audience IS paying to be there, so I feel that Jarrett crossed the line in that case. Biting the hand that feeds him. You could argue that tantrums like this further elevate his *artistry* but I don't buy it, personally. Even the most genius artistic performer is a performer. Otherwise, why play for others? Just play for yourself - no interruptions, no schedule, no jet-lag, NO MONEY.
Finally, Jarrett's playing is, I believe, authentically, him. It's not Bill Evans or others. It feels authentic to my ear but I, personally, don't enjoy his trio work as much as I enjoy Evans with LaFaro. And, as good as Gary Peacock is in this setting, he's not Scott LaFaro. I almost always enjoy Jack DeJohnette's playing however. I do chalk that up to personal preference. Is that a slight to Jarrett? Not really, because they're different musicians at different times. Do I enjoy Jarrett's recordings? Definitely. As much as Evans and LaFaro? No. Will I stop buying Jarrett's recordings because of that? No. Do I think Shipp has a point? Not really, because Jarrett isn't Evans. Do I enjoy every note that Jarrett plays? No. Did I enjoy every recording of Evans LaFaro? No. I think some of Jarrett's recordings are great and others don't quite work, as Shipp points out. I think that's the nature of true jazz. Some of it's brilliant and most of it isn't and I'm good with that if once in a while I get that brilliance.
The good news is now I can rely on others to tell me how I'm wrong. All I ask is that you be gentle, and kind. It's not me you're criticising but my ill-informed opinion, and I'm open to changing my opinion.
Final point, man, now I'm really in for it: I admire McBride and Ron Carter's mastery and talent. I even admire and cop specific phrases that they've played, but I don't usually enjoy their performances. I MUCH prefer Ray Brown, Lynn Seaton, and Scott LaFaro. I understand why many folks love Ron Carter, he is brilliant, no argument, but I don't enjoy his playing as much as they do and I think it's just personal preference because there's no doubt that they're unbelievably talented bassists.
