So now “Django Gold,” the Onion writer responsible for that unfunny “satire” of the great Sonny Rollins published recently in The New Yorker, is back to defend himself. (Note: Gold is NOT the guy in the above pic).
I’m not going to take a deep dive into his guest column for JazzTimes online, headlined “Notes From the Backlash.” It’s just not that substantial. But the gist of it is this: “Hey, jazz people, it’s your fault if you didn’t get the joke. Lighten up.”
As one observer noted, that’s kind of like a stand-up comedian blaming the audience for not laughing.
And as I wrote in my initial response to Gold’s original (but not so original) piece, the most unfunny part of the whole affair is this: In a period when The New Yorker offers very little serious, in-depth coverage of jazz, why would the once revered magazine give space to Gold’s kind of nonsense?
To borrow Gold’s words: “Pretty square, if you ask me.”
Which brings us to another point: If a “satire” piece requires the author to explain it or defend it via another column, then could it be possible that the original piece wasn’t very effective, and its intent was unclear?