Dancing About Architecture
Critics are full of suggestions for how musicians can improve. Musicians counter: 'if you think it's so easy, lets see you get up here and play!' Well, writing about music is perhaps as difficult as playing it. To use words to describe what is innately a nonverbal, abstract form of expression is major leap. Whoever said 'writing about music is like dancing about architecture' (I have seen this credited to John Cage, Laurie Andersen, Steve Martin and Elvis Costello – maybe Bach said it?), it's a very apt line. I'd like to turn the tables and try to give writers who love creative music and want to support the scene some constructive criticism and suggestions. Like them, I have limited space so lets just deal with a basic item – the brief CD or concert review that is the bread and butter of music coverage.
Start with what is simplest and yet most difficult: describe what happens. Who is playing? What kind of sound did they make? How can the reader imagine this sound? What was notable about the immediate context of the performance? I feel its best to start out being as objectively descriptive as possible. Then when you express your more subjective views it feels like they are based on something substantive. Please be careful with discursive preambles. We don't need to know your social views, your large-scale concepts of music history (save that for your book), or what you had for dinner. In a short piece keep it about the particular musical performance.
We all admire artists who constantly challenge themselves, writers should do the same. If its difficult to be literal, one can be try to be imaginative and tactile: "whooshing smears that give one the impression of being suddenly picked up by a breaker and carried smoothly to shore." Whitney Balliett's compelling description of a Ben Webster solo gives the reader an image that both stimulates the imagination and makes her want to go out and hear the music. Its so easy to go right to other references: 'the music sounded like this other music', and start compiling a stylistic family tree which the reader may or may not follow. That is not descriptive, just referential. In addition, I find it is rarely written in an exciting fashion.
I think musical accounts too often start with negative description: 'Mr. A's group is not in the mainstream', 'Ms. B's arrangements are unlike her forebear's, Mr. X'. Be more direct: 'Senor C's playing combines abandon and control in a taut balance'. That is more interesting than saying his technique is finer than player Z (who the writer feels is sloppy) or has more abandon than player X (who the writer feels is too controlled). Constant comparisons can come off as the writer trying to show his erudition but often show ignorance instead. Many of the references are a cop-out. The writer is not really flexing his ears. A great example is the way all of us bass clarinet players are invariably called 'Dolphyesque'. We wish! There is no one who sounds like Eric Dolphy on bass clarinet! It's an example of mental laziness, and if, unfortunately, the reader doesn't know Dolphy, it's also meaningless. Listen for the music and not just the instrumentation.
Of course musicians love praise but I also feel that writers are most inspired when they write about what they love. A pan can be fun but rarely has poetry to it. Stanley Crouch attacking his many foes writes hissy, nasty prose. But to me, Crouch describing a Max Roach drum solo is a thing of beauty. Do your best to write about work you love, you will write better and the musician you admire will benefit. Furthermore, things are tough all over in jazz and creative music. We need to create a general excitement and herald the many artists whose work is underexposed. This is served by enthusiasm and not by snide denigration. If you want to pan Kenny G, ok, that is an almost socio-political statement. He is hyped by the mass media and a force in the dumbing-down of public taste. However, I think that in our small scene if you don't care for a musicians' work it usually suffices to ignore him.
Finally, more care could be paid to the basics. Run-on sentences, confused pronouns, overuse of the deadly dash, these technical faults abound in the music press. It can obscure both the accurate relaying of information and the writers' point of view.
Music is fulfilling but awfully difficult; writing about it is the same. Money and space are scarce for both. We all need to bring love, hard work and imagination to what we do.
