Jazz, even lovers of the music may agree, is a minority sport. (Yes, I know the Ezras won the Mercury Prize, but still…). By the same token, jazz journalism is more marginal still. If the number of people making some kind of a living in this country just from writing or broadcasting about jazz is in double figures, that would be a surprise.
So jazz journalism, such as it is, is mainly a part-time thing, a freelance thing, or a mostly unpaid thing – on blogs or local radio stations, or their more recent incarnations: substack newsletters and podcasts.
Happily, though, in the home of jazz, there are somehow enough people writing about it to keep the US Jazz Journalists Association going, with a membership of 200 or so for its 40-year existence. And this is their book.
Well, not all of them, though it does feel a bit like it. This large and somewhat haphazard collection has contributions from 90 writers and photographers. Writers answered a call to send in up to three favourite pieces, and one from each is presented here (we are not told if anyone didn’t make the cut, but with 67 articles I’m guessing the reviewers decided to be inclusive).
The result can properly be called an omnibus or, less politely, a miscellany. The pieces chosen were loosely organised into categories after selection, and are interspersed with some excellent black and white photos, mostly conventional musician portraits.
The book begins well, in a section headed Legends, with strong pieces by Ted Panken, writing behind the scenes of Sonny Rollins’ Carnegie Hall reunion with Roy Haynes in 2007, and Michael Jackson, interviewing Keith Jarrett at home for Downbeat some years after the pianist’s stroke. After that, the interest begins to flag a little. None of the other 65 pieces are actually bad. But plenty are, well, inconsequential. There are reviews of gigs and liner notes here, book extracts and reflections on venues, reappraisals of historical figures and encomia to new players. The coverage is wide, but it’s not exactly an overview of 21st century jazz. Your favourite player probably isn’t here. And if you’re not already committed to the music, I’m not sure this would entice you.
That feeling stays with this reviewer after doing my duty and reading all the pieces here, 600-odd pages worth, in order. More sensible people won’t do that, and for those who browse there are plenty of worthwhile things to dip into. Some, like Nate Chinen’s 2010 examination of Sun Ra’s career and later influence, Art Lange on Albert Ayler, or Ashley Kahn’s investigation of new jazz émigrés in Europe, are from expected names. There are plenty more from writers less well known.
Still, the collection as a whole lacks real sparkle. Is that a comment on the writers? Only partly. True, I don’t believe there’s anyone writing about jazz today who writes as well as, say, critics like Robert Hughes (art), Clive James (almost anything) or Martin Williams (back to jazz). But most of the writing here is fine – only a handful of pieces triggered my old sub-editor’s pencil twitch. However, criticism isn’t what jazz journalism is about, on the whole. Nor, to go by these pieces, is it usually about analysis or investigation. The default mode is promotional: not PR but usually something close to it. Jazz journalists are proselytisers, first and foremost.
This gives me a problem. I too like to accentuate the positive, as does this website. I hardly ever agree to review any music here that I don’t already know I like. Life is too short, and there’s far too much on offer, to dwell on stuff that seems poor, or even merely average. Other kinds of jazz are always available. There’s a permanent profusion of unheard music and it’s easy to decide just to highlight things people might otherwise miss that one is sure deserve their attention.
Yet reading a succession of pieces that are fuelled by pure enthusiasm grows wearing surprisingly quickly. Unless the writing is startlingly good, it’s hard not to just note inwardly, “here’s another good thing I could check out but probably won’t get round to’, and move on. Writers, I fear, know this, and respond by laying the praise on thicker. Many musicians here are visionary. All, it feels, were inspired by awesomely talented elders, worked hard, and achieved astounding levels of skill that allow them to deliver near-transcendental work.
And I’m sure they really are all doing great things. But exaggerating the virtues, when all you are really saying is either, “this is pretty good, of its kind”, or “if you like this kind of thing, then here’s something you’ll like”, risks falling into a journalistic rut.
I don’t have a solution to that problem, and as a listener avid for pointers to new music I wish more power to all in the JJA. But I’ll be keeping my e-copy of this book not just for the couple of dozen pieces of enduring interest, but also for some reminders of a writing register to avoid – unless, of course, something really is a work of genius.