98
WILLIAM YOUNGREN
spread,
perhaps an attempt should be made to pin down its sights
and sounds on paper." But of course Balliett at his best does far more
than this, and if his well-bred journalistic diffidence is discouraging
to
a
reader who doesn't know jazz and is looking for guidance-and I have
some evidence that it is, from people
I
have talked to-it is downright
infuriating to someone who not only knows jazz but has also become
aware of Balliett's abilities. Anyone who has worked as hard as Balliett
to get his readers to hear what he hears must believe that jazz criticism
should be written and that it should perform a genuinely critical, rather
than a merely documentary, function. You wish he could simply come out
and
say so.
But with all that is undeniably wrong with Balliett, there are still no
books on jazz that I could recommend as highly as these two to that
intelligent prospective reader. I would suggest that he first get hold of
some records by Ben Webster, Coleman Hawkins, Lester Young, Count
Basie, Duke Ellington, Bix Beiderbecke, Fats Waller and Billie Holiday–
if possible, records that Balliett describes in detail. Then he should read
Balliett's columns on these musicians until they sink in, ignoring the
faults and concentrating on the close descriptions, and going back and
forth between record and description to see if Balliett's words apply
to
what he hears.
If
this works, he should get some records by post-bebop
musicians, on whom Balliett is also very helpful: Thelonius Monk would
be a good starter, then perhaps Sonny Rollins, then (if he really wants
to go off the deep end) Cecil Taylor and Ornette Coleman. Balliett is
his own worst enemy and needs to be taken with more than a grain of
salt; but he should be taken nonetheless.
William Youngren
