OUTSIDE LINKS   National Association of Attorneys General TOPICS IN IMPROVISATION AND SOCIETY May 27, 1998 Considering the role of improvisation in radio newsreading, especially as practiced by newsreaders on Philadephia's KYW and WHYY newsstations. Recently we have seen the attorney general from each of 19 states attack Microsoft with various legal implements. This rare confluence of barristers makes possible the use of one of two equally valid plurals in one's radio newsreading: "attorney generals" or "attorneys general." Neither of the two stations I am considering seems to have a set policy, nor do the particular newsreaders seem to have a preference. I have noticed the same newsreader using both plural forms in the same day, and both forms used on the same newsstation in a single hour. Now I have never worked as a newsreader, but it seems to me that one can derive little more pleasure from saying a phrase than one can derive from saying "attorneys general." ("Poets laureate" being the only phrase possibly more exciting.) And yet the well-modulated voices of our men and women of the air skip to and fro, sometimes indulging themselves and their listeners, sometimes not. Why is this, and how can we understand this in terms of musical improvisation? When one is faced with a binary musical choice, do the dictates of beauty or self-expression often force one to choose the lesser choice some of the time, sheerly for variety? Or is there some artistic charge to self-denial, to say "we could all be listening to something wonderful right now, but we will expressly choose not to"? It seems clear to me that such choices of self-denial are mainly useful for the novice musician. When a performer intentionally steers away from a good choice, then the audience may perceive that other less-than-optimal choices were the result of a concious intention, rather than a lack of inspiration. If I am playing basketball, and fail to make a basket, it is obviously an error. But if, while I am playing, I occasionally throw the ball far clear of the basket, then come in for a rebound, the casual observer will be able to interpret all of my missed shots as intentionally setting myself up to practice rebounding. I think that intentionally making bad choices is dishonest to the audience. This is not to say that dishonesty is bad; dishonesty can be used to good effect, I am sure. But one should make these intentionally bad choices in full realization of the dishonesty of the action, and should bear in mind that the audience may very well see through this trick and perceive the dishonesty as well. That is, one should make these choices so that the dishonesty is used for some effect, rather than to trick the audience. There is a difference between lying and irony.

--Michael Benedetti