Varied Analysis Methodologies and Their Use in Post 1960’s
Jazz Studies.
Thomas Williams
Submitted to the University of Surrey in fulfilment of:
Master of Arts
In
Music
Abstract
This essay is concerned with how to approach analysis for music that is seen as jazz
based. It argues for a more music-central analysis type, to hopefully dispel some of
the subjectivity inherent in many articles of jazz scholarship. The rationale for such a
study is not only to create a more musically aware analysis type, but also to combat
the deficiency in studies of jazz styles (post 1960), by showing how utilising a varied
set of analysis methodologies can improve results.
The first section is a critique of past jazz studies and the methodologies used
within. These various methodologies will then be categorised into usefulness and best
suited application. In addition, it is necessary to explore the workings of some of the
fundamental aspects of jazz, including improvising, rhythmic issues, dialogical issues,
and issues of intertextuality.
The second section consists of a reapplication of the methodologies gleaned
throughout to article(s) of post 1960’s jazz. In this it is shown that by consideration of
the issues pertinent to jazz and inclusion of a variable methodological base, analysis
can achieve far more than a strict discussion of rhythm, harmony and melody, or
single methodological approach can.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Introduction...4
Aims...7
What is Jazz Analysis...9
Finding Value After Free Jazz...11
Part 1 Review
Overview...13 Hodeir...13 Schuller...17 Owens ...19 Tirro...22 Larson……….……...25 Jost……….……...26 Improvised versus Composed...32
Dimensions of study...34 Swing...37 Instrumental specifics...40 Multidimensional view...42 Intertextuallity...44 Conclusion...46
Part 2 – Reapplication
Introduction...48 Formalistic...51 Thematic...53 Syntactical...59 Taxonomic...72 Reductive...78 Conclusion...80 References...83 Appendices...86Introduction
In its century of existence and proliferation, jazz has developed far beyond its first emerging characteristics. What began as a means of expression for oppressed black Americans at the end of the 19th century has since branched into a myriad of inter-related styles. Whilst many perceive jazz as an all American black vernacular music, It became adorned and pursued by white musicians also, before migrating and localizing all over the world to create unique types of music whose characteristics differ however hold enough of the fundamentals of jazz practice within their styles to warrant discussion within jazz discourse1.
For generations since its burgeoning beginnings, jazz writing has largely been either journalistic in the form of interviews, concert/album reviews and articles for the musically interested layman, or analytical writing focusing mainly on harmony and melody in isolation ignoring the unique aspects of jazz (Hodson 2007). The former type of jazz writing was to account for the majority of work produced between the beginnings of jazz history until the 1950‘s. The first writers of this period tended to apply a European classical approach, focusing on formalistic considerations, often with unjustified value appraisals, or scornful disdains without demonstrating to the reader their topic of concern (see Schuller and Adorno).
Within academia and musicology, jazz writing grew in number and followed trends of general musicological development. In the past 30 years these trends have included gender studies, authenticity, cultural considerations, literary theory
applications, arguments of intent and even more applications of traditional
approaches such as Shenkerian reduction2. All of these methodological approaches (despite being insightful, highlighting value and allowing non musicians to participate in discourse) require an area of expertise outside the realm of the practicing musician or music based academic. Despite the growth in jazz scholarship the scope of
1
See Watkins (2003) for a selection of articles on jazz in other parts of the world other than America. 2
concern rarely passes 1960‘s jazz styles, leaving a deficit of unstudied material from strands such as jazz rock, fusion, jazz funk, world music related and neo-traditional styles.
To avoid furthering the deficit and to combat the lacunae within existent jazz studies, modes of jazz analysis must become wider enabling the prime elements of interest and areas of musical definition to foreground the study3. With this in mind perhaps there are discernable features inherent in different styles that would benefit from utilizing specific approaches. For example, the fusion crossover styles of Chick Corea, laden with Latin and Spanish inflection, would benefit from discussion on how predetermined elements of jazz coexist with the defining characteristics of Spanish music such as phrygian dominant harmonies, rhythmic patterns, phrasal
considerations and treatment of accompaniment patterns. Once discussed, drawing from extra-musical facts in addition may help place these internal attributes, hopefully without alienating the casual reader.
There are also many other considerations we can heed in analysis. A guitarist examining a saxophonists style for example may be capable of dealing with particular universal elements, such as pitch, rhythm and phrase, but may know less of the traditions of said saxophonist than a saxophonist who has studied in the same vain as the one being analysed. Were that same guitar player to analyse a guitarists method, he could draw on knowledge of fingering, tonal considerations, allusions to other guitar players, evaluation of the technically demanding and they are also likely to be able to make more accurate transcriptions, judgements and decisions of intent based on their own knowledge of the instrument. This does not mean analyzers should refrain from discussing areas outside their own expertise, they should however alight with the same considerations that come with specialist knowledge. This argument depends on having established the purpose of jazz
3
Jost (1994) suggests a similar view stating that „analysis demands a procedure that allows the particularities in the music of its most important exponents to be brought out‟.
analysis/scholarship first however which will be covered later on.As there is clearly a gap in the analytical traditions of jazz, a more music focused direction be taken?
This debate is one long since begun
(see Owens 2003)
. Traditionally jazz is an aurally learned practice, and many of its practitioners believe that jazz is for playing, not for discussingand that the discussion lies within the music itself. As Fats Waller puts it in the reply to the question ‗What is jazz?‘: ―If you don‘t know by now, don‘t mess with it!‖ (Stearns 1956, pp. 3)The aural traditions Waller alludes to require certain criteria be enabled. The musicians wishing to develop and practice jazz must have contact with current practitioners, which for many students, academics and people with interest in jazz is not possible (Kuzmich 1980 & Wiskirchen 1975). In depth musical analysis allows us to dissect the inner musical idiosyncrasies pertaining to particular styles, pieces and artists and relay them in a way that is clear and concise using tools and
methodologies for musicians therefore a more musically central stance should be upheld. Whilst this is true, more recent studies4show the merit in interdisciplinary methods and therefore they cannot be ignored or disregarded as irrelevant to jazz scholarship, when the style itself is so heavily steeped in all of these extra-musical circumstances.
These are just some of the issues surrounding jazz analysis as a concept and as a practice. Each in turn could warrant an exclusive study for itself, and so it should, however before each element is refined we must approach the subject as a whole to identify the problems and the positive ideals that can be drawn from a critical review of past jazz analyses.
4
Aims
This study aims to provide ways of improving analysis archetypes so they may be used to combat the lack of jazz analyses for post 1960‘s jazz styles. This will be done by critiquing a wide range of existent analyses to create a pool of approaches to draw from for specific uses. Secondly a new analysis will be created for an article of post 1960‘s jazz using the results of the critique to ensure and prove that a more thorough extrapolation of the musical elements can yield more insight into the constructions, practices, background and intent of the artist/composer than previous one
dimensional studies can.
Interdisciplinary methods of analysis may also be considered when appropriate. Whilst this study does not intend to completely revolutionise a new system for analysis, through study and comparison we may be able to gauge the appropriateness of one method over another within a given context. With the results of the former, a new analysis will be constructed using the criteria found throughout, to show how to improve the quality and relevance of analysis in relation to the materials paramount musical features. This could be seen as much as a problem as a solution as to arrive at the discerned features analysis must already be in use to discern them in the first place. Should we then distinguish between a pre-analytical intuitive response, allowing the identification of an appropriate method which is then applied in more rigorous ways? Is there even a way to distinguish clearly between the general and the in depth, or is that too subjective an aim? This is one of the issues that will need to be addressed throughout. Throughout the entire study issues pertaining to jazz analysis such as: intent, subjectivity, primary source, notation, dialogue, interaction, authenticity, genre and any other issues arising from research, will be addressed where appropriate.
Jazz research (along with recent musicological trends in general) has been dominated by studies of extra-musical interest or what Owens (2003) refers to as ‗pseudo intellectual verbiage‘. Whilst appropriate in determining a wider picture of the music, this obscures the discussion of inner musical workings to the peripheries of said picture, which as musicologists makes us less able to deal with our area of expertise and qualification. Whilst this study fully acknowledges the importance of extra musical relations, it argues for a more music central vision, with the extra musical as supplementary periphery where needed. Subjectivity in this sense is unavoidable, as a level of informed discretion is required to make such choices of what is and what is not important.
This study does not intend to produce a hierarchical debate of the validity of approaches to musical scholarship and acknowledges that the majority of
approaches have merits to their own concern. It does however wish to show that a more thorough method, encompassing many analytical approaches, can be adopted for discussion of the musical elements and can yield richer findings. The study may be able to give an overview, based on the work reviewed and discussed, of particular areas of musical interest that could be addressed in detail elsewhere. Initially the wide range may seem too broad and ambitious for a discussion of this magnitude (especially when it argues for in depth musical focus), however the critical review of jazz analysis as a practice has seldom been the focus of a study and therefore requires ground work in order to show other music researchers and jazz scholars what could be done. The sample analyses should provide examples of how to approach analysis in a more informed and thorough manner.
Before we move further we must however present an overview of what jazz analysis is, what it constitutes, and why we should consider refining our approaches to it.
What is Jazz Analysis?
Jazz brings with it specialised musical interests: Improvisation, dialogical issues, structured dissonance, idiosyncratic scales and melodic tools, the wide use of swing, intertextual motifs/allusion are just some of these. Jazz analysis should however be careful not to exclude elements of traditional analysis which often include: harmony, phrasing, melody, motif, rhythm, form, counterpoint, arrangement, timbre, articulation etc. Depending on the type of analysis and text being studying, one or more of these attributes may take precedence over others in terms of significance and relevance to study. For example a study of John Coltrane‘s arrangement and counterpoint may not yield as much significant musical knowledge as a study of his harmonic oeuvre, phrasing and choice of scales. Equally a study of the harmonic oeuvre, phrasing and choice of scales may not yield as much as the arrangement and counterpoint skills in a study of big band music. It is not intended to delineate the importance of said elements within these contexts; it is merely to make an informed decision based on the music‘s contribution to jazz and where that music excels in showing its
contribution. With a more stylistically aware approach, students, scholars and layman alike may be able to gain a more thorough and accurate view of the significance of the music in relation to the overall paradigm of jazz, thus making it easier to create, understand and enjoy themselves.
Of all the major jazz analyses in existence, analysis concentrates on either the improvised or the composed. Each is different and requires a different level of appreciation and discussion due to the difference in levels of mediation between playing a predetermined arrangement from swing era as in Andre Hodeir‘s (1956) study of Duke Ellington‘s ‗Concerto for Cootie‘ to Jost‘s (1974) study of Ornette Coleman. These two are polar differences. Hodeir‘s direction is left up entirely to the composer‘s direction, arrangement, composition and of course awareness of the
abilities of his band/soloists and how to use them in an effective manner. In the case of the latter all of the instrumentalists are equally weighted co-composers, to a composition that exists only in that moment (unless it makes the record5).
At first the level of mediation seem to lie at polar lengths, and whilst later free styles of jazz may seem wholly unmediated, as the style intends to make it seem, mediation must still exist as the music can still be identified as jazz. Paul Berliner (1994) goes to great lengths to stress that improvisation is the culmination of an improviser‘s musical study to date. Some argue that improvisation is created
spontaneously (Foss 1962) and never the same twice, however because the majority of recognized jazz musicians have their own ‗style‘, this suggests that they are drawing their ideas from the same pool of idiosyncrasies continually to maintain their own musical identity
(Owens 1996)
. Mediation is differently appropriated in various situations and this should be reflected in analysis.Unfortunately however, extremes like this in all forms of jazz are uncommon and therefore a level of discretion is required when approaching discussion of mediation. In most normal situations, jazz musicians will improvise over a series of chorus‘, set of predetermined chord changes or vamps which is headed and tailed by pre composed melody sections known as the ‗head‘. Some argue that the heads and predetermined musical elements act as a vehicle for the improviser to interact with (see Monson (1996) and Brothers (1994)). This is rarely addressed in analysis.
5 ‗Dimensions‘ in jazz are an issue that will be discussed within this study. Whilst some of the
collaborative/ conversational aspects (between musicians and also audience) of performance are lost in records, it still provides the ease for reference, both for analyst and reader. Gunther Schuller points out that jazz improvisation is the ‗definitive‘ version of something that was not meant to be definitive, in opposition to pre composed music; we must therefore allow a level of discretion to cater for the phenomena that exist only at the time of the performance. These phenomena are subjective however because of the nature of perception and so a degree of informed subjectivity must be considered. If we what we study can be viewed in more than one ‗dimension‘ (i.e. sonic in the form of recording,
Finding value after Free Jazz
A common misconception perpetuated by many historical texts on jazz (‗Jazz: A History‘ (Tirro 1993) is one in particular) is that developmental shifts in style end the previous era and start the new one finely. In actuality the previous style never ceases to be and continues in development, and the latter style often still owes much to the former6. It is also hard to place a jazz style since the players within particular groups and ensembles were often of varied style. For instance the modal jazz classic ‗So What‘ displays within it, impressionistic piano, ‗lyrical‘ trumpet and also the typical bop style of Cannonball Adderley. How then can such a myriad of styles constitute a cohesive whole like this? The classification may lie in the tunes ‗background‘ (that of the head or tune), this would seem strange however since the primary point of interest both to scholar and audience is usually the solo (Hodson 2007). Even in earlier styles, fusions of this kind are easily visible.
The commercial decline of jazz may have been an influence on the
classification system since reception of jazz today is often modest as best7 and so the zeitgeist of jazz is far less particular than when it was what mainly defined ‗popular‘ music.
Jazz as a medium was opened up to much broader range (post free jazz) with the advent of jazz rock, jazz funk and jazz fusion8. In doing so, it has become
extremely hard to approach, analyze and categorise because of continued obscuring of boundaries between styles.
6
Hodson (2007) articulates this by producing analyses of music that can be seen as the stepping stones from post bop to free jazz.
7 However thanks to the bourgeoning of the ‗world music‘ market, fusions of jazz and world music is bringing more reception back to jazz
8
See Nicholson (1998) for an introduction to jazz rock/fusion. The book itself does not concern itself with analysis of the material it lists and merely intends to provide an overview of the artists involved. For any misgivings the books sometimes vague stance may have (it falls into the category of historical texts that define start and stop points to styles as previously mentioned) it is one of the only books on jazz rock and is useful at this point for readers unfamiliar with the subject matter.
Recent crossover jazz styles have been the subject of much scrutiny by many jazz artists as well (particularly Wynton Marsalis). Their conservative argument is often unsubstantiated since both sides have come to existence through similar means. Early ‗authentic‘ jazz is considered as the kind that emerged out of New Orleans due to the cultural crossover that took place between the oppressed classes of African American and Europeans. Jazz at this point was open to invention and inclusion of many elements and there was no rules imposed on its creation. The crossover‘s that took place after (and during) the 1960‘s were the result of a similar reaction, opening jazz to reinvention. Whilst the contexts are different the reactions to cultural
imposition are similar. Both eras sought to open the music to wider appreciation and to produce something fresh. The concept and process of evaluation - reaction - reinvention in jazz is so important that to judge a style against another completely unrelated one, eras apart, is far less than useful.
Musically, jazz today has just as much to offer as it always has. It may not have the same cultural and racial implications surrounding it, but jazz does exist in all forms past to present, developed and raw, and will continue to grow and refine for years to come. If we do not find value in newer jazz styles then the hard work of the many groundbreaking artists since 1960 that have used many of the constructions of jazz in their music, may be in danger of under appreciation. Even if the argument of many against recent trends in jazz is justified, surely musical analysis should, at least partly, help outline the value in newer strands.
Part 1 - Review
Overview
Within a study of this magnitude a comprehensive guide to the majority of jazz analyses would delineate the study‘s focus however it is extremely crucial that a review of past analyses be carried out, for if the aim is to discern a more informed way of approaching jazz analysis then we must first review the deficiencies and the meritorious elements that occur in the studies that already exist9.
This section intends to critically review the main methodologies, content and approaches employed in various jazz analyses throughout the century, style
irrespective. The justification for the range chosen is based on the accessibility of the study, the level of depth employed, the studies reception, type of methodology and language and example usage so as to provide a wide scope of topics, styles and methodologies for discussion. Although a complete review may not be achievable, any studies outside the main range of analyses that warrant discussion or include elements that may be of use will be addressed where needed.
Hodeir
Andre Hodeir‘s 1956 study of Duke Ellington‘s ‗Concerto for Cootie‘ is often cited as the first in depth musical analysis of jazz (Pautrot in Hodeir 2006), and along with the large body of work of similar merit10, ensured Hodeir‘s name as a staple of jazz criticism to date.
The study, for the most part, uses a heavily subjective stance to judge musical value. Many have since argued against Hodeir‘s views in this study. Robert Walser (1999 pp.199) states that Hodeir ―never explains why formal unity, complex orchestration and the ‗test of time‘ should be valued above improvisation,
communicative drama and the timelessness‖. Even Schuller (1968),despite being
9
For an excellent overview of the evolution of jazz analysis see Owens (2003) 10
guilty of many of the same subjective traits, states that Hodeir is guilty of over praising. In his introduction to the study Jean-Louis Patrot (2006) points out that we must take Hodeir‘s study and it‘s sometimes overly subjective language with less critique than initially seems warranted, as he merely aims to stress to the reader the importance of Ellington‘s piece as a significant artefact of jazz history worthy of discussion.
The piece uses a traditional formalistic analysis model. Whilst the
methodology acknowledges the development of sections autonomously and as a collective throughout, the piece boasts no musical examples to support Hodeir‘s views on the concerto. The choice of analytical method is not without justification however; Hodeir endeavours to point out that the piece is composed and features no improvisation. With this in mind such a choice of traditional methodologies seems partially sensible given that at the time there were no other suitable methods capable of dealing with jazz; however the overuse of value judgement with no musical
examples or evidence of reasoning taints the studies merit.
Analysis should aim towards a far more in depth discussion musical elements and practices; however absolute abandonment of value statements (a trend more becoming recently due to the scathing critiques some writers are used to (Walser 1999) is perhaps not the best decision. For readers of a non musical background value assignments can make an otherwise solely technical report something more identifiable and thus increase the reception of jazz studies. Employing such judgements must be done carefully, so as they neither obscure nor devalue the music.
The study is broken into sections dealing with form, authenticity, harmony, sonority and role of orchestra/soloist through structural considerations. Hodeir outlines the form clearly showing expositions, developments, and section divisions clearly.
Example 1
Structure for Concerto for Cootie Introduction I Exposition Theme A Followed by A‘ Followed by B Followed by A‘‘
Followed by a modulatory transition II Middle Section
Theme C
Followed by a modulatory transition III Re-exposition and Coda
A‘‘‘ Coda
By doing this Hodeir is successfully able to show that unlike traditional jazz construction the concerto has much in common with the traditional concerto suggesting that the form ‗calls to mind the da capo form of the eighteenth-century Italians‘ (Pautrot 2006. P.40). In doing so he justifies his methods even more. It is also particularly interesting to see how Ellington chose to develop this piece in a way uncommon to large scale jazz arrangement. The lack of any specific chorus, which forms the basis for the majority of jazz tunes, suggests this.
Through his formalistic analysis, Hodeir is able to assert the role the orchestra plays as being ‗servant‘ to the soloist. He does this by stating that the orchestra uses no theme of its own, and when it does use a motif it does so in reply to the soloist‘s statement. He carries on his analogy linking in musical fact and produces a good analysis of the orchestra‘s role in relation to the soloist.
Another useful aspect of Hodeir‘s study is that of the soloist‘s development of theme. He alights on an observation that helps distinguish the piece‘s apparent wholly pre-composed disposition to that of the truth.
‗unlike the European concerto, in which the composer‘s intention
dominates the interpreter‘s, the jazz concerto makes the soloist a second kind of creator, often more important than the first, even when the part he plays leaves him any melodic intuition‘ (Pautrot 2006, P.48)
This assertion marries well the fact that jazz is built on expressionist values, that of in the moment performance. Through the soloist‘s use of varied sonorities and
inflections (of his own choosing) the values that remain at the heart of jazz are enabled. Hodeir objectifies this by talking about the variations in expositions of the melody showing how Cootie Williams‘ own utterance is conveyed through the utterance of another. This is an early example of What Henry Louis Gates calls signifyin[g].
Apart from Hodeir‘s reluctance to objectify many of his statements, his study has other pitfalls. When discussing harmony he states that the harmony is ‗extremely simple‘ without actually describing its function. Despite his assertion that the harmony is only extended with dissonances to promote ‗colour‘ and not tension, the
dissonances are not held long enough for any real colour to be realised and are usually quickly led to resolution. He does suggest that the exclusion of the dissonances would ‗weaken it considerably‘ and that it makes the ‗consonances brighter‘. Hodeir‘s stance here could now be objectified with the help of a popular musicology methodology called ‗hypothetical substitution‘11 (Tagg 2003)
In conclusion what we can draw from this study is that traditional formalistic models are still useful in a jazz setting when the topic of concern is that of a
composer‘s technique. It is more suitable at dealing with elements such as
arrangement, instrumentation and direction than it is of improvised considerations. As a style affirming statement it shows how expression in jazz differs from that of
western traditional music, even in situations governed by similar formalistic patterns. Many modern day jazz artists such as Vince Mendoza (notable for his work as jazz orchestra arranger for many including the music of Weather Report) would benefit from a review using such considerations.
11
Hypothetical substitution is a method of commutation whereby one musical element is altered and the effect produced in the music is then gauged. This can be used to identify the purpose of the element within the given context and also as a method for discerning authentic features within the context.
Schuller
Whereas Hodeir‘s analysis chose to focus on a formalistic account of jazz
composition, Gunther Schuller‘s 1958 study of Sonny Rollins‘ ‗Blue 7‘, maintained an in depth musical debate of the improvisation techniques utilised by Rollins and in particular, his use of thematic development. Just as the former‘s choice of study enabled him to talk about formalistic knowledge of the concerto, the latter is able to talk about something that can, even though the setting is different, relate to methods of musical consideration in western classic music: development of theme.
Interestingly Schuller chose a recent track (just two years in difference) to analyse. This is uncommon; however we should credit Schuller duly. Most analyses do not come to exist for a much larger time, sometimes waiting multiple decades before interest is shown (death of an artist also usually generates interest). Certainly the current jazz scene deserves such interest in its own time. This study may be more meritorious as the background relating to this piece and artist may have been fresher in Schuller‘s mind, as he would be aware of the zeitgeist surrounding its existence. Such a debate is outside our current topic however it does warrant investigation into the affect on validity of an analysis caused by time relation.
The study itself is concentrated on the idea of thematic improvisation within the piece. Schuller uses many accurate transcriptions to identify Rollins‘ continued allusions throughout. By doing this Schuller argues that Rollins‘ is able to create formalistic cohesion in his solo through these allusions and evolutions of theme, often basing his judgements on notions of contour, rhythm and pitch which he notates throughout. The danger with such a method is that it can become so concerned with intratextual considerations it can ignore the facets of the improvisation that may allude intertextually, to another text within the author‘s oeuvre, or that of another. By considering this, a more complete picture of an artist‘s defining musical idiosyncrasy may be achieved. For example, were Schuller to have categorised more of the ideas
within not only that solo but others of the same time perhaps, a taxonomy of Rollins‘ particularities may have been touched upon. The study‘s focus, although lying outside of such larger constructions, may have benefitted by from such insights through the wider knowledge of Rollins‘ thematic development and use of quotation, and thus provided an insight into not only showing where Rollins employs these techniques, but also how, why and from what background precedes his
improvisations at this point.
Schuller points out Rollins‘ use of thematic development meticulously, however it seems that is as far as he is willing to go at times. Once he reaches identification, he over praises the idea that being conscious of theme far outweighs the instances where an improviser is not. His assumption that the average
improvisation is mostly a stringing together of unrelated ideas suggests a
contemptuous hierarchical view of the less self aware improviser. This tendency is not uncommon in jazz and perhaps stems from a tradition of analysts who hold far more value in formal considerations than utterances that (perhaps initially) look anomalistic as they cannot be matched immediately to intratextual material.
Schuller talks of the use of language in describing music, a discussion that exists in all forms of music, often dominated by musical purists that believe it is impossible to convey meaning of music in this form (Solomon 1986).
Ethnomusicologists alike are in favour of this stance as it often aids their justifications for the move in centricity of study topic to more extra musical circumstances (Kenny 1999). We must learn to agree with both sides though as Schuller hints. Whilst we may not be able to convey exact representations of what the music may mean, we can get close, through our own decoding (through musical signification) and
reception of music in relation to our universally shared idea of english (or any other spoken) language as it is the only way to convey our findings to fellow musicians, academics and layman. Spoken language however is not strong enough on its own
to show findings and identify musical meaning. Through in depth knowledge of sonic texts (by point of view of both analyst and reader), use of annotated transcription and any other relevant tools, we can bridge the gap language leaves us with and
potentially move us closer to a deeper understanding of the musical text we are analysing.
In conclusion Schuller‘s method is particularly useful in dealing with thematic development, and can provide insight into many issues such as intent, mediation and utterance. Adoption of such a methodology should however be aware of a performers other work in order to alight on more informed observations about these issues.
Owens
Charlie Parker scholar Thomas Owens is far removed from the subjective stance upheld by Hodeir and Schuller. His study of the particularities in the playing style of Parker in his book ‗Bebop‘ (1996), is testament to the ideal that in depth musical analysis can be achieved without wholly abandoning subjective prose and historical information that leads the analysis in and out finely enough so as to not delineate the musical discussion.
The aim of his study is to alight on particularities of Parkers playing style through methods of taxonomy of frequently used licks and clichés. To do this Owens begins by giving fragments of lines Parker has played. These fragmentary clichés are then referenced not only to Parker‘s oeuvre but also to earlier artists from whom Parker may have initially gleaned the ideas from. These ideas are then shown as they would exist in a working line. Owens‘ taxonomy is then sorted by means of gross starting with the most utilized. These fragmentary motifs are clearly shown in standard notation. Owens‘ also highlights Parker‘s use of humour in his allusions such as quotations of ‗Habenera‟ by Bizet in his opera ‗Carmen‟ and Grainger‘s ‗Country Gardens‟. Jazz has always used quotation for humorous purpose (more so
in live performance) (Monson 1996), and when a listener can identify a phrase or two they find appropriation and rapport in the music more so than ever (Monson 1996).
As the study progresses Owens turns his attention to a theory that Parker (knowingly or unknowingly) ends his lines in a perfect sequential descents. To illustrate this he uses a second beam set above the stave, with each beam indicating the next note in the sequence. As he points out Parker‘s playing is extremely fast and to do this as well organised as he does is point worthy of discussion. The beams show that when Parker‘s register becomes too low to continue descending he then moves back up in range to maintain the descent. This type of annotation could be a hugely useful tool for any type of analysis as it adds a second dimension of
understanding that standard notation cannot convey.
This method and others like it help to dispel the common misconception in jazz that (good) improvisation is completely spontaneous, a stance held by the more journalistic styles that dominated jazz writing (Tirro 1993). It shows that in fact jazz improvisation is a tradition steeped in dialogical significance and frequent allusion. If anything artists can gain appropriation and thus authentication by alluding to their predecessors (Moore 2002).
Owens produces 15 transcriptions of this nature illustrating various devices in Parker‘s vocabulary. In comparison to the majority of other jazz analyses this is remarkable; however the transcriptions are left un-analysed on a reduced level. instead of just listing and illustrating the 15 most used Parker clichés, techniques of reduction could have been drawn on to extract specific formulaic content for each. This would benefit not only the deeper understanding of Parker‘s vocabulary in these specific contexts but also allow them to be opened up for experimentation by readers and students.
Another problem that Owens himself points out in another article is the issues arising from rhythmic accuracy within notation. 1) Standard notation works more
effectively for pre composed music and can fall short in representing improvised parts whose rhythmic nuance is player specific and far from quantised 2) Notation does not have a method for displaying levels of swing and its variation from slightly to extremely swung. This can be problematic, as often the level of swing can help define the feel of the piece and also using differentiating levels of swing within parts can alter the effect the lines and their accents create (Collier &Collier 1996). This is an issue we will pick up fully in the next section.
Near the start of the study (P.27) Owens outlines some of Parker‘s technical nuance, describing finely, through the use of a melograph chart, Parker‘s vibrato:
“His Vibrato also departed from the swing-era norm; he used a narrower pitch range (about 120 cents) and a slower speed (about five oscillations per second, compared with about six per second for most of his
predecessors). Also unlike his predecessors, he rarely played a note long enough to warm it with vibrato.”
This type of detail lets us really understand how Parker played, and what he was doing. Instrumental specific studies are rare, however they can provide insight into the particularities of playing styles and technique.
Owens‘ study is one of the most up to date and in depth musical accounts of Parker‘s musical nuance. This taxonomic study shows Parker‘s musical nuance and helps to explain the process of creation in jazz as a continuing practice with
fundamental aspects that span through all styles. From this study we can take away the usefulness of vocabulary taxonomy, additional notation, awareness of
intertextuality and the wider sense of jazz allusion. An appropriate amount of subjective language is used along with highly descriptive methods of analysis for elements that are often left to the subjective alone (his discussion of vibrato shows this clearly). Issues of rhythm and pitch reduction must be considered fully, so as to fully extrapolate musical knowledge to a level appropriate for reapplication in a new setting.
Tirro
Distinctive in approach, Frank Tirro‘s (1974) study ‗Constructive Elements in Jazz Improvisation‘ attempts to show that improvisations are built in a constructive and reflective way, drawing on the improvisers past musical experiences in the process of creation. Unlike Hodeir‘s claim that improvisation can be seen as ‗simple emanation inspired by a given harmonic sequence‘ (Pautrot, 2006. pp.93), Tirro‘s study builds an argument for a syntactical analytical method. His method intends to be aware of musical expression also. Whilst Tirro‘s approach is distinctive in application and in discussion of aspects of musical interest that escape many other analyses (such as product/process relationship, melodic development, intertextual considerations), his study lacks clarity as he does not always make clear what he is analyzing or for what reason. A variety of causes for this problem appear throughout the article.
Firstly, Tirro does not establish a clear scope, and it is unclear whether he intends to address all improvised jazz or only certain styles of improvised jazz. This problem is perpetuated throughout as he mainly deals with documents of bop and post bop jazz styles. At first it may seem that he is merely in keeping with his time, developing studies for music that have not been studied, however he barely embarks further than 1940‘s and 1950‘s recordings, focusing mainly on prolific artists that sit in the post swing-hard bop bracket. He does mention Ornette Coleman briefly; however his text of choice is a homage tune to Charlie Parker and therefore is not
representative of the burgeoning free jazz movement that was at the forefront of jazz development. For a 1974 study no mention at all is given to jazz rock or the
beginnings of fusion which could have surely enhanced his concept of development and reflection as these newly formed styles were grounded in such concepts
Secondly, the content of analysis seems to be fairly rigid in concern, dealing mainly with aspects of melodic improvisation, i.e. intervallic structures as opposed to a wider range of ‗constructive elements‘ as the title suggests.
The terms used within are somewhat ambiguous at times also. ‗Musical idea‘, ‗material‘ and ‗cyclic treatment‘ are terms that are not defined within the context of the study. The three terms are used frequently and point to Tirro‘s concern with motif. The later raises an issue within the study as it seems to point to a return to a motivic archetype that is constantly reset and revised, however later on in his study of Charlie Parker‘s ‗Koko‘ he points towards a linear development model:
―Each reworking of the idea introduces just enough change so that the relationship of version 1 through 6 is clear only is versions 2 through 5 are known or assumed‖ (P. 300)
contradictory in stance to his idea of cyclic variation, perhaps what is meant is
instead a ‗motivic chain treatment‘ (Jost 1974) and either way, the actual concept that Tirro explains is one that would be useful for studying a player‘s ability to adapt and mutate lines to musically progress as opposed to just playing ‗around‘ the melody. As Tirro progresses he suggests a broader model of how we may view the structural development that an improviser may use to rework ‗material‘:
‗On the lowest, the improviser creates new phrases whose continuity overlaps cadences and elides normal phrase structure; on a higher plane, the improviser constructs consequential choruses out of antecedent situations which are relatively close in proximity, usually the preceding chorus; on the highest level identified, the improviser manipulates musical ideas stemming from remote past events‘ (P.286)
This useful way of distinguishing the process involved in reworking material may hold value for other kinds of jazz both before and after the scope presented within Tirro‘s study. Unfortunately though, it is not made clear whether these ‗levels of reworking‘ exist on their own or collaboratively, not allowing for musical phrases that may be seen on more than one plane. A
glimpse of the subjective style of Hodeir that is argued against throughout is also manifested here. The hierarchy of ‗high, higher, and highest‘ levels is not dissimilar to the value judgements that captivated jazz studies a quarter of a century before.
Tirro‘s study uses a syntactical methodology to gain his results. He outlines this early on by stating that ‗The best jazz solos are constructive in nature and may be evaluated syntactically‘ ( 1974, pp.286). Syntactical analysis is used to determine the structure of the input text. Originally
developed for the study of language this type of analytical model can be used in a musical context. For example; organising musical constructions in order of size; the smallest could be either a singular pitch or rhythm, growing then to a pitch with a rhythm, to a series of pitches with rhythms that might represent a musical phrase or motif. Larger constructions could be considered in terms of chains of phrases and larger still (within a jazz context) could be solos over one or more choruses. Each instrument has its own set of hierarchies and
elemental values that exist in their own parts and all exist within the largest construction which is what we initially hear; the music as a whole. By breaking down units into smaller constructions it is possible to determine their function within larger constructions. Adorno (1969) points to a similar
acknowledgement of the value of looking at smaller parts by suggesting that the structure of the whole does not depend on the whole.
A method such as this could certainly find a place of use in jazz analysis given the amount of formalistic, melodic, phrasal and taxonomic concerns we have seen so far.
The problem with Tirro‘s use of syntactical analysis is that he does not look at larger constructions and shows relationships between melodic syntax only, as can be seen in his examples. Jazz improvisation and its ‗constructive
elements‘ does not simply encompass melodic aspects, as can be seen by looking at the other analyses we have touched on thus far.
Two key features that arise from critiquing this study are 1) that the syntactic type of analysis is not an adequate method on its own to account for musical
expression, however used in the right stylistic context and as part of a larger analytical methodology, it can show development in areas such as melodic
constructivism12 2) improvisations are, at least, influenced or directed by performance practice features as Tirro points out.
As an analysis, and methodological approach, Tirro‘s study aids the ever developing definition and notion of improvisation. His notion that the ‗product reflects the practice‘ (P.296) provides a useful way of linking the performer and what he plays. His study also nurtures the idea that documents can provide a way of viewing stylistic development and also through layers of study the original performance processes.
Larson
Steve Larson shows, in his 1998 essay, ‗Shenkerian Analysis of Modern Jazz‖, how Shenkerian Analysis can be used in jazz.
Shenkerian analysis is more synonymous with classical music than it is to jazz. Larson‘s is in fact one of few articles to deal with its application to jazz at all, and perhaps the only one to deal with a post 1945 style. Most jazz forms (free jazz excluded) share with classical music a tradition built on tension and resolution.
Larson is able to make good use of reductive techniques in showing Bill Evans‘ voice leading mastery through the piece ‗The Touch of Your Lips‘.
Shenkerian analysis intends to remove the unnecessary in graphic
representation of a piece leaving the more important aspects of its development and overall motion in the forefront. This is useful in jazz as there is a heavy emphasis on
12
It is unfortunate that Tirro seems to only deal with melodic considerations. Were the same
approaches used in conjunction with harmonic, rhythmic, formulaic and formal impetus, a more accurate representation of the ‗constructive elements‘ as a whole may be achieved.
an improviser‘s ability to navigate changes focusing on hitting target notes for resolution. It may also be able show how more recent jazz techniques such as outside playing work, by showing the harmonic relationships.
While usually used to map the development of a whole piece, it may be useful to map the development of a solo, or a particular section of solo, in a reduced form to determine whether there is an underlying development or motion.
What must not be forgotten however is the validity of the relationships that do not form patterns or show meritorious achievements in melodic navigation because we are interested in the players overall approach to improvisation, parts of which may appear insignificant in normal Shenkerian analysis. In the reapplication these parts will be addressed by one of the other methodologies.
Jost
Ekkehard Jost‘s ‗Free Jazz‘ (1974) is perhaps one of the most thought out and considered works on jazz to date (he is cited for this in Owens (2003)). Despite the suggestive name, ‗Free Jazz‘ deals with more than that era of jazz specifically. Jost begins his work on a general level dealing with many of the issues that encompass analysis methodologies, giving the reader a set of considerations to prepare them for the analyses ahead. The book thereafter is divided by the key artists that are
representative of the free jazz movement, although the first chapter begins with John Coltrane and modal playing and the move away from bebop and the traditionalisms that captivated jazz to this point. This is insightful as it provides a more contextual insight into free jazz by showing its circumstance of creation and the reasoning for it. The highlights of his analyses are the descriptive transcriptions, annotations and structural examples that illustrate his points in a much finer way than standard notation alone can. Jost is also a keen advocate of in depth musical analysis and
goes to great lengths to stress the importance of that type of study and how it may be achieved.
Free Jazz begins with an introduction outlining the rationale for the text, an explanation of its contents, structure, methodologies and range. It begins by bringing the readers attention to evolution of jazz analyses, suggesting that free jazz (more specifically the anti-European stance often upheld within) was the catalyst for a move towards sociological and cultural approaches to jazz writing. Jost is correct in his affirmation; however that is not to suggest that the new analysis archetype was fruitless, but autonomous musical aspects in this regard are often negated altogether (Owens 2003). Jazz styles in particular, have a tendency to breed conservatism among its followers (Tirro 1993), so it is perhaps no surprise then that as free jazz appeared, scholars (like Schuller and Hodeir) had little desire to turn their efforts to a music they neither appreciated nor understood. Jost is careful to acknowledge that reduction of analysis to either purely musical, or purely extra-musical is detrimental to the findings, since neither exist autonomously in the real world, especially in a music form with such heavy social and cultural binding (Tirro 1993).
„Free Jazz‟ is perhaps the only study in existence with such careful justifications for its choice of employed parameters of discussion. Jost details his rationale for range by first dealing with issues of race, stating that whilst we should not fall into the realms of black power affirmation13, we should acknowledge that jazz has been to date a primarily black dominated idiom, and therefore circumstantial effects pertaining to black vernacular history, may be relevant in order to complete the picture. He then goes on to state that his study would encompass only the prime
13
Since its beginnings many black artists and critics have argued and fought for the status of jazz as a solely black music. Critics like Leroi Jones argue that Jazz cannot be recreated authentically nor can white jazz ever represent the true meaning and utterance that jazz music conveys. Many artists throughout jazz history such as Wynton Marsalis, argue similar points often without acknowledging the strands of jazz that exist not only all over the world in new vernacular settings, but also new strands within the USA, such as jazz fusion, Latin jazz, Bossa Nova, Jazz funk/rock and the plethora of jazz based music that has developed since the 1960‘s. This view is both naïve and ironic, as a lot of the fundamentals such as the complex harmonies, instrumentation and meter evolved out of western music practice. Jazz is dominated by black musicians not exclusive to.
movers in American free jazz as opposed to European because 1) imitation
predominated over innovation 2) the history and the ‗lines of evolution‘ in European free jazz are too blurred to structure 3) analysis of this type would require a separate methodology specific for European free jazz. This level of detail even in the pre-emptive stage of analysis is radical in relation to other studies. The last point in particular has merit both generally and specifically. Jost frequently points towards a tailored analytical method with statements like:
„Analysis of a given style could concentrate on detecting and interpreting the congruities present in individual ways of operating within a system of agreements‟ (P. 9)
„Analysis demands a procedure that allows the particularities in the music of its most important exponents to be brought out‟ (P.10)
„Analysing and interpreting the features of a given improvisation demands that the analyst take into account everything he has learned from other improvisations by the same musician‟ (P.14)
As can be seen Jost is clearly leaning towards a musically aware analysis that intends to investigate the aspects of music that are characteristically worth investigating. As mentioned in the introduction a kind of pre-emptive analysis on a more general level can be seen in Jost‘s suggestions. Furthermore he suggests (through examples) that it is fruitless to arrange examples and means of representation in a way that highlights musical aspects other than the
studies focus. Whilst correct, he himself points to the dangers of extreme reduction, as this can separate the elements to such an extent they are no longer in connection with the text as a whole.
This introduction stands as a pivotal point in jazz scholarship14, Jost is perhaps one of the first to actually look at the approaches we take when investigating jazz and how a carefully considered set of criteria can aid the
14 Since Jost‘s work it has gained a huge reputation amongst contemporary authors such as Thomas Owens, who cite Jost‘s introduction to Free Jazz frequently when discussing the approach to analysis.
process. The results produced from such an approach are exemplarily for the texts time.
The methods employed throughout are hard to clearly define as there are so many of them. These include reductive models of melody and rhythm, solo sequence charts, thematic analysis, scalar reduction, accentual discussion, contour graphs and tonality reference analysis among others. This wide range of tools is used well to approach perhaps one of the hardest styles of jazz to approach due to its nature of delineation from the norm. Let us now discuss some of the best examples and the use within.
In his preliminary chapter on modal jazz, Jost provides outlines the use of modes in the staple piece ‗Flamenco Sketches‘15 by Miles Davis. The
example he gives of each performers‘ lengths of chorus and how long they each choose to stay on a given mode is useful, and he is also clearly able to point to how the musicians were able to change mode simultaneously through musical gesture signification. He points out that Davis‘ changes are governed by Paul Chambers‘ bass suspensions, ―Cannonball‖ Adderley‘s by his
‗modulatory twists‘ and John Coltrane‘s by ‗kinetic culmination‘, which he clearly demonstrates in notated form, and on listening to the audio you realise the truth in his statements. The length diagram is also particular useful for perhaps showing which mode each player prefers due to length. Unfortunately however Jost makes an error when describing the modes from which the tune is based on. What he lists as C Ionian, A flat Ionian, B Flat Ionian, D Phrygian, and G Aeolian (pp.22) is actually C Ionian, Ab Mixolydian, Bb Ionian, D
Phrygian dominant, G Dorian as indicated by the recording and also by Nisenson (2000) and Kahn (2000). As the root notes are the same perhaps Jost intended to demonstrate a harmonic reduction to simpler ‗home‘ keys,
15 ‗Flamenco Sketches‘ is part of Davis‘ masterpiece ‗Kind of Blue‘ which has come to define the modal jazz style. In this piece the improvisers move through a series of 5 modes signalling through their instrument and gestures for the rest of the band to change mode with them.
however if so he makes no mention of it. It is particularly the Phrygian dominant that suggests the ‗flamenco‘ and the variation of modal type that suggests the ‗sketches‘. Apart from this flaw in observations, Jost is able to discern, through musical gestures, communicative aspects of each player within the group used to signify a change.
Other meritorious elements of Jost‘s study include identification of John Coltrane‘s arpeggiated chord style, his identification of motivic development and what he calls ‗motivic chain association‘ and also a knowledge of specific instrumental knowledge when talking about Coleman‘s fingering pattern and the level of difficulty that is inherent within, and not immediately seen in the transcription.
In conclusion Jost manages to carefully navigate many of the issues in jazz studies that are still left mainly subjective and hard to tackle today. Particularly useful is his discussion of what constitutes the study material, notational problems, the development of improviser‘s vocabulary and idiosyncrasy, intertextuallity, motive and developmental tendencies. What‘s more this is achieved with infrequent inflections of informed subjective gesture, which seems to help in reapplying the reduced elements of analysis to a more real plane.
Jost‘s decision to include a preliminary chapter on John Coltrane and modal playing seems to help explain the development of previous jazz styles into free jazz. By doing this, an awareness of what free jazz intended to achieve and what elements of previous jazz forms it needed to move away from to achieve it can be extracted.
The text is not without criticism however, as sometimes the examples/notation are not explained or discussed in enough detail. For example, in commenting on the bi-tonal centres of Ornette Coleman‘s improvisations, he does not annotate the notation to exhibit this for the reader making it harder to see. Despite being incredibly insightful in all areas, the study tends not to develop a focus, or conclusion to the
points outlined. This is probably due to the sheer amount of elements that are being dealt with and as this books title is general, perhaps so are Jost‘s intentions to uncover as many of the defining characteristics of free jazz to date. Despite his acknowledgement that analysis should be tailored to fit the specific criteria of
investigation the chapters can sometimes read more like an overview. Even if Jost‘s intention was to generalise as a means of opening the music, no attempt at
taxonomy of specific musical elements can be seen. Despite any pitfalls however there is a substantial amount to be learned from Jost‘s approaches as has been shown.
Jost‘s book is exemplary for its discussion of free jazz and the approach to jazz analysis. For us, it can be seen as a way of employing a multidimensional study that utilizes many methodologies; however a more defined point of focus or
culmination would have useful.
All of the methods discussed thus far are however equally valid in their own right. Jost (1974) points out that there is no one singular method for musical analysis and that every analysis has value within its own context. Owens (2003) furthers this idea suggesting that we can find validity in all analyses despite criticism, as ultimately they provide interesting topics of discussion for musicians and non musicians alike, however both hesitate to point towards what analysis should encompass to yield the richest results.
In conclusion despite the claims of validity for all approaches, it is clear that some are of more use than others in certain circumstances. To judge this the analyzer must have the ability to distinguish between methodologies that can tailor towards the goal of the analysis, based on what is uniquely characteristic of the material being studied.
Improvised Versus Composed
As we have seen so far (particularly in two critiques of Hodeir and Schuller) focus usually rests on improvised or composed jazz. In both of their analyses, Hodeir‘s and Schuller‘s rationale was justified and their attempts to raise the status of
improvisation were needed, however improvisation was generally attacked by many traditional musicologists:
‗It is commonly assumed that jazz improvisations do not achieve the same heights as the products of notating composers‘ (Tirro, 1974. pp. 285)
More recently jazz discourse seems to have shifted in the opposite direction. Part of this problem stems from our inability to deal with heavily subjective aspects of improvisation.
Philip Gehring (1967) asserts that at during improvisation, the events unfolding within present situational circumstances that can only be viewed at that time, and that if the performance is notated it ‗spends the rest of its life as a
composition‘. Thanks to audio recordings however we have a bridge between what is and what once was.
Since it is such a huge part of the defining performance practice that encompasses jazz, Gehring‘s assertion is perhaps unwarranted. A transcription of the kind he describes exists to reference the original performance not replace it. With the aid of recording the performance can be relived aurally to some extent16. Usually a jazz improvisation is played over the top of a pre-composed tune or set of
predetermined chord changes (Brothers 1994). If looking at these composed elements a methodology that deals with composed elements is needed.
Ekkehard Jost (1974, pp.16) states that ‗Improvisation itself is usually only a part of the larger musical context, except when a musician improvises utterly ‗solo‘‘. Jost‘s affirmation is true however it is more often important than he concedes.
16
The Tune as the „Vehicle‟
Monson (1996) likens the pre-composed harmonic frameworks in jazz to being like that of a ‗vehicle for improvisation‘ (pp. 115), or as Pressing (1984) calls it, the ‗referent‘. There are two reasons why this is often the case.
The performance traditions of jazz have shown us that catalogues of repertoire, which encompass the many fake books available, are often what
musicians play on. Jazz ‗standards‘ emerged from the tradition of tin pan alley song writers such as Irving Berlin, Cole Porter and Hammerstein. Performing these standards is not only for students of jazz to ‗cut their teeth‘ (Berliner 1994), but also for established artists to add their own utterances to the dialogical history of jazz. It is not uncommon that a jazz musician can reach the heights of his oeuvre with
compositions that are his not his own. An example of this would be John Coltrane‘s treatment of ‗My Favourite Things‘, Miles Davis‘ treatment of ‗My Funny Valentine‘ or Pat Martino‘s Grammy nominated ‗All Blues‘.
There are problems with this view however, since a deeper understanding of the environment of jazz must acknowledge the interaction the soloist has with his accompaniment (Monson 1996). In addition, a problem exists in the definition of the pre-composed or ‗tune‘ since most jazz musicians tended to impose and substitute their own identity over the frameworks the originals provided. Style, harmonic complexity, form and melody can change. Identifying fundamental aspects of the ‗tune‘ is problematic. A pragmatic approach such as Ruwert‘s (1987) or a
commutation method like Tagg‘s (2003) could help to solve this problem by identifying what remains a constant between the many documented versions of particular standards.
Nettl (1974) suggests that composition and improvisation are ‗slow and fast‘ versions of each other. A closer look at the temporal processes involved in each negates this however.
Temporal processes of improvisation and composition differ17. Composition consists of fragmented temporality, with the composer being able to use hindsight to shape his piece. The improviser on the other hand has not opportunity to ‗freeze‘ time and make amendments. Perhaps the rawness of the situation is what fascinates so many people with improvisation. Schuller‘s praise of Sonny Rollins‘ thematic work is directed at Rollins‘ ability to signify on fragments of melody throughout his
improvisation working as an almost real-time composer. The ability to do so is what Sarath (1996) might call ‗Retensive-Protensive temporality‘, however should not be regarded as hierarchically superior to ‗Inner-directed temporality‘ which involves a more linear approach to development that does not necessarily need to evoke past melodic events.
The „Dimensions‟ of Study in Jazz
An often overlooked part of analysis is what is actually being analysed. Before creating an analysis a consideration of the material in discussion must be approached.
There are three main dimensions from which music can be viewed which represent the whole 1) Performance 2) Recording 3) Score18
Performance
Performance can be seen as the primary source for musical analysis. The
performance can be viewed in many ways, and depends on the audience. Given that the venue type, atmosphere and etiquette of a jazz concert have been established and maintained throughout the century it can be said that it is a visual experience just
17
See Sarath (1996) 18
This does not mean standard music notation only. Increasingly, as we have seen, supplementary ways of representing the music such as grid notation, frequency analysis, contour graphs etc. are effective ways of tailoring discourse to the elements being investigated, that standard notation
sometimes cannot fully exemplify. Care must however be taken in distinguishing between representative notation that exists to show the function of the music with similar signifiers as the other two dimensions and that of converted representation such as formula charts, taxonomic tables etc that exist as derivatives of the former created as a way of understanding it.
as it is an aural. The grounds for this are that during a jazz concert you can see further into the performance practice principles. For example you may see be able to see how a musician fingers his lines (from which you may see patterns emerging), whether his body language reflects the nature of his lines, how he cues other musicians, how he himself listens to his band. Knowledge of these elements may inform a musical study in a more efficient way, partially allowing for things such as intent, self evaluation, technique and aural ability to be discerned for discourse. These elements are not available in the other two dimensions.
Recording
The recording provides us a fairly accurate representation of the sound produced on performance. Initially it may seem that it solves the problem of not being able to relive the performance; however there are problems with this.
Firstly, the type of recording affects the validity of the material. For instance a live recording cannot account for the audience, the venue, the stage, the interactive elements and visual cues often used within jazz. A studio recording on the other hand would seem to bypass this, as the intention is that the audience experience it through the recording. The studio can however impose elements of its own. Early jazz was confined by the length held on record, thus potentially shaping
improvisations even before they were begun. Post production can also affect our perception. Differing levels of volume between players is an example of this, as it is now normally normalised. The relevance of type of audio recording really depends on what it is you intend to study with it.
Secondly, a recording does not show you the processes behind the audio: fingerings, cues, mistakes, expression and interaction are all easier perceived visually. Paul Berliner (1994) gives an example of when a line is played and the
player shows visual disdain for it. This cannot be perceived through listening alone. Visual reference/accompaniment would help in combating this.
The Score
As footnote 18 suggests there is care to be taken when distinguishing what type of score is truly representative of the music and can be read and followed in the same way the recording and performance can, however as we saw in our first analysis by Andre Hodeir, notational composition does exist in jazz and therefore it may be pertinent to look through that dimension also, particularly when the music is born through it.
Whilst it may be essential to look at how Duke Ellington‘s score writing influenced the music that was produced, a look at the score for other artists that did not use scores at all may still be useful as it gives a set of musical codes that can be understood, objectified and firmly referenced.
Problems with Notation
‗Fundamental characteristics of tone and tone production……defy objectification by the written notation‘ (Jost 1974. pp.15)
Jost is right in this affirmation and to date there is little to no complete method of objectifying tone. Within the parameters of this essay, combating this problem would be difficult to say the least. It is an area that needs to be looked into. Analysis of frequency production and the full spectrum of note production between instruments may be something that could do this, but to date there is no study that delves into this in enough detail to warrant discussion here.
For now however what we do have is a set of subjective descriptions shared by most with a deep interest in music which we should not try to avoid. Tagg (2002) points out that, analysts can run the risk of favouring the notation over the areas that cannot be represented visually. This truism should make us aware that discourse
should not be directed by particular methodologies or representation systems. Tagg‘s own semiotic, pragmatic and syntactical methods help to solve these problems by providing more systems of representation.
Swing
Perhaps one of the elements in jazz that is treated with the most amount of
vagueness is the swing. Swing is the rhythmic device that often defines the time feel in the music, and has done so since the music‘s beginning. Swing is not by any means void of study and acknowledgement both by academics and musicians themselves19. However a true explanation of swing‘s role in jazz can be approached as rhythm, unlike tone and colour, is at all times an object.
In its basic description swing is when a jazz musician interprets a particular grouping as seen in example 1 with a delayed syncopation for the offbeat (Dankworth 1968).
Ex1
For example what is seen in example 1 could be interpreted as example 2 Ex2
Equally this could be read as 12/8 or even just a dotted quaver and semi quaver grouping20. Friberg (1999) describes swing in its most basic form as a division of ‗patterns of long-short-long-short‘. The point here lies more in the becomings of these groupings or the interpretation. Melodies in jazz are written out using standard
19 Swing is constantly alluded and referenced to: Ellington‘s 1931 piece ‗It Don‘t Mean a Thing if it Ain‘t Got That Swing‘ .
20
There is generally a split between people who look at swing as being triplet feel and those, usually musicians, who acknowledge the variable types of swing. Even so both lean on subjective terminology such as ‗pushing‘ ‗hanging‘ ‗behind‘ and ‗in front‘ to describe swing. No attempt is usually made to objective swing.
