Varied Analysis Methodologies and Their Use in Post 1960’s Jazz Studies.

Thomas Williams

-1-

MMus 09/10

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 September 21st 2010

Thomas Williams

-2-

MMus 09/10

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.

Thomas Williams

-3-

MMus 09/10

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................................................................................................................86

Thomas Williams

-4-

MMus 09/10

Introduction 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 interrelated 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 2

See Watkins (2003) for a selection of articles on jazz in other parts of the world other than America. See Middleton (1990) and Larson (1998).

Thomas Williams

-5-

MMus 09/10

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‟.

Thomas Williams

-6-

MMus 09/10

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 discussing and 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 studies4 show 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

See Caponi 1999 & Monson 1996

Thomas Williams

-7-

MMus 09/10

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.

Thomas Williams

-8-

MMus 09/10

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.

Thomas Williams

-9-

MMus 09/10

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

Thomas Williams

- 10 -

MMus 09/10

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 record 5). 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, performance or transcription) then perhaps a multidimensional study may be useful.

Thomas Williams

- 11 -

MMus 09/10

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 best 7 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.

Thomas Williams

- 12 -

MMus 09/10

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.

Thomas Williams

- 13 -

MMus 09/10

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) See Pautrot, J (2006). The Andre Hodeir Jazz Reader. University of Michigan Press

10

Thomas Williams

- 14 -

MMus 09/10

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.

Thomas Williams

- 15 -

MMus 09/10

Example 1 Structure for Concerto for Cootie

I

II

III

Introduction Exposition Theme A Followed by A‘ Followed by B Followed by A‘‘ Followed by a modulatory transition Middle Section Theme C Followed by a modulatory transition 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)

Thomas Williams

- 16 -

MMus 09/10

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.

Thomas Williams

- 17 -

MMus 09/10

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

Thomas Williams

- 18 -

MMus 09/10

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

Thomas Williams

- 19 -

MMus 09/10

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

Thomas Williams

- 20 -

MMus 09/10

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

Thomas Williams

- 21 -

MMus 09/10

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.

Thomas Williams

- 22 -

MMus 09/10

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 (Nicholson 1998).

Thomas Williams

- 23 -

MMus 09/10

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

Thomas Williams

- 24 -

MMus 09/10

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

Thomas Williams

- 25 -

MMus 09/10

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.

Thomas Williams

- 26 -

MMus 09/10

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

Thomas Williams

- 27 -

MMus 09/10

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.

Thomas Williams

- 28 -

MMus 09/10

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 preemptive 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 scholarship 14, 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.

Thomas Williams

- 29 -

MMus 09/10

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.

Thomas Williams

- 30 -

MMus 09/10

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

Thomas Williams

- 31 -

MMus 09/10

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.

Thomas Williams

- 32 -

MMus 09/10

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

See page 35

Thomas Williams

- 33 -

MMus 09/10

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.

Thomas Williams

- 34 -

MMus 09/10

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) 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. 18

Thomas Williams

- 35 -

MMus 09/10

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

Thomas Williams

- 36 -

MMus 09/10

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

Thomas Williams

- 37 -

MMus 09/10

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.

Thomas Williams

- 38 -

MMus 09/10

‗straight‘ groupings as shown in Ex1. This is for ease of reading and writing, but a jazz musician is expected to interpret it with a level of swing. By studying the exact subdivisions and rhythmical values, we can in turn discern a particular player‘s use of swing which may be an integral part in understanding related elements such as phrasing, intent and accenting. Such knowledge would also prove invaluable for the learning of swing itself. Friberg‘s (1999) study dictates that swing varies substantially with tempo and therefore the common conception that many authors such as Dankworth put forth that swing is for the most part close to triplet feel (Ex2) is an inaccurate one. Reading further into Friberg‘s study it is clear to see that not only does swing have a relationship with tempo but also interpretation of the player. Example 3

As can be seen in the example each player has particular interpretations of swing. It would be interesting to see how the style of music being played affects this however the variables are too large in this instance. It does however show that at higher tempos ability to swing effectively becomes too hard (or too hard to analyze). Charts like these could be valuable to rhythmic discourse in jazz. Friberg is not the only one to engage in dispelling the subjectivism surrounding rhythm in jazz. Milton Mermekides‘ (n.d) paper entitled „That Swing‟ uses

Thomas Williams

- 39 -

MMus 09/10

a software program and mathematics to derive exact swing ratios and beat placements. Whilst Owens‘ study benefited from having access to a melograph, expensive hardware and complicated software is not the only capable method of getting an insight into a player‘s use of rhythm. Let us apply this now. Pat Martino is said to have a very ‗straight‘ style (Marshall 2003) yet there is nothing to objectify this documented. By using a frequency analysis graph generated from a multi-track software application, we are able to see the truth in this statement.

Examples 4 &5

In Examples 4&5 taken from 10:38 and 10:51 of ‗All Blues‘, the graph shows the execution points of each of the notes, which are almost exactly equally spaced, therefore Martino is playing against the traditions of many other swing based musicians. Instrumental Specifics

To gain further insight into performance practice principles adopted by artists, it can be useful to approach analysis from the view of their own approach to their instrument, i.e. by looking at technicality, fingerings, nuance of technique etc. By doing so it is possible to uncover things that normal transcription and receptive judgement may not. For instance by looking at how often a player uses the same

Thomas Williams

- 40 -

MMus 09/10

fingering patterns within lines, you can make informed decisions on the level of mediation that player is relying on, intent, and also perhaps where the player may have learned the fingerings and lines from. This is particularly useful in our study as discourse like this that helps to dispel the mythical aspects surrounding improvisation showing that (if it is shown that the player is relying on the fingerings) there are constructions and practices that constitute a base for the practice. Paul Berliner appropriates such a view by suggesting that there is ‗far more to improvisation that meets the ear‘ (Berliner 1994. P.3). A system of nomenclature is therefore required for visual representation. Such a system has been developed for guitarists in tablature which is particularly useful for string instruments where the same pitch can be produced at two different positions. It can also be represented on non string instruments with as little as numeric fingerings (1,2,3,4,5 corresponding to each finger) above each note. To analyse using a concept such as fingering then the analyzer must have knowledge of what is and what is not common practice on the instrument. James Dean‘s (n.d) study of ‗finger routes‘ in Pat Metheny solos shows this method in application.

Example 6

Thomas Williams

- 41 -

MMus 09/10

‗The phrase played over the Dm7 section of this passage is a straight forward descending D minor pentatonic run (D minor shape 1) in position 10. The ‗shift‘ in position really occurs in the third beat of the second bar where there is a move to position 7 for a chromatic-based prefix into a transitional phrase through positions 6 and 5 using the third-first fingering before an ascending suffix through a C sharp diminished scale (C#/Db, D#/Eb, E, F#/Gb, G, A, A#/Bb, C) whole-step, half-step, beginning on g in keeping with the underlying harmony. In this case the transitional provides movement from the seventh position to the g at the fifth position before the ascent. The following descent down this scale might be thought also to serve as a prefix to the ‗tail‘ which concludes the phrase, resolving on the third of the diminished seventh; the e. Following the second-first fingering used by the preceding notes a-flat and g, this movement requires a ‗jump‘ from position 5 to position 3, indicating that the goal of e was not accidental, but intended as a harmony note, using the ‗tail‘ to move to it. Following this phrase, there is a rise through a Bb major scale of more than two octaves (C Dorian and F Mixolydian) in bars 39 – 42, played mostly on the top two stings – another example of the neck being treated ‗horizontally‘, before a fall through-positions 10, 8, 6, 5, 3, 2 and 1.‘

As can be seen Dean is able to show us the position on the guitar, the fingering used, the transitions between position and how the lines are clearly directed by the finger patterns utilized. Interestingly he makes no attempt to add value to his analysis, showing that a finger pattern, despite how heavily it may be relied on, is in no way a deficiency of a player‘s means of expression for a player must have a base from which to produce a unique yet coherent improvisation. The problem with producing fingering guides for discussion is the need for a visual documentation or acknowledgement of the music. However once a system or taxonomy of fingerings is reached in relation to a particular player or piece, the

Thomas Williams

- 42 -

MMus 09/10

concept can be extended to audio exclusive examples, through reference to the previously developed taxonomy. Dean‘s study could be furthered by attempting to apply theoretical ‗finger routes‘ to Metheny music that does not have accompanying video. As most of the ‗classic‘ jazz solos and chorus‘ exist in audio recording alone, it may be that by analyzing video of a particular player we would be then able to reapply a finger taxonomy to more ‗studious‘ works by the same author. Analysis that is able to take account of these aspects of performance practice techniques is better equipped at dealing with what Tagg (2003) calls ‗constructional competence‘ – music as knowledge, in this case performance practices (as opposed to receptional competence) - which is what is actually happening as opposed to our connotation. In this sense it is clear that such a method is able to take us further into understanding the ‗performance dimension‘.

Multidimensional View If we can consider all three dimensions in jazz, then we can cross reference them to make a model for analysis. These three dimensions can be seen as the ‗master dimensions‘ of analytical study material. Each source is comprised of related elements, some of which overlap with other sources. Example 7

Thomas Williams

- 43 -

MMus 09/10

Nattiez‘s (1987) model can be applied to each dimension also. He also believes the musical work is three dimensional which consists of 1) the compositional process 2) a score (or as we have identified here the two other dimensions) 3) the perceptive cognitive responses of the listener. Example 8

Applied specifically to Jazz the Poietic could be viewed as improvisation with composition and performance as branches. This model can compromise the argument between jazz improvisation as a process or a product and suggests that it is instead both, and we must acknowledge both sides in analysis. Hodson (2007) adapts the model for musicians. Example 9

As we can see in this model, the esthesic (reception) process is employed by the musician in performance practice. Hodson‘s model seems accurate apart from it could be argued that the poietic process feeds into the esthesic also, as the musician does not only listen to his band members but also to his own lines and ideas. Hodson applies the method to Thomson‘s (1998) analysis of Miles Davis‘ ‗So What‘. Thomson argues that during Davis‘ improvisation on a D Dorian tonality, he delineates the D Dorian by using C, E and G exclusively stating that you cannot hear this as D Dorian. Hodson shows through analysis of the full score how Bill Evans‘ piano firmly roots the D minor Harmony and thus it is impossible not to see it as D

Thomas Williams

- 44 -

MMus 09/10

Dorian. The relevance of Nattiez‘s model is exemplified as Hodson shows that the sonic trace does not accurately reflect the esthesic or reception gained from listening. This is extremely important as has been duly noted throughout, however as Hodson shows a more thorough trace can increase accuracy.

Issues of Intertextuallity Intertextuallity is the study of how one text relates to another, elements of which are gesture, language, signifying and often dialogue occurs between, or within texts. These aspects of intertextuallity are fundamental to the understanding of a musician‘s utterance and the overall utterance a piece presents. In addition to this we must be aware of the African American cultural traditions that surround jazz. Walser (1999) concedes that it is essential for any study of meaning in jazz.

Linguistics Intertextuallity appears in abundance throughout the antiphonal history of jazz 21 in many situations. Linguistics allow us to define some of the ways intertextuallity is used. Before alighting on some of the uses we must refer to what Charles Seeger (1977) refers to as the linguo-centric problem. Dubbing music and language as the two principle methods of auditory communication Seeger outlines the difficulties present in translating music to words, with music as ‗feeling‘ and language as ‗reality‘. Whilst this problem is evidently present, it can be said that jazz shares a lot in common with the practices of language and communicative dialogue. Azzara (1999) furthers this notion by stating ‗improvisation in music is analogous to the extemporaneous expression of ideas in language‘ (P.22). Where earlier an argument was made against the overuse of qualitative methods of discussion for music it is clear how it might be employed here to combat this. As Monson (1996) puts it: 21

Whilst the historical interplay of jazz is outside the focus here, many of the stylistic developments in jazz were in direct response to previous styles and zeitgeist.

Thomas Williams

- 45 -

MMus 09/10

‗The analytical tools of western music seem to be ‗soulless‘ and so a more metaphorical, intangible qualitative method is used by jazz musicians‘

This stance is further exemplified in Samuel and Floyd‘s (1991) study on literary concepts applicability to jazz studies: ‗Conventional musical analysis is in itself inadequate for the demands of black music scholarship and criticism‘ (P.58)

Monson goes on to further the usefulness of such an approach, showing the links between linguistics and musical expression. Allusion, antiphony, parody, and irony are all referenced and exemplified. Signifyin[g] Signifying[g] is a concept developed by Henry Louis Gates Jr. in his 1988 book ‗The Signifyin[g] Monkey‘. The original concept is based on black vernacular literary studies however has since been applied to music (see Middleton 1990, Samuel 1990 and Caponi 1999). In essence the concept is used to identify dialogue whose meaning is only realised through the shared vernacular. To quote Gates: ‗The speaker attempts to transmit his message indirectly and it is only by virtue of the hearer's defining the utterance as signifying that the speaker's intent (to convey a particular message) is realized‘ (P.85)

What Gates means here is that only if the receptor is able to understand not only the language but the context of the language in relation to the background of its originator, will meaning be conveyed. For example in a musical dialogue or call and response, each voice must be aware of where the other is coming from musically. Gates demonstrates the dual meanings that utterances can have depending on the receiver: ‗The black tradition is double-voiced. The trope of the Talking Book, of double-voiced texts that talk to other texts, is the unifying metaphor within this book. Signifyin(g) is the figure of the double-voiced, epitomized by Esu's [divine trickster figure in black culture] depictions in sculpture as possessing two mouths." (P.25)

Therefore for a musical utterance to be understood correctly analysis must be aware of the vernacular that exists for the conveyer of the utterance. According to Roger

Thomas Williams

- 46 -

MMus 09/10

Abrahams (1985, p.52), signifyin[g] can also mean any of a number of things. It can mean the ability to ‗talk with great innuendo, to carp, cajole, needle, and lie, the propensity to talk around a subject, making fun of a person or situation and speaking with the hands and eyes‘. Musical utterances can suggest similar gestures also, as will be shown in part two. Caponi (1999) (P.55) describes calls, cries, hollers, riffs, licks, overlapping antiphony as examples of signifyin[g] in hip hop music and other African-American music. He explains that signifying differs from simple repetition and from simple variation in that it uses material ‗rhetorically or figuratively — through troping, in other words — by trifling with, teasing, or censuring it in some way‘. Signifyin[g] does not necessarily need to be a solely black music based method however. Just as the vernacular of black jazz differed from white jazz so did genres and subgenres within each of these. An utterance portrayed in a bebop setting may not hold the same meaning in a swing context. This idea should then be applicable to post 1960‘s styles of jazz and their own vernacular. In conclusion if nothing else as Walser (1999) states, Signifyin[g] offers a new bag of conceptual tools for musical analysis and we should develop this to fit our needs.

Conclusion This section has discussed a range of the most common elements that characterise jazz as a music style. It is apparent that when considering jazz, dialogue, interaction, allusion and inter/intra-textual considerations are hugely important. The performance practices that jazz is built from are hugely reliant on these elements to distinguish the music. Specific concepts such as signifyin[g] are useful in discussing these elements. We have also seen that a far more objective approach may be taken to discussing these elements as well as when dealing with fundamentals like swing. It was also shown that through taxonomic study, characterising a musician‘s tendency of vocabulary (in part 1.1 through Owen‘s study of frequently used lines, and in part 1.2

Thomas Williams

- 47 -

MMus 09/10

with Dean‘s fingering study) is possible. It is therefore possible to objectify and start to dispel the myth surrounding improvisation and what is often said to be ‗spontaneous‘, ‗out of thin air‘, ‗reflections of personality‘, ‗feeling it‘ (Berliner 1994). In the next section the methodological approaches gained thus far will be used to analyze material from a post 1960‘s jazz style to determine the relevance of approaches to producing fruitful analyses. If the analysis is successful in producing fundamental discourse relevant to the material and its place in the sphere of jazz then this multi-directional approach may be useful to filling the void in studies of jazz related music of the post 1960‘s.

Thomas Williams

- 48 -

MMus 09/10

Part II ~ Re-application

Introduction In this section a new analysis will be constructed using the methodologies discussed throughout. The aim of this is to produce an approach to analysis that provides a more thorough and in depth musical discussion for the material chosen. This material will be of significant value to a strand of post 1960‘s jazz. The analysis intends to show how we may fill the void in post 1960 studies, by utilizing methods that focus on the fundamental aspects of jazz. If successful, then we can start to reapply some of these fundamental analytical traditions to advance jazz studies past its current conservative stance and ultimately provide insight into the players, artists and movements that are defining jazz today.

Choice and justification Before we begin the analysis, the choice of artist and piece must be justified.

The material had to:

1. Represent the stylistic strand it belongs to – to gauge this, a discussion of the materials defining characteristics in relation to the strand must take place, even if brief. This becomes particularly difficult in post 1960‟s stands that employ a range of stylistic bases. 2. Have had good reception – it will be more fruitful to approach material where at least some acknowledgement and reference exist otherwise the danger lies in making what could appear as assumptions. Once material with a larger reception has been approached, then it may be easier to move into related niche topics and studies.

Thomas Williams

- 49 -

MMus 09/10

3. Contain enough definitive base units of jazz to warrant discussion as a jazz based strand – even when studying fusions of jazz and other styles, it is important to keep focus on the elements that are fundamental to jazz practice. Therefore the focus of the study should be on the practices of jazz that exist within the material. That said an acknowledgement of the interaction of the stylistic strands and constructions that constitute the material must be explored to a degree. 4. Have one or more particularly outstanding elements worthy of discussion – there is no reason to say why every article of jazz should not warrant discussion, however informed discretion can be used in deciding what elements are particularly outstanding, and significant in relation to jazz as a whole. A degree of subjectivity cannot be avoided with this and it relies on the analyst‟s qualification on the subject. 5. Have (at the time of writing) lack of documented study/transcription - the reason for this is that this study intends to provide fresh grist to the analytical traditions of jazz, therefore a rehashing of previously exhausted material would not contribute to filling the deficit that has been explained throughout. 6. Be available in commercial recording – the material should be available, or at least attainable, increasing the amount of „dimensions‟ available. As argued through the recording and the transcription discussion (plus relevant intertextual and extra-musical information) it is possible to come closer to viewing the third dimension of performance that exists only at the time of creation. The commercial availability of the recordings is important because an aural knowledge of the solos themselves is essential if one is to grasp the musical effect of the theoretical structures utilized by the soloist, and readily available recordings provide that knowledge. They also represent an aural

Thomas Williams

- 50 -

MMus 09/10

record of the performance practice of the soloist, further deepening one‟s understanding of the musical statement being made. 7. be able to be studied using one or more of the methodologies extrapolated throughout – the point of the study is to show how existing analytical models can be used to fill the deficit in jazz studies, therefore an attempt at using as many of the approaches covered so far must be made.

Case study – Michael Brecker – „Rocks‟ from „The Brecker Bros‟ Michael Brecker is perhaps one of the most esteemed post 1960‘s saxophonists to date, with 13 Grammy awards for his own music and a session roster that can be read as an A-Z of who‘s who in the jazz/fusion, funk and mainstream pop and rock idioms. Highlights include, Average White Band, Aerosmith, James Brown, Chick Corea, Art Garfunkel, Pat Metheny, Horace Silver and James Taylor. Brecker grew up playing with his brother Randy and both were members of the Horace Silver band before starting there own all star projects Dreams and The Brecker Brothers. In both these projects Brecker shows his wide jazz vocabulary with an allusion to his idol John Coltrane. The music fused many styles of popular music; however was frequently groove based and is characteristically harmonically complex. The music of the Brecker Brothers, could fit into the 70‘s jazz/funk/rock or ‗fusion‘ bracket. Whilst the main focus of the analysis is Michael Brecker‘s playing, the composition itself tells us a lot about the stylistic strand it belongs to and therefore other external factors will be discussed.

Thomas Williams

- 51 -

MMus 09/10

Dimensions As this piece is a studio recording, visual cues and audience participation and appropriation need not be addressed. The sound recording is the primary source in this instance (particularly in the case of the solos). It could be argued that the source of the ‗tune‘ or ‗head‘ may of originated through score especially since it is harmonized and has frequent and complexly orchestrated hits, stabs and chord changes ( in the B section). The following analysis is organised by using the order of methodology employed in section one. It is inevitable that some findings will overlap and that different methodologies may provide conflicting ideas, however the aim of this is not necessarily to produce a ‗correct‘ analysis but instead a richer outcome of findings.

Formalistic Form The solos in the piece take place over an A B A structure before entering the break and returning to the main theme (A). This is typical of a jazz based performance and also concurs with the idea that the tune acts as a vehicle for improvising providing pre-established platforms (chord sequences, forms, style, groove etc) for the improviser to be creative over.

Harmony The A section is based around an F vamp. No thirds are present in the accompaniment and only the guitar hints at either F7 or Fmin through its use of the b7 and chromatic rise to the root. The funk feel also helps this allusion to both Mixolydian and Dorian. This is a common in the music of Michael Brecker as the ambiguity allows for different tonalities to be easier placed on top.

Thomas Williams

- 52 -

MMus 09/10

B The harmony in this section is over an 8 bar sequence with an Eb pedal. Over the first two bars a Db major triad is superimposed by guitar to create what can be seen as Ebsus (R, 2, 4, b7). This triad is then moved up a minor third for the next two measures to create E/Eb (R b2, 4, b6) and another minor third for measures 5-6 to create G/Eb (R, 3, #5, 7). For measures 7-8 the pattern concludes with by returning to E/Eb.

Melody Example 11

This melody defies conventional western music ‗rules‘. It does not resolve at the end of a phrase, even after traversing out of key notes. It hangs in another key to further enhance the dissonances and sharp feeling of the piece. The first line begins out of key with what can be seen as G major (the first four notes of bar 2 of the example are a descending G major scale, the next four are

Thomas Williams

- 53 -

MMus 09/10

descending Gmaj pentatonic from the 9 th: A). It then moves into Bbmajor for the last four 16ths of the bar (slightly less outside notes in relation to F min, as it suggests 1, 6, 5, 4 descending in F) then takes the same intervallic sequence and moves it up a half step ‗resolving‘ to a minor 6 th in relation to F. Technicality aside, the majority of notes employed are harmonically ‗outside‘ and enforce the use of dissonance that Brecker often favours. This is repeated throughout the entire head, as you can see, from bar 9 which is a F#maj pentatonic motif, which then shifts down a tone to E in bar 13, then up a semi tone to F. This is a common feature of Brecker‘s motivic development and he often uses semitone shifts22 to bring an ‗outside‘ element to his lines.

Thematic Melody – Brecker manipulates theme throughout the melody across larger structures and within smaller ones. The first line of melody sees Brecker creating an antiphonal effect through the directions of motif. Measure 2 can be divided into four sets of four, semiquaver motifs. The first set are descending, the third ascending and the fourth descending, creating an AABA idea. In addition the first two groups share the same 3rd and 4th suggesting that the second is a continuation or development of the first. The second line (Measure 6) uses the same patterns throughout creating an ABABA pattern (with each lasting four semiquavers). The next thematic development is in measures 9,13 and14. The three motifs share the same intervallic construction but move through unrelated keys, Gb, E and F. The motifs based around root, 2 nd, 3rd and 5th degrees show Brecker‘s use of semi-tone shifts.

22

The most noted example of the semitone shift is in ‗So What‘ by Miles Davis. This may be where this type of harmonic change came from.

Thomas Williams

- 54 -

MMus 09/10

In the B section melody Brecker wishes to bring attention to the harmony. He does this by employing the same rhythmic pattern for each two bar phrase and also by keeping a very similar melodic contour throughout. The first phrase is based around F pentatonic. Whilst this initially looks like continuation of the harmonic background of A, the Db/Eb tells us Brecker is thinking of the F minor as the VI chord (or natural minor) from Ab major instead of the proposed Dorian tonality from A. The second phrase is based around E Lydian using R, 3, #4 and 5 from E. This is another example of Brecker‘s semi tone shifts. The third phrase suggests G major using R, 2, 3, and 5 from G. at this point it is clear Brecker is approaching each chord by focusing on the upper structure instead of the overall harmonic suggestion created with the Eb pedal. The fourth suggests a return to E Lydian using 3, #4, 6, and 7 from E. This can also be viewed as a Eb minor pentatonic also as we will now see.

These are the starting notes from each of the phrases. The first three voice lead down in step to provide momentum because the rhythm and contour do not. This momentum is then intensified with a tritone leap to provide a platform to create tension from, which is then further intensified by ascending higher in register than the previous three. Were the fourth phrase to of started on Eb as suggested the voice leading would look like this:

Thomas Williams

- 55 -

MMus 09/10

This favours the notion that Brecker moves a lot in semi tones and short distances, showing all four starting points lining up chromatically from D to F. The reason he started the fourth phrase this way is possibly because of the tritone tension created.

Thomas Williams

- 56 -

MMus 09/10

Solos (see appendix 1 for transcription)

The solos take place over an ABA structure; they will be discussed in that order.

A – Brecker uses F minor pentatonic exclusively in this section to create a ―bluesy‖ solo. As he restricts himself to this alone it allows the rhythmic and melodic contours to foreground the sound. In the first measure, a motif from Bb to Ab is established, which is then ornamented in measure two to the same effect. This is done again in the next two measures with an increased rhythmic intensity and focus on Eb to F. if we view the solo in phrases of 4 measures, the second set of four (measures 5-8) focus on the same Eb to F resolution, however with increased rhythmic intensity to build momentum. The next four measures focus around a four note sequence beginning with Eb, F, Ab, F. This is seen twice before the sequence is moved down to Bb, C, Eb, and C, displaced to the offbeat and then played again starting on the beat. The original sequence is then inverted to lower instead of rise giving us Eb, C, Bb, and C. This sequence is used twice starting on the beat both times before climbing to play the descending sequence an octave above in the next measure. In total this sequence/motif is developed and used a total of 8 times. The next four measures before B, sees Brecker utilise a descending pentatonic line in measure 14 which is ended by a motif we saw earlier in measure 5. He then does another descending line in measure 15 with higher register and increased rhythmic intensity to end on a motif we discussed as our inverted sequence (Eb, C, Bb, C), played an octave above. Finally Brecker ends the section in measure 16 with the exact motif we saw in measures 5 and measure 14.

Thomas Williams

- 57 -

MMus 09/10

B – The phrases for this section are two measures long each. Brecker begins here by utilizing an F minor pentatonic line which uses the same triplet motif across two bars (Bb, F, Eb), first in isolation, then two at once to build intensity before finishing on a Ab to enhance the Suspended feeling of the Db/Eb harmony. The next two measures feature a constant semiquaver line, with a downward contour. Brecker uses a 4-note chromatic motif to begin with which is then repeated as the last four semiquavers of the measure. This pattern is a typical bop line and is found across the oeuvre of Charlie Parker and John Coltrane among others. In between he uses a rising 4-note idea followed by a descending one. The focus here is not on rhythm, or melody but melodic direction. In the next measure similar ideas are presented, the same chromatic pattern appears only this time starting from Ab instead of Db and is again repeated after another four note idea. This is not a straight copy however as in the previous measure the chromatic motifs were on the beat, here they are now displaced to the offbeat. This kind of rhythmic displacement was used in the A section also, during measures 9-13. The second instance of the chromatic idea also ends differently: instead of reprising the first note of the four it ends on a Db. The reason for this is that the in all other instance we see this chromatic sequence both here and in other works, it is usually followed by another line or melodic idea, therefore it makes sense to use the Db to give closure to the line. Here are some examples of Brecker‘s other uses of this chromatic idea from other pieces.

The next phrase in measures 21-22 is again a straight semiquaver line. The first two beats of measure 21 are made up of a rising tritone idea which does not appear elsewhere in the piece. The next two beats appear to be coming from C harmonic minor. The next measure begins by rephrasing the 5,b6,5,b3 idea from the

Thomas Williams

- 58 -

MMus 09/10

previous measure and then moves into an ascending G major arpeggio to finish. The next phrase shows a return to pentatonic, using a rising sequence from Db minor. The emphasis during the B section is not on thematic development, but instead on showing displaying technical ability. This is seen in the strict and fast rhythms, lack of allusion to previous ideas, quotations from standard bebop repertoire, large register jumps and use of harder harmonic concepts (tritone line, harmonic minor and heavy chromaticism).

A2 This section (measures 25 onwards) is broken into shorter two bar phrases to increase intensity (explained in the dialogue analysis later on). The first two phrases (4 measures) are a return to F minor pentatonic ideas, however are begun and ended with the same C, Ab, F pentatonic motif. The next phrase is a descending quaver line moving through F dorian however it does not show any thematic relation to other lines, other than in contour. The next phrase (31-32) is a semiquaver descending line which features the same chromatic sequence (third offbeat in measure 31) from the B section twice and in the same fashion with the four semiquaver idea separating the two uses. The next phrase (33-34) is another chromatic semiquaver line, in answer to the previous phrase. This is better explained in the analysis of dialogue also. The next phrase (measures 35-36) is a pentatonic idea with a b5 use to give a ‗bluesy‘ sound. The contour of this phrase is downwards in the first bar and upwards in the second. The next phrase mimics both the contour and use of b5 in the same way; however there are no clear motivic developments. The last phase does however invert the rising sequence (at half speed) of the previous phrase to descend and finish the solo.

Thomas Williams

- 59 -

MMus 09/10

In general the use of theme in this section is obscured by the antiphony being created by the opposing phrases (see dialogue analysis) but there are some interesting reoccurrences of motif and contour developments.

Syntactical

Dialogue and Intratext Perhaps one of the most interesting elements of this piece is the dialogic phrasing of the solos. The solo section is played in its entirety by Brecker on saxophone. Initially this was transcribed with the intention of reproducing here, which given the usual interplay between the ‗Brothers‘ (the saxophone of Michael and the trumpet of Randy), seemed strange. Listening to the production on the record it appeared that the solo was panning throughout. It is clear this panning is used to separate the solo and so this was notated by separating the two sides into different staves. Upon closer inspection it appears that the panning occurs every four bars during the A section, every two during the B section and every two during the final A section. This points to one of two things. Either a) The solo is in fact a one voiced entity that Brecker chose to divide through the use of technology after he recorded the solo or b) Brecker used technology (The ability to multitrack) to be able ‗trade‘ 23 with himself. A closer examination of the music may bring us closer to one of these conclusions. As the transcription has been separated I will from now refer to the panning ‗sides‘ as voice 1 and voice 2 respectively as they first appear in the solo.

23

This term is used frequently by jazz musicians ( Berliner 1994) to describe a musical situation where soloists each play one after the other, in a call and response manner. This can happen in either predetermined lengths like we have seen here (i.e ‗Trading four‘s‘ and ‗Trading Two‘s‘ ) or can be left up to the interpretation of each performer. It is often considered one of the highest points of appropriation in jazz (Fischlin & Heble 2004).

Thomas Williams

- 60 -

MMus 09/10

A – Example 12

Firstly the note choice in this section is purely F minor pentatonic. It is unlikely that two soloists would stick so strictly to a similar note choice unless predetermined, which is unlikely since as we shall see the identical A‘ section features both voices veering away from the pentatonic into more harmonically ‗suggestive‘ lines. What a player can play over the chord changes of particular sections is sometimes determined by the director (who would in this case be Brecker), this was certainly the case during Miles Davis‘ Modal sessions (Carr 1998), and this may be the case in ‗rocks‘. The phrasing also points to the latter conclusion. Measure 4 strongly emphasises the move from b7 to root. This is then alliterated in the following 4

Thomas Williams

- 61 -

MMus 09/10

measures by voice 2 three times in total, occurring in measures 5, 624 and 8. All are rhythmically differing but could be seen as voice 2 developing the motif of voice 1. A similar point occurs in the following two four bar trades. On the fourth beat of measure 11 a descending semiquaver sequence is introduced and repeated twice. The same motif is then reproduced an octave higher in measure 13 by the voice 2. Voice 2 is definitely playing off what happens in the preceding phrases of voice 1; however voice 1 has no direct link with voice 2‘s opening measures (5-8). This could perhaps suggest that Brecker recorded all of voice 1 first, and then recorded voice 2 after. This is not common practice, but then neither is trading with yourself. There is one reason however, why this may not be the case. In measure 12, voice 1 ends its phrase without resolving as it has does for the other phrases. Instead it ends on an ascending three note motif, moving through b3, 4 th and 5th, with the last two notes being the final two semiquaver divisions of the bar. Voice 2, now follows this sequence by utilizing the sequence already discussed in measure 13. When listening to the recording, it sounds like this fragmentary tail to measure 12 should instead belong to line started by Voice 2 in measure 13. If Brecker‘s intention was for these two lines to be heard as a whole it is strange why he hasn‘t included the tail motif of measure 12 in voice 2. The only other alternative is that he purposefully put it there to try and create symbiosis between his two voices, and give him a platform to work the four bar sequence from . This is again more likely, given the four bar structures. If he was recording voice one first he would be conscious of not entering what he planned to be voice 2‘s territory, which would explain the abrupt ending in measure 12.

24

th

This octave above figure starting on beat two does however contain a 5 but is by no means the focus point of this motif.

Thomas Williams

- 62 -

MMus 09/10

B- Example 13

The note choice in this section in this section is much more varied, with each voice employing chromaticisms and harmonic superimposition in parts. The first notable thing is the rhythmic density. Each response adopts long strings of semi quaver lines. To understand the reasoning for this let us first remind ourselves of the harmony.

D/Eb (2measures) E/Eb (2 measures) G/Eb (2 Measures) E/Eb (2 measures)

Firstly the rising non-functional harmony, as already discussed, provides tension and harmonic instability, and is reflected in the makeup of the lines. Secondly the harmonic rhythm as seen in example 14 provides a less busy and more open space for the chords, thus allowing the soloist more spatial area.

Thomas Williams

- 63 -

MMus 09/10

Example 14

The length of the measures can be seen as reasoning for the sudden increase in intensity, the shorter call-response pattern of two bars as opposed to four puts emphasis on the soloist to do more within his response. Apart from these factors this section is also the most harmonically dense section in the piece and allows each voice to show off in ‗cutting sessions‘ (Berliner 1994. P.44) with the other. This is reflected in the contour of the lines. As can be seen by looking at the transcription, the dialogue is created here by movement of lines. Both the first two measures and their following two in response by voice 2, carry similarities of contour as if mimicking of the first line is occurring. The first focuses heavily on the Bb, using sporadic ‗dips‘ to suggest the downwards direction in which the line is finally ended. Voice 2 does a similar thing with Db, however instead of purely holding a note, they use a chromatic approach to weave around it, however it reappears twice on beats 1 and 4 and also three time on the third semiquaver of beats 1, 2 and 4. Again this lines contour hints downwards and resolves downwards like the former. The following two responses from measures five to eight show similar suggestions that voice 1 and 2 are interlocked in close dialogue. The first starts at low registers and rises three octaves using sequences, firstly employing tritones then moving into a more arpeggio directed line climaxing at the top. The second voice follows, rising up nearly two octaves again climaxing on the highest note within the line. This is the only point in the entire piece that the melody instruments open their range so wide. At first it may appear too simplistic to substantiate such a claim based on two lines moving in the same direction, especially since the response of voice 2, barely makes two octaves in total in comparison to the much wider call of voice 1,

Thomas Williams

- 64 -

MMus 09/10

however on closer reading something else is apparent. Voice 1 ends the line rising through a G major arpeggio, which fits in accordance to the G/Eb background. Voice 2‘s line peaks much sooner moving between a 6 and b7 and ending on 6 (in relation to Eb). The background harmony however suggests that it should be a b6 instead as discussed. This could be seen in terms of what Monson (1996) points out as humoristic dialogue. In this sense voice 2 could be seen to be mocking voice 1‘s efforts almost (or Signifyin[g] on), by traversing a much smaller spread of range and holding and emphasising the dissonant major 6th instead of using it as a passing tone or as part of any other chromatic approach such as enclosure. The issue of creation is again present here. Whilst the mimicking of lines and ‗cutting sessions‘ are typical features of jazz performance practice as Berliner (1994. P.44) notes, it is hard to tell how Brecker recorded this i.e. voice by voice, phrase by phrase, as a whole etc. nevertheless it is clear through examination of all these features that the desired effect was increased intensity and to further show dialogue and ability to develop themes of pitch, contour, direction and technicality.

Thomas Williams

- 65 -

MMus 09/10

A‟ – Example 15

This section exhibits similar ideas of development and dialogic nature as the other two; however it is not the same. Firstly the note choice differs. There is a mix between the pentatonic based A and the more chromatic laden B. in this we find some of Brecker‘s ideas of harmonic superimposition (again which will be discussed later, in its own context) against a static harmony (measures 11-12 particularly). As this section progresses it becomes more intensified. Firstly a return to the slower more punctuated style of A‘ is realised until measure 7. After this both voices change to a style more akin to B, utilising semiquavers for the most part. It is clear the purpose of the dialogue in this section is to increase intensity to present a final climax and conclude the overall dialogue within.

Thomas Williams

- 66 -

MMus 09/10

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this section is the final call-response between voice 1 and 2. Voice 1 ascends in typical climactic fashion however when it reaches its highest note, tails off. It is at this point that voice 2 enters a semi tone (whilst not notated the note is clearly bent up in pitch towards the B natural) below to almost complete voice 1‘s line, descending pentatonic in a similar fashion to the start of A. This marries the two differing principles we have seen throughout this solo, the duelling properties and the development of theme. This line presents an antiphonal aesthetic on paper; however on listening aural perception suggests a completely unified and flowing idea.

Intensity Within the context of this solo we have talked about intensity fairly subjectively thus far. Let us now apply Monson‘s intensity model. Monson (1996) describes intensification as ‗internal music events of a particular performance that contribute to the feeling of musical climax (such as changes in rhythmic density, register, timbre, melody, harmony, interaction and style of groove)‘ (1996. pp.139). As has been done here, he first analyzes the song on a smaller level, before attempting to produce a graph of intensification on speculation alone. What Monson‘s model lacks is any hierarchical considerations of what elements of ‗musical climax‘ might signal a larger rise (or fall) in intensity than others. Unfortunately this is a matter of perception however, as subjective judgement of this listener is certainly a factor25. What Monson seems to be getting at is that the more of those elements are present, or as the density of elements increase, the more likely intensity is to be raised.

25

Whilst not wholly relevant here, an interesting question is created through the means of what we are attempting in this analysis. Does perception of intensification change after one has observed the inner workings of a piece? Certainly in this, one of the climactic highpoints is the unity of the end phrases of voice 1 and 2. This is not clearly reflected in the transcription alone however, and requires as we have seen some consider of the preceding nature of the two voices.

Thomas Williams

- 67 -

MMus 09/10

It can be fair to say that harmonic intensity is higher in Section B, given the nature of the rising non-functional minor third triads. Section A is less rhythmically dense than both B and A‘. Interaction occurs throughout and distinguishing which points of interaction are more intensified is a subjective problem, however highlights that have been discussed include the end of the solo and the ‗cutting contest‘ (particularly the mocking statement from voice 2). Harmonic purpose of the lines increases in B, however is at its most ‗intensified‘ in the chromatic and harmonic superimpositions of A‘. Register increases (and ranges) most in B followed by A‘. From this knowledge we can construct a schematic similar to the one Monson presents for the whole solo.

Example 16

Section A gradually increases in intensity as the dialogue begins. Example 17

Section B has the most sharp increases and decreases in intensity. These sharp peaks and dips could represent the duelling qualities of the section, almost akin to a spoken argument.

Example 18

Thomas Williams

- 68 -

MMus 09/10

The first half shows reprisal of section A and the second shows increase to the climax of the whole dialogue.

Harmonic delineation In order to understand the melodic devices Brecker utilizes, we must break down the phrases in question syntactically and re-evaluate their purpose in relation to the harmony. Whilst a full break down of all elements employed would be useful to someone completely unfamiliar with this style, it is not practical to do so here. Instead we will focus on the lines that stand out; those with hidden harmonic significance, heavily chromatic lines, and any others that may stand out. Section A features only F minor pentatonic phrases so we will not look at this section, as it is neither definitive of Brecker or the fusion style in which this piece belongs.

B

V1 – This line is made up of what appears to be a pentatonic substitution. Over the suggested Eb sus tonality, we see a line based around F minor Pentatonic. This gives note relationships of 1,2,4,5 and 6 in relation to Eb. This was a good choice as it stays in keeping with the ambiguous nature of the harmony by not including any thirds, however apart from the thirds the chords and the phrase spell out an almost full chord scale of 1,2,4,5,6,b7.

Thomas Williams

- 69 -

MMus 09/10

V2 - In this line Brecker initially appears to be just playing chromatically against the harmony, however closer inspection reveals that he is using chord substitution in his lines. A schooled player like Brecker would no doubt be familiar with enclosure: a technique of emphasising chord tones on strong beats (Aebersold 1974). If we look at the first measure, every strong beat (1 st and 3rd semiquavers of a set) is indicative of B major 7 with two anomalistic Db‘s (which would function enharmonically as a major 2nd in relation to Bmajor7). Example 19

The second measure suggests a similar occurrence with Gbmaj7 as a basis. The same anomalistic 2nd‘s appear on the weak beats that are not chord tones and so all can be attributed to pattern development (especially as the second occurrence appears as the 4th last note in both measures). Bmajor7 to Gbmaj7 (F#Maj7) is a I V (Major7) in B. As our background harmony is made up of R, b2, 4, b6 in relation to Eb we can see it as coming from either Eb Phrygian or Eb Locrian. If we examine the chord scale for Eb Phrygian from the point of view of its parent scale B, it is likely that what Brecker is doing is creating a I V progression using the ‗home‘ key to the harmony.

Thomas Williams

- 70 -

MMus 09/10

Example 20

From this we can take a taxonomic observation that you can apply a I V from a parent scale to create the basis for lines. The next step here would be to identify more uses of this across Brecker‘s oeuvre and see whether it can be applied over other chord types positioned differently in the chord scale i.e. How would this sound over a C#min11 or G#min9 or Emaj7#11?

V1 – the harmonic background of this line suggests R, 3, #5, 7, which creates an augmented chord type. Brecker utilizes two ideas to move through this line. Firstly he uses Lydian augmented (1, 2, 3, #4, #5, 6, 7) almost exclusively for the first 6 bars of this phrase. There are two perfect fourths present however but the #4ths take precedence here as they appear twice as much. In the second measure Brecker appears to be utilizing a G major arpeggio (3, #5, 7). This is another effect often utilized in Brecker‘s music. This feature can be added to taxonomy of Brecker‘s melodic devices: when playing over an augmented chord, you can play a major arpeggio a major third away.

Thomas Williams

- 71 -

MMus 09/10

Example 21

V2 – This line is another pentatonic substitution. This can be seen as the minor pentatonic of Db which appears to be coming from II (Dorian) in our parent chord scale (BMajor). This becomes more likely with the inclusion of C as it can be seen as functioning as a major 7 in relation to the Db which as the substitution suggests Db Dorian would suggest D Melodic minor, a common alternative to straight Dorian (Aebersold 1974).

A‘ – Example 22

In this example from measure 9 of A‘ Brecker starts in F minor, playing off the 2 nd, b7, b3rd and 4th (still in key) before using a DMaj arpeggio (the minor third down substitution mentioned before) and then through F7 and then Bb for resolution. We can certainly see Coltrane‘s influence in this line, as it could be seen as a substitution found in tunes such as ‗Giant Steps‘ which feature this (Coltrane‘s matrix system). If we work backwards we can see that the F7 resolves to Bb, The D7 to F7 is part of Coltranes Matrix system of moving in minor thirds. From this we can see that what Brecker is actually doing (rather than just playing random notes outside the scale), is

Thomas Williams

- 72 -

MMus 09/10

creating an imposed progression over a vamp to create and release tension in the same way as if the chords were actually F-, D7, F7, Bbmaj7, In terms of melodic/harmonic device this is the only example of noteworthy discussion in the A‘ section, every other line falls under one of two categories: F minor pentatonic or F Blues. Whilst a complete breakdown would be useful it is not possible here. Anything of significance to these other lines has been covered in the other sections of analysis.

Taxonomic

By looking at the Brecker‘s use of repetition, both within this piece and others, it is possible to yield a common vocabulary. This can help when discussing levels of premediation and also help establish a scale from wholly unmediated or anomalistic, to totally preconceived. There is a common conception amongst jazz musicians that great improvisations must be ‗fresh‘ and move away from previous utterances. As has been seen in the studies from Owens and Schuller, repetition can also make for great improvisations. This study does not lean either way and instead wishes to provide explanation into the improvisational processes used by Brecker. The following examples are taken from pieces recorded by the same group at a similar time. They all feature a background funk feel, based on a suspended chord as ‗Rocks‘ does. All pieces feature heavy use of pentatonic and blues usage however we will focus on the 3 idiosyncrasies of Brecker‘s style: Rhythmic intensity/ repetition, use of chromatics and superimposed progressions, all of which are fundamental to Brecker‘s sound in ‗rocks‘.

Thomas Williams

- 73 -

MMus 09/10

Rhythmic Density These 6 examples show how Brecker‘s use of rhythmic density/intensity. They all focus around a single note or idea, using sequence or motif to move away from the note, before repeating. The significance here is not apparent until you look at more Brecker Brothers pieces from the similar time. Almost every Brecker solo on the first two Brecker albums feature use of these incredibly fast sequences. He appears to use them instinctively at heights of performance to showcase technical ability, and on live recordings is acknowledged by the audience at these points. The highly chromatic sequences from ‗Chromazone‘ and ‗Not Ethiopia‘ appear frequently also, which unlike the others are simply played as fast as possible without rhythmic regard. This is shown through the changing rhythmic groupings and unusual groupings such as 7‘s, 9‘s and 11‘s.

‘Rocks‘

‘Chromazone‘

‗Chromazone‘

‗Not Ethiopia‘

Thomas Williams

‗Some Skunk Funk‘

‗Funky Sea, Funky Dew‘

- 74 -

MMus 09/10

Thomas Williams

- 75 -

MMus 09/10

Chromatic/ Bebop Approach These examples were chosen because of the findings in the thematic analysis, to further show Breckers debt to Bebop structures. The four note chromatic sequence, (e.g. R,7, b7, R) is present in all of these, as well as other ideas such as enclosure

‗Rocks‘

‘Chromazone‘

‘Chromazone‘

‗Not Ethiopia‘

‗Inside Out‘

Thomas Williams

- 76 -

MMus 09/10

Imposing Chord Progressions These examples show how Brecker frequently imposes chord progressions over one chord vamps. This concept is relatively new to jazz, having first emerged in the music of John Coltrane, however few employ it, so it is of value to characterising Brecker‘s vocabulary.

‘Rocks‘

---Tonic(Fsus)------------------------------------------ D7----------------------- F7-------- Bbmaj7 As already explained in the last section, Brecker is using minor third shifts from the tonic here, before using a V-I in Bb. ‗Chromazone‘ – Gminor vamp

--GMin------------------Dbmaj----------BbMin--------------------The DbMaj and Bbmin indicatate a tonality shift of a minor third up. The DbMaj shows that Brecker can navigate his way to this shift by employing a major chord a tritone away from the harmony.

‗Not Ethiopia‘ Gsus vamp

-------G7(b13)-----G#MaJ---------G#Min------EbMaj7

Thomas Williams

- 77 -

MMus 09/10

This idea suggests Brecker is imposing major third away from the tonic, creating a Common IV, IV-, I, Pattern in Ebmaj.

‘Some Skunk Funk‘ – Asus vamp

--------------FMaj---------------------------------------------------------Dbmaj-------------

This example shows another major third shift from F down to Db. In addition, Brecker uses the same chromatic bebop lick at the start of the second measure as identified before.

‗Funky Sea, Funky Dew‘ - B- Vamp

-------G----------Eb-----------F#=7b5-------B7Alt

The first two impositions show a major third shift. After moving a minor third from Eb the second two chords provide a minor ii, V in E-. Brecker does not resolve to Ehowever, ending abruptly, possibly leaving it to the listener to finish or purposefully changing the B tonality from a minor feel to an altered dominated. A few commonly used Brecker patterns have been uncovered here, however to construct a complete taxonomic breakdown requires looking at his whole oeuvre and also tracing his ideas back to his predecessors, which demands a study of itself.

Thomas Williams

- 78 -

MMus 09/10

Reductions Using a traditional Schenkerian methodology may be difficult here. The problem lies in the harmonic background. The harmonies heard are a product of the melodies against the background pedals in both A and B sections. It seems logical then, to use the connotations produced by the melody as the harmonic data for the reductions. A further problem lies in the resolution of the lines. ‗Normal‘ tonal music usually starts and finishes in the tonal centre of the piece, or moves through directly related centres. This piece does not conform in the same way. As a breakdown of the solo has already been achieved in previous methodologies, focus will be on the composed elements of the piece.

Stage 1 (appendix 2) As the A section is so firmly rooted in F by the rhythm section, it is hard to hear the function of this section as anything but Tonic. Appendix 2 shows the first reduction of the melody, using the suggestions made by the melody alone to assign harmonic purpose in relation to F Dorian. The chord scale used for reference is F-, G-, AbMaj, Bb7, C-, Ddim, EbMaj. Whilst the chords are far from diatonic, the progression and separation of the different harmonies is far easier to perceive. The first two phrases are indicative of ii V I progressions, which is very common in jazz. There is a high level of substation however. The first phrase indicates ii, V7, IV, bV. Initially the Major 7th of G in ii suggests G major, however the absence of third could point towards G Melodic Minor which is a common substitute for ii. The IV can be seen as a substitute for another ii. The bV could be attributed to one of two things 1) another of the semitone shifts utilised by Brecker 2) a tritone substitution for F7; one of the possible background harmonies established through the funk allusions of the rhythm section.

Thomas Williams

- 79 -

MMus 09/10

The second phrase starts with a continuation of this bV idea, then moves into a ii (substituted by IV), V, I. Both of these phrases occur too fast to shift the feeling of the piece from the tonic. Further harmonic reduction for this and the B section is talked about in stage 3.

Stage 2 (appendix 3) Rhythm, duplicate notes and passing tones were all removed for this stage to see whether there is any deeper voice leading occurring through the chords. As can be seen there is appears to be voice leading taking place in both A and B. The first phrase in A demonstrates a small range of motion, ranging only from Db to Eb across the ii V IV bV progression. The second phrase reveals a descending sequence finishing on the tonic again supporting the static tonality feel despite the suggested progressions leading to it. The B section does not appear to show any patterns of interest, but can be said to closely voiced for the first three chords, with the fourth leaping higher to further enhance the dominant feeling.

Stage 3 As the A section still firmly grounds the piece to the tonic and the B section is a clear move away and continual elaboration on a VII substitute for V we can summarise the ABA structure as: I---------V---------I The coda is based on the first phrase of the piece, however shifts at the end, to a bII, again utilising the semitone shifts characterised throughout.

Thomas Williams

- 80 -

MMus 09/10

Conclusion Whilst this study did not intend to produce a definitive guide to analyzing within a jazz context, it did intend to show the possibilities of expanding our approaches to jazz scholarship through the review of standards set in other texts and through showing that a utilising a varied methodology can yield richer findings. Through doing this we are able to build a catalogue of methodologies which from which we can draw from to start to bridge the gap in analyses that exists not only in post 1960‘s jazz but in earlier forms also that require a more up to date examination. It has also been conclusive that using a wider range of methodologies on one piece can provide a better breakdown of the elements within. Through all of these considerations various routes have become available to us. Here are some of them:

1) Constructing a larger base of applicable methodologies (inside and outside existent jazz studies) This study is by no means exhaustive, within its confines it has tried to range as wide as possible to identify suitable methods of analysis that may be useful in analyzing as of yet unstudied jazz. It is important to look at things from more than one perspective and to let the music govern which methodologies are appropriate however a level of informed judgment must be used, as it dangerous to apply too many methods as the study may become too concerned with the methodologies as opposed to the specific elements of analytical interest. There are many more methods in the realms of ethno, popular and traditional musicology that should be tested for appropriateness as well as interdisciplinary schools of thought such as philosophical, linguistic, sociological and psychological.

Thomas Williams

- 81 -

MMus 09/10

2) Applying more informed approaches to material that has to date been unstudied This essay has shown the applicability of methods of previous jazz analyses for use on other material. There is a huge amount of material however that remains unstudied and therefore the next logical step is to follow up on this in the attempt to beat this deficiency. In doing so we might be able to combat the first problematic area outlined in the essay.

3) The problem with post 1960‟s classification and its potential solution As shown in the introduction the explosion of styles after the 1960‘s with new styles of jazz fusing elements of other contemporary styles such as rock, funk, soul, and later electronic, synthesised, world and dance based music etc, the lines separating jazz styles have become further obscured26. What analysis can do is to try and place each of the player‘s and elements to their origins. If this is done then categorisation may become easier. With this a new and more accurate historical account of post 1960‘s jazz may be produced. The developmental shifts in jazz (swing –bop-hard bop – cool –modal etc) are too rigidly defined. Bebop did not suddenly emerge nor did it suddenly end. We have come to define the clusters in activity and proliferation as historical markers for development, however in doing so we are not acknowledging potentially great music outside of these clusters. There are today a number of note worthy musicians advancing traditional jazz styles such as bebop and big band swing just as there are a number of artists advancing newer styles fusing elements outside of jazz. The fundamental difference since the 1960‘s is that clusters do not appear anymore (perhaps partly because of the decline of the commercial success of jazz in recent years 27 and so it 26

Interestingly enough jazz‘s origins in New Orleans are often attributed to the melding together of many cultures placed together. For all the jazz purists such as Marsalis who reject these later styles as being worthy enough for discourse, it is a blow to see that the fundamental reaction that resulted in the birth of jazz, is ever present and characteristic in these styles 27 Commercial success may have declined but jazz still thrives and continues to be studied, performed and enjoyed. For a more informed discussion of the commercial status of jazz than is presented here see Nicholson (2005).

Thomas Williams

- 82 -

MMus 09/10

is harder to place all of the activity. In identifying characteristic aspects and trends within an artist‘s piece or whole oeuvre it may be possible to align them stylistically without the need for such clusters, and thus approach them with suitable methodologies.

Thomas Williams

- 83 -

MMus 09/10

References Aebersold, J., 1974. The II/V7/I Progression: A New Approach to Jazz Improvisation. New Albany Abrahams, R., D. 1985. Afro-American Folktales: Stories from Black Traditions in the New World. New York: Pantheon Adorno, T.,1969. On The Problem of Music Analysis. Music Analysis, 1(2), pp.169-187 (Jul 1982) Azzara, C., D.1999 An Aural Approach to Improvisation Music Educators Journal, 86(3), pp. 21-25 Berliner, P., 1994. Thinking In Jazz. Chicago:University of Chicago Press Brothers, T., 1994. Solo and Cycle in African-American Jazz. Musical Quarterly, 78(3), pp. 479-509 Caponi, G., D. 1999. Signifyin(G), Sanctifyin', & Slam Dunking: A Reader in African American Expressive Culture. Massachusetts:University of Massachusetts Press Callard, P., 2006 Understanding Brecker Part 1. Guitar Techniques 121 pp. 66-72 Callard, P., 2006 Understanding Brecker Part 2. Guitar Techniques 122 pp. 78-81 Callard, P., 2006 Understanding Brecker Part 3. Guitar Techniques 123 pp. 78-81 Carr, I., 1998. Miles Davis: The Definitive Biography. London:Harper Collins Collier, G. and Collier, J, L., 1996. Microrhythms in Jazz: A Review of Papers. Annual Review of Jazz Studies, 8, pp. 117-139. Dankworth, A., 1968. Jazz: An Introduction to its Musical Basis. New York:Oxford University Press Dean, J., n.d. Pat Metheny‟s Finger Routes‟: An examination of left hand technique and its role in the „composition‟ of improvisations. Unpublished MA dissertation. Surrey University Dean, R., 1992. New Structures in Jazz and Improvised Music Since 1960. New York:Oxford University Press Fischlin, D and Heble, A., 2004. The Other Side of Nowhere: Jazz, Improvisation and Communities in Dialogue. Middleton:Wesleyan University Press. Foss, L.,1962. Improvisation Versus Composition The Musical Times, 103(1436), pp. 684-685. Friberg, A., 1999. Jazz Drummers' Swing Ratio in Relation to Tempo [Online]. Available at http://www.acoustics.org/press/137th/friberg.html. Accessed 3rd August 2009. Gates , H, L., 1988. The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of Afro-American Literary Criticism. New York: Oxford University Press. Gehring, P., 1967. The Aesthetics of Improvisation Festschrift Theodore Hoelty-Nickel, ed. Newman W. Powell (Valparaiso, Ind) Hodeir, A., 1956. Jazz, its Evolution and Essence. Translated by David Noakes.,1979. New York: Grove

Thomas Williams

- 84 -

MMus 09/10

Hodson, R., 2007. Interaction, Improvisation and Interplay in Jazz. New York: Routledge. Jost, E., 1974. Free Jazz. New York: Da Capo Press Inc. Kahn, A., 2000. Kind of Blue. London: Granta Books. Kenny, B., 1996. Jazz Analysis as Cultural Imperative (And Other Urban Myths) Research Studies in Music Education. Kuzmich, J., 1980. Improvisation Teaching Materials. Music Educators Journal, 65(5), pp.5155 Kynaston, T.,1985. Pro Sessions: An Analysis of Michael Brecker‘s Harmonic Style, Down Beat.52(5), pp.54-55 Larson, S.,1998. Schenkerian Analysis of Modern Jazz: Questions about Method, Music Theory Spectrum, 20(2), pp.209-241 Marshall, W., 2003. Pat Martino: The Best of. New York: Hal Leonard. Mermekides, M., n.d. That Swing. Unpublished. University of Surrey. Middleton, R., 1990. Studying Popular Music. New York: Oxford University Press. Monson, I., 1996. Saying Something. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Moore, A., 2002. Authenticity as Authentication, Popular Music, 21(2) , pp.209-223 Nattiez, J.,1987. Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music, Translated by Carolyn Abbate, 1990., Princeton: Princeton University Press. Nettl, B., 1974. Thoughts on Improvisation: A Comparative Approach. The Musical Quarterly 60(1), pp.1-19 Nicholson, S., 1998. Jazz-Rock: A History. Schirmer Books Nicholson, S., 2005. Is Jazz Dead? (or Has it Moved to a New Address). London: Routledge Nisenson, E., 2000. The Making of Kind of Blue - Miles Davis and his masterpiece, New York: St Martin's Griffin. Owens, T., 1996. Bebop: the music and its players. New York: Oxford University Press. Owens, T., 2003. Analysisng Jazz, In: Cooke, M, and Horn, D.,eds. The Cambridge Companion to Jazz, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Pautrot, J., 2006. The Andre Hodeir Jazz Reader, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Pressing, J., 1984.Cognitive Processes in Improvisation,In: Crozier W.R., ed. Cognitive Processes in the Perception ofArt, Holland: Elsevier Science Publication. Ruwert, N, Everis M., 1987. Methods of Analysis in Musicology, Music Analysis, 6(1), pp.3-36 Samuel, A, and Floyd, J., 1991. Ring Shout! Literary Studies, Historical Studies, and Black Music Inquiry, Black Music Research Journal 11(2), pp.22-59 Sarath, E., 1996. A New Look at Improvisation, Journal of Music Theory, 40(1), pp.1-38 Schuller, G., 1968. Early Jazz. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thomas Williams

- 85 -

MMus 09/10

Seeger, C., 1977. Studies in Musicology, 1935-1975. Berkeley: University of California Press. Solomon, L., 1986. Improvisation II, Perspectives of New Music, 24(2), pp. 224-235. Stearns, M., 1970. The Story of Jazz. New York: Oxford University Press. Tagg, P., and Clarida, B., 2003. Ten Little Tunes. New York: Mass Media Music Scholars Press. Thomson, W ., 1998. On Miles and Modes. College Music Symposium, 38(1), pp.17-32. Tirro, F.,1974. Constructive Elements in Jazz Improvisation, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 27(2), pp. 285-305. Tirro, F.,1993. Jazz: A History, New York: W.W Norton & Company, Inc. Walser, R.,1999. Keeping Time: Readings in Jazz History. New York: Oxford University Press Watkins, E.T., 2003. Planet Jazz. Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi. Wiskirchen, G., 1975. If We‘re Going to Teach Jazz, We Must Teach Improvisation, Music Educators Journal, 62(3), pp.68-74.

Discography Pat Martino. „All Blues‟ on „Live at Yoshi‟s‟. 2001. Blue Note Records. Compact Disc Brecker Brothers, The. ‗Rocks‟ on „Brecker Bros.‟ 1975.GRP. Compact Disc Brecker Brothers, The, ‗Not Ethiopia‘ on ‗Straphangin‘‘, 1980. Sony. Compact Disc Brecker Brothers, The, ‗Funky Sea, Funky Dew‘ on ‗Heavy Metal Bebop‘. 1978. Arista. Compact Disc Brecker Brothers, The, ‗Inside Out‘ on ‗Heavy Metal Bebop‘. 1978. Arista. Compact Disc Brecker Brothers, The, ‗Skunk Funk‘ on Brecker Bros.‟ 1975.GRP. Compact Disc Mike Stern, ‗Chromazone‘ on ‗Time in Place‘ 1988. Atlantic. Compact Disc