Defining "Modal Jazz"

[JonnyPac]

From Kieth Waters Studio Recordings of the Miles Davis Quintet Oxford University Press 2011:

MODAL JAZZ

1. Modal scales for improvisation (or as a source of accompaniment)
2. Slow harmonic rhythm (single chord for 4, 8, 16 or more bars)
3. Pedal point harmonies (focal bass pitch or shifting harmonies over a primary bass pitch)
4. Absence or limited use of functional harmonic progressions (such as V-I or ii-V-I) in accompaniment or improvisation
5. Harmonies characteristic of jazz after 1959 (Suspended fourth- "sus" - chords, slash chords, harmonies named for modes; i.e., phrygian, aeolian harmonies)
6. Prominent use melodic and/or harmonic perfect fourths

[JonnyPac]

The author also makes it clear that all of these features do not have to be present in a performance; a mixture is more common. He also explains how the given mode in 1. does not restrict a player in the melodic/harmonic sense to only play the notes within the mode. He goes over Acknowledgment from Trane's A Love Supreme and how Trane played the motif in all 12 keys over the modal accompaniment; playing outside is as available as ever in modal jazz.

And I love this footnote:

In this discussion, I will use the term modes and scales interchangeably. I will not examine the relationship of jazz modality to Renaissance modality- those studies that do (and their resultant exchanges) do not meaningfully enhance enhance the understanding of modal jazz.

I would just add ,"bitches!!" to the end.

[mtierney]

This is really great. Thanks for sending this. I still haven't gotten around to ordering it yet, but I really think I will.

I'm also in complete agreeance about the usage of bitches at the end of the footnote.

[JonnyPac]

[cmajor9]

That seems like a pretty good list of characteristics. Of course, its not a "hard and fast" definition (as the author says), more a list of the qualities you're likely to find (some or all) in what we think of as modal jazz.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by cmajor9

That seems like a pretty good list of characteristics. Of course, its not a "hard and fast" definition (as the author says), more a list of the qualities you're likely to find (some or all) in what we think of as modal jazz.

Modal jazz is slippery, and no hard and fast definition will hold up, IMHO. This is a nice starting point though, and his in-depth explanations of the 6 features are very enlightening as well. I'm a "man of science" and more than willing to roll with a good working hypothesis on just about anything; big bang to modal jazz and chaos/complexity. Nailing it down once and for all is improbable.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

So far, so good, but don't all threads with "modal" in the subject line degenerate into name calling?

EDIT: Just saw "bitches" comment.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles

So far, so good, but don't all threads with "modal" in the subject line degenerate into name calling?

EDIT: Just saw "bitches" comment.

For sure! It should be called "mofo jazz".

[Reg]

Do the recordings actually get into the mechanics of modal jazz, or simply more of descriptions or characteristics of modal jazz, more of an observational type of approach...

[JonnyPac]

Reg, it's just the book's title; it assumes you own those recordings and have puzzled over them . It has transcriptions with huge written analysis chapters by album. The first 75 or so pages set the theoretical groundwork and such- the six item list is just an excerpt that I dug.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

Reg, it's just the book's title; it assumes you own those recordings and have puzzled over them . It has transcriptions with huge written analysis chapters by album. The first 75 or so pages set the theoretical groundwork and such- the six item list is just an excerpt that I dug.

Sounds like a great book.

Except that I'm sure I can hear Miles himself somewhere muttering "I'll play it first and tell you what it is later."

The amount of verbiage dedicated to "telling us what it is later" is becoming truly mind-boggling - in all forms of jazz of course - and maybe even Miles would be managing a wry smile in his grave (I can't imagine him being so uncool as to actually summon up the energy to turn in it...).

As for definitions, I always thought (at least since seeing Ed Byrne's definition) that "impressionist" was a better word than "modal", for the reasons given above (that it has little if anything in common with pre-classical European modal music).

[Reg]

Thanks JP... does sound interesting. hey Jon... doesn't Impressionist simply imply a different point along that same time line... Modal is fairly defined with most Jazz players. I don't know... if I said at gig, lets play in an Impressionist style groove... Ed might be the only player to understand.... But I'll give it a try tonight... My Wed.night default is this Big Band at Res./Bar gig. ... Reg

[JonnyPac]

Interesting thing about the book on Miles and the 60's quintet; you must understand modal jazz 100% to see how they progressed beyond it. The tunes (with a few exceptions) have harmonic rhythms that are too fast to be "modal jazz", yet they defy functional resolutions and key centers. The group took harmonies that are typical of late 50's modal jazz and used them with faster changes and did not attempt to assign any particular pitch collections (modes or scales) to them. They also played outside, shifted meters, deleted chords, added and removed bars/sections at will (and by error). There are tons of outright mistakes in the performances and "negotiations" between members to get back on track. Sometimes the bass and piano/horn would be out of sync by a fraction of a beat, beats, and/or entire measures! No wonder it is such "difficult" music to digest.

[JonnyPac]

PS I blame Ron Carter for many of the problems. I already despise his attempts to play cello with Andrew Hill, Eric Dolphy, and Mal Waldron... This just proves to me that he can be a loose canon even on bass. His careless intonation, choice of note, loss of form and meter are all upsetting to me. It seemed like Herbie had to babysit him and feed him ques fairly often at the expense of some one-take recordings. Just my opinions though...

[mtierney]

Hah! Poor Ron Carter......

[Soco]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

PS I blame Ron Carter for many of the problems. I already despise his attempts to play cello with Andrew Hill, Eric Dolphy, and Mal Waldron... This just proves to me that he can be a loose canon even on bass. His careless intonation, choice of note, loss of form and meter are all upsetting to me. It seemed like Herbie had to babysit him and feed him ques fairly often at the expense of some one-take recordings. Just my opinions though...

You got to be kidding me. Ron is a legend, he is the one who is really holding things together in the classic quintet in mine and many people's opinion.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by Soco

You got to be kidding me. Ron is a legend, he is the one who is really holding things together in the classic quintet in mine and many people's opinion.

I know- It's just me; the author does not blame any member. He played well on many tracks- just some things bug me and the evidence shows that he was out of synch on many occasions and was the last to react to reconnect. Don't take my aside too seriously; people argue over players "legendary greatness" all the time- That is of little interest to me.

Around 1:10 here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wckZlb-KYY Ron was out of synch and Herbie played a few chords on the down beats and Miles paraphrased the head to reorient him. the transcription shows exactly what Ron assumed were the down beats compared to the actual pulse and meter. Of course, this is nearly impossible to hear without aid of the annotated solos on paper, but it shows how Herbie had to interject instead of sitting "no chords" like Miles preferred. There are at least dozen other recorded tunes with similar things happening. Not the end of the world- they recovered nicely, but still...

[bako]

That rhythm section was one of the greatest in jazz history and contributed significantly to how bands play today.
Starting with Tony, they played on the edge and occasionally had to rely on each other to keep it honest.
That is what a good band does. Musicians who never make a mistake are generally not taking risks.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by bako

That rhythm section was one of the greatest in jazz history and contributed significantly to how bands play today.
Starting with Tony, they played on the edge and occasionally had to rely on each other to keep it honest.
That is what a good band does. Musicians who never make a mistake are generally not taking risks.

Agreed 100%. The risks were high too. New difficult material recorded with minimal prearrangement and very few takes.

My beef with Ron really stems from earlier recordings pre-Davis; though it corroborates some of my observations and such. Sorry I slipped it in here.

[bako]

If Ron was holding the quintet back as you suggest, do you think Miles was too polite to replace him?
Better off sticking to the thread topic, attacking musicians rarely adds anything of value.
Analysis of specific moments and your suggestion of what you feel would have worked better might teach something but that is harder to do.

[JonnyPac]

Not sure- I'm thinking Miles was ok with tonal and metric ambiguity. I just got done reading the book on the quintet and was a bit fueled up. Sorry to get totally OT- It's a dead-end thread anyway.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by Reg

Thanks JP... does sound interesting. hey Jon... doesn't Impressionist simply imply a different point along that same time line... Modal is fairly defined with most Jazz players. I don't know... if I said at gig, lets play in an Impressionist style groove... Ed might be the only player to understand.... But I'll give it a try tonight... My Wed.night default is this Big Band at Res./Bar gig. ... Reg

You're right it's not a widely accepted alternative! Of course jazz players know what they mean by "modal", so we may as well accept it - it causes no problems in normal situations.
Only pedants like myself get a little twitchy sometimes...

[mattymel]

no offense taken here...ive got no beef with RC, but to act like he NEVER made mistakes is silly. EVERY record has TONS of mistakes. Paul Chambers totally folds on alot of "So What" (2 chords!!!???), and thats considered a classic.

got to give slack when people are playing stuff that has never been done before, but nowadays that stuff wouldnt fly. putting people on pedestals is a funny thing.

the bar has been raised so much from the 50s in many ways, but we still act like the guys from back then are UNQUESTIONABLE. my personal opinion is that the music was better BECAUSE of the mistakes.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by mattymel

no offense taken here...ive got no beef with RC, but to act like he NEVER made mistakes is silly. EVERY record has TONS of mistakes. Paul Chambers totally folds on alot of "So What" (2 chords!!!???), and thats considered a classic.

got to give slack when people are playing stuff that has never been done before, but nowadays that stuff wouldnt fly. putting people on pedestals is a funny thing.

the bar has been raised so much from the 50s in many ways, but we still act like the guys from back then are UNQUESTIONABLE. my personal opinion is that the music was better BECAUSE of the mistakes.

Those are great points. I actually feel more relaxed knowing that getting lost and recovering is something done by all classic jazz musicians. I guess it is just another myth that the greats were one-take 100% solid 24/7. It's a good chill pill!

[whatswisdom]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

Those are great points. I actually feel more relaxed knowing that getting lost and recovering is something done by all classic jazz musicians. I guess it is just another myth that the greats were one-take 100% solid 24/7. It's a good chill pill!

Heard an interview with Lee Konitz on NPR, as well as a performance Live at the Kennedy Center. The dude asked him what happens when he hits a wrong note. He answered: You're always only 1/2 step from the right one; so, play the note again, this time with all your conviction.

Also reminds me of the quote from some other jazz legend (can't recall the name): "Somebody played a wrong note and jazz was born."

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by whatswisdom

Heard an interview with Lee Konitz on NPR, as well as a performance Live at the Kennedy Center. The dude asked him what happens when he hits a wrong note. He answered: You're always only 1/2 step from the right one; so, play the note again, this time with all your conviction.

Also reminds me of the quote from some other jazz legend (can't recall the name): "Somebody played a wrong note and jazz was born."

Lol. Good thing surgeons don't perform like that!!

[JonR]

Originally Posted by whatswisdom

Heard an interview with Lee Konitz on NPR, as well as a performance Live at the Kennedy Center. The dude asked him what happens when he hits a wrong note. He answered: You're always only 1/2 step from the right one; so, play the note again, this time with all your conviction.

That's an old jazz saying - or rather a conflation of two of them.
The first one is verbatim, but tends to assume you'd correct it by moving that half-step.
The second one - nicely appended by LK - is usually "if you play a wrong note, play it again, so people will think you meant it. Play it 3 times and it's right." (or words to that effect). I suppose you could add if you play it 4 times it becomes boring, and the previous right note is the new wrong one... maybe that's too much of a mouthful

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by whatswisdom

"Somebody played a wrong note and jazz was born."

These guys are eloquent... lol

YouTube Video

[Billnc]

Jim Hall makes reference to flubs on LIVE! Something like "If anyone is keeping track, they'll be happy to find the measures we left off of Scrapple From the Apple tacked on to Round Midnight." or something like that!

[Spirit59]

Originally Posted by Soco

You got to be kidding me. Ron is a legend, he is the one who is really holding things together in the classic quintet in mine and many people's opinion.

Absolutely. Being glued together time-wise was never in their marching orders. Lots of freedom, lots of push-pull. Respectfully, the idea that HH had to babysit RC is preposterous.