Ambiguity: Unique to Jazz?

[JonnyPac]

Here's food for thought and discussion.

I've read quite a bit on jazz theory and analysis and one interesting term that pops up a lot in serious breakdowns of solos and rhythm section transcriptions is the term "ambiguity". I like how it is a not "a series of mistakes", "wrong notes/chords", or "chaos". Some of these sections were, in fact, unintentional to some degree (each player may have had a plan, but they didn't work out in a way similar to pre-20th century classical multi-part writing - not that that is a standard to measure jazz by whatsoever).

Bert Ligon mentions Harmonic Generalization (playing roughly in key/blues ideas over a series of changes), Harmonic Specification (actually outlining the changes), and Harmonic Ambiguity (often motif-based improv. with "outside" parts that ignore the tonality for periods of time or complete solos). Bert covers the first two idea in his books beautifully, but the latter still seems a bit of a mystery (and is an area of dispute among generations of jazz students). His methods also tend to focus on melodic solos, and not the underlying rhythm section. Perhaps there is no true method to something that defies so many "rules" of standard musical practice.

In the book by Keith Waters on the Miles Davis 2nd Quintet, the author brings up ambiguity a lot. Sometimes metric ambiguity (shifting meter over a fixed pulse, etc), hypermetric ambiguity (obscuring the top of a form, playing sections with added or missing bars, and/or circular compositions, etc). Harmonic Ambiguity in the solos, comping, and bass lines. Often the bass lines outlined no specific chords whatsoever and just carried on with "time, no changes". Over this the comping sometimes followed suit freely or implied some actual chord changes. The combination of rootless chord voicing meets random bass notes creates new sonorities altogether- some very interesting and others very "gray", IMO.

As we know, a lot of modern jazz is non-functional as far as chord progressions go. Functional progressions like V7 I or ii V7 I pop in and out of modern tunes, and the key changes are not always prepared in a classical way. The idea of introducing chaos or "outside" notes over unable chords (like V7) and then resolving them to more stable chords and going back "inside" (over I, etc) does not hold up in the absence of things like perfect cadences (or tritone subs). In classical music, inside-outside-inside is not a common practice, and the tensions they put over dominant chords are pretty mild in the eyes (or ears) of seasoned jazz players comparatively (again, I don't intend to seek the verification of jazz through classical pedagogy, etc). Ironically, in 20th century 12-tone/atonal classical music, there is less feeling of a home or temporary home (pitching a modal tent), and it usually avoids resolving and consonance altogether (but it sure looks elegant on paper!).

Another point that I have never seen addressed is that playing inside can be playing outside!! This would happen if someone in the group played it straight while other members departed into ambiguity. If the bass and comping played "outside" or "time, no changes" nothing the soloist could do would sound "safe" or "vanilla" for better or worse.

So I guess my main point here is that this kind of ambiguity may unique to jazz! Perhaps we can lean to address it directly. Though an exact method may never come in place, concepts like "inside-outside-inside", "time, no changes", and "interval/motif" have proved to be very useful. Any insights and strategies involving ambiguity and/or ways of developing a tolerance and enjoyment of listening to music built on shifting sands- please post them here.

Your thoughts...

[Sailor]

Love this topic Johny. As a classical musician, primarily, who is now obsessed with learning jazz, I can say that this ambiguity in music is much older than jazz. Stockhausen, Cage, chance, aleotoric music, Hindemith, Poulenc...all this inside and outside stuff has been around for at least a hundred years. Listen to Penderecki...I think I recall a professor showing us some far out stuff from the middle ages...Bach went pretty far with harmony/melody as well...great subject.

Sailor

[JonnyPac]

Cool beans. I'm familiar with the famous 20th century composers. They sure had their atonal, bi-tonal, and polytonal works going full hog in the first 20 years of the century. It's cool stuff- some of it's very difficult on all levels! I'm clearly no expert on it, though I have been curious how it affects jazz pedagogy and such. Composers from Bach to Debussy are often mentioned by the jazz greats, but how about others? I know Andrew Hill studied with Hindemith a bit and he had one foot in trad jazz and the other in freer artistic expressions.

Imagine bebop lines on a Cage prepared piano! Might not be good...

[Sailor]

ha....I'm no authority either I just remember a lot of "out there" music from my college days. I'll have to put my burned out brain in gear and come up with some real examples. Definitely Bach, Wagner, Debussy, Ravel, Gershwin??...ever hear of Ligiti??....crazy far out stuff.

I remember Gunther Schuller stating that many of the original jazz greats were classically trained...New Orleans, ODJB, etc...

Sailor

[JonnyPac]

Gunther Schuller and John Lewis (MJQ) really made some interesting "third stream" music in the late 50's and 60's. It's a nice blend of modern and older classical with jazz. There are many hybrids- though they have a lesser following compared to straight-ahead and jazz-rock fusion.

Yeah, I've listened to all of those guys too. Love Bach, Debussy, Ravel, and Gershwin. Ligiti is wild! I got into him a bit from the 2001 soundtrack. Satie is another favorite. I dig the Russians too. Scriabin, Shostakovitch, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky and such.

[JonnyPac]

I guess the unique factor only found in jazz might be improvisational ambiguity. This can be a single musician's MO or a group phenomenon. Classical is composed music for the most part- over 99% of it is written with clear intentions (as far as I am aware).

Really, I'd prefer to stick to a jazz discussion. It's only a matter of time before a full-on classicist reads all this and decides to pwn my ass! BARTOK!!!

[whatswisdom]

For me, some of the most interesting and compelling jazz is ambiguous. Starting with In a Silent Way, especially Bitches Brew, and then on to the "jungle music" of Pangea, Live Evil, Black Beauty, Agharta, Miles wrote the book on the whole notion of ambiguity in comp and improv. You can hear the beginnings of it in the 60s quintet--especially any of the live stuff, Plugged Nickel, etc. ... Listen to Bitches Brew and find the key--there ain't none.

[JakeAcci]

Cool post, thanks.

I think the origin of this ambiguity is the fact that often in jazz the players have a model in their minds that they are working off of that might be quite concrete, yet the listener might have a tough time finding that model.

Simple "polyrhythms" or repetitive over-the-bar figures are a great example of this. The whole band might lock up on something that repeats every 3 or 5 beats, maybe even doing it for 8-16 measures, and the players always have a very clear sense of where "one" is. But if you listen to (for example) dotted quarter notes for a really long time as an audience member I think it can become difficult to avoid hearing these dotted quarters as the new pulse (the quarter note), especially if you aren't consciously counting and forcing yourself to be aware of where "one" is at all times.

I mean it's the same thing with simple extensions. The player knows that it's an F7, but may choose to build a line (or chord voicing) based entirely off of alterations. To the player this is simple...he knows how the chord is built and what the tensions are, and he plays them. To a listener, especially one that isn't himself a jazz musician, if this is a dominant chord that isn't resolving in an obvious way it definitely will be ambiguous what the intended harmonic environment of that moment was.

It's the improvisation that really does it, in my opinion. There's a big difference between composing a line that has a B triad then an Ab triad while the piano has an F7 voicing written vs. the players simply having the idea of F7 internally, and then choosing to color that idea in unique ways. At a certain point of course the listener has no idea what the original idea was.

Anyway, cool post/points, and I agree; a certain kind of ambiguity is absolutely unique to jazz, and I'd add a certain kind of ambiguity is definitely unique to form-based improvisation, as the musicians are firmly aware of a clear foundation for their choices and the audience may not have that reference unless they are also a jazz musician that knows that particular tune!

[bako]

Posing questions (and a little commentary)

Is any harmony outside if the musician can hear a context for the relative meaning of what they are playing in a sequence or song?
Calling something outside makes it sound like the musician is playing something wrong. I never liked that name.

What agreements about form and content do players have to make if any to allow them to hang together creatively and intelligently?

Accompanists are able to follow a melody player stretching the time.
Is there any value in a full band to have the elasticity moving between clear measured time and more open delineations?

Playing solo we can radically reharmonize a song.
Can this be done in a band situation without wreaking havoc?

Fake scenario:
We are playing duet. I try to imply a superimposed harmony and you play something that changes the meaning of my brilliant idea.
It is crazy to dwell on this unintended harmonic moment, more so it is our imperative to take it in and continue to create and stay open to the unique possibilities of two musicians improvising.

Does atonality really exist or is the music just shifting harmonic focus too rapidly
for us to grasp and tuck neatly into our pre-made boxes of understanding?

[mr. beaumont]

This stuff is truly why I love jazz...

I like the concept of playing "inside over outside..." I think of freddie hubbard on ornette's "free jazz." Putting changes on a "non-harmonic" backdrop.

Modern jazz more and more tells me you can play almost anything as long as you know how to resolve. And that's not downplaying it-- knowing how to resolve is a big deal.

[Billnc]

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

Cool post, thanks.

I think the origin of this ambiguity is the fact that often in jazz the players have a model in their minds that they are working off of that might be quite concrete, yet the listener might have a tough time finding that model.

Simple "polyrhythms" or repetitive over-the-bar figures are a great example of this. The whole band might lock up on something that repeats every 3 or 5 beats, maybe even doing it for 8-16 measures, and the players always have a very clear sense of where "one" is. But if you listen to (for example) dotted quarter notes for a really long time as an audience member I think it can become difficult to avoid hearing these dotted quarters as the new pulse (the quarter note), especially if you aren't consciously counting and forcing yourself to be aware of where "one" is at all times.

I mean it's the same thing with simple extensions. The player knows that it's an F7, but may choose to build a line (or chord voicing) based entirely off of alterations. To the player this is simple...he knows how the chord is built and what the tensions are, and he plays them. To a listener, especially one that isn't himself a jazz musician, if this is a dominant chord that isn't resolving in an obvious way it definitely will be ambiguous what the intended harmonic environment of that moment was.

It's the improvisation that really does it, in my opinion. There's a big difference between composing a line that has a B triad then an Ab triad while the piano has an F7 voicing written vs. the players simply having the idea of F7 internally, and then choosing to color that idea in unique ways. At a certain point of course the listener has no idea what the original idea was.

Anyway, cool post/points, and I agree; a certain kind of ambiguity is absolutely unique to jazz, and I'd add a certain kind of ambiguity is definitely unique to form-based improvisation, as the musicians are firmly aware of a clear foundation for their choices and the audience may not have that reference unless they are also a jazz musician that knows that particular tune!

I had my own poorly worded reply, you said it better so +1

[fep]

The progression:

Cmaj7 | Cmaj7 | Em7...

The soloist plays a beautiful line but over these changes

Cmaj7 CmMaj7 | B7 F9 | Em7

Accompanist plays

Cmaj7 | Dm7 D#m7 | Em7

Can that work? Why or why not?

This is something I've been thinking about and want to work on. I should do some experiments with recordings.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by fep

The progression:

Cmaj7 | Cmaj7 | Em7...

The soloist plays a beautiful line but over these changes

Cmaj7 CmMaj7 | B7 F9 | Em7

Accompanist plays

Cmaj7 | Dm7 D#m7 | Em7

Can that work? Why or why not?

This is something I've been thinking about and want to work on. I should do some experiments with recordings.

That is a great question, Fep. I wonder the exact type thing often. Record it and report back!

[JonnyPac]

Here's a fun mix and match: Think of the bass, chords, and melody like this all existing in a given section of a performance:

MELODY
CHORDS
BASS

Nowthink of the combos of them as specific and ambiguous parts.

Specific
Specific
Specific

Ambiguous
Specific
Specific

Specific
Ambiguous
Specific

Specific
Specific
Ambiguous

Specific
Ambiguous
Ambiguous

Ambiguous
Specific
Ambiguous

Ambiguous
Ambiguous
Specific

Ambiguous
Ambiguous
Ambiguous

I can think of lots of examples for each of these combos from my jazz collection. Of course general is a 3rd option, and the parts listed about can change on a bar-to-bar or beat-to-beat basis.

[bako]

Fun chart.

Define ambiguous. Ambiguous to who? When two or more are ambiguous is it the same ambiguous material therefore rendering it an alternate specific.

[fep]

I did an my experiment. This was a fun little project.

I played/recorded this:




Here's the mp3, I played once thru with just chords of the 2nd stave (the 1st 6 measures) and then it starts over with both staves playing. Note that the chords in the first stave are just there to show what I was thinking of when playing the line, the chords aren't actually played (although they are outlined with the arpeggios).

Scratch - demos 2.mp3 - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage

Here's the concept I was thinking of. Both instruments start and end at the same place but they travel a different path to get there. And, both paths make sense by themselves.

I'm hoping the listener can hear the logic in both lines, and sure it goes outside, but because of the logic it still 'fits' and 'works'. At least that's the hypothesis.

What do you think?

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by bako

Fun chart.

Define ambiguous. Ambiguous to who? When two or more are ambiguous is it the same ambiguous material therefore rendering it an alternate specific.

Well, "ambiguous" to Bert Ligon and Keith Waters (Oxford) is good enough for me. Seems like Steve Kahn hit similar conclusions in his analysis of Shorter's Pinocchio. I'm not really talking about separate routes to a given point, but a freer non-definable combination notes and sonorities- Time, no changes" type of stuff. If you all can boil down a pure definition of ambiguous, please do!

[JonnyPac]

Great work, Feb. I came away hearing superimposed harmony that went inside outside inside. Without the sheet music the logic is clear throughout. It was based on functional harmony and elaborated to the tension/release, etc.

How this example relates to ambiguity... Well, it does not really. In lots of solo analyses there are brackets above showing the superimposed harmony that occurred in the line or chords. If each level is definable, there is no ambiguity- just a musical riddle of sorts that involves coloring outside the lines a bit. Perhaps new ears to jazz would give up early- but to me it was typical of the muli-interpretations of changes played at a real-book gig with a given combo. Like Mr. B says, it resolves.

The really ambiguous moments in jazz, IMHO, are the ones that have no definable harmonic logic- just feel or form of rhythm or sequence/motif. Both more rhythmic aspects where notes play a secondary role altogether. The solos in Wayne Shorter's tune "Etc" contain a great free jam that has themes and a deep groove but very little harmony that is definable if you compile bass-piano-horn at any given point. Herbie played a lot of cool chords between the bass and melody. I love that song!

YouTube Video

[timscarey]

Cool topic.

In my own personal writing I tend to shy away from this kind of stuff, but I play with a lot of groups who like to "experiment" with different parameters for improvisation.

One that my group hardcoretet likes to use is a defined 8th or 16th note pulse and the memory of the composed material which preceded the improve section as a guide. This usually leads to some pretty cool stuff as long as we all have our listening caps on.

We also like to encourage each other to abandon our instrument defined roles in the music and explore other sounds than what we wouldn't usually play.

Another group I play with likes to have me lay down a bassline and never change it, the other musicians can change the implied harmony/texture freely while the drummer can imply any grouping or downbeat he wants.

I have talked to people who like to define parameters like "legato with a gradual crecendo" or "triadic ideas, stacatto, and repetition from you, long tones and 4ths for everyone else" this is actually pretty common in the creative music scene here in Seattle.

There is a group of musicians who do weekly experiments in improve at a series called "the racer sessions" they post thier ideas on their website. I think is The Racer Sessions or something similar. I am not "in this scene" but am good friends with some of the core members and play gigs with them sometimes.

I wonder if Wayne Shorter gave parameters to his band, and if so, I wonder if the music would be more interesting to listen too if we knew them. Hmmm?

[mr. beaumont]

Originally Posted by timscarey

I wonder if Wayne Shorter gave parameters to his band, and if so, I wonder if the music would be more interesting to listen too if we knew them. Hmmm?

It would be fascinating to know how much was talked about, and how many times things just happened...because wayne was playing with some of the best listeners in music history...

[JonnyPac]

Great post, Tim. Glad you found this thread.

I've REALLY been interested in non-head-solos-head improvisation formats lately. The parameters you mentioned are exactly thinks of things I want to experiment with in my new post-rock meets modal-jazz project.

Mr B., when Miles was leading the 2nd quintet there were some brief discussions pre-recording amongst members. Some loose arrangement ideas were in place, but they often "cleared up" the details and confusions during the performances via trial and error. Against popular belief, some of the tunes were cut and spliced together from multiple takes and false starts, etc. they had amazing ears, yes, but given the challenges at hand they had to just do their best and live with the recordings warts and all.

I'm not so sure about the Shorter-let Blue Note sessions. They seem much more organized and rehearsed. Compare Footprints with Miles and Footprints on Adam's Apple. Miles took more risks all around, but the other is more polished, and the timing/superimposed meters were clearer.

[JonnyPac]

Hmm... Sorry if I came across as a buzz-kill. I actually really dug the varied responses to the topic and would like to hear more views, etc. Carry on, y'all!

[Reg]

Is there a difference talking about the process as compared to how we play... this as you termed "ambiguous characteristic". At what point does that characteristic become ambiguous.
Jazz is full of deceptive resolutions of all types, we are always camouflaging the basic changes or melody. I would think if there was a measurement or scale to use as measurement ... would need to be sliding scale... depending on development of ears, either through listening or education... usually combination.
There is a measurable skill that good jazz musicians have that helps them hear/play and make choices or decide where something is going or could go with very little info. They're able to make those choices with out the standard amount of deciding factors.
A few years back there was a study done... I don't remember which Journal posted the article... I'll try and find copy. Anyway this skill of recognizing what's going on, as in jazz ambiguousness is not that ambiguous to jazz players. Reg

[M-ster]

Originally Posted by fep

... Here's the concept I was thinking of. Both instruments start and end at the same place but they travel a different path to get there. And, both paths make sense by themselves.

I'm hoping the listener can hear the logic in both lines, and sure it goes outside, but because of the logic it still 'fits' and 'works'. At least that's the hypothesis.

What do you think?

Yes, fep! To me, this is the sound of jazz: the chromaticism introduced in the lines over top of the changes. I don't think it's "out," "ambiguous," or a hypothesis - I think it's jazz.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by M-ster

Yes, fep! To me, this is the sound of jazz: the chromaticism introduced in the lines over top of the changes. I don't think it's "out," "ambiguous," or a hypothesis - I think it's jazz.

Agreed.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by Reg

Anyway this skill of recognizing what's going on, as in jazz ambiguousness is not that ambiguous to jazz players. Reg

There are improvised moments that defy all standard models of melody and harmony- You cannot drop a chord or pitch collection name of certain bars or free jazz moments. I tend to believe that players would avoid recognizable shapes, voicings, arpeggios, and outlines in these cases and try to push heavy chromaticism, jagged contours, and clusters. Disguising/dressing up a melody, and subbing the changes is not really 100% "out" as we agree here. I doubt any of these guys were thinking chords or sales on the solos here:

YouTube Video

BTW this is a GREAT free jazz album. Desert island all the way.

[Reg]

Hey JP... yea I've always dug Dolphy... one of the standard influences when I was a kid. The forms of the tunes were cool, I think I dug most of the tunes just because they were different when I was young. Didn't really get the plug and play aspects of the parts or somewhat block construction style of composition as in where Shorter went later. Different concept or method of connecting as compared to traditional tonal composition principles... Thanks for posting...Reg

[JonnyPac]

Anybody else have thoughts on this topic? I'm open to hear more views and insights...