Analysing jazz vocabulary

[ragman1]

And, would they prefer Louis Armstrong to Eric Dolphy? And if so, why?

You're liable to get a very mundane answer like 'Louis sounds happy but Dolphy just sounds weird'.

[ragman1]

Part of a course.

Right, thanks. The point is to determine how the question is answered and on what level. Analysis is a practical art and follows 'rules' just like mathematics. Occasionally one might come across ambiguous situations where the answer isn't clear, in which case that ambiguity should be made clear to the reader/listener.

If the project isn't clear the danger is drifting off into a sea of indeterminate ideas, concepts and theories and getting thoroughly lost. So the first step is making sure the direction is quite clear.

So what exactly is the question you're trying to answer?

The question is, what is the best way to explain this to an audience as there is no one way to do it, and a lot of disagreement as to how to even begin to approach the music.

You just tell them, with examples of ambiguity.

I thought an interesting paper would be to look at the solos of certain players, that the consensus agree are great solos, and talk about what makes them so. And even more specifically look at phrases, and talk about why they work so well in that given harmonic situation

That could well be a part of analysis providing you can answer those sorts of questions!

To answer your question about who the audience is - it could be anyone really, the more accessible things are the better, but predominantly classical musicians.

Ah ha, classical musicians.

You keep talking about an audience. So is this a written paper or a talk you're going to have to deliver? If it's a talk to a live audience - and even if it's not in some senses - the secret there is that it has to be tailored to that audience. It's no use trying to explain quantum theory to a bunch of ten-year olds. Or, it has to brought down to a level they can understand and absorb.

With classical musicians it's easier. They know their music and there'll be numerous examples of what and how things work in classical music too. It's not something confined to jazz. The expression may vary but the principle is the same.

Of course the problem then is whether qualia can be explained. What makes one thing attractive to one person and not another? And since there's apparently no concrete scientific answer it might be wiser not to linger too long on it. In any case, it's something that most people are happy to accept as a simple fact. Tastes vary. Some of it is definitely cultural, some personal, and so on.

I doubt if it's possible to explain a lot of this, that's the trouble. Why are they classically orientated and not jazzers? Some can be both. A lot of jazz players were classically trained and went over later. Why does a line/phrase work so well? Because it flows? Because it touches some part of us that appeals emotionally to us?

It's quite a tricky subject and I hope you won't spend most of the talk/paper saying 'It is this way but no one can explain it'!

[Christian Miller]

Part of a course.

I know how to analyse and internalise jazz language in a way that works for me, I hear sounds that I like and I learn them, but that's not something I've had to communicate to others before. ie teaching, presenting.

But I thought an interesting paper would be to look at the solos of certain players, that the consensus agree are great solos, and talk about what makes them so. And even more specifically look at phrases, and talk about why they work so well in that given harmonic situation.

There's no way around the fact that there is a huge amount of subjectivity in jazz, but I do also think that there is a lot of agreement on certain things.

The question is, what is the best way to explain this to an audience as there is no one way to do it, and a lot of disagreement as to how to even begin to approach the music.

To answer your question about who the audience is - it could be anyone really, the more accessible things are the better, but predominantly classical musicians.

Not unusual.

You’ll probably have to spend a fair amount of time defining basic terms, so I’d say keep it simple. Even then you might find it going over their heads. Classical musicians theory background tends to be a bit different and a lot less practically oriented.

It’s a bit frustrating some times haha. I honestly feel a few of my MA assignments were marked by people who didn’t really understand what I was talking about - so you have to be a bit careful.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Christian? Lego Bricks?

I think especially if you’re dealing with a lay audience (even folks who are classically trained) then analyzing them harmonically is the wrong way to go.

It’s really interesting that if you split, say, a Hank Mobley solo from the backing track you could almost certainly tell what tune he’s playing, but the more I transcribe the more I’m not convinced you could see the changes from what’s written there. And to the extent you could, it’s probably more from familiarity with forms than from what’s actually written on the page.

e.g. It seems like we’ve added a flat here … so we’re probably going to the IV … must be a ii-V to IV?

or

Why is this Abm lick here? Oh it’s going to C … maybe a G7.

or

Theres a blues lick here and we’re at the end of the form … bet it’s a turnaround?

(which also brings up the problem of blues vocabulary in general not conforming to standard harmonic analysis)

So what makes a line work … there’s a shape and cadence to bebop lines (and therefore most jazz lines most of the time) and the blues gestures and the rhythm and accents that make them jump and swing. Hell, listen to early Ornette and ask yourself why that stuff swings like crazy. Play something from Shape of Jazz with something from Bird and Diz and ask the class what they hear in common. Won’t be the relationship of the pitches to the harmony.

I’d be tempted to compare a bop solo to a Bach solo violin partita and explore the similarities and differences…. But that’s probably a bit ambitious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wolflen]

[QUOTE=pauln;1360191]"If you were to try and communicate to a non-jazz audience why an improvised line or lick works/sounds good, how would you go about it?"

That is the very true epitome of the real jazz performance,
not a TED Talk on phenomenological existentialism of jazz.

ahhh.and what key would that be in??

[wolflen]

Back when (yes..black & white TV!)

Dr. Billy Taylor had a show and would take the Jazz Mobile out to show/teach people about "jazz"

for me it was a fascinating..He would explain why the sounds of intervals make our ears like or dislike them.

His Playing was mysterious and wonderful--(the word--Full of Wonder!)

He had me transfixed .. and somehow I knew I had to be able to understand more about this stuff.

I think rather than trying to explain what "music" is to those who have no idea of its mechanics and could care less..introduce
something that will inspire the sense of wonder about the mysterious nature of music.

[Mick-7]

Wynton Marsalis is one of the most articulate commentators on this subject:
Wynton Marsalis on “Teaching Young People About Jazz” - National Press Club Luncheon 1995 – Wynton Marsalis Official Website

[pauln]

Is there not a reason on a deeper level why something sounds good beyond "because it sounds good"?

At the descriptive level, yes; the Greeks had Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. In jazz these may be thought to manifest as Authenticity, Appropriateness, and Allure, respectively.

At the phenomenological level, no; the sound of a guitar is strictly invisible, non-numeric, non-verbal... the only language of music is music itself, paradoxically the reason that music is intrinsically self revealing.

[princeplanet]

If it's for classical musicians, who should be no strangers to analysis (Schenkerian etc), then most aspects of the Jazz language obviously can be deconstructed (harmony, substitutions, melodic line construction, chromaticism etc). I'd be looking for idiomatic peculiarities that exist outside of classical pedagogy as the main challenge when attempting to explain what sounds good in the Jazz context.

For example, there are probably the odd incident of temporary modulations to IV7 in classical music, but nothing that "feels" like going to IV7 in Jazz which of course is the Blues part of Jazz, which needs a lot of explaining for many reasons, particularly when decoding bluesy Jazz lines that sound great but tend to defy straight jacket analysis.

[Christian Miller]

It’s possible to make somewhat objective statements about music - this musician is playing notes from this pitch set, this musician is playing behind the beat, this musician is playing consistently slightly sharp, and so on.

As to what sounds good, that’s subjective. A perfectly in tune saxophone in jazz might be out of tune in a classical context for instance. It’s not a bad thing if the sax is slightly sharp in jazz or behind the beat in the right way (which people - Germans- have been trying to formulate for a long time haha)

Many people think that jazz sounds bad, and you kind of need to listen to a lot of it for it to sound good. I remember when I first heard kind of Blue as a teenager it just sounded out of key to me. I obviously don’t think that now.

I think it’s not a forgone conclusion that classical musicians would even understand that jazz has an aesthetic and isn’t just random improvisation based on ‘vibes’. I’ve read numerous papers by classically trained academics who claim jazz is purely praxis based - ie process based. Which is nuts to me, but makes sense for historical reasons.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

It’s also worth pointing out that much classical music theory is an attempt to elevate aesthetics to a science, to formulate objective virtue in music. This casts a long shadow….

Jazz has resisted this so far…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

Christian -

I think your point about analysis being far more prevalent among players in jazz than classical music is a good one. Acidskiffle should probably base his paper/talk on why analysis is more important in jazz than classical. Why and how it's used isn't a difficult thing to cover bearing in mind that classical players read off the score whereas jazz involves improvisation.

By the sound of it, his project is aimed at ordinary players, not theory geeks. He can touch on why some lines sound jazzier than others but not get into too many consciousness mysteries for which there's no real explanation.

[ragman1]

He ought to de-bunk the 'There are no wrong notes' theory as well because that is serious nonsense!

[James W]

He ought to de-bunk the 'There are no wrong notes' theory as well because that is serious nonsense!

One person's 'wrong note' is another's colour tone. Much of it depends on rhythm, articulation, phrasing, the courage of ones conviction...

[ragman1]

That's why it's a theory :-)

[pamosmusic]

He ought to de-bunk the 'There are no wrong notes' theory as well because that is serious nonsense!

Lol. He ought to debunk the whole “notes are wrong because they don’t fit over the chord” theory.

You gotta get hip, ragman.

[ragman1]

You gotta get hip, ragman.

True, true

[Bop Head]

He ought to de-bunk the 'There are no wrong notes' theory as well because that is serious nonsense!

Reading recommendation: Don Byas on Art Tatum in Art Taylors "Notes and Tones"

[ragman1]

Well, I'll play interesting color notes and you play a lot of nonsense. I don't mind, it's been done before :-)

[Christian Miller]

Christian -

I think your point about analysis being far more prevalent among players in jazz than classical music is a good one.

That wasn’t what I saying. Jazz musicians analyse stuff all the time.

Their purpose in doing is not (generally) the same as classical musicians. The theory they use in doing so is also different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

Well, I'll play interesting color notes and you play a lot of nonsense. I don't mind, it's been done before :-)

Color notes generally aren’t that interesting, alas. As much as we might like them to be.

[ragman1]

That wasn’t what I saying. Jazz musicians analyse stuff all the time.

Their purpose in doing is not (generally) the same as classical musicians. The theory they use in doing so is also different.

You might have misread it. I said jazz players do it more than classical musicians and for different reasons, mostly to do with the demands of improvisation. And, yes, the theory isn't quite the same for the same reason, the demands aren't the same.

[ragman1]

Color notes generally aren’t that interesting, alas. As much as we might like them to be.

I'd say they were an integral part of the music, classical included.

[Christian Miller]

You might have misread it. I said jazz players do it more than classical musicians and for different reasons, mostly to do with the demands of improvisation. And, yes, the theory isn't quite the same for the same reason, the demands aren't the same.

I mean - it’s no surprise when you go back to theory/practice from the era when it was actually about people being able to improvise and write music quickly in a well established style it looks a lot more like the kind of things that jazz players and pop musicians learn (not the same obviously, but it has a lot in common.)

But most classical theory isn’t about that. Most classical players have no interest in constructing new music on any level. They put the act of creating music on a pedestal and the theories of music they learn encourage this.

This may be shifting. A friend of mine has the unenviable job of trying to teach classical students at a prestigious conservatoire who would rather be practicing their concertos or whatever (as if there’s a career in that for most of them lol) to improvise in a classical idiom. I’ll check in and see how it’s going lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

You might have misread it. I said jazz players do it more than classical musicians and for different reasons, mostly to do with the demands of improvisation. And, yes, the theory isn't quite the same for the same reason, the demands aren't the same.

Yeah that’s probably true.

I wish classical musicians did a bit more. I remember my old classical guitar teacher had me do jazz adjacent harmonic analysis on whatever I was playing. Partly because he was a really good teacher and knew those were the terms in which I was thinking, but also just because it was really helpful in getting me to hear a deceptive cadence here and a plagal there and an internal pedal over there. Classical music is interesting in that all the notes are there but if you’re not in tune with the musical shape of the piece, it’s remarkable how little of the actual music really makes it to the listener.